Evidence for God from Science

I agree that repentance should cause us to change our lives. But there may be some aspect of our lives that our sinful nature may be unwilling to give up. And when we do not give it up we will suffer a discipline from God to try to get us to change. If we persistently still continue not to change but remain convicted that it is wrong God will eventually take us out of this world because we are no longer useful to his purposes.

If there is no conviction that it the sin is wrong, although we claim to be Christian, we are not.

I have heard that meaning of the word repent as well.
How do we know which is correct?

Some preachers as this one says it means to change your mind:

This word (repent) is taken from two Greek words meaning, “after thought” To repent means to change your mind about what you believe and agree with what God says. God tells us that there are two areas in which we must repent if we are to be saved: 1) We must change our minds as to who we are (See - Lk 5:31,32 & 13:1-5 ) God tells us plainly that we are “sinfully” sick and in need of the SAVIOUR and that we cannot save ourselves (See - Rom 3:10,23), 2) We must change our minds as to who CHRIST is (See - Mt 4:13-17 & 11:20-24 & Mk 1:15 & Acts 3:12-19 CHRIST is God (See - Jn 8:24,58,59. He is the only SAVIOR who can save us from our sin (See - Acts 4:10-12).

Mat 20:
28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

REPENTED: used in this verse says he repented AND WENT. If the meaning of repentance was to change your action the verse probably would have only said he repented. There would be no need to identify that "he went". So in this instance repent looks yo mean to "change ones mind"


Of course then this would mean you have to repent first to be saved. But I think this is a different meaning of the word repent then what has been being discussed throughout this thread.

I am just thinking out loud, trying to help me and others find the one and only truth. any thoughts?

TTOEWS!!! Dude, if we were in real life, everyone would be convinced I was gay considering the massive bear hug I'd be giving you right now . You really should stop by more often. We need somebody here who can actually reason right, because I only do that about two percent of the time, haha.

Anyway, to answer your questions:

ttoews wrote:please clarify a few things for me....
a) how can one believe in Christ for his salvation w/o recognizing a need for one's salvation?
b) how can recognize one's need for salvation w/o recognizing one's sin?
c) how can one recognize one's sin and rely on Christ for one's salvation w/o recognizing that Christ's death paid the penalty for one's sin?
d) how can one recognize that Christ's death paid the penalty for one's sin and rely on Christ for one's salvation w/o loving Christ?
e) how can one recognize that Christ's death paid the penalty for one's sin and love Christ w/o repenting of that sin?

a) He cannot
b) He cannot
c) He cannot
d) Ah, trying to lead me, are you? There is a difference in believing in someone and loving them. I trust the gov't to give me my tax return when I file certain paper work. I certainly don't love my gov't though (better than a Kerry run system, but that's another story)
e) You ask two specific things here that need to be kept seperate. To recognize something is nothing more than a mental faculty. I can recognize all kinds of things and not have any feelings, positive or negative, towards them. Can I repent without loving? I don't know. You may be able to make a case for that, but I don't believe that repentance is necessary for salvation. More below.

ttoews wrote:You seem to suggest that it is possible to separate saving faith from repentance....how would such faith look? Do you actually think one could say, "I will take Christ at His word and rely on Him for my salvation, thank-you very much, but I kinda like adultery so much that I shall value it more than obedience to Christ (after all He is so very loving and understanding) and therefore I shall continue to be an adulterer w/o any remorse till I get to the pearly gates"?

Actually, that is exactly the position I hold. Suppose I write you a check for a hundred bucks. Why? Just because I like you. I offer it to you. Now, you don't like me. Why? Just because you don't . . . maybe you think I did your family wrong or something. Who knows. You just don't like me. You can, of course reject my check because you don't like me, and you probably would. But, is it POSSIBLE for you to take my cash? Absolutely!

Salvation is absolutely nothing more or less than the pure acceptance of the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ.

I can conceive of many people who would accept salvation but refuse to follow Jesus. Suppose a person thoroughly believes the Bible, but they've had some awful things happen in their lives. They blame God, because He is the ruler of everything, don-cha-know? They don't want to go to Hell, so they trust Christ for their salvation. They'll take that deal. But, they aren't going to serve Him. Why? 'Cause they don't like Him!

Or, maybe someone just really likes a certain sin. They have an addiction, let's say. They don't want to go to Hell, but they don't want to give this up either. They don't feel they are capable of it. Hey, they don't even feel that God is capable of fixing it! But, they trust Christ for their salvation, knowing full well they will continue in their sin. Whatever. So long as they get to heaven.

But, ttoew, let's look at the flip side:

Suppose someone fully believes that Christ is the only way to heaven. Why? The Bible says so, and they believe it. They believe it as much as you and I do. But, they choose to reject it? Why would someone do that?!? Maybe they want to live to see the tribulation (I actually know of someone like that). Maybe their father has died an unbeliever, and they don't want to go to heaven with him in hell (I know of someone like that, too). This person may even live a relatively good life. They may turn from sin as much as possible, not to get to heaven, but just because they want to limit their suffering in hell. Who knows why.

They point is, we can see that it is logically possible for a person to believe in Christ for salvation and yet reject Him as their Lord. There could be spiritual, emotional, or even "rational" reasons. The point is, the two are not necessarily connected.

ttoews wrote:so, obedience is not required? Love is not required? ...again, how would that look? Now it seems that you are saying that one can proudly declare "I will take Christ at His word and rely on Him for my salvation, thank-you very much, but I shall despise Him and His ways and revolt at His commands"....such is impossible, one can't both rely on Christ b/c of who He is and what He did and at the same time reject His ways ....and if love and obedience necessarily flow from saving faith, then they are the other side of the same coin.

Of course obedience is not required! How could it be? That would make salvation by works!

Now, I would ask you to prove to me that love and obedience necessary flow from saving faith, because that is the proposition I reject.

ttoews wrote:now you are reading much into the passage.
I will agree that a formula prayer doesn't save. Salvation is a matter of the heart... a circumcised heart to be exact. If we are to speculate on who Christ will reject, then I would say it would be the fellow who thinks he was able to truly call Jesus Lord w/o repenting of his sins

Why am I reading too much into the passage? Now, if you can show me where repentance is tied to eschatological salvation, I'll fully concede your point here. But, ttoews, look very closely at what I'm saying:

Salvation comes by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE. If you add ANYTHING to that, then you are not believing ALONE in Christ ALONE. You are beliving in both Christ's work and your work. That doesn't cut it. Really, the Gospel is fairly hard to believe. The idea that the only thing that I have to do is believe? How silly! But, yet, notice the words "have to do." You HAVE to do this. It is necessary. Further, it is necessary that it is ALL you do, because if you do more, then you have not done it at all.

My father asked me how, if faith is the only thing we have to do to get into heaven, how the door could be narrow. I responded by telling that is exactly the reason the door was narrow.

ttoews wrote:this is a parody of most who insist on repentance....we don't trust our repentance, but see repentance as part and parcel of a saving faith, an element of it and we trust Christ.

I understand that, but I hold to my position. Repentance is simply not a part of saving faith. Faith ALONE is saving faith. Consider the following statement:

"Where there is no repentance, there is no salvation."

You would be forced to agree with this if you hold that repentance is necessary. Therefore, repentance becomes a condition of salvation. Seeing this, you make repentance a part of faith. If a person "really" believed, then they will repent. That's just not said ANYWHERE in the Bible. In fact, I think I've shown quite the opposite . . .

But let's go one step further. Repentance very easily can be seen as exactly the same as "commitment of life." If I have to repent of sins, that means I have to renounce them and turn to God. Turning to God is the definition of commiting to Him. Thus, now "belief" is actually "commitment." Now, what you have to say is, "If I really believe this, I will commit to it." That's just silly. I'd encourage you to look through the "Lord, Lord" passage in Matt 7. These people were definitely committed! But they go to Hell. Why? Because they never trusted Christ. They trusted their works . . . which was shown by their commitment.

ttoews wrote:no that's not it at all. Believing and refusing to repent are seen as two mutually exclusive conditions. Believing and outright disobedience are seen as two mutually exclusive conditions. A person may possess a faith that can move mountains, but if that person lacks love he is nothing.

You are confusing a disciple with a believer. A disciple loves. A believer may or may not. I still hold to my point. The underlying motivation is that genuine faith has to result in good works. How terrible would it be if we saw a person "get saved" and then go on a killing spree, only to go to heaven! That just wouldn't be fair. So, we redefine belief. Now, belief is repentance and commitment.

That just doesn't stand up exegetically. The word "believe" has absolutely no connotation of commitment. All it means is "the conviction that something is true." It means "to consider something reliable." That's all.

Now, I'll ask you the same thing I've asked everyone else. Offer me one verse that clearly states that justification requires repentance from sin. There is simply no passage that teaches that. Yet, on the reverse side, we have dozens and dozens of exhortations to the believer to repent. Clearly, repentance is not necessarily, nor a necessarly result, of belief.

Seriously, glad to have you here. I really would like to see you keep posting

Now, YLT:

YLT wrote:I guess the question should be what does it mean to REPENT. In my understanding it means to "change ones mind". I think this is a close to literal translation from the greek.

If this is the case then repenting is always the result of salvation. But repenting does not necessarily change ones life.

Sometimes Christians continue to do whats wrong even when they agree that its wrong.


Would you all agree with this?

Close, YLT. The word "repent" does have the connotation of a change of mind, but the change of mind is more often related to a change of action. Suppose, for instance, I am engaging in adultery. Later, I repent. That means I stopped doing it. Why? Well, literally, I changed by mind, but the real meaning is that I stopped the action.

The best understanding of "repent" is "to turn from." The context then has to decide other issues. Ryrie puts forward two outstanding questions on the subject:

1. Who is to repent?
2. What are they to repent of?

So, again, repentance is related to actions, and ultimately, to rewards and punishment. It has absolutely NO bearing on salvation.

Locker wrote:I heard a preacher delcare that repentence means to slowly turn a 180 degree turn. He meant that repentence involves turning awya from our sin nature and live according to how God's Spirit directs.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, Locker. All the more reason that repentance is not necessary for salvation!

YLT wrote:Of course then this would mean you have to repent first to be saved. But I think this is a different meaning of the word repent then what has been being discussed throughout this thread.

I am just thinking out loud, trying to help me and others find the one and only truth. any thoughts?

See my response above to you on the nature of repentance. That should take care of this problem.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:TTOEWS!!! Dude, if we were in real life, everyone would be convinced I was gay considering the massive bear hug I'd be giving you right now . You really should stop by more often.

thanks, twas truly heartwarming to see that you and K were still holding down the fort...I plan to chip in a bit every now and then, but my time is very limited these days

We need somebody here who can actually reason right, because I only do that about two percent of the time, ...

so in the land of the blind my four percent could make me king?

anyhow wanted to say hi, but didn't have the time for much more...I'll respond to the substance of your post later. cheers

Jac, I would think you would be more inclined to believe that the word repent has a the of "change of mind". Because if it meant that we had to change our actions - these verses would indicate a works salvation?

Lk 5:31,32
Lk 13:1-5
Mt 4:13-17 & 11:20-24
Mk 1:15
Acts 3:12-19


This quote from a preacher seems to make a lot of sense....

This word (repent) is taken from two Greek words meaning, “after thought” To repent means to change your mind about what you believe and agree with what God says. God tells us that there are two areas in which we must repent if we are to be saved: 1) We must change our minds as to who we are (See - Lk 5:31,32 & 13:1-5 ) God tells us plainly that we are “sinfully” sick and in need of the SAVIOUR and that we cannot save ourselves (See - Rom 3:10,23), 2) We must change our minds as to who CHRIST is (See - Mt 4:13-17 & 11:20-24 & Mk 1:15 & Acts 3:12-19 CHRIST is God (See - Jn 8:24,58,59. He is the only SAVIOR who can save us from our sin (See - Acts 4:10-12).

Also I think the greek word for repent is metanueo (spelling??)
meta of course is change.

Nueo is thought or mind.


Of course I am not familiar if there may be some idiomatic meaning to the word metanueo.

Being from Texas I might say that "I'm fixin to do something", But my friends not from Texas might ask me "What's broken", not understanding my meaning. Did the greek word have some idiomatic meaning like fixin to does?

In ancient Greek Did metanueo have the meaning to change your actions, how can we be sure?

Well, As I said before if it meant to change your actions then the verses above would indicate a salvation based on works, which we know definitely contradicts scripture.

Jac, I would also think this meaning would be more in line with your (and mine and the above preacher) non-Calvinistic point of view. You are definite a lot more knowledgable on Bible than I am, but are you 100% sure about this meaning of the word repent? Th above ideas just make more sense - (to me at least). Of course my thoughts on the meanings of words are irrelevant. Its only God's that matter at all.

YLT:

I understand what you are saying, but I think to simply leave "repent" as "a change of mind" is to miss a lot of what the authors were saying, and it can cause us to read into the text something that isn't there. For instance, if you look at one of the passages you cited, Luke 13:1-5, and you try to simply define repent this way, you'll come up with some bad theology. That passage is talking about the physical destruction of those who do not turn from their sins. It says nothing of belief in Christ for eternal salvation.

Now, to change an action obviously requires a change of mind! So, I'm not saying that there is no change of mind at all. But, I do deny that "to repent" simply has the connotation of "to change from unbelief to belief." That may not be what you are advocating, but it is what gets read into these types of passages because we aren't clearer on what the word actually means.

As for the passages you cited, minus the one mentioned above, Matt. 5. Luke 4, and Mark 1 are all directed at the Jews. It certainly included the idea of changing to belief, but more than that, it was firmly rooted in the OT promises concerning covenant blessings/curses for the nation of Isreal. If they Kingdom was to be established at that time, the people would have to repent (cf. 2 Chron. 7:14). If they did this, the Messianic Age could be ushered in.

Acts 3 has to do with the Jews who had just crucified Christ. Therefore, judgment was imminent, and would historically occurr in AD 70. The people could have avoided this judgment if they had repented, but, as they did not, God exiled them, exactly has He said He would via the OT promises concerning blessings/curses.

So, I don't see personal salvation in these particular verses except to the extent that to receive the Kingdom, the Jews would also have to believe in Christ.

The question on idiosyncracy is a good one. I'll look into it, although my discussion above may suffice.

God bless

Thanks Jac ,
But you see my concern?

If these verses are talking about salvation then the word repent can only mean the changing if the mind and not a change of action or else that would be a works salvation, correct?

But it seems to me that at least some of these verses are talking about salvation (definitely direct towards Jews) but they are saved the same way we are. I would think Jesus was asking them to change their mind about who He is. as well as who they are: sinners.

It also seems to me that 2 Chronicles 7:14 is referring to salvation as well.

2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

It is my understanding that the only way to forgive sin is to accept Christ as your Saviour. Of course in the OT, they looked forward to the Cross and had faith in the word of God as Abraham did, whereas we (NT saints) look back to the Cross.

Jac,
I do not mean to be disrepectful to your teachings, I have learned a lot from you. But I have learned this line of reasoning from another pastor which I do highly respect his teachings which is most respects (at least the important ones) is is not very different than yours. I'm just trying to discern the truth as accurately as possible.

Yes, I see your concern. Let me just walk through each of these passages to show you why I don't see a problem with this (all quotes NIV):

Lk 5:27-32

• After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him. Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

In this passage, Levi, a tax collector, has just been called to a life of discipleship. In joy, he hosts a celebration and invites his less than religiously proper friends. Seeing this, the Pharisees complain that Jesus is associated Himself with these terrible people. It is then that Jesus makes the claim in question.

Now, there are a couple of things we can notice. First, the statement by Jesus is, first and foremost, a rebuke of the Pharisees. Were they sinners? Of course! But, they didn't recognize it! So, Jesus is actually rebuking them for their callous hearts. He was, in fact, calling them to repent from their dead works. They would have to stop trying to earn their way into heaven. These sinners, at least Matthew, had done precisely that. It was not Matthew's turning from him sinful lifestyle that saved him. That came through belief. But nowhere in Scripture is Jesus concerned only with salvation. He wants people to press on to discipleship, so He also calls them to repent of their evil actions so that they can follow Him.

So, the message of this passage is twofold. First, people must turn away from their own attempts to enter Heaven. Second, those who have recognized their sin and have believed are to turn and follow Christ in discipleship, as Matthew has done in this passage.

Lk 13:1-5

• Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Rather than go into a ton of detail on this, let me refer you to a conversation between Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges in which this passage is thoroughly exegeted. The long and short of it is that "perish" in these verses do NOT refer to eschatological salvation. Thus, to "repent" does not result in regeneration, but it rather results in the avoidance of wrath.

Mt 4:13-17

• Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali—to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:
  "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
  the way to the sea, along the Jordan,
  Galilee of the Gentiles—
  the people living in darkness
  have seen a great light;
  on those living in the land of the shadow of death
  a light has dawned."
  From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

Here, Jesus begins His public ministry. He picks up where John the Baptist, His forerunner, has left off. He calls the people to repent, because the Kingdom is at hand.

Now, who was this message preached to? The Jews. Why? They were expecting the Messiah to soon come in, ushering in the Messianic Kingdom. However, they were living in a state of apostacy, and as long as that was true, the Kingdom could NEVER come. This, in fact, is still true today. So long as Israel is living away from her God, the Kingdom is being postponed. That's why Paul said in Rom. 11:12, "But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!" By their rejection, salvation was made available to all. But, Paul says, if this is true, then how much greater a blessing will come by their acceptance!

Now, this is true today, and it was true in the first century. Jesus came preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. He came offering the Kingdom THEN, but, the people had to repent! They had to repent from dead works, from calloused hearts, from legalism, traditionalism, and from their own self-righteousness. John the Baptist's preaching is saturated with these ideas. We cannot ignore them.

Of course, in all this, the people would also have to believe, but belief alone is not enough to usher in the Kingdom. Belief alone is enough to JUSTIFY, but it is not enough to bring about the Messianic Age. That comes when Israel accepts Her king and submits to His Lordship.

Let me be clear. I reject the doctrine of Lordship salvation. It is heretical and completely AGAINST the doctrines of grace to teach that in order to be saved we must commit our lives to Christ. However, I thoroughly believe that in order for the Messianic Kingdom to come, the Jews must not only believe alone unto salvation, but they must submit to His Lordship to receive their inheritance!

Matt11:20-24

• Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.

OK, let's be careful here not to read more into the text than is there. The text clearly says that Jesus had performed MOST of His miracles in these cities. But, they had refused to believe. The cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom were condemned and destroyed because of their atrocious sins. And yet, Jesus says that if they had received these miracles, they would have repented and thus have been saved. Now, the clear context is that they would have been delivered from destruction. Bear in mind that repentance from sin delivers from destruction and judgment.

Now, the same is true in this passage. However, Jesus clearly adds an eschatological idea to this as well, because He says that the judgment of those cities will be easier than the judgment on the ones He presently stood in. The clear teaching is that the greater the revelation, the worse the punishment if it is rejected.

What was the sin of Capernaum? It was the rejection of the Messiah who clearly stood in their midst. Let's be very careful here. Unbelief IS a sin, and sin DOES result in judgment, both temporal and eschatological. People are not condemned to Hell because of the sin of unbelief, but because of the consequences of unbelief. But, Jesus is teaching that, for these people especially, their sin of unbelief is particular horrible. The reason is that their unbelief is actually outright rejection. They've chosen to close their eyes to the Truth before them. For that, they will be greatly judged. If they choose not to repent of these sins, then they will be greatly judged for them.

Should we, then, apply this same teaching to people today? Should we say that the person who does not repent of his individual sins will suffer great punishment? On one hand, the answer is yes, because we the unbeliever will be judged (though not condemned) by his works. But, on the other hand, we say no, because the root problem here is unbelief, not specific sins. No one today has stood in the presence of Christ. No one has seen Him and His miracles, and, as such, they are not held to the same standard that these people will be. It is, then, fautly logic to assert that all people must repent of their sins to be saved based on this passage.

Mk 1:14-15

• After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

This should be handled exactly the same way as Matt 4:13-17 above.

Acts 3:12-20

• When Peter saw this, he said to them: "Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.

This is a great passage to prove my point. Peter has just healed a lame man, and Peter uses this as a way to evangelize the Jews. He begins by proclaiming the power and glory of Jesus, and then cuts to the chase in verse 19. These people must repent. But, what must the repent of? Keep in mind, this is the SAME CROWD that had just crucified Jesus! They had JUST SAID that the blood of Jesus be on them and their children. They had some SERIOUS repenting to do. This repentance would bring about forgiveness and "times of refreshing." Notice, though, that it does NOT say it will bring about justification. It is clear that the people believe, because the text says in 4:4 that "many believed the message." However, we see no record of repentance or times of refreshment. Now, notice what Peter further says: if they repent, then God may "send the Christ, who has been appointed for you." Repentance, for Israel, means to Return of Christ! Peter was offering them the Kingdom AGAIN, and they STILL refused it!

So, we see that many were justified in 4:4, but the Kingdom is offered by repentance in 3:19-20. The same is true today.

Now, let's wrap this up by looking at what Paul said in Rom. 10:9-10. The Jews were about to be judged, and if they would be SAVED (delivered from the coming judgment), they had to confess Jesus as Lord and believe in His resurrection. The former relates to their repentance from their sin of rejection, and more specifically, their sin of crucifixion. The latter relates to their justification. As you note, repentance must begin with faith, but the term is much broader. Faith alone brings salvation, but repentance brings forgiveness and deliverance from judgment, both for the Jew and Gentile.

Does this help?

Jac3510 wrote:Ah, trying to lead me, are you?

of course...but a saying about a horse and water comes to mind

From my perspective you have missed the forest for a tree. You haven't grasped the breadth of the gospel but have fixated on the element of belief (which you then restrict in meaning).

I can conceive of many people who would accept salvation but refuse to follow Jesus. Suppose a person thoroughly believes the Bible, but they've had some awful things happen in their lives. They blame God, because He is the ruler of everything, don-cha-know? They don't want to go to Hell, so they trust Christ for their salvation. They'll take that deal. But, they aren't going to serve Him. Why? 'Cause they don't like Him!

Jac, God will not be mocked and the attitude you describe here (for the hypothetical person) is not only mocking but blasphemous. Blasphemy will be forgiven, but can't be the act that achieves salvation. Consider:

Matt 10: 32-33 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

The "deal" as you call it and describe it is simply not offered.

They point is, we can see that it is logically possible for a person to believe in Christ for salvation and yet reject Him as their Lord. There could be spiritual, emotional, or even "rational" reasons. The point is, the two are not necessarily connected.

I still don't see it....the gospel message included preaching Jesus as Lord (2 cor 4:5) and I don't see were God allows one to believe in or accept a portion of the gospel and reject the rest

ttoews wrote:
so, obedience is not required? Love is not required? ...again, how would that look? Now it seems that you are saying that one can proudly declare "I will take Christ at His word and rely on Him for my salvation, thank-you very much, but I shall despise Him and His ways and revolt at His commands"....such is impossible, one can't both rely on Christ b/c of who He is and what He did and at the same time reject His ways ....and if love and obedience necessarily flow from saving faith, then they are the other side of the same coin.

Of course obedience is not required! How could it be? That would make salvation by works!

only if one separates obedience from belief and declares that belief can exist w/o works. Consider:
1) Matt 19: 16-21 "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" 17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 20 The young man said to him, "I have kept all these; what do I still lack?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

The question concerned obtaining eternal life. The answer concerned doing a specific work. We can reconcile this requirement with the other things Jesus and Paul state about salvation, belief and works by understanding that "belief" is not merely an intellectual acknowledgement of fact, but rather a commitment of a person's whole being

2)John 5: 41-44 41"I do not accept praise from men, 42but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

Jesus wonders how one can believe and yet make no effort....and so do I.

Salvation comes by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE. If you add ANYTHING to that, then you are not believing ALONE in Christ ALONE. You are beliving in both Christ's work and your work.

note John 15:5 where Christ states: "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing."
what work of mine would there be for me to believe in? I do nothing of value on my own....therefore, I can only believe in Christ's work

Now, what you have to say is, "If I really believe this, I will commit to it." That's just silly. I'd encourage you to look through the "Lord, Lord" passage in Matt 7. These people were definitely committed! But they go to Hell. Why? Because they never trusted Christ. They trusted their works . . . which was shown by their commitment.

here's the passage:

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers

Jac, I invite you to look at the passage and note:
a) fruit is mentioned and it is declared that a tree that doesn't bear good fruit goes into the fire
b) it doesn't say that the people who are sent away by Jesus lacked trust...only a lack of fruit is mentioned
c) those that enter heaven will have done the will of the Father

Now, I'll ask you the same thing I've asked everyone else. Offer me one verse that clearly states that justification requires repentance from sin. There is simply no passage that teaches that. Yet, on the reverse side, we have dozens and dozens of exhortations to the believer to repent. Clearly, repentance is not necessarily, nor a necessarly result, of belief.

if such a clear verse (to your satisfaction) existed you wouldn't ask the question. Nevertheless, I offer Matt 3:7-10
7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

again, a call to produce fruit in keeping with repentance and a warning that a lack of fruit results in fire. Now I note from your recent posts that you distinguish this message as only pertaining to the offering of the kingdom to the Jews and I'll have to deal with that error of yours in another post.

See, now we're talking. Scriptural exegesis is what it's all about. We can talk clearly on this issue from this perspective!

ttoews wrote:Jac, God will not be mocked and the attitude you describe here (for the hypothetical person) is not only mocking but blasphemous. Blasphemy will be forgiven, but can't be the act that achieves salvation. Consider:

Matt 10: 32-33 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

The "deal" as you call it and describe it is simply not offered.

First, as you know, you should be REALLY careful with the NIV. It's NOT a formal equivelant, so when you quote it, be sure that you aren't getting an interpretation. In this verse, that is exactly what you get. The word for "disown" here is ομολογησει (omologesei) -- technically, that's the future third person plural, but close enough to the lexical form to scare it to death. Now, this word very literally means "to confess", which is how the NASB correctly renders it.

Secondly, let's note the context. This is a passage on discipleship. Jesus is talking to believers. This is NOT evangelistic. Jesus is commissioning them, in this very chapter, to go out and proclaim the gospel. But, He says, there will be persecution, only do not fear men. Instead, fear God. If you fear men, clearly, you will not confess Him. So, Jesus is warning against His disciples being intimidated into rejecting or hiding their confession!

Please note that this passage is similar to Mark 8:34-38. There, Jesus again is talking in terms of discipleship. There, Jesus tells His disciples that if they are ashamed of Him, then He will be ashamed of them before the Father. What is the immediate context? In verse thirty-four, Jesus says He is talking about daily taking up the cross. That is a shameful and difficult thing. If this becomes to hard and the believer loses his confession, Jesus will be ashamed of him.

Now, do these passages say these people lose their salvation? No. Does it say they were never saved? No. But it says clearly that the person who puts his faith in Christ and later rejects that faith, especially for fear of the world, Jesus will be ashamed of him and not confess him before the Father. He will, thus, lose his right to rule with Christ.

ttoews wrote:I still don't see it....the gospel message included preaching Jesus as Lord (2 cor 4:5) and I don't see were God allows one to believe in or accept a portion of the gospel and reject the rest.

There are several ways to understand this passage. First, far be it from me to debate with the major translations, but I simply don't see how they get the "as" construction in "Jesus as Lord." I'm assuming they are drawing it from the contrast of "we as your your servants," but even then, that is difficult, because THAT phrase doesn't require the "as" either. It makes it read differently . . . the wooden translation would be, "but we ourselves the your servants through Jesus." Anyway, it appears to me, with my limited knowledge of Greek, that Paul is referring to the title of Jesus. They are not preaching themselves, but the Lord Jesus Christ. I'll get more detail on that later.

However, even so, that isn't necessary to my position. I can't stand it when people "explain away" Scripture. Now, I have absolutely no problem with the Lordship of Christ. As I've told Puritan, I think I'm more committed to His lordship than any Lordship salvationist is, because I'm not committed out of fear of Hell! I'm not committed to get salvation! I'm committed for the simple and sole reason that, because He saved me, I owe everything to Him. It's the LEAST I can do . . . commit my life--the life He freely gave me--to Him.

So, even if we accept the above rendering, which is questionable, the context seems say that the apostles are not preaching their own authority (see previous chapter), but rather they are preaching the authority of Christ. It is from Him that their Gospel derives its power. I've said before, and will continue to say, that to be saved one must recognize that Jesus Christ is, in fact, Lord. But, that is a far cry from saying we must submit our whole person to Him for salvation. The cliche "If Christ isn't Lord over all, He isn't Lord at all" is simply false. The truth of the matter is that we have to believe in the "right Jesus." So, the disciples preached Jesus as Lord.

Besides all of this, to really shore up your argument, you'd have to prove that this one verse is referring particularly to the evangelistic gospel, and that may be hard to do. *shrug*

ttoews wrote:only if one separates obedience from belief and declares that belief can exist w/o works. Consider:
1) Matt 19: 16-21 "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" 17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 20 The young man said to him, "I have kept all these; what do I still lack?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

The question concerned obtaining eternal life. The answer concerned doing a specific work. We can reconcile this requirement with the other things Jesus and Paul state about salvation, belief and works by understanding that "belief" is not merely an intellectual acknowledgement of fact, but rather a commitment of a person's whole being

Ah, yes, the Rich Young Ruler passage. I would HIGHLY encourage you to read this article by Hal Haller. In it, he argues that the RYR never heard "the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Read through it. You'll find the exposition is clear and to the point. I thoroughly agree with the position presented there.

ttoews wrote:2)John 5: 41-44 41"I do not accept praise from men, 42but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

Jesus wonders how one can believe and yet make no effort....and so do I.

Come on ttoews. First, let's run with the NIV for a second. Do you really think "make an effort" means you have to TRY to be saved?!? Where is your belief in faith alone? We all believe that grace comes through faith apart from works! Now, you can argue that works come as a result of faith, but the clear implication of your teaching is that you have to DO stuff . . . you have to STRIVE for salvation. You have to work for it. ttoews, then it isn't a gift.

OK, so what's the actual idea here? First, let's start by saying that this verse absolutely supports my position. The key question here is: "How can you believe?" Everything after that is qualification. Belief, in this verse, is the key. Please note that this fits the context perfectly. In this same chapter, only a few verses up, Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life," (5:24, NASB) and again, "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent." (5:38, NASB)

So, the key issue is belief. But, something is stopping them from believing. What is it? It is the fact that they are seeking the praise of men. Notice the progression:

1. They do not have the love of God in themselves,
2. They reject Jesus because He comes in the name of God,
3. The would accept one who comes in his own name, because that man does not have the love of God in him,
4. It is obvious, then, that these men will not accept the One coming in God's name because they do not love God,
5. Therefore, the reject the testimony of God, but instead receive the testimony of one another.

You see the problem here? It's not simply their unbelief, but it is that they think "think that in [the Scriptures they] have eternal life." What, then, is the "effort"? The simple answer is that there is no effort! The phrase here is better translated by the NASB as "you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" Now, we would all agree that seeking God is not a work. However, it does require humbling ourselves and having a childlike faith.

So, again, faith alone is the issue here, but the Pharisees had blinded themselves by their arrogance. They believed their own righteousness was enough to save them. Not seeking the glory of God, they were unable to believe, because they could not accept the testimony of God. Not too hard.

ttoews wrote:note John 15:5 where Christ states: "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing."
what work of mine would there be for me to believe in? I do nothing of value on my own....therefore, I can only believe in Christ's work

Yes, this is a beautiful passage about discipleship. Note that Jesus says that to bear fruit we must abide. This says nothing of eschatological salvation, does it? What is Jesus talking about? Clearly, He is referring to the faithful disciple. If we want to actually succeed in walking the Christian life and bearing fruit, we must abide in Him. To "abide" means to "live in" or "walk in" or "stay in." But these have nothing to do with salvation. And, Jesus goes on to say that if they don't abide in Him, then they can't live the Christian life and/or bear good fruit.

ttoews wrote:15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers

Jac, I invite you to look at the passage and note:
a) fruit is mentioned and it is declared that a tree that doesn't bear good fruit goes into the fire
b) it doesn't say that the people who are sent away by Jesus lacked trust...only a lack of fruit is mentioned
c) those that enter heaven will have done the will of the Father

Here's another link for you. That one is a sermon by Bob Wilkin in which he does a thorough exegesis of this passage. Now, let's look at your observations:

a. Yes, the fruit and tree are both bad and both go into the fire. But what is Jesus talking about? He tells us Himself: "Watch out for false prophets . . . by their fruit you will recognize them." This test shouldn't be applied to the general person, because Jesus didn't apply it to them. He is talking about teachers/prophets. Their fruits are not their deeds, but their teachings.

b. Now, it is not true that the text says that they are cast into the fire for not bearing good fruit. It says that every tree that does not bear good fruit is cast into the fire. Why? Because, keep in mind, these are false teachers. Bad fruit comes from bad trees. Clearly, these trees are producing bad fruit, and that fruit is false teaching. These false teachers have clearly not believed in the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, they would not be false teachers, because good fruit can't come from bad trees! Yet again, keep this in context of TEACHERS.

c. It is true that only those who do the will of the Father enter the kingdom, but what is that will? Jesus tells us himself in John 6:29, "Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." But, let's take this a step further . . . where is this going to take place in history? At the GWT Judgment, right? These people about to be cast into the Lake of Fire. They are making their defense. They have done all kinds of things, not the least of which is to confess Jesus as Lord! But, they NEVER BELIEVED.

I'm afraid that a LOT of "good" pastors will find themselves in this camp. They are preaching a gospel of commitment, and one day, they will stand before the Lord and say, "But LORD, we committed ourselves to you. We led others to do the same! We preached great messages, sacrified everything for You, and did many deeds in Your name!" And Jesus will look to them and say, "But you never simply believed in Me. Now go, you doer of evil!"

This passage is actually very damaging to your position, ttoews. It clearly teaches that commitment of life does NOT result in salvation. The false teachers have done things FOR JESUS, but they never believed.

ttoews wrote:if such a clear verse (to your satisfaction) existed you wouldn't ask the question. Nevertheless, I offer Matt 3:7-10
7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

As you note, I take this to refer to the Jews' need for repentance to usher in the Messianic Kingdom. If you want to discuss this further, we certainly can

Now, ttoews: let me just ask you one question while you digest all of this. If the gospel of John is the ONLY book of the Bible written specifically to bring non-believers to saving faith in Christ (John 20:30-31) . . . heck, even if it is just written for that very purpose . . . then doesn't it follow that by reading it, you should have enough information to come to saving faith? If that's true, then why does that gospel NEVER use the word "repent"? And why does it use the word "believe" 99 times? And how do you explain such verses as John 3:16, 5:25, and 6:47? Why did John harp so much on belief if so much more was necessary? Why did he NEVER say "To be saved, you must commit your lives to Me!"

Ok, so that's more than one question, but I'm sure you can see it's all one argument.

God bless

Mystical wrote: Don't agree. Asking Jesus into your heart is (contrary to what the author states) surrendering, trusting, believing and repenting. All those things are necessary. Even the devil believes in Him ; obviously, that is not all that is needed.

I must disagree with your post. The Devil is not "Believing in" Jesus Christ. You can believe Christ about a number of things. Israels Messiah, You can believe He was born without a human father, You can believe He will return to earth (He will).

The Devil believes all these things. I like how Ryrie put is. Faith in Christ is to hold something as true (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 118). The Devil is not believing in Jesus for anything. He believes things about Him. The Devil is not believeing in Christ for salvation for we know Scripture tells us where he is going in the end. To believe in Christ for salvation means to have confidence that He can remove the guilt of sin and give eternal life.

Oh, if you are going to post a reply quoting James 2:19, let me go ahead and address that. We are told that demons believe and shudder in James 2:19. What is it that demons believe in this passage? The answer is they believe in one God. They are monothiest. This passage is not saying that the demons are trusting in christ for eternal life. If you look in context of this passage it is clear that James is not talking about eternal salvation whatsoever.

Let me go further. In Acts 26:27, King Agripp believed the facts that Jesus was the promised Savoir, but he refused to receive Jesus by faith for eternal life (salvation).

One more point. In the majority of the times "believe" is used in the NT when in regards to salvation, it has the preposition "in" after it. (John 3:16) This differentiates the meaning. It is believing in (reliance,trust in the object of faith, etc), not to believe the facts about.

Please be clear with the use of your words. The Devil does not believe in Jesus for anything. He believes about. Again, please be clear with your wording because your hearers and readers cannot find the truth masked by fuzzy, ill-defined words and conclusions. I believe you want to teach the truth?

I love you and that's why I write,

K.C.

P.S.-Please do not ask someone to ask Jesus into their hearts. It is fuzzy, and ill-defined. Jesus asked the blind man in John 9. "Do you believe in the Son Man? He answered, "Who is He Lord so I may believe in Him". Jesus did not ask him to ask Him into his heart, did he? God did not send His Son to give us something to do (ask Jesus into your heart), but to believe. We must rely on Christ for what we cannot attain ourselves.I hope we are in agreement that the blind man is in heaven for believing in Christ? I believe John 20:30-31 tells us that. Tell people the Gospel and what the appropriate response is to it. FAITH.

Also, If your meaning of repentance is turning from sin, the question arises as to how many sins must one turn from and how this will be manifested in a way that satisfies God (You must be perfect Matt 5:48). Since sin is the transgression of the law, if we require people to turn the sin of murder, lying, covetness, etc. are we not imposing the requirements of the Mosaic law on them for acquiring righteousness? (Quote from Hal Haller)

The question arises from this wonderful statement from Hal. What if, at the point of salvation, the sin of gluttony does not come to mind, and I do not repent of it. Is one still saved? I guess I ask this because you are fuzzy on what repenting is in your post.

I love you and that's why I write,

K.C.
My sin not in part, but the whole was nailed to the cross and I bear it no more!! Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord !! Oh, my soul!
I am set free to serve in righteousness now, not in fear of hell!! Hope you are too.

[/i]

Jac, allow me to respond in part

Jac3510 wrote: First, as you know, you should be REALLY careful with the NIV. .....
Now, do these passages say these people lose their salvation?

so you didn't think the passage that I asked you to consider supported my point. Fine. But what about my point itself? It was that God will not be mocked.


later you asked a related question:

Now, ttoews: let me just ask you one question while you digest all of this. If the gospel of John is the ONLY book of the Bible written specifically to bring non-believers to saving faith in Christ (John 20:30-31) . . . heck, even if it is just written for that very purpose . . . then doesn't it follow that by reading it, you should have enough information to come to saving faith?

I don't know where you get the "only" from, but it matters not. The Gospel of John contains enough information to come to saving faith. To summarize, it tells me that Jesus was with God and is God, that He lowered Himself and was made flesh, that out of His and His Father's love for us He died on the cross as the remedy for our sin so that if we believe in Him we can have eternal life. The question then, is what does "belief" entail? Is it mere belief (if such were possible)or is it a belief that entails commitment?

If that's true, then why does that gospel NEVER use the word "repent"? And why does it use the word "believe" 99 times?

common sense. You have declared:

I think I'm more committed to His lordship than any Lordship salvationist is, because I'm not committed out of fear of Hell! I'm not committed to get salvation! I'm committed for the simple and sole reason that, because He saved me, I owe everything to Him.

Your realization that you owe everything to Him is the natural, common sense response. It is the response that any believer will have. It is only in modern America that people could even contemplate that one could, on one hand, believe that the God of the universe gave up His life for that person's salvation, and on the other hand think that such belief would not require an accompanying response of love and obedience and remorse that such a sacrifice was needed. Why is "repent" used more? B/c its need is so obvious, so natural so demanded by common sense that its usage is not needed. It gets back to what I posted at the start:
a) how can one believe in Christ for his salvation w/o recognizing a need for one's salvation?
b) how can recognize one's need for salvation w/o recognizing one's sin?
c) how can one recognize one's sin and rely on Christ for one's salvation w/o recognizing that Christ's death paid the penalty for one's sin?
d) how can one recognize that Christ's death paid the penalty for one's sin and rely on Christ for one's salvation w/o loving Christ?
e) how can one recognize that Christ's death paid the penalty for one's sin and love Christ w/o repenting of that sin?

If one thinks that he can gain salvation on a technicality and hold that gift while refusing to repent or love Jesus in return, then that person is trampling the cross in the mire. God will not allow such an insult to be rewarded with eternal life. He will not be tricked by a technicality and He will not be mocked.


Further, God knows that our hearts are of the same stuff as the Pharisees. Give the Pharisees a list of things that must be done for salvation and they will expand on that list and focus on that list (and not on God Himself) and miss the point that what God truly values is a contrite heart. You are right, I don't see the NT presenting a list of things that must accompany belief. To focus on such a list is to miss the gospel, but many would do exactly that if a list had been provided. It is about a belief that embraces Jesus as Lord and that is why the rich young man needed to give up his wealth and others do not need to do that thing. We don't all have the same list.

And how do you explain such verses as John 3:16, 5:25, and 6:47? Why did John harp so much on belief if so much more was necessary? Why did he NEVER say "To be saved, you must commit your lives to Me!"

Ok, so that's more than one question, but I'm sure you can see it's all one argument.

and my answer above applies to all of these questions.

now my turn to ask....where is the biblical example of the fellow that believed and obtained eternal life, but also refused to repent?



God bless

a bit more while I have the time....

Jac3510 wrote:
Besides all of this, to really shore up your argument, you'd have to prove that this one verse is referring particularly to the evangelistic gospel, and that may be hard to do.

mine is not a one verse position. I believe that the verse explicitly states what is implied throughout the whole of the NT. You have counted the # of times a certain word is in the NT. How often is "Lord" used to refer to Jesus in the NT. I am amazed that anyone would think it possible that a believer could accept the gift of salvation w/o acknowledging Jesus as Lord....its a given.

Ah, yes, the Rich Young Ruler passage. I would HIGHLY encourage you to read this article by Hal Haller. In it, he argues that the RYR never heard "the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Read through it. You'll find the exposition is clear and to the point. I thoroughly agree with the position presented there.

I read the conclusion...I don't have time for the rest. Please state his points if you think I've missed something. So Haller thinks that Jesus didn't want to break stride with the existing topic and did not give the gospel of grace as an answer, but answered the real question which allegedly was, "What must I do to earn salvation?"
The obvious problem with that effort to explain away this passage is that later Jesus takes the time to discus the matter in greater detail with the disciples....with stride thusly broken you should expect the explanation to be the gospel of grace. It isn't. Again Christ mentions the doing of things.

Come on ttoews. First, let's run with the NIV for a second. Do you really think "make an effort" means you have to TRY to be saved?!?

no. Did I say anything about trying to be saved? The issue (and you seem to keep passing over this point so that you can dismiss a "salvation of works" position that I don't hold) concerns the quality of belief in question: Is salvation from a faith that may produce works, or is salvation from a faith that must produce works?

Where is your belief in faith alone? We all believe that grace comes through faith apart from works! Now, you can argue that works come as a result of faith, but the clear implication of your teaching is that you have to DO stuff . . . you have to STRIVE for salvation.

no, not strive for salvation. Salvation is not earned, period, but the person must possess a faith that will (not may) produce effort.

OK, so what's the actual idea here? First, let's start by saying that this verse absolutely supports my position. The key question here is: "How can you believe?" Everything after that is qualification. Belief, in this verse, is the key.

agreed, but again the issue concerns what "belief" entails. Is it a belief that may or that must result in good works.

Please note that this fits the context perfectly. In this same chapter, only a few verses up, Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life," (5:24, NASB) and again, "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent." (5:38, NASB)

So, the key issue is belief. But, something is stopping them from believing. What is it? It is the fact that they are seeking the praise of men. Notice the progression:

1. They do not have the love of God in themselves,

It would seem that w/o knowing it, you are presenting my case. You point out that they are stopped from believing b/c they are seeking the praise of men. Therefore, they would have to do something (stop seeking the praise of men) so as to believe.

4. It is obvious, then, that these men will not accept the One coming in God's name because they do not love God,

so then the love of God is a requirement? I agree. And to love God means that you will obey Him.
.

You see the problem here? It's not simply their unbelief, but it is that they think "think that in [the Scriptures they] have eternal life." What, then, is the "effort"? The simple answer is that there is no effort! The phrase here is better translated by the NASB as "you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" Now, we would all agree that seeking God is not a work.

No we wouldn't. You have a very dodgy definition of "work".

However, it does require humbling ourselves and having a childlike faith.

So let me see if I have this definition of yours right:

To believe is to do something, but to do that something isn't works.
To seek is to do something, but to do that something isn't works.
To humble oneself is to do something, but to do that something isn't works.
To love is to do something and to do that something is works.
To repent is to do something and to do that something is works.

The only way you can argue that yours is not a doctrine of salvation by works and that mine is such a doctrine, is by having a defintion for "works" that moves like the breeze

cheers, Jac.

ttoews:

I see where you are coming from but.....

If saving faith must result in good works, how much good works must it result in? How do you know when you have done enough good works? Or even if the works you do at all are even good. You may think their good but your motive may have been selfish. How can you tell the difference between those works you do out of appreciation for what God did for you and the works because you just thought it was the right thing to do. (Now we start blending into rewards doctrine so I'll stop)

Can you see why I and Jac can see this as a salvation based on works.

Belief in a correct understanding of the Gospel is what saves people.
The gospel is the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ. all of which prove that what Jesus said is true. But we must also recognize that we need the gospel because we are sinners.

We can believe that Jesus is God , but if we believe we need anything more than him to go to heaven then we are not saved.

Jac3510 wrote:ttoews wrote:
note John 15:5 where Christ states: "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing."
what work of mine would there be for me to believe in? I do nothing of value on my own....therefore, I can only believe in Christ's work

Yes, this is a beautiful passage about discipleship. Note that Jesus says that to bear fruit we must abide. This says nothing of eschatological salvation, does it? ....

you miss my point...it is that I can do nothing apart from Jesus. Whether you want to categorize seeking as non-works and repentance as works, it matters not, cause ultimately it all comes down to Christ working in us....it is all Christ's work.

Here's another link for you. That one is a sermon by Bob Wilkin in which he does a thorough exegesis of this passage.

again, my time is lacking...could you list his points?

c. It is true that only those who do the will of the Father enter the kingdom, but what is that will? Jesus tells us himself in John 6:29, "Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

so belief then is work? you best amend your defintion, for if work=to believe it doesn't sound like a passive belief.

But, let's take this a step further . . . where is this going to take place in history? At the GWT Judgment, right? These people about to be cast into the Lake of Fire. They are making their defense. They have done all kinds of things, not the least of which is to confess Jesus as Lord! But, they NEVER BELIEVED.

I keep looking for the phrases "never trusted" and "never believed" and I can't find them in the passage. Yes, they have done all kinds of things, but they haven't done the will of God

I'm afraid that a LOT of "good" pastors will find themselves in this camp. They are preaching a gospel of commitment, and one day, they will stand before the Lord and say, "But LORD, we committed ourselves to you. We led others to do the same! We preached great messages, sacrified everything for You, and did many deeds in Your name!" And Jesus will look to them and say, "But you never simply believed in Me. Now go, you doer of evil!"

again Jesus doesn't mention either commitment or belief. Rather Jesus will state, "I never knew you." On the other hand consider this from John 10 where Jesus mentions knowing, following and believing:

3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers."

14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep.

27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand

26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep.

This passage is actually very damaging to your position, ttoews. It clearly teaches that commitment of life does NOT result in salvation. The false teachers have done things FOR JESUS, but they never believed.

again you are reading into the passage. It never says that they did things for Jesus. Jesus never knew them. They might have thought that they were doing things for Jesus, but they were wrong.... they were not doing the will of God...they were not His sheep and they did not hear His voice and follow Him.

Haha, now I know how it feels to be on the other side of the gun

OK, so you've given me a lot to respond to. Let's begin, shall we?

ttoews wrote:so you didn't think the passage that I asked you to consider supported my point. Fine. But what about my point itself? It was that God will not be mocked.

Of course God won't be mocked, ttoews. But what does that have to do with salvation? You can see the non-sequitar in that. Just becaues "God is not mocked" does NOT mean that more than simple faith is necessary for salvaiton. It does NOT necessarily follow that a man who has no good works will find himself in Hell, whatever your justification for that claim. The idea that God is not mocked is connected to the idea that God knows our hearts. He will be vindicated and glorified in the end. Some will suffer loss. Others will suffer damnation.

ttoews, you won't see me or any Free Grace advocate arguing that a person can "get saved", live a life of terrible practices, and then enter unscathed into the kingdom! There are eternal consequences for our actions. There will be absolutely no rewards for those who live this way, and further, they will suffer the shame of Christ. That's certainly not a position I want to be in! But, none of this means that a person has to go to Hell, or that Hell is better, or anything like that.

ttoews wrote: don't know where you get the "only" from, but it matters not. The Gospel of John contains enough information to come to saving faith. To summarize, it tells me that Jesus was with God and is God, that He lowered Himself and was made flesh, that out of His and His Father's love for us He died on the cross as the remedy for our sin so that if we believe in Him we can have eternal life. The question then, is what does "belief" entail? Is it mere belief (if such were possible)or is it a belief that entails commitment?

I don't suppose I need to offer an explanation of all 66 books, do I? The Gospel of John is written TO unbelievers. No other book is. Every book, from Genesis to Revelation, is written to the believer, save John. It's purpose is first and foremost evangelistic. It is in that book that the gospel is most clearly and most completely presented. Absolutely ALL of the essentials to salvation are in that book, which may or may not be true for others.

Now, you ask what "belief" means. The word here in Greek means nothing more than "to be convinced something is reliable or true." ttoews . . . that's all the lexical word pisteuo. You insisnt that "true belief" MUST result in works. Now, you can argue that, but you can't get it from the word itself. You have to import that meaning into the word by arguing that John is using it with a specialized function. Now, I think I can show pretty clearly that this is not the case. A good example is found in John 8:31-32, "To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (NIV) Now, notice that John says they "had believed." This phrase is in the perfect tense. It was a completed action with ongoing results. You CANNOT say these people had NOT believed. We then compare this with such verses as John 3:16, where Jesus Himself says if you believe, you are saved. So, these people are CLEARLY born again.

So, to these regenerate people Jesus starts talking about discipleship. They have to keep His commandments if they are "really" disciples. So, we know for a fact these were regenerate, and yet it is clear that some of these would not be disciples.

Again, ttoews, you are going to have to justify your assertion that "real faith" is a faith that produces work. I've got page after page of Scriptural exegesis on these boards arguing for the position, as well as the flat lexical meaning of the word, all to back my assertion that faith is just that . . . simple belief. How do you support your claim that it is more?

ttoews wrote:Your realization that you owe everything to Him is the natural, common sense response. It is the response that any believer will have. It is only in modern America that people could even contemplate that one could, on one hand, believe that the God of the universe gave up His life for that person's salvation, and on the other hand think that such belief would not require an accompanying response of love and obedience and remorse that such a sacrifice was needed. Why is "repent" used more? B/c its need is so obvious, so natural so demanded by common sense that its usage is not needed.

Funny, if it's the response that ANY believer will give, then why does Paul have to constantly remind the BELIEVERS in Corinth to repent? Why does Jesus tell the above BELIEVERS that they have to do more to be disciples? Why does Jesus tell His DISCIPLES that they must abide in Him? Why do we have countless exhortations to BELIEVERS against falling away from the faith? Why do we have BELEVERS who will suffer loss, and yet themselves be saved, as by fire?

Secondly, I'm going to strongly reject your argument that it is "common sense" that repentance is needed for salvation. ttoews . . . that's our whole problem. Salvation is special revelation. People have ALWAYS thought that works were necessary to be saved. It's also "common sense" that we have to do good works to be saved. If you don't believe that, go ask 95% percent of the world's population how they plan on getting to heaven! We don't appeal to "common sense." We appeal to Scripture. Now, NOWHERE in Scripture is repentance from sin linked with eschatological salvation. In fact, as already noted, in the Gospel of John, which was written so that people could read it and be saved, the word is NEVER USED AT ALL. But, John was clearly familiar with the concept, because he used the word some twelve times in the Revelation (with special reference to believers, I might add!). So, it is apparant that John left this word out. Why? Because he didn't want people thinking it is necessary and thus pervert the gospel message.

ttoews wrote:If one thinks that he can gain salvation on a technicality and hold that gift while refusing to repent or love Jesus in return, then that person is trampling the cross in the mire. God will not allow such an insult to be rewarded with eternal life. He will not be tricked by a technicality and He will not be mocked.

Really? Show me that in Scripture, and I'll concede. Show me where God says that we have to love Jesus or repent or give our lives over to Him so that we can be saved.

Now, this quote shows the depth of the problem, I think. I don't know whether you meant it or not, but you said that people are "rewarded" with eternal life. And, you tied this to their good works. That is works based, any way you cut it. Secondly, the motive behind this is painfully obvious. The person who trusts Christ for his salvation but yet doesn't live for Christ doesn't deserve to be saved. God would never save a person like that! We have to be good!

See the problem?

ttoews wrote:Further, God knows that our hearts are of the same stuff as the Pharisees. Give the Pharisees a list of things that must be done for salvation and they will expand on that list and focus on that list (and not on God Himself) and miss the point that what God truly values is a contrite heart. You are right, I don't see the NT presenting a list of things that must accompany belief. To focus on such a list is to miss the gospel, but many would do exactly that if a list had been provided. It is about a belief that embraces Jesus as Lord and that is why the rich young man needed to give up his wealth and others do not need to do that thing. We don't all have the same list.

We are provided a list, ttoews. "that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Belief. That's the list. Now, you are admitting here that your position is not based on Scripture. You don't see your doctrine in the NT, but it can be assumed?!? I'll deal with the RYR passage in detail below. In the meantime, I just want to especially highlight that your position, by definition, isn't Scriptural. I say, "Show me that in Scripture," and you can't do it. On the other hand, I have well over 100 verses to support what I am saying.

ttoews wrote:now my turn to ask....where is the biblical example of the fellow that believed and obtained eternal life, but also refused to repent?

Sure:

John 12:42 - "Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue" (NASB)

1 Cor.5:5 - "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (NASB)

1 Cor 11:27-31 - "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be )guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged." (NASB)

2 Cor. 12:21 - "I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged." (NIV)

Seems like a good start to me

ttoews wrote:mine is not a one verse position. I believe that the verse explicitly states what is implied throughout the whole of the NT. You have counted the # of times a certain word is in the NT. How often is "Lord" used to refer to Jesus in the NT. I am amazed that anyone would think it possible that a believer could accept the gift of salvation w/o acknowledging Jesus as Lord....its a given.

I'm certainly not advocating a "one verse" position either, ttoews. But I have over 100 verses that say that salvation is by faith. And yet, you can't show me a SINGLE verse that says salvation, in the eschatological sense, is dependant on repentance or submission to the Lordship of Christ?

Now, I have no problem with Jesus being Lord. We have to believe in the right Jesus. But, that doesn't mean we have to make a commitment to live our lives for Him. For you, faith=commitment. Show me ONE lectionary that holds to that idea. I would suggest you do a word study on the word "pistis" and its cognates. With special reference, note the Hebrew words that it is used to translate in the LXX. No concept of repentance, ttoews . . . that's just foreign to the word! And, again, nothing is a given in Scripture. You simply can't argue that way.

ttoews wrote:I read the conclusion...I don't have time for the rest. Please state his points if you think I've missed something. So Haller thinks that Jesus didn't want to break stride with the existing topic and did not give the gospel of grace as an answer, but answered the real question which allegedly was, "What must I do to earn salvation?"

Make time. I'm telling you, it's very well worth the read. Besides, I would assume that you are open to the POSSIBILITY that I could be right. If that's the case, you need to give the arguments due hearing, and part of that is understanding them, as you well know.

As for the general flow of the argument:

The RYR asked Jesus what good things he must do to earn eternal life. Now, there are serious problems with that question! It implies that there is something we are capable of DOING. In other words, this man did not understand his unrighteousness before God. So, Jesus, being the great teacher that He is, starts with where the man is. He goes to the Law. "Keep the whole Law," Jesus says. The man is so arrogant that he actually thinks that he has never broken it! Jesus, knowing his heart, puts the fault on display for all to see. He tells him to go sell everything he has and give it away. Why? This exposes how the RYR was breaking two of the Ten Commandments. First, he coveted. Second, he loved Mammon more that Yahweh. The man stood exposed.

Jesus never got around to sharing the Gospel with RYR. How could he have? A peson, as you noted, has to recognize their need for salvation before he can be saved! Thus, Jesus is engaging in pre-evangelism in this passage. Again, I encourage you to read the entire ariticle. I'm sure you'll find it very well explained.

ttoews wrote:The obvious problem with that effort to explain away this passage is that later Jesus takes the time to discus the matter in greater detail with the disciples....with stride thusly broken you should expect the explanation to be the gospel of grace. It isn't. Again Christ mentions the doing of things.

But no one expects an explanation of the gopsel of grace, which is exactly the point. It never comes up in this account.

ttoews wrote:no. Did I say anything about trying to be saved? The issue (and you seem to keep passing over this point so that you can dismiss a "salvation of works" position that I don't hold) concerns the quality of belief in question: Is salvation from a faith that may produce works, or is salvation from a faith that must produce works?

Yes, you did say something about being saved. You asked how a person could believe (we all know that's the necessary condition of salvation) and yet make no effort. You see, you redefine belief to include effort, thus, you WERE talking about salvation.

Now, I'll continue to say this: you DO hold to a salvation by works. "Where there is no works, there is no salvation!" You can try to get around the charge by saying that good works are a necessary result of belief, but that STILL means that works are necessary. If you don't have them, you aren't saved.

I think I've adequately addressed the question of whether or not faith must produce works. The simple answer is no.

Question: if saving faith MUST produce good works, including repentance, commitment, and perseverence, why the repeated exhortations in Scripture to do exactly these things? Would that not be superfluous? Do the commands to do good works and to abide in Christ not imply that the believer is capable of NOT doing these things?

ttoews wrote:no, not strive for salvation. Salvation is not earned, period, but the person must possess a faith that will (not may) produce effort.

So, where there is no effort, there is no (real) faith. Thus, effort is necessary for salvation. If there is no effort, there is no striving, and if there is no striving, there is no salvation. You can pretty this up any way you like, but its salvation by works, period. I can prove it very simply:

If a person puts their trust in Christ, but has absolutely NO works, will they go to heaven?

For you, the answer is no. You claim their faith isn't real. So, actually, faith, for you, is defined as commitment/works. In fact, ttoews, I'm starting to think that (and I'm sure this is unintentional), you reject salvation by grace through faith all the way around!

Look at it this way: For you, saving faith is a faith that produces works. Thus, when a person works, he is actually "doing" faith. My work, then, IS my faith. It is an expression of it. Imagine a painting on a wall. We both admire the beauty of it. Of course, what we are seeing TECHNICALLY isn't the painting at all, is it? It is the reflection of light particles into our eyes, and our brain is interpreting these impluses. So, to be VERY technical, what we are perceiving is not the painting, but our own impression of the world around us . . . the symbols our brains produce.

Faith is the same way for you. "Faith" doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is works. They are the expression . . . they are what this hinges on. If real faith necessarily produces works, then works cannot be separated from faith. Works are the expression of faith itself, and thus, they are the essense of faith itself!

Needless to say, I don't have any of these problems. For me, faith is just what the word is . . . faith. It is belief that Jesus is great enough to do what He promised, which is to save me. It is accepting that gift from Him, end of story.

It's liberating, ttoews

ttoews wrote:It would seem that w/o knowing it, you are presenting my case. You point out that they are stopped from believing b/c they are seeking the praise of men. Therefore, they would have to do something (stop seeking the praise of men) so as to believe.

No, I'm not, but good try . You are reading too much into my words. Yes, a person has to stop seeking the praise of men. But, that doesn't result in salvation. The ONLY thing that results in salvation is BELIEF. The problem is that these people couldn't believe because they couldn't here. They couldn't hear because they refused to listen.

Again, this goes back to the basic idea that a person has to recognize their need for salvation. They have to recognize the gospel itself to be saved. Paul says that . . . "And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:14, NIV) You've got to hear it, ttoews.

ttoews wrote:so then the love of God is a requirement? I agree. And to love God means that you will obey Him.

No, it is not necessary to love God to be saved. It is necessary to BELIEVE God to be saved. You can believe someone with out loving them. In THIS particular case, the Pharisees did not love God. They actually hated Him, because "friendship with the world is hostility toward God?" (James 4:4, NASB) Thus, they couldn't hear the message.

Don't over read things.

ttoews wrote:No we wouldn't. You have a very dodgy definition of "work".

Haha, good try You actually think that seeking God is a work??? *sigh* Perhaps I should have been more specific? There are several kinds of works. As already noted, the "work of God" is to believe. There are "works of the Law" and there are "works of the flesh" and there are "works of the Spirit." What is all this to say? When Paul says that works don't save, he is saying that we cannot EARN our salvation (cf. Rom. 4:1-4). No amount of good we do results in salvation. A "work" is something that produces an earning.

Now, does seeking God produce an earning? Sure. It produces more revelation. But, does revelation save? No, grace through faith saves. So, take it how you want, but "seeking God" is no work in the salvic sense :p

ttoews wrote:So let me see if I have this definition of yours right:

To believe is to do something, but to do that something isn't works.
To seek is to do something, but to do that something isn't works.
To humble oneself is to do something, but to do that something isn't works.
To love is to do something and to do that something is works.
To repent is to do something and to do that something is works.

The only way you can argue that yours is not a doctrine of salvation by works and that mine is such a doctrine, is by having a defintion for "works" that moves like the breeze

No, to believe is NOT to "do" something. To believe is just what it means. It is to be convinced that something is true. When I believe that Christ offers me life and can make good on that promise of who He is, when I receive that promise, I've believed in Him. Do you HONESTLY think that is the same thing as the works we were created for??? Paul himself says faith is NOT a work in Rom. 4!

Now, repent IS a work. How can it not be? It is something that we DO. It is something that comes from ourselves. We offer it to God. We turn from our sins in repentance. When we repent, we earn things. When we don't repent, we earn other things. Earning requires work. Thus, repentance is a work.

ttoews wrote:you miss my point...it is that I can do nothing apart from Jesus. Whether you want to categorize seeking as non-works and repentance as works, it matters not, cause ultimately it all comes down to Christ working in us....it is all Christ's work.

No, I see your point, and I'm fine with it. Christ does work in us WHEN WE ABIDE IN HIM. But, that does NOT mean that we ALWAYS abide in Him, or that to be saved we must abide in Him. It means that, if we are to produce works, we must abide in Him.

That's a message the Church needs to hear today. We are NOT abiding in Christ, because if we were, we would see fruit, not the atrophe we see all around us. So, it should be obvious that this passage does not support you position. It does, though, support mine rather well, for it distinguishes discipleship from salvation.

ttoews wrote:again, my time is lacking...could you list his points?

And again, I'll ask that you listen to it when you get a spare minute. The long and short of it is that this passage teaches exactly my position. At the GWT judgment, there will be people who stand before God pleading their case. Their appeal will be that they have committed their lives to Him. They did many great things in His name. There is no reason to believe that they are lying here! They REALLY did live for Christ. They REALLY did do works. But, they NEVER believed, and as such, Christ never knew them. Not all who say "Lord, Lord . . ." That pretty much seals the deal. Salvation is based on belief, not on confession or commitment.

ttoews wrote:so belief then is work? you best amend your defintion, for if work=to believe it doesn't sound like a passive belief.

I coverd this above. Are you going to argue that Jesus is wrong? Paul says that belief is not a work. Are you going to argue that there are contradictions in the Bible? My original point stands.

ttoews wrote:I keep looking for the phrases "never trusted" and "never believed" and I can't find them in the passage. Yes, they have done all kinds of things, but they haven't done the will of God.

And what is the will of God? To believe! Even you can accept this, ttoews. You believe that salvation is apart from works. You, of course, say that works are a RESULT of salvation, but we all agree that salvation isn't based ON works. So, you say true belief->works. Thus, salvation is based on "true belief." Since these people are going to hell, they never truly belived.

The problem is that they have works! They have the confession of Jesus as Lord. What were they trusting to get them to heaven?!? The confessed Christ, ttoews. They did things before men in His name. And yet they are condemned, because they believed that their works proved something about themselves. They were trusting their works for Christ to save, rather than their faith IN Christ to save. That's why the Lordship gospel is SO dangerous, because it is sending people to Hell by the droves.

ttoews wrote:again Jesus doesn't mention either commitment or belief. Rather Jesus will state, "I never knew you." On the other hand consider this from John 10 where Jesus mentions knowing, following and believing:

These people are condemned becaues Christ never knew them. They were never His. They were never born again.

Considering the passage you mentioned, how does one become one of Christ's sheep? Simple: you are given to Him by the Father. Who does the Father give to Him? Those who have believed.

So, again, we come to the same conclusion. These people never belived in Christ alone. They trusted in their own good works FOR Christ, which simply is not enough.

ttoews wrote:again you are reading into the passage. It never says that they did things for Jesus. Jesus never knew them. They might have thought that they were doing things for Jesus, but they were wrong.... they were not doing the will of God...they were not His sheep and they did not hear His voice and follow Him.

It doesn't say they did things for Jesus?!?!?! What does doing things "in Your name" mean?!? These people acted on an appeal to the authority of Jesus Christ. Again, this is their judgment. They are making a case for why they should not be condemned. You cannot forget that context, ttoews.

So, that was a lot to respond to, but nothing too terribly difficult. Now, I'm just going to ask you to actually support your claim from the Bible that repentance, commitment, and submission to the Lordship of Christ are necessary for final salvation.

I have John 3:16. Now, if you can Scripturally define "belief" to include "good works" and somehow get around Romans 4, I'd love to see it.

AND YLT, great summary questions.

God bless