Did you know that the phase ''faith only'' is used only one time in all of scripture?

[Lauren]

If a person does bad works alongside good works, do they offset each other and become as no works?

Or do only the good works count?

 

[eric51]

You are saying ... that Jesus made sure that the thief was going to do more than just believe but also make sure of his salvation by having that one good work to seal it up for himself. So my grandfather and other loved ones, that were led to the Lord, who believed by faith and were forgiven of their sins on their death bed, really did not make it because they were not able to show forth any good work? Is not believing a good work? You have taken away any hope that all of our loved ones, who did not show any fruit or good works (as you define those works) were really saved by grace and through faith. Believing in the cross and the blood of Christ was not enough to save them and justify them. According to you, they needed to produce some kind of fruit or good works to show that they were truly saved. According to you, the work of simply believing upon the name of Christ and confessing with their mouth the Lord Jesus was not sufficient for salvation and not enough to cleanse them from all sin. Confessing the Lord Jesus is saying, 'Lord, I believe'.

You are teaching a salvation and a gospel that is by grace through faith but maintained by works. Have you not read (Rom 11:5,6) that says, 'Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work'. And it says in (Rom 4:4-6), 'Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt'. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works'.

If you do not want to believe that, it is your choice. But don't respond with all your bull. Keep your bull to yourself and live that way if you want, but leave others alone.

Think you completely misinterpreted me. I was telling you that some claim that since the Thief was "saved", and did no good works, that faith alone does save. I questioned their premise: the Thief did do a good work, he defended Jesus, and that was as much as he could do being bound on the cross. Since this was prior to the Resurrection, Jesus did not send him to heaven but to Sheol, paradise.

Moreover, the works in Romans of which Paul refers, are "works of the law" or "works of righteousness". They refer to rituals under Mosaic Law which Paul points out do not stem from grace or love, but are done mechanically, and in which the person doing these works expected that God was obligated to reward him. Paul pointed out that God cannot be obligated by man, and that further, any mechanical performance which does not come from the heart will not please God.

Suggest you reflect on the difference between works done out of love, grace, and those to which Paul is referring. Paul was not commenting on good works.

Christ be With You

Amen

 

[swat4christ]

Eh, think not. What you have just described is the reader coming up with his own interpretation. Bible is a book which is read. The reader interprets it according to his own capacity. That capacity is a product of culture, education, prior experiences, intelligence and ideological or theological predisposition.

Get real.

Amen.

Of course you think not. Because what you THINK is obviously your god. NOT WHAT GOD HIMSELF SAID. Let me give you a very elementary illustration. If your wife writes you a note asking you to stop by the store on your way home and pick up a gallon of milk - you clearly understand what she has written. You don't need a private interpretation - yours or anyone else’s. What she has written is clear. If in her note she asks you to also purchase something that you are not familiar with, you may ask someone else what they think she means - your co-worker, or clerk at the store, and they may or may not know - or they may guess - their guess being as good as yours. But the only way you can KNOW FOR SURE what she meant is to talk to her! And the only way any person can understand Scripture, is to study it based on what the Author has said throughout scripture. Any other system of study will lead you into GUESSING at what is TRUE. Education and culture will no doubt influence your level of understanding, but it does not give you the right to privately interpret anything. A ten year old child can understand the same simple truths that can be understood by a person with 5 doctorate degrees. The truth is the truth no matter what your education! Your ability to understand that truth is SUBJECTIVE, but the truth doesn’t change based on your intellect. The truth itself is OBJECTIVE. Do you understand the difference? The reason we have such a godless and confusing mess in the so-called "church" today is because everyone thinks they can make the Bible say what they want it to mean. Gays say that David and Jonathon had a homosexual
affair. Mormons say you can have multiple wives and you can baptize for the dead. Jehovah's witnesses say Jesus wasn't God. Catholics say you need to pray to Mary. Some think speaking in tongues is evidence you are saved, others think speaking in tongues is demonic. All these groups can pull out Scriptures to support they believe. Need I go on? Capacity to learn and understand is one thing - I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOURS IS - but anyone who thinks that TRUTH IS RELATIVE to your ability to discern it IS THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND!

 

[eric51]

Of course you think not. Because what you THINK is obviously your god. NOT WHAT GOD HIMSELF SAID. !

You accuse me of your own worst, blatant flaw. YOU, and those like you, interpret based on a theological predisposition, which causes you to read into the bible what you like to hear. This deficiency is greatly aggravated by the fact that YOU, and those like you, intentionally ignore early chrisitan history, the Early Church Fathers, and the 2000 year history of the Church, because YOU, and again, those like you, don't like what the Early Church Fathers believed and wrote, and you similarly don't like what the Church teaches. So, you read into the bible what you already believe, and your willingness to do this is amplified and facilitated by your total ignorance of Sacred Tradition and orthodox Christian hermeneutics.

God Bless

 

[Lauren]

If a person does bad works alongside good works, do they offset each other and become as no works?

Or do only the good works count?

Eric, care to answer? I don't know anything about Catholic tradition or doctrine, I will fully admit, so I'm curious about this whole theory. I am quite sure I'll never agree with you on most of what you believe, but that doesn't mean that I can't learn something from it.

~ Lauren

 

[swat4christ]

You accuse me of your own worst, blatant flaw. YOU, and those like you, interpret based on a theological predisposition, which causes you to read into the bible what you like to hear. This deficiency is greatly aggravated by the fact that YOU, and those like you, intentionally ignore early chrisitan history, the Early Church Fathers, and the 2000 year history of the Church, because YOU, and again, those like you, don't like what the Early Church Fathers believed and wrote, and you similarly don't like what the Church teaches. So, you read into the bible what you already believe, and your willingness to do this is amplified and facilitated by your total ignorance of Sacred Tradition and orthodox Christian hermeneutics.

God Bless

GOOD! I seem to have gotten you upset - I like that because when people get upset the varnish comes off and the real person emerges. NOW, we are getting somewhere. First of all, I was raised Roman Catholic - went to Roman Catholic School, and was steeped in that RELIGION. As a matter of fact, my uncle was one of the most well known Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th Century and taught at Tagaste Seminary in New York. He was my role model and mentor and upon my confirmation as a Roman Catholic when I was a boy, I took his first name - Frances - as my confirmation name. Therefore, my original “predisposition” was the authority of the “church fathers” over Scripture. A philosophy I myself embraced for nearly 30 years. But you are DEAD WRONG that I interpret Scripture based on a theological predisposition. That “dog won’t hunt,” sonny. You’d best know what you are talking about before you go shooting off your mouth. Yes, I do indeed have a seminary education and earned degree. Yes, I was taught a number of Theological constructs based on the historical teachings of many, many theologians. My studies also required two years of Church History three years of Greek and Hebrew. But I went to a non-denominational seminary and we were left with the autonomy to search out the truths of Scripture based on how we were trained to STUDY. We were NOT TAUGHT WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES under someone’s theological construct - whether it be Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Jerome, Nestorius, Knox, Zwingli, Arminius, et al. Rather, we were taught HOW TO STUDY THE BIBLE (2Timothy 2:15) - HOW TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH (2Timothy 2:15) - HOW TO SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES (John 5:39, Acts 17:11) - HOW TO BE ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS (2Timothy 2:1-2) - and I could go on and on, but I doubt you will read any of the verses, and if you did I doubt it would matter. And your problem is, that because you can’t deal with the Scriptures, you want to tell yourself that all Biblical truth is relative. That helps to pacify your lazy disinterest to study and search on your own. It’s easier for your godless opinion to be your authority. Bottom line, sonny, the real issue is AUTHORITY. See Matthew 21:23. It always has been, and it always will be. So let me ask you, WHO is YOUR final authority? Which “church father” do you prefer over Scripture? Like I said, NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!

 

[eric51]

Eric, care to answer? I don't know anything about Catholic tradition or doctrine, I will fully admit, so I'm curious about this whole theory. I am quite sure I'll never agree with you on most of what you believe, but that doesn't mean that I can't learn something from it.

~ Lauren

Such a statement or a question goes to the mechanics, the details, of how God judges. That is above my paygrade. Sorry.

In Christ.

Amen

 

[eric51]

GOOD! I seem to have gotten you upset - I like that because when people get upset the varnish comes off and the real person emerges. A philosophy I myself embraced for nearly 30 years. But you are DEAD WRONG that I interpret Scripture based on a theological predisposition. That “dog won’t hunt,” sonny. You’d best know what you are talking about before you go shooting off your mouth. Yes, I do indeed have a seminary education and earned degree. Yes, I was taught a number of Theological constructs based on the historical teachings of many, many theologians. My studies also required two years of Church History three years of Greek and Hebrew. But I went to a non-denominational seminary and we were left with the autonomy to search out the truths of Scripture based on how we were trained to STUDY. We were NOT TAUGHT WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES under someone’s theological construct - whether it be Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Jerome, Nestorius, Knox, Zwingli, Arminius, et al. Rather, we were taught HOW TO STUDY THE BIBLE (2Timothy 2:15) - HOW TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH (2Timothy 2:15) - HOW TO SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES (John 5:39, Acts 17:11) - HOW TO BE ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS (2Timothy 2:1-2) - and I could go on and on, but I doubt you will read any of the verses, and if you did I doubt it would matter. And your problem is, that because you can’t deal with the Scriptures, you want to tell yourself that all Biblical truth is relative. That helps to pacify your lazy disinterest to study and search on your own. It’s easier for your godless opinion to be your authority. Bottom line, sonny, the real issue is AUTHORITY. See Matthew 21:23. It always has been, and it always will be. So let me ask you, WHO is YOUR final authority? Which “church father” do you prefer over Scripture? Like I said, NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!

Excuse me, but YOU seem to be the person upset. You can ramble on how you are related to the Holy Father, Augustine, St. Francis, how you have this or that degree, but what I told you stands! Whatever your "original predisposition WAS", it is your current predisposition that matters. And your current predisposition is to block out anything extraneous to the bible, and then you proceed to read the bible and impose your preconceptions on it.

I won't go back and forth on this point with you. I have better things to do like pick my navel.

Bye.

God Bless

Amen