Posted on 02/23/2015 11:33:40 AM PST by RnMomof7
God created the "legal" obligation when He said that He would not "impute" a man's sins to his account and would, instead, impute the righteousness of Christ through faith.
Eternal life is not a reward for works we do, but an act of grace and mercy by God. He gives to us eternal life as a gift and we receive that gift by faith. It is then that we learn how to walk in righteousness and holiness through the indwelling Holy Spirit - which genuine faith gives us. It is then that we can produce the kind of fruit that truly honors and glorifies God and not ourselves. We have been freed from the slavery to sin and its hold and can walk in newness of life through the new spirit nature.
They indicate there is a relationship ("according to") between works and eternal life. And Jesus illustrates the point amply in Matt. 25. "They don't mean what you say" isn't an answer.
Wrestle with these and get back to me.
The immediate thing that leaps off the page is what follows after each item is not the verse itself, but some anonymous person's take on those verses. That doesn't warrant much consideration. A lot are taken from Romans which just underscores my initial point: to understand the sense of "works" Paul excludes in Chapters 3-5 and later, one has to understand before then what sense of "works" Paul includes in Chapter 2.
Tossing out a page of verses is no substitute for intelligent exposition. If all you care for is the superficial, have at it.
I get it....you believe in the false notion of baptismal regeneration.
Believe, repent, confess, and be baptized in order to be saved right? Jesus must “accept us”? Right?
Explain Acts 16:31 please to defend your stance. Or what about 1 Corinthians 1:14-17? Keep in mind the word “believe” is used multiple times with “saved”.
And 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 fails to mention baptism.
Folks like you try to put a wall between God & man. Jesus made it simple. I trust Him alone, not my works.
Prove it! You are doing EXACTLY as I predicted: negating what the verse says because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived view. Let's look at the verses I put forth again:
6 For [God] will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. Rom 2:6-8
The contrast set up between verses 7 and 8 is one between obedience and disobedience. Those who are obedient through "well-doing" are rewarded with "eternal life." But those who are factious and disobedient will be meted a different justice accordingly.
Paul through the Holy Spirit says that what God will "render" (reward) is applicable to "every man." "Every man" means everyone -- that includes believers. And to further show this point, the Greek that here translates as "render" is the verb apodidōmi. And apodidōmi elsewhere is clearly used as regards believers:
"Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award [apodidomi] to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. 2 Tim. 4:8
So, contrary to your assertion, Paul in Rom 2 is addressing believers ("every man"). And Paul says that as to "every man" God will render (reward) according to works; to those that are obedient he will give "eternal life" (salvation).
Though Jesus takes that question and rephrases it, does He not? He changes it from "what shall WE do . . the works (plural) of God" to "this is the work (singular) of God." Now, this is hardly the only instance in the Gospels of Jesus doing this sort of thing. But you seemingly haven't appreciated that He does it here, too, nor to consider why he modifies their question.
In any event, John's Chapter 6 has NOTHING to do with understanding what Paul says in Romans 2. Different audiences; different subject matter; different context.
If you have to do the works as part of your salvation ... then there can never be pure motives in doing them ... there is always a selfish aspect to it.
Not if one understands that what we do for good is SOLELY on account of God. I disagree that the motive in all cases is a selfish one. I think it ENTIRELY possible to give the glory to God (as we should).
Freedom in Christ is doing the works knowing we don't have to ... we want to ... we want to share the gospel with others, we want to study the scriptures, we want to help the poor ... not because we must ... but because we can now do it without selfish motives ... our motives at least have the potential to be selfless.
Please explain "we don't have to" in light of the parables of the lazy steward and the sheep and the goats in Matt. 25. What you say and what Scripture illustrates are here two seemingly different things.
later
God has never created any legal obligation from Him to mankind. That's a primary point of Paul's teaching in Romans 3 and 4.
Eternal life is not a reward for works we do
So you say. But Paul through the Holy Spirit says contrary:
6 For [God] will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life[.]
God will render (reward) "according to works," and the stated reward (to those who are obedient and persevere) is "eternal life."
Yes, that is what the verse says.
The rest of your paragraph following this first clause is but so much opinion with nothing offered to substantiate it. Accordingly, I'm disregarding it.
OK, good. You are helping illustrate the point I'm driving at.
Paul in Rom. 2:6-7 draws a positive association between "works" and the receipt of "eternal life."
And Paul in Eph. 2:8-10 disassociates "works" and "salvation."
Now, if one is a Bible and Christian critic, this is but one more example of alleged "Bible contradictions." But for the believer, the challenge instead is to understand and explain how "works" as used by Paul in Rom. 2 has a different understanding from "works" as used in Eph. 2.
That's where a true discussion and a true examination of Scripture lies. It doesn't lie in merely tossing out as many other verses as one can find that "sound like" one's preferred interpretation of Eph. 2 and then giving a hand wave and acting as if Rom. 2 can be disregarded. (Bible critics laugh at that one).
So then the question is posed: how is Paul using "works" differently in these verses so that they are reconciled?
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Romans 6:14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Get set free from that works based fear.
**Explain Acts 16:31 please to defend your stance.**
I understand. I was trained the same way. Believe the teachers you have been listening to. Don’t question their authority, or the traditions handed down. Pull Acts 16:31, and leave the rest of the story as unimportant. I’m going to show you how to finish the story, AND break it down:
The story continues with Paul speaking “unto him the word of the Lord, and to ALL that were IN HIS HOUSE. And he TOOK THEM that same hour of the night, and WASHED their stripes; and was BAPTIZED, he and all his straightway. And WHEN he had BROUGHT them INTO HIS HOUSE, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, BELIEVING in God with all his house.” Acts 16:32-34
1. We see that the keeper of the prison has brought Paul and Silas into his house, because they speak “the word of the Lord” to the man and all those “IN HIS HOUSE” (unless you think that they somehow got a message to hustle on down to the prison for church service).
2. “He TOOK THEM” (took them, from where to where, pray tell?). Well, he washed their stripes somewhere besides the house. Some place where there would be plenty of water for the messy job of washing their stripes.
3. While still AWAY from home, possibly at the same location, they were BAPTIZED, he and all his straightway.
(you can insist that that is talking about Spirit baptism only. Prove it. I believe it is water baptism, or both water and Spirit baptism).
4. He brought them back INTO his house,......he and all his “rejoiced, BELIEVING in God with all his house”.
**Or what about 1 Corinthians 1:14-17?**
When faced with passages that mention baptism, but don’t specifically say that it was water baptism, the teachers that you probably endorse will say it’s not talking about water baptism. But, when faced with the passage in 1Cor. 1:12-17, then they wholehearted agree that it is referring to water baptism.
Then there is the emphasis on the name, which Paul makes clear to be Jesus: 1Cor. 1:13 “Is CHRIST divided? was PAUL crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul?”
He admits to baptizing Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus.
And then you think he decided that he was wrong to do so?
1Cor. 1:17 is a declaration by Paul, telling us that his ministry was not just baptism. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have baptized ANYBODY.
Now, the list of the brief mentioning of baptisms. You may argue that those are ‘Spirit’ baptisms only. Can you prove that? I say they are water baptisms, or both (and Paul is involved in all but the first of them):
Acts 2:41 about 3,000 were added.
9:18 Saul/Paul’s conversion.
16:15 Lydia and her household.
16:33 keeper of the prison and his household.
18:8 Crispus (one of several Paul admitted to baptizing in Corinth. 1Cor 1:14,16)
22:16 Saul/Paul again.
Now I will list the separate DETAILED accounts of water baptism (remember, water baptism is the Lord’s will, not mine).
8:12,13 (Samaritans) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip...”.
Notice they ‘believed, and were baptized’. (sounds like fulfillment of the the Lord’s command in Mark 16:16; “He that believeth, and is baptized..”). They had NOT received the Spirit yet. Peter and John were then called to come to Samaria:
8:16; “(For as yet he was fallen upon NONE of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”
The Ethiopian eunuch: 8:35-38; “Then Philip....preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is WATER; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down INTO the WATER, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (first detailed witness mentioning water used in baptism).
10:46,47,48 (Gentiles) “...Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME of the Lord...”. (second detailed witness of water in baptism).
In Acts 11 we find Peter back in Jerusalem, after the conversion event at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea, testifying of their receiving the Holy Ghost. With God giving them the Spirit, his hand was forced to obey God’s ordained plan, and baptize them in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Notice his testamony at that point:
11:17; “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; WHAT WAS I, THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD?”.
God expected Peter to do HIS part, and baptise them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins. Peter HAD to do it, for it was required by God.
Under your ‘no works’ opinion, those souls were completely born again after the Spirit fell, so Peter had NOTHING to withstand. Also, he could have refused to baptize them. But knew he couldn’t withstand God’s command, for notice his words; “Can any man forbid water..”.
Re-baptism in Ephesus: 19:5,6 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (OOPS! Paul baptized ‘about twelve’ people, when he ‘wasn’t sent to baptize’. /sarc).
Now, the references to baptism in the epistles, which were written to those already born again (note the intro to those letters; ‘brethern’, ‘faithful’, ‘saints’, etc. Like it or not, that’s the context).
Romans 6:3; “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
4. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:....” (That’s certainly not Spirit baptism, because the Spirit is life.) “..that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the GLORY of the FATHER, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
5 “For if we have been planted together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the LIKENESS of his resurrection.”
Being born again requires obedience, which is NOT ‘our OWN works’. As Paul said to the saints in Rome:
16 “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 17 Being THEN made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.”
Col. 2:12 is quite similar: “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Buried,...risen,.....That sure is clear to me: Paul is referring to water baptism, and Spirit baptism, as separate events, and that both are required.
Heb. 6:1-3 is written to those born again: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection: not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement. And this we will do if God permit.”
(Notice the ‘doctine of baptisms’ is plural?)
1Peter is also written to born again souls. Look at 1:2, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto OBEDIENCE and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ...”.
1Peter 3:20,21 is quite plain, if you are willing to allow it to harmonize with everything presented so far. 20 “...eight souls were saved by water.” 21 “The LIKE figure whereunto even BAPTISM doth also now save us (not the butting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Water baptism is not a bath, but is done in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. That is how it saves. That is how one has the answer of a good conscience toward God. Being “buried with him” is where you get his blood on you, but his NAME must not be left out.
**And 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 fails to mention baptism.**
If you keep reading that chapter you will see it. “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1Cor 15:29. That’s Paul (the one who wasn’t suppose to baptize), saying that if Christ (and the asleep in Christ) rise not, then it is all vain. If there is no resurrection, then water baptism into Christ is a waste of time. Of course, we know that is not the case, since Christ is risen, and the Spirit poured out.
**I trust Him alone**
But do you trust ALL of his WORDS?
Is it not right to believe on the Lord as HE instructs us to believe on him? He gives very explicit instructions in being born again, beginning with John 3:5-8. Then, at the end of the Gospels, we read his words of commission to his apostles.
Matt. 28:19; the Lord commanded that THEY baptize souls.
Mark 16:16; The Lord commanded to his disciples that one must believe and be baptized to be saved.
Luke 24:47; The Lord commanded that repentance and remission of sins are to be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
John 20:23; The Lord commanded that whose soever sins YE remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins YE retain, they are retained.
Then following those commands, the apostles preached Jesus Christ, commanding repentance, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost.
Jesus has made it quite clear that if you want his blood on you, you must be ‘buried’ in his name.
In Acts 2:37 (Jews) we find convicted souls asking, “what shall we do?”
The ‘wide way’ answer seems to be, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved”. But no details, such as HOW to believe, contrary to what the Lord and his apostles specifically commanded.
2:38; “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. (note the position of the commas in the KJV.)
Acts 2:38, is it from heaven, or of men?
No, I'm not the one who is pitting Paul against Paul. What he consistently teaches is that God will NOT count our sins against us if we are under grace. That is what is meant by "imputing" or "imputation" of righteousness. We are found in Christ, not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. (see Philippians 3:9).
Gill's Exposition of the Bible explains what Romans 2:6 means by God rendering to every man according to his works:
You are getting stuck in the same rut many do who imagine their works are what justifies them. If that is what you want to cling to, then I doubt anything I or anyone else says to you will change your mind. Continuing to argue the same points is a waste of time. I'll continue to pray for you and all those who are reading these threads for eyes and hearts to be opened to the grace of God that brings salvation.
I see you’ve done a lot of work to justify your stance.
I’m not convinced that your interpretation is what the Lord intended. You suggest that there is something that must be done on our part to be “saved” (baptism), steals the meaning of “grace”. The Bible and Word of God does NOT contradict itself. You are either saved from the second you believe in Christ during this dispensation or countless verses must be wrong.
I hold firm that baptism is an outward expression of an inward reality that we are saved by faith through grace. You suggest that a man dying on the battlefield from a wound who FINALLY comes to Christ and dies without baptism because there isn’t a pool of water to baptize is sent tho HELL????
Where in Acts 2:38 does it mention saving faith? It’s not implied anywhere. This verse applies to saved Christians only, since it’s assumed they’ve already acquired that saving faith in what Romans 10:9-10, John 6:29, John 11:25.
Oh, but the point is it's not just one verse. The point is that when Paul writes "For God will render to every man according to his works," Paul is simply stating a point that every Jew (and Gentile with knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures) would recognize. For this is a point the OT repeatedly makes:
"And loving kindness is Yours, O Lord, For You recompense a man according to his work." Ps. 62:12
"I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve." Jer. 17:10
"For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil." Eccl. 12:14 (Cf, 2 Cor. 5:10)
"And if you say, 'See, we did not know this,' Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?" Prov. 24:12
˜Therefore, listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do wickedness, And from the Almighty to do wrong. "For He pays a man according to his work ..." Job 34:10,11
And those hearing accounts of Jesus, Paul's teacher, (the Gospels had not yet been written when Paul wrote Romans) would recognize that Jesus taught this same principle(e.g., Matt. 16:27; John 5:26-29.)
"I, the Lord, do not change." (Mal. 3:6) That point had already been built, so to speak.
So Paul repeats this same principle near the outset of his letter to the Romans. He then spends the next three or so chapters (as we divide them now) explaining the right way and the wrong way to understand "God will render eternal life in accordance with works."
We are the New Testament new covenant ekklesia not the Old. Jesus was still talking to Old Covenant Jews in most of His speeches and it's paramount that we "rightly divide"..
God does NOT render eternal life in accordance with works. He renders rewards AFTER we receive eternal life in accordance to works.
In discussions on salvation and how faith and works come into play, Protestants invariably jump immediately ahead to somewhere about Romans ch. 3-4. Your so-called "pitting Paul against Paul" is avoided by almost never mentioning what he first says in Chapter 2.
Protestants describe justification in forensic terms -- God sitting as judge and acquitting the believer and awarding eternal life. But here's my point: in every illustration and statement about how God will judge us, the explicitly stated criterion is that of works. So how on earth can justification be said to be "by faith alone" when in Scripture works are the thing illustrated as the basis of acquittal/judgment? I don't deny that faith is an underlying principle for those rewarded with Heaven. But as such, it is only implicit. How do you move past the explicit principle (works) to make the implicit principle exclusive?
There lies a chief objection I have with Protestant soteriology.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible explains what Romans 2:6 means by God rendering to every man according to his works
And most of this I can nod in agreement. But this commentary fudges it in a few points: "and to good men eternal life, not according to the merit of their good works, which have none in them, but according to the nature of them[.]"
The author's problem (seeing as the author is Protestant and trying to preserve a Protestant principal) is that Paul speaks of those "persevering in well-doing." Well, if Scripture calls these "good works (well-done works)" then such have an inherent goodness to them, right? Possessing that quality, they are worthy of the promised reward (which is what term "merit" used in its theological sense (from the Latin meritum) means).
But the author has to do a bit of verbal play here, saying the works are rendered with eternal life not because of their "merit" (even though they are called "good works") but on account of their "nature." If you can explain the distinction between the "nature" of good works and the "merit" of good works, you get a prize. It's just typical Protestant word play that arises whenever "works" is used in a positive sense to turn it around and say "its really talking about faith."
As I've noted, Paul in Rom. 2:6-7 echoes what his Teacher, Jesus Christ says:
For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Matt. 16:27
The "coming with his angels" phrasing is repeated and expanded by Jesus later:
Matthew 25:31-46Revised Standard Version (RSV) The Judgment of the Nations 31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matt. 25:31-46
Are the works illustrated here ascribed a meritorious(i.e, being given the promised reward) value? Yes, they are. On account of those works, the "sheep" are called "righteous." (compare 1 John 3:7 ("He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.")
So the Gill commentary is right in noting "what is suitable and agreeable to those good works, which, by the assistance of his grace, they have been enabled to perform." But the Gill commentator's gratuitous "which have none in them" belies a theological bias.
A point that has absolutely zero to do with the fact that the NT writers habitually quote the OT. You are being your usual idiotic self here.
Jesus was still talking to Old Covenant Jews in most of His speeches
And on that account you conclude that nothing Jesus says whenever speaking to Jews has applicability to us today? Of all the nonsensical things you've said, this reaches a new level of idiocy. Under this approach you'd have to gut the majority of the Gospels as irrelevant today. Most audiences were Jewish. The Apostles (like Jesus) were "old covenant Jews." The Gentiles don't come much into view until Pentecost.
it's paramount that we "rightly divide"
We're talking Scriptural analysis, not arithmetic.
I think you need to take a time out son.
Let me try to spoon-feed this one to you again and see if you can avoid spitting it back out:
6 For [God] will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life[.]
Let's break down the text. 1) Who will render (reward)? -- God. 2) What is the basis stated for the reward? -- "works"; 3) what is the stated reward given to those who persist in "well-doing" -- "eternal life."
So, yes, Scripture through the Holy Spirit says that God will reward eternal life in accordance with works.
He renders rewards AFTER we receive eternal life in accordance to works.
I'll await you showing a verse that says that. You're just twisting this one around to fit a pre-conceived notion that's been drilled into you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.