Obedience REQUIRED

[Everlasting-Grace]

Hebrews 5:9 - And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him

I always wonder how people continue to believe they are saved anyway if they aren't obedient to the Lord.

Some come right out and say that obedience is not required for salvation even though that's not what the Word of the Lord says.

Apparently this is further proof that some among us openly reject some things the Lord says as they walk in disobedience.

a few thoughts.

1. One who is truly born again obeys. In fact. as John said in his epistle. one born of god can not live in sin, because they are born of God
2. When you claim obedience is required. you put focus on self. Not God. God saved you by grace through faith, not of works of obedience. He created you into a new creature. your old nature was crucified. Sin is your old nbature not your new.
3. Instead of judgi9ng other people. look to yourself. as the good book says, take the log out of your eye before trying to take the spec out of your btothers.

 

[Burn1986]

It irks me when I am running down the road and my head falls off. I suppose a deeper explanation would be needed to understand that . That being said, you want to expand on that comment?

Why?

 

[Burn1986]

Why?

It irks me when I am running down the road and my head falls off. I suppose a deeper explanation would be needed to understand that . That being said, you want to expand on that comment?

It irks me when I am running down the road and my head falls off. I suppose a deeper explanation would be needed to understand that . That being said, you want to expand on that comment?

Why? So we can argue for 1000s of pages about never getting past salvation or bigger things of faith? You have guys going back and forth stuck on stuff we argued about in Jr High - once saved always saved/ lose my salvation. Dear Lord

What is the value of winning an argument? The biggest fault against the Pharisees is they argued against any and all experiences that Jesus had and those around Him had.

So, if a person has an experience where it changes them, and then later they discover in scripture what happened, then are they wrong? What about if they read about it in scripture, then apply it? Is that better than the first? Who is right?

 

[OMC]

Why?

Oh I don't know, random comment made generally needs explanation. But hey, If your happy.

 

[OMC]

Why? So we can argue for 1000s of pages about never getting past salvation or bigger things of faith? You have guys going back and forth stuck on stuff we argued about in Jr High - once saved always saved/ lose my salvation. Dear Lord

What is the value of winning an argument? The biggest fault against the Pharisees is they argued against any and all experiences that Jesus had and those around Him had.

So, if a person has an experience where it changes them, and then later they discover in scripture what happened, then are they wrong? What about if they read about it in scripture, then apply it? Is that better than the first? Who is right?

The value is not in "winning" arguments.
The value is in testing doctrine by Scripture.
Paul reasoned, debated, and corrected error because truth matters.

That said, experience by itself is not the standard.
People of many different religions have powerful experiences, yet their doctrines contradict one another.
Experience can point us toward truth, but Scripture must determine what that experience means.

So if someone has an experience and later finds it confirmed in Scripture, praise God.
If someone reads Scripture first and then lives it out, praise God.
The issue is not which came first.
The issue is whether the experience and the doctrine agree with God's word.

The Pharisees' problem was not that they tested claims.
Their problem was that they rejected the clear evidence God placed before them because it conflicted with their traditions.
We should avoid both errors: rejecting experience altogether and elevating experience above Scripture.

 

[John146]

So, if a person has an experience where it changes them, and then later they discover in scripture what happened, then are they wrong? What about if they read about it in scripture, then apply it? Is that better than the first? Who is right?

Peter was an eyewitness to the Lord's transfiguration on the mount, but yet, he states that scripture is more sure than his experience.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

[Burn1986]

The value is not in "winning" arguments.
The value is in testing doctrine by Scripture.
Paul reasoned, debated, and corrected error because truth matters.

That said, experience by itself is not the standard.
People of many different religions have powerful experiences, yet their doctrines contradict one another.
Experience can point us toward truth, but Scripture must determine what that experience means.

So if someone has an experience and later finds it confirmed in Scripture, praise God.
If someone reads Scripture first and then lives it out, praise God.
The issue is not which came first.
The issue is whether the experience and the doctrine agree with God's word.

The Pharisees' problem was not that they tested claims.
Their problem was that they rejected the clear evidence God placed before them because it conflicted with their traditions.
We should avoid both errors: rejecting experience altogether and elevating experience above Scripture.

There it is.
Jesus told the Pharisees “We testify about what we’ve seen… but you won’t believe.” What did Jesus see? Was it an experience that He testified about?

 

[OMC]

There it is.
Jesus told the Pharisees “We testify about what we’ve seen… but you won’t believe.” What did Jesus see? Was it an experience that He testified about?

Jesus' point was not that experience is the authority.
His point was that He was a firsthand witness of heavenly truth.

In John 3:11, Jesus says, "We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen."
The Pharisees rejected His testimony, not because He had an experience, but because they refused to believe the One sent from God.

The problem with making experience the standard is that conflicting religions all appeal to experiences.
Scripture gives us the standard by which experiences are tested.

So yes, Jesus testified about what He had seen.
But Jesus is not merely someone relating a personal experience.
He is the Son of God bearing authoritative witness to the truth.
Our experiences must be tested by His word, not the other way around.

 

[John146]

a few thoughts.

1. One who is truly born again obeys. In fact. as John said in his epistle. one born of god can not live in sin, because they are born of God
2. When you claim obedience is required. you put focus on self. Not God. God saved you by grace through faith, not of works of obedience. He created you into a new creature. your old nature was crucified. Sin is your old nbature not your new.
3. Instead of judgi9ng other people. look to yourself. as the good book says, take the log out of your eye before trying to take the spec out of your btothers.

Do you believe in the judgment seat of Christ? If so, who will be judged, and what will be judged?

 

[Burn1986]

Look, the point is - salvation is an experience, Just like the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Many people get saved and then later they have to search out what actually happened to them. Same way with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Burn1986]

Jesus' point was not that experience is the authority.
His point was that He was a firsthand witness of heavenly truth.

In John 3:11, Jesus says, "We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen."
The Pharisees rejected His testimony, not because He had an experience, but because they refused to believe the One sent from God.

The problem with making experience the standard is that conflicting religions all appeal to experiences.
Scripture gives us the standard by which experiences are tested.

So yes, Jesus testified about what He had seen.
But Jesus is not merely someone relating a personal experience.
He is the Son of God bearing authoritative witness to the truth.
Our experiences must be tested by His word, not the other way around.

Have you ever seen someone drunk? How do you know they’re drunk?

 

[OMC]

Have you ever seen someone drunk? How do you know they’re drunk?

Yes, I've seen drunk people.
But I do not determine they are drunk solely because they claim to be.
I compare what they say about themselves with observable evidence.

That actually supports my point.
Experience is real, but experience is not self-authenticating.

If one person says, "I experienced God and He taught eternal security," and another says, "I experienced God and He taught salvation can be lost," both cannot be right.
At that point, we need an objective standard outside of their experiences.

That's why Christians test experiences by Scripture.
Experience may be the reason someone investigates a truth, but Scripture is how we determine whether what they believe about that experience is true.

 

[Burn1986]

Yes, I've seen drunk people.
But I do not determine they are drunk solely because they claim to be.
I compare what they say about themselves with observable evidence.

That actually supports my point.
Experience is real, but experience is not self-authenticating.

If one person says, "I experienced God and He taught eternal security," and another says, "I experienced God and He taught salvation can be lost," both cannot be right.
At that point, we need an objective standard outside of their experiences.

That's why Christians test experiences by Scripture.
Experience may be the reason someone investigates a truth, but Scripture is how we determine whether what they believe about that experience is true.

Anyway, in regard to obedience, is it easier for a drunk person or a sober person to act drunk.

 

[OMC]

Anyway, in regard to obedience, is it easier for a drunk person or a sober person to act drunk.

It is easier for a drunk person to act drunk because their behavior flows naturally from their condition.
A sober person can imitate it for a while, but it is not their actual state.

If that's your analogy, I agree with the principle.
Obedience flows naturally from a regenerate heart, just as sinful behavior flows naturally from an unregenerate one.

Where we may differ is the conclusion.
The fact that obedience is evidence of the new birth does not make obedience the cause of the new birth.
A tree bears fruit because it is alive; it does not become alive by bearing fruit.

So yes, the born-again believer obeys.
But that supports salvation producing obedience, not obedience producing salvation.

 

[Burn1986]

It is easier for a drunk person to act drunk because their behavior flows naturally from their condition.
A sober person can imitate it for a while, but it is not their actual state.

If that's your analogy, I agree with the principle.
Obedience flows naturally from a regenerate heart, just as sinful behavior flows naturally from an unregenerate one.

Where we may differ is the conclusion.
The fact that obedience is evidence of the new birth does not make obedience the cause of the new birth.
A tree bears fruit because it is alive; it does not become alive by bearing fruit.

So yes, the born-again believer obeys.
But that supports salvation producing obedience, not obedience producing salvation.

Sounds like you get it (even though you try to use a bunch of fancy words). I guess you could say in order for the person to get drunk, they have to take a drink. Same way in salvation, the person has to verbally ask Jesus to come into their life. Same way with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Christian had to ask for the Holy Spirit to fill them. And what is the result?

 

[OMC]

Sounds like you get it (even though you try to use a bunch of fancy words). I guess you could say in order for the person to get drunk, they have to take a drink. Same way in salvation, the person has to verbally ask Jesus to come into their life. Same way with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Christian had to ask for the Holy Spirit to fill them. And what is the result?

The result is exactly what we've been discussing: a changed life.

If a person genuinely comes to Christ, the result is new life, new desires, and increasing obedience.
If a person is filled with the Spirit, the result is the fruit of the Spirit, not merely a claim to have had an experience.

Where I would be careful is saying someone "has to verbally ask Jesus into their life."
Scripture consistently points to repentance and faith in Christ as the condition of salvation.
Calling on the Lord is certainly biblical, but salvation is not produced by a particular formula or set of words.

So I agree with the principle of your analogy: the inward reality produces outward evidence.
The drunk acts drunk because he is drunk.
The born-again believer grows in obedience because God has changed his heart.
The evidence does not create the condition; it reveals it.

 

[Burn1986]

The result is exactly what we've been discussing: a changed life.

If a person genuinely comes to Christ, the result is new life, new desires, and increasing obedience.
If a person is filled with the Spirit, the result is the fruit of the Spirit, not merely a claim to have had an experience.

Where I would be careful is saying someone "has to verbally ask Jesus into their life."
Scripture consistently points to repentance and faith in Christ as the condition of salvation.
Calling on the Lord is certainly biblical, but salvation is not produced by a particular formula or set of words.

So I agree with the principle of your analogy: the inward reality produces outward evidence.
The drunk acts drunk because he is drunk.
The born-again believer grows in obedience because God has changed his heart.
The evidence does not create the condition; it reveals it.

Why be careful with it? Sure there’s learning and such, but sometimes it’s sloppy, especially the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It’s not easy coaching someone to go ahead and say the little phrases coming up in their head while you’re praying for them. But man, when they do…

 

[John146]

The result is exactly what we've been discussing: a changed life.

If a person genuinely comes to Christ, the result is new life, new desires, and increasing obedience.
If a person is filled with the Spirit, the result is the fruit of the Spirit, not merely a claim to have had an experience.

Where I would be careful is saying someone "has to verbally ask Jesus into their life."
Scripture consistently points to repentance and faith in Christ as the condition of salvation.
Calling on the Lord is certainly biblical, but salvation is not produced by a particular formula or set of words.

So I agree with the principle of your analogy: the inward reality produces outward evidence.
The drunk acts drunk because he is drunk.
The born-again believer grows in obedience because God has changed his heart.
The evidence does not create the condition; it reveals it.

The believer still battles the flesh daily, and if one is not discipled well, one can give into those fleshly desires. There are many believers who are left babes in Christ and look like the rest of the world. Thankfully, "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his."

 

[Burn1986]

The believer still battles the flesh daily, and if one is not discipled well, one can give into those fleshly desires. There are many believers who are left babes in Christ and look like the rest of the world. Thankfully, "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his."

If they’ve received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, they will no longer be babes in Christ. It is true that Christians need to be grounded in the word, but when they’re filled with the Holy Spirit, He will bring all this to life.

 

[OMC]

Why be careful with it? Sure there’s learning and such, but sometimes it’s sloppy, especially the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It’s not easy coaching someone to go ahead and say the little phrases coming up in their head while you’re praying for them. But man, when they do…

A person is saved by God's grace through faith in Christ. Calling on the Lord is a biblical expression of that faith, but the words themselves do not save. Christ saves. In your analogy, taking a drink is not the point. The alcohol is what intoxicates. Likewise, the prayer is not what saves. Christ is. The prayer is simply one way faith expresses itself. So when someone says, "You must ask Jesus into your life to be saved," the concern is that people can begin treating a particular prayer or formula as the saving act itself. That's why we must be careful.