Zobel said:

---

Atonement preceded justification, not the other way around. Justification is made possible by atonement - causal the other way is precluded. God's grace comes from God, not justification - although this seems so obvious I don't really understand why it needs to be said.

You go through great pains to argue with the Lord. Me, personally, I believe Him when He says we will have to give an account for every word spoken at the day of judgment - not just some - and by those same words we will be condemned or considered righteous. The earlier portion of this doesn't change what it says. It is pretty straightforward.

The struggle you're having is because you're burdened this one word with *everything* you have to defend any possible alternate understanding vehemently. But to be declared righteous was a legal matter - it meant being judged to be the party in the right. Could be civil, could be criminal. The declaration of righteousness is a judge's decision. The Judge, here, is telling you how He is going to judge. Does this mean "go to hell" or "go to heaven"? It's not there. Does this mean, "every word you say in an effort to do good is sin anyway"? No, because that isn't there either. Does it mean "every word you say bad is held against you, every good word is irrelevant, except for a confession of faith"? This is the definition of special pleading.

If you can accept the idea that what justifies a man, what will set him right in his relationship with God, what God wants from us is faith - AND that on the day of judgment our deeds will be what separates us as sheep and goats, or what causes what we build to burn or stand tested, or bear good fruit or not - without suggesting that somehow these two ideas oppose instead of affirm each other - all of these confusing asterisks and causalities and whatever are simply unnecessary. One flows from the other as naturally as a puddle comes from rain or a plant comes from a seed.

It doesn't deny that God's grace precedes at all times. It doesn't deny but affirms that belief, or faith, or trust in God's mighty act of grace is what enables a man to participate in the promises of grace God unilaterally makes (in this case, those promises include salvation from death, and affirm eternal life with Him in the new creation). And it doesn't move anything from faith as necessity. It just acknowledges that when nearly everyone who wrote in the New Testament and a good deal of the prophets say - God will judge and reward a man according to what he does - they mean it.

I mean, if we can't agree that there is a judgment for what people do, I don't see how you we ever hope to agree with anything, because it is literally in the text verbatim many, many times.

---

Are you saying that there will be a punishment in heaven for the saved depending on what words we've used here on earth? Scripturally, how would that punishment go about? If so, what is the point of being covered in the blood of Jesus?

Now, if you are saying those who are NOT covered in the blood of Jesus will be judged for their words, I would agree with you. It will be an awful excruciating day for them. As for those of us who are born again, we will not experience that.

Oh and for what it's worth, the good fruit - good tree causality is flip flopped many times. St John goes through much effort in his gospel to show that people accepted or rejected or recognized Jesus because of their existing disposition. The righteous recognize Him right away. The unrighteousness do not. Fruit? Quality of tree? Both-and, because doing and being are evidence of each other. An unrighteous person yields unrighteousness because of their unbelief and continued presentation of their bodies as instruments of unrighteousness. And a righteous person yields righteousness because of their faith and continued presentation of their bodies as instruments of righteousness.

Where does the act and the being begin and end? No one can tell, and it really doesn't matter anyway except as an academic exercise. But, we must affirm that it begins with God's movement toward the world in grace, and continues through both as we never lose our free will and He never withholds grace.

I'm saying there will be people saying lord lord who He will say He never knew, and their life will be evidence of His righteous judgment. And, people who He will say, well done, good and faithful servant will have their lives as evidence of His righteous judgment (and they will say - when did we do these things? And - we are unworthy servants).

It is not possible to be "saved" and continue to sin. St John says this is evidence that you don't know Him and never did. I'm not saying all Christians never sin, I'm saying all repent and continue to repent when they do.

The scriptures say He doesn't judge by outward appearances, but the intent and heart so it's not merely what you do but your intent, and also you are judged by what you are given. He will judge righteously. But they also absolutely say we will be judged for what we say and do. St Paul says literally the righteous and wicked alike. Even the deeds or works of the righteous are tested as through fire, he says.

The big takeaway is the "saved" is a category only He knows and only He can know. It is not ours to Judge! But we have the promises and the scriptures to serve as both warning and comfort.

I mean what do you think it means when He says "For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"?

Zobel said:

---

I'm saying there will be people saying lord lord who He will say He never knew, and their life will be evidence of His righteous judgment. And, people who He will say, well done, good and faithful servant will have their lives as evidence of His righteous judgment (and they will say - when did we do these things? And - we are unworthy servants).

It is not possible to be "saved" and continue to sin. St John says this is evidence that you don't know Him and never did. I'm not saying all Christians never sin, I'm saying all repent and continue to repent when they do.

The scriptures say He doesn't judge by outward appearances, but the intent and heart so it's not merely what you do but your intent, and also you are judged by what you are given. He will judge righteously. But they also absolutely say we will be judged for what we say and do. St Paul says literally the righteous and wicked alike. Even the deeds or works of the righteous are tested as through fire, he says.

The big takeaway is the "saved" is a category only He knows and only He can know. It is not ours to Judge! But we have the promises and the scriptures to serve as both warning and comfort.

---

That's not what I asked you. I asked if you think we would be punished in heaven. Because we are covered by the righteousness of the blood of Christ. Our sins are remembered no more, and are as far as the east is from the west. How, and to what measure would we be punished? I'm not talking about the unsaved, I'm talking about Christians. And if you think there is anything worthy about you or anyone else on this planet, including Christians that warrants heaven, you're sadly mistaken. We won't be there for anything we've done, but in spite of it. No matter how much of a "holy" life you you live here, it is still filthy rags.

Zobel said:

---

I'm saying there will be people saying lord lord who He will say He never knew, and their life will be evidence of His righteous judgment. And, people who He will say, well done, good and faithful servant will have their lives as evidence of His righteous judgment (and they will say - when did we do these things? And - we are unworthy servants).

It is not possible to be "saved" and continue to sin. St John says this is evidence that you don't know Him and never did. I'm not saying all Christians never sin, I'm saying all repent and continue to repent when they do.

The scriptures say He doesn't judge by outward appearances, but the intent and heart so it's not merely what you do but your intent, and also you are judged by what you are given. He will judge righteously. But they also absolutely say we will be judged for what we say and do. St Paul says literally the righteous and wicked alike. Even the deeds or works of the righteous are tested as through fire, he says.

The big takeaway is the "saved" is a category only He knows and only He can know. It is not ours to Judge! But we have the promises and the scriptures to serve as both warning and comfort.

---

And as for knowing you are saved, the apostle John said you can know. Are you saying we cannot?

I understand what you asked - "punishment in heaven for the saved" is a sentence that I can't say yes or no to because I reject the premise or the unspoken assumptions you're making. I can say that the righteous are not condemned at the judgment. But you're working from a frame of reference ("go to heaven" and "warrants heaven") that is above or laid on top of the scriptures.

It is interesting you talk about being covered in the blood of Christ. I'd like to talk about that a bit, if you don't mind. Everything in the New Testament is foreshadowed in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets - they are about the Lord and that the work of Christ is a fulfillment or culmination of His work to save the world. So how can we understand this particular thing?

The formation of Israel was accomplished in two steps - in the Passover and in the receipt of the Law at Sinai. All of the plagues of Egypt fell on areas - not on where the Israelites were living. But the last plague was different. The Lord said He would judge the gods of Egypt and "make a distinction between Egypt and Israel." This distinction was one of obedience - anyone who followed the instructions the Lord gave, who ate the Passover, and who marked their doors, was spared - and was therefore Israel (regardless of if they were ethnic Israelites or Egyptians or whatever else). He also gave these instructions and the instructions for remembrance going forward before the event - in Passover.

The second step was the giving of the Torah at Sinai, where the book of the Covenant was read to the people and the people replied that they would be obedient to the words of the Lord. Moses then took the blood of the sacrifice and sprinkled it on the people and said "This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with these words." This event is identified with the feast of Pentecost.

And likewise the culmination of Israel in those who follow Christ. He is the spotless lamb at the new Passover - again to save us from death - who takes away the sin of the world. This salvation is not by ethnicity, but by faith. We are purchased out from slavery by Him, not from Egypt but from death. And in doing this He judges not only the gods of Egypt but the world, and makes a distinction between His faithful people and the world. He gives us instructions before the event, like at Passover, detailing what is to be our remembrance in the Eucharist. In that remembrance we re-affirm our obedience as the Israelites did, with His blood of the new covenant - the covenant foretold in the Prophets that the Spirit would be poured out, the Law would no longer be commanded but written on our hearts, that we would be made righteous, and that it was for all mankind. This was fulfilled in Acts, at Pentecost.

To be "covered in His blood" is to affirm your acceptance of His covenant - His grace, His unilateral act - and to affirm your obedience and faithfulness to Him. Now, what happened to the Israelites who affirmed this covenant forty days later? Did the blood of the covenant save them or convict them? "In the day when I shall visit I will bring upon them their sin."

So you say - "not the unsaved, but the Christians." Who is the "unsaved"? Egypt who was judged in disobedience? Or Israel who was purchased and faithless in disobedience? Who is Israel? Those sprinkled with the blood or those who keep the commandments? "Not all who are of Israel are Israel" and "a man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical." On the contrary "we who are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh" because we have the righteousness of God on the basis of faith, fellowship in His sufferings, conformity to His death, and through that we attain life. And, it is not that we have this already, but we press on to talk hold of this, we strain ahead, we press on toward the goal to win this prize which all of us were called to. "All of us who are mature should embrace this point of view. And if you think differently about some issue, God will reveal this to you as well. Nevertheless, we must live up to what we have already attained." The conclusion is a warning - "Join one another in following my example, brothers, and carefully observe those who walk according to the pattern we set for you. For as I have often told you before, and now say again even with tears: Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things."

Quote:

---

And if you think there is anything worthy about you or anyone else on this planet, including Christians that warrants heaven, you're sadly mistaken. We won't be there for anything we've done, but in spite of it. No matter how much of a "holy" life you you live here, it is still filthy rags.

---

I sincerely don't understand how this would be your response to what I've written. Never, never have I suggested that anything done "warrants" anything. The work is God's, from beginning to end. It's not what we do apart from God which matters - because "apart from Me you can do nothing." But I disagree with your last sentence!

The good which is done through the grace of God, with Him, is truly good. Why do you put holy in sarcastiquotes? Do you not believe that He who knew no sin became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God? Should that be in quotes? Is there an asterisk? Was it in quotes when we are told - Be Holy as I am holy? Or Be perfect? But this is not by our own efforts, but by the fulfilment of the covenant for the Spirit to be put in our hearts, and to enable us to be holy, to be righteous - but the righteous will live by faith.

I think a lot of the confusion in these passages regarding salvation happens because of one big assumption. That assumption is that people are saved while they are alive. With that assumption all the familiar contradictions arise. For instance, we must endure until the end and work out our salvation, but God also does not let His people out of His grasp. All of these contradictions quickly disappear if you set the time of salvation at death or just after. Now we must endure in faith until death and can turn away or toward God at any point before then. This is seen in the Church in both in the practice of deathbed confession and the anathematizing of believers, even priests and bishops. The early Church clearly believed that the state of the person at death is what mattered the most.

So where did this confusion come from? Probably teo places. First, there is a verb tense in Hebrew (no clue in Greek) called the "prophetic past tense". When this is used, certain future events are spoken of as if they already happened. For instance, go fight the battle because God has given the enemies over to you. Something that will certainly happen spoken as if it already had. Similarly, God has saved his elect could easily be a true prophecy of the future. But this can be confusing if you are not aware of the usage.

Second is our old friend Augustine. Augustine taught predestination, and in such a worldview the difference between past, present and future are pretty meaningless. So it makes sense to say we are saved or were saved, because it was all determined at the moment of creation.

Both of those interpretations carry no contradictions in the Scriptures. The only way you end up with any contradictions is to say that at one moment in someone's life they are not saved, and in the next moment they are. I don't think you can justify that position in either Testament, ancient Judaism or early Christianity. It generates too much conflict and there are two much cleaner examples of exegesis, salvation at death or predestination

Quote:

---

And as for knowing you are saved, the apostle John said you can know. Are you saying we cannot?

---

St John does not say "saved". There are conditional statements and affirmations.

The "ifs"

• If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth
• If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
• If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
• If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
• If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
• If anyone should love the world, the love of the Father is not in him, because all that is in the world, the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the vaunting of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
• If you know that He is righteous, you know also that everyone practicing righteousness has been begotten of Him.
• If anyone should say, "I love God," and should hate his brother, he is a liar. For the one not loving his brother, whom he has seen, is not able to love God, whom he has not seen.
• If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
• If we should love one another, God abides in us, and His love is having been perfected in us
• If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater

The "by this we knows"

• By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
• By this we know that we are in Him: the one claiming to abide in Him ought also walk just as in the same way that He walked.
• We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers.
• By this we have known love, because He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers
• We should love not in word, nor in tongue, but in action and in truth. And by this we will know that we are of the truth
• By this we know that He abides in us: by the Spirit whom He has given to us.
• By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us: because He has given to us from out of His Spirit
• By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments

And then some other links between doing-being

• the one doing the will of God abides to the age
• whoever may keep His word, truly in him the love of God has been perfected
• Behold what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God -- and we are!...now we are children of God...
• Anyone abiding in Him does not sin
• The one practicing righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.
• Anyone having been born of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to continue sinning, because he has been born of God.
• the one abiding in love abides in God, and God abides in him
• The one having the Son has life; the one not having the Son of God does not have life.

Nothing in there at all that supports some kind of once-and-done. It is the greatest summation of salvation.

Your answer is simply just a huge projection on your part.

---------------------

Quote:

---

You go through great pains to argue with the Lord. Me, personally, I believe Him when He says we will have to give an account for every word spoken at the day of judgment - not just some - and by those same words we will be condemned or considered righteous. The earlier portion of this doesn't change what it says. It is pretty straightforward.

---

This is non-sensical. Great pains? Arguing with the Lord? That certainly didn't happen on my part. I actually took the most straightforward approach to the verse and showed the parallel examples.

I also didn't choose to prooftext, but took the entire paragraph as a whole.

You want to make the fruit the important feature, but Scripture says the opposite. The fruit doesn't determine whether the tree is good or bad, it is the tree that will be the cause of the fruit being good or bad because a fruit tree can do nothing other than produce fruit (unless of course it's dead).

----------------------------

Quote:

---

The struggle you're having is because you're burdened this one word with *everything* you have to defend any possible alternate understanding vehemently.

---

Oh the irony. I gave you the straight forward reading of the text and you want to accuse me of coming in with a preconceived idea. The only way you could read the text differently is if you come in with the need to defend synergism. If you had never heard of that particular idea, you'd agree with me.

But further, Romans is clear that we have been judged on our actions and found wanting (Romans 3).

We also know from Romans 5, that what we are offered in Jesus is a free gift (Romans 5).

Paul would even go so far as to say that the free gift exists because we have been condemned.

Romans 5: 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

So justification holds and my review of Matthew remains unchallenged.

-------------------------

Quote:

---

If you can accept the idea that what justifies a man, what will set him right in his relationship with God, what God wants from us is faith - AND that on the day of judgment our deeds will be what separates us as sheep and goats, or what causes what we build to burn or stand tested, or bear good fruit or not - without suggesting that somehow these two ideas oppose instead of affirm each other - all of these confusing asterisks and causalities and whatever are simply unnecessary. One flows from the other as naturally as a puddle comes from rain or a plant comes from a seed.

---

This is actually the biggest reason I have not been able to accept synergism. The view point above requires so many asterisk and dancing around Scripture that it really can't rely on Scripture. It has to rely on trying to twist passages (as we've seen you do with Matthew).

You want to simultaneously claim that works don't merit salvation, yet claim that our works will be what merits us salvation. And you want to argue that it's vague when people use the word "saved" in discussions.

But further, is this scriptural? The answer seems to be no because again, you want to focus on the fruits.

The Scriptures say the regenerate are "slaves to righteousness." (Romans 6). Does a slave give credit and reward for following his masters orders?

The Scriptures point out we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2).

This parallels nicely with the Matthew 12 as I mentioned above. The fruit tree can only produce fruit. It doesn't produce vegetables or meats or candy. If the tree is healthy, it's good fruit, if the tree is sick, bad fruit. Likewise we are created for works. If we are in christ, our works will be good, if not, they won't.

---------------

Quote:

---

I mean, if we can't agree that there is a judgment for what people do, I don't see how you we ever hope to agree with anything, because it is literally in the text verbatim many, many times.

---

Prooftexting is a great thing isn't it? It allows a lot of people to claim they are "reading the text verbatim."

Nowhere did I say there won't be rewards for those who persevered in the faith.

That is in fact clear, but I almost a realist. Every single person who stands before Christ will see the good and the bad. It won't be balanced either. All of our sins will outweigh our "good" by factors we can't even comprehend. You'll try to justify it with a vague statement about how it's unknown what's acceptable or not, but again, if you want to say the word "saved" is too vague, you're gonna have to be a lot more clear.

Quote:

---

You want to simultaneously claim that works don't merit salvation, yet claim that our works will be what merits us salvation.

---

Never once have I said this. Again, if this is your takeaway, there's been quite a bit of misunderstanding.

We've talked about this before, and arrived to the same place - dogged commitment to argument rather than to discussion.

This is the (previous) summation of things I disagree with:
1. Justification = salvation.
Scripturally they are simply not the same thing. Instead, salvation includes justification, but not the other way around. Special care is needed with the verb "to save". St Paul often uses it in a lot of different ways, very broadly, different tenses, and scripturally it can mean both eternal salvation and also salvation from specific things, sometimes temporal (e.g., "your faith has saved you" not eternally but from the temporal suffering, disease; or mortal death; or etenal condemnation).

2. That faith can exist alone (that is, apart from works)
The entire discussion is a notional one, that there is such a thing as a workless faith. Perhaps we can say that if there were such a thing as a workless faith, it could save. But the whole idea is contrary to the mind of the scriptures, because repeatedly we see that a workless faith simply isn't faith at all. Every indication we have in the scriptures is that faith never exists without activity, obedience, work, love. So the very idea of "faith alone" is a kind of oxymoron, like "dry wetness" or "hot coldness".

2b. That we are not really made righteous by faith.
As a follow-up to the above, to "fix" this problem, a person can say that we are not ontologically made righteous, but only declared to be so. Therefore our apparent lack of love is of no problem whatsoever, because even though a person could be "workless" Christ is infinitely "workful," so we fall on his works. They're accounted to us, even though they are not ours. Now, the stage is set for the great debate between Luther and Rome. They both presume this is the case; they argue between themselves on how one avails oneself of this "treasury of merits" to be called "wet" while being "dry". Meanwhile, apart from both sides, the East's position is that we are actually made righteous through faith, and this is what salvation is. You aren't called "wet," you become "wet". You aren't called righteous, you are made righteous - the righteousness of God.

3. That a dichotomy can be made between the event and the ongoing activity of salvation
There has been a tendency here at times to favor the event to the exclusion of the ongoing. There is no need for this, because scripturally salvation (and even justification) is both a past event and an ongoing process, it is both finished and will be finished at the Day of judgment. Even justification should not be spoken of solely as past tense, because St Paul himself, in Romans no less, speaks of it as a future event. We shouldn't limit it to either, because the scripture doesn't.

I think these are the differences in understanding. There are more, of course - "going to heaven / going to hell" being another significant one. But This is where it leaves off.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I think a lot of the confusion in these passages regarding salvation happens because of one big assumption. That assumption is that people are saved while they are alive. With that assumption all the familiar contradictions arise. For instance, we must endure until the end and work out our salvation, but God also does not let His people out of His grasp. All of these contradictions quickly disappear if you set the time of salvation at death or just after. Now we must endure in faith until death and can turn away or toward God at any point before then. This is seen in the Church in both in the practice of deathbed confession and the anathematizing of believers, even priests and bishops. The early Church clearly believed that the state of the person at death is what mattered the most.

So where did this confusion come from? Probably teo places. First, there is a verb tense in Hebrew (no clue in Greek) called the "prophetic past tense". When this is used, certain future events are spoken of as if they already happened. For instance, go fight the battle because God has given the enemies over to you. Something that will certainly happen spoken as if it already had. Similarly, God has saved his elect could easily be a true prophecy of the future. But this can be confusing if you are not aware of the usage.

Second is our old friend Augustine. Augustine taught predestination, and in such a worldview the difference between past, present and future are pretty meaningless. So it makes sense to say we are saved or were saved, because it was all determined at the moment of creation.

Both of those interpretations carry no contradictions in the Scriptures. The only way you end up with any contradictions is to say that at one moment in someone's life they are not saved, and in the next moment they are. I don't think you can justify that position in either Testament, ancient Judaism or early Christianity. It generates too much conflict and there are two much cleaner examples of exegesis, salvation at death or predestination

---

Being born again happens in this life. Not after death. Jesus said if you were born twice, you die once. And if you're born once, you die twice.

But you must be born again. How can you be born again after you die? We can know we are saved. That's clear from scripture:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13).

He doesn't say you MIGHT know, but you know. He doesn't say you will have it in the future, he says you HAVE it. Present tense.

When the wicked dead awake to shame and everlasting contempt, they will taste of the second death. First of all, death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). Then the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death (Revelation 21:8). The second death is an eternal death from which there is no escape.

The Bible tells of those who will not taste of the second death. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death (Revelation 2:11). Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (Revelation 20:6). By this we know that just as there are many that will die twice, there are also many who will only die once. They will rise up victorious with Jesus and say, O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? (I Corinthians 15:55).

If you were born again, you are saved. If you say it's anything harder than that, you were placing a yoke upon people that even the Jews couldn't fulfill.

I gave you the complete lists of all of the writings about knowledge in 1 John. He also says that you know by a bunch of other things too - love, keeping commandments, by the Spirit, practicing righteousness, and so on. You can't take the one and leave the others - they are all true, both singly AND together.

Having eternal life now is a teaching of St Paul. Eternal is something we enter into on this side of death. A person can be alive and perishing, or alive and living eternally. You can see him speak this way in 1 Cor 1:18, but also in the negative in Ephesians 2:1, or Col 2:13. Consider, for example, how St Paul speaks of the gentiles who are currently living - alive, but alienated from the life of God. And us, we were dead in our sins, but now we are alive. Present tense. Being alive and dead are not only future states - we will be saved - but also present realities - by grace you have been saved. It is both. Or as St Paul says, our death we die to sin and our flesh is dead, but our spirit is alive. Present tense.

That's what St John teaches too, as you see - our love shows that we are alive. And this is not a love of words, but action and truth. We are alive because HE is alive, and we are in Him and He in us as the Lord says - one as He and the Father are one, He in us and the Father in Him, perfectly united. He who eats His flesh and drinks His blood remains in Him and He in them - and thus remains alive.

Quote:

---

If you were born again, you are saved. If you say it's anything harder than that, you were placing a yoke upon people that even the Jews couldn't fulfill.

---

You can't take a piece apart from the rest. St Paul speaks of salvation in past, present, and future tense. It's fine to say, if you were born again you are saved and will be saved. But we cannot preclude the future aspects of salvation - because again as scripture says, we have not yet taken hold of what we were called for, we are not yet perfect, we have not yet grown up to the full measure of the stature of Christ, we do not yet know as we are known. But we will, if, as St John and St Paul and St Peter and the Lord say - we persevere, we remain in Him, we abide in Him, we do not reject Him, we do not grieve the Spirit, we do not hate our brother. Then salvation will be completed in Him, and we will be righteous as He is righteous, because of union to Him.

Unless you are perfect, this is not done, so the work is not complete; salvation is not finished in us. It is not in me. I am a sinner.

And that quote from the council of Jerusalem is misapplied - no one here once has said that people are saved by the works of the Law, or works apart from Christ. Or even arguing that gentiles should keep the Torah - which is what your quote is about. As St Paul taught, the Law was never to save from sin and death but reveal it.

Quote:

---

St John does not say "saved". There are conditional statements and affirmations.

The "ifs"

• If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth
• If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
• If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
• If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
• If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
• If anyone should love the world, the love of the Father is not in him, because all that is in the world, the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the vaunting of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
• If you know that He is righteous, you know also that everyone practicing righteousness has been begotten of Him.
• If anyone should say, "I love God," and should hate his brother, he is a liar. For the one not loving his brother, whom he has seen, is not able to love God, whom he has not seen.
• If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
• If we should love one another, God abides in us, and His love is having been perfected in us
• If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater

The "by this we knows"

• By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
• By this we know that we are in Him: the one claiming to abide in Him ought also walk just as in the same way that He walked.
• We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers.
• By this we have known love, because He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers
• We should love not in word, nor in tongue, but in action and in truth. And by this we will know that we are of the truth
• By this we know that He abides in us: by the Spirit whom He has given to us.
• By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us: because He has given to us from out of His Spirit
• By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments

And then some other links between doing-being

• the one doing the will of God abides to the age
• whoever may keep His word, truly in him the love of God has been perfected
• Behold what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God -- and we are!...now we are children of God...
• Anyone abiding in Him does not sin
• The one practicing righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.
• Anyone having been born of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to continue sinning, because he has been born of God.
• the one abiding in love abides in God, and God abides in him
• The one having the Son has life; the one not having the Son of God does not have life.

Nothing in there at all that supports some kind of once-and-done. It is the greatest summation of salvation.

---

The reason here nothing in here supports some kind of one and done is because 1. Johns not telling people how to be saved. 2. John is speaking about having fellowship with Him and one another.

Example: If I lie to my wife, that doesn't make me not married. That breaks our fellowship when she finds out. The truth is not in me if I lie to her. It doesn't mean we are know married.

There are multiple definitions for the word 'Know' in the scriptures. In English we see it as black and white. You either know someone or you do not. The word know in this context is an intimate relational know. You can know someone in the English since and then know them intimately in the since of 1st John. This is not a book written about how to enter the relationship but how to thrive in the relationship....I hope to continue soon.

If one looks at the book of 1 John to determine if they are saved, that's not good news and that is not the gospel of the book of John. These 2 things are polar opposites. Believe is the key word connected to eternal life. Abide is the key word for thriving in the relationship. Abiding does not equal belief. All believers should abide and are encourage to do so because it requires our participation. It's not automatic just because one believes

Zobel said:

---

I gave you the complete lists of all of the writings about knowledge in 1 John. He also says that you know by a bunch of other things too - love, keeping commandments, by the Spirit, practicing righteousness, and so on. You can't take the one and leave the others - they are all true, both singly AND together.

Having eternal life now is a teaching of St Paul. Eternal is something we enter into on this side of death. A person can be alive and perishing, or alive and living eternally. You can see him speak this way in 1 Cor 1:18, but also in the negative in Ephesians 2:1, or Col 2:13. Consider, for example, how St Paul speaks of the gentiles who are currently living - alive, but alienated from the life of God. And us, we were dead in our sins, but now we are alive. Present tense. Being alive and dead are not only future states - we will be saved - but also present realities - by grace you have been saved. It is both. Or as St Paul says, our death we die to sin and our flesh is dead, but our spirit is alive. Present tense.

That's what St John teaches too, as you see - our love shows that we are alive. And this is not a love of words, but action and truth. We are alive because HE is alive, and we are in Him and He in us as the Lord says - one as He and the Father are one, He in us and the Father in Him, perfectly united. He who eats His flesh and drinks His blood remains in Him and He in them - and thus remains alive.

Quote:

---

If you were born again, you are saved. If you say it's anything harder than that, you were placing a yoke upon people that even the Jews couldn't fulfill.

---

You can't take a piece apart from the rest. St Paul speaks of salvation in past, present, and future tense. It's fine to say, if you were born again you are saved and will be saved. But we cannot preclude the future aspects of salvation - because again as scripture says, we have not yet taken hold of what we were called for, we are not yet perfect, we have not yet grown up to the full measure of the stature of Christ, we do not yet know as we are known. But we will, if, as St John and St Paul and St Peter and the Lord say - we persevere, we remain in Him, we abide in Him, we do not reject Him, we do not grieve the Spirit, we do not hate our brother. Then salvation will be completed in Him, and we will be righteous as He is righteous, because of union to Him.

Unless you are perfect, this is not done, so the work is not complete; salvation is not finished in us. It is not in me. I am a sinner.

And that quote from the council of Jerusalem is misapplied - no one here once has said that people are saved by the works of the Law, or works apart from Christ. Or even arguing that gentiles should keep the Torah - which is what your quote is about. As St Paul taught, the Law was never to save from sin and death but reveal it.

---

Either you are saved, or you are not. It doesn't depend on anything other than the finished work of Christ. We are justified in Christ. We are being sanctified day by day, but that has no bearing on our salvation. We are saved. Grace alone, through faith alone. The lambs blood covers us. If you want to tell me that we should live a righteous life, obviously we should, but that comes solely through how the Spirit provides the means for us to accomplish the task. It is impossible to do (live righteously) outside of having the Spirit. But again, that has nothing to do with our being saved. Positionally, justifiably saved. To say that it is anything more, is works righteousness. Of course we're not perfect, we won't be until we die. We are living in the sinful tent, as Paul called it. Until we are removed from this life, we will be incredibly flawed. Nothing we can do, say, or think will help that.

You have been adamant that you don't believe in works righteousness, yet you continue to insist that it is part of the salvation process. That is saying two things at once. Am I missing something?

Yeah, but the problem is that is not in the scriptures. You are using a definition of saved that is external to the scriptures. St Paul uses saved in past present and future tense. How do you explain this? Is he wrong?

You stopped using scripture and started using a lot of formulas.

You have said sanctification is not part of salvation. I think that is not correct, and is an assumption.

You say grace alone and faith alone. Good rallying cries of the reformation - not in the scriptures. You talk about the lamb's blood - yes. A covenant. Just like the covenant with Israel. Does entering into a covenant guarantee salvation? Is that in the scriptures? All Israel may be saved, but each israelite...? Who is an Israelite? Who is a Jew? Everyone who enters the covenant? St. Paul says "no."

You have taken commandments - imperatives - from the Lord, and things which the apostles say are evidence of our relationship with God - with eternal implications - and turned them into "shoulds". Optional?

I never said anyone could do anything outside of the Spirit. It is a pernicious thing.

Then you go back to extra-scriptural slogans. Where does st Paul or anyone else talk about positionally saved??

It isn't enough to SAY something is works righteousness. Show your work. How does one become righteous? St Paul says we do, even the righteousness of God. So does St John.

And you have not really considered the judgment. The judgment is part of the gospel, an integral part. St Paul says all men, righteous and wicked alike will be judged. as does Christ. Do you think the judgment is a formality? Do you think the numerous parables are just.. what? Why did the Lord spend time on them?

Here is a nonsense combination of words that arose only with the Protestant Reformation: "People gain eternal life before they die". It's still a head scratcher for me, and I've been taught this theology since infancy. Take just a single step back and you see how the statement doesn't make any sense and contradicts itself. If you gained eternal life before death, then you wouldn't die. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Yet here we all are, still mortal and still dying just the same as ever.

Also, I never said anything about works or anything regarding the Law. All you need is a humble heart wholely devoted to goodness and love at the instant of your death. That hardly seems like some insurmountable obstacle. Nothing prevents you from working with God throughout your whole life, and nothing prevents God from working with you before your death. But until that last second you can still turn toward or turn away.

Quote:

---

Either you are saved, or you are not. It doesn't depend on anything other than the finished work of Christ. We are justified in Christ. We are being sanctified day by day, but that has no bearing on our salvation. We are saved. Grace alone, through faith alone. The lambs blood covers us. If you want to tell me that we should live a righteous life, obviously we should, but that comes solely through how the Spirit provides the means for us to accomplish the task. It is impossible to do (live righteously) outside of having the Spirit. But again, that has nothing to do with our being saved. Positionally, justifiably saved. To say that it is anything more, is works righteousness. Of course we're not perfect, we won't be until we die. We are living in the sinful tent, as Paul called it. Until we are removed from this life, we will be incredibly flawed. Nothing we can do, say, or think will help that.

---

So you're a universalist? If everything depends solely on Christ's work and his blood, and nothing we do makes any difference, then you must be a universalist. After all, God desires that all men be saved, and Jesus died for all men. I disagree, but if you are a universalist at least your position is consistent

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Either you are saved, or you are not. It doesn't depend on anything other than the finished work of Christ. We are justified in Christ. We are being sanctified day by day, but that has no bearing on our salvation. We are saved. Grace alone, through faith alone. The lambs blood covers us. If you want to tell me that we should live a righteous life, obviously we should, but that comes solely through how the Spirit provides the means for us to accomplish the task. It is impossible to do (live righteously) outside of having the Spirit. But again, that has nothing to do with our being saved. Positionally, justifiably saved. To say that it is anything more, is works righteousness. Of course we're not perfect, we won't be until we die. We are living in the sinful tent, as Paul called it. Until we are removed from this life, we will be incredibly flawed. Nothing we can do, say, or think will help that.

---

So you're a universalist? If everything depends solely on Christ's work and his blood, and nothing we do makes any difference, then you must be a universalist. After all, God desires that all men be saved, and Jesus died for all men. I disagree, but if you are a universalist at least your position is consistent

---

Faith in Christ is what saves us. Faith is credited to us as righteousness. We have no righteousness of our own. It is holy gained through the work of Jesus Christ. Obviously, if you don't have faith, you are not in the body, and you are not saved. And every time eternal life as mentioned, it is mentioned in the present tense. We have eternal life, not we might have eternal life, but we have eternal life. It is a work of God, the only thing we bring to the equation is our sin, which is covered. I have a feeling I'm dealing with Catholics.

I'm not a Catholic, though it's funny you use it as a pejorative.

The only thing we bring to the equation is not our sin. This is objectively false in the scriptures. It does not say we are judged only for our sins but for what we say and do, good and bad. St Paul says that we will be rewarded according to our own labor.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not a Catholic, though it's funny you use it as a pejorative.

The only thing we bring to the equation is not our sin. This is objectively false in the scriptures. It does not say we are judged only for our sins but for what we say and do, good and bad. St Paul says that we will be rewarded according to our own labor.

---

Merely stating a belief is not using it as a pejorative. Funny you took it that way.

You're making salvation too complicated. It should be able to be understood by the average person. Peter didn't go on a diatribe when he was asked the question of what you must do to be "saved". Repent, and be baptized. He didn't add anything to it, other than to explain why. We have a tendency to twist things into pretzel shaped enigmas. In the meantime, the gospel is to be taught to little children.

Little children is right! Treat everyone the best you can. If you do bad things, then apologize, try to make it better and try to be better. Pretty simple stuff.

Your concept of salvation is also open refuted by Jesus in the parable of the sower. We both agree that the seed eaten by birds is the gospel landing on deaf ears. We both agree the seeds landing in good soil and producing fruit is the gospel among the elect/saved/redeemed. However, there is the seed on rocky soil and the seeds among weeds. In both cases the seed takes root and plants grow, but no fruit is produced and the plants die. According to your theology those plants are just as good as the seeds in the good soil. After all, the seed was received and growth happened. Whether the growth was sustained and produced fruit is immaterial in your view. Yet any child hearing the parable knows that only the final scenario has a good outcome.

Also not Catholic btw! But most of my favorite theologians are

I have always understood that the seed that fell on rocky soil, or thorny places were the ones that Jesus will say "depart from me, I never knew you". John described them as never really being a part of the body of Christ. If they leave, they weren't with us to begin with.

But the seed landed in soil and grew. It wasn't a fake or dishonest growth. It was real just not sustained. Yet every "born again" church would say the moment the seed lands, takes root, and shoots up out of the soil salvation happens.

Also, you pretty much just said that if you don't persist until the end you aren't really saved, which is what I've been saying the whole time :p

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

But the seed landed in soil and grew. It wasn't a fake or dishonest growth. It was real just not sustained. Yet every "born again" church would say the moment the seed lands, takes root, and shoots up out of the soil salvation happens.

Also, you pretty much just said that if you don't persist until the end you aren't really saved, which is what I've been saying the whole time :p

---

If you read further in the parable of the tares, the devil plants them in the church. They never were saved to begin with. They are false. Persistence only comes from the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to persist.

You're talking about the weeds that choked the plants that grew from good seed. That's not the same as the plants that grew from good seed but then died before producing fruit

How am I making it too complicated by quoting what the scripture says? I'm not adding or subtracting to it.

You point out that St John said "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." But he also wrote: "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." Is one statement more or less true than the other? Is it too complicated to say both are true? If St John wrote a letter explaining how to know you have eternal life, shouldn't we say that the entire content of the letter explains the opening summary?

Quote:

---

It should be able to be understood by the average person. Peter didn't go on a diatribe when he was asked the question of what you must do to be "saved". Repent, and be baptized. He didn't add anything to it, other than to explain why. We have a tendency to twist things into pretzel shaped enigmas. In the meantime, the gospel is to be taught to little children.

---

I think you're confusing St Peter with St Paul and the Jailer in Acts 16. St Peter at Pentecost didn't respond to what to do to be saved, just "what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) As in - oh no, we killed the Messiah. And even so, yes - repent and be baptized. And then? "he earnestly testified many other words and was exhorting them".

And what of the Jailer? Yes, to be saved, one must repent and be baptized. It is the first step - it is being born, as you point out, of water and the Spirit. But life does not end with birth, but begins.

It isn't complicated. The average person can understand it just fine. My kids understand the idea of faith, and trust, and obedience. They also understand disobedience, and consequences. These are not complicated ideas.

What is complicated is all of the special pleading about why even though nearly every author of the NT and many of the prophets and the psalmist and the Lord Himself say at the Day of the Lord everyone will be judged for what they said and did, it somehow doesn't mean that.

Quote:

---

Never once have I said this. Again, if this is your takeaway, there's been quite a bit of misunderstanding.

---

Sure you have. You want to claim the fruit is the most important part and that we will be judge by our fruit, yet will then claim there's no merit system.

It's ok, we all see it

-------------------

Quote:

---

As a follow-up to the above, to "fix" this problem, a person can say that we are not ontologically made righteous, but only declared to be so. Therefore our apparent lack of love is of no problem whatsoever, because even though a person could be "workless" Christ is infinitely "workful," so we fall on his works. They're accounted to us, even though they are not ours. Now, the stage is set for the great debate between Luther and Rome. They both presume this is the case; they argue between themselves on how one avails oneself of this "treasury of merits" to be called "wet" while being "dry". Meanwhile, apart from both sides, the East's position is that we are actually made righteous through faith, and this is what salvation is. You aren't called "wet," you become "wet". You aren't called righteous, you are made righteous - the righteousness of God.

---

This is probably the most important part of your response because it's the base of the majority of your arguments.

Your basic argument here is the west is wrong and the east is right. Why? Because it's what you believe. You don't even bother to defend it, just make the claim and say if everyone else doesn't agree, they just don't get it.

What you think makes the east "unique" isn't particularly unique. Both RC and Lutherans have a concept of theosis. I suspect Rome is probably more in agreement with you than against. I suspect because you have a limited view of St. Augustine, you'll trend closer to Pelagianism than the west. That's not a claim you are pelagianists, but that you'll toe the line a lot closer than those in the west.

However, as you certainly know, Lutherans also have a view of the mystical union (cooper called it christification).

The key difference is you want to put all of salvation on the back of sanctification (and dismiss justification).

Quote:

---

Sure you have. You want to claim the fruit is the most important part and that we will be judge by our fruit, yet will then claim there's no merit system.

---

I don't recall saying that the fruit is the most important part. I am acknowledging that we will be judged by what we say and do because that is what the scriptures say. I didn't say anything about relative importance. I don't know how you would. Do you not agree that the Lord will judge the living and the dead based on what they said and did?

Quote:

---

Your basic argument here is the west is wrong and the east is right. Why? Because it's what you believe. You don't even bother to defend it, just make the claim and say if everyone else doesn't agree, they just don't get it.

---

I believe I have been making a very long-winded explanation and defense of what I believe, citing essentially nothing but scripture. Given that still, even in this post, you are arguing against things I haven't said (for example, that what we do is the most important part of salvation) seems to suggest that in fact you are not "getting" it.

Quote:

---

The key difference is you want to put all of salvation on the back of sanctification (and dismiss justification).

---

I haven't said this, and in fact I've specifically argued against it.

What I said was: There has been a tendency here at times to favor the event to the exclusion of the ongoing. There is no need for this, because scripturally salvation (and even justification) is both a past event and an ongoing process, it is both finished and will be finished at the Day of judgment. Even justification should not be spoken of solely as past tense, because St Paul himself, in Romans no less, speaks of it as a future event. We shouldn't limit it to either, because the scripture doesn't.

To say "justification = salvation" is just as wrong as to say "salvation = sanctification". I haven't said either, but you say the first.

Pierow said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

But the seed landed in soil and grew. It wasn't a fake or dishonest growth. It was real just not sustained. Yet every "born again" church would say the moment the seed lands, takes root, and shoots up out of the soil salvation happens.

Also, you pretty much just said that if you don't persist until the end you aren't really saved, which is what I've been saying the whole time :p

---

If you read further in the parable of the tares, the devil plants them in the church. They never were saved to begin with. They are false. Persistence only comes from the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to persist.

---

I'm curious to your take on the explanation that Jesus provides?

Jesus says that these people will endure for a time before falling away.

What are the enduring in? I think you'd have to say that they cannot be enduring in the faith in order to say that Jesus never knew them, but I'm not sure I can think of an instance where Jesus would use this kind of language and not be talking about our faith?

Matthew 13:

"20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away."

Quote:

---

I don't recall saying that the fruit is the most important part. I am acknowledging that we will be judged by what we say and do because that is what the scriptures say. I didn't say anything about relative importance. I don't know how you would. Do you not agree that the Lord will judge the living and the dead based on what they said and did?

---

Your entire argument in Matthew 12 tried to side step the "tree" in favor of the "fruits." Even in this response, you're left circling back to claiming it's all about the fruit.

This is why your argument doesn't work (in my opinion). You need the conclusion to be that the fruits determine the health of the tree when Matthew 12 says the opposite.

But thing is, the Orthodox Priests I've listened to actually get it, whether they realize it directly or not. I can remember Fr Damick talking with awe about a Priest on Mt. Athos who could simultaneously pray, while also listening/carrying a conversation at the same time. There's a realization that our fruits will never be enough, and that drives people extremes when they realize it.

To your last question, yes the Lord will judge us, and I can tell you the verdict for you, for me, for every single person born of a man and women. Romans 3:23, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I can even tell you the punishment. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin are death."

So yes, we will stand, and yes we will be found guilty, but I put my hope in the second half of Romans 6:23 "the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." I don't put it the hope that my works will be good enough at judgement day, I know they won't be.

Quote:

---

I believe I have been making a very long-winded explanation and defense of what I believe, citing essentially nothing but scripture. Given that still, even in this post, you are arguing against things I haven't said (for example, that what we do is the most important part of salvation) seems to suggest that in fact you are not "getting" it.

---

This is a non-answer, to what I literally copy and pasted.

I didn't even make an argument about Matthew 12. All I did was point out the Lord says we will be judged for every word we say.

Quote:

---

This is why your argument doesn't work (in my opinion). You need the conclusion to be that the fruits determine the health of the tree when Matthew 12 says the opposite.

---

My argument? You seem to be making it for me. I don't recall ever saying that the fruits determine the health of the tree. I think you said that was wrong, but I didn't say it was right.

Quote:

---

But thing is, the Orthodox Priests I've listened to actually get it, whether they realize it directly or not. I can remember Fr Damick talking with awe about a Priest on Mt. Athos who could simultaneously pray, while also listening/carrying a conversation at the same time. There's a realization that our fruits will never be enough, and that drives people extremes when they realize it.

---

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that you do not understand what I am saying and are arguing against things I am not putting forward before perhaps you'll believe me. When I say that I reject the idea of "enough" do you think I am fibbing?

Quote:

---

To your last question, yes the Lord will judge us, and I can tell you the verdict for you, for me, for every single person born of a man and women. Romans 3:23, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I can even tell you the punishment. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin are death."

So yes, we will stand, and yes we will be found guilty, but I put my hope in the second half of Romans 6:23 "the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

---

I think this is not correct. The wages of sin are death, but death is not a punishment at the judgment seat of Christ. "man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment." Death isn't the punishment but the consequence of sin - the wage you earn when you sin. It is not a judgment from the Lord, but a sad reality - and one which He endured death to defeat.

Second, the Day of Judgment is not strictly a negative thing in the Law, or the Psalms, or the Prophets. The righteous call out for vindication to the Lord. The Day of the Lord is not simply the Lord coming down and smiting and destroying everyone and everything - on the contrary, "He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow" and "The Lord sustains the humble but casts the wicked to the ground" and "The Lord tears down the house of the proud, but protects the borders of the widows" and "The wicked are overthown and perish, but the house of the righteous will stand." It also says in another place "The Lord detests the thoughts of the wicked but the words of the pure are pleasant to Him." The Psalmist calls for the Lord to arise and judge the earth, to vindicate the righteous, to put an end to evil but establish the righteous. The Psalmist says "The righteous will rejoice when they see they are avenged." Yes, the Day of the Lord is presented as a terror in the prophets, over and over - but a terror because of wickedness, pride, arrogance, unbelief, rebellion. As The Prophet Micah heard: says,

Quote:

---

For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace, when all the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble; the day is coming when I will set them ablaze, says the LORD of Hosts. Not a root or branch will be left to them.

But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings, and you will go out and leap like calves from the stall. Then you will trample the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day I am preparing," says the LORD of Hosts.

---

And so St Peter says, because we anticipate the Day of the Lord to "make every effort to be found at peace, spotless and blameless in His sight." Not, "because you have been justified you will be..." but "make every effort..."

Not everyone will be judged a sinner. That doesn't fit with the teaching of the Lord
"The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous"
"The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom every cause of sin and all who practice lawlessness"
"He will separate the people one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats"

To one He will say "Enter into the joy of your master" and to another "You wicked, lazy servant!" To one, He will say "Come, you who are blessed by My Father" and to another "Depart from Me, you who are cursed" - And "Blessed is that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns."

St Paul says we must appear before the judgment seat so that we may receive what is due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad. He says "each will be rewarded according to their labor." Not, all will be judged sinners, but for good and bad.

The righteous wait for the day of judgment, they hope for it, because as St Peter says, "we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells."

He became sin for us, not so that he could pronounce us sinners, but "so that we might become the righteousness of God", because "He is our righteousness". The culmination of the Law was Christ, "to bring righteousness to those who believe". So,

"In Him and through faith in Him we may enter God's presence with boldness and confidence"
"Such confidence before God is ours through Christ"
"remain in Christ, so that when He appears, we may be confident and unashamed before Him at His coming" "if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God"
"God is love; whoever abides in love abides in God, and God in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world."


And "The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Christ is righteous."

Quote:

---

I don't put it the hope that my works will be good enough at judgement day, I know they won't be.

---

Right - you still are not understanding. I don't know how to make this more clear. I am not saying that at the judgment seat we will put forward our works to tell the Lord, because of this that I have done I merit righteousness. Or, because I did this and that, I accomplished something. Or, because I did this or that, I am worthy. No. It is not our works which save us like that, not did we do enough, did we cross the bar, but whether or not we are righteous or wicked. It's not merit, its ontology.

He as the judge will say, because you did this or that, I never knew you, or I knew you. He will ask, what did you do with your talents? He will separate based on what we did when we saw Him "hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison." People will be judged righteous or not, by the Judge, and "they will be known by their fruit" - "those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You're talking about the weeds that choked the plants that grew from good seed. That's not the same as the plants that grew from good seed but then died before producing fruit

---

Good seed was eaten by the crows also. Same principle.

Zobel said:

---

How am I making it too complicated by quoting what the scripture says? I'm not adding or subtracting to it.

You point out that St John said "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." But he also wrote: "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." Is one statement more or less true than the other? Is it too complicated to say both are true? If St John wrote a letter explaining how to know you have eternal life, shouldn't we say that the entire content of the letter explains the opening summary?

Quote:

---

It should be able to be understood by the average person. Peter didn't go on a diatribe when he was asked the question of what you must do to be "saved". Repent, and be baptized. He didn't add anything to it, other than to explain why. We have a tendency to twist things into pretzel shaped enigmas. In the meantime, the gospel is to be taught to little children.

---

I think you're confusing St Peter with St Paul and the Jailer in Acts 16. St Peter at Pentecost didn't respond to what to do to be saved, just "what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) As in - oh no, we killed the Messiah. And even so, yes - repent and be baptized. And then? "he earnestly testified many other words and was exhorting them".

And what of the Jailer? Yes, to be saved, one must repent and be baptized. It is the first step - it is being born, as you point out, of water and the Spirit. But life does not end with birth, but begins.

It isn't complicated. The average person can understand it just fine. My kids understand the idea of faith, and trust, and obedience. They also understand disobedience, and consequences. These are not complicated ideas.

What is complicated is all of the special pleading about why even though nearly every author of the NT and many of the prophets and the psalmist and the Lord Himself say at the Day of the Lord everyone will be judged for what they said and did, it somehow doesn't mean that.

---

Yes, John was talking to the false converts. There are a great deal of false converts. They were never were part of the body to begin with. Along that vein, if you were walking in the light by the Holy Spirit, you are not a false convert.