"Works Salvation"

Respectfully (and I actually mean that), we monergists are responsible to present the Truth to you (we answer for what we do with what we have been given), but only YOU are responsible for what you do with that information. It is no accident that Romans 10:14-15 [NASB] "How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: 'HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!'" is immediately followed by Romans 10:16 [NASB] "However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, 'LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?'".
All that and then you failed to copy and post the highlight and the conclusion of that discussion which is "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"

Moreover, all of that ends with God's plea -" All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" - which is obviously God's plea to the people of Isreal to actively respond to His held out hands. Your soteriology denies that plea saying that God does no such thing.
Red has explained that Jesus saves without needing the "help" of any work (sacrament) of any man. You are free to believe any report you wish (as was man in the Garden and Israel in the promised land) and act on your belief.
None of the conditions of hear, believe, repent, and be baptized constitute help to Jesus in saving. You erroneously call them help, which they definitely are not, and then reject them as needed fulfillment of conditions to be saved, all in defiance of the teaching of scripture.
 
All that and then you failed to copy and post the highlight and the conclusion of that discussion which is "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"

Moreover, all of that ends with God's plea -" All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" - which is obviously God's plea to the people of Isreal to actively respond to His held out hands. Your soteriology denies that plea saying that God does no such thing.

None of the conditions of hear, believe, repent, and be baptized constitute help to Jesus in saving. You erroneously call them help, which they definitely are not, and then reject them as needed fulfillment of conditions to be saved, all in defiance of the teaching of scripture.
Thank you, but I was not arguing for or against the role of FREE WILL in salvation or where FAITH comes from. I was arguing against the need for SACRAMENTS (physical acts by man) as essential co-requisites to empower salvation.

Arguing God draws vs man responds is a debate that ALWAYS leads nowhere, so I only wade in when specific verses are involved to address very narrow exegetical points. Anything else is a waste of breath.

Discussing whether God can or cannot save without human application of water, or eating a cracker, or any other act by human hands, is a discussion that I find worth having.

I never told you what to believe. I pointed out that Christians have an OBLIGATION to share the Truth as they understand the "good news" (Romans 10:14-15) ... and the HEARER is responsible for what they do with that information (Romans 10:16). That was the point behind the verses that I quoted. "We must TELL what we know." and "You are responsible to believe what is true and reject what is not."
 
Thank you, but I was not arguing for or against the role of FREE WILL in salvation or where FAITH comes from. I was arguing against the need for SACRAMENTS (physical acts by man) as essential co-requisites to empower salvation.
There is no such thing as a "sacrament". A sacrament is something that, in and of itself, conveys grace upon the doer or participant.
Baptism does not do this - If you don't believe in Jesus, being baptized only gets you wet.
Communion does not do this - If you eat in an unworthy manner you eat damnation to yourself.
NOTHING in and of itself can bring God's grace upon anyone or anything.
Discussing whether God can or cannot save without human application of water, or eating a cracker, or any other act by human hands, is a discussion that I find worth having.
And it should be. But you should get on the right side of this discussion. God could save without the application of any action. But He DOESN'T. He has said that He will apply His grace to anyone who exhibits the faith of surrender to Him in repentance (Acts 3:19), confession of Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9-10), and being baptized (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, John 3:3-5, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 5:26-27, Mark 16:16, Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14). If you do not enter into Christ the way God says we must, then you are not in Christ and He will not claim you before the Father (Matt 10:32).
I never told you what to believe. I pointed out that Christians have an OBLIGATION to share the Truth as they understand the "good news" (Romans 10:14-15) ... and the HEARER is responsible for what they do with that information (Romans 10:16). That was the point behind the verses that I quoted. "We must TELL what we know." and "You are responsible to believe what is true and reject what is not."
I would correct this slightly. We must learn the truth, and then tell the truth. It is not enough just to tell what we know (although we can start telling what we know from day one), but we are also responsible to continue to learn, grow, become deeper in Christ, capable of handling the meat of the Word. If we are teaching falsehoods, then the hearer cannot help but learn falsehoods (which is the problem with the false doctrine of "belief only" being taught in seminaries around the world).
 
Thank you, but I was not arguing for or against the role of FREE WILL in salvation or where FAITH comes from. I was arguing against the need for SACRAMENTS (physical acts by man) as essential co-requisites to empower salvation.

Arguing God draws vs man responds is a debate that ALWAYS leads nowhere, so I only wade in when specific verses are involved to address very narrow exegetical points. Anything else is a waste of breath.
It always leads nowhere for the same reason that discussions of monergism versus synergism always leads to nowhere.
Discussing whether God can or cannot save without human application of water, or eating a cracker, or any other act by human hands, is a discussion that I find worth having.
I almost never argue about whether God can't or can't do anything. I argue sometimes about what God says, when it seems to me a given translation has it wrong, I try mostly to discuss what is meant by some particular passage of scripture.
I never told you what to believe. I pointed out that Christians have an OBLIGATION to share the Truth as they understand the "good news" (Romans 10:14-15) ... and the HEARER is responsible for what they do with that information (Romans 10:16). That was the point behind the verses that I quoted. "We must TELL what we know." and "You are responsible to believe what is true and reject what is not."
Well yes, but in quoting the Romans 10:14-16 leaving out verse 17, you left out what verses 14-16 were in there at all.

And by the way, it is impossible to "share the Truth" and leave out what scripture says is what the hearer should do. What the hearer should do is the vital part of the good news, the gospel. With it the Truth hasn't been shared.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a "sacrament".
Yes, Brent ... sacraments are a real thing. There is no such thing as a "married bachelor", but a "sacrament" is a real concept [even if those that believe in sacraments - like Catholics and Anglicans and Lutherans are wrong about their power].

But you should get on the right side of this discussion.
Your correction would be more powerful if I wasn't a Particular Baptist (therefore believing in ordinances and rejecting sacraments).

If we are teaching falsehoods, then the hearer cannot help but learn falsehoods (which is the problem with the false doctrine of "belief only" being taught in seminaries around the world).
I will take your word for it. I never attended any seminary. I had a few Religion courses at Community College that did more harm than good and ultimately just learned most of what I know from reading the Bible.
 
Well yes, but in quoting the Romans 10:14-16 leaving out verse 17, you left out what verses 14-16 were in there at all.
Paul writes in a way that he is NEVER finished ... there is always another verse and another point. ;)
 
Yes, Brent ... sacraments are a real thing. There is no such thing as a "married bachelor", but a "sacrament" is a real concept [even if those that believe in sacraments - like Catholics and Anglicans and Lutherans are wrong about their power].
Sacrament - a religious ceremony or ritual regarded as imparting divine grace
There is NOTHING that can impart divine grace apart from God.
Your correction would be more powerful if I wasn't a Particular Baptist (therefore believing in ordinances and rejecting sacraments).
What is a "Particular baptist"? I've never heard of that.
But you are correct, there are ordinances, but not sacraments.
I will take your word for it. I never attended any seminary. I had a few Religion courses at Community College that did more harm than good and ultimately just learned most of what I know from reading the Bible.
I have never attended seminary either. I attended a university that required each student to take a Bible class each semester, but most of the courses I took were like an overview of the OT, overview of the NT, that kind of thing. Most of my knowledge came from study of the Bible, and studying other people's positions (like the "belief only" crowd's position vs the baptism crowd's position, or the "Jesus isn't God" crowd's position) and then searching Scripture for the Truth of the matter.
 
That all says that reading anything that you post is of little value to anyone.
My, but aren't you friendly.
Typical "Forum Christianity" ... so noted.
Sorry to have bothered you.
 
@Jim
It means we were weak, that we were feeble. It does not mean we were totally incapable of anything or paralyzed.
Jim, it has reference to spiritual strength, doing spiritual acts pleasing to God, which no sinner is capable of doing.
 
@Doug Brents
Oh, so you believe that Naaman was already healed of leprosy, even before he entered Jordan?
I did not say that, I said he had faith which is an "evidence of" being born of God. Do not attempt to put a spin on what I say~we are not politicians, but suppose to be "Christians"~ which politicians generally are not for the most part, and I will add, none are that are Democrats, or else they would not be one. Sorry for the rabbit trail, the temptation was too good to pass up.
So if he had stopped at six dips, he would have gone home still a leper.
If he did, then simple put, it would only proved he did not have faith. What's so difficult about this? I know, you must somehow invent ways that man does have a part in his salvation from sin and condemnation, but the word of God is on our side who believe in pure grace and not works done by men who are at enmity against God. You sir will lose this battle every single time, not because of any power from us, but because truth is with us, and truth shall prevail every single time. All of God's children shouted AMEN and AMEN.
No, my friend, these are not "fruits of regeneration", they are the conditions upon which the blessing of God was based.
Doug, I would never disagree that there are conditions which we must do, to receive God's best for us in this world as his children, but there are no conditions that we "must and can do" in order to receive eternal life as sinner dead in sins, and at enmity against God, for Doug that's impossible. This is where we stand, since this is the truth of the word of God. I will add, we are consistent in teaching these two truths.
No, Red, there is NOWHERE in all of Scripture where being pricked in the heart is said to result in receiving salvation. The fact that they were pricked in the heart indicates that they believed (intellectual assent) Peter's message. If that were all that was necessary, then Peter would have told them there was nothing more they needed to do (like the old baptist minister). But he did tell them there was more for them to do. Then still required repentance (meaning that being "pricked in their heart" did not amount to repentance), and they still required baptism in order for them to receive forgiveness of their sins.
You are not quite quoting me carefully enough, nor using all I said to prove my point. I do not think you are doing this on purpose, so I will be patience and once again show you exactly what I am saying, for I know that this is the truth of God's word and his word will defend truth. Paul said:

2nd Corinthians 13:8​

“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”

The apostles had no power, nor could they, nor did they desire to exercise any against such who received the truth of the Gospel in the love of it; who continued in it, walked in it, and held it fast; who worshipped God in Spirit and in truth. God's truth can never be gainsay against, if a man has that truth. We can only at best speak the truth as we speak the word of God and defend it and not some church one belongs to. God's truth will stand whether or not I have it, or whoever has it. To the degree I believe and trust God for truth, then and then only do honour to the truth and support it.

Doug I said above:
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Look at verse 37: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Regeneration first, then seeking to do that which God commanded them to do! When we read Acts 2:37,38 in the context in which we find these words and compare with other scriptures then we know that they were first born of God, and then sought to do what is commanded of them.

Peter, who was trained under the greatest prophet ever, knew the signs of regeneration and when he saw them being pricked in their spirits, he knew that that was a sign of being born of God, so he told them: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

"For", meaning because of, not in order to obtain! See Mark 1:44. Compare these men in Acts 2:37 with Acts 7:54 and see the difference between the two groups, one born of the Spirit, (Acts 2:37) the others still in their sins! (Acts 7:54)
God placed Acts 2:37 and Acts 7:54 in his word for us to consider the different results of those who hear the word of God, and "why"...... one's heart's was tender and showed faith and a desire to do whatever God commanded for them to do~proving that God had given them a new heart and removed the stony heart from them to cause them to be pricked, or else they would have acted the same way as those in Acts 7:54 ~the reason being is all men by nature are the same as portrayed in Romans 3:9-18.

Later...
 
@Seabass
Noah's obedience in building the ark was a work, but earned him nothing. Was he stealing glory from God by building the ark? No. God commanded him to build the ark, building the ark was not Noah's idea in how to save himself.

God's grace to Noah came attached with a condition...build an ark. Noah therefore built the ark to RECEIVE God's grace. Not building the ark would have been rejecting God's grace.
You said: "God's grace to Noah came attached with a condition"

That false!

“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8).

That is what set Noah apart from the rest – "Sovereign Grace"!

And lest men gave Noah the glory for his "obedience" God for a season withdraws His upholding hand and His enabling grace that we might see what Noah is made of. And alas just as any other Saint through the the ages, the minute God withdraws His sustaining hand Noah, the same Noah who had seen a world just then drowned in the deluge gets drunk and shames himself before his children.

No man stands or "obeys" any longer than he is upheld by divine grace!

Oh let us “Cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?!” [Isaiah 2:22]

Noah "found grace and mercy;" the grace he found was not on account of his own merit, but on account of the mercy of God: and this shows that he was not without sin, or he would have stood in "no need" of the mercy and grace of God to save him; and as he found grace and favour in things spiritual, so in things temporal; he found favour with God, and therefore he and his family were spared, when the whole world of the ungodly were destroyed; he found favour with God, and therefore was directed by him to build an ark, for the saving of himself and his; he found favour with him, and therefore he had the honour of being the preserver of mankind, and the father of a new world.

Noah's obedience was imperfect, proven by his acts after the flood when he got drunk and shamefully uncover himself. God only accept perfection as a satisfaction for man's forgiveness of sins, which was impossible for any man to provide since all are sinners through Adam and by nature.

I have to leave may come back later to add more.
 
@Jim

Jim, it has reference to spiritual strength, doing spiritual acts pleasing to God, which no sinner is capable of doing.
No, that is just not true.

When James in chapter 2 said "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all", He was not saying that if one disobeyed just one law of God he had disobeyed every law. Pleasing God is much the same. Here again, if one has committed just a single act displeasing to God, then he has not pleased God. That does not mean that God is displeased with every act, everything, that he does.

Once again, the view of God that you present is horrific. It is very likely that there are ones born again who for one reason or another fail to obey God more often than others who are not born again. The difference between the one born again and the one not born again is that the one born again is forgiven when he fails in obeying God. There are no bounds for God's forgiveness of the child of God; so much so, that it is nearly impossible to even imagine.

God is not displeased with the mother not born again who loves, cherishes and cares for her child. God is not displeased with everything the unbeliever does.
 
@Doug Brents

I did not say that, I said he had faith which is an "evidence of" being born of God. Do not attempt to put a spin on what I say~we are not politicians, but suppose to be "Christians"~ which politicians generally are not for the most part, and I will add, none are that are Democrats, or else they would not be one. Sorry for the rabbit trail, the temptation was too good to pass up.

If he did, then simple put, it would only proved he did not have faith. What's so difficult about this? I know, you must somehow invent ways that man does have a part in his salvation from sin and condemnation, but the word of God is on our side who believe in pure grace and not works done by men who are at enmity against God. You sir will lose this battle every single time, not because of any power from us, but because truth is with us, and truth shall prevail every single time. All of God's children shouted AMEN and AMEN.

Doug, I would never disagree that there are conditions which we must do, to receive God's best for us in this world as his children, but there are no conditions that we "must and can do" in order to receive eternal life as sinner dead in sins, and at enmity against God, for Doug that's impossible. This is where we stand, since this is the truth of the word of God. I will add, we are consistent in teaching these two truths.

You are not quite quoting me carefully enough, nor using all I said to prove my point. I do not think you are doing this on purpose, so I will be patience and once again show you exactly what I am saying, for I know that this is the truth of God's word and his word will defend truth. Paul said:

2nd Corinthians 13:8​

“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”

The apostles had no power, nor could they, nor did they desire to exercise any against such who received the truth of the Gospel in the love of it; who continued in it, walked in it, and held it fast; who worshipped God in Spirit and in truth. God's truth can never be gainsay against, if a man has that truth. We can only at best speak the truth as we speak the word of God and defend it and not some church one belongs to. God's truth will stand whether or not I have it, or whoever has it. To the degree I believe and trust God for truth, then and then only do honour to the truth and support it.

Doug I said above:

God placed Acts 2:37 and Acts 7:54 in his word for us to consider the different results of those who hear the word of God, and "why"...... one's heart's was tender and showed faith and a desire to do whatever God commanded for them to do~proving that God had given them a new heart and removed the stony heart from them to cause them to be pricked, or else they would have acted the same way as those in Acts 7:54 ~the reason being is all men by nature are the same as portrayed in Romans 3:9-18.

Later...
You continue to confuse God's promise of a future covenant, the status of one living under the New Covenant, with the status of those living under the Old Covenant. To become born again is strictly a feature of New Covenant. If not, then there is really not much new about the new covenant.
 
@Jim
No, that is just not true.

When James in chapter 2 said "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.", He was not saying that if one disobeyed just one law of God he had disobeyed every law. Pleasing God is much the same. Here again, if one has committed just a single act displeasing to God, then he has not pleased God. That does not mean that God is displeased with every act, everything, that he does.
Yes he is. Jim, my dear friend, every act a man does is sin, "if not done by faith"! Surely you believe this.

Proverbs 21:4​

An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.​

Everything a wicked man does is sin. God rejects his looks, heart, actions. He is deeper in trouble every day (Ro 2:5). Even innocent things like his plowing are sin if not done in faith.(Titus 1:15,16). God once drowned the world when He saw man’s every thought was evil (Genesis 6:5).

Righteousness begins in a regenerated heart that has humble thoughts and motives (Pr 4:23; 14:14; 22:11). It continues in the looks of the countenance (Pr 30:13; Is 2:11), which leads to actions that honor and please the holy God (Pr 11:20; 21:27; Ps 11:7).

If your heart is not right with God, fully obedient to Him, your actions are all sinful. What a horrible and damning thing is sin! The most innocent, noble, or religious activities become further condemnation when done without a pure heart. Read how the prophet rebuked Israel for spiritual slothfulness corrupting all they did (Hag 2:10-14).

Jim, Solomon also condemned the plowing of the wicked. What can we learn about sin in light of the plowing of the wicked? Even natural and apparently innocent activities that are duties of God and nature become sin when done by a man without faith. Following a plow, a duty of man to feed himself, is sin when it not done in true faith. These words are God's testimony not not mine concerning how we just sin.

Every activity of man must be done to God’s glory, which the wicked never consider (I Cor 10:31; Ps 10:4). Every activity must be done in faith, which the wicked do not have (Rom 14:23; II Thess 3:2). Every activity must include thanksgiving, which they never consider (Rom 1:21; II Tim 3:2). So even their breathing becomes a breath of damnation.

The religious activities of a wicked man are worse. His prayers are an abomination (Pr 28:9). His sacrifices are an abomination (Pr 15:8). When he sacrifices while thinking about sin, which is common, it is worse yet (Pr 21:27). What a horrible life, accumulating sins for the Day of Judgment, even when he is in church and puts money in the offering.

Why is this true? Because wicked men trust in themselves, are unthankful, and pursue their own greed and pride, rather than the glory of their Creator. God is not in all their thoughts (Ps 10:4). They use His creation for their own selfish ends. They have no regard for Him or His precepts. They ignore Him constantly and reject Him when confronted.

Before plowing, a righteous man thanks God for his and his ox’s health, sunshine, last night’s rain, the acres he owns, the opportunity to work, God’s mercy to sinners, and the hope of eternal life. While plowing, he meditates on the ox’s strength, the smell of the soil, the miracle of plant growth, the Lord’s goodness, and begs Divine mercy for more rain and greater grace. He wipes sweat away and thanks Heaven for the body’s cooling system. At the day’s end, he gives seed to a neighbor, takes a chicken to the preacher, thanks the Lord for a blessed day, reads his Bible, confesses his sins, and loves his wife.

Before plowing, a wicked man complains about the fact he has only one ox, the lack of sunshine last month, the mud from last night’s rain, the farm next door he wishes he owned, the death of his father last winter, the burden of taxes, and how life is hard. While plowing, he dreams of making more money than his brother, beating his neighbor for local councilman, and of how strong and successful he has become. Twice he swears at the sun for making the day so hot. At the day’s end, he sends the borrowing neighbor away empty, kills two chickens to glut himself, complains about how hard he worked, reads the Police Gazette, and goes to sleep thinking of his neighbor’s wife. (much of this I owe to a friend who preached from this verse a few years ago)
 
@Jim @Studyman
If not, then there is really not much new about the new covenant.
Oh Jim, you gotta be kidding, yet I know you are not. I'm leaving for a few hours. but I'm marking this because I want to discuss this point much more.

I would like for @Studyman to commnet of this point as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom