Salvation by works

[Bob Carabbio]

It is NOT just a proof text.

It's what the Bible teaches.

According to the "Calvinist/Reformed Paradigm". Other Paradigms see it differently. As a NON-Systematic, I have no interest in the "Academic definitions" of the different paradigms. The concept that "Calvinism" gets right, is simply that, in ALL THINGS God moves first.

 

[Josheb]

...............As a NON-Systematic, I have no interest in the "Academic definitions" of the different paradigms. ..............

Then why post about them so often?

 

[fltom]

Baseless accusations up above. Any person can accuse, few of you accusers ever bring an argument, just accusations, and libel.

Nope, sorry Bob, the doctrine of election is from exegeted Scripture, a doctrine you loathe. Wonder how a person can hate a doctrine from God, and not God Himself, since it proclaims His ways?

Hmmm...

Maybe because what Calvinism teaches as election is not what the bible teaches of election

 

[Joe]

I'm going to ask you to clarify that post because the word "will" can have two meanings in the sentence, "Repenting-changing one's mind about the conduct of their life and turning to God in submission and belief in Jesus Christ to save one from sin is God's will, not a work." Do you mean to say changing one's conduct is God's desire, or that it is God's volitional act? Do you mean to say God does the changing of one's conduct for the person instead of the person's own faculties changing the conduct? If a person is doin and act God desires, then isn't that obedience or faithfulness, and not faith (faith begets faithfulness)?

Regarding my statement, "Repenting-changing one's mind about the conduct of their life and turning to God in submission and belief in Jesus Christ to save one from sin is God's will, not a work."

It is God's determination that people would be saved upon repenting-changing one's mind about the conduct of their life and turning to Him in submission and belief in Jesus Christ. This salvation from God is a gift that no one can merit. Biblically it is not classified as works salvation, which is expressed as one's dependence upon self for justification rather than believing God to justify them. The only thing that God graciously credits to man as our righteousness is believing Him, not any performance to a law of good deeds.

But, it is God's desire that all human beings/everyone be saved. (Ref: 1 Tim 2:4)

How can a person speak and that not be work, or an act of behavior?

You say the Bible "classifies" these matters. Where does the Bible say an action changing one's conduct is not a work?

Clarify also this matter of no one wills themselves but they must willingly repent, and do so such that the willing repentance, or changing one's conduct is not a work.



And note I am not asking about anything other than what I specifically asked. I am not asking about Gods will. I am not asking about being sealed. I am not asking about anything that comes after anything.

I am asking about three, and only three, specific concerns...

1. faith
2. choice
3. speech

AND I am asking about these three specific things solely, exclusively only in the unregenerate. I am not asking anything about anyone any time after regeneration. The unregenerate flesh is a given. It is what was stipulated in the inquiry about speech.

• Is faith a work?
• Is choice a work?
• Is speech a work?

Are these actions a person does or performs?

As stated in the OP, "The revealed Word of God is clear that no one is saved by appealing to their good works." This is true for everyone. No one will be able to say I did this or did that so let me into Heaven. This is reliance upon one's efforts to be saved.

And as previously stated, "The reason why none of these things (repentance and faith) are classified by the bible as works is because works salvation is dependence upon self righteousness for justification, while these things are commanded by God in dependence upon Him to justify them. The people dependent upon themselves reject God's way of being made right with Him. And those who are dependent upon God to justify them repent of sins and turn to God in belief of Jesus Christ."

Trying to establish the acts of repentance and faith, and the actions that ensue from these acts of will as salvation by works is unbiblical. Hearing God's message and obeying God to change one's mind and believe in Jesus Christ to be saved is biblically taught as salvation by faith. God does not repent for anyone. And God does not believe for anyone. These two acts of the will are something one must act upon in calling out by faith in Jesus Christ in order to receive/access the salvation God graciously and generously offers to mankind by His Son.

So the question isn't do I need to do something to be saved, for it is obvious one has to repent and believe to be saved...This is determined by God not man. No one is going to be saved without repenting and believing, and no one is going to merit their salvation by appealing to works they have performed.

Any idea that one has to be born again in order to repent and believe is unbiblical. But let's pretend that it is biblical for this subject. In the scenario that one must be born again prior to repentance and belief does not exonerate that person from actually acting upon his will to repent and believe and call out to be saved. If one is arguing it is works salvation for the unregenerate to repent and believe from their will, then one has to also argue it is works salvation for the regenerate too. God does not do the repenting and believing for neither the unregenerate or regenerate. So now under this scenario we are left with no one being saved because matter what a man does it is being considered salvation by works and not faith.

The biblical understanding of works salvation is when one does not submit to God's way of making them right with Him by repentance and faith, but do something differently such as living to a law of doing good things. The person who submits to God's way is declared right with God. The person who tries to be right with God by their own way is relying on their works and not God to justify them...And this is the purpose of the OP; to have people understand that biblically, repentance and faith is not salvation by works but salvation by faith.

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight", "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.","we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

God Bless

 

[Josheb]

It is God's determination that people would be saved upon repenting-changing one's mind about the conduct of their life and turning to Him in submission and belief in Jesus Christ.

Got scripture for that? Or is it that saved people are the one repenting?

The only folks in scripture I see even trying to change their ways are those in whom God is working and NOT those attempting to do so in their flesh.

 

[David1701]

According to the "Calvinist/Reformed Paradigm". Other Paradigms see it differently. As a NON-Systematic, I have no interest in the "Academic definitions" of the different paradigms. The concept that "Calvinism" gets right, is simply that, in ALL THINGS God moves first.

So, being a "NON-Systematic", does that mean that you don't check all the scriptures about a subject, and, therefore, do not see the full picture?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So, being a "NON-Systematic", does that mean that you don't check all the scriptures about a subject, and, therefore, do not see the full picture?

I've been through the Bible quite a few times, and I KNOW how "Man's Theology" works, and how it's developed. "Systematic theology" ATTEMPTS to get God in a box of its own design, and to "adjust" definitions so that they all "Fit" whatever box they desire to "prove". There are several "Systematics", which "Prove" different overall pictures to those who base their beliefs on them. But in the final analysis "Systematcs" are just mixtures of TRUTH, and Error, so not really worth bothering with.

 

[David1701]

I've been through the Bible quite a few times, and I KNOW how "Man's Theology" works, and how it's developed. "Systematic theology" ATTEMPTS to get God in a box of its own design, and to "adjust" definitions so that they all "Fit" whatever box they desire to "prove". There are several "Systematics", which "Prove" different overall pictures to those who base their beliefs on them. But in the final analysis "Systematcs" are just mixtures of TRUTH, and Error, so not really worth bothering with.

People make mistakes, and some show clear bias; however, "systematic theology" is simply the attempt to harmonise all that scripture teaches on important subjects. To avoid it is really to avoid trying to understand the Bible properly.

 

[Josheb]

I've been through the Bible quite a few times, and I KNOW how "Man's Theology" works

false cause fallacy

...and how it's developed.

false cause fallacy

"Systematic theology" ATTEMPTS to get God in a box of its own design

factually false statement

...and to "adjust" definitions so that they all "Fit" whatever box they desire to "prove".

factually false statement

There are several "Systematics", which "Prove" different overall pictures to those who base their beliefs on them.

only true statement so far, but because not all do it any generalization from "some" to "all" is a construction error, a composition fallacy.

But in the final analysis "Systematcs" are just mixtures of TRUTH, and Error, so not really worth bothering with.

Then why are you here?


Given the abundance of errors in the post you might reconsider and endeavor to learn something because posts like that do not edify anyone. Nor do they contribute anything cogent to the discussion.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

People make mistakes, and some show clear bias; however, "systematic theology" is simply the attempt to harmonise all that scripture teaches on important subjects. To avoid it is really to avoid trying to understand the Bible properly.

Contradiction of terms. You say "ATTEMPT to harmonize", and "Failure to understand properly". So which of the "Systematics" is successful in their "ATTEMPT" to "Understand properly"???? Your answer will tell us which one you ascribe to.

 

[christ_undivided]

Contradiction of terms. You say "ATTEMPT to harmonize", and "Failure to understand properly". So which of the "Systematics" is successful in their "ATTEMPT" to "Understand properly"???? Your answer will tell us which one you ascribe to.

I believe you are ATTEMPTING to get it right. There isn't any difference from your attempts and other's attempts.

The argument can be made that God moved FIRST in Jesus Christ.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I believe you are ATTEMPTING to get it right. There isn't any difference from your attempts and other's attempts.

Agreed. After all, it's only "Theology".

The argument can be made that God moved FIRST in Jesus Christ.

God "moves first" in all things.

 

[David1701]

Contradiction of terms. You say "ATTEMPT to harmonize", and "Failure to understand properly". So which of the "Systematics" is successful in their "ATTEMPT" to "Understand properly"???? Your answer will tell us which one you ascribe to.

I'm not surprised, but you have missed the point completely. The point is that "systematic theology" is the correct method for understanding the Bible, not that any of us accomplishes it perfectly. If you avoid that method, then you avoid comparing and harmonising all the scriptures about any particular subject, thus ensuring, at best, a superficial and incomplete understanding of any important biblical subject.

 

[Josheb]

Contradiction of terms. You say "ATTEMPT to harmonize", and "Failure to understand properly".

False dichotomy. An attempt does not preclude failure. Both are simultaneously possible

So which of the "Systematics" is successful in their "ATTEMPT" to "Understand properly"????

Red herring.

Your answer will tell us which one you ascribe to.

Which necessarily implies you don't subscribe to any method of understanding scripture. Even if you say, "I subscribe to my own," that would be a system.


The odd reality is the precepts of exegesis are universal. The hermeneutics may vary, but the exegesis does not. If anyone here were to Google, "basic rules of Bible exegesis" and look at ten or twelve different sites they'd readily discover two facts: 1) the rules are identical, and 2) a wide variety of theological perspectives are represented. Cals and Arms, Libs and Cons, they're all using the exact same set of rules to examine the Bible. Their hermeneutic models are different, but not their exegetical rules.

And the rules of exegesis are..... systematic.

On the occasion a Systematic Theology errs it is because it somewhere neglected or abused one of the rules of exegesis. That does not make the entire Systematic Theology wrong. It makes it imperfect. You and I are imperfect. Abandoning the studies of those God placed in His service for the purpose of examining scripture in favor of our own isolated faculties makes things worse, not better. There are at least a half-dozen fallacies in the two posts I quoted. That should be unacceptable for you. It is unacceptable for the rest of us. We don't reason with the irrational, or the contentious who practice a lack of reason.

Ephesians 4:11-14
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ............... As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine...

Not wanting to be carried away by every wind of doctrine is good. Abandoning all efforts by those God provided is bad.


Your posts are rife with logical fallacies. ALL the evidence in these posts leads to a singular conclusion: you lack any ability to reason correctly. Your entire effort is kicking against the goads of "Why should I accept anything any of you say?" when EVERYTHING you use to justify that protest is utterly depraved.

The Spirit of God does not reason fallaciously.

You do.



Take more time and read your own posts before you click "Post reply," because you are smarter than what you are posting. Do better.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I'm not surprised, but you have missed the point completely. The point is that "systematic theology" is the correct method for understanding the Bible, not that any of us accomplishes it perfectly. If you avoid that method, then you avoid comparing and harmonising all the scriptures about any particular subject, thus ensuring, at best, a superficial and incomplete understanding of any important biblical subject.

So since by your own admission, "Systematic Theology" (which one not specified) fails in its attempt to understand the Bible, why is MY understanding of the Bible inferior to that of the systematist??

 

[David1701]

So since by your own admission, "Systematic Theology" (which one not specified) fails in its attempt to understand the Bible, why is MY understanding of the Bible inferior to that of the systematist??

I did not say that systematic theology (the method) fails. It is people who fail to implement it perfectly. There is nothing whatever wrong with the method.

Since you don't approve of systematic theology, please describe for us how you would go about understanding a biblical subject, let's say "redemption" (or pick any biblical subject you like). What process would you follow, to gain all the necessary information, and how would you proceed to gain a proper understanding of it?

Please also tell us in what way(s) you consider your method to be better than the almost universally established method of biblical interpretation, thanks.

 

[Leatherneck0311]

I did not say that systematic theology (the method) fails. It is people who fail to implement it perfectly. There is nothing whatever wrong with the method.

Since you don't approve of systematic theology, please describe for us how you would go about understanding a biblical subject, let's say "redemption" (or pick any biblical subject you like). What process would you follow, to gain all the necessary information, and how would you proceed to gain a proper understanding of it?

Please also tell us in what way(s) you consider your method to be better than the almost universally established method of biblical interpretation, thanks.

This is how—>Psa 118:8 - It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Pro 3:5 - Trust in the LORDwith all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Pro 3:6 - In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Pro 3:7 - Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Pro 3:8 - It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I did not say that systematic theology (the method) fails. It is people who fail to implement it perfectly.

Consequently, in straight language, obviously it fails.

There is nothing whatever wrong with the method.

Except that it doesn't work. Other than that it's "perfect".

Since you don't approve of systematic theology, please describe for us how you would go about understanding a biblical subject, let's say "redemption"

Redemption is simple - Jesus was the perfect SIN OFFERING and we, as gifted by God, are redeemed by FAITH in That offering (gifted to us by God EPh 2:8,9).

What more do you need to know??

Please also tell us in what way(s) you consider your method to be better than the almost universally established method of biblical interpretation, thanks.

Chuckle!!! "MY imperfect method" vs Your "almost universally established ( but equally as imperfect) method".

Jesus said that the HOLY SPIRIT (not man's "Theology") would lead us into truth, and give wisdom freely as long as we seek Him singlemindedly. I tend to think that's TRUE.

So which "Perfect/imperfect" systematic do YOU trust to tell you the truth???

 

[Slyzr]

I wouldn't call the Faith spoken of in this Verse as a Filthy Rag either...

I would call it an after-effect of Grace...

Faith through grace?

 

[David1701]

Consequently, in straight language, obviously it fails.

Except that it doesn't work. Other than that it's "perfect".

Redemption is simple - Jesus was the perfect SIN OFFERING and we, as gifted by God, are redeemed by FAITH in That offering (gifted to us by God EPh 2:8,9).

What more do you need to know??

Chuckle!!! "MY imperfect method" vs Your "almost universally established ( but equally as imperfect) method".

Jesus said that the HOLY SPIRIT (not man's "Theology") would lead us into truth, and give wisdom freely as long as we seek Him singlemindedly. I tend to think that's TRUE.

So which "Perfect/imperfect" systematic do YOU trust to tell you the truth???

Redemption incorporates a great deal more than your simplistic summary (e.g. it involves us being purchased from the slave-market of sin, our ownership being transferred from Satan to Jesus; it involves the payment of a price to purchase us, that payment being made to God, not Satan; then there is the picture of the kinsman-redeemer, in the OT, with its accompanying doctrines, etc, etc.)! We should know about it all, otherwise the LORD would not have bothered to tell us.

Yes, the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth; but, he does not do it through presumption and indolence!

1) Look up all places in the Bible that deal with the subject at hand.
2) Starting with the earliest one, which usually gives the foundational meaning, check the meanings of important words, in the Hebrew and Greek; check the grammar and the immediate context and find out the author, including any known quirks, as well as the intended audience, which can often provide insight into the correct interpretation.
3) Take note of what is taught and how that teaching progresses, throughout the Bible.
4) Interpret any tricky or obscure passages by the clear, simple ones.
5) Make sure that your interpretations do not contradict any other scriptures.
6) Check to see if there are differences between the concepts, as taught in the Old and New Covenants (there often are).
7) Check reputable commentaries, to see if the authors have insights that you might have missed.
8) Do all this prayerfully and diligently. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, as to the Lord and not to men.

The above is a summary (there are other points that could be included), but it is a good starting point. Many Web sites and books will have more detailed explanations.