Evidence for God from Science

SoCalExile wrote: Umm Romans 4:5 says we are saved without works, that means before or after. Abraham was never saved by works, notice the word "if" in the verse.

Romans 11:6 says grace and works are mutually exclusive. That means before AND after. If we are given eternal life by grace, that means it's by grace before and after.

Before I run to work...

I agree 100% that our salvation is never dependent on works... before or after conversion. That is what those two passages speak to. We are saved by grace through faith not by works.

But Paul doesn't stop with verse 9... Paul goes on in verse 10 to tell us that we are saved to do good works.

Our disagreement here regards the result of salvation.
I assert that regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit will manifest itself in good works of some sort. The work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer may not be visible to many, but the Holy Spirit is there working in the life of a believer who has put their trust in Jesus.

You assert that it is possible for regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to have no effect on the behavior of a believer. I disagree.
You assert that the dead faith of the demons in James 2 somehow represents 'saving faith'. I strongly disagree.

In Christ

RickD wrote:Can someone explain how according to LS:

1) if good works is the fruit and proof that someone is saved

And

2) no good works is the proof and indicator that someone isn't saved

Then how is good works not necessary for salvation?


And what about when the fruit inspectors look at a committed Mormon's life? Or Ghandi? Both full of good works, but lacking faith in the Christ that saves. They both pass the fruit inspector's inspection.

Exactly. But someone really really liked by a lot of people with "Th.d" after his name says otherwise, so....

DBowling wrote: Before I run to work...

I agree 100% that our salvation is never dependent on works... before or after conversion. That is what those two passages speak to. We are saved by grace through faith not by works.

But Paul doesn't stop with verse 9... Paul goes on in verse 10 to tell us that we are saved to do good works.

Our disagreement here regards the result of salvation.
I assert that regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit will manifest itself in good works of some sort. The work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer may not be visible to many, but the Holy Spirit is there working in the life of a believer who has put their trust in Jesus.

You assert that it is possible for regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to have no effect on the behavior of a believer. I disagree.
You assert that the dead faith of the demons in James 2 somehow represents 'saving faith'. I strongly disagree.

In Christ

So saved without works but without works not saved.

Which means all the people that believe this are trying to do works to prove they're saved.

And yes, there are works one must do according to LS to be saved in the first place, like "turn from sin"/

SoCalExile wrote:

DBowling wrote: Before I run to work...

I agree 100% that our salvation is never dependent on works... before or after conversion. That is what those two passages speak to. We are saved by grace through faith not by works.

But Paul doesn't stop with verse 9... Paul goes on in verse 10 to tell us that we are saved to do good works.

Our disagreement here regards the result of salvation.
I assert that regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit will manifest itself in good works of some sort. The work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer may not be visible to many, but the Holy Spirit is there working in the life of a believer who has put their trust in Jesus.

You assert that it is possible for regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to have no effect on the behavior of a believer. I disagree.
You assert that the dead faith of the demons in James 2 somehow represents 'saving faith'. I strongly disagree.

In Christ

So saved without works but without works not saved.

Which means all the people that believe this are trying to do works to prove they're saved.

And yes, there are works one must do according to LS to be saved in the first place, like "turn from sin"/

SoCal,

I know you mentioned the underlined before, but it needs repeating. It's true that repentance is necessary for salvation. But the problem with LS's repentance, is that they use the common English language definition of repentance, which is turning from sin. As you pointed out before, the word translated as repent or repentance, has a different meaning. It means, "to change one's mind". So repentance biblically in regard to salvation, means to change one's mind about who Christ is, and what he has done. BIBLICAL REPENTANCE SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO SALVATION, IS NOT "TURNING FROM SIN". That definition would cause a conflict of scripture. It would make works or our effort(turning from sin) necessary for salvation.

So, when LS uses a wrong meaning of "repent", it's effectively changing the gospel. Which makes the LS doctrine aberrant at best, and a false gospel at worst.

It's likely because MEN aren't necessarily able to discern what God considers good works, even when they appear missing to US. And thus that is the danger of thinking we always have wisdom to know a person's heart and mind. Because, remember, some of the activities that would likely impress us, that Jesus nonetheless saw as unrighteous acts done by some He would fail to acknowledge.

Philip wrote:It's likely because MEN aren't necessarily able to discern what God considers good works, even when they appear missing to US. And thus that is the danger of thinking we always have wisdom to know a person's heart and mind. Because, remember, some of the activities that would likely impress us, that Jesus nonetheless saw as unrighteous acts done by some He would fail to acknowledge.

People like "works based salvation" because they feel it means that they are OWED something, they feel that if they do this or that that God will feel like He "owes" it to them to be saved, sort of like " Oh, He is should a good boy, I must make sure He is in the Book of Life".
See, it is about control I guess, that people feel they have some say in their salvation, they if they do the stuff they have to in the "salvation check list", they will be saved.
Add to that the very human trait of "showing off" to other how pious/charitable/good we are and what do you have?

Works being done to GET saved, not because we love God and our brothers and sisters, not because we are doing what is right BECAUSE it is right, BUT because we want God to OWE us.

See, it is so much HARDER to trust in God's grace, why?

Because works based salvation is all about what WE DO, but faith based salvation is all about what Christ DID.

Far easier for some people to trust in doing things than to believe that what Christ did was enough.

The big problem with "faith-plus" gospels is that in order to believe them, you have to disregard Jesus' teachings in several verses, especially in John's gospel, as 'insufficient'. Rather than considering that every word of the bible is true, and that Jesus ALWAYS gave those He evangelized everything they needed to know in order to be saved. That's why John 3:16 is so tough for "Faith+" theologians to take at face value.

Yet if you take John 3:16 at face value, and understand the two natures of a Christian in Galatians 5:17 and Romans 7, as well as understanding that the context defines the terms, not the other way around, everything in the Bible falls into place.

Again, WHAT possible "work" did the saved thief on the cross have but his words that expressed what his heart and mind had changed to (realizing Jesus was God, desiring Him, to be with Him, confessing himself to be guilty and deserving of death), whereas, just hours before, he had joined in mocking Jesus? Note also, that precisely what that thief did, as far as a MAN could tell, excepting his immediate, surreal circumstances, and if uttered by another, might well be an unsaved person that has called Jesus "Lord, Lord." The HUGE problem is when LS people like Paul Washer pretend that someone having prayed a prayer may not have prayed a sincere one, as what will convince them is EVIDENCE of such. But, apparently, this "evidence," as demonstrated by the thief on the cross, might not be the proof LS adherents sometimes insist must be clear - because it's NOT always clear.

I will say this: Whenever you see someone whom has LONG (years!) confessed Christ and yet their lives have been lived very worldly, and they NEVER mention Jesus, one can hazard a pretty good GUESS that they are unsaved. But we should always also confess we don't and can't perfectly know their heart and mind. And that determination is obviously God's. But the other enormous problem with LS, as often articulated by people like Washer, is what they often assert is required of salvation is some deep understanding and unwavering commitment to having made Jesus "Lord of their life," as opposedto only needing to recognize Him AS Lord, calling upon Him, and desiring to follow Him as opposed to one's own desires. And those LS teachers that assert the latter are insufficient, sow often life-long anxiety into those wondering if they are truly saved due to LS assertions that one should doubt "easy peasy salvation." I mean, what proof, what self analysis, will prove to oneself their salvation, OTHER THAN that they have merely done the simple things, in the heart, mind and words, that Scripture teaches one must. Because if one searches diligently to find some right LEVEL or intensity of their initial commitment and desire to follow Christ, especially against the backdrop of LS teachings, they are likely to want to FEEL they know, when their feelings might be all over the map - not the least because some LS proponents are sowing fear and doubt into their minds.

One thing I thought about, that I want to ask you guys: Man has tried to reach heaven by his own power since the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, so is this a picture (or type) of works-based religion? If so, what's the implications? Is "Babylon" in the bible really a type of works-based religion, where man tries to be "like the Most High" (Isaiah 14) by his own work? The eschatological implications are huge, if true.

SoCalExile wrote:One thing I thought about, that I want to ask you guys: Man has tried to reach heaven by his own power since the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, so is this a picture (or type) of works-based religion? If so, what's the implications? Is "Babylon" in the bible really a type of works-based religion, where man tries to be "like the Most High" (Isaiah 14) by his own work? The eschatological implications are huge, if true.

Ok. Please explain the huge eschatological implications. Open another thread if it veers too far off topic.

This has been a great thread, btw! Lot of meat, lots of important stuff to consider. Good meeting of "swords!"

RickD wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:One thing I thought about, that I want to ask you guys: Man has tried to reach heaven by his own power since the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, so is this a picture (or type) of works-based religion? If so, what's the implications? Is "Babylon" in the bible really a type of works-based religion, where man tries to be "like the Most High" (Isaiah 14) by his own work? The eschatological implications are huge, if true.

Ok. Please explain the huge eschatological implications. Open another thread if it veers too far off topic.

It means there could be a common link between all works-based gospels and the typology of Babylon in the last days. But yeah, it might warrant another thread.

SoCalExile wrote:

DBowling wrote: Before I run to work...

I agree 100% that our salvation is never dependent on works... before or after conversion. That is what those two passages speak to. We are saved by grace through faith not by works.

But Paul doesn't stop with verse 9... Paul goes on in verse 10 to tell us that we are saved to do good works.

Our disagreement here regards the result of salvation.
I assert that regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit will manifest itself in good works of some sort. The work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer may not be visible to many, but the Holy Spirit is there working in the life of a believer who has put their trust in Jesus.

You assert that it is possible for regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to have no effect on the behavior of a believer. I disagree.
You assert that the dead faith of the demons in James 2 somehow represents 'saving faith'. I strongly disagree.

In Christ

So saved without works but without works not saved.

This is really not a difficult concept to comprehend if you understand the difference between "cause" and "effect"
The cause of salvation is grace
The cause of salvation is not works
The cause of works is salvation

Put another way
The effect of grace is salvation
The effect of salvation is works

The confusion occurs when a person fails to distinguish the difference between cause and effect

Which means all the people that believe this are trying to do works to prove they're saved.

Of course not!
That is just another of your strawman misrepesentations.

People who believe in LS are trying to be sensitive to the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and become more like Christ every day. And when they submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit they will perform the good works that Jesus saved them to do.

And yes, there are works one must do according to LS to be saved in the first place, like "turn from sin"/

And no... that is another of your strawman misrepresentations.

Asserting that the phrase "turn from sin" implies works salvation is ridiculous.
"Turn from sin" is so undefined that it can mean any number of things depending on the context. You presume a specific definition that fits your agenda, and then you judge other Christians and accuse them of holding a position that has nothing to do with what they believe and have openly professed.

For example...
"Turn from sin" can easily mean...
I acknowledge that I am a sinner and there is nothing that I can do to save me from my sin. Therefore I will turn to Jesus and put my trust in Him to save me from my sin.

I think you really need to examine why you continue to misrepresent, presume the worst about, and pass judgment on a group of believers who openly confess to the following...

There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.

In Christ

I bet our "resident expert" on this subject is chomping at the bit to respond.

There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.

I would add an 8th one that SHOULD be included: Once Jesus has saved a person to ETERNAL life, that eternal life begins at their very moment of salvation, AND it is FOREVER. If salvation is God's work, if HE is the one that both begins AND completes it (Philippians 1:6), then there's none of this ("Yep, he was saved, but he didn't persevere" stuff), else there could be no confidence in one's salvation - as if that salvation is somehow dependent upon us being able to, in OUR own power, continue in righteous. Paul tells us that not only is GOD the one that completes our salvation, but that He "WILL" complete that which HE began. Belief that salvation is dependent upon one's OWN ability to persevere is unScriptural, AND it's a belief that the question of one's salvation isn't concluded at any one moment, but only at the very end of their life, and only if THEY don''t fall away. I mean, WHOSE salvation is it to begin with? God's or ours? WHOSE hands and guidance is a person's salvation dependent upon? 1) God specifically initiating it in any He knows will be willing to respond, if He helps them (they still must do what He asks of them), and 2) HIS faithfulness to complete it.

Do people really think God saves a person knowing "it won't take?" Does God make a mistake in whom He chooses to save?