Not By Works

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

GodsGrace101

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2018
2,225
517
113
Hi Fran, our position in Christ is Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ; Jesus Christ righteousness becomes our righteousness and this is the reason we are declared "Not Guilty", or "Justified" before a Holy God. When God looks at each born again believer He sees His Son Jesus Christ and we are pronounced "Not Guilty", before God's court of justice.

It is not by anything a Christian can merit to receive our Justification it is only through the righteousness of our Savior that we are pronounced not guilty. Our position before God is Justified by the imputed righteousness of His Son; "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ." (Rom8:1).
Agreed

The problem seems to begin when we move on to sanctification...

You can see why the people who insist that they need to "add works to God's grace" is foolishly wrong. Fruit or works are "Evidence" that God has saved us, we are saved by grace alone, "Not By Works", I am speaking only about "how we are saved", and not about putting our daily practice in Christ to work. You cannot mix your position in Christ with your practice in Christ, apples and oranges.

There are many more bible verses which speak of our "position in Christ",

Genesis15:6
And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Jeremiah23:6
In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: The Lord is our righteousness.’

Philippians3:9
"And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith."

Romans4:5
However, to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is "credited" as righteousness."

Romans4:6
Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

2Corinthians5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that "in him we might become the righteousness of God"

Romans4:25
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

1Corinthians1:30
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, "our righteousness", holiness and redemption."
I agree with all.
You call our position in Christ what I call justification.
You call our practice in Christ what I call sanctification.

Also, we should keep in mind always that when Paul speaks of "works" or "law" he's speaking about the law of Moses, or the civil and ceremonial laws that they followed. These are works.

Works are also something that is done to try to achieve a relationship with God but having no faith.
These works are of no value.

The works I'm speaking of, or good deeds, are those that come after salvation and which would be what you call our practice in Christ and what I call sanctification (which is what it's called BTW).

I just don't understand why there is so much refusal to works or good deeds after salvation.
We should all be agreed on this...and I believe most on this thread do agree with it.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,043
13,049
113
58
All men are fallible,,,even today's men who teach incorrect doctrine. I do trust those closest to Jesus more than those that came 1,500 to 2,000 years later. I have always said that the church took wrong paths and caused much harm after the ECF's....that would include Augustine, which I hope you know by now I don't have too much respect for although he was an intellectual genius.

As to the Word of God....let's be honest and admit that it was the ECF's that put the bible together, the same bible on which we depend for the word of God.
So according to your logic, the EFC's lived closest to the time of Jesus, so they must be right? :unsure: The EFC's did not write the Bible.

i don't care much for what any church teaches. If you want to know what the early church taught about baptism,,,it's found here:

Chapter VII of the Didache (most probably written in 70 to 90 AD,,,latest findings)

1. Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water;
2. But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm.
3. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
4. And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.


source: http://www.thedidache.com/
That link is to a Roman Catholic website. At the bottom of the page under contact information it says - If you have questions about this website please contact the webmaster (a True Catholic who is in perfect standing with Holy Mother Church via e-mail at: [email protected].

i've never heard of the above. It sounds preposterous to me.
Could you give the source?
Whoops! I thought that I already posted the link. Sorry about that. Here it is - http://www.justforcatholics.org/a116.htm

Anything can be a forgery.
Yes it can, though God promised to preserve His Word.

Do you honestly believe we have the ORIGINALS of the letters that are in the New Testament?
Originals have never been found. This is no reason to throw everything out.
I'm not talking about when the CC controlled literature in Europe --- when people couldn't even read, BTW,
According to that logic, then we can't fully trust the Bible, yet there is good reason to trust the Bible - http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

I only mention the ECF's in my references. These are men who were taught by an Apostle or those that came immediately after before the church was infected with political matters (after Constantine).
Political matters have always been around. Here are some quotes from the church fathers, which are often cited by Roman Catholics, in defense of their claim that the early church embraced transubstantiation.

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).

Irenaeus again: “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).

Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).

Origen (182–254): “Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).

Do you believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation?
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,043
13,049
113
58
Roman Catholics also like to quote the church fathers to support infant baptism. Do you believe that infant baptism is scriptural? Roman Catholics will argue that infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below, since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated.

Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

You can easily find these claims on multiple Catholic websites, including - https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

This is why I don't put much stock in the writings of the church fathers. ;)
 

GodsGrace101

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2018
2,225
517
113
An even deeper thought.....why place man in the garden and give him the option knowing full well the end result.....

Now that is the deeper question......and in my view alluded to and answered in scripture........for those willing to take the blinders off!
What do you think the answer is....
since someone I know who should know doesn't know.
 

GodsGrace101

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2018
2,225
517
113
Hi Grace101, I like both of your possibilities and I'm not sure where I stand as of the moment, at least Christians can say we are "forgiven", for Adams disobedience as a starting point.

Others, (not me), are saying that it was a "set up" all along and the very beginning of the first "blame game."

However the correct answer is: :cry:

Quote: "There are known known's; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."

Genesis 3:12
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

If it was a set-up, we're serving a mightily mean God.

No. I think God just left the decision up to us.
Did we want to know evil or not?

I guess we did, and that's all we can know.
God only let us know what He wants us to know.
I agree with you on this too.

Little man cannot understand everything.
Do ants understand everything about man?
No.
Same thing.
 

GodsGrace101

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2018
2,225
517
113
Roman Catholics also like to quote the church fathers to support infant baptism. Do you believe that infant baptism is scriptural? Roman Catholics will argue that infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below, since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated.

Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).


"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

You can easily find these claims on multiple Catholic websites, including - https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

This is why I don't put much stock in the writings of the church fathers. ;)
Hey Jerry,
I saw a couple of new TV series and could only watch about 12 minutes of each.
Let me tell you ---- I really miss your sitcom.

And, I have to leave now...but:
Please stop talking to me about Catholics. You know very well I've left that denomination because of too many doctrines I don't agree with.

But I will answer your last two posts when I get back.
I enjoy the conversations I have with you and @TruthTalk and @BillG because they're very civil and I can learn from them. I also enjoy posts with @AllenW because he's been keeping me on my toes for quite some time now.

See you later!
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,043
13,049
113
58
MMD, Youi know this is a silly question.
Let me ask YOU something:
How much faith does it take to be saved?
See. It works the same way.
The faith of a mustard seed.
The obedience we can muster.
It's not a silly question. For those who say that we are saved by obedience or that our obedience maintains our salvation, there must be an answer to, "how much obedience does it take?" Otherwise, you spend your life hoping and wondering if you were "obedient enough" to be saved and that takes us into salvation by works. How much faith does it take to be saved? It's not about how much, but what is the OBJECT of our faith. Either we are trusting 100% in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation or else we are 100% lost. It's not trust in Jesus 50% and 50% in works or trust in Jesus 90% and 10% in works etc..

These questions are irrelevant since our works do not save us.
I never said this.
You said, "To REMAIN saved, we do have to obey God." Obedience is works. So how much obedience does it take?

of course. There is none righteous, no not one.
We won't be perfect till we get to heaven.
Amen! :)

Agreed. But we do have to do the good works.....right?
If we say Jesus is our Lord,,,,but then do not obey Him and act as a good disciple should...
is He really our Lord or are we just making believe?
The Rich Young Man --- yes, we all have something we don't like to leave. If we trust in Jesus God will even forgive us that. But this parable does show, once again, that Jesus did not speak of salvation the way we understand it today; He spoke of acts and deeds and believing in the true sense of the Greek way of believing....you like Greek, you know what believe means.... (I'm not repeating it AGAIN!)
It's not about we must do good works in order to become or remain saved but that we will do good works (some more than others) if we truly are saved.

Jesus said one must be born from above. He's speaking to those who are born from above and how they are to behave...just like in the Beatitudes. The acts ALONE, or the behavior ALONE willl not save anyone.
Are you saying that it's faith + the behavior that saves by stressing, "not the acts ALONE?"


On the other hand, faith alone, without works is a dead faith. Because it is alone...
James 2:17 We need both faith and works AFTER SALVATION.[/QUOTE] In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims he has faith but has no resulting evidential works (to validate his claim). That is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. *So James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!

In James 2:20, "faith without works is dead" does not mean that faith is dead until it produces works and then it becomes a living faith or that works are the source of life in faith or that we are saved by works. James is simply saying faith that is not accompanied by evidential works is dead. Again, if someone says-claims he has faith but lacks resulting evidential works, then he has an empty profession of faith/dead faith and not authentic faith.

I agree but with a but.....

Notice that in, for example (and this holds true for all verses of this type) 1 John 3:10-15 John is saying that if we are born of God (verse 9) we will love and not hate and not act like Cain, because, yes, AFTER salvation God does require that we follow in His ways. Call it discipleship,,,but we must adhere to the teachings Jesus left us with, some of which are in Mathew 25 as you stated. Jesus didn't leave us with these teaching as a suggestion, it's required of us.
I'm not suggesting that Jesus left us with His commands merely as a suggestion. These are commands that He expects us to strive to obey, but none of us perfectly obey Him, yet John did say that those who are born of God practice righteousness and not sin and also love their brother. Some believers get off to a slow start, yet Paul still refers to them as "babes in Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

It's not right to come on these threads and make others believe we are not required to do anything but "believe" --- because if we even know what the word believe means, then we'll know that we are to follow in Jesus' footsteps and we should communicate how important this is,,,not water it down.
James 1:22-23
In John 3:18, Jesus said - “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." In Acts 10:43, Peter said - "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." In Acts 16:31, Paul said - “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” *Notice believes in Him "apart from additions or modifications."

Where people into trouble is when they re-define faith to "include" works, like the Roman Catholic I mentioned in post #80,253. It sounds to me like you are leaning in the same direction as he is in regards to faith, even though you said we are saved by faith alone. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know anyone who thinks they are perfect. Only Jesus was perfect.
If they think they're perfect, then I agree with you.
Amen! :) I've had discussions with people before on Christian Chat and other Christian forums who claimed to be perfect.

I agree.
I've always said I don't know exactly what we're arguing about....
I think I know, but we'll see how it turns out. ;)
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,043
13,049
113
58
Hey Jerry,
I saw a couple of new TV series and could only watch about 12 minutes of each.
Let me tell you ---- I really miss your sitcom.

And, I have to leave now...but:
Please stop talking to me about Catholics. You know very well I've left that denomination because of too many doctrines I don't agree with.

But I will answer your last two posts when I get back.
I enjoy the conversations I have with you and @TruthTalk and @BillG because they're very civil and I can learn from them. I also enjoy posts with @AllenW because he's been keeping me on my toes for quite some time now.

See you later!
Who's Jerry? :unsure: I know you left the RCC, but they do put a lot of emphasis on the writings of the EFC's and so do you, so something must have rubbed off. ;) Regardless, I'm doing my best to be civil with you. :love:
 

TruthTalk

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2017
2,904
2,262
113
Agreed The problem seems to begin when we move on to sanctification...

I agree with all.
You call our position in Christ what I call justification.
You call our practice in Christ what I call sanctification.

The works I'm speaking of, or good deeds, are those that come after salvation and which would be what you call our practice in Christ and what I call sanctification (which is what it's called BTW).
Agreed as to the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us.
As long as "we keep Jesus in our lives", HIS righteousness is ours to cherish.
Hi GodsGrace101, yes I am referring to sanctification as position and practice because I'm referring to two different sanctification's; we are sanctified (set apart made holy) at our 2nd heavenly birth; and we have an ongoing sanctification whereby we grow an mature in Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.

The difference of application that I have with you is when you say; quote: As long as "we keep Jesus" in our lives,

Personally I find it difficult to believe that you are the same individual that was here before proclaiming Jesus.

God bless!

I - Positional sanctification:

2Thessalonians 2:13
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

1Corinthians6:11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1Corinthians1:2
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

II - Practical sanctification;

John17:17; "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

1Thessalonians4:4
That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

1Thessalonians5:23
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Timothy2:21
Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

Romans15:15,16
However, I have written you a bold reminder on some points, because of the grace God has given me
16) to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an acceptable offering to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.…
 

VCO

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2013
11,969
4,586
113
I used to believe the same thing....which was always regurgitated over and over.....after I spent 32 years straight studying the end specifically I no longer believe that view......nor do I believe the imminent return which I also believed without question..........anyway.....time will tell.....!!

There is something we can agree on this subject.
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,612
2,632
113
though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members"
Wow.

I've read a bunch of church history, ive seen some of these quotes like the one from Origen etc. But one that strikes me the most ridicilous is John Chrysostom, the part I bolded.

Where on earth did these guys get the idea that adoption, righteousness, inheritance and all that is given in baptism?

I always wonder about that, I know some lutherans and they always say things like "I was saved at baptism". Well, AFTER you got baptized and you grew up, not even remembering you were baptized, you lived like the devil, denied God's existance, then later in life you returned to faith and still say "Yeah baptism saved me back then" WHAT?

These guys are out of their minds. I understand the campbellite argument a lot better from Acts 2:38. Because they see it as: You have sinned in the past, now baptism washes it away. (Not saying I agree with it, just saying its more logical). These guys are saying you HAVENT SINNED, yet you are baptized for the remission of sins? (and inheritance holiness and all that other stuff).
So, you havent sinned, yet you need remission of sins. Sounds about right. Then again one of those guys said its the sin of Adam thats washed away, well thats unbiblical, in Ezekiel it says each man is held responsible for their OWN SINS not the sins of their fathers!
 

TruthTalk

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2017
2,904
2,262
113
If it was a set-up, we're serving a mightily mean God.

No. I think God just left the decision up to us.
Did we want to know evil or not
?

I guess we did, and that's all we can know.
God only let us know what He wants us to know.
I agree with you on this too.

Little man cannot understand everything.
Do ants understand everything about man?
No.
Same thing.
Hi Grace101, I know you know, I do not believe "it was a set up." :)
Doxology: Romans 11:33-36
A Short Hymn of Praise

33) O, the depth of the riches
of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable His judgments,
and untraceable His ways!
34) “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been His counselor?”
35) “Who has first given to God,
that God should repay him?”
36) For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.
To Him be the glory forever! Amen.
 

Matthew55

Active member
Dec 29, 2018
117
30
28
Roman Catholics also like to quote the church fathers to support infant baptism. Do you believe that infant baptism is scriptural? Roman Catholics will argue that infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below, since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated.

Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

You can easily find these claims on multiple Catholic websites, including - https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

This is why I don't put much stock in the writings of the church fathers. ;)
Wow, it looks like the ECF believed that baptism was necessary, even baptism of infants. What do we do with this information?
 

stonesoffire

Poetic Member
Nov 24, 2013
10,665
1,829
113
An even deeper thought.....why place man in the garden and give him the option knowing full well the end result.....

Now that is the deeper question......and in my view alluded to and answered in scripture........for those willing to take the blinders off!
Hi Dcon....

Am not sure what you believe about the beginning of Genesis, but my view is that the gap teaching is correct. In that I would say that God is starting all over to correct what had happened with Lucifers rebellion. There are a lot of teachings I could say that have a ring of truth but to back them? Scripture must interpret scripture in my view also. With the gap teaching there are scriptures that allude to this happening.

Gods grace has mentioned the question of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of life. Did they? There is nothing that says they didn't. They are told they eat of all the trees but not of the KofG and E. I would say they did for the picture of the tree of life in Revelations speaks of the leaves being for the healing of the nations. Leaves translates to sprouts and that translates to the image of the exact likeness of the tree.

Looking at what Jesus has said....eat of His body, drink of His blood. Communion in being One in Him, with Him. He is the tree of eternal life, and within us, in our spirit, we are His exact likeness. Perfect in Him. The problems lie in our soul for its the soul that needs saved.

I believe that the intention of God is make us Spiritual men and women. Not physical. No longer flesh but Spirit. We misunderstand if we live in the Spirit, let us walk in the Spirit as being good and doing good deeds.

This is not so. If we live in the Spirit....alive within in Him....let us walk as spiritual men and women. Speaking in the Spirit, acting in the Spirit, etc.

So were we sons of God in the beginning and are being restored? I believe this to be true.