Working out our Salvation

[forsha]

This is a quiet extreme view. What leads you to conclude that the context and the aim of Paul's address in Rom.10 is about nothing else than timely salvation?

Paul spoke to the brethren of faith regarding those jews who still were not in the faith, thus they were still lost, not saved. Nothing in the text or its context implies that Paul meant that their lostness was merely regarding temporal, timely matters. To conclude that these lost men, at that point were "eternally saved" seems like nothing but a far-fetched and presumptuous way of reading your own (or someone else's) pre-conceived ideas into the text. Of course there is a possibility that these lost men were of the elect and later would come to faith. However, they were at that time he spoke this at least not regenerate, and therefore not also justified. All those who are ignorant about the righteousness of God, which is revealed in the gospel, are lost. Not saved. Paul prayed for these non-believers that they might be saved. In context it deals with the issue of righteousness which is definitely connected to "eternal salvation". He rebuked their self-righteousness just for what it was indicating: lostness. If they died in such state they would not be "eternally saved".

Go ahead and list all the scriptures. The means are conversion, faith in Christ and baptism and also communion. These are means for the elect to both receive God's salvation and/or have assurance of same.

Let's just take a look at Rom.10 finally:The zeal that these non-believers had was of no help for them since they lacked knowledge about the righteousness of God. Therefore their motives were dark and their zealous works were filthy rags, dead works bearing fruit unto death. All this rooted in the fact that they denied the Lord Jesus Christ as being the Messiah. Nothing of such behavior indicates anything else than lostness, and if died in such state eternal lostness.

You have listed the means of your eternal salvation as, conversion, faith in Christ, baptism and communion. These all sound like eternal salvation by works to me. What are your views on "limited atonement"?

 

[forsha]

This is a quiet extreme view. What leads you to conclude that the context and the aim of Paul's address in Rom.10 is about nothing else than timely salvation?

Paul spoke to the brethren of faith regarding those jews who still were not in the faith, thus they were still lost, not saved. Nothing in the text or its context implies that Paul meant that their lostness was merely regarding temporal, timely matters. To conclude that these lost men, at that point were "eternally saved" seems like nothing but a far-fetched and presumptuous way of reading your own (or someone else's) pre-conceived ideas into the text. Of course there is a possibility that these lost men were of the elect and later would come to faith. However, they were at that time he spoke this at least not regenerate, and therefore not also justified. All those who are ignorant about the righteousness of God, which is revealed in the gospel, are lost. Not saved. Paul prayed for these non-believers that they might be saved. In context it deals with the issue of righteousness which is definitely connected to "eternal salvation". He rebuked their self-righteousness just for what it was indicating: lostness. If they died in such state they would not be "eternally saved".

Go ahead and list all the scriptures. The means are conversion, faith in Christ and baptism and also communion. These are means for the elect to both receive God's salvation and/or have assurance of same.

Let's just take a look at Rom.10 finally:The zeal that these non-believers had was of no help for them since they lacked knowledge about the righteousness of God. Therefore their motives were dark and their zealous works were filthy rags, dead works bearing fruit unto death. All this rooted in the fact that they denied the Lord Jesus Christ as being the Messiah. Nothing of such behavior indicates anything else than lostness, and if died in such state eternal lostness.

Regarding your statement that a person without Knowledge cannot be eternally saved, how do you explain John 12:47, And if any man hear my words (you don't hear my words because ye are not of my sheep) , and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world (I believe this world to be the elect).

 

[tribesman]

Tribesman, with all due respect, I did address your remarks as to why I believe these brethren in Rom 10 being born of the Spirit by calling your attention to 1 Cor 2:14 comparing the carnal man to the spiritual man by saying the carnal man, void of the Spirit would not have a zeal of God. Can you explain to me your explanation of this? While you are at it could you explain your views on John 6:39? Did Jesus eternally save every one that he died for, and will not lose none of them?

So in 1 Cor 2:14 in relationship to Rom 10:2, you are saying that the carnal man, void of the Spirit has a zeal of God even when he can not discern spiritual things.

Yes, with Paul I am saying that dead religionists can have a "zeal" for God, yet still without the knowledge that comes with regeneration. Those people addressed in Romans 10:1-3 were not believers in Christ. They were not regenerate at that point at least. Maybe some of them were among the elect and would become regenerate later. That is something scripture is silent about and we are not to speculate about that. But this we can know: They were not believers at that time and they had not submitted to the righteousness of God, which is revealed in the gospel, even the Lord Jesus Christ, at that time. At that time they were still going about to establish their own righteousness, not yet submitting to the righteousness of God. The indication of those souls at that time were that they were lost. Not saved. If they died in that lostness, eternal lostness would be their end. But you want to have these non-believers as being saved eternally just because Paul said they had a zeal for God, even though he did not approve of that zeal. Because the motive of that zeal was not pleasing to God. OK?

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, (delivered) timely, not eternal.

Saved timely from what? Where in the context does it say that it is speaking about timely salvation?

The carnal man, unless he has been born again of the Spirit will not, and, indeed, can not discern spiritual things to believe.

Agreed. And discerning spiritual things means to understand them through the knowledge that the Holy Spirit gives (Luke 1:77, 1Cor.12:8;14:6, Phil.1:9,Col.2:3).

Luke 7:50, And he said to the woman, thy faith hath saved (delivered) thee. go in peace.

Here it may well that the context is about timely salvation. That I can give you.

The carnal person void of the Spirit can not discern spiritual things such as having faith until they are born of the Spirit.

Agreed. But discerning spiritual things as you see it means to be merely "interested in" spiritual things or have a "desire" to learn about spiritual things. Like there is no real fruit or evidence that the Holy Spirit gives understanding and knowledge about spiritual things.

Luke 18:42, timely salvation.

Yes, here it is about a deliverance, a healing.

Acts 2:21, timely salvation,

You mean saved from the "tribulations" to come?

Act 2:47, timely salvation,

How can you see that? What I see is the elect being added to the church, as God had foreordained it through His providence.

1 Cor 15:2, timely salvation.

Are you saying that the gospel only saves people timely? I hope not. But I am quite sure now that this what you actually believe.

Rom 1:16, timely salvation-hearing the gospel delivers you but not eternally. Hearing the gospel is evidence that you have been born of the Spirit already.

I can see no traces in scriptures that says that by merely hearing the gospel that would be an evidence of regeneration. There were plenty of people who heard the gospel yet never believed, they hated the gospel and were its enemies until they died. But according to you these people were yet "eternally saved". Why? Because they heard the gospel. Wow.

Yes, there are more, do you care to hear of them?

You can go ahead and list as many scriptures as you want and give reason for each and every one of them why you think they are about timely salvation. However, I need to ask you this: do you actually believe there are any scriptures which clearly addresses eternal salvation a all, or is it just a super spiritual "secret" "zenkrecht von oben" operation which is totally abstract or even hidden in scripture? You should inform us all what you believe on this. Or maybe you want us to believe this and that just because you are saying so?

 

[tribesman]

You have listed the means of your eternal salvation as, conversion, faith in Christ, baptism and communion. These all sound like eternal salvation by works to me.

It maybe sounds that to you then, but then that is because the teaching you sit under have it totally confused how to discern the difference between FRUIT and CONDITION. In fact, hyper-calvinism has the same wrong view on not differantiating fruit and conditions as do the salvation by works advocates. Believing the gospel is a FRUIT of having been regenerated, which is evidence of "eternal" salvation. It is NOT a condition or prerequisite for same. If you could get this simple truth into your head it would be far more easy for you to understand what I am trying to get across to you. There are no works to perform here, there is only fruit, from which the natural process of cultivation takes place.

What are your views on "limited atonement"?

I believe in it. In fact it is from us "calvinists" that the acronym TULIP comes. The hyper-calvinists and other groups of similar kinds took on this teachings far later and "adjusted" it beyond recognition.

Regarding your statement that a person without Knowledge cannot be eternally saved, how do you explain John 12:47, And if any man hear my words (you don't hear my words because ye are not of my sheep) , and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world (I believe this world to be the elect).

As with belief in the gospel, knowledge is not a condition, it is not something man works up by his innermost abilities of his mind or psyche or heart leanings. It is what God is working in him. It is not intellectual consent or intellectualism we are talking about here. It is a FRUIT of what God does with the soul He saves. He gives it knowledge about the person and work of Christ. When God saves a doomed sinner, something happens in that person and with that person. Salvation is not without enduring evidences and fruit. It is not about the performance of man it is about what God DOES in the elect (2Cor.4:6, Col.3:10, 2Peter 1:2-3,5-6,8). There is a HUGE difference, worlds apart, as far as east is from the west, yes, even truth and lie, in regards to FRUIT vs CONDITION in regards to salvation. Can you understand this now?

 

[forsha]

Yes, with Paul I am saying that dead religionists can have a "zeal" for God, yet still without the knowledge that comes with regeneration. Those people addressed in Romans 10:1-3 were not believers in Christ. They were not regenerate at that point at least. Maybe some of them were among the elect and would become regenerate later. That is something scripture is silent about and we are not to speculate about that. But this we can know: They were not believers at that time and they had not submitted to the righteousness of God, which is revealed in the gospel, even the Lord Jesus Christ, at that time. At that time they were still going about to establish their own righteousness, not yet submitting to the righteousness of God. The indication of those souls at that time were that they were lost. Not saved. If they died in that lostness, eternal lostness would be their end. But you want to have these non-believers as being saved eternally just because Paul said they had a zeal for God, even though he did not approve of that zeal. Because the motive of that zeal was not pleasing to God. OK?

Saved timely from what? Where in the context does it say that it is speaking about timely salvation?

Agreed. And discerning spiritual things means to understand them through the knowledge that the Holy Spirit gives (Luke 1:77, 1Cor.12:8;14:6, Phil.1:9,Col.2:3).

Here it may well that the context is about timely salvation. That I can give you.

Agreed. But discerning spiritual things as you see it means to be merely "interested in" spiritual things or have a "desire" to learn about spiritual things. Like there is no real fruit or evidence that the Holy Spirit gives understanding and knowledge about spiritual things.

Yes, here it is about a deliverance, a healing.
You mean saved from the "tribulations" to come?
How can you see that? What I see is the elect being added to the church, as God had foreordained it through His providence.
Are you saying that the gospel only saves people timely? I hope not. But I am quite sure now that this what you actually believe.
I can see no traces in scriptures that says that by merely hearing the gospel that would be an evidence of regeneration. There were plenty of people who heard the gospel yet never believed, they hated the gospel and were its enemies until they died. But according to you these people were yet "eternally saved". Why? Because they heard the gospel. Wow.
You can go ahead and list as many scriptures as you want and give reason for each and every one of them why you think they are about timely salvation. However, I need to ask you this: do you actually believe there are any scriptures which clearly addresses eternal salvation a all, or is it just a super spiritual "secret" "zenkrecht von oben" operation which is totally abstract or even hidden in scripture? You should inform us all what you believe on this. Or maybe you want us to believe this and that just because you are saying so?

You have come up with a phrase I have not heard of, much less, not read in the scriptures in referring to the carnal man in 1 Cor 2:14 as "dead religionist". If they have any religion at all they are discerning religious things, which the carnal man cannot do. Mark 16:16, Baptism is "an answer of a good conscience toward God". There is a deliverance (salvation) in being baptized to deliver you from the guilt of a bad conscience. In Acts 2:38, These men that ask "what must we do" were pricked in their hearts. In the new birth God takes out the stony heart that can not be pricked and replaces it with a heart of flesh (soft heart that can be pricked) Ezk 11:19. These men were already born of the Spirit before they were baptized. Paul, before his experience on the road to Damaskas had already been born of the Spirit prior to Jesus saying to him "why do you kick against the pricks. Your works do not save you eternally, but they do save you timely. The carnal man, void of the Spirit, can not know spiritual things and cannot have a zeal of God, nor can he have faith without first being born of the Spirit. Faith "is a fruit" of the Spirit. How can a person have an apple until he first has an apple tree? 1 Cor 15:2, Yes the gospel does not save anyone eternally, but it can deliver us from the lack of fellowship with God if we study it and keep in memory of what it tells us to do in living our daily lives. In explanation of Rom 1:16, as I have just explained for 1 Cor 15:2, we are delivered from not having fellowship with God by hearing and obeying the gospel. The carnal man can not hear the gospel to discern it (John 10:26-27-But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish). There are many scriptures that address how that we were eternally saved, but not any telling us how to get eternally saved, such as, John 6:39, Eph 1:4-5, Eph 2:1-5, Acts 4:12, Rom 5:10, Eph 2:8(understanding that the faith in this verse is the faithfulness of Christ and not man's faith). The inspired words of the bible is an instruction book telling God's children how they should live their lives here on earth, and not an instruction book telling man how to eternally save himself. I will always stand on the fact that IF YOU DO NOT SEPARATE THE SALVTION SCRIPTURES, ETERNAL DELIVERANCE FROM TIMELY DELIVERANCES, THE SCRIPTURES WILL NEVER HARMONIZE.

 

[forsha]

It maybe sounds that to you then, but then that is because the teaching you sit under have it totally confused how to discern the difference between FRUIT and CONDITION. In fact, hyper-calvinism has the same wrong view on not differantiating fruit and conditions as do the salvation by works advocates. Believing the gospel is a FRUIT of having been regenerated, which is evidence of "eternal" salvation. It is NOT a condition or prerequisite for same. If you could get this simple truth into your head it would be far more easy for you to understand what I am trying to get across to you. There are no works to perform here, there is only fruit, from which the natural process of cultivation takes place.

I believe in it. In fact it is from us "calvinists" that the acronym TULIP comes. The hyper-calvinists and other groups of similar kinds took on this teachings far later and "adjusted" it beyond recognition.

As with belief in the gospel, knowledge is not a condition, it is not something man works up by his innermost abilities of his mind or psyche or heart leanings. It is what God is working in him. It is not intellectual consent or intellectualism we are talking about here. It is a FRUIT of what God does with the soul He saves. He gives it knowledge about the person and work of Christ. When God saves a doomed sinner, something happens in that person and with that person. Salvation is not without enduring evidences and fruit. It is not about the performance of man it is about what God DOES in the elect (2Cor.4:6, Col.3:10, 2Peter 1:2-3,5-6,8). There is a HUGE difference, worlds apart, as far as east is from the west, yes, even truth and lie, in regards to FRUIT vs CONDITION in regards to salvation. Can you understand this now?

I am a little fuzzy about what you mean with the word of CONDITION. Can you expound on what you mean by it? I know that I have not indicated that eternal salvation is conditional. I do advocate that you do not have fruit until you are born of the Spirit. Let me know.

 

[forsha]

It maybe sounds that to you then, but then that is because the teaching you sit under have it totally confused how to discern the difference between FRUIT and CONDITION. In fact, hyper-calvinism has the same wrong view on not differantiating fruit and conditions as do the salvation by works advocates. Believing the gospel is a FRUIT of having been regenerated, which is evidence of "eternal" salvation. It is NOT a condition or prerequisite for same. If you could get this simple truth into your head it would be far more easy for you to understand what I am trying to get across to you. There are no works to perform here, there is only fruit, from which the natural process of cultivation takes place.

I believe in it. In fact it is from us "calvinists" that the acronym TULIP comes. The hyper-calvinists and other groups of similar kinds took on this teachings far later and "adjusted" it beyond recognition.

As with belief in the gospel, knowledge is not a condition, it is not something man works up by his innermost abilities of his mind or psyche or heart leanings. It is what God is working in him. It is not intellectual consent or intellectualism we are talking about here. It is a FRUIT of what God does with the soul He saves. He gives it knowledge about the person and work of Christ. When God saves a doomed sinner, something happens in that person and with that person. Salvation is not without enduring evidences and fruit. It is not about the performance of man it is about what God DOES in the elect (2Cor.4:6, Col.3:10, 2Peter 1:2-3,5-6,8). There is a HUGE difference, worlds apart, as far as east is from the west, yes, even truth and lie, in regards to FRUIT vs CONDITION in regards to salvation. Can you understand this now?

I believe that I have always understood and taught that man can do or think nothing about religious things unless he first has revelation from the Holy Spirit within him. One of the Holy Spirits functions is to instruct and guide. I am confused why you think that I have a problem separating the fruits from conditions, if I understand what you mean by condition.

 

[forsha]

Yes, with Paul I am saying that dead religionists can have a "zeal" for God, yet still without the knowledge that comes with regeneration. Those people addressed in Romans 10:1-3 were not believers in Christ. They were not regenerate at that point at least. Maybe some of them were among the elect and would become regenerate later. That is something scripture is silent about and we are not to speculate about that. But this we can know: They were not believers at that time and they had not submitted to the righteousness of God, which is revealed in the gospel, even the Lord Jesus Christ, at that time. At that time they were still going about to establish their own righteousness, not yet submitting to the righteousness of God. The indication of those souls at that time were that they were lost. Not saved. If they died in that lostness, eternal lostness would be their end. But you want to have these non-believers as being saved eternally just because Paul said they had a zeal for God, even though he did not approve of that zeal. Because the motive of that zeal was not pleasing to God. OK?

Saved timely from what? Where in the context does it say that it is speaking about timely salvation?

Agreed. And discerning spiritual things means to understand them through the knowledge that the Holy Spirit gives (Luke 1:77, 1Cor.12:8;14:6, Phil.1:9,Col.2:3).

Here it may well that the context is about timely salvation. That I can give you.

Agreed. But discerning spiritual things as you see it means to be merely "interested in" spiritual things or have a "desire" to learn about spiritual things. Like there is no real fruit or evidence that the Holy Spirit gives understanding and knowledge about spiritual things.

Yes, here it is about a deliverance, a healing.
You mean saved from the "tribulations" to come?
How can you see that? What I see is the elect being added to the church, as God had foreordained it through His providence.
Are you saying that the gospel only saves people timely? I hope not. But I am quite sure now that this what you actually believe.
I can see no traces in scriptures that says that by merely hearing the gospel that would be an evidence of regeneration. There were plenty of people who heard the gospel yet never believed, they hated the gospel and were its enemies until they died. But according to you these people were yet "eternally saved". Why? Because they heard the gospel. Wow.
You can go ahead and list as many scriptures as you want and give reason for each and every one of them why you think they are about timely salvation. However, I need to ask you this: do you actually believe there are any scriptures which clearly addresses eternal salvation a all, or is it just a super spiritual "secret" "zenkrecht von oben" operation which is totally abstract or even hidden in scripture? You should inform us all what you believe on this. Or maybe you want us to believe this and that just because you are saying so?

In reference to Rom 10:2, you are quoting it as saying "zeal FOR God', does it not say "zeal OF God" It seems like FOR would be man coming up with the zeal, instead of God putting the zeal in man. I may be picking at straws, if so, let me know.

 

[Elin]

Well, not really. . .it's just the opposite.

Remember that faith is a giftof God (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:37; Ro 12:3), not a work of man.
Also gifts are
repentance (2Ti 2:25; Ac 11:18, 5:31)and
justification/righteousness (Ro 4:17).

So God gets all the glory--for faith, repentance and justification.

Yes, faith is a gift of God, because it is a fruit of the Spirit, Gal 5:23.

So, for faith to be his gift to us, we would have the Spirit before we even come to faith.

And we would receive the Spirit in our rebirth from spiritual death, right?

So the gift of the Spirit himself in the rebirth
is the Spirit who gives us the gifts of faith, repentance and justification.

So all the glory goes to God, right? . . .and not to anything that we ourselves have done, including faith.

And how do we have the Spirit?

Only by the rebirth.

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ, which is the only way that the carnal man will be able to discern spiritual things.
The carnal man can never be connected as being those in Gal 2:16 who believe.

"Carnal" simply means "flesh."

The carnal Christian is living according the flesh (old nature) rather than the Spirit (Ro 8:13).

Paul addresses "carnal" Christians, calling them "brothers" (1Co 3:1-3) and God's field, God's building" (1Co 3:9).

Paul exhorts these Christians to live according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh (Gal 5:16-17).

What is your interpretation of 1 Cor 2:14?

"The man without the Spirit" (1Co 2:14) would be the unregenerate man, the man who is not born again.

While the "carnal" man (1Co 3:1-3, "brother") would be the man living according to the flesh (old nature) rather than the Spirit (Ro 8:12-13).

Before we are reborn of the Spirit we have but one personality which is of the flesh, but after we are reborn of the Spirit we then have two personalities, the flesh and the Spirit.
We never lose the flesh nature in rebirth.

Paul says that all reborn has a warring going on inside of us and that we
often lose that war and lust after the things of the flesh. Rom 7:23.

Yes, and the born-again Christian who habitually yields to his flesh nature is a "carnal man."

At the times that we slip back into our old nature of the flesh, we do not lose our eternal salvation, but we do lose our relationship with God until we repent and he forgives us. If Paul was not able to walk in the Spirit all of the time, I suspect that none of us can either.

Agreed. . .a born again Christian can be a carnal man.
So Paul exhorts them to live according to the Spirit, and not according to the flesh (Gal 5:16-17).

So what is the conclusion of the matter?

Are we justified by the faith of Christ, or

by the gift of faith in Christ (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3)?

 

[forsha]

Yes, and the born-again Christian who habitually yields to his flesh nature is a "carnal man."


Agreed. . .a born again Christian can be a carnal man.
So Paul exhorts them to live according to the Spirit, and not according to the flesh (Gal 5:16-17).

So what is the conclusion of the matter?

Are we justified by the faith of Christ, or

by the gift of faith in Christ (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3)?

Before the carnal man is born of the Spirit, he has only one nature which is a fleshly nature, after he is born of the Spirit he has two natures, the fleshly nature and the nature of the Holy Spirit, which Paul says that we have the battle within us of the Spirit against the flesh.

 

[forsha]

Yes, and the born-again Christian who habitually yields to his flesh nature is a "carnal man."


Agreed. . .a born again Christian can be a carnal man.
So Paul exhorts them to live according to the Spirit, and not according to the flesh (Gal 5:16-17).

So what is the conclusion of the matter?

Are we justified by the faith of Christ, or

by the gift of faith in Christ (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3)?

Before we are born of the Spirit, our faith is no better than filthy rags, after we are born of the Spirit we have the imputed righteousness of Christ and faith is a fruit of the Spirit. We have no faith until we have the Spirit. We have no apple until we have an apple tree because it is a fruit of the apple tree. What it all boils down to, is that God gets all the praise and honor and man gets none.

 

[tribesman]

I am a little fuzzy about what you mean with the word of CONDITION. Can you expound on what you mean by it? I know that I have not indicated that eternal salvation is conditional. I do advocate that you do not have fruit until you are born of the Spirit. Let me know.

Well, each time I state that "eternal" salvation comes to us by certain means and bear certain fruit you will counter argue that more or less with the accusation that I am of the position that salvation is by works, like if I was putting a CONDITION on man to fulfill in order for him to be "eternally" saved. You do this because of your absolute rejection of any means of "eternal" salvation and that same is having any lasting and enduring fruit. You do this out of a pre-conceived idea that you read into scripture, saying that this you must do to make "the scriptures harmonize".

So, it makes no sense for you to say that you believe that you have fruit when you are born of the Spirit, since this fruit is totally irrelevant in regards to "eternal salvation" anyway. And if anyone suggests that the fruit that comes with the new birth is a real evidence that someone has been "eternally" saved, then you will accuse that person of holding to salvation by works, stealing the honor and glory that is due to God alone. So, this is how you confuse condition and fruit. For you it is (or amounts to) the same thing, and it must be so since what you call "eternal salvation" is something totally abstract, something not revealed in scripture. What else comes from this than mere fatalism?

 

[tribesman]

I believe that I have always understood and taught that man can do or think nothing about religious things unless he first has revelation from the Holy Spirit within him. One of the Holy Spirits functions is to instruct and guide. I am confused why you think that I have a problem separating the fruits from conditions, if I understand what you mean by condition.

Because you say that it has no bearing on what you call "eternal salvation". People are "eternally saved" in ignorance of, unbelief in and in rebellion to the gospel anyway. That's what your lottery thinking about "eternal salvation" boils down to. The only thing you seem to think is evidence of "eternal salvation" is that somebody is interested in religious matters, maybe active in some religion. And I am quite sure you will say that God will "eternally save" people who died in any sort of belief system; buddhism, islam, paganism even satanism. Just that they had an interest in spiritual matters. People who rejected Noah's message and drowned in the flood were "eternally saved" anyway. The unbelievers in Rom.10:2-3 were "eternally saved" because they had a religious zeal. This is what I gather from your posts here. If this is so and I am not totally mistaken (and correct hastily me if I am) then I am actually wondering if your extreme set of beliefs are to be called christian at all and if they are appropriate at this forum.

 

[tribesman]

In reference to Rom 10:2, you are quoting it as saying "zeal FOR God', does it not say "zeal OF God" It seems like FOR would be man coming up with the zeal, instead of God putting the zeal in man. I may be picking at straws, if so, let me know.

Yes, you are continously picking at straws all to press in your ideas into the biblical texts. As for Rom.10 you are not interested in the context, you get stuck on a word in the KJV version that you want to use as evidence of these non-believers being "eternally saved". As Elin already pointed out you go by the KJV only, not looking much enough to the original greek text, and when you have done so you have come with strange conclusions about what it actually says. And we have still the situation where you have not yet given reliable proof for that some scriptures do not speak of "eternal salvation" when the context actually implies it does. You are just saying that by your understanding of the term salvation you make "the scriptures harmonize" and it seems like you want all to believe so because you are saying it, without giving any sustainable and consistent proof for it.

 

[tribesman]

There are many scriptures that address how that we were eternally saved, but not any telling us how to get eternally saved, such as, John 6:39, Eph 1:4-5, Eph 2:1-5, Acts 4:12, Rom 5:10, Eph 2:8 (understanding that the faith in this verse is the faithfulness of Christ and not man's faith). The inspired words of the bible is an instruction book telling God's children how they should live their lives here on earth, and not an instruction book telling man how to eternally save himself. I will always stand on the fact that IF YOU DO NOT SEPARATE THE SALVTION SCRIPTURES, ETERNAL DELIVERANCE FROM TIMELY DELIVERANCES, THE SCRIPTURES WILL NEVER HARMONIZE.

This your contention has the recurring accusation with it that those who insist that (eternal) salvation comes to us by certain means and bear certain fruit believes in salvation by the works of man. I think risk might be that your own ideas has blocked your head in so much that you cannot take in what me and others here are saying, trying to show you the scriptural report on these matters.

You seem to have submitted to a philosophy that overrides much of what the scriptures are actually saying. You will say that you make "the scriptures harmonize", but they do not harmonize in the light of the testimony of scripture overall, they only "harmonize" in your own head, because you have accepted a pre-conceieved idea and you read scripture on that premise. The only question of importance is: are your claims true or false.

As for me, I am by far not insinuating that scripture is telling anyone "do this and God will (eternally) save you". The way I see it is far different from such ideas, it is that scripture tells us how God (eternally) saves His elect. Through what means and what fruit same bear. This huge difference between these two mindsets you have yet proven totally unable to understand. Oh, one more thing, using caps will not make your arguments more right. OK?

 

[forsha]

This your contention has the recurring accusation with it that those who insist that (eternal) salvation comes to us by certain means and bear certain fruit believes in salvation by the works of man. I think risk might be that your own ideas has blocked your head in so much that you cannot take in what me and others here are saying, trying to show you the scriptural report on these matters.

You seem to have submitted to a philosophy that overrides much of what the scriptures are actually saying. You will say that you make "the scriptures harmonize", but they do not harmonize in the light of the testimony of scripture overall, they only "harmonize" in your own head, because you have accepted a pre-conceieved idea and you read scripture on that premise. The only question of importance is: are your claims true or false.

As for me, I am by far not insinuating that scripture is telling anyone "do this and God will (eternally) save you". The way I see it is far different from such ideas, it is that scripture tells us how God (eternally) saves His elect. Through what means and what fruit same bear. This huge difference between these two mindsets you have yet proven totally unable to understand. Oh, one more thing, using caps will not make your arguments more right. OK?

I don't use caps to make my arguments more right, but I use them, to hopefully not make you not scan over them without giving some thought to them. The last word in your post, being all caps, do you mean all right, or are you trying to abbreviate the state of Oklahoma? I should not have done that!

 

[forsha]

It maybe sounds that to you then, but then that is because the teaching you sit under have it totally confused how to discern the difference between FRUIT and CONDITION. In fact, hyper-calvinism has the same wrong view on not differantiating fruit and conditions as do the salvation by works advocates. Believing the gospel is a FRUIT of having been regenerated, which is evidence of "eternal" salvation. It is NOT a condition or prerequisite for same. If you could get this simple truth into your head it would be far more easy for you to understand what I am trying to get across to you. There are no works to perform here, there is only fruit, from which the natural process of cultivation takes place.

I believe in it. In fact it is from us "calvinists" that the acronym TULIP comes. The hyper-calvinists and other groups of similar kinds took on this teachings far later and "adjusted" it beyond recognition.

As with belief in the gospel, knowledge is not a condition, it is not something man works up by his innermost abilities of his mind or psyche or heart leanings. It is what God is working in him. It is not intellectual consent or intellectualism we are talking about here. It is a FRUIT of what God does with the soul He saves. He gives it knowledge about the person and work of Christ. When God saves a doomed sinner, something happens in that person and with that person. Salvation is not without enduring evidences and fruit. It is not about the performance of man it is about what God DOES in the elect (2Cor.4:6, Col.3:10, 2Peter 1:2-3,5-6,8). There is a HUGE difference, worlds apart, as far as east is from the west, yes, even truth and lie, in regards to FRUIT vs CONDITION in regards to salvation. Can you understand this now?

I am sorry, but looking back over some of your posts, I have noticed a good number of caps. I think that you are an intelligent person when it comes to scriptures and I do enjoy exchanging conversations with you. I think it keeps our head in the bible which is a good thing. I should not have let your remarks about me using caps bother me, that's not becoming of me.

 

[Elin]

So what is the conclusion of the matter?

Are we justified by the faith of Christ, or

by the gift of faith in Christ (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3)?

Before we are born of the Spirit, our faith is no better than filthy rags,

But do we have faith before we are born of the Spirit?

after we are born of the Spirit we have the imputed righteousness of Christ and
faith is a fruit of the Spirit.

This seems to be where our understanding differs.

Among the fruits of the Spirit in Gal 5:22-23, is pistis, which means "faith," and also
means "fidelity," faithfulness, as in Tit 2:10.

I understand the pistis of Gal 5:22 to mean "faithfulness," fidelity, rather than belief (faith).

Therefore, I do not understand "faith" (belief) to be fruit of the Spirit, but a gift of the Spirit
(Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1, Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3), through which we are justified; i.e., forgiven (Ro 3:25).

We have no faith until we have the Spirit.

And then this is confusing me.

We have no faith until we have the Spirit, so how do we have faith (as filthy rags) before we are born of the Spirit?

What it all boils down to, is that God gets all the praise and honor and man gets none.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, God also gets all the glory when our faith is a gift of the Spirit through which we are justified.

But it also boils down to harmony in the word of God.

And fruit of the Spirit is not the same as gift of the Spirit.
However, the NT is clear that faith is a gift (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3).

So I think the correct translation of pistis in the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22) is "faithfulness,"
rather than "faith," and presents no disharmony with our faith as a gift of the Spirit through which we are justified.

It's good to get it all sorted out.

 

[tribesman]

I am sorry, but looking back over some of your posts, I have noticed a good number of caps. I think that you are an intelligent person when it comes to scriptures and I do enjoy exchanging conversations with you. I think it keeps our head in the bible which is a good thing. I should not have let your remarks about me using caps bother me, that's not becoming of me.

Alright, are we going to go back to discuss then the topic at hand?

Let's not get the thread sidetracked about debating what is due use for caps. Let's go back to the very serious matters communicated here.

 

[tribesman]

...Among the fruits of the Spirit in Gal 5:22-23, is pistis, which means "faith," and also
means "fidelity," faithfulness, as in Tit 2:10.

I understand the pistis of Gal 5:22 to mean "faithfulness," fidelity, rather than belief (faith).

Therefore, I do not understand "faith" (belief) to be fruit of the Spirit, but a gift of the Spirit
(Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1, Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3), through which we are justified; i.e., forgiven (Ro 3:25)....

Yes, God also gets all the glory when our faith is a gift of the Spirit through which we are justified...

And fruit of the Spirit is not the same as gift of the Spirit.
However, the NT is clear that faith is a gift (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3)...

So I think the correct translation of pistis in the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22) is "faithfulness,"
rather than "faith," and presents no disharmony with our faith as a gift of the Spirit through which we are justified.

Elin, I have to ask you about this. I am not sure that we can make this strict division or distinction between gift and fruit here or make much out of that the word pistis rather should be translated faithfulness than faith. Unless one has the perspective that faith somehow precedes generation (and then we would be into the debate about prevenient grace).

As for spiritual gifts, not all believers possesses all of them, but as for the fruit of regeneration all believers possesses it. Looking at the context of Gal.5 the fruit (singular) of the Spirit is contrasted to the works of the flesh. One of those works of the flesh is heresies. Heresy should be regarded as a contrast to saving faith. The Q that follows then could be that why would a regenerate believer only have faith as a gift but still lack faith/fulness as a fruit? Like salvation would not inevitably bear such fruit.

The way I would put this is that faith follows as a fruit of regeneration while at the same time being the means (through the gift given by God) in which he receives salvation. Thus if there ever is any division or distinction between gift and fruit here, the regenerate possesses both of them.