A works-based salvation culminates in SELF promotion, SELF righteousness and SELF preservation.
Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Agreed, that's a pathetic picture and may fit with works of law self-righteousness.
But genuine faith isn’t a passive thought, nor simply trusting a few words. it is intrinsically submissive, relational, responsible, and cooperative though all power and initiative belong to God. Bowing to God and His Christ/King is hardly patting oneself on the back and is exactly what God seeks in men, as Jesus explains in John4. A mind that supposedly believes in the Christ - the King - without any inkling of personal submission is absurd and unbiblical.
A works-based salvation culminates in SELF promotion, SELF righteousness and SELF preservation.
Yes there is no way around it.
1Tim1:5 and 2Tim1:5 Paul speaks of faith that is anupokritos = without pretense = genuine. Genuine faith is not only not pretend, but also has certain characteristics that make it genuine.
Hypocritical faith, ie, a profession of faith without doing what the lord says. ie., taking to themselves God's name in vain.
Isn't obeying God's words somewhat dependent on my cooperation and effort. Surely you don't think anyone will be saved apart from doing God's will?
The entire problem is the Greek view...it blurs and conflates the line between salvation and sanctification
Greek view see's Salvation determined by our faithfulness, so it is iffy at best because you may give into the flesh and it's appetites and end up losing your Salvation.
In the Greek Gospel view Sanctification has the same premise; you and not God determines if you stay Saved or lose your Salvation.
Hebraic view see's Salvation gifted to ungodly men at the Atonement (Justified); so we are secure eternally in Him. The Atonement was not dependent on us but on God who died for us.
Hebraic view Sanctification is a cooperative work God has given us to become transformed into the image of Messiah. If we resist and willfully live in the flesh, we will pay the price in loss of fellowship here and rewards there (Sanctification)...Salvation is eternally secure.
Greek construct makes salvation conditional on man’s endurance, while the Hebraic construct anchors salvation in God’s covenant faithfulness and treats sanctification as a separate, cooperative process.
Greek Gospel: Man‑centric, conflating salvation with sanctification, leaving believers insecure.
Hebraic Gospel: God‑centric, distinguishing salvation as eternally secure from sanctification as cooperative transformation with consequences for fellowship and reward.
The whole matter comes down to this: Did God atone for the sins of ungodly men, or did He not? Yes — He did, as a free gift. We could never be faithful enough, which is why God enacted the New Covenant: to save us by placing our sinful selves into Messiah, who bore our sins and chastisement.
Romans 8:30
“And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
This is the true Gospel — the covenantal Father’s Gospel — not the Greek Gospel of meism.
This is why I lean toward the New Testament being originally written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek: the Greek framing presents an entirely different view of salvation. The NT itself is saturated with Hebraic thought — imagery, idioms, chiasms — and when weighed against the covenantal history of God’s dealings with humanity since the fall, the Hebraic reading is far more consistent with His covenantal character.
The Greek Gospel skews the New Covenant into a foreign, man‑centered construct. The evidence lies in who is seen as the determiner of salvation: in the Greek view, it is man; in the Hebraic view, it is the covenantal Father.
Hey mailman,A works-based salvation culminates in SELF promotion, SELF righteousness and SELF preservation.
You know my view is mostly at odds with most here...I will try to explain it better here.
The entire problem is the Greek view...it blurs and conflates the line between salvation and sanctification
Greek view see's Salvation determined by our faithfulness, so it is iffy at best because you may give into the flesh and it's appetites and end up losing your Salvation.
In the Greek Gospel view Sanctification has the same premise; you and not God determines if you stay Saved or lose your Salvation.
Hebraic view see's Salvation gifted to ungodly men at the Atonement (Justified); so we are secure eternally in Him. The Atonement was not dependent on us but on God who died for us.
Hebraic view Sanctification is a cooperative work God has given us to become transformed into the image of Messiah. If we resist and willfully live in the flesh, we will pay the price in loss of fellowship here and rewards there (Sanctification)...Salvation is eternally secure.
Greek construct makes salvation conditional on man’s endurance, while the Hebraic construct anchors salvation in God’s covenant faithfulness and treats sanctification as a separate, cooperative process.
Greek Gospel: Man‑centric, conflating salvation with sanctification, leaving believers insecure.
Hebraic Gospel: God‑centric, distinguishing salvation as eternally secure from sanctification as cooperative transformation with consequences for fellowship and reward.
The whole matter comes down to this: Did God atone for the sins of ungodly men, or did He not? Yes — He did, as a free gift. We could never be faithful enough, which is why God enacted the New Covenant: to save us by placing our sinful selves into Messiah, who bore our sins and chastisement.
Romans 8:30
“And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
This is the true Gospel — the covenantal Father’s Gospel — not the Greek Gospel of meism.
This is why I lean toward the New Testament being originally written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek: the Greek framing presents an entirely different view of salvation. The NT itself is saturated with Hebraic thought — imagery, idioms, chiasms — and when weighed against the covenantal history of God’s dealings with humanity since the fall, the Hebraic reading is far more consistent with His covenantal character.
The Greek Gospel skews the New Covenant into a foreign, man‑centered construct. The evidence lies in who is seen as the determiner of salvation: in the Greek view, it is man; in the Hebraic view, it is the covenantal Father.
Surely, I do think that...
The entire problem is the Greek view...it blurs and conflates the line between salvation and sanctification
Greek view see's Salvation determined by our faithfulness, so it is iffy at best because you may give into the flesh and it's appetites and end up losing your Salvation.
In the Greek Gospel view Sanctification has the same premise; you and not God determines if you stay Saved or lose your Salvation.
Hebraic view see's Salvation gifted to ungodly men at the Atonement (Justified); so we are secure eternally in Him. The Atonement was not dependent on us but on God who died for us.
Hebraic view Sanctification is a cooperative work God has given us to become transformed into the image of Messiah. If we resist and willfully live in the flesh, we will pay the price in loss of fellowship here and rewards there (Sanctification)...Salvation is eternally secure.
Greek construct makes salvation conditional on man’s endurance, while the Hebraic construct anchors salvation in God’s covenant faithfulness and treats sanctification as a separate, cooperative process.
Greek Gospel: Man‑centric, conflating salvation with sanctification, leaving believers insecure.
Hebraic Gospel: God‑centric, distinguishing salvation as eternally secure from sanctification as cooperative transformation with consequences for fellowship and reward.
The whole matter comes down to this: Did God atone for the sins of ungodly men, or did He not? Yes — He did, as a free gift. We could never be faithful enough, which is why God enacted the New Covenant: to save us by placing our sinful selves into Messiah, who bore our sins and chastisement.
Romans 8:30
“And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
This is the true Gospel — the covenantal Father’s Gospel — not the Greek Gospel of meism.
This is why I lean toward the New Testament being originally written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek: the Greek framing presents an entirely different view of salvation. The NT itself is saturated with Hebraic thought — imagery, idioms, chiasms — and when weighed against the covenantal history of God’s dealings with humanity since the fall, the Hebraic reading is far more consistent with His covenantal character.
The Greek Gospel skews the New Covenant into a foreign, man‑centered construct. The evidence lies in who is seen as the determiner of salvation: in the Greek view, it is man; in the Hebraic view, it is the covenantal Father.
You know my views clash with most here...I will try to explain better...
The entire problem is the Greek view...it blurs and conflates the line between salvation and sanctification
Greek view see's Salvation determined by our faithfulness, so it is iffy at best because you may give into the flesh and it's appetites and end up losing your Salvation.
In the Greek Gospel view Sanctification has the same premise; you and not God determines if you stay Saved or lose your Salvation.
Hebraic view see's Salvation gifted to ungodly men at the Atonement (Justified); so we are secure eternally in Him. The Atonement was not dependent on us but on God who died for us.
Hebraic view Sanctification is a cooperative work God has given us to become transformed into the image of Messiah. If we resist and willfully live in the flesh, we will pay the price in loss of fellowship here and rewards there (Sanctification)...Salvation is eternally secure.
Greek construct makes salvation conditional on man’s endurance, while the Hebraic construct anchors salvation in God’s covenant faithfulness and treats sanctification as a separate, cooperative process.
Greek Gospel: Man‑centric, conflating salvation with sanctification, leaving believers insecure.
Hebraic Gospel: God‑centric, distinguishing salvation as eternally secure from sanctification as cooperative transformation with consequences for fellowship and reward.
The whole matter comes down to this: Did God atone for the sins of ungodly men, or did He not? Yes — He did, as a free gift. We could never be faithful enough, which is why God enacted the New Covenant: to save us by placing our sinful selves into Messiah, who bore our sins and chastisement.
Romans 8:30
“And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
This is the true Gospel — the covenantal Father’s Gospel — not the Greek Gospel of meism.
This is why I lean toward the New Testament being originally written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek: the Greek framing presents an entirely different view of salvation. The NT itself is saturated with Hebraic thought — imagery, idioms, chiasms — and when weighed against the covenantal history of God’s dealings with humanity since the fall, the Hebraic reading is far more consistent with His covenantal character.
The Greek Gospel skews the New Covenant into a foreign, man‑centered construct. The evidence lies in who is seen as the determiner of salvation: in the Greek view, it is man; in the Hebraic view, it is the covenantal Father.
It's easy to completely invert the meaning of scripture when you cast doubt on its authenticity as you are doing. It's not going to end well for you if you persist in this path youre on.
Oh yes it will end Gloriously...because my Salvation doesn't depend on little ol unfaith me (you and everyone else are unfaithful too).
Romans 3:10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one".
My Salvation is eternally secured by my Father because He made Atonement-"Justified me" ;and He is my Faithfull Covenantal Savior.
I'm in and there's no getting lost ever...just a joint venture called Sanctification where I cooperate with His Spirit to Transform me while I am here and suck air; I know this because He is Faithfull to His Covenant.
Romans 8:30
“And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
I was Justified when He made Atonement for me.
Locked in and secure! That's the Hebraic Covenantal Gospel...are you saying anything bad about God's Hebraic Covenantal Gospel? You had better watch your step because your iffy Salvation rests on a Greeky meism Gospel that says you can lose your Salvation; you're the one on shaky ground bub.
These are simply copied-and-pasted, agenda-driven arguments framed as fact. Please provide manuscript evidence and focus on actual Scripture. It’s absurd to suggest we don’t see the God- and Christ-centric, covenantal aspects of this era from the Greek Text.
So, the latest mantra is it has to be called the "Hebraic Covenantal Gospel" or no one can get any concepts of security in the Greek Text written mostly by Hebrew Christians in Spirit.
It's just one astounding round of human reasoning and theological favoritism after another.
It's just one astounding round of human reasoning and theological favoritism after another.
It's too bad you can't get the point I am making...
I never said God doesn't speak via the Greek text or that you "don’t see the God- and Christ-centric, covenantal aspects of this era from the Greek Text". God also speaks through a kids picture Bible but it's heavily redacted; can you still hear His voice, sure but there's a lot of missing information too.
You must know most Christians are conflicted and confused about their Salvation because the Greek western Gospel view is dependent on my faith, my belief, my enduring loyalty ect that is the message!
I make the point that the Hebraic view is a totally different message because it is totally dependent on our Savior; that is the message (not my faith, my loyalty ect).
Atonement for all ungodly men = Justification = Sanctification = Glorification Romans 8:30
Salvation is His doing alone.
Notice how Paul uses the past tense for the future event to stress its certainty.
I read you loud and clear and have noted where you make statements that you will not cite proofs for.
You're misrepresenting the Greek Text and supporting eternal security as a given according to a Paleo-Hebrew mentality rather than dealing with the Text and what it says. All we have to do with you is go through the argument with you Scripturally and have you suggest that any view that opposes you is denied because it's just a Greek reading and mindset. In the end your conclusion is not different than other views of security. You just support it differently.
Rom8:30 is one of many verses in the overall discussion and in itself is not conclusive for certain views of security.
And what in the world makes you think that the Greek Text does not make it clear that Salvation is totally dependent upon our Savior? Even when some see the necessity of men to cooperate with Him as He requires, this does not mean they think they are not dependent upon Him.
Greek proofs are the predominant Scholarly consensus, numerous Greek manuscripts, oldest surviving manuscripts and the dominant language of the day all supposedly equal Greek original NT writings.
The Greek view is an educated consensus opinion that does not prove the opinion to be true no more than the not as widely held view in Hebrew as the original NT writings is factually true; both are an opinionated view based on how you weigh the evidence.
Hebraic internal evidence weighs heavily on its Hebraic linguistic construct; idioms, chiasms, poetic parallelism, and the constant use of Old Testament quotations that preserves Covenantal continuity.
There is a growing number of scholars as well as some early church fathers (not that that matters anymore than the predominant consensus view matters) who believe the NT was written in Hebrew first and then translated into Greek.
These scholars have argued (to varying degrees) that parts or all of the NT were first composed in Hebrew/Aramaic:
- Dr. Joseph Shulam (79) – Messianic Jewish scholar; strongly affirms Hebrew/Aramaic primacy, especially for Matthew.
- Dr. David Bivin (86) – Specialist in Hebrew/Aramaic background of the NT; argues that many sayings of Jesus and possibly Matthew originated in Hebrew.
- Dr. Roy B. Blizzard (~83) – Co-authored works with Bivin; advocates Hebrew origins of the Gospels.
- Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum (82) – Messianic Jewish theologian; supports Hebrew primacy in some NT texts.
- Dr. Randall Buth (~70s) – Linguist and NT scholar; explores Aramaic/Hebrew underpinnings of NT traditions.
- Dr. Tsvi Sadan (62) – Israeli scholar; affirms Hebrew roots of NT writings.
- Dr. Eitan Bar (41) – Messianic Jewish apologist; argues for Hebrew primacy in Matthew.
- Dr. Steven Notley (~70s) – Works on Hebrew/Aramaic background of the NT; sympathetic to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis.
IF the NT was written in Greek originally...how do you explain such a Greeked up mess as:
Mathew 23:1-3
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
In the Hebrew Sephardic manuscripts this verse says "to do whatever Moses says to do" You get a skewed wrong idea from the Greek here wouldn't you say? AND you get what Christ actually said in the Hebrew. This to me is evidence that Greek is the translation of Hebrew, because the original couldn’t be so wrong!
Also, John 1 says in the Greek the Word the Word the Word, while the Hebrew Sephardic manuscripts say the Son, the Son , the Son which emphasizes Covenantal relationship.
To me the fact that Greek so badly gets Mathew 23:1-3 wrong along with the fact Hebraic thought and linguistic construct permeates the entire NT and keeps the Covenantal theme of our faithlessness and His Faithfulness is more convincing than the Greek consensus view.
Greek presents a very different view of Salvation (are you saved by Grace alone? Or at some point are you the pivotal decider in your Salvation?) Hebreaic view is Christ Crucified plus nothing!
Greek view = Christ crucified = Atonement (for some?) = Justified (for some?) = Sanctified (for some?) = Glorified (for some?)
PLUS..
Everything is predicated on if you are faithfull, how faithfull you are and if you can endure to the end!!
Hebraic view = Christ crucified = Atonement = Justified = Sanctified = Glorified (plus nothing!)
I may be mistaken but eternal salvation is exactly what is meant here, because He is the author and finisher of our Salvation….not feckless faithless man.
Hebrews 12:2
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
Two opposing Salvation messages…
If Greek screws up Mathew 23:1-3 so badly, how can we use the Greek to disprove the Greek, it’s so rife with Greek linguistic liberties that it skews the entire message into a me centric Salvation and away from a Christ alone Salvation!
From eternity past (“before the foundation of the world”), through the patriarchal promises, to the final cry on the cross (“It is finished”). Christ as the Lamb of God, the promised Seed, and our Mediator shows that salvation is entirely dependent on Him—planned, promised, and fulfilled in Christ!
“And what in the world makes you think that the Greek Text does not make it clear that Salvation is totally dependent upon our Savior?”
Little things like this…
Verses Highlighting Faith, Belief, Loyalty, and Endurance
- John 3:16 — “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” → Eternal life is tied to belief in Christ.
- Romans 10:9–10 — “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” → Salvation requires belief and confession.
- Hebrews 11:6 — “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” → Faith is essential to approach God.
- Matthew 10:22 — “You will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” → Endurance and loyalty are necessary for salvation.
- Revelation 2:10 — “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.” → Faithfulness to the end is rewarded with life.
- Colossians 1:22–23 — “…to present you holy and blameless… if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel.” → Continuing in faith is required to remain secure.
- Hebrews 3:14 — “We have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.” → Continuing in our confidence in Christ to remain secure.
Two opposing Salvation messages…
Your approach that we need Paleo-Hebrew to understand Christ-centered Salvation is simply and completely rejected and we can deal with any Scripture you'd like to focus on.
I'm just going to start with your above claim about the NT. And please read and note this: I'm using ChatGPT to do the research rather than doing the tedious work on a search engine to look up each one of your references and to try to find some actual quote that backs you up:
When I and ChatGPT refer to "C" - that's you:
Here's my query: Can you confirm any of this as posted by C - and what evidence do any of them have?
"These scholars have argued (to varying degrees) that parts or all of the NT were first composed in Hebrew/Aramaic: Dr. Joseph Shulam (79) – Messianic Jewish scholar; strongly affirms Hebrew/Aramaic primacy, especially for Matthew. Dr. David Bivin (86) – Specialist in Hebrew/Aramaic background of the NT; argues that many sayings of Jesus and possibly Matthew originated in Hebrew. Dr. Roy B. Blizzard (~83) – Co-authored works with Bivin; advocates Hebrew origins of the Gospels. Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum (82) – Messianic Jewish theologian; supports Hebrew primacy in some NT texts. Dr. Randall Buth (~70s) – Linguist and NT scholar; explores Aramaic/Hebrew underpinnings of NT traditions. Dr. Tsvi Sadan (62) – Israeli scholar; affirms Hebrew roots of NT writings. Dr. Eitan Bar (41) – Messianic Jewish apologist; argues for Hebrew primacy in Matthew. Dr. Steven Notley (~70s) – Works on Hebrew/Aramaic background of the NT; sympathetic to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis."
Response to query: Good question. Short answer: some of C’s claims are more easily confirmed than others, and the evidence for a full “NT first written in Hebrew / Aramaic” is mixed and contested. I’ll go through what is confirmed or plausible, where the evidence is weak, and which of C’s specific names are problematic (or unverified). Then I’ll assess how strong the overall claim is.
What is confirmed or has solid support
- David Bivin
- He is real, and very active in what’s called the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. Wikipedia+2odmlv.org+2
- His book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus argues strongly that many sayings of Jesus reflect Hebrew idioms, and possibly that some gospel traditions go back to Hebrew. Goodreads+2odmlv.org+2
- In particular, Bivin & Roy Blizzard (see below) argue that the “Life of Jesus” tradition was originally in Hebrew (or at least heavily influenced by Hebrew idiom). Caspari Center - Caspari Center
- Roy B. Blizzard
- There is a published piece by Blizzard (“Did Jesus Speak Hebrew?”) claiming that the synoptic gospels derive from a “Life Story of Jesus” originally composed in Hebrew. Christian Friends of Israel
- He engages with early Christian testimony (e.g., Papias) that says Matthew “compiled the oracles in the Hebrew tongue.” Christian Friends of Israel
- He was interviewed by David Flusser (a well-known scholar of Jewish context), who confirms Blizzard’s method of “re‑translating” Greek gospel sayings back into Hebrew to test plausibility. jerusalemperspective.com+1
- Joseph Shulam
- There is a Messianic Jewish scholar by this name, founder of Netivyah Bible Instruction Ministry. Netivyah Internation+1
- His ministry explicitly states that one of their goals is the “study, research, and teaching of the New Testament in light of the Jewish Context and Roots” — suggesting he has a strong interest in Hebrew / Jewish origin perspectives. Netivyah+1
- However, I found no strong academic publication from him arguing for a full Hebrew NT. His writings are more theological / ministry‑oriented than critical text‑history.
- Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research
- This is a real scholarly network of Jewish and Christian scholars working on the Synoptic Gospels with a strong emphasis on Semitic (Hebrew / Aramaic) background. Wikipedia
- Some scholars associated with that school (like Bivin and Blizzard) advocate for Hebrew roots, hermeneutic re-translation, and Semitic structure in the Gospels. Caspari Center - Caspari Center+1
- Arnold Fruchtenbaum
- He is a real Messianic Jewish theologian and founder of Ariel Ministries. ariel.org
- In his writings (e.g., Yeshua: The Life of Messiah) he does some work on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek backgrounds of Gospel texts. ariel.org.nz+1
- That said, I did not find a strong peer‑reviewed academic argument from Fruchtenbaum that all or most of the New Testament was first written in Hebrew. His approach seems more theological / apologetic than reconstructive‑linguistic in the way Bivin / Blizzard are.
What is not (or weakly) confirmed
- Dr. Randall Buth, Tsvi Sadan, Eitan Bar, Steven Notley — I found no reliable public academic source (journal, peer-reviewed work) linking these specific names with a claim that the entire NT was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic in the way C described. It may be that C conflated or misremembered some scholars, or overstated their positions.
- “Hebrew primacy” of all New Testament — While some (like Bivin / Blizzard) argue for Hebrew influence or a Hebrew life‑of‑Jesus tradition, the strong claim that all or most NT books were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic is on the fringe of scholarship. The mainstream scholarly consensus is still that Koine Greek is the original language of most New Testament texts.
- Lack of manuscript evidence — There is no extant original Hebrew autograph of Matthew, Paul, or other NT writings. The argument for Hebrew primacy is largely hermeneutic and reconstructive, not supported by early Hebrew‑language manuscripts (in the sense of first‑generation authorship).
Evaluation: Is C’s summary accurate?
- Partially. C’s list includes some legitimate scholars (like Bivin and Blizzard) who do argue for Hebrew or Semitic origins of some gospel traditions.
- But not all the names are confirmed with the specific claims C ascribed to them (especially “entire NT written in Hebrew” is going too far).
- The evidence base is not uniform: it consists mainly of linguistic re-translations, early church testimonies (like Papias), Semitic idiom analysis, and some hermeneutical reconstructions—not clear-cut manuscript evidence.
Conclusion
- Yes — there are credible Messianic / Jewish Christian scholars (Bivin, Blizzard, Shulam) who argue for Hebrew roots or original traditions in the New Testament, especially in the Synoptics and Jesus’ sayings.
- But C’s list is overly broad and probably exaggerates: not all those named have made strong, published academic claims that the entire NT was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
- The “Hebrew primacy” thesis (at least in its strongest form) remains minoritarian in academic biblical studies, though it has some serious advocates.
(cont'd next post)