worthless good works (calling out rajk99)

Originally posted by knightmeister
I agree there are two potential pitfalls 1) easy grace 2) legalism


The problem is that the Bible warns us against BOTH pitfalls. Rajk wants us to accept the problem of easy grace (which we do accept) without accepting the problem of legalism.

It's a one sided discussion . His hatred of easy grace has pushed him into a subtle from of legalism ...[text shortened]... water thing. It has nothing to do with faith and theology and much more to do with a mindset.

Legalism .. fortunately I have not been corrupted by the jargon of modern Christianity. But it sounds like a word the Pharisees would have liked to use to describe following the teachings of Christ.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
..Paul, who championed the doctrine of "faith alone", also implored Christians to examine themselves to see whether or not they were in the faith, implying that we cannot rely too much on faithful proclamations and intellectual self-assurances.

Actually he told Christians that despite being saved by grace through Christ, they cannot sin ..

Gal 2:16-17 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Rom 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

How can any Christian of sound mind believe in this 'eternally saved' doctrine ? Are they sinless? Are all these born-again Christians sinless?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If I was homeless and some rich man helped me out of it, I wouldn't give two sh y ts what his motivation was. So you want to win favor with God? More power to ya.

I bet you would if his help cost you more than you were willing to pay.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think I already told folks here about my good deed, finding an interstate truck overturned in Canada, people watching, thumbs up their arse just staring, I saw the guy pinned inside, with seats broken off and pinning him down, and fuel dripping out the fuel tanks, I just jumped in and crawled up the side of the truck and broke the windshield out from the ...[text shortened]... one needs immediate help.

Heavenly brownie points shouldn't even be part of the debate.

I agree with you heavenly brownie points should not be the goal.
Love is the goal, and doing right by others, when you have a good heart those
things will happen, not to earn points but because that is how it should be.
The life you live out will be filled with good works, because that is how it
should be.
Kelly

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Well put, km. But I don't think Rajk denies the importance of love per se. It looks like he prefers to underscore the contradiction between a proclaimed faith in a God who loves righteousness and the lack of any righteous works (or the presence of unrighteous works) in a believer's life. It seems correct to assume that there is something signif ...[text shortened]... that we cannot rely too much on faithful proclamations and intellectual self-assurances.

I believe if anyone were claiming just believe and reject works as part of the
process Rajk would have a point and I'd be on his side; however, no one is
saying that only him.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe if anyone were claiming just believe and reject works as part of the
process Rajk would have a point and I'd be on his side; however, no one is
saying that only him.
Kelly

It is either you are dense or you have very little understanding of English.

Many here, Jaywill, JosephW, KM, Divegeester and others have repeatedly said that once you are baptised you are saved and saved eternally. They explained in detail that you cannot lose your salavation notwithstanding the most grievous of sins which you might commit.

What is stopping you from realising that this is a license to sin and get away from the consequences of sin. This is saying that no good works need be done. This is what some Christians use to justify their sinful lifestyles. They claim that they are SAVED.

Is it your position that all Christians are free from sin or that they all do good works?

I have repeatedly said that the teachings of certain churches encourage Christians to sin or to refrain from doing good works.

Christ on the other had repeatedly said it was essential [not optional] to do good works. Knightmesiter apparently did not realised what Christ said because him, like you, have either not read the words of Christ or believe in the words of Christ. I had quoted to him at least 5 .. FIVE .. occasions where Christ said by direct statements or by illustration that good works are essential for salvation.

Originally posted by Rajk999
It is either you are dense or you have very little understanding of English.

Many here, Jaywill, JosephW, KM, Divegeester and others have repeatedly said that once you are baptised you are saved and saved eternally. They explained in detail that you cannot lose your salavation notwithstanding the most grievous of sins which you might commit.

What is st ...[text shortened]... Christ said by direct statements or by illustration that good works are essential for salvation.

You do not have a clue as to my position I've never said such things.
You are very wrong in how you are restating my position so why should I
believe you when you state others?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not have a clue as to my position I've never said such things.
You are very wrong in how you are restating my position so why should I
believe you when you state others?
Kelly

You can, if you have the ability and the inclination, take the trouble to read what the others have written for yourself.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Many here, Jaywill, JosephW, KM, Divegeester and others have repeatedly said that once you are baptised you are saved and saved eternally.

I have never said any such thing in relation to baptism. Baptism as an action is like 'works' are merely actions - it is a temporal effort and only valid in that it is an act of obedience in response to a scriptural ordinance.

I do believe in eternal salvation however because this is scriptural is in the revealed nature of God throughout the Bible as I've discussed with you previously.

Salvation is eternal in the true sense of eternity. You seem to think about eternity as an extension of time, it isn't, it is the absence of time. Therefore to propose that you can lose something you have in eternity due to a temporal event, is a nonsensical assumption.

"The Lord disciplines those he loves" and will deal with those who stray, but once you are a member of the Royal bloodline you cannot become a non-member by being naughty no more than you can become a member by being good.

Originally posted by divegeester
I have never said any such thing in relation to [b]baptism. Baptism as an action is like 'works' are merely actions - it is a temporal effort and only valid in that it is an act of obedience in response to a scriptural ordinance.

I do believe in eternal salvation however because this is scriptural is in the revealed nature of God throughout the B ...[text shortened]... t become a non-member by being naughty no more than you can become a member by being good.[/b]

Here Christ is saying that IF someone follows his commandments, thats the person that loves Him. THEN he will love that person and manifest Himself to that person.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

You appear to believe something other than what Christ said.

I dont buy your Royal bloodline nonsense any more that I believe Jaywills claim that the born again cannot be unborn.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You can, if you have the ability and the inclination, take the trouble to read what the others have written for yourself.

I have been reading them and your posts and you twist what people say. You
are not honest in your posts when you twist the words of those you are talking
to and try to pull out meanings that were not even suggested by others. I
really don't see how you think that is a good work on your part.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I bet you would if his help cost you more than you were willing to pay.
Kelly

If I'm homeless, I have nothing. It is meaningless to talk about my willingness to pay for ANYTHING - I simply can't do it. If it has any cost, it isn't helping me.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Actually he told Christians that despite being saved by grace through Christ, they cannot sin ..
[quote]Gal 2:16-17 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of t is 'eternally saved' doctrine ? Are they sinless? Are all these born-again Christians sinless?

Reading scriptures with blinders on again are we?

Based on the demonstrable imbalance with which you habitually interpret scripture, it is not surprising that you refuse to grasp the concept of the "infants in Christ" who are yet "of the flesh" of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 3. You display a marked tendency toward reactionary thought, so it makes sense that you would prefer to brush aside any indication in scripture of the presence of immature and sinful Christians and insist on the ultimately unscriptural (and irrational) doctrine of sinless perfectionism.

If you could for a moment set all that aside and recognize two facts, I believe your understanding might improve: (1) sinful (i.e., immature) Christians, according to Paul, do exist, and (2) people can and do abuse grace to the degree that it is right to question whether they are Christians at all. Now, it is possible to recognize the truth of both (1) and (2) without resorting to the extreme position you've staked out for yourself. Do you realize this?

I really don't understand how anyone could refuse a more sure-footed understanding of scripture, unless such a refusal were couched in the irrationality of emotion.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Legalism .. fortunately I have not been corrupted by the jargon of modern Christianity. But it sounds like a word the Pharisees would have liked to use to describe following the teachings of Christ.

The whole point about legalism is that people already knew what the commandments were and they knew that they needed to live righteously and lovingly before God. The problem was that they kept falling short. The dilemma man finds himself in is that just "trying harder" didn't work because of our sinful nature.

Jesus didn't come just to pile on a load more commandments and teachings for us to follow , he came to help us out of this problem.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Actually he told Christians that despite being saved by grace through Christ, they cannot sin ..
[quote][i]Gal 2:16-17 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of t ...[text shortened]... is 'eternally saved' doctrine ? Are they sinless? Are all these born-again Christians sinless?

It's impossible to have a conversation about sin unless we define what sin actually is.

For example , if we look deeply into this we might consider sins of thought. Who on this forum could confidently claim that they are totally free of any sins of thought? By this I mean envy , sexual distraction , bad thoughts about someone, anger , impatience etc etc

We are all subject to such thoughts from time to time. So how are we to be right with God? Jesus clearly implied that sin was more than just an "act". So we need to define what the term "sinless" actually means before it can be discussed properly.