OZOS
Well-known member
Adding works to faith is the antithesis of love and grace.
Are you Going to Heaven?
- Thread starter ABMF
- Start date
OZOS
Well-known member
At the risk of leaving the conversation at hand, the "work" Paul is referencing here concerns those who labor in preaching the gospel.
Paul is sharing with those in Corinth the suffering and persecution he and others experience (2 Cor 4:8-12). And while they would prefer to be present with Jesus, they remain committed to their labors for the sake of those to whom they bring the Gospel (2 Cor 5:7-8).
This is somewhat related to the verses in 1 Cor 3, where Paul talks about the ministries of those who laid the foundation and others build upon it. Paul's reference to the judgment seat of Christ, is (I believe) the "day" he spoke of in 1 Cor 3:13. On this "day" those who laid the foundation, and those who built upon that foundation, will have their labors (works) exposed as either good or bad. When Paul uses the word "we" in this verse, he is speaking of those who labor in bringing the message of Christ; which is why he goes on to confirm his commitment to persuade men (vs 11).
The "judgment seat" is translated from the one word Bema, and reflects a "day" when (as I understand) the Body of Christ will be revealed and presented unto Jesus. This is why Paul labors and rejoices in his sufferings, knowing that what he does in his body now is not in vain. He laid the foundation (good), and the "day" will reveal it. Others, who built upon that foundation may have added to the message (law, for example) (bad) and their labors were in vain.
That foundation was laid by the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20) and as Paul says in 1 Cor 3, he laid the foundation and others build on that foundation. The context is about those who build upon the foundation (Apollos, for example). We are God's building (vs 9) and those who build upon the foundation are to be careful how they build upon it. Why? Because what they add to the foundation will either remain or suffer loss.
The "reward" is not something every believer receives, but that what was built upon the foundation remains. That is the reward. The "day" (of the Lord) will show what remains. In other words, if those who build upon the foundation (Gospel concerning Jesus "the Cornerstone") with a message (wood, hay, stubble) that is contrary to the message that Paul preached (gold, silver, precious stones), then those who hear it have no message which saves, and those adding to the foundation will suffer the loss of those to whom they preached. That is why Paul goes on to rebuke those who destroy the temple (The Body) by adding what is worthless to the foundation.
1 Cor 3 is about false teachers and false teaching, and why Paul does not want the Corinthians to be caught up in following men, but to hold fast to the message (Gospel). 2 Cor 5 is about the revelation of the labors of Paul when he stands before the judgment seat of Christ.
Well, I give you high marks for having a firm understanding of what you believe, why you believe it and the ability to articulate it. I won't debate this here just so as to avoid "leaving the conversation at hand" as you put it. I'll simply say that at first blush, it seems to me that you'd have to have your doctrine already intact before you could glean your interpretation of I Corinthians 3:15. In other words, you don't get the gist of your comments here by simply reading the text. That's not proof that you're wrong but only that you've not proven your case, which I doubt was your intent anyway.
In regards to the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what I've told others. I am not married to the list of doctrines I've offered as the gospel proper. When I first made an attempt to create the list, I was not convinced that one must accept the deity of Christ in order to get saved but was convinced otherwise and so added it. I am quite open to amending the list again but would require persuasive biblical proof that such amending was needed.
To that end, I invite you to offer a version of your own. Keep what you think is valid and add what you think is missing and explain why you would make whatever changes you think are necessary. I can see no other productive avenue down which to take the discussion.
Clete
Except that doing good works, works that are embraced by God throughout Holy Scripture, is an act of love.
OZOS
Well-known member
That has nothing to do with my statement, in the least. Try paying attention, or butt out.
You seem angry (i.e. threatened) that good works are such huge part of the Christian faith. How can one follow Jesus' two greatest commandments of loving God (and His institutions) with all of your heart, mind and soul and loving your neighbor as yourself if good works aren't involved?
OZOS
Well-known member
Again, that has nothing to do with my points or the discussion. Not angry, just not tolerant of those who are not paying attention.
My comment was dealing with justification.
I really doesn't have anything to do with the point he's making.
Paul tells us that we are saved unto good works but the point being made is that we ARE NOT saved BY them!
If you do not understand the distinction then you cannot understand anything OZOS is saying.
It was a concise statement made by OZOS that I responded to.
"Adding works to faith is the antithesis of love and grace."
To clear a possible misunderstanding up, let me ask this: Can someone be saved without them (good works) ? Can someone unrepentantly partake in bad works and still be saved? Can someone be an admirer of Objectivist Ayn Rand and still be a devout follower of Christ, i.e. be saved? <wink>
Last edited:
OZOS
Well-known member
I was not having a conversation with you. So, in order to understand the conversation I was having with someone else, it would be wise, on your part, to know the context, which is justification, and adding works to faith to be justified, is not my words, but the apostle Paul's.
"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."
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God."
So, more to your "misunderstanding"...
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
A person is counted righteous (justified) by faith alone, and not by works.
Works are good and profitable for men (Titus 3:8), but no man is saved by them.
Perhaps you should be more careful in your future posts when you say things like "Adding works to faith is the direct opposite (anthesis) of love and grace" as people might misunderstand your justification argument.
"Works of the law" is of course talking about the 613 laws that the Jews were commanded to do by God in the Old Testament, something that Jesus rescinded in the New Covenant. Is that what "works" you're referring to?
So then the Apostle James was wrong when he said "Faith without works is dead"?
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21
OZOS
Well-known member
Not if they know how to following along, and if they understand the simplicity of not responding to something that was not written to them
Oops, there you go again.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
Hopefully not just yet :0
OZOS
Well-known member
"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die."
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I'm more open in heaven coming to me at this juncture...
Then your error was in ignoring the context of the statement.
Of course!
Absolutely!
Being saved has NOTHING at all to do with our works.
Our works were counted against Christ, Christ's work is counted toward us.
To say that I admire Ayn Rand would be to overstate things. I do think she was an excellent writer and had a brilliant mind but she was very wicked indeed! I do "admire" some of Rand's philosophy, but only that portion of it which is in agreement with Christian doctrine, which is much more of it than even Rand would want to acknowledge. The best way to describe Ayn Rand is to say that she was wickedly brilliant and as such her writings are very dangerous indeed. I would never advise anyone who wasn't very firm in their faith to read any of her books.
It is, however, rather fascinating to read Atlas Shrugged and watch for times when she argues against something she understood to be Christian doctrine and to notice what percentage of the time it's a doctrine that happens to be entirely unbiblical. If not for Catholicism and Calvinism, Rand may well have become a Christian. At the very least she would have had far less reason to reject it.
At any rate, in order to more fully answer your questions, I believe that anyone - ANYONE - is saved if they accept the following as true....
- God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
- We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
- Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
- Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
- Jesus rose from the dead.
- If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.
Notice that the only mention of works in that list has to do with the works that are the cause of our condemnation.
What modifications would you make to that list, if any, and why?
Clete
Last edited:
aCultureWarrior said:
Can someone unrepentantly partake in bad works and still be saved?
Resurfaced Trump interview about Tiananmen Square massacre shows what he thinks of protests | The Independent | The Independent
Atheist Ayn Rand's Tiananmen Square was when she gave accolades to child murderer William Hickman, who after kidnapping a little girl for ransom, cut off her legs, wired her eyes open to make it appear that she was alive when he came to pick up the ransom money, and scattered her internal organs around the city of Los Angeles.
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman | Michael Prescott (freeservers.com)
Rand's Objectivist philosophy is close to that of it's b*stard sibling libertarianism, "What is good for me is right" (quoted by Rand in her 1928 journal). Of course that selfish attitude and doctrine which has been turned into a political movement, giving us abortion, homosexuality, recreational drug use and pornography amongst other immoral and destructive behaviors, goes against Jesus' two greatest commandments (commandments, not suggestions) of "Love God [and His institutions] with all of your heart mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself".
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.
Isaiah 5:20
Can someone unrepentantly partake in bad works and still be saved?
Why would God allow anyone in Heaven who proudly and without sorrow and without any desire to change his or her ways (unrepentant) engages in things that He abhors? Wouldn't that be a recipe for anarchy, the same kind of anarchy that person engaged in while on earth?
Your disclaimer reminds me of when Donald Trump gave accolades to the Chinese communists for the "strength" they used when they butchered 10,000 unarmed freedom loving dissidents at Tiananmen Square.
Resurfaced Trump interview about Tiananmen Square massacre shows what he thinks of protests | The Independent | The Independent
Atheist Ayn Rand's Tiananmen Square was when she gave accolades to child murderer William Hickman, who after kidnapping a little girl for ransom, cut off her legs, wired her eyes open to make it appear that she was alive when he came to pick up the ransom money, and scattered her internal organs around the city of Los Angeles.
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman | Michael Prescott (freeservers.com)
Rand's Objectivist philosophy is close to that of it's b*stard sibling libertarianism, "What is good for me is right" (quoted by Rand in her 1928 journal). Of course that selfish attitude and doctrine which has been turned into a political movement, giving us abortion, homosexuality, recreational drug use and pornography amongst other immoral and destructive behaviors, goes against Jesus' two greatest commandments (commandments, not suggestions) of "Love God [and His institutions] with all of your heart mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself".
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.
Isaiah 5:20
Which goes back to my anarchy in Heaven statement. I know of many who proudly and without sorrow and have no desire to change (unrepentant) engage in and promote things that God abhors (abortion, homosexuality, recreational drug use. pornography, i.e. libertarians) who have mouthed those words and for some reason believe that they're Heaven bound. Your cheap grace philosophy is a lie and will send many a human being to spend eternity in Hell.
Last edited:
OZOS
Well-known member
As long as you continue to conflate righteousness with morality, you will forever prove yourself to be outside the faith.
For those of you out there that aren't familiar with the term 'cheap grace':
“the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, ..."
What is cheap grace? | GotQuestions.org
Note how in the article it's emphasized that Jesus be one's Lord as well as Savior.
The cheap grace crowd believes that as long as the abortionist says the right words, he or she will go to Heaven, even though they are proud of murdering unborn babies.
Have we been afraid to really believe God? Have some even been afraid to allow others to really believe Him? We must never forget that "God's ways are not always man's ways. To some men constant peril is the only spur to action, and many religions and psychologies are dependent on fear to keep their disciples in line. Fear, too, has a place in Christianity, but God has higher and more effective motivations than fear, and one of these is love. Often fear after a while produces only numbness, but love thrives on love. To promise a man the certainty of his destiny may seem, on the human level, like playing with fire; but this leaves God out of the picture. Those who have the deepest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin. Moreover, fear produces the obedience of slaves; love engenders the obedience of sons." --J. W. Sanderson, Jr.
When you leave reason behind and start comparing me with Donald Trump and build straw men to knock down by insinuating that I tacitly support or defend the killing of children because I've read and have gotten something worthwhile out of reading a book written by an atheist who did wicked things and supported others who did worse things then you've lost the debate.
I do not take kindly to such incinuations and if you were here with me in person I'd have slapped your face (or worse) for saying such a thing, which of course, you'd never have had the temerity to do. As it is, I'm going to pretend - for now - that you didn't say this little gem of stupidity and move on. If you'd like to try to refute a single thing that I have said in regards to any position I take on the subjects politics, morality, money or just ethics in general, whether I've cited a word of Rand's or not, then I invite you to do so. I'll read it gladly. If, on the other hand, this sort of monstrous idiotic stupidity is your normal mode than I invite you to put me on ignore and prevent yourself creating a needless enemy.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!
That is just a bunch of nonsensical talking points that you pulled of some idiots website most likely.
"What is good for me is right." is an egregious over simplification of Rand's philosophy and if it were accurate then it would be entirely indefensible. Rand's actually philosophy is actually far more compatible the Golden Rule than you'd likely care to admit or did you fail to notice that the predicate of Jesus' second command is the love of one's self?
Here's what Rand actually thought about right and wrong...
There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.
“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”
My (Rand's) morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.
“The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics — the standard by which one judges what is good or evil — is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
“The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.”- Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged"
READ THOSE QUOTES and then tell me if you think it's at all accurate to boil that down to something as pedantic as "What is good for me is right." - Ridiculous!Be careful the things you say!
Saying it doesn't make it so and "my cheap grace" isn't mine and it wasn't cheap! It cost the life of God Himself.
Clete
Last edited: