italo:

Gal 2: 16:
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified

Don't u c dat by 'works of the law' he's talking about traditional Jewish customs? The law of Moses which the Jews held fast to. Not the works that Christ tells us to do.

Do you read some of these verses or u jst go and copy from wordtalk and paste here?

Another pathetic and laughable post. What then was his point?
Let me tell you, he was saying salvation is, NOT DESERVED! Remember Ephesians 2:8 and 9, Titus
3:5?
He was saying works and the very type you have been advancing for salvation, do not save.
Paul says ‘works of righteousness' do not save in Titus 3: 5. Can you tell me what these works are?

Chai! No wonder there's mass failure in exams these days. Tell them the same thing a million times, they still won't get it.

italo:

Chai! No wonder there's mass failure in exams these days. Tell them the same thing a million times, they still won't get it.

Lol. You are forever missing it, you know.

5solas:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a038.html
There,you have your canon and the link. Hmm, I didn’t even know that the ‘grace’ you grant needs man’s co-operation. It is not even grace!- Read Romans 11:6 again and we are yet to add the ‘works’ you advocate.

Mr Solas, the man quoted Jesus for you, you did not address what Jesus himself said. Instead you ran to go and quote Catholic Canon, but no one mentioned Catholic canon here. We are discussing the role of works in salvation, but you are just slyly trying to turn the issue into a catholic vs. protestant issue. Leave catholicism out of it. What do you think of what Jesus has to say in Matt 25.

Pastor AIO:

Mr Solas, the man quoted Jesus for you, you did not address what Jesus himself said. Instead you ran to go and quote Catholic Canon, but no one mentioned Catholic canon here.

But didn't italo himself invite a quoting (rather than 'paraphrase') of the aforementioned Catholic doctrine when he said in post #50: "The official declarations are not so long that they can't enter this thread, or are they?"

We are discussing the role of works in salvation, but you are just slyly trying to turn the issue into a catholic vs. protestant issue.

I don't think so. The role of works in the life of a Christian has been clearly enunciated and delineated for italo in the recent past (see here and here). It is not that anyone is ignoring 'works'; but italo seems to have confused their role altogether in the NT to be the very basis of being saved - despite the fact of verses to the contrary!

Leave catholicism out of it.

We could. However, isn't it obvious that italo is presenting a discussion based on catholicism (post #1)?

What do you think of what Jesus has to say in Matt 25.

Matthew 25 does not present salvation by works. Especially verse 46 shows the contrast of those being spoken of: (a) those who 'go away into everlasting punishment'; and (b) those who are called "the righteous" and enjoy life eternal. If salvation is predicated on the "works" of any sinner, WHY then did Jesus die on the Cross? What would be the meaning of redemption?

And when you ask -

What do you think of what Jesus has to say in Matt 25.

. . . I wonder why italo himself has slyly avoided all the verses quoted from the NT that show that salvation is by grace and NOT BY WORKS. Why has italo completely ducked those verses?

@wordtalk, though I dnt wnt to discuss this topic further with you, I hav to beg you. Stop the blatant and wicked distortions of my position in the name of winning an argument. Nowhere hav I ever given d impression dat 'works' is the very basis of salvation. I hav sed not less than 4times on this thread that salvation is by grace, but faith n works as the human response are necessary, And u kno so quit d lies.

Now you can go on dribbling around the gospel, thank you.

Sorry o, I even forgot that this thread started with an OP of how to preach to Roman Catholics. It turns out that Italo's invitation for a quotation came after a gross misrepresentation (in the name of a paraphrase).

wordtalk:


I don't think so. The role of works in the life of a Christian has been clearly enunciated and delineated for italo in the recent past (see here and here). It is not that anyone is ignoring 'works'; but italo seems to have confused their role altogether in the NT to be the very basis of being saved - despite the fact of verses to the contrary!

I seem to have understood him differently. I didn't understand anything he said to suggest that works are the basis of being saved. Could you please point me to the post.

wordtalk:


We could. However, isn't it obvious that italo is presenting a discussion based on catholicism (post #1)?

Matthew 25 does not present salvation by works. Especially verse 46 shows the contrast of those being spoken of: (a) those who 'go away into everlasting punishment'; and (b) those who are called "the righteous" and enjoy life eternal. If salvation is predicated on the "works" of any sinner, WHY then did Jesus die on the Cross? What would be the meaning of redemption?

And when you ask -. . . I wonder why italo himself has slyly avoided all the verses quoted from the NT that show that salvation is by grace and NOT BY WORKS. Why has italo completely ducked those verses?

What do you mean by salvation? In your doctrine is going to life eternal salvation or not. Is avoiding everlasting punishment salvation or not. In that passage what was it that brought people to everlasting life etc etc? IF there are contradictions in the bible then say that there are contradictions and that you are expert at cherry picking the verses that support your own particular brand of doctrine, but do not discard or disregard the teachings of Jesus simply cos they do not fit into your own doctrine.

I am not Italo's lawyer so I cannot answer for him, neither do I want to, not unless he wants to pay me the requisite legal fees . . . , but I read the Canon that he quoted and that canon suggested to me that salvation is not simply by grace because the saved person needs to at least accept the grace, in other words an act of will is required from the saved person. It's like someone gives you a gift. It's not yours if you leave it on the table and go home, You've got to actually accept it and take it home with you. So there is a give and take.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

So a 'co-operation' is required. The giver gives and that is called grace, the taker takes and that taking is a 'movement of his own will'. I don't see how any of the verses that were quoted to refute him contradict what is said above.

Ol boy, even as I am writing this post the whole thing is just boring me. Anyway sha, that's my two pennies worth of contribution.

italo:

@wordtalk, though I dnt wnt to discuss this topic further with you, I hav to beg you.

You will see that my reply was not to you. You're free to withdraw your discussions or be further ignored, but to plead your withdrawal on an accusation of blatant lies is quite ungentlemanly, sir.

Stop the blatant and wicked distortions of my position in the name of winning an argument.

There is no need for such a reaction, and it's quite a stupid remark. How was I distorting your positions, let alone do it wickedly?

Nowhere hav I ever given d impression dat 'works' is the very basis of salvation. I hav sed not less than 4times on this thread that salvation is by grace, but faith n works as the human response are necessary, And u kno so quit d lies.

You're confusing issues all the more. You already know what others have said, apart from the fact that you have forever evaded discussing the verses that clearly show that salvation is NOT BY WORKS. Nowhere in the NT are we taught to be saved by 'works', and the role of 'works' in the life of a Christian has been discussed - why do you keep acting as if you have never read what others have said?

Now you can go on dribbling around the gospel, thank you.

Your arguments are NOT the Gospel.

You win, Congratulations. Bye

Pastor AIO:

Sorry o, I even forgot that this thread started with an OP of how to preach to Roman Catholics.  It turns out that Italo's invitation for a quotation came after a gross misrepresentation (in the name of a paraphrase).

No problem - at least he invited the quotation, to which 5solas obliged.

I seem to have understood him differently. I didn't understand anything he said to suggest that works are the basis of being saved.

It's quite simple, really. If italo is in agreement that salvation is by grace, there would never have been any arguments further. But no. He acknowledges that although salvation is by grace, yet argues that it is NECESSARY to include 'works' also - which confuses matters altogether both for him and his readers.

Why is that a serious matter? Because we have discussed and shown him in various ways that the plain teaching of the NT is that -

1. NOBODY is justified by works - any 'works'. NONE.

2. Salvation is "NOT BY WORKS" - never.

For italo on the one hand to acknowledge that salvation is by grace and then on the other hand add that 'works' are also necessary for that salvation is simply arguing completely out of joint. None of the verses he proposes shows the doctrine of salvation by 'faith AND (whatever works)' - those he believes are arguing such things have been discussed elsewhere, whereupon he had said absolutely nothing in reply to those rejoinders.

Could you please point me to the post.

There are various places where he has argued such, but let me cite a few -

[list][li]"In a nutshell, both faith and works are necessary, not faith alone." (post #8 in this thread)[/li][/list]

[list][li]"However, I hav verses from d Bible that back up the Catholic Church's teaching of salvation by FAITH & WORKS."  (post #1 here)[/li][/list]

If salvation in the NT is by "faith and works", what does italo has to say about the teaching that the Christian is saved "NOT BY WORKS" (Titus 3:5)??

What do you mean by salvation?  In your doctrine is going to life eternal salvation or not.  Is  avoiding everlasting punishment salvation or not.  In that passage what was it that brought people to everlasting life etc etc?  IF there are contradictions in the bible then say that there are contradictions and that you are expert at cherry picking the verses that support your own particular brand of doctrine, but do not discard or disregard the teachings of Jesus simply cos they do not fit into your own doctrine.

This does not call for such a reaction, AIO. If either you or italo want to be experts at your own cherry picking, do feel free to do so. However, you cannot sit comfy with such an attitude to the complete neglect or disregard of other verses that hold a collective testimony on the salvation of Christian believers. Jesus did NOT teach a Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by WORKS based on Matthew 25. You feel He did, you're welcome to hold that view.

I am not Italo's lawyer so I cannot answer for him, neither do I want to, not unless he wants to pay me the requisite legal fees . . .  ,

Lol, I feel your sense of humour.

. .  but I read the Canon that he quoted and that canon suggested to me that salvation is not simply by grace because the saved person needs to at least accept the grace, in other words an act of will is required from the saved person.  It's like someone gives you a gift.  It's not yours if you leave it on the table and go home,  You've got to actually accept it and take it home with you.  So there is a give and take.

That is not "works" such as we've been talking about. Certainly, the Gospel is to be received by faith - that is, to believe (Acts 16:31). But then, there is clearly a distinction made between "works" and "grace"  in the NT - they are not mixed at all, see Romans 11:6 ('if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works', ESV).

The analogy of the 'GIFT' says simply the same thing - a 'gift' is given freely without any 'work' on the part of the receiver. If one works for what he calls a "gift", then the proposition assumes another character so that it is no longer a 'gift'. This is effectively shown in Romans 4:4 - "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due " (ESV).

In effect, salvation is a GIFT - given freely, and "NOT BY WORKS". 'And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness' (Romans 4:5).

So a 'co-operation' is required.  The giver gives and that is called grace, the taker takes and that taking is a 'movement of his own will'.  I don't see how any of the verses that were quoted to refute him contradict what is said above.

There are loads of verses that clearly and effectively bury that argument. Salvation is "NOT BY WORKS" - Titus 3:5, for example. What does italo have to say about such things? On the other hand, does CANON IX as cited actually tell us that the NT predicate JUSTIFICATION on anyone's "works"? If it does, what then do Catholics make of such verses as the following -

[list][li]Romans 3:24 - 'Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'[/li][/list]

[list][li]Romans 3:28 - 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law'[/li][/list]

[list][li]Romans 5:1 - 'Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ'[/li][/list]

Ol boy, even as I am writing this post the whole thing is just boring me.  Anyway sha, that's my two pennies worth of contribution.

Enjoy.

Pastor AIO:

Mr Solas, the man quoted Jesus for you, you did not address what Jesus himself said. Instead you ran to go and quote Catholic Canon, but no one mentioned Catholic canon here. We are discussing the role of works in salvation, but you are just slyly trying to turn the issue into a catholic vs. protestant issue. Leave catholicism out of it. What do you think of what Jesus has to say in Matt 25.

I have replied this passage in my answer to Chukwudi in  post #33 thus:
[Quote]
See how you misunderstand the scripture! Did you notice, in this passage,  that the kingdom was prepared for those who would have eternal life , 'before the foundation of the world' ? Did you also notice that these persons are called, 'the righteous'? Read through the whole of the new testament , you will find that the basis of going to heaven is , 'belief' while that of going to hell is, 'unbelief'. The Lord Jesus did not change it in this passage. The people who did those good works were believers and it is their nature to do good works. It is not what saves them, but it shows to them they have the belief or faith, that saves.
[/Quote]

wordtalk:

But didn't italo himself invite a quoting (rather than 'paraphrase') of the aforementioned Catholic doctrine when he said in post #50: "The official declarations are not so long that they can't enter this thread, or are they?"

Thanks for the observation.

@PastorAIO [Quote] sorry o, I even forgot that this thread started with
an OP of how to preach to Roman Catholics. It turns
out that Italo's invitation for a quotation came after
a gross misrepresentation (in the name of a
paraphrase).
[\Quote]

How you can call my paraphrase a misrepresention,  I cannot fathom. Read my post #63 again, did the canon not say more than I did? Therefore , the canon is a grosser misrepresentation of Italo's position; nevertheless , as a true catholic, doubtless, he subscribes to it ![/quote]

There still nothing in Matt 25: 36 that shows that those who were called 'righteous' were believers and those called 'cursed' were unbelievers. That one is 5solas' addition to the Passage.

And the fact that the kingdom was prepared before the foundation of the world doesn't mean it was prepared for those who have just faith and do no good things. That's not what the passage is saying.

Also, a righteous person is not merely one who has faith but one who is morally upright, doing the will of God and avoiding sin.

italo:

Also, a righteous person is not merely one who has faith but one who is morally upright, doing the will of God and avoiding sin.

Romans 3:18
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

1 Corinthians 1:30-31
And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

5solas:

@PastorAIO

How you can call my paraphrase a misrepresention, I cannot fathom. Read my post #63 again, did the canon not say more than I did? Therefore , the canon is a grosser misrepresentation of Italo's position; nevertheless , as a true catholic, doubtless, he subscribes to it !

How? Let me break it down for you.
You said:

'' If any one shall say that salvation is by grace alone, let him be anathema (accursed)'', in direct contradiction to virtually the whole Bible. Read Romans 4:1-6 for an example.

The Canon says:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Now let us take it step by step for those of us that are not familiar with the english language. Faith is one thing and Grace is another. The Canon says salvation is not by faith alone, you translated that to mean that it is not by grace alone. If anyone claims as you have that by faith alone an impious man is justified, the canon then goes on to explain what exactly it means, it says that faith requires the cooperation of the will of the man, and that is how he obtains the grace which is what saves.

I'll come again from another angle. Salvation is by Grace and Grace alone. To recieve this grace what is required is Faith, and the Wilful cooperation of the man. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word Piety.

The word piety comes from the Latin word pietas, the noun form of the adjective pius (which means "devout" or "good". Pietas in traditional Latin usage expressed a complex, highly valued Roman virtue; a man with pietas respected his responsibilities to other people, gods and entities

Wikipedia

A pious person is a person that applies himself to something, generally to a religion. But of all the understandings of the word there is the underlying sense of application. A pious person applies himself, he doesn't just sit back and claim a religion.
You have constantly suggested that one without application who has been elected from 'the foundation of the world', in other words an impious man, can simply profess faith and be saved. The Canon disagrees with you and so do I.
But hey, who am I and what do I matter. Who is the Catholic Church and what do they matter? Let's consider someone who I would hope does matter. Let's consider Jesus' take on the matter.

Coming up in the next post . . . .

italo:

The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25)

    31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
   34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 [size=14pt]For[/size] I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

   37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

   40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

   41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

   44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

   45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

   46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Again I will break it down, not for you but for those of us who are struggling with the english.
Jesus tells us that the Kingdom has been prepared for those on his right from the foundation of the world. However he does just leave it like that unqualified. Rather he explains why they are to inherit the kingdom.
For I was hungry and you fed me . . bla bla bla. In english, 'For' is a conjunctive telling us that the preceding phrase is caused or brought about by the following phrase. It is the same as the word 'because'.
I have muscles BECAUSE I go to the gym. I'm tall BECAUSE I eat good food. I am rich BECAUSE I work hard. etc etc.


So according to Jesus the right hand folks receive their inheritance BECAUSE (FOR) the good works that they've done. No be me talk am, na Jesus talk am. If you like run to Paul to find your refutation of Jesus.

Plus, another small point aside. When Jesus talks about the eternal fire, he didn't say, 'here is the eternal fire prepared for you'. The Eternal fire is prepared for the Devil and his angels. This prompts me to ask. If the Kingdom was prepared for the Elect. and Eternal fire was prepared for the Devil, both from the Foundation of the world. Or maybe the eternal fire was not prepared from the foundation, anyway sha . . .
My question is . . . what was the plan for the Non-Elect?
Is it not the case that the kingdom was originally intended for each and every human being? Those that miss it do so by a WILFUL act of rejection.

wordtalk:

Romans 3:18
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

1 Corinthians 1:30-31
And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

O ka re, Well done!! So how does this apply to Matt 25? What are it's implications for Matthew 25? Are you saying that Jesus was wrong?

5solas:

I have replied this passage in my answer to Chukwudi in  post #33 thus: Thanks for the observation.

See how you misunderstand the scripture! Did you notice, in this passage, that the kingdom was prepared for those who would have eternal life , 'before the foundation of the world' ? Did you also notice that these persons are called, 'the righteous'? Read through the whole of the new testament , you will find that the basis of going to heaven is , 'belief' while that of going to hell is, 'unbelief'. The Lord Jesus did not change it in this passage. The people who did those good works were believers and it is their nature to do good works. It is not what saves them, but it shows to them they have the belief or faith, that saves.

Please, abeg, did you not notice how those that were about to be cast into the fire addressed Jesus?

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

It even seems that they were surprised. Ah ha! This their Lord that they have been worshipping with such zeal, how could he say that they neglected him.

The whole episode cuts a rather different picture from this passage:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10: 9

PastorAIO,

Pastor AIO:

So according to Jesus the right hand folks receive their inheritance BECAUSE (FOR) the good works that they've done. No be me talk am, na Jesus talk am. If you like run to Paul to find your refutation of Jesus.

I understand the use of English, thank you.

However, you have not added a shade of difference to what I have been saying. Paul does not contradict Jesus, and what Matthew 25 shows in that passage is simply the reward of the righteous. It does not aim to teach us that someone is saved 'BECAUSE' he/she fed the hungry, attended to the needy, etc., etc.

O ka re, Well done!! So how does this apply to Matt 25? What are it's implications for Matthew 25? Are you saying that Jesus was wrong?

Rather than try to read things askew and arrive at arguing for Jesus being wrong, would it be too much to consider what those verses say?

Ah ah! See pot calling snow black. Lmao. Are you not the one neglecting the words of Jesus. Oh! There's nothing meaningful to say anymore but you just wanna say something. Its understandable.

What type of reasoning process adjudges that if only a terrorist believes that Jesus is his personal Lord and saviour and crashes a plane into the WTC killing thousands including himself, he's still bound for a smooth ride to heaven, As long as he believes.

What kind of mammal believes that?

I think the 'distinction' drawn by Pastor AiO between "faith" and "grace" is a helpful one. "Salvation" is by grace and/but it is 'received' through faith.

I deliberately omitted to mention "works" so far in order to make an additional point. That Paul in particular often makes reference to "faith" 'only' does not necessarily mean that he is contradicting Jesus. I would say it is legitimate to say that Paul expects work to follow faith automatically and so rarely dwells on "works" per se. Remember that this same Paul dwells on "fruit" and "fruit of the spirit" --- what are those but "works"?

It is also important to bear in mind that when Paul seems to be talking down "works", he was referring principally to "works of the law" with all the rituals (especially his much "despised" circumcision) rather than "works" in the simple sense of good (or "righteous" deeds.

Finally talking about "righteousness" I think we should always pay close attention to the sense in which the word is used on different occasions in the scriptures. Of course doing good things is doing 'righteous' things and in that sense man can "on his own" be 'righteous'. On the other hand, in terms of the true and essential basis of worthiness before God righteousness is the righteousness of Christ imputed to man through grace.

@ Enigma,

You've really explained these things very well in a way that any sensible Christian would understand. Unfortunately, not all fall into that category.

Just sit back and wait for the next bout of 'trash'. You'll remember I warned you.

italo:

Just sit back and wait for the next bout of 'trash'. You'll remember I warned you.

There's no reason to grow hypertensive over this issue. Salvation is NOT OF WORKS.

The distinction(s) between "GRACE" and "WORKS" have already been delineated and amount to the same thing we have been saying - salvation is NOT OF WORKS. As long as we keep that distinction, there really is no need for anyone to suppose that 'works' procure salvation.

Now, this is interesting -

Enigma:

That Paul in particular often makes reference to "faith" 'only' does not necessarily mean that he is contradicting Jesus. I would say it is legitimate to say that Paul expects work to follow faith automatically and so rarely dwells on "works" per se. Remember that this same Paul dwells on "fruit" and "fruit of the spirit" --- what are those but "works"?

. . . and it is just about the same thing we have said. Works follow after salvation.

It is also important to bear in mind that when Paul seems to be talking down "works", he was referring principally to "works of the law" with all the rituals (especially his much "despised" circumcision) rather than "works" in the simple sense of good (or "righteous" deeds.

No. Paul was clear when he qualified what he meant by works - it was not simply or principally the 'works of the law' (although he included that - Romans 3:20). He included ALL works, including "righteous deeds", and shows that salvation is "NOT OF WORKS". Titus 3:5 is clear enough - God saved us, "NOT BY WORKS DONE BY US IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, but according to his own mercy".

Finally talking about "righteousness" I think we should always pay close attention to the sense in which the word is used on different occasions in the scriptures. Of course doing good things is doing 'righteous' things and in that sense man can "on his own" be 'righteous'. On the other hand, in terms of the true and essential basis of worthiness before God righteousness is the righteousness of Christ imputed to man through grace.

The bold: lovely.

No need to dribble around bros, nobody's saying salvation is of works and you know it. Quit the drama. We all know its by grace, we're just saying man has to respond with faith and works. You say works have no bearing, just faith.

*rather be hypertensive than lose my sanity*

The distinctions between Grace and Faith still need to be articulated for some people it seemed.

And that Between Grace and Works, having been established, need not be flogged any further.

The Distinction between Salvation and damnation remains, it seems, as foggy as ever.

No one has yet explained to me what it is that they understand as Salvation, and what it is that they are being saved (or salvationated ) from.

Since Jesus separated his followers and sent those that didn't do good works to the eternal fire, what does that say about the role of works in Salvation? This needs to be addressed clearly because I find a lot of what is being said quite befuddling.

italo:

No need to dribble around bros, nobody's saying salvation is of works and you know it. Quit the drama. We all know its by grace, we're just saying man has to respond with faith and works. You say works have no bearing, just faith.

If salvation is of grace (as we all know it is), what then is the need for you to keep arguing about "works" as if it is also what procures salvation? The response by faith is not the same thing as "works" - it is when man responds by faith that salvation is procured; and man does not need to respond with "works" in order to procure that salvation.

@ Pastor AIO and Enigma,

You guys need to see this discussion I'm having with wordtalk on the same topic

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-756426.64.html

Then you'll understand the kind of mind we are dealing with.

You can read from post #86

italo:


Then you'll understand the kind of mind we are dealing with.

Are you seeking sympathy already?

Yes! For you.

^^ You need it more for yourself, though.

I'm sorry for all the harsh words brother. We get too passionate sometimes. Forgive me. We don't have to agree but we can share our beliefs with respect.

^^ No problem. I also apologise unreservedly where I might have been unreasonable in our discussion.