Not By Works

[azamzimtoti]

And you never answered the question, can someone get saved today by preaching the message the disciples preached before the cross? "The kingdom of heaven is at hand"

No they can't, they would be the same position as these people:

(Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.)

(Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.)

How you and mahjong are able to make something a kid could understand complicated is beyond me.

 

[posthuman]

Why hasn't the end come?

Because He isn't going to lose a single one of those the Father gave to Him, and every single one the Father gave will come to Him and not be cast out.

When He has gathered every one of His sheep He will close the gate to the sheepfold.

 

[azamzimtoti]

Jesus is a Prince, a king in waiting to restore the kingdom of Israel, and a Saviour from sins.

That's your dispensational teacher(s) speaking for you.

 

[John146]

Because He isn't going to lose a single one of those the Father gave to Him, and every single one the Father gave will come to Him and not be cast out.

When He has gathered every one of His sheep He will close the gate to the sheepfold.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Yet, Paul said the gospel he preached had gone out to all nations. The end has not come. Hmmmmm....scripture either lied, or the Messages are not the same.

 

[azamzimtoti]

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Yet, Paul said the gospel he preached had gone out to all nations. The end has not come. Hmmmmm....scripture either lied, or the Messages are not the same.

OR as I said you don't understand what Jesus meant by "then shall the end come".

(Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself)

If Jesus appeared "in the end of the world" then either Hebrews is wrong or your doctrine is.

 

[John146]

OR as I said you don't understand what Jesus meant by "then shall the end come".

(Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself)

If Jesus appeared "in the end of the world" then either Hebrews is wrong or your doctrine is.

So when did the end come? When Jesus died on the cross? Or many years later when Paul’s gospel went out to all the world?

 

[azamzimtoti]

So when did the end come? When Jesus died on the cross? Or many years later when Paul’s gospel went out to all the world?

(Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.)

Paul is speaking of the day being at hand.

 

[Bbrdrd]

As you probably know, Moses was raised up and appointed by God to lead His people out of the slavery and bondage of Egypt.
He is a type and shadow of how Jesus was raised up and appointed by God to lead His people out of the slavery and bondage of sin.
Along the way, Moses was cut off from entering into the inheritance because of the sin of the people.
They go in while Moses gets cut off.
This is a picture for us of how Jesus was also cut off because of our sin.
He got cut off while we who sinned enter in.

Remember, Moses is a picture of the reality, Christ.
Don't overthink it and ruin this wonderful glimpse into the penalty Christ endured because of us who sinned.
Watch, some will.

It seems to me many in this thread have fallen so under the sway of "reformers" who sought to throw out bits of the Bible they didn't like that they cannot see past their own false assurances. Instead of accepting responsibility, recognizing that God is just and will judge righteously, they cling to a false hope that they will be saved in spite of their failings. It's a mockery of atonement and instead they condemn an innocent so that their guilt may be forgiven. And they think a God who promised vengeance will accept their soft professions, as if the guilt offering did not require repayment over and above what was taken.

 

[posthuman]

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Yet, Paul said the gospel he preached had gone out to all nations. The end has not come. Hmmmmm....scripture either lied, or the Messages are not the same.

in Mark 13, the parallel account of exactly the same conversation at the Mount of Olives, He says it behooves first that "the gospel" ((singular)) go out to all nations.

Paul says in Colossians 1:23 that the gospel ((singular)) has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. every creature. either this is hyperbole or what is specifically referred to is the ubiquitous manifestation of the invisible qualities of God in the creation itself, testifying of Him. He is salvation.

numerous passages in Matthew & Luke ((essentially Peter's gospel)) parallel and have 'kingdom of God' in one and 'kingdom of heaven' in exactly the same saying in the other. if you want to play this "either the Bible is broken or.. " game you really ought to deal with that fact. either this whole "multiple gospels, God's unable to set a date" dispensationalism is fundamentally flawed, or the synoptic gospels are self-contradictory. that's a much bigger scriptural issue to address than how Paul can say "every creature under heaven" has the gospel proclaimed to them while most of the creatures under heaven had not even been born yet and whole continents of the earth had not been evangelized. not to mention all the creatures under heaven who lived before the middle of the timeline of Acts. is it not?


God is the God of heaven. His Kingdom is everlasting.

 

[azamzimtoti]

So when did the end come? When Jesus died on the cross? Or many years later when Paul’s gospel went out to all the world?

Yes, but you are equating "the end" with the end of the world.

 

[posthuman]

It seems to me many in this thread have fallen so under the sway of "reformers" who sought to throw out bits of the Bible they didn't like that they cannot see past their own false assurances. Instead of accepting responsibility, recognizing that God is just and will judge righteously, they cling to a false hope that they will be saved in spite of their failings. It's a mockery of atonement and instead they condemn an innocent so that their guilt may be forgiven. And they think a God who promised vengeance will accept their soft professions, as if the guilt offering did not require repayment over and above what was taken.

it seems like you think other people aren't good enough, and you blame the grace that is preached according to the gospel.

 

[Bbrdrd]

it seems like you think other people aren't good enough, and you blame the grace that is preached according to the gospel.

Not at all, though I do think that the reformation view of grace is mistaken and many take advantage of it. Preaching that we are saved absent any works is to turn justice on its head, but to preach that we are saved because of our works is absent of grace. We must eternally be aware of our own culpability while also recognizing that salvation is a gift we can never earn. To preach that the only requirement is "belief" is to completely miss the historical considerations that faith entailed.

 

[posthuman]

Not at all, though I do think that the reformation view of grace is mistaken and many take advantage of it. Preaching that we are saved absent any works is to turn justice on its head, but to preach that we are saved because of our works is absent of grace. We must eternally be aware of our own culpability while also recognizing that salvation is a gift we can never earn. To preach that the only requirement is "belief" is to completely miss the historical considerations that faith entailed.

dunno what to tell you.
it's literally what the Bible says. we are saved by grace through faith apart from works, and that, not of ourselves.
historically there have always been false teachings circulating among what is called the church on earth. one of them is semi-Pelagianism/synergism.

your perspective isn't new. always with it is the argument 'but if we preach that salvation is free people will take advantage of grace and be licentious' -- Paul was accused in essentially the same way, see Romans 3:8 & 6:1. ask yourself what kind of gospel is being preached which raises an obvious question 'why not just keep living in sin, then?'
if this is an obvious response to the pure, true gospel preached in the scriptures, is that gospel one that says grace is contingent on works or is the gospel which is actually in the Book one that says we are saved by grace even absent of works?

ask yourself also why this argument is always presented, that grace must not be preached because it will lead to licentiousness. what is the premise of that argument? that good works are a product not of the Spirit in a person, but the words of a preacher in their ear -- right? is our redemption one of self-imposed behavioral modification or one of supernatural reformative transformation? what's the Bible say?

 

[Bbrdrd]

dunno what to tell you.
it's literally what the Bible says. we are saved by grace through faith apart from works, and that, not of ourselves.
historically there have always been false teachings circulating among what is called the church on earth. one of them is semi-Pelagianism/synergism.

your perspective isn't new. always with it is the argument 'but if we preach that salvation is free people will take advantage of grace and be licentious' -- Paul was accused in essentially the same way, see Romans 3:8 & 6:1. ask yourself what kind of gospel is being preached which raises an obvious question 'why not just keep living in sin, then?'
if this is an obvious response to the pure, true gospel preached in the scriptures, is that gospel one that says grace is contingent on works or is the gospel which is actually in the Book one that says we are saved by grace even absent of works?

ask yourself also why this argument is always presented, that grace must not be preached because it will lead to licentiousness. what is the premise of that argument? that good works are a product not of the Spirit in a person, but the words of a preacher in their ear -- right? is our redemption one of self-imposed behavioral modification or one of supernatural reformative transformation? what's the Bible say?

This is a twisting. Up until Luther no one taught that salvation was free from works in grace, and that was even a response to the churches teachings on purgatory and the "treasury of merits". Paul affirmed the justification of his critics in declaring that "should we sin that sin abound" and did not once teach a salvation that was separate from the need to submit to God's law. Paul himself taught that while he was free from the law of sin and death he was still a subject of Christ's law. Ultimately, it is Luther and Calvin who is responsible for the separation between works and faith because the Biblical authors made no such distinction. If you had faith, you would have works that demonstrated that faith. If you were Christ's, you would follow Christ's law. To separate works, as in things that please God, from faith, is to create a distinction that is entirely not in mind when Paul separated works of the law, that is works that endebt God, from works of faith. There is no such thing as "free grace" and to teach such is to be completely divorced from apostolic and church history until 1517. And even then, it's a confusion of what the reformers were rejecting.

 

[OneOfHis]

dunno what to tell you.
it's literally what the Bible says. we are saved by grace through faith apart from works, and that, not of ourselves.
historically there have always been false teachings circulating among what is called the church on earth. one of them is semi-Pelagianism/synergism.

your perspective isn't new. always with it is the argument 'but if we preach that salvation is free people will take advantage of grace and be licentious' -- Paul was accused in essentially the same way, see Romans 3:8 & 6:1. ask yourself what kind of gospel is being preached which raises an obvious question 'why not just keep living in sin, then?'
if this is an obvious response to the pure, true gospel preached in the scriptures, is that gospel one that says grace is contingent on works or is the gospel which is actually in the Book one that says we are saved by grace even absent of works?

ask yourself also why this argument is always presented, that grace must not be preached because it will lead to licentiousness. what is the premise of that argument? that good works are a product not of the Spirit in a person, but the words of a preacher in their ear -- right? is our redemption one of self-imposed behavioral modification or one of supernatural reformative transformation? what's the Bible say?

Well said.

 

[posthuman]

Not at all, though I do think that the reformation view of grace is mistaken and many take advantage of it. Preaching that we are saved absent any works is to turn justice on its head, but to preach that we are saved because of our works is absent of grace. We must eternally be aware of our own culpability while also recognizing that salvation is a gift we can never earn. To preach that the only requirement is "belief" is to completely miss the historical considerations that faith entailed.

listen bro don't want to start off on bad footing that leads to bitterness.

i am not against spurring each other to good works at all times. i am all for it. i just do not believe that the way to do that is to threaten the reneging of the free gift based on some standard of works. clearly a life of licentiousness is contrary to the calling we receive, but the epistles encourage a righteous life as the wise path, the appropriate path, the inherent path of the regenerate nature - they describe it as the thing the renewed mind wants but which thing the flesh contends against, and describe that new & holy person which wants things contrary to the flesh as the real person in a believer. so it is that we should walk in a way aligned with who we really are. if it is who we really are as having become saints, even while we struggle against our old nature in time and space on earth to live according to it, then being quickened to life in Him is not something contingent on the outcome of that struggle in the narrow window of time that is our life on earth. in the eternal work that is His that outcome is guaranteed -- He will finish the work He began. perfected forever by one single sacrifice. the encouragement to live righteously is an advisio not to struggle against Him, but with Him. it's essentially "don't be an idiot, God is trying to conform you to His image, stop squirming it will hurt if you struggle"

 

[posthuman]

Well said.

6,000 pages of presenting the same case over and over is a good way to refine that argument

"not by works" ​

 

[Bbrdrd]

listen bro don't want to start off on bad footing that leads to bitterness.

i am not against spurring each other to good works at all times. i am all for it. i just do not believe that the way to do that is to threaten the reneging of the free gift based on some standard of works. clearly a life of licentiousness is contrary to the calling we receive, but the epistles encourage a righteous life as the wise path, the appropriate path, the inherent path of the regenerate nature - they describe it as the thing the renewed mind wants but which thing the flesh contends against, and describe that new & holy person which wants things contrary to the flesh as the real person in a believer. so it is that we should walk in a way aligned with who we really are. if it is who we really are as having become saints, even while we struggle against our old nature in time and space on earth to live according to it, then being quickened to life in Him is not something contingent on the outcome of that struggle. that outcome is guaranteed -- He will finish the work He began. the encouragement to live righteously is an advisio not to struggle against Him, but with Him. it's essentially "don't be an idiot, God is trying to conform you to His image, stop squirming"

I don't disagree with any of this, though the point of contention is separate. Certainly God will spurn those who are being conformed to His image in such a direction, but to teach that this is apart from works or that there is no such thing as works pleasing to God is where it seems the whole movement post-Luther has gone astray. There is clearly a judgment based on works/deeds that is repeated throughout the epistles and revelation that is an upcoming judgment. To teach people that they merely need to "believe" something is contrary to the Biblical presentation of faith. Faith that is separable from works, or even considered on its own, is no faith at all and it takes a faith that is conjoined with honest works to be reconciled. We are each culpable for our actions, and those who lack works but claim "faith" have none. It's that simple.

 

[posthuman]

Faith that is separable from works, or even considered on its own, is no faith at all and it takes a faith that is conjoined with honest works to be reconciled.

seriously this is really useful obvious question to ask: how do we get to Romans 6:1.
why does Romans 6:1 ask what it asks; why is that the logical question that needs to be addressed based on Romans 1-5?
what's in Romans 1-5?

we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
(Romans 3:28)
​

to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:​

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”​

(Romans 4:5-8)​

​

what is this doing in my Bible if a faith, a righteousness, a justification apart from works is no faith at all, no righteousness at all, no justification at all? what does this have to do with Romans 6:1 ?

 

[posthuman]

if salvation truly is the work of God by grace through faith apart from works, so that no one can boast, then that is how we must proclaim it, lest quickly find ourselves preaching another gospel.