Loss of salvation???

[Toknow]

You're taking passages about sanctification (Rom 6), discipleship (Matt 5) & kingdom ethics (Matt 7) & using them to redefine justification. Scripture doesn't do that. Paul never does that. Jesus never does that. The categories stay distinct.

The categories are not distinct because they depend on each other.

This is why James states that we are justified by faith AND WORKS.

James 2:24
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
The only time in all of the NT that faith alone is mentioned...
and it's in the negative.


Justification stands alone.
Sanctification and glorification depend on each other.
We will not see glorification unless sanctification continues...
it is a life-long process.

Romans 6 is not Paul warning believers they might lose justification. It's Paul explaining why the already justified believer should not continue in sin. The entire chapter assumes the believer is already: united with Christ (Rom 6:5), freed from sin's penalty (Rom 6:7) & alive to God (Rom 6:11). Paul is describing the walk, not the foundation. Sanctification, not justification. If Romans 6 were about losing salvation, Paul contradict Rom 5:1, 5:9, 8:1, 8:30.

1. Why SHOULD the believers not continue in sin?

2. Romans 6 is not the only scripture that states possible loss of salvation.


Here are just two more and there are many more:


Romans 11:20-22
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited *, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.



Colossians 1:21-23
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,

22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach -

23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

You said: ""1 Cor 3:15 has nothing to do with a believer’s works.""

Paul literally says: each one's work will be tested (Vs.13). if anyone's work is burned up (Vs.15). he himself will be saved (Vs.15).

Which work?

A believer can produce zero lasting obedience & still be saved, because salvation is not based on obedience.

And there you have it.

@Roger316
@mailmandan
So many parties mailmandan.

@studier

and all those others who tell me they believe in obedience and it's ME that does not understand.

Could it be more clear?

Matt 5 & Matt 7 are not salvation passages. You're using Jesus' kingdom‑ethic teaching to redefine Paul's gospel.

I see.
So IOW,,,,Jesus was teaching something or other....

and then Paul taught something or other that was not the same as what Jesus was teaching.

Come on flyingdove...
you seem like an intelligent person.

Jesus was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the laws. (Gal 4:4)

He was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt 15:24).

And who were those OTHER SHEEP that He also had to go to?


John 10:16
16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

He was a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. (Rom 15:8)

He preached the gospel of the kingdom (Matt 4:23).

Agreed.

Your presentation mixes law with the Gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24) the message the risen Christ gave to Paul by direct revelation (Gal 1:12).

I never mention the Law.
The Law was abolished 2 thousand years ago.

But even Jesus Himself separates entering life (by faith) from building wisely (by obedience)

The house in Matt 7 collapses because it had no foundation (Matt 7:24–27). The foundation is Christ (1 Cor 3:11), not obedience.

Are you the member to whom I posted Matthew 7:25-26?
Are you insisting that the foolish man had NO FOUNDATION and THIS is why the house fell?
WHY was the house build on sand?

Please reply.

You say Faith alone is not biblical. I disagree, Paul says: to the one who does not work but believes (Rom 4:5), NOT OF WORKS (Eph 2:9), NOT BY WORKS of righteousness (Titus 3:5), we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works (Rom 3:28). If faith = obedience, Paul's entire argument collapses.

Did I ask you if we are to love one another?
You didn't reply.

Faith alone is not biblical.
You're conflating GOOD WORKS with WORKS OF THE LAW.

You left out Ephesians 2:10
WE ARE CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS.
CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS.

What could be more clear?
God created us for good works.

Are we asked BY JESUS to love our neighbor?

James 2 does not contradict Paul; it addresses dead faith, not justification. Paul addresses how we are saved. James addresses what genuine faith produces. Faith is the source - Obedience is the result.

But above you stated that we are saved whether we obey or not.
So why would obedience be a result of anything?

You've stated that faith is sufficient.
No obedience necessary.

James 2 does not contradict Paul because the NT contains no contradictions.

Faith WITHOUT WORKS
is a dead faith.

IOW,,,it is NO FAITH...and without faith no one is saved.

Works MUST be a part of faith...
or faith is dead.

Grace saves, grace keeps, grace finishes. Obedience belongs to sanctification, not justification. When you mix the 2, you turn the fruit into the root & end up with a salvation that depends on human performance instead of Christ's finished work

Why this strawman??

You've done this before.

Are you speaking about UNBELIEVERS?
I'M speaking about how BELIEVERS are REQUIRED to obey God.

Unbelievers are not required to obey God.
They are already lost.
Can't get more lost than lost.

And, again, justification and sanctification are linked.
No sanctifciation,
No justification.


Please reply to Romans 11 and Colossians 1 from up above.
Thanks.

 

[studier]

but obedience is necessary,.....whatever the reason for it,
God will respect it.

And work to mature it.

 

[FlyingDove]

I’ve said ‘faith is obedience'. The meaning is not that the two words have the same definition. In Scripture, faith and obedience operate as one unified response to God. Faith is obedient by nature.

Heb3:12-19 is a book-ended inclusio using 'unbelief' as the bookends. It begins by saying unbelief is in departure from God. There's no sequence here - unbelief is in departing.

Heb3:13-18 are describing the departure with various words and phrases that all really boil down to the final word used in Heb3:18 - "disobedience" - "the men who disobeyed" - they are the men who departed from God, rebelled, sinned & fell & died, the men who disobeyed.

Heb3:19 ends the description by summarizing all of this as unbelief - the disobedient departure in unbelief.

I've been saying disobedience and unbelief are parallel in Heb3:18-19. Actually the entire section is a form of parallelism. And it's all written in the context of being faithful like our Lord.

There is simply no sense of cause-effect here. It's all an epexegetical description of what unbelief in departing looks like - a unified departure expressed through rebellion, sin, and hardness — in other words, disobedience.

Parallel descriptions don't erase the author's logic. Hebs 3 uses multiple terms rebellion, sin, hardness, disobedience, to describe Israel's departure, but the writer still distinguishes the root from the expressions. That's why he ends with 2 different summary words: apeitheia (disobedience) in Vs.18 & apistia (unbelief) in Vs.19. If he meant definitional identity, he wouldn't use 2 different terms & Heb 3:12 explicitly gives the sequence you're denying: an evil heart of UNBELIEF leads to departing from the living God. The departure is the result, not the definition. The warning is aimed at UNBELIEF, not performance.

Jesus says UNBELIEF is what dooms a person: if you DO NOT BELIEVE that I am He, you will die in your sins (Jn 8:24) & the Holy Spirit sealed believer can never return to UNBELIEF, because God Himself keeps them, indwells them & guarantees their final redemption. (Ehp 4:30)

If Jesus accepts the sinner, the Father seals the sinner & the Holy Spirit indwells the sinner, then the only way that sinner could be lost or walk away is if the Trinity fails & the Trinity does not fail.

 

[TruthDefender]

Yes, there are two different laws being spoken of not one.

Which is obvious from the very first verse you quoted - there is a law that defines what sin is, the law of God 1John3:4 James2:10-12 Mat5:19-30 Rom7:7 and another law that was added because of sin so can't be the same laws- why Paul quoted from the law he meant, found in verse 10 of Gal what was written in the book, which contained "the handwritten ordinances" written by Moses 2Chron33:8 that was beside the ark of the covenant written in a book as a witness against thee holding all the blessings and curses for breaking the Ten Commandment Deut 31:24-26 The Ten Commandments shows us how to love God with all our heart, mind and soul Exo20:6 Deut6:5 and love our neighbor Rom13:9 that Jesus said there is no greater commandments than these. Paul would never countermand Christ.

Paul can be tricky because he never tells us the law he is quoting from, the context tells us why we have to very carefully and prayerfully study the Scriptures because we are warned many would misinterpret Paul that can lead us down the wrong path 2Peter3:16.

Paul taught what matters is keeping the commandments of God 1Cor7:19NKJV just as Christ taught John14:15 Exo20:6 so he is not contradicting himself or more importantly God.

I don't know about you but I want to retain what I learned in school so that's always a weird passage to try to forget the law of God, when we are told by God to remember and keep it. Psa78:7 Exo32:16 Exo20:6 Rev14:12 etc etc

To me, the Scripture is very clear. If you try to hold onto the old law in the OT, you will not be justified. Just like that verse about some of the Jews who wanted the Gentiles (non-Jews) to become circumcised and hold onto the law of Moses. The apostles gave no such instruction to do so. God states, cursed is anyone who hangs on the tree.

-"having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
Colossians 2:14 NKJV

 

[SabbathBlessing]

To me, the Scripture is very clear. If you try to hold onto the old law in the OT, you will not be justified. Just like that verse about some of the Jews who wanted the Gentiles (non-Jews) to become circumcised and hold onto the law of Moses. The apostles gave no such instruction to do so. God states, cursed is anyone who hangs on the tree.

-"having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
Colossians 2:14 NKJV

So what are the handwriting of ordinances and who wrote them? Please provide Scripture.

Are you saying loving God with all our heart, mind and soul is against mankind? When did love become against man? When did that end from one agreement (covenant) to another? That's not found in the Bible that I read.

 

[TruthDefender]

Yes, there are two different laws being spoken of not one.

Which is obvious from the very first verse you quoted - there is a law that defines what sin is, the law of God 1John3:4 James2:10-12 Mat5:19-30 Rom7:7 and another law that was added because of sin so can't be the same laws- why Paul quoted from the law he meant, found in verse 10 of Gal what was written in the book, which contained "the handwritten ordinances" written by Moses 2Chron33:8 that was beside the ark of the covenant written in a book as a witness against thee holding all the blessings and curses for breaking the Ten Commandment Deut 31:24-26 The Ten Commandments shows us how to love God with all our heart, mind and soul Exo20:6 Deut6:5 and love our neighbor Rom13:9 that Jesus said there is no greater commandments than these. Paul would never countermand Christ.

Paul can be tricky because he never tells us the law he is quoting from, the context tells us why we have to very carefully and prayerfully study the Scriptures because we are warned many would misinterpret Paul that can lead us down the wrong path 2Peter3:16.

Paul taught what matters is keeping the commandments of God 1Cor7:19NKJV just as Christ taught John14:15 Exo20:6 so he is not contradicting himself or more importantly God.

I don't know about you but I want to retain what I learned in school so that's always a weird passage to try to forget the law of God, when we are told by God to remember and keep it. Psa78:7 Exo32:16 Exo20:6 Rev14:12 etc etc

Yes, there is NO contradiction in Scripture, for sure!

 

[SabbathBlessing]

Yes, there is NO contradiction in Scripture, for sure!

Right and God is who we reconcile Scripture to the Creator. Why Paul taught everything must be according to Christ Col2:8 so if we can't find our interpetation being supported by Christ chances are is not right and will lead us in another direction. Jesus said to live by every word of God Mat4:4 He will only lead us on the narrow path back to reconillation Rev22:14KJV

 

[TruthDefender]

So what are the handwriting of ordinances and who wrote them? Please provide Scripture.

Are you saying loving God with all our heart, mind and soul is against mankind? When did love become against man? When did that end from one agreement (covenant) to another? That's not found in the Bible that I read.

What did the Jews in the OT live by? Levitical laws, something like 613 laws; the handwriting of ordinances, sacrifices, holy days, Shabbat. All of these things are a part of Judaism.

Christians (followers of Christ) don’t do any of these things. We were never told too!

 

[FlyingDove]

Asked and answered - or stated and countered.

At minimum, since God commands initial and ongoing belief in His Son and Jesus commanded unbelievers to work to believe, there's not much sense in following your root-fruit line of reasoning. Is quite obvious that God knows His command can be obeyed / His news can be believed.

You're trying to convince someone the NIV is the one who got it right after I provided you with the translators' notes about the well known and long-discussed and written about understandings of the issue of ambiguity in the translation? Why do you present yourself as having the ability to make the determination - I know you've ignored my asking you about your training in the language before. So, please explain and I won't ask again.

Re: your comment re: the major translations: most of them leave the ambiguous "of" or take it as objective "to the". The epexegetical or appositional sense that I agree with is discussed among the scholars as I showed you in the NET Bible Notes that you rejected. What I like about the NET version is that they chose the ambiguous "of" but provided notes to make readers aware of the published discussions about it. Their note can be a good resource.

Now, if you were being thorough or open about, it would be nice if you would provide the detail from the NIV:

This is in the 2011 version of the NIV:

NIV Romans 1:5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from1 faith for his name's sake.

• Do you see that "1" that I bolded after the word "from"?
  
  • This is a translators' note like the more extensive one I provided from the NET Bible.
  • It's noting the phrase "comes from" that you're relying on
    • NIV Notes (Rom 1:5)
      Notes:
      1 Or that is
    • So, they actually provided a note that says another potential translation is the one I (and others) agree with - "...the obedience that is faith..."

Odd how the Faith-Alone advocates miss such things.

Well, appealing to translator footnotes doesn't overturn Paul's grammar or his argument. A genitive construction with 2 different nouns-hypakoē (obedience) & pistis (faith)-cannot mean definitional identity. If Paul meant ""obedience is faith,"" he would not place 2 distinct nouns in a source result relationship. That's why every major translation committee, including the NIV team you cited, renders it either ""obedience that comes from faith"" or leaves the genitive ambiguous rather than collapsing the categories. A footnote acknowledging that some propose an appositional reading is not the same as endorsing it. The grammar still stands: faith is the source, obedience the expression & Jesus Himself says unbelief not insufficient obedience is what dooms a person (Jn 8:24).

 

[studier]

My response was an exegetical explanation for "the obedience of faith." It refers to the moment when we entrust ourselves to the truth of the Gospel. The phrase "obedience of faith" is not obeying a command, not performing a duty, but ceasing our resistance to the Gospel.

Forgive me, but that's silly.

Ceasing disobedience and unbelief is obeying and believing. This is Rom10:16.

And further down in your post, the heart's "pivot" is the hearts action - believe and receive are active voice verbs as is repenting.

The actions begin in the mind/spirit.

 

[TruthDefender]

Right and God is who we reconcile Scripture to the Creator. Why Paul taught everything must be according to Christ Col2:8 so if we can't find our interpetation being supported by Christ chances are is not right and will lead us in another direction. Jesus said to live by every word of God Mat4:4 He will only lead us on the narrow path back to reconillation Rev22:14KJV

God the Father and God the Son agree as one. There is no contradiction.

 

[SabbathBlessing]

What did the Jews in the OT live by? Levitical laws, something like 613 laws; the handwriting of ordinances, sacrifices, holy days, Shabbat. All of these things are a part of Judaism.

Christians (followers of Christ) don’t do any of these things. We were never told too!

That was not the question I asked but since you brought it up can you answer me two questions.

1. Who wrote the handwriting of ordinances that were contrary and against us? Scripture and verse please.
2, Where is 613 written in our Bibles. God gave a Biblical number on His laws and that wasn't it.


And while we are at it

Can you tell me what "everyone" means and what "man" means?

If one allows the Bible to interpret the Bible, our conclusions would be a lot different. Why we are told plainly not to lean on our own understanding Pro3:5-6 and not to add words to the LORD Pro30:5-6

 

[studier]

Agreed.

But some take the word KEEP and tell me that to keep the commandments means that we have to be 100% perfect.
You see Roger....there's a problem in the Christian religion.
Words are becoming irrelevant and the meaning changes according to who is speaking them.

Same words.
Different dictionary.

cc: @Roger316 shamar and tereo have a range of meaning depending upon the context. They both include heeding. doing, obeying in contexts of commands. This is lengthy, but it's from The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament (TWOT). Please pardon some of the font issues. Bold are my highlights:

2414.0 ) שָׁמַרsh¹mar( I, keep, guard, observe, give heed.

)2414a) שָׁמְרָה (shomrâ( guard, watch )Psa 141:3, only).

)2414b) שְׁמֻרָה (sh®m¥râ( eyelid )Psa 77:4, only(.

)2414c) שִׁמֻּר (shimmûr( night watch )Exo 12:42, only).

)2414d) שֹׁמְרוֹן (shœmrôn( Samaria.

)2414e) אַשְׁמוּרָה (°ashmûrâ(, אַשְׁמֹרֶת (°ashmœret) night watch.

)2414f) מִשְׁמָר (mishm¹r( guard, guardpost.

)2414g) מִשְׁמֶרֶת (mishmeret( obligation, service.

sh¹mar is used 420 times in the Qal, 37 times in the Niphal, 4 times in Piel and Hithpael. The Akkadian cognate sham¹ru means "wait upon, " "attend to"; the Phoenician, "watch, guard"; the Arabic samara "watch." The closest synonym is n¹ƒar "watch, " "guard, " "keep, " "observe, " which is used in much the same way as sh¹mar. There are other verbs which occasionally overlap one of the uses of sh¹mar, but which are otherwise quite distinct.

The basic idea of the root is "to exercise great care over." This meaning can be seen to underlie the various semantic modifications seen in the verb: In combination with other verbs the meaning is "do carefully or diligently". Thus Prov 19:8, "Give heed to understanding"; Deut 11:32, "Be careful to do (i.e. perform carefully) all the statutes and ordinances" and in Num 23:12, speak carefully or faithfully.

Secondly it expresses the careful attention to be paid to the obligations of a covenant, to laws, statutes, etc. This is one of the most frequent uses of the verb. Thus in Gen 18:19 Abraham is to command his children to keep the way of the Lord, that is, give careful heed to God's ways (cf. also Exo 20:6; Lev 18:26; Deut 26:16; Ezek 11:20). It should be noted that the observance of God's laws was not to be a matter of theory only or of perfunctory compliance. The expression "to do them" is frequently appended, such as in Ezek 37:24. Proverbs 4:21 states they are to be kept in the heart. Furthermore, the expression is used not only of an obligation to laws, etc., but also to a sacred occupation such as the priesthood (Num 18:7).

A third ramification is "take care of, " "guard." This involves keeping or tending to things such as a garden (Gen 2:15), a flock (Gen 30:31), a house (2Sam 15:16). Or it may involve guarding against intruders, etc., such as the cherubim guarding the way to the tree of life in Gen 3:24, or gatekeepers (Isa 21:11) or watchmen (Song 5:7). The same is true with regard to persons. Thus Cain asks, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). David frequently speaks of God's care and protection in such passages as Psa 34:20 [H 21 ]; Psa 86:2; Psa 121:3-4, 7, and others. In Job 2:6 God uses sh¹mar in his injunction to Satan not to touch Job's life. Again, David touchingly admonishes Joab, before he enters battle against Absalom to "watch over Absalom for me" in 2Sam 18:12.

Frequently the verb is used to speak of personal discipline, the need to take heed in respect to one's life and actions: Psa 39:2 "I will heed my ways"; and Prov 13:3, of guarding the lips.

A fourth category is the meaning "regard," "give heed to." It is used of a man's attitude of paying attention to, or reverence for, God or others. Thus in Hos 4:10 , Israel has abandoned paying heed to God. Psalm 31:6 [H 7] speaks of those who revere (sh¹mar) vain idols. In another related use, the Psalmist says in Psa 130:3, "If Thou shouldest mark (sh¹mar, truly pay attention to) iniquities, who would stand?" (see also Job 13:27). This may be used in a hostile sense as in 2Sam 11:16, or in an expectant sense, as in Zech 11:11 and Psa 59:9.

The last category has to do with "preserving, " "storing up, " such as the anger against Israel which Edom cherishes and preserves (Amos 1:11), or knowledge in Mal 2:7. So also with food in Gen 41:35 and 1Sam 9:24, or anything that is precious (Exo 22:7 [H 6]).

shœmrôn. Samaria (so ASV and RSV), used 190 times, is the name of the city which Omri built as the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. It was located seven miles northwest of Shechem on a 300-foot hill which he had purchased from Shemer (1Kings 16:24-32). Omri named the city after Shemer, with possibly a double significance intended, since the name may mean "Watchpost."

In Isa 28:1-4, though not mentioning it by name, Samaria is referred to as "crown of pride, " "the glorious beauty, which is at the head of the fat valley." But though Israel gloried in Samaria because of its beauty and strategic location, God condemned it as the center and heart of Israelite idolatry. In Mic 1:5 it is called the "transgression of Jacob, " that is, it epitomized Israel's rebellion against God. Jeremiah 23:13 speaks of its false prophets who prophesy by Baal and lead Israel astray. (Cf. also Hos 7:1 and Amos 4:1.)

It was for this reason that God pronounced judgment on the city (Amos 4:2-4; Isa 28:1-8). Second Kings 17 describes the downfall of Samaria at the hands of Assyria which removed its people and repopulated it with people from other vanquished countries. The territory over which Samaria had been capital was made a province and incorporated into the Assyrian, and later, Babylonian and Persian, empires. When Nehemiah, after the exile, was engaged in rebuilding Jerusalem, the inhabitants of Samaria formed his chief opposition. The hostility there exhibited continued into New Testament times.

mishm¹r. Guard, guard post, division of service. This noun is used 1) of the confinement in which someone is kept (Gen 40:3; Lev 24:12), 2) of a guardpost (Neh 4:3, 16-17; Neh 7:3), and 3) of a division of service, generally of the temple service, such as Neh 12:24 and Neh 13:14.

mishmeret. Obligation, service. This noun is used in two principle senses. The first is an "obligation" or a "service" to be performed. The second has to do with something that is to be kept or preserved, such as the Paschal lamb in Exo 12:6, the manna in Exo 16:32-34, or the ashes of the red heifer in Num 19:9.

Bibliography: Beegle, D. M., "Samaria, " in WBE. Kelso, J., "Samaria, " in ZPEB. Wiseman, D. J., "Samaria, " in NBD. Wright, G. E., "Samaria, " Biblical Archeologist 22:67-78, TDNT, IX, pp. 237-39. THAT, II, pp. 982-86.

 

[studier]

It goes beyond minimizing.
The message actually sounds like there's no need to obey.

Why else debate it??

I keep hearing about a heart change (which indeed is correct Christian theology)
but then I don't see the corresponding BEHAVIOR on this and other threads....

so I have to ask how is this heart change exhibited?
Does the external behavior reflect this heart change?
If it does, there's a problem in Christianity.

When we can have a debate as to whether or not faith and obedience are intertwined,
there's a problem in Christianity.

Deserves more than an emoji.

Absolutely agree.

 

[SabbathBlessing]

God the Father and God the Son agree as one. There is no contradiction.

Right and Paul the creation was never God's corrector so we have to be careful trying to put him in that position when Paul is a professed servant of the LORD Rom1:1 and servant serves the way the Master asks Isa56:6 not what is according to our own will, why Paul taught everything had to be according to Christ Col2:8 so if Christ teaches something completely different than how we are interpreting Paul, my advice would be to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Mat4:4 because we do not want this to happen 2Peter3:16. But instead Rev22:14KJV

 

[studier]

And there you have it.

@Roger316
@mailmandan
So many parties mailmandan.

@studier

and all those others who tell me they believe in obedience and it's ME that does not understand.

Could it be more clear?

It's where the reduction to absurdity of Faith-Alone has to go if we keep pushing it.

It's why @FlyingDove and some others are arguing so strongly against what I'm saying about Faith-Obedience.

I saw long ago how this version of Faith-Alone has to go where he just took it. At least he did so openly. Others like to dance around it.

This version of F-A is destroyed by an accurate understanding of Faith that correctly sees it's acute connection with obedience. There is no salvation apart from faith-obedience and this includes at initial belief of the Gospel per Rom10.

What a mess.

 

[Roger316]

You complicate christianity Roger.
There are only two requirements to being saved:

1. Believe IN God.
2. Obey God.

Your list is not important since God sees obedience.

I disagree. The reason why we obey is just as important as the obedience itself. This is a major theme in Jesus' teaching,

YOU seem to want to debate obedience to God,,,

I have not deleted obedience. My view maintains moral clarity in true obedience. Not all obedience is true obedience.

Jesus meant that we are to have a changed heart.
HOW do you think our righteousness could exceed that of the pharisees if not by heart obedience?

So you DO recognize different kinds of obedience. This being the case then you should have no objection to what I said earlier.

And how do you know this?

I know this by experience, but we can also see it in the New Testament in how the scribes and Pharisees react to Jesus.

Agreed.
Who said differently?

You Did. You argued that all obedience is obedience.

But some take the word KEEP and tell me that to keep the commandments means that we have to be 100% perfect.

So what? You don't believe them do you?

Ah. And there you go.

Jesus didn't mean TO ACTUALLY KEEP the commandments.
May it never be !!

I don't think you want to deny that Jesus said "keep my commandments."

He just meant to guard them, remember them.

I understand your wish to believe what the words say, but what they "say" in your English Translation is one man's opinion of what they mean.

Think about it this way, the two words: 1) obey and 2) commandments are used together so often, we form a mental picture of what that looks like. When we see the phrase "Keep my commandments" we bring that former mental picture to the text. We think, Jesus must be talking about obedience because commandments are to be obeyed. But we shouldn't simply gloss over the text and read something into the text that isn't there.

You did say that it means preserving HIS TEACHINGS.

WHICH teachings would those be?

You know the difference between teachings and commandments, I'm sure.

In the New Testament, when Jesus speaks of “keeping my commandments,” the Greek word He uses is entolē (ἐντολή). While often translated as “commandments,” entolē is broader and more relational than the English suggests. It can refer not only to discrete rules but to a teacher’s whole body of instruction—His way, His pattern, His authoritative teaching. In John’s Gospel especially, entolē points to Jesus’ own words, example, and guiding principles, meaning that to “keep His commandments” is to internalize and live out His teaching rather than merely follow external rules.

 

[FlyingDove]

The categories are not distinct because they depend on each other.

This is why James states that we are justified by faith AND WORKS.

James 2:24
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
The only time in all of the NT that faith alone is mentioned...
and it's in the negative.


Justification stands alone.
Sanctification and glorification depend on each other.
We will not see glorification unless sanctification continues...
it is a life-long process.



1. Why SHOULD the believers not continue in sin?

2. Romans 6 is not the only scripture that states possible loss of salvation.


Here are just two more and there are many more:


Romans 11:20-22
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited *, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.



Colossians 1:21-23
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,

22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach -

23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Which work?


And there you have it.

@Roger316
@mailmandan
So many parties mailmandan.

@studier

and all those others who tell me they believe in obedience and it's ME that does not understand.

Could it be more clear?


I see.
So IOW,,,,Jesus was teaching something or other....

and then Paul taught something or other that was not the same as what Jesus was teaching.

Come on flyingdove...
you seem like an intelligent person.




And who were those OTHER SHEEP that He also had to go to?


John 10:16
16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.



Agreed.


I never mention the Law.
The Law was abolished 2 thousand years ago.




Are you the member to whom I posted Matthew 7:25-26?
Are you insisting that the foolish man had NO FOUNDATION and THIS is why the house fell?
WHY was the house build on sand?

Please reply.



Did I ask you if we are to love one another?
You didn't reply.

Faith alone is not biblical.
You're conflating GOOD WORKS with WORKS OF THE LAW.

You left out Ephesians 2:10
WE ARE CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS.
CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS.

What could be more clear?
God created us for good works.

Are we asked BY JESUS to love our neighbor?



But above you stated that we are saved whether we obey or not.
So why would obedience be a result of anything?

You've stated that faith is sufficient.
No obedience necessary.

James 2 does not contradict Paul because the NT contains no contradictions.

Faith WITHOUT WORKS
is a dead faith.

IOW,,,it is NO FAITH...and without faith no one is saved.

Works MUST be a part of faith...
or faith is dead.


Why this strawman??

You've done this before.

Are you speaking about UNBELIEVERS?
I'M speaking about how BELIEVERS are REQUIRED to obey God.

Unbelievers are not required to obey God.
They are already lost.
Can't get more lost than lost.

And, again, justification and sanctification are linked.
No sanctifciation,
No justification.


Please reply to Romans 11 and Colossians 1 from up above.
Thanks.

You're mixing categories the NT keeps distinct. James, Paul, Jesus & the writer of Heb all use faith, works, obedience, fruit, sanctification & justification in different ways for different purposes. When you collapse them, you end up with a salvation that depends on human performance instead of Christ's finished work.

James 2 is not defining justification before God, it's exposing dead, non‑saving profession. That's why James says, Show me your faith. It's horizontal, demonstrative & about the visibility of faith, not the basis of salvation. Paul addresses how we are saved; James addresses what genuine faith produces. 2 different questions, 2 different contexts, 2 different uses of JUSTIFY.

Rom 6 is not a warning about losing justification. Paul assumes the believer is already united with Christ (6:5), freed from sin's penalty (6:7) & alive to God (6:11). He's describing the walk, not the foundation. If Rom 6 taught loss of salvation, Paul would contradict Romans 5:1, 5:9, 8:1 & 8:30, all of which explicitly deny it.

Rom 11 is not about individual salvation. It's about corporate Israel & Gentile inclusion in the covenant program. ""Cut off"" refers to removal from privilege & position, not loss of salvation. Paul says the Gentiles ""stand by faith,"" not by works & the warning is against arrogance, not against losing justification.

Col 1:23 is a perseverance text, not a conditional security text. Paul is saying, Those who truly believe continue. He is not saying, If you don't continue, you lose justification. The NT never teaches that regeneration, sealing, union with Christ & the indwelling Spirit can be undone. Perseverance is the evidence of salvation, not the condition of keeping it.

Matthew 7 is about discipleship, not justification. The house falls because it had no foundation (7:24–27). Jesus defines the foundation as hearing & believing His words, not performing them. Paul says the foundation is Christ alone (1 Cor 3:11). Obedience builds wisely on the foundation; it does not create it.

1 Cor 3:15 still destroys your system. Paul says a believer's entire life's work can burn up, he himself will be saved. If salvation depends on obedience, this verse cannot exist.

Faith and obedience are not identical. If Paul meant obedience is faith, he wouldn't use two different nouns hypakoē & pistis in a genitive construction that grammatically requires a source result relationship. Obedience that comes from faith is the only reading that fits Paul's argument in Rom 1–5.

Jesus Himself says unbelief, not insufficient obedience, is what dooms a person. Jn 8:24: If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. Not: If you do not obey enough.

And a Spirit sealed believer cannot return to unbelief, because God Himself keeps, indwells & guarantees the final redemption of those He saves (Eph 1:13–14, 4:30, John 6:39, 10:28–29, 1 Pet 1:5).

If Jesus accepts the sinner, the Father seals the sinner & the Spirit indwells the sinner, the only way that sinner could be lost is if the Trinity fails & the Trinity does not fail.

 

[JayWalker]

How can you believe this when Paul makes a point of the fact that it is not.

Because man has a choice to either walk in faith, or to turn away from the Lord and not walk in faith.

We do not work for our salvation.

No, but we either choose to submit to the Lord or turn away from the Lord.

James 4:7,8-10
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

There's a lot of directives in the New Covenant telling us to abide IN Him. Such as:

Ephesians 5:1
Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

Ephesians 4:22-24
put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Romans 13:14
put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Colossians 3:10
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created Him:

2 Corinthians 6:17
come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

It is our faith that saves us,,,,

Which is something we either choose to walk in or choose to not walk in.

It is one of the good works we have been ordained by God to walk in

Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 2:10 is still true and it's going anywhere no matter who tries to claim it's not true.

Our entire life should be considered to be a good work for God.

Which choose to walk in faith abiding IN Christ is a gigantic part of.

it does not mean that faith is a work.

And yet is is because man has the ability and responsibility to choose to walk in faith.

Those choosing to not walk in faith are now doing evil works.

Faith alone was never taught in the church and is a heretical teaching.

Then you should stop saying walking in the gift of faith the Lord gave us is not a good work because it is.

Jesus is never wrong.

Which is why you should stop saying walking in the gift of faith the Lord gave us is not a good work because it is.

Not walking in faith is choosing to be faithless like doubting Thomas

 

[FlyingDove]

It's where the reduction to absurdity of Faith-Alone has to go if we keep pushing it.

It's why @FlyingDove and some others are arguing so strongly against what I'm saying about Faith-Obedience.

I saw long ago how this version of Faith-Alone has to go where he just took it. At least he did so openly. Others like to dance around it.

This version of F-A is destroyed by an accurate understanding of Faith that correctly sees it's acute connection with obedience. There is no salvation apart from faith-obedience and this includes at initial belief of the Gospel per Rom10.

What a mess.

What you 2 are calling ""absurdity"" is just the unavoidable result of keeping Paul's categories intact. You're trying to solve the tension by redefining faith into ""faith‑obedience,"" that's not exegesis, that's merging 2 different nouns, 2 different categories & 2 different functions. Paul says salvation is to the one who does not work but believes (Rom 4:5). Jesus says unbelief, not insufficient obedience, is what dooms a person (Jn 8:24) & the God declared Holy Spirit SEALED believer cannot return to unbelief because God Himself keeps, indwells & guarantees their final redemption (Eph 1:13–14; 4:30; Heb 13:5). If you collapse faith & obedience into one word, you're not defending Scripture. You're erasing the distinctions Scripture actually makes.