Let's get back to the baptism question for a moment. I found this question/answer on https://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-will-be-my-fate-if-i-die-without-being-baptized/

Quote:

---

Posted on November 24, 2021 by Dr. John Oakes wrote in Bible Interpretation, General, Q & A, Theology and Doctrinal Questions.

Question:
"What will be my fate if I die without being baptized? Paul says in Acts 16:31 believe in Lord Jesus you and your household and you will be saved. But if we die without being baptized despite believing in Jesus will we not enter heaven? Jesus came down to die for our sins and he gave his blood as a sin offering. But if we don't get baptized despite our belief in that then what's the use of Christ shedding his blood on the cross? Is Baptism more important than that?"

Answer:
"To some extent this is a moot question. To anyone asking the question, I say "Well, just go out and obey the Bible and get baptized." It is a bit like asking what will happen if I do not get vaccinated against Covid-19? I say, just go get vaccinated so that question is a moot point.

But about your question, this is what I would say. The Bible clearly tells us that we come into Christ when we are baptized (Romans 6:2-7). So, what about a person who has not been baptized? The answer is that they are not in Christ. They are not saved by the means given to us in the New Testament. The Bible is not ambiguous about this, as the only thing connected to coming into Christ in the Scripture is baptism. Again, I say the solution is not to debate the doctrine, but to obey the Scripture. End of story.

But, still, there will be the person who wants to answer the question that does not apply to them, as they can simply obey the Bible. What about a person who is not in Christ when they die, because they have not been baptized?

My answer is that they have not been forgiven of their sins and have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:26, 1 Peter 3:21-23). Does this mean that, for sure, 100%, that they will go to hell? I will do what I always do about such questions and say that I leave this up to God. God is the judge. That is not my job. Perhaps God will make an exception our of his abundant grace. My job is to teach what the Bible teaches and call people to obey that. After doing this, the judging belongs to God. However, I definitely do not want anyone to come before God on Judgment Day not having been baptized into Christ. The solution is simple. Repent and be baptized.

You ask about the jailer's family in Acts 16. The answer is that they were all (ie all those old enough to believe) baptized that night. Again, this is a moot point. They were saved and came into Christ, not at the moment they believed the message or the moment they were cut to the heart, but at the moment they were baptized into Christ. This is a clear and unambiguous teaching in the Bible. All of this happened on the same night.

You ask "But if we don't get baptized despite our belief, then what's the use of Christ shedding his blood on the cross? I say ask God. God sets the criterion, not you or me. Again, the commandment is out there. Anyone who believes in Christ will be baptized, unless they do not really believe in Christ, because those who believe also obey (Hebrews 3:16-19). You are describing a category of people that does not existthe category of people who truly believe in Christ and have chosen not to be baptized.* There are no people in this category."

by John Oakes

"* Actually, technically, such people do exist. When a person believes, repents and confesses, but has not yet been baptized, they would be in this category. What if a person was driving to his or her baptism and was killed in a car accident? What about that? I say that this is still up to Godit is still in his hands. I am very confident that God would have grace on such a person, but, still, I leave that to God, not to my own opinion."

---

This is a TERRIBLE answer. The question is FAR from being "moot" as he says in the beginning ,which he even turns around at the end and admits to. Yet that was the very first sentence he wrote. And the rest is completely unbiblical and presumptive. Obvious to me that this was not a very well thought out response to say the least.

OldBear, frodo, and anyone else who might be reading - what do you think of his answer? Do you agree with him? If not, then why not?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

---

An honest answer is not "dodging the question". Bullying someone to the point of following them to sports threads and making veiled threats is not only not reasonable behavior, it is in no way how Christ told us to act.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

---

Sometimes asking a question can show that something or someone is incorrect. In this case, proving oneself right isn't really wrong if the truth is being furthered. Intellectual dishonesty should not be respected.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

---

An honest answer is not "dodging the question". Bullying someone to the point of following them to sports threads and making veiled threats is not only not reasonable behavior, it is in no way how Christ told us to act.

---

Not answering the question, regardless of how "honest" you think you're being, is dodging the question.

And there was no "bullying", no "following to sports threads", nor was there any "veiled threat". There is no nice way to say this, I'm sorry, but you truly have problems with awareness and processing. However, that doesn't excuse you from false witness against your neighbor.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

---

Sometimes asking a question can show that something or someone is incorrect. In this case, proving oneself right isn't really wrong if the truth is being furthered. Intellectual dishonesty should not be respected.

---

Sounds like something Bob Dutko would say. It's not wrong to prove yourself right, but the goal should be to find the truth, the real truth if the matter wherever the facts lead. It's just that so many people are too prideful to put themselves in that situation. Reasoning and facts are what we should follow..

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

---

Sometimes asking a question can show that something or someone is incorrect. In this case, proving oneself right isn't really wrong if the truth is being furthered. Intellectual dishonesty should not be respected.

---

Sounds like something Bob Dutko would say. It's not wrong to prove yourself right, but the goal should be to find the truth, the real truth if the matter wherever the facts lead. It's just that so many people are too prideful to put themselves in that situation. Reasoning and facts are what we should follow..

---

I don't know who Bob Dutko is, but I guess I would be in agreement. Yes, sometimes it's difficult to balance truth finding and convincing others of it, and being nice and respectful. People will always accuse you of being hateful, angry, "bullying", or even "smug and arrogant" if you are firm in your stand for the truth, though. Yes, pride is the biggest issue, it might be the deadliest of sins.

Jesus said 'by their fruits you shall know them'.

I pay attention to Christ, far more than I care for the pride of men.

Great take, 90sBear. I'd like that kind of discussion.

90sBear said:

---

One challenge I have always noticed with the Faith vs Works debate is that it often seems to present a false dilemma for a lot of people which leads to being frustrated because they want to give a more in depth answer to what is presented as a binary question.

Particularly for those who really see the value in Works. Because while plenty of people say, "Only Faith saves", honestly nobody ever says "Only Works save", they want to say both.

I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

This is an essay that lines up closely with my views. It includes many scripture references including several that OB83 referenced discussing Works as it pertains to Salvation. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/faith-and-works/

IMO when discussing a topic like Faith and Works asking, "What do you think about…" and then sharing my views on the subject rather than asking someone "Is it this or that?" leads to a lot more fruitful conversation.

---

I don't see the difference between asking "what do you think about" and "is it this or that" with regard to how fruitful a discussion can be. To both, a person will answer what they think anyway. Both questions can serve as a starting point.

However, asking "is it this or that" is actually the better question, and a necessary one because it forces people to nail down their view to a precise point of truth, instead of just allowing them to talk around it. The question of "faith vs. works" (or faith vs. faith+works, it doesn't matter) has an answer, doesn't it? It can't be both, right? Asking what someone "thinks" about it is all well and good, but if they don't really get down to where the rubber meets the road and actually come to an answer of "this or that", then how "fruitful" is that, really? For them, and for others who are curious to know? Especially when we're talking about the eternal destination of people's soul's. Where someone spends an eternity WILL BE a question of "this or that", not "what do you think about it?"

90sBear said:

---

....I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

---

Yes, you have to believe Jesus is the authority, and thus believe all his words, and all his lessons. But all that is still belief. Is that the part that saves you, or do you have to be successful to a certain degree in putting these beliefs into action in order to be saved? It's an important question. One is putting trust fully in what Jesus accomplished, not in your own accomplishment. The other is putting trust at least in part in your own accomplishment, which I believe to be a false gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

One challenge I have always noticed with the Faith vs Works debate is that it often seems to present a false dilemma for a lot of people which leads to being frustrated because they want to give a more in depth answer to what is presented as a binary question.

Particularly for those who really see the value in Works. Because while plenty of people say, "Only Faith saves", honestly nobody ever says "Only Works save", they want to say both.

I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

This is an essay that lines up closely with my views. It includes many scripture references including several that OB83 referenced discussing Works as it pertains to Salvation. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/faith-and-works/

IMO when discussing a topic like Faith and Works asking, "What do you think about…" and then sharing my views on the subject rather than asking someone "Is it this or that?" leads to a lot more fruitful conversation.

---

I don't see the difference between asking "what do you think about" and "is it this or that" with regard to how fruitful a discussion can be. To both, a person will answer what they think anyway. Both questions can serve as a starting point.

However, asking "is it this or that" is actually the better question, and a necessary one because it forces people to nail down their view to a precise point of truth, instead of just allowing them to talk around it. The question of "faith vs. works" (or faith vs. faith+works, it doesn't matter) has an answer, doesn't it? It can't be both, right? Asking what someone "thinks" about it is all well and good, but if they don't really get down to where the rubber meets the road and actually come to an answer of "this or that", then how "fruitful" is that, really? For them, and for others who are curious to know? Especially when we're talking about the eternal destination of people's soul's. Where someone spends an eternity WILL BE a question of "this or that", not "what do you think about it?"

---

It's not as useful if the person being asked thinks the either/or question contains a false premise that the answer must be either/or.

If I ask, "Is an Oreo made of chocolate wafers or creme filling?" and demand they answer with one or the other how useful is that?

You may think it's clearly one answer, but someone else may disagree or they may think it's more nuanced and want to give a more complete response. If you read discussions on this particular topic by people who put an effort into the answer they don't give one word answers. So why should someone on this forum be forced to do so? And yes, there is objectively a difference between faith/works vs faith/works+faith.

IMO part of the intention of the oft-quoted verse, "Faith, without works, is dead" is that people will often try to find shortcuts in life and, as it turns out, salvation. Consequently many people don't want to give a one-word "Oh, I know this one, it's Faith" answer because they know there are people in this world who might take that one word answer and think, "I can do whatever I want and then just say, 'I believe in Jesus' and then I get to go to Heaven." There are several Bible passages, including some from Jesus Himself, that would seem to contradict that.

Therefore because I worry about something like that happening is why I don't give an either/or one word answer to this particular question.

In addition, sometimes people do need to talk through challenging topics and they may not have a "precise view" yet. Attempting to force either/or answers doesn't always help with that. In a lot of people's views, works play a role in their faith and perhaps their salvation. And as shown there are plenty of Bible passages including several from Jesus that do support the claim that works (depending on how you define it) might play a role in salvation. Because of that many people aren't so easy to dismiss works.

To be clear, I promise I really do understand the value in reasonably responding to questions and not avoiding questions. There are plenty of posters that have a bad reputation for that. But not every conversation (or poster) is the same so I think sometimes the desire to actually pin someone down on a topic has to be tempered.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

....I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

---

Yes, you have to believe Jesus is the authority, and thus believe all his words, and all his lessons. But all that is still belief. Is that the part that saves you, or do you have to be successful to a certain degree in putting these beliefs into action in order to be saved? It's an important question. One is putting trust fully in what Jesus accomplished, not in your own accomplishment. The other is putting trust at least in part in your own accomplishment, which I believe to be a false gospel.

---

That is an important question and as I said in an earlier post, in my view we all fall short and it is only by God's grace that we may be granted salvation. Otherwise you get into the area of, "Is a C passing?" and, just as you said, the idea that we earned a passing grade as opposed to God saying, "My standard is 100% and you did not pass. But because of Jesus you still get in."

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

One challenge I have always noticed with the Faith vs Works debate is that it often seems to present a false dilemma for a lot of people which leads to being frustrated because they want to give a more in depth answer to what is presented as a binary question.

Particularly for those who really see the value in Works. Because while plenty of people say, "Only Faith saves", honestly nobody ever says "Only Works save", they want to say both.

I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

This is an essay that lines up closely with my views. It includes many scripture references including several that OB83 referenced discussing Works as it pertains to Salvation. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/faith-and-works/

IMO when discussing a topic like Faith and Works asking, "What do you think about…" and then sharing my views on the subject rather than asking someone "Is it this or that?" leads to a lot more fruitful conversation.

---

I don't see the difference between asking "what do you think about" and "is it this or that" with regard to how fruitful a discussion can be. To both, a person will answer what they think anyway. Both questions can serve as a starting point.

However, asking "is it this or that" is actually the better question, and a necessary one because it forces people to nail down their view to a precise point of truth, instead of just allowing them to talk around it. The question of "faith vs. works" (or faith vs. faith+works, it doesn't matter) has an answer, doesn't it? It can't be both, right? Asking what someone "thinks" about it is all well and good, but if they don't really get down to where the rubber meets the road and actually come to an answer of "this or that", then how "fruitful" is that, really? For them, and for others who are curious to know? Especially when we're talking about the eternal destination of people's soul's. Where someone spends an eternity WILL BE a question of "this or that", not "what do you think about it?"

---

It's not as useful if the person being asked thinks the either/or question contains a false premise that the answer must be either/or.

If I ask, "Is an Oreo made of chocolate wafers or creme filling?" and demand they answer with one or the other how useful is that?

You may think it's clearly one answer, but someone else may disagree or they may think it's more nuanced and want to give a more complete response. If you read discussions on this particular topic by people who put an effort into the answer they don't give one word answers. So why should someone on this forum be forced to do so? And yes, there is objectively a difference between faith/works vs faith/works+faith.

IMO part of the intention of the oft-quoted verse, "Faith, without works, is dead" is that people will often try to find shortcuts in life and, as it turns out, salvation. Consequently many people don't want to give a one-word "Oh, I know this one, it's Faith" answer because they know there are people in this world who might take that one word answer and think, "I can do whatever I want and then just say, 'I believe in Jesus' and then I get to go to Heaven." There are several Bible passages, including some from Jesus Himself, that would seem to contradict that.

Therefore because I worry about something like that happening is why I don't give an either/or one word answer to this particular question.

In addition, sometimes people do need to talk through challenging topics and they may not have a "precise view" yet. Attempting to force either/or answers doesn't always help with that. In a lot of people's views, works play a role in their faith and perhaps their salvation. And as shown there are plenty of Bible passages including several from Jesus that do support the claim that works (depending on how you define it) might play a role in salvation. Because of that many people aren't so easy to dismiss works.

To be clear, I promise I really do understand the value in reasonably responding to questions and not avoiding questions. There are plenty of posters that have a bad reputation for that. But not every conversation (or poster) is the same so I think sometimes the desire to actually pin someone down on a topic has to be tempered.

---

To the question of what Oreo's are made of, the answer is: both. That is the correct answer. Either/or questions don't necessarily require a one or the other answer. The point is, there IS an answer, a correct one. The same goes for the faith/works question. You can answer "both" which is a valid response. It's not the correct one, but at least it furthers the discussion rather than having everyone continue to dance around the topic. If you believe a question is a false dilemma, then point that out. But is works vs. faith a false dilemma? If works are added to faith, then it's no longer grace by which we are saved. The apostle Paul specifically addressed this.

You did not understand what I meant by faith/works vs. faith/faith+works - I was not saying that the two were not different in of themselves. The point was, there was no difference between the two questions - they're both still binary questions that have a correct answer.

The flip side to your concern about people dismissing works, is that if you're not clear about what actually saves you, then people might believe they have to DO something to be saved in addition to having faith, which means they are believing a false gospel. Yes, you can give one word answers - then qualify it afterwards if you feel you need to.

I disagree - asking either/or questions and "forcing" answers or "pinning them down" is a direct, concise way to get people to nail down what it is they actually believe, and whether they can actually defend it. If they can't be pinned down, then it reveals something about their belief in a more definitive way. That, I think, is more helpful than you perhaps realize, or than what others are willing to admit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To the question of what Oreo's are made of, the answer is: both. That is the correct answer. Either/or questions don't necessarily require a one or the other answer. The point is, there IS an answer, a correct one. The same goes for the faith/works question. You can answer "both" which is a valid response. It's not the correct one, but at least it furthers the discussion rather than having everyone continue to dance around the topic. If you believe a question is a false dilemma, then point that out. But is works vs. faith a false dilemma? If works are added to faith, then it's no longer grace by which we are saved. The apostle Paul specifically addressed this.

And what if one has the view that works are a part of faith? An outward display of faith? Not everyone separates faith and works into completely separate boxes.

Paul also said, "God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.' To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger."

Again - there are, in fact, Bible verses that on their face support works being part of salvation so just dismissing works outright is IMO not the best way of going about discussing this. As just about any in depth essay on this topic shows.

You did not understand what I meant by faith/works vs. faith/faith+works - I was not saying that the two were not different in of themselves. The point was, there was no difference between the two questions - they're both still binary questions that have a correct answer.

OK. But as I said not everyone wants to answer that question succinctly.

The flip side to your concern about people dismissing works, is that if you're not clear about what actually saves you, then people might believe they have to DO something to be saved in addition to having faith, which means they are believing a false gospel. Yes, you can give one word answers - then qualify it afterwards if you feel you need to.

Yes, both extremes are a concern which is why this is often a more in depth conversation than people make it out to be. Again, what if someone views works as a part of their faith? Then works aren't an addition but rather a part of.

An answer with a qualification isn't a one word answer. Also some people would rather just give a more complete personal answer from the start. People aren't required to talk about or answer questions about their faith in any singular manner.

I disagree - asking either/or questions and "forcing" answers or "pinning them down" is a direct, concise way to get people to nail down what it is they actually believe, and whether they can actually defend it. If they can't be pinned down, then it reveals something about their belief in a more definitive way. That, I think, is more helpful than you perhaps realize, or than what others are willing to admit.

And I disagree with your opinion in that I think different conversation styles sometimes work better with different people and/or with different topics. I'm not saying it is never helpful, I'm saying IMO it is not always the most helpful.

---

Rather than taking on the role of interrogator, why don't you offer your complete view of faith and works?

90sBear said:

---

One challenge I have always noticed with the Faith vs Works debate is that it often seems to present a false dilemma for a lot of people which leads to being frustrated because they want to give a more in depth answer to what is presented as a binary question.

Particularly for those who really see the value in Works. Because while plenty of people say, "Only Faith saves", honestly nobody ever says "Only Works save", they want to say both.

I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

This is an essay that lines up closely with my views. It includes many scripture references including several that OB83 referenced discussing Works as it pertains to Salvation. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/faith-and-works/

IMO when discussing a topic like Faith and Works asking, "What do you think about…" and then sharing my views on the subject rather than asking someone "Is it this or that?" leads to a lot more fruitful conversation.

---

The problem is that the Bible is clear that a man is saved by Grace through Faith in Christ alone for Salvation, believing that He died and rose again as payment for our sins. To add works to God's grace is the same as saying, Jesus Sacrifice on the cross wasn't good enough, I have to do something. By relying on your work, you cancel God's Grace:

Galatians 2:21 KJV
[21] I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.





Galatians 5:4 KJV
[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

One challenge I have always noticed with the Faith vs Works debate is that it often seems to present a false dilemma for a lot of people which leads to being frustrated because they want to give a more in depth answer to what is presented as a binary question.

Particularly for those who really see the value in Works. Because while plenty of people say, "Only Faith saves", honestly nobody ever says "Only Works save", they want to say both.

I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

This is an essay that lines up closely with my views. It includes many scripture references including several that OB83 referenced discussing Works as it pertains to Salvation. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/faith-and-works/

IMO when discussing a topic like Faith and Works asking, "What do you think about…" and then sharing my views on the subject rather than asking someone "Is it this or that?" leads to a lot more fruitful conversation.

---

The problem is that the Bible is clear that a man is saved by Grace through Faith in Christ alone for Salvation, believing that He died and rose again as payment for our sins. To add works to God's grace is the same as saying, Jesus Sacrifice on the cross wasn't good enough, I have to do something. By relying on your work, you cancel God's Grace:

Galatians 2:21 KJV
[21] I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.





Galatians 5:4 KJV
[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

---

There is no problem for me. I have clearly said that IMO we might be saved because of faith and belief in Jesus. I make no claim that we may be justified by works. We will never reach God's standard and it is only by His grace that we might be saved.

Yes, we must be wary of the problem that can arise if people view works as something that will ever be good enough. Can I check all the boxes and guarantee admission to Heaven? No. The boxes will never all be checked.

The difference in view for me lies in whether works are always necessarily complete and separate and distinct from faith.

In my view Christian works are an outward sign and temperature reading of faith and should naturally come from inner faith. I'm not adding anything. I'm saying I believe in everything Jesus said, including how to live and act towards those around us. I have faith in His teachings. I do not count any works I do as something for which I should receive honor. I do those works because Jesus told us to live a certain way and I honor Him by having faith in and following his teachings.

Thanks 90sBear for moving the topic forward.

I mentioned before that I focus on Christ's words and example. A sad trend we see these days is people who really like their opinion, to the point that they attack anyone for having a different take. This is unhealthy on several levels.

So I believe in going back to the source. We have Scripture precisely so we can look more deeply into these matters, and I would suggest that when in doubt, speak as Jesus spoke and do as Jesus did. Jesus did quite a bit of preaching, but He was very active in works.

That is, Christ who was among all men the one who needed nothing to be perfect in His Father's sight, nonetheless was diligent all through his life in showing how we should act. So while it is very true that we are saved by God's grace alone through our Lord Jesus Christ, it is also clear that we are to act as our Master acted, not for merit but in devotion.

The danger in modern days, is that it is fashionable to be Christian in style but not in essence. Like Frodo, my hope is for everyone to be saved who can be saved, and that requires warning against complacency and self-satisfaction, for that way lies grave peril. I agree that Salvation cannot be taken out of God's control, but let us not forget how many have imagined they were safe, when they were lost. The Gospel accounts and New Testament warn us of Judas, Caiaphas, Ananias, and others who ignored all warnings until it was too late.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To the question of what Oreo's are made of, the answer is: both. That is the correct answer. Either/or questions don't necessarily require a one or the other answer. The point is, there IS an answer, a correct one. The same goes for the faith/works question. You can answer "both" which is a valid response. It's not the correct one, but at least it furthers the discussion rather than having everyone continue to dance around the topic. If you believe a question is a false dilemma, then point that out. But is works vs. faith a false dilemma? If works are added to faith, then it's no longer grace by which we are saved. The apostle Paul specifically addressed this.

And what if one has the view that works are a part of faith? An outward display of faith? Not everyone separates faith and works into completely separate boxes.

Paul also said, "God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.' To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger."

Again - there are, in fact, Bible verses that on their face support works being part of salvation so just dismissing works outright is IMO not the best way of going about discussing this. As just about any in depth essay on this topic shows.

You did not understand what I meant by faith/works vs. faith/faith+works - I was not saying that the two were not different in of themselves. The point was, there was no difference between the two questions - they're both still binary questions that have a correct answer.

OK. But as I said not everyone wants to answer that question succinctly.

The flip side to your concern about people dismissing works, is that if you're not clear about what actually saves you, then people might believe they have to DO something to be saved in addition to having faith, which means they are believing a false gospel. Yes, you can give one word answers - then qualify it afterwards if you feel you need to.

Yes, both extremes are a concern which is why this is often a more in depth conversation than people make it out to be. Again, what if someone views works as a part of their faith? Then works aren't an addition but rather a part of.

An answer with a qualification isn't a one word answer. Also some people would rather just give a more complete personal answer from the start. People aren't required to talk about or answer questions about their faith in any singular manner.

I disagree - asking either/or questions and "forcing" answers or "pinning them down" is a direct, concise way to get people to nail down what it is they actually believe, and whether they can actually defend it. If they can't be pinned down, then it reveals something about their belief in a more definitive way. That, I think, is more helpful than you perhaps realize, or than what others are willing to admit.

And I disagree with your opinion in that I think different conversation styles sometimes work better with different people and/or with different topics. I'm not saying it is never helpful, I'm saying IMO it is not always the most helpful.

---

Rather than taking on the role of interrogator, why don't you offer your complete view of faith and works?

---

- "And what if one has the view that works are a part of faith? An outward display of faith? Not everyone separates faith and works into completely separate boxes. Paul also said, "God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.' To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Again - there are, in fact, Bible verses that on their face support works being part of salvation so just dismissing works outright is IMO not the best way of going about discussing this. As just about any in depth essay on this topic shows."

But are you saved by that outward display of faith in addition with your faith, or are you just saved by your faith? This important question has an answer, does it not? What saved the thief on the cross? When Peter spoke to the house of Cornelius, and they believed and the Holy Spirit entered them - were they saved right then simply upon hearing the word and believing, before they could outwardly display their faith in any way?

- "OK. But as I said not everyone wants to answer that question succinctly."

You don't have to answer the question succinctly, so as long as you get to an actual answer. You're mistaken if you think I'm saying the answer has to be succinct, a clear "yes" or "no". Though sometimes, the question DOES only necessitate yes or no.

- "Yes, both extremes are a concern which is why this is often a more in depth conversation than people make it out to be. Again, what if someone views works as a part of their faith? Then works aren't an addition but rather a part of. An answer with a qualification isn't a one word answer. Also some people would rather just give a more complete personal answer from the start. People aren't required to talk about or answer questions about their faith in any singular manner."

If you believe works are a part of your faith, then a clear answer would be "both" and then you can explain further. And again, we can still reduce your answer to an either/or situation - is the works part of your faith what saves you, or are you saved just by your faith without the works? Yes, works are a part of one's faith. But so is, let's say, obedience to Jesus' commands. But then one might ask whether you have to successfully obey Jesus to a certain degree in order to be saved.

- "Rather than taking on the role of interrogator, why don't you offer your complete view of faith and works?"

It is not "interrogating" to ask valid questions. Maybe you don't understand fully why I was asking these questions in the first place. It was because two people were having a faith vs. works argument, and it didn't seem to me that were really saying anything different. So I asked questions for clarification. One person was evasive and unclear, and even contradictory. If their belief couldn't be "pinned down", then what and why exactly were they arguing?

If you want to know my beliefs about the subject, all one has to do is ask. I answer questions. I also think I made my position clear by my comments in opposing the "works" position.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks 90sBear for moving the topic forward.

I mentioned before that I focus on Christ's words and example. A sad trend we see these days is people who really like their opinion, to the point that they attack anyone for having a different take. This is unhealthy on several levels.

So I believe in going back to the source. We have Scripture precisely so we can look more deeply into these matters, and I would suggest that when in doubt, speak as Jesus spoke and do as Jesus did. Jesus did quite a bit of preaching, but He was very active in works.

That is, Christ who was among all men the one who needed nothing to be perfect in His Father's sight, nonetheless was diligent all through his life in showing how we should act. So while it is very true that we are saved by God's grace alone through our Lord Jesus Christ, it is also clear that we are to act as our Master acted, not for merit but in devotion.

The danger in modern days, is that it is fashionable to be Christian in style but not in essence. Like Frodo, my hope is for everyone to be saved who can be saved, and that requires warning against complacency and self-satisfaction, for that way lies grave peril. I agree that Salvation cannot be taken out of God's control, but let us not forget how many have imagined they were safe, when they were lost. The Gospel accounts and New Testament warn us of Judas, Caiaphas, Ananias, and others who ignored all warnings until it was too late.

---

"Thanks 90sBear for moving the topic forward......So while it is very true that we are saved by God's grace alone through our Lord Jesus Christ, it is also clear that we are to act as our Master acted, not for merit but in devotion."

Notice that he moved the topic forward, because he was able to clearly answer my question.

And I was correct - you really weren't saying anything different from what Frodo was saying. He was saying salvation was by faith through grace alone, not by merit of our works. You were arguing by talking past him, or by mischaracterizing what he was saying.

This was my whole point. And we would've reached it MUCH QUICKER if you just answered questions.

90sBear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

One challenge I have always noticed with the Faith vs Works debate is that it often seems to present a false dilemma for a lot of people which leads to being frustrated because they want to give a more in depth answer to what is presented as a binary question.

Particularly for those who really see the value in Works. Because while plenty of people say, "Only Faith saves", honestly nobody ever says "Only Works save", they want to say both.

I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

This is an essay that lines up closely with my views. It includes many scripture references including several that OB83 referenced discussing Works as it pertains to Salvation. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/faith-and-works/

IMO when discussing a topic like Faith and Works asking, "What do you think about…" and then sharing my views on the subject rather than asking someone "Is it this or that?" leads to a lot more fruitful conversation.

---

The problem is that the Bible is clear that a man is saved by Grace through Faith in Christ alone for Salvation, believing that He died and rose again as payment for our sins. To add works to God's grace is the same as saying, Jesus Sacrifice on the cross wasn't good enough, I have to do something. By relying on your work, you cancel God's Grace:

Galatians 2:21 KJV
[21] I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.





Galatians 5:4 KJV
[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

---

There is no problem for me. I have clearly said that IMO we might be saved because of faith and belief in Jesus. I make no claim that we may be justified by works. We will never reach God's standard and it is only by His grace that we might be saved.

Yes, we must be wary of the problem that can arise if people view works as something that will ever be good enough. Can I check all the boxes and guarantee admission to Heaven? No. The boxes will never all be checked.

The difference in view for me lies in whether works are always necessarily complete and separate and distinct from faith.

In my view Christian works are an outward sign and temperature reading of faith and should naturally come from inner faith. I'm not adding anything. I'm saying I believe in everything Jesus said, including how to live and act towards those around us. I have faith in His teachings. I do not count any works I do as something for which I should receive honor. I do those works because Jesus told us to live a certain way and I honor Him by having faith in and following his teachings.

---

Good works are the result of Faith and Salvation. If we truly believe and trust in the Lord, then we will be submitted to His Will. I agree with that. True faith results in good works, not for Salvation, but because you are already saved and are a new creature in Christ.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

One challenge I have always noticed with the Faith vs Works debate is that it often seems to present a false dilemma for a lot of people which leads to being frustrated because they want to give a more in depth answer to what is presented as a binary question.

Particularly for those who really see the value in Works. Because while plenty of people say, "Only Faith saves", honestly nobody ever says "Only Works save", they want to say both.

I know personally when I read Jesus state, "Believe in Me" I take Him to mean believe in everything about Me. Believe that He died for our sins but also believe in all of the lessons that he taught on how to live and treat people around us. Believe the words of Jesus are meant for all of us. So for me (and many others) I view doing Christian works as a part of my faith, not as something necessarily separate and distinct from faith.

This is an essay that lines up closely with my views. It includes many scripture references including several that OB83 referenced discussing Works as it pertains to Salvation. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/faith-and-works/

IMO when discussing a topic like Faith and Works asking, "What do you think about…" and then sharing my views on the subject rather than asking someone "Is it this or that?" leads to a lot more fruitful conversation.

---

The problem is that the Bible is clear that a man is saved by Grace through Faith in Christ alone for Salvation, believing that He died and rose again as payment for our sins. To add works to God's grace is the same as saying, Jesus Sacrifice on the cross wasn't good enough, I have to do something. By relying on your work, you cancel God's Grace:

Galatians 2:21 KJV
[21] I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.





Galatians 5:4 KJV
[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

---

There is no problem for me. I have clearly said that IMO we might be saved because of faith and belief in Jesus. I make no claim that we may be justified by works. We will never reach God's standard and it is only by His grace that we might be saved.

Yes, we must be wary of the problem that can arise if people view works as something that will ever be good enough. Can I check all the boxes and guarantee admission to Heaven? No. The boxes will never all be checked.

The difference in view for me lies in whether works are always necessarily complete and separate and distinct from faith.

In my view Christian works are an outward sign and temperature reading of faith and should naturally come from inner faith. I'm not adding anything. I'm saying I believe in everything Jesus said, including how to live and act towards those around us. I have faith in His teachings. I do not count any works I do as something for which I should receive honor. I do those works because Jesus told us to live a certain way and I honor Him by having faith in and following his teachings.

---

Good works are the result of Faith and Salvation. If we truly believe and trust in the Lord, then we will be submitted to His Will. I agree with that. True faith results in good works, not for Salvation, but because you are already saved and are a new creature in Christ.

---

IMO when you are saved is a different conversation than if you are saved by faith v works.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But are you saved by that outward display of faith in addition with your faith, or are you just saved by your faith? This important question has an answer, does it not? What saved the thief on the cross? When Peter spoke to the house of Cornelius, and they believed and the Holy Spirit entered them - were they saved right then simply upon hearing the word and believing, before they could outwardly display their faith in any way?

IMO an outwards display of something is not something that is necessarily "in addition to". Again, that seems to completely separate the two. It is in a way connected to it and indicates where it may be at. I have already stated many times my view that if we are saved, it is by faith in Jesus. I just don't limit faith in Jesus to mean only the belief that He died for out sins. IMO it encompasses more than just that.

The thief on the cross was saved by his faith and he also displayed as much of an act of faith as he was able to display. His verbal acknowledgment and request of Jesus and rebuke of the other crucified man at a moment when he could have also been taunting Jesus or cursing the world is a display of faith in my eyes.

The people in the house of Cornelius believed Peter and they were baptized. When someone is saved is an entirely different conversation than faith v works.

If you believe works are a part of your faith, then a clear answer would be "both" and then you can explain further. And again, we can still reduce your answer to an either/or situation - is the works part of your faith what saves you, or are you saved just by your faith without the works? Yes, works are a part of one's faith. But so is, let's say, obedience to Jesus' commands. But then one might ask whether you have to successfully obey Jesus to a certain degree in order to be saved.

I think this is a great example of needing to define exactly what one means by "works", because different people have different definitions. Many would view "obedience to Jesus' commands" as a part of works as they view anything physical or directed outwards as works.

As I have said (many times now) faith is what saves you and Christian works are an outward sign of faith and a sign of where your faith is at. I also already gave my viewpoint on a "passing grade" - as I have said multiple times, God's standard is perfection and being saved means God's grace was involved because none of us is perfect. I have no knowledge of a passing minimum grade as I am not God. Besides, we must remember that, "With God, all things are possible."

It is not "interrogating" to ask valid questions. Maybe you don't understand fully why I was asking these questions in the first place. It was because two people were having a faith vs. works argument, and it didn't seem to me that were really saying anything different. So I asked questions for clarification. One person was evasive and unclear, and even contradictory. If their belief couldn't be "pinned down", then what and why exactly were they arguing?

If you want to know my beliefs about the subject, all one has to do is ask. I answer questions. I also think I made my position clear by my comments in opposing the "works" position.

As I said before, sometimes offering your own complete view can be useful in fostering conversation. I would think in this thread it was pretty much understood that people were welcome to freely offer up their complete views on the matter.

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

IMO an outwards display of something is not something that is necessarily "in addition to". Again, that seems to completely separate the two. It is in a way connected to it and indicates where it may be at. I have already stated many times my view that if we are saved, it is by faith in Jesus. I just don't limit faith in Jesus to mean only the belief that He died for out sins. IMO it encompasses more than just that.

The thief on the cross was saved by his faith and he also displayed as much of an act of faith as he was able to display. His verbal acknowledgment and request of Jesus and rebuke of the other crucified man at a moment when he could have also been taunting Jesus or cursing the world is a display of faith in my eyes.

The people in the house of Cornelius believed Peter and they were baptized. When someone is saved is an entirely different conversation than faith v works.

I think this is a great example of needing to define exactly what one means by "works", because different people have different definitions. Many would view "obedience to Jesus' commands" as a part of works as they view anything physical or directed outwards as works.

As I have said (many times now) faith is what saves you and Christian works are an outward sign of faith and a sign of where your faith is at. I also already gave my viewpoint on a "passing grade" - as I have said multiple times, God's standard is perfection and being saved means God's grace was involved because none of us is perfect. I have no knowledge of a passing minimum grade as I am not God. Besides, we must remember that, "With God, all things are possible."

As I said before, sometimes offering your own complete view can be useful in fostering conversation. I would think in this thread it was pretty much understood that people were welcome to freely offer up their complete views on the matter.

---

---

Someone's faith, and the outward display of it, ARE different things and CAN be separated, even if they are connected and related. The former is in the heart of a person, the latter is their physical reaction to it. Would the thief on the cross been saved, if he had NOT rebuked the other thief, or verbally expressed his faith, but rather believed and said those things in his heart?

The question of when someone is saved and the question of salvation by faith vs. works are NOT different conversations. If you are saved the instant you have true faith in your heart, then it means salvation is by faith alone, because you haven't yet done anything in response to your faith. The question about the house of Cornelius is this - were they saved right after hearing and believing the gospel, evidenced by the Holy Spirit entering them? Can the Holy Spirit enter someone like that if they are not saved? Because if they were saved, it was before they could do any works. I'm curious about your comment regarding their baptism, though. Are you saying that their baptism was necessary for their salvation? Remember, they were baptized only AFTER they believed and the Holy Spirit entered them.

Yes, I know that you've stated many times your belief that faith is what saves, not works. But you keep saying that faith and works can't be separated out for the purpose of the faith vs. works discussion, so I'm showing that it can. What's interesting is that you yourself are separating them out, and even answering the faith vs. works debate by declaring it is faith. You have another confusing part in your response which I will address in a separate post, so it can be the sole focus.

Do you understand why I was asking these questions in the first place, and why they were necessary? Do you concede that calling me an "interrogator" was overstepping? These questions certainly can start conversations. We're having one right now because of them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: " It's unbiblical "

Thanks Frodo, but I cited quite a few scriptures that support it. Since you believe differently, please examine those scriptures and explain how they do not mean what they say, or at least show me the verses which say you cannot lose your salvation even if you never do anything to serve the Lord?

---

So is frodo correct about your belief? You believe our salvation is dependent on our performance? You believe in a works based salvation?

A simple "yes", or "no, because" will do. BE CLEAR.

---

Read my long post. As I explained, it had plenty of scriptural support.

Understanding the point may take more effort than trying to win an argument, but in the end it is far more valuable to gain wisdom, for both of us. As I said, if you believe my position is wrong, please explain those how verses mean something other than what Christ Himself said.

---

So.....is that a yes or no?

Why do you have such trouble answering clearly and directly, like frodo was easily able to do? This doesn't speak well to your conviction.

Now, please, answer the question. Don't refer me to previous posts. It's very easy to say "yes" or "no". We can't advance the discussion if you go on like this.

---

I have answered you. I took the trouble to support it with Scripture.

All you have to do is consider it.

---

A simple "yes", or "no".

Your pride is getting the better of you.

---

Ironic.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

---

Too late.

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

---

Too late.

---

Who are you to criticize OldBear? You were the major purveyor of the nastiness that stained this thread!

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: " It's unbiblical "

Thanks Frodo, but I cited quite a few scriptures that support it. Since you believe differently, please examine those scriptures and explain how they do not mean what they say, or at least show me the verses which say you cannot lose your salvation even if you never do anything to serve the Lord?

---

So is frodo correct about your belief? You believe our salvation is dependent on our performance? You believe in a works based salvation?

A simple "yes", or "no, because" will do. BE CLEAR.

---

Read my long post. As I explained, it had plenty of scriptural support.

Understanding the point may take more effort than trying to win an argument, but in the end it is far more valuable to gain wisdom, for both of us. As I said, if you believe my position is wrong, please explain those how verses mean something other than what Christ Himself said.

---

So.....is that a yes or no?

Why do you have such trouble answering clearly and directly, like frodo was easily able to do? This doesn't speak well to your conviction.

Now, please, answer the question. Don't refer me to previous posts. It's very easy to say "yes" or "no". We can't advance the discussion if you go on like this.

---

I have answered you. I took the trouble to support it with Scripture.

All you have to do is consider it.

---

A simple "yes", or "no".

Your pride is getting the better of you.

---

Ironic.

---

I'm not the one repeatedly dodging questions. Please, if you're going to start posting here again, let's get a little more quality out of you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: " It's unbiblical "

Thanks Frodo, but I cited quite a few scriptures that support it. Since you believe differently, please examine those scriptures and explain how they do not mean what they say, or at least show me the verses which say you cannot lose your salvation even if you never do anything to serve the Lord?

---

So is frodo correct about your belief? You believe our salvation is dependent on our performance? You believe in a works based salvation?

A simple "yes", or "no, because" will do. BE CLEAR.

---

Read my long post. As I explained, it had plenty of scriptural support.

Understanding the point may take more effort than trying to win an argument, but in the end it is far more valuable to gain wisdom, for both of us. As I said, if you believe my position is wrong, please explain those how verses mean something other than what Christ Himself said.

---

So.....is that a yes or no?

Why do you have such trouble answering clearly and directly, like frodo was easily able to do? This doesn't speak well to your conviction.

Now, please, answer the question. Don't refer me to previous posts. It's very easy to say "yes" or "no". We can't advance the discussion if you go on like this.

---

I have answered you. I took the trouble to support it with Scripture.

All you have to do is consider it.

---

A simple "yes", or "no".

Your pride is getting the better of you.

---

Ironic.

---

I'm not the one repeatedly dodging questions. Please, if you're going to start posting here again, let's get a little more quality out of you.

---

Why can't we all just discuss this without arguing about it or accusing each other. We all say that we trust in Christ, we should at least be able to discuss our differences.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: " It's unbiblical "

Thanks Frodo, but I cited quite a few scriptures that support it. Since you believe differently, please examine those scriptures and explain how they do not mean what they say, or at least show me the verses which say you cannot lose your salvation even if you never do anything to serve the Lord?

---

So is frodo correct about your belief? You believe our salvation is dependent on our performance? You believe in a works based salvation?

A simple "yes", or "no, because" will do. BE CLEAR.

---

Read my long post. As I explained, it had plenty of scriptural support.

Understanding the point may take more effort than trying to win an argument, but in the end it is far more valuable to gain wisdom, for both of us. As I said, if you believe my position is wrong, please explain those how verses mean something other than what Christ Himself said.

---

So.....is that a yes or no?

Why do you have such trouble answering clearly and directly, like frodo was easily able to do? This doesn't speak well to your conviction.

Now, please, answer the question. Don't refer me to previous posts. It's very easy to say "yes" or "no". We can't advance the discussion if you go on like this.

---

I have answered you. I took the trouble to support it with Scripture.

All you have to do is consider it.

---

A simple "yes", or "no".

Your pride is getting the better of you.

---

Ironic.

---

I'm not the one repeatedly dodging questions. Please, if you're going to start posting here again, let's get a little more quality out of you.

---

Why can't we all just discuss this without arguing about it or accusing each other. We all say that we trust in Christ, we should at least be able to discuss our differences.

---

We trust in Christ, yes....in humans who only want confrontation, no. This guy actually physically threatened me in this thread. I think you should be directing this comment of yours at him, not at me.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: " It's unbiblical "

Thanks Frodo, but I cited quite a few scriptures that support it. Since you believe differently, please examine those scriptures and explain how they do not mean what they say, or at least show me the verses which say you cannot lose your salvation even if you never do anything to serve the Lord?

---

So is frodo correct about your belief? You believe our salvation is dependent on our performance? You believe in a works based salvation?

A simple "yes", or "no, because" will do. BE CLEAR.

---

Read my long post. As I explained, it had plenty of scriptural support.

Understanding the point may take more effort than trying to win an argument, but in the end it is far more valuable to gain wisdom, for both of us. As I said, if you believe my position is wrong, please explain those how verses mean something other than what Christ Himself said.

---

So.....is that a yes or no?

Why do you have such trouble answering clearly and directly, like frodo was easily able to do? This doesn't speak well to your conviction.

Now, please, answer the question. Don't refer me to previous posts. It's very easy to say "yes" or "no". We can't advance the discussion if you go on like this.

---

I have answered you. I took the trouble to support it with Scripture.

All you have to do is consider it.

---

A simple "yes", or "no".

Your pride is getting the better of you.

---

Ironic.

---

I'm not the one repeatedly dodging questions. Please, if you're going to start posting here again, let's get a little more quality out of you.

---

Why can't we all just discuss this without arguing about it or accusing each other. We all say that we trust in Christ, we should at least be able to discuss our differences.

---

In all fairness, I seem to recall quite a lengthy argument between you and OldBear, where accusations were thrown. I had to be patient through all that, so I ask for a little grace from you and others here, too.

Someone's faith, and the outward display of it, ARE different things and CAN be separated, even if they are connected and related. The former is in the heart of a person, the latter is their physical reaction to it.

Not much different than anything I have said. The only other thing I have stated is that IMO believing that the way Christ taught us to live is correct and can be considered a part of the belief and faith in Christ. I already said I know I view these as more connected than some other Christians do.

You seem to just be trying to make an argument here.

Would the thief on the cross been saved, if he had NOT rebuked the other thief, or verbally expressed his faith, but rather believed and said those things in his heart?

But he did say it, because of his faith, which he expressed.

The question of when someone is saved and the question of salvation by faith vs. works are NOT different conversations. If you are saved the instant you have true faith in your heart, then it means salvation is by faith alone, because you haven't yet done anything in response to your faith. The question about the house of Cornelius is this - were they saved right after hearing and believing the gospel, evidenced by the Holy Spirit entering them? Can the Holy Spirit enter someone like that if they are not saved? Because if they were saved, it was before they could do any works.

And when do you have "true faith"? If someone says they have faith in Jesus in their heart, believe that Jesus died for their sins so that they might have salvation, and lives a Christian life, do they have "true faith"? Are they saved? How about if something bad happens to them and then they renounce God in their heart and actions, deny His existence, and begin a sinful lifestyle, are they saved now? Oh, but wait, they change their mind again and now they acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and savior again. Are they saved now? And on and on. So when can you say for certain that someone is saved? In my opinion only God really knows.


That is why IMO that is a different conversation than faith vs works.

I'm curious about your comment regarding their baptism, though. Are you saying that their baptism was necessary for their salvation? Remember, they were baptized only AFTER they believed and the Holy Spirit entered them.

I only mentioned the baptism because that's what happened.

Yes, I know that you've stated many times your belief that faith is what saves, not works. But you keep saying that faith and works can't be separated out for the purpose of the faith vs. works discussion, so I'm showing that it can.

I said that in my view, I view faith and works as more connected than some other people. That means I already know other people have a different view. You aren't showing anything I haven't already said.

What's interesting is that you yourself are separating them out, and even answering the faith vs. works debate by declaring it is faith.

What's interesting to me is that you have avoided discussing many of the Bible verses that have been referenced in this thread regarding a potential connection between works and salvation. There have been many, but you haven't really commented on most of them.

You have another confusing part in your response which I will address in a separate post, so it can be the sole focus.

More interrogation.

Do you understand why I was asking these questions in the first place, and why they were necessary?

None of those questions were necessary for you to give your own complete view on faith and works and their connection to salvation. My first and second posts in this thread were stating my personal views. No questions of other posters were necessary. You are free to offer up your own complete view on the relationship between works and faith and salvation at any time. You have chosen not to.

Do you concede that calling me an "interrogator" was overstepping?

Asking someone to "concede" something sounds to me like you're trying to win an argument rather than have an open conversation regarding Faith.

These questions certainly can start conversations. We're having one right now because of them.

Not a very good one.

In my experience talking with people exploring their faith, open conversation and offering up my own views and listening to theirs has almost always been more meaningful than asking someone a lot of pointed, yes/no questions. IMO that often leads to a more antagonistic conversation which is rarely useful for producing "fruit of the spirit."

Here is how I see it.

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"

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.

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water...". (Matthew 3)

When you come to believe in a Messiah who had no need at all to be baptized and yet went ahead with it, you should be willing to do the same.

If you are physically able to be baptized (ie, not currently nailed to a cross next to Jesus, or come to faith before age 18 and your family prevents it) and voluntarily choose not to be because you don't think it is necessary that probably isn't a safe place to be hanging out doctrinally.

Incidentally, the church of the first millenium had a period of time when the new believer was a "catechumen". This was an adult who had expressed faith in Christ and was being taught the truths of the faith. Baptism and communion came at the end of that period. But it was universally held that if an adult died as a catechumen, his unbaptized status would not preclude his salvation. Meanwhile children born into the Christian community were baptized as infants, communed immediately, and were catechized as children.

No need to make this harder than it has to be.

Quote:

---

Not much different than anything I have said. The only other thing I have stated is that IMO believing that the way Christ taught us to live is correct and can be considered a part of the belief and faith in Christ. I already said I know I view these as more connected than some other Christians do.

You seem to just be trying to make an argument here.

Would the thief on the cross been saved, if he had NOT rebuked the other thief, or verbally expressed his faith, but rather believed and said those things in his heart?

But he did say it, because of his faith, which he expressed.

The question of when someone is saved and the question of salvation by faith vs. works are NOT different conversations. If you are saved the instant you have true faith in your heart, then it means salvation is by faith alone, because you haven't yet done anything in response to your faith. The question about the house of Cornelius is this - were they saved right after hearing and believing the gospel, evidenced by the Holy Spirit entering them? Can the Holy Spirit enter someone like that if they are not saved? Because if they were saved, it was before they could do any works.

And when do you have "true faith"? If someone says they have faith in Jesus in their heart, believe that Jesus died for their sins so that they might have salvation, and lives a Christian life, do they have "true faith"? Are they saved? How about if something bad happens to them and then they renounce God in their heart and actions, deny His existence, and begin a sinful lifestyle, are they saved now? Oh, but wait, they change their mind again and now they acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and savior again. Are they saved now? And on and on. So when can you say for certain that someone is saved? In my opinion only God really knows.


That is why IMO that is a different conversation than faith vs works.

I'm curious about your comment regarding their baptism, though. Are you saying that their baptism was necessary for their salvation? Remember, they were baptized only AFTER they believed and the Holy Spirit entered them.

I only mentioned the baptism because that's what happened.

Yes, I know that you've stated many times your belief that faith is what saves, not works. But you keep saying that faith and works can't be separated out for the purpose of the faith vs. works discussion, so I'm showing that it can.

I said that in my view, I view faith and works as more connected than some other people. That means I already know other people have a different view. You aren't showing anything I haven't already said.

What's interesting is that you yourself are separating them out, and even answering the faith vs. works debate by declaring it is faith.

What's interesting to me is that you have avoided discussing many of the Bible verses that have been referenced in this thread regarding a potential connection between works and salvation. There have been many, but you haven't really commented on most of them.

You have another confusing part in your response which I will address in a separate post, so it can be the sole focus.

More interrogation.

Do you understand why I was asking these questions in the first place, and why they were necessary?

None of those questions were necessary for you to give your own complete view on faith and works and their connection to salvation. My first and second posts in this thread were stating my personal views. No questions of other posters were necessary. You are free to offer up your own complete view on the relationship between works and faith and salvation at any time. You have chosen not to.

Do you concede that calling me an "interrogator" was overstepping?

Asking someone to "concede" something sounds to me like you're trying to win an argument rather than have an open conversation regarding Faith.

These questions certainly can start conversations. We're having one right now because of them.

Not a very good one.

In my experience talking with people exploring their faith, open conversation and offering up my own views and listening to theirs has almost always been more meaningful than asking someone a lot of pointed, yes/no questions. IMO that often leads to a more antagonistic conversation which is rarely useful for producing "fruit of the spirit."

---