Works can NEVER earn salvation

[dcontroversal]

Cain offered human good

Abel offered blood

When are you going to stop trying to offer God human good, and accept the shedding of blood?

NEVER......MANY will come before JESUS saying blah, blah, blah......did we not.......10 to 1 he is one such person.........

the OX before the cart(ism)...........he cannot grasp that any work that is deemed righteous by GOD or GOD'S word is the direct RESULT of the FAITH and SALVATION one already possesses....

TO coin his overused bloviated phrase

WE cannot make that any clearer......

 

[dcontroversal]

Cain could have had faith in God. And by this faith, be saved like abel. And through this faith, also do like God asked. Instead of trying to pervert Gods grace and offer human good.

If you notice heb 11. Abel had FAITH, Cain did NOT.

How do we as hmans know who had faith?

Abel did what God asked, CAIN rebelled and did his own thing.

FIXED for ya

 

[dcontroversal]

God also required Abel to show his faith by offering the correct sacrifice. He told Cain to follow what Abel did, and promised that he will accept Cain if he did so, as stated in Genesis 4:7

Let's just take liberty with the text and insert our own ideals.......wow.....Chuck would be proud of you....

 

[dcontroversal]

The whole point of James was to contrast “real” faith with pretend faith. He said nothing different, only worded it differently.

Real faith with just a mere belief in GOD.....

 

[Guojing]

So you can’t support your own espousals or simply refuse to do so. Duly noted.

People here resist quoting Genesis 4:6-7 for themselves because it goes against their doctrine that it has always been "Faith alone apart from works that saves". Even if you explain what it literally states, they still will not accept it and would rather argue from silence. There is nothing you can do with such people.

Let me explain in the next post then.

 

[Guojing]

Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, --- Agreed
but his offering did not make him become a righteous man --- Agreed
It was by or "out of" faith that Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain --- Agreed
but that was not the point/moment of becoming righteous. --- Agreed

As you can tell, I agree with all four of your points but you simply cannot see the forest for the trees.

Here's the verse:

By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. Hebrews 11:4

When did God commend Abel's? Was it before or after the act of sacrifice was done? After of course.
The verse clearly and purposely points out that God looked with favor towards Abel because he did the proper sacrifice.
God certainly knew of Abel's faith and righteousness before the physical sacrifice but it was the sacrifice that God chose to use as the event to commend Abel. Abel's sacrifice was one of obedience, Cain's was not.

Without the proper act of sacrifice by a righteous Abel there would have been no commendation.

Cain was not told to have faith but to do in order to be accepted.

Here's the verse:

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” Genesis 4:6-7

I truly cannot make this any clearer.

People here resist quoting Genesis 4:6-7 for themselves because it goes against their doctrine that it has always been "Faith alone apart from works that saves". Even if you explain what it literally states, they still will not accept it and would rather argue from silence. There is nothing you can do with such people.

By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead (Hebrews 11:4).

Once again, notice it says “a better sacrifice,” not “a better attitude.” God spoke “well of his offering,” not “well of his attitude.”

No doubt Cain’s attitude was wrong as well, but the Scripture does not say so in this passage. In another passage Cain was admonished not for his attitude, but for his actions (the wrong sacrifice), while his brother’s actions (the right sacrifice) were commended.

Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous (1 John 3:12).

Granted, actions are the result of wrong attitudes, but neither passage leaves us any room to doubt that the sacrifice in question was also at the core of the problem. Not only does it seem amply clear that God instructed Abel and Cain to offer an animal sacrifice, but also seems clear that a blood sacrifice was required.

You have come to God. . . to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Hebrews 12:23-24).

It is debated by some scholars whether the blood in this passage refers to Abel’s blood, shed by Cain, or to the blood of the sacrifice by Abel. Since the blood in question is directly linked to the sprinkled blood which definitely belongs to Jesus, it would seem that the rules of parallel interpretation would demand that this had to do with a blood sacrifice offered by Abel.

Whichever way you interpret it, one thing is clear, the passage does not read:

You have come to God. . . to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the good attitude of Abel.

 

[DJ3]

Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, but his offering did not make him become a righteous man. It was by or "out of" faith that Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, but that was not the point/moment of becoming righteous. Through his sacrifice, he was shown to be righteous (not accounted as righteous) just as Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22 and was shown to be righteous (James 2:21) but he was accounted as righteous many years before that based on his faith and not his works. (Genesis 15:5-6; Romans 4:2-3)

The blind man was cured of blindness after he washed in the Pool of Siloam. He was not saved by faith + the merits of washing in the Pool of Siloam. Can you not truly see this? What I see is you continuing to peddle salvation by faith + works.

Again, you're just not seeing it.

Regardless of Abel's righteousness, it was the acceptance by God of Abel's proper sacrifice that led to God's commendation of Abel and not Cain. Righteousness does not save, it is God declaring you saved that makes you saved. We may debate when or why we receive salvation but never should we think it is because of our righteousness.

Just as Cornelius, Joseph the husband of Mary and Simeon were labeled just and righteous, without God's commendation it is meaningless.

Abraham's accredited righteousness would have been meaningless without the proper response when God's called in Abraham account.

The blind man at the Pool of Siloam is not about salvation. It is an example of the flow and form of the entire Bible. A concept that you seem to struggle with. It did not matter where or what he was asked to do in order to be healed, just that he did it.

What I see is someone unwilling to accept what is clearly written and instead clings to what he wants to be written.

 

[dcontroversal]

People here resist quoting Genesis 4:6-7 for themselves because it goes against their doctrine that it has always been "Faith alone apart from works that saves". Even if you explain what it literally states, they still will not accept it and would rather argue from silence. There is nothing you can do with such people.

Listen....YOU do not explain it correctly.....that is why NO ONE (hardly) listens to your view........so....why should we listen to one word that you blather on about while knowing you are wrong.....

The dictionary

Goujing

Adjective

1. NOT correct or true; incorrect
"that is the wrong answer"

 

[mailmandan]

Don't understand "nominal Christians".
Can a person truly be saved if not 100% faith in Jesus and 0% in self?

Nominal - “in name only” Christians. It’s 100% faith in Jesus that saves and not faith in self. Faith in self is faith in works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

 

[SpoonJuly]

Nominal - “in name only” Christians. It’s 100% faith in Jesus that saves and not faith in self. Faith in self is faith in works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

Thanks brother
Don't remember that term used before.
Learned something new today.

 

[DJ3]

The doing would demonstrate faith. But to say "Cain was not told to have faith" means that you are ignoring the necessity of faith BEFORE the sacrifice is made.

Abel had faith in God BEFORE he made his offering. Cain had none. In fact the Bible tells us that Cain was under the control of the Wicked One -- the devil. Therefore Cain ignored God's requirement for a proper burnt offering, and decided that the fruit of the earth should be acceptable. Then he learned the error of his ways, and instead of turning to God, he killed his brother, thus compounding his sins. That is how wicked this man was.

And you are attempting to reverse what the Bible has revealed, and make Cain look like one of the good guys. I wonder why.

The following quote is a great example of misreading or reading way to much into a simple sentence.

"The doing would demonstrate faith. But to say "Cain was not told to have faith" means that you are ignoring the necessity of faith BEFORE the sacrifice is made."

First, my statement stands. There are no examples of Cain being told to have faith.
Secondly, if Cain's problem was faith why was he not told to have it?
Thirdly, why was he told to do something beyond faith? (do what is right)
And lastly my comment was meant in the context of the given passage. I never said Cain had no faith (he did have faith).

My point was simple when Cain was confronted by God, faith was not mentioned.

"And you are attempting to reverse what the Bible has revealed, and make Cain look like one of the good guys."

Come on, really? I thought you were one of the smart ones.

 

[Deuteronomy]

Who is a sinner? i think we all are.
So God sent His son to live and die for us all, but why are some still condemned? Is it something they did or failed to do? their own choice to do or fail to do? or is it God that chooses for them.

Hi Noose, God gave us free will to choose according to our strongest desire. Those who receive eternal life from God are people who want to spend eternity with Him/in His presence, and they will do so Those who want the benefits/blessings that He has to offer them, but do not want Him/do not want to live in His presence, will receive their heart's desire as well.

As for the easiest way to wrap your questions about eternal life up as concisely as possible, we are certain of these two things, 1. "whosoever believes" has it (eternal life), and he/she will not be judged, and 2. he/she who does not believe will perish, and they will be consigned by God to the place of eternal punishment.

~Deut

 

[Noose]

Hi Noose, God gave us free will to choose according to our strongest desire. Those who receive eternal life from God are people who want to spend eternity with Him/in His presence, and they will do so Those who want the benefits/blessings that He has to offer them, but do not want Him/do not want to live in His presence, will receive their heart's desire as well.

As for the easiest way to wrap your questions about eternal life up as concisely as possible, we are certain of these two things, 1. "whosoever believes" has it (eternal life), and he/she will not be judged, and 2. he/she who does not believe will perish, and they will be consigned by God to the place of eternal punishment.

~Deut

Believing is only a calling. Calling is not salvation, for many are called but few are chosen. Those that are chosen are obedient so salvation is the calling and also being obedient IMO.

 

[mailmandan]

Again, you're just not seeing it.

I see it just fine.

Regardless of Abel's righteousness, it was the acceptance by God of Abel's proper sacrifice that led to God's commendation of Abel and not Cain. Righteousness does not save, it is God declaring you saved that makes you saved. We may debate when or why we receive salvation but never should we think it is because of our righteousness.

Who said anything about being saved by our own personal righteousness? Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. Philippians 3:9 - and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith. We receive salvation the moment that we place our faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Good works "follow" having been saved through faith and do not precede it.

Just as Cornelius, Joseph the husband of Mary and Simeon were labeled just and righteous, without God's commendation it is meaningless.

Yet they were are still saved through faith and not by works.

Abraham's accredited righteousness would have been meaningless without the proper response when God's called in Abraham account.

Yet it wasn't meaningless when Abraham believed God and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:5-6; Romans 4:2-3) When Abraham performed the good work in Genesis 22, he fulfilled the expectations created by the pronouncement of his faith in Genesis 15:6.

The blind man at the Pool of Siloam is not about salvation. It is an example of the flow and form of the entire Bible. A concept that you seem to struggle with. It did not matter where or what he was asked to do in order to be healed, just that he did it.

The blind man at the Pool of Siloam was certainly not about obtaining salvation based on washing at the Pool of Siloam, but receiving sight. I understand that the blind man did what he was asked to do and was healed of blindness. I don't struggle with that.

What I see is someone unwilling to accept what is clearly written and instead clings to what he wants to be written.

That statement is the epitome of irony.

 

[mailmandan]

The doing would demonstrate faith. But to say "Cain was not told to have faith" means that you are ignoring the necessity of faith BEFORE the sacrifice is made.

Works-salvationists are more focused on do than they are in faith.

Abel had faith in God BEFORE he made his offering. Cain had none. In fact the Bible tells us that Cain was under the control of the Wicked One -- the devil. Therefore Cain ignored God's requirement for a proper burnt offering, and decided that the fruit of the earth should be acceptable. Then he learned the error of his ways, and instead of turning to God, he killed his brother, thus compounding his sins. That is how wicked this man was.[/QUOTE] Amen! Well said. Cain, who was of the evil one, demonstrated an evil heart by evil deeds, while Abel demonstrated a righteous heart by his righteous deeds (1 John 3:12) and Abel offered his sacrifice by faith and Cain did not. Cain's improper offering was evidence of his lack of faith, while Abel's offering honored God's requirement for a proper offering which gave evidence of authentic faith.

 

[mailmandan]

Darn 5 minute rule.

Abel had faith in God BEFORE he made his offering. Cain had none. In fact the Bible tells us that Cain was under the control of the Wicked One -- the devil. Therefore Cain ignored God's requirement for a proper burnt offering, and decided that the fruit of the earth should be acceptable. Then he learned the error of his ways, and instead of turning to God, he killed his brother, thus compounding his sins. That is how wicked this man was.

Amen! Well said. Cain, who was of the evil one, demonstrated an evil heart by evil deeds, while Abel demonstrated a righteous heart by his righteous deeds (1 John 3:12) and Abel offered his sacrifice by faith and Cain did not. Cain's improper offering was evidence of his lack of faith, while Abel's offering honored God's requirement for a proper offering which gave evidence of authentic faith.

 

[p_rehbein]

Which, is exactly why, water baptism IS NOT unto Salvation, for water baptism IS a WORK!

(regarding the Title of the OP)


(just saying)

 

[mailmandan]

Which, is exactly why, water baptism IS NOT unto Salvation, for water baptism IS a WORK! (just saying)

Amen! Matthew 3:13 - Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” 15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.

*Water baptism is a work of righteousness and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done.. (Titus 3:5)

 

[Grandpa]

So the million dollar question is, "Was what Abel did then, a work?"

Likewise for the Jews in the OT, who had to bring an animal sacrifice every time they sinned, would they have considered doing that "a work"?

Discuss.

Yes. Abel's sacrifice included blood. Which foreshadowed Abraham which foreshadowed the Lord Jesus Christ.

Should we emulate Abel and sacrifice animals knowing that God accepts that work as Righteousness?

No.

If we go all the way back to trying to work for our own Righteousness then we fall away from what True Righteousness before God is.

Which is trust and faith in the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[dcontroversal]

Believing is only a calling. Calling is not salvation, for many are called but few are chosen. Those that are chosen are obedient so salvation is the calling and also being obedient IMO.

This has got to be one of the most idiotic statements I have seen on this site in the almost 6 years I have been here