Research: Majority of Americans Believe Works Are the Key to Salvation

[Jackson123]

Matthew 25 takes place right after the Great Tribulation and is completely different from the Great White Throne Judgment because,,,

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. (Joh 5:24)

Who is people on the right?
The right go to eternal punishment or heaven the left go to eternal punishment or hell
verse 46
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I know my church believe this judgement in Matt 25 is only for reward mean not in this judgement go to hell
But I don't share that believe
The right is people with real faith demonstrate by work of feed Jesus mean feed the poor
The left fake believer they protest to Jesus because they think they serve Jesus but Jesus say depart from me because what you done to poor by not feeding the poor you do it for Me

In other word what Jesus say us
Salvation by faith but real faith demonstrate by loving the needy
Not helping the needy demonstrate fake faith or not faith at all

 

[Jackson123]

Matthew 25 takes place right after the Great Tribulation and is completely different from the Great White Throne Judgment because,,,

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. (Joh 5:24)

Yes whoever believe His word (including His word in Matt 25) has eternal life
So Matt 25 not contrary to that verse

 

[Phoneman-777]

Really? You mean there are verses that contradict each other? I had no idea!!

Actually, when someone comes to verses that "say the opposite" of other verses, shows that they fail to properly understand either one or both of the verses.

My use of "opposite" was not from my perspective, but from the OSAS crowd's perspective.

We conditional salvationists know that "we are saved by grace through faith, not of works" and "not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law are justified" are two verses that mean EXACTLY the same thing, while you OSAS folks cannot reconcile "not the hearers/he that doeth righteousness is righteous" with your beliefs, therefore you ignore them, regarding them as opposite sayings.

I'm still waiting for you all to ask how it is that these verses can be reconciled.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Are you saying that you do not have to obey the commandments?

The verse clearly states "the doers of the law shall be justified in His sight"

Are you saying that the commandments cannot save?

I'm interested in you explaining how "he that doeth righteousness IS righteous" and "not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law shall be justified" are in full harmony with "we are saved by grace through faith...not of works".

 

[Jackson123]

My use of "opposite" was not from my perspective, but from the OSAS crowd's perspective.

We conditional salvationists know that "we are saved by grace through faith, not of works" and "not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law are justified" are two verses that mean EXACTLY the same thing, while you OSAS folks cannot reconcile "not the hearers/he that doeth righteousness is righteous" with your beliefs, therefore you ignore them, regarding them as opposite sayings.

I'm still waiting for you all to ask how it is that these verses can be reconciled.

What verses you talking about

 

[Phoneman-777]

When Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, the New Testament did not exist. The only scripture in town was the Old Testament. The only definition of the phrase, 'the law', was the English translation of the Hebrew, 'Torah'.

When Paul was writing, 'the law' specifically refers to the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament.

You cannot apply an interpretation to the Old Testament definition of the phrase, because the law = Torah.

I've already shown you that the OT differentiates between the law of God He wrote with His own finger in stone, and the law Moses wrote with his hand in a book, and I offered several examples. It's a matter of history. We simply cannot claim that the phrase "the law" in the OT always refers to the law of Moses.

Remember when God Himself said "Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My statutes, My commandments, and MY LAWS"? Moses hadn't come along for many many centuries after that.

 

[Jackson123]

I've already shown you that the OT differentiates between the law of God He wrote with His own finger in stone, and the law Moses wrote with his hand in a book, and I offered several examples. It's a matter of history. We simply cannot claim that the phrase "the law" in the OT always refers to the law of Moses.

Remember when God Himself said "Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My statutes, My commandments, and MY LAWS"? Moses hadn't come along for many many centuries after that.

I believe the law in OT is God law not Moses law in the sense Moses make the law
God give the law, Moses tell it to Israel than people call it Moses law

 

[Phoneman-777]

What verses you talking about

1 John 3:7 KJV and Romans 2:13 KJV - I want someone from the OSAS crowd to harmonize them with Ephesians 2:8 KJV instead of ignoring them or making them to mean the opposite of what they plainly say.

"For not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law shall be justified in His sight" is a plain "thus saith the Lord" which cannot be made to mean anything else but what is plainly stated. The same is the case with "he that doeth righteousness is righteous".

How can a OSAS person harmonize these with Ephesians 2:8 KJV? They can't afford to, though harmony is right their in the texts

 

[Phoneman-777]

I believe the law in OT is God law not Moses law in the sense Moses make the law
God give the law, Moses tell it to Israel than people call it Moses law

Let's believe the Bible, shall we?

"...only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, ****and**** according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them."

See what I did there? I showed you all this example of several others in Scripture where the Bible MAKES A DISTINCTION between the Law of God written with His own finger in stone, and the Law of Moses written by the hand of Moses.

 

[gb9]

1 John 3:7 KJV and Romans 2:13 KJV - I want someone from the OSAS crowd to harmonize them with Ephesians 2:8 KJV instead of ignoring them or making them to mean the opposite of what they plainly say.

"For not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law shall be justified in His sight" is a plain "thus saith the Lord" which cannot be made to mean anything else but what is plainly stated. The same is the case with "he that doeth righteousness is righteous".

How can a OSAS person harmonize these with Ephesians 2:8 KJV? They can't afford to, though harmony is right their in the texts

it is not valid hermeneutics to try to pick out isolated verses , with no context considered , and compare them to other isolated verses.

 

[Nehemiah6]

1 John 3:7 KJV and Romans 2:13 KJV - I want someone from the OSAS crowd to harmonize them with Ephesians 2:8 KJV instead of ignoring them or making them to mean the opposite of what they plainly say.

There is no contradiction whatsoever.

CHRISTIANS ARE TO PRACTICE RIGHTEOUSNESS
(BUT THEY HAVE IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS ALSO)
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.

THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL SINCE NO ONE CAN KEEP THE LAW PERFECTLY
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Paul has already explained extensively that no man shall be justified by the deeds of the Law. The Law was not meant to justify sinners but to condemn them.

 

[Phoneman-777]

it is not valid hermeneutics to try to pick out isolated verses , with no context considered , and compare them to other isolated verses.

It's not sound Biblical hermeneutics to make "not the hearers, but the doers are justified in His sight" to mean "whether you hear only or hear and do, it's all good".

 

[Jackson123]

1 John 3:7 KJV and Romans 2:13 KJV - I want someone from the OSAS crowd to harmonize them with Ephesians 2:8 KJV instead of ignoring them or making them to mean the opposite of what they plainly say.

"For not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law shall be justified in His sight" is a plain "thus saith the Lord" which cannot be made to mean anything else but what is plainly stated. The same is the case with "he that doeth righteousness is righteous".

How can a OSAS person harmonize these with Ephesians 2:8 KJV? They can't afford to, though harmony is right their in the texts

I am not OSAS follower but to me those verse is not contrary

Yes save by grace thirugh faith
The problem is we have to know that real faith demonstrate by work

Noah save by faith he demonstrate his real faith by work thousand hour to build an ark

Can Noah say yes Lord I believe your information about the coming float but not work to build an ark if do his faith is fake
Let say a man accept Jesus and die in the next second is that mean he not bear fruit?
Fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, when a man accept Jesus Jesus will dwell in him in the same time he have love because Jesus is love
So he bear fruit in that second but he die in the next second so other people may not able to see Hus fruit but Jesus see it and he will save

 

[Phoneman-777]

There is no contradiction whatsoever.

CHRISTIANS ARE TO PRACTICE RIGHTEOUSNESS
(BUT THEY HAVE IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS ALSO)
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.

SO, ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE THAT DOETH NOT RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT RIGHTEOUS, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM "HE THAT DOETH RIGHTEOUSNESS IS RIGHTEOUS".

THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL SINCE NO ONE CAN KEEP THE LAW PERFECTLY
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Paul has already explained extensively that no man shall be justified by the deeds of the Law. The Law was not meant to justify sinners but to condemn them.

DOES THE VERSE "NOT THE HEARERS OF THE LAW, BUT THE DOERS FO THE LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT" MEAN WHAT IS SAYS OR NOT? I SAY IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.

 

[gb9]

It's not sound Biblical hermeneutics to make "not the hearers, but the doers are justified in His sight" to mean "whether you hear only or hear and do, it's all good".

if you keep reading Romans ( it is a letter, you know), Paul goes on to say the Righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the Law. and this Righteousness is given through faith in Christ.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I am not OSAS follower but to me those verse is not contrary

Yes save by grace thirugh faith
The problem is we have to know that real faith demonstrate by work

Noah save by faith he demonstrate his real faith by work thousand hour to build an ark

Can Noah say yes Lord I believe your information about the coming float but not work to build an ark if do his faith is fake
Let say a man accept Jesus and die in the next second is that mean he not bear fruit?
Fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, when a man accept Jesus Jesus will dwell in him in the same time he have love because Jesus is love
So he bear fruit in that second but he die in the next second so other people may not able to see Hus fruit but Jesus see it and he will save

It is because you are not OSAS, as I am not OSAS, that you see no contradiction. It is only the OSAS crowd who must redefine Romans 2:13 KJV and 1 John 3:7 KJV in order to maintain their hypergrace stance, else they would explain how these verses are in perfect harmony without changing their meaning to be the antithesis of what is plainly stated under Holy Spirit inspiration.

 

[Phoneman-777]

if you keep reading Romans ( it is a letter, you know), Paul goes on to say the Righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the Law. and this Righteousness is given through faith in Christ.

So, if I keep reading Romans, I can come back to "not the hearers but the doers are justified" and restate it as "whether you hear only or hear and do, it's all good", right or wrong??? That's the unBiblical conclusion the OSAS crowd wants us to draw.

 

[gb9]

So, if I keep reading Romans, I can come back to "not the hearers but the doers are justified" and restate it as "whether you hear only or hear and do, it's all good", right or wrong??? That's the unBiblical conclusion the OSAS crowd wants us to draw.

it is best to read Romans from the front to the back.

chapter 3 comes after chapter 2.

chapter 2 is not stand alone Scripture.

 

[crossnote]

Who is people on the right?
The right go to eternal punishment or heaven the left go to eternal punishment or hell
verse 46
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I know my church believe this judgement in Matt 25 is only for reward mean not in this judgement go to hell
But I don't share that believe
The right is people with real faith demonstrate by work of feed Jesus mean feed the poor
The left fake believer they protest to Jesus because they think they serve Jesus but Jesus say depart from me because what you done to poor by not feeding the poor you do it for Me

In other word what Jesus say us
Salvation by faith but real faith demonstrate by loving the needy
Not helping the needy demonstrate fake faith or not faith at all

Yes they have real faith demonstrating it by helping Jesus' brethren the Jews during the tribulation. We saw similar acts by 'righteous Gentiles' hiding and aiding the Jews from the Nazi war machine.

 

[Jackson123]

So, if I keep reading Romans, I can come back to "not the hearers but the doers are justified" and restate it as "whether you hear only or hear and do, it's all good", right or wrong??? That's the unBiblical conclusion the OSAS crowd wants us to draw.

What good is hear only with do

Say we hear a preaching to believe in Jesus but not doing believe what good it is