Conditions For Salvation

I understand (I think) where you are coming from. I think the crux of the disagreement is in a different understanding of 'faith without works is dead.' I understand it to mean that true faith will produce actions if one believes. If a person doesn't act on his faith, then his faith isn't anything more than head knowledge. Thus the works prove the reality of faith. (I also have a dispensational understanding in regards to the end time nature of the book of James.) I get the impression that you (and the Catholic Church) are taking the verse to mean that faith without works is ineffective. It may seem to be a small academic matter, but really there is a vast gulf here between us in this matter. I would encourage you to read and ponder what I have written (so far) on the Dispensational nature of James. I hope to get back on that after I get through some of the preaching load in the next little bit.
 
There are three fronts to spiritual warfare: the flesh, the world, and the devil and his demonic forces. As in any war, each has to be fought in different ways, in different styles, and by using different weapons. As far as the front against Satan and the demonic forces is concerned, the best defense is understanding positional truth, understanding what the believer's position is in Yeshua the Messiah, understanding the authority that comes with it, and then exercising that authority. When Satan starts accusing and attacking the believer, the believer is able to stand on the basis of the Word of God. The believer never stands on the basis of his own merit; he never stands against Satan on the basis of his own righteousness. The believer stands on the basis of his position in the Messiah and on the fact that he has the righteousness of the Messiah imputed to him.
 
wanting to follow Jesus and so he died with what is known as "baptism of desire."
Click to expand...

GONG!!! You might be to young to understand that, ...but lets see Scripture and verse for this, where is it taught in the New Testament or even the whole Bible?



Yard bird sounds good and a BIG Thank You for the recipe, we don't have any sherry here, but I have some excellent port from when I made Marsala Chicken.

Blessings,

Gene
 
JustPassingThru said:
GONG!!! You might be to young to understand that,
Click to expand...

Gene, I like you, and I always like seeing what you have to say...but this was staggeringly condescending.

JustPassingThru said:
...but lets see Scripture and verse for this, where is it taught in the New Testament or even the whole Bible?
Click to expand...

Well, aside from Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura is another doctrine that should be rejected as neither one of them are Biblical--and would need to be for them to be true traditions of God.

This is one of the underlining things that brings our conflict to light. The Scriptures doesn't point to itself as the exclusive infallible source for Christian practice. If it did, of course I would agree that if something is not found in the Bible then it should be discarded...however, it is not found in the Bible.

I can think of verses that say that the Bible IS infallible and all true. 2 Timothy 3:16 comes to mind. All scripture IS indeed God-breathed and profitable for Christian teaching...but there is no verse that says ONLY scripture or that it is SUFFICIENT.

There are verses that express teachings of God outside of the written word... 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Timothy 2:2...

If the Church is the pillar of truth, if we shouldn't be rebuking the traditions of God by word of mouth, then perhaps, like the scriptures say, it isn't purely written.

Baptism of Desire is an early Church teaching and does not conflict with Biblical teachings, just because you can't find the phrase in the Bible. Otherwise, should we be tossing out the concept of the Trinity since this word isn't in the Bible? Of course not--both are backed in the Bible, though neither are mentioned verbatim.


And Gene,
if you are attributing my age to what you may think is my naivety, then at the very least you are going by flawed criteria, especially since this was overall teaching in the early Church. This certainly wasn't something I conjured up out of my young and wild imagination.

If my being young means I don't know enough, then what purpose do I have in a forum like this? Am I wasting space? I may be young, but I'm not too young to consider what I've learned, admit when I'm wrong, express when I know I am right, and recount what I think is right and continue to even question that.

If I'm wrong, then please speak to me like an adult and explain why you think so, and please leave petty talk aside. This isn't the place for it.
 
Last edited:
LysanderShapiro said:
I can't imagine saying anything other than the truth.

This person who accepted Christ and shortly after died, like the thief on the cross, had repented. The man died, wanting to follow Jesus and so he died with what is known as "baptism of desire."
Click to expand...

But the point is.........the man did no works! He died without doing anything for God. If we say that salvation includes faith and works, how could this man go to heave without any works whatsoever????

Having read through the Catholic Church Doctrine of "baptism of desire", I did not see any referrance to the situation I described to you about the man being saved without works. It is about being baptized not doing works.

St. Augustine distinguishes between the sacrament of Baptism and the turning of the heart to God. He teaches that if either of these conditions cannot be secured, the other will be sufficient. A baptized Child is saved, without turning its heart to God, should it die before coming to the age of reason, and a man who turns his heart to God is saved without water baptism, provided he in no way despise the sacrament.

So then.....do you still think that the man with no works goes to heaven? Not only does he have no works but he is not baptized either. The Catholic doctrine speaks to the baptism but not to the "no works".

So then, it seems we still have a man with faith but no works who has died. Does he go to heaven because of his faith in Christ without any works.
 
Last edited:
Topic: salvation, faith, works...

then baptism?

interesting though, "baptism of desire"...

all here have been young once : young people usually recognize legalism faster than older people, i think : )
 
Mr. Darby said:
I understand (I think) where you are coming from. I think the crux of the disagreement is in a different understanding of 'faith without works is dead.' I understand it to mean that true faith will produce actions if one believes. If a person doesn't act on his faith, then his faith isn't anything more than head knowledge. Thus the works prove the reality of faith. (I also have a dispensational understanding in regards to the end time nature of the book of James.) I get the impression that you (and the Catholic Church) are taking the verse to mean that faith without works is ineffective. It may seem to be a small academic matter, but really there is a vast gulf here between us in this matter. I would encourage you to read and ponder what I have written (so far) on the Dispensational nature of James. I hope to get back on that after I get through some of the preaching load in the next little bit.
Click to expand...

I really enjoyed the information on James Mr. D. I do hope you find the time to imput more for us!

Yes, I agree that the Biblical teaching is that Faith will produce works hence Jesus saying in Matt. 7:20.......
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them".
 
Intojoy said:
There are more than two hundred places in the New Testament where the condition for salvation is spelled out, and in all these, cases faith or belief is given as the one and only condition.

One must believe that Jesus has accomplished the salvation work on one's behalf. To be saved, one must believe not just that He died, but that He died for one's own sins. If one believes that Yeshua the Messiah died for his sins, that presupposes that one has confessed that he is a sinner. If Yeshua died for one's sins, obviously it means that he is a sinner. So one must believe that Yeshua died for his sins as his substitute, was buried and rose again, and therefore has provided salvation. Thus, one trusts Yeshua for his salvation.

This is the condition of salvation: faith must be placed in the Messiah as one's substitute for and as one's Savior from the penalty of sin.

First the word “faith” is used as “conviction that something is true.” Secondly, faith is used as “trust.” Thirdly, faith is used as “persuaded,” and it is stronger than mere opinion, though it is weaker than foreknowledge. Fourthly, faith is used as “belief based upon the facts of knowledge” (Rom. 10:14). And fifth, faith must have an object. The object of faith is God, while the content of faith is the death of the Messiah for one's sins, His burial and Resurrection.

If we are saved because of our faith then we aren't saved by what our faith is in. We are saved thru believing in the finished work not because we believe the finished work. The work of God saves and we receive the benefit of that work by trusting that that work alone is sufficient payment in the eyes of God our Father to satisfy His requirement for our sins, that payment is the blood of the only begotten Son of God.
Indeed my brothers and sisters the blood of Messiah is of infinite value.
Click to expand...

Intojoy said:
There are more than two hundred places in the New Testament where the condition for salvation is spelled out, and in all these, cases faith or belief is given as the one and only condition.

One must believe that Jesus has accomplished the salvation work on one's behalf. To be saved, one must believe not just that He died, but that He died for one's own sins. If one believes that Yeshua the Messiah died for his sins, that presupposes that one has confessed that he is a sinner. If Yeshua died for one's sins, obviously it means that he is a sinner. So one must believe that Yeshua died for his sins as his substitute, was buried and rose again, and therefore has provided salvation. Thus, one trusts Yeshua for his salvation.

This is the condition of salvation: faith must be placed in the Messiah as one's substitute for and as one's Savior from the penalty of sin.

First the word “faith” is used as “conviction that something is true.” Secondly, faith is used as “trust.” Thirdly, faith is used as “persuaded,” and it is stronger than mere opinion, though it is weaker than foreknowledge. Fourthly, faith is used as “belief based upon the facts of knowledge” (Rom. 10:14). And fifth, faith must have an object. The object of faith is God, while the content of faith is the death of the Messiah for one's sins, His burial and Resurrection.

If we are saved because of our faith then we aren't saved by what our faith is in. We are saved thru believing in the finished work not because we believe the finished work. The work of God saves and we receive the benefit of that work by trusting that that work alone is sufficient payment in the eyes of God our Father to satisfy His requirement for our sins, that payment is the blood of the only begotten Son of God.
Indeed my brothers and sisters the blood of Messiah is of infinite value.
Click to expand...

Salvation meaning living in the kingdom of God may be much different then one being saved.
To enter into the kingdom of God one needs to hear the Word of the Lord and live that Word.

(John 14: 23) “Anyone who loves me will keep my word and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make a home in him.”

Where God makes a home there is the kingdom of God.

If one does not live God’s Word then Jesus told us:
(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”
 
Hey LS, slow down bro, you have totally misjudged what I was saying, I don't and would never consider you in the way you are saying, that's not Christian love (love thinks no wrong), I was trying to add some humor to a difficult response, to a difficult situation, ...so you never watched the reruns of the Gong Show with Chuck Barris and me, ...Gene, Gene the Dancing Machine, it was an amateur talent show and a large Gong was used to stop the performers, hence the reason I said, Gong - Stop, ...you might want to Goggle Gong Show on YouTube, ...I apologize for my antiquated sense of humor that has hurt your feelings, as stated it was not my intention, ...I'll get back to you later because I don't have the time this morning to respond.

Luv ya bro,

Gene
 
Giver said:
Salvation meaning living in the kingdom of God may be much different then one being saved.
To enter into the kingdom of God one needs to hear the Word of the Lord and live that Word.

(John 14: 23) “Anyone who loves me will keep my word and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make a home in him.”

Where God makes a home there is the kingdom of God.

If one does not live God’s Word then Jesus told us:
(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”
Click to expand...

The Kingdom of God is multifaceted. Today the kingdom is in mystery form as taught by the parables. After the tribulation the Messiah will bring the kingdom to existence literally and will reign as our King. The kingdom of God is not salvation. Salvation is justification and sanctification.
 
Intojoy said:
The Kingdom of God is multifaceted. Today the kingdom is in mystery form as taught by the parables. After the tribulation the Messiah will bring the kingdom to existence literally and will reign as our King. The kingdom of God is not salvation. Salvation is justification and sanctification.
Click to expand...

Salvation is what? Can you give verification from scripture for you understanding of Salvation?
Also can you show using the written Word of God just what saved means? Remember saved does not mean going to Heaven/kingdom of God, because no one who sin will enter the kingdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”
 
Major said:
But the point is.........the man did no works! He died without doing anything for God. If we say that salvation includes faith and works, how could this man go to heave without any works whatsoever????

Having read through the Catholic Church Doctrine of "baptism of desire", I did not see any referrance to the situation I described to you about the man being saved without works. It is about being baptized not doing works.

St. Augustine distinguishes between the sacrament of Baptism and the turning of the heart to God. He teaches that if either of these conditions cannot be secured, the other will be sufficient. A baptized Child is saved, without turning its heart to God, should it die before coming to the age of reason, and a man who turns his heart to God is saved without water baptism, provided he in no way despise the sacrament.

So then.....do you still think that the man with no works goes to heaven? Not only does he have no works but he is not baptized either. The Catholic doctrine speaks to the baptism but not to the "no works".

So then, it seems we still have a man with faith but no works who has died. Does he go to heaven because of his faith in Christ without any works.
Click to expand...

I think I see what you're saying. That's an excellent question in fact. I don't know, but I sure will find out for you. I have a friend who's getting his PhD in theological studies--he may be able to direct me to some good info.

The question is what is to happen to someone like this--this is assuming I am correct about faith and works. If James is wrong and it's faith alone, then we can safely assume heaven immediately, without a doubt.

I'll keep you update and ask him tomorrow at church ;)
 
Lysander, I want to address one thing that you have mentioned, the fact that the Bible says 'faith' and not 'faith alone'. I think that is a better rhetorical device than it is a strong theological argument. When the Philippian Jailor asked what he must do to be saved, Paul mentioned belief in Jesus Christ as the condition of salvation. Acts 16:

29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

When Paul was confronted directly on how to be saved, he mentions nothing other than belief. Surely, if something else were required, he would have here mentioned it. No, he did not say 'belief alone', but the common sense understanding of language leads us only to that conclusion. Now for an analogy:

Suppose that I work in a grocery store. You, a customer, come in and ask me where rice is. I tell you, "Rice is on aisle 3." Now, do you suppose that because I did not say, "It is on aisle 3 alone", that it is actually on another aisle as well? Do you not understand naturally that it is on aisle 3 only? 'Faith alone' is a natural conclusion that one must come to when Paul so directly answers the question of how a man is saved.
 
Mr. Darby said:
Lysander, I want to address one thing that you have mentioned, the fact that the Bible says 'faith' and not 'faith alone'. I think that is a better rhetorical device than it is a strong theological argument. When the Philippian Jailor asked what he must do to be saved, Paul mentioned belief in Jesus Christ as the condition of salvation. Acts 16:

29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

When Paul was confronted directly on how to be saved, he mentions nothing other than belief. Surely, if something else were required, he would have here mentioned it. No, he did not say 'belief alone', but the common sense understanding of language leads us only to that conclusion. Now for an analogy:

Suppose that I work in a grocery store. You, a customer, come in and ask me where rice is. I tell you, "Rice is on aisle 3." Now, do you suppose that because I did not say, "It is on aisle 3 alone", that it is actually on another aisle as well? Do you not understand naturally that it is on aisle 3 only? 'Faith alone' is a natural conclusion that one must come to when Paul so directly answers the question of how a man is saved.
Click to expand...

It's a good analogy, but I'm not convinced it flies because 1) we're basing
it off of modern English, and more importantly, 2) James and Paul spoke of the same exact faith (both referenced Abraham's and talked about justification), and if James said that regarding justification, it's not faith alone, then either James and Paul disagreed which means at least one part of the bible is fallible (which I suspect neither of us think is true) or that we are not justified by faith alone.

This is why Martin Luther called James "an epistle of straw"--he believed his epistle was pointless, unnecessary, dribble, and didn't have to be followed.

But it should all be followed. Both Paul and James wrote letters profitable for Christian practice.

We don't discard Acts 2:38 because it says to "repent and be baptized" rather than "just believe."
 
JustPassingThru said:
Hey LS, slow down bro, you have totally misjudged what I was saying, I don't and would never consider you in the way you are saying, that's not Christian love (love thinks no wrong), I was trying to add some humor to a difficult response, to a difficult situation, ...so you never watched the reruns of the Gong Show with Chuck Barris and me, ...Gene, Gene the Dancing Machine, it was an amateur talent show and a large Gong was used to stop the performers, hence the reason I said, Gong - Stop, ...you might want to Goggle Gong Show on YouTube, ...I apologize for my antiquated sense of humor that has hurt your feelings, as stated it was not my intention, ...I'll get back to you later because I don't have the time this morning to respond.

Luv ya bro,

Gene
Click to expand...

I may have mistook what you said fr being snide and condescending. I don't mind criticisms of arguments and points, but a pet peeve of mine is when people often result to the "you're young" statement, as if to say "you don't know what you're talking about" when it's about something like theological differences.

Sorry if I blew off the handle.

Oh, and yes--I know the Gong Show. ;) not trying to put on airs, but I know an absurd amount about past eras, from pop-culture to politics to common values. I've always taken an interest to these things ever since I was about 6.
 
Again, Acts 2:38 is aimed at national Israel. They were to repent and be baptized in order that they might receive the gifts promised in Joel 2 when Christ returned. Salvation of the individual was not primarily in view here, but rather national repentance.

Again, scripture tells us that Abraham was justified simply by faith long before the event mentioned by James. Genesis 15:6

And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

This was decades before the offering of Isaac, and Abraham was counted righteous long before the event James is referring to. Did Abraham have to be justified over and over again? Or did his act provide proof of the reality of the faith which had long before justified him?

Again, I don't think the fact that modern English is used in the analogy harms it in any way. I see no evidence in the Greek new testament that the word 'alone' must accompany anything before it can be considered 'alone.'

Again, that proving the reality of faith by it's fruits is what James is first aiming at is shown by the immediate context of the passage. James 2:18

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The idea James is getting at in this passage is that the fruit proves of what variety the tree is. I cannot accept the Roman Catholic teaching regarding this passage because they remove the verse from it's context in the passage, thus violating grammatical rules for correct interpretation. vv. 19-21 must be read in light of verse 18.
 
Mr. Darby said:
Again, Acts 2:38 is aimed at national Israel. They were to repent and be baptized in order that they might receive the gifts promised in Joel 2 when Christ returned. Salvation of the individual was not primarily in view here, but rather national repentance.

Again, scripture tells us that Abraham was justified simply by faith long before the event mentioned by James. Genesis 15:6

And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

This was decades before the offering of Isaac, and Abraham was counted righteous long before the event James is referring to. Did Abraham have to be justified over and over again? Or did his act provide proof of the reality of the faith which had long before justified him?

Again, I don't think the fact that modern English is used in the analogy harms it in any way. I see no evidence in the Greek new testament that the word 'alone' must accompany anything before it can be considered 'alone.'

Again, that proving the reality of faith by it's fruits is what James is first aiming at is shown by the immediate context of the passage. James 2:18

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The idea James is getting at in this passage is that the fruit proves of what variety the tree is. I cannot accept the Roman Catholic teaching regarding this passage because they remove the verse from it's context in the passage, thus violating grammatical rules for correct interpretation. vv. 19-21 must be read in light of verse 18.
Click to expand...

But Mr. Darby, unless I'm mistaken, this is a different explanation for James 2 than the one you gave before. It can't be both.

Where did you come up with this translation?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top