Posted on 10/09/2020 6:01:41 AM PDT by Teleios Research
Paul was not saved while on that road to Damascus. While on the road the Lord told Paul to “go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.” Acts 22:6. In Damascus Paul was to meet with Ananias Acts 9:11 who would tell Paul “what he must do” Acts 9:6. Ananias commanded Paul “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” Acts 22:16.
So Paul could not be saved while on the road to Damascus because he was still lost in his sins and remained so until he obeyed God’s command to be baptized ans wash away his sins.
Faith alone, that is faith void of obedient works a repentance confession and baptism cannot save, cannot justify.
Again, we each are either obeying God’s will or disobeying. Nowhere ever does God justify those that do not obey Him.
You are trying to put the cart before the horse, that is, put salvation BEFORE obedience when the Bible puts obedience BEFORE receiving God’s free gift. One must FIRST met the condition THEN one receives the free gift. As Naaman FIRST obeyed by dipping THEN he received the free gift of healing. He was not first healed THEN obeyed.
I don’t expect you to see it.
If you don’t like the definition God gave us, there’s not much one can do for you.
Reject God at your own peril.
A condition for a free gift.
PFFFHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Can’t decide if whoever came up with that canard is oxymoron or just moron.
Does the idea of “faith only” deny that one must FIRST obey BEFORE one can be saved or not? Obedience BEFORE justification?
I gave verses that show faith is a work. Heb 11:1 does not say “faith is not a work”. You read your ideas into the verse.
I find it amusing that you outright ignore so much of the Scripture that boatbums and others posted that contradicts you.
Ignoring it won’t make it go away.
Faith only blinds people to the simple facts that free gifts can and sometimes do come with conditions and meeting the condition does not in anyway earn the free gift.
I gave the example of Naaman. God did not own Naaman anything so it was by grace God would offer to Naaman the free gift of healing ON THE CONDITION Namman first go and dip 7 times in the river. Obey FIRST and THEN receive the free gift. NOTHING earned here by Naaman.
Would you like more examples?
You cannot “PFFFHAHAHAHAHAHA” away facts and reality.
You are taking one verse Romans 4:5 OUT OF CONTEXT and ASSUME Paul is eliminating all works of all kinds from salvation.
First, Paul does not contradict himself going from Rom 4 to Rom 6. In Rom 6 Paul put obedience BEFORE salvation/justification, Rom 6:16-17. Furthermore Paul and James do not contradict each other, James plainly shows that obedient works justify.
Paul——obey from the heart>>>>>>>>>>justified/freed from sin
James-——works>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>justify
So Paul and James are in 100% agreement that obedient works do justify.
If you examine the first 4 chapters of Romans, and not pull one verse out of context, you will find NOWHERE did Paul ever eliminate obedience from being justified. The only work Paul shows in Rom chapters 1-4 that does not justify was the perfect flawless works the OT law of Moses required.
Note in Romans chapters 1 and 2 Paul shows that all, both Jew and Gentile have sinned therefore are under sin. All those under sin (Jews and Gentiles) are need of justification.
Note in the pivotal chapter of Romans 3. Paul starts this chapter by telling us what does NOT justify those under sin (the OT law of Moses) and spends the last part of Roman 3 telling what does justify those under sin (faith).
Paul begins chapter 3 talking about how the Jews were given the oracles of God, that is were given the OT law of Moses. That OT law provided the Jews many advantages over the Gentiles.
Yet one thing that OT law could not do for the Jew was justify the Jew. That OT law required the strict work of perfect, flawless law keeping to be justified which none of the Jews could do. Leading Paul to declare in Gal 3:11 that “no man is justified by the law in the sight of God.” This is why in Rom 3:9 that the Jews, though they had the OT, were no better than the Gentiles for BOTH Jew and Gentile are under sin.
Paul closes chapter 3 by showing faith justifies, he did not say faith alone justifies. So the only work in the context that Paul does eliminate from justification are the perfect works required by the OT law and did NOT eliminate a faithful obedience.
In Rom 4 Paul gives an example of a Gentile (Abraham) and a Jew (David). We know from Rom chapters 1 and 2 Jew and Gentile are under sin therefore David and Abraham were under sin (neither man was perfectly sinless) and need of justification. We know from Rom 3 the perfect works required by the OT law could not justify them so they must have been justified by an obedient faith, not by faith alone.
Rom 4:5 “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
So Abraham (and David) “worketh not” meaning they did not work to keep the OT law perfectly to be justified but instead both justified by an obedient believing.
Paul quotes David who said “ Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.”
Question: is it those who OBEY God’s will, who OBEY in repenting of sins whose iniquities are covered and sins forgiven? Or is it the disobedient who will not obey God, who will not repent whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered?
Obviously it is those who OBEY are the ones justified (iniquities forgiven/win covered).
For nowhere does the Bible teach God forgives those that will not obey Him. So all the impenitent will be lost.
So IN CONTEXT we find the only work Paul mentioned that does not justify is the perfect flawless law keeping required by the OT law. Paul does require a faithful obedience in order for one’s sins to be forgiven.
I know this is rather a long post from me but was necessary to show how to KEEP THINGS IN CONTEXT.
You cannot “PFFFHAHAHAHAHAHA” away facts and reality.
***
No, but I can laugh off oxymoronic statements.
Also, the example of Naaman is no example at all since we’re talking about physical healing, not salvation, so that’s a non sequitur as well.
The FACT is that God’s grace is a free gift that does not require obedience beforehand and we are backed up by Scripture, and that obedience is what comes after. YOU are the one claiming that Scripture actually means the exact opposite of what it says.
That’s really pathetic, honestly.
If you examine the first 4 chapters of Romans, and not pull one verse out of context, you will find NOWHERE did Paul ever eliminate obedience from being justified.
***
OH HEY, lookit the strawman argument!
Stop repeating lies about what I believe and maybe I’ll take you seriously.
The rest of your post is not worth replying to because you have started with a false assumption and built everything else on top of that falsehood.
It was especially the part, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand.", that did it. I thank Him every day for His love, grace and mercy.
Believing and trusting in Jesus Christ to be our Savior IS the obedience of faith! I receive God's gift of eternal life through "faithing" in His promise. I believe God. You keep insisting that obedience must come first before one is justified and saved, but you fail to define what this obedience entails. You mention "confession". Okay, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord. I confessed that I am a sinner and that I needed a Savior to make atonement for my sin. When I sin, I go to the Lord in prayer and confess my sin and thank Him for forgiving me.
You insist that "baptism" is required. Okay, I was baptized as a baby into the Roman Catholic church and then I was baptized at 16 years old when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and joined a Southern Baptist church. So, according to your requirements, I am saved, right? I've been obedient, right? If not, then what more do you think I must do before I can know I have eternal life as Scripture says I can? You denied that anyone can have assurance of salvation, that they can know they are saved. You claimed, "Eternal security is a prime example of false idea that came from uninspired men. Jesus nor any of His Apostles ever taught it." If that is so, then why did Jesus and His Apostles teach one CAN have eternal security (I gave several proof texts upthread)?
Explain how your gospel isn't boastful pride in your obedient works to save you instead of purely by the unmerited, undeserved, unearned GRACE of God? The glory is ALL Gods - we cannot claim any credit. If Abraham was indeed justified by works, he had something to boast about, but not before God
Probably Santa Claus was involved with his "naughty or nice" list?
HMMMmmm...
Hebrews 11:6 KJV
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that.
I’m glad that it did!
However; yesterday I could NOT get the verses to copy, so all I could do was post the reference to them.
Looks like our refusal to abandon the Gospel of grace finally drove him off.
Once again, without their strawmen of accusing us of being unrepentant sinners, they have nothing.
My hope is that rather than driving him off he has gone away to meditate on all that we have shared with him about the truth of the Gospel of God’s grace. :o)
Who are you talking about?
Took you 4 months to respond, eh?
Must have demolished you pretty bad.
Nope, just noticed it
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.