₦airaland Forum

italo:
Do you think I was expectn Wordtalk to see how purgatory could be derived from my posts? You who cdnt see how 'works being necessary for salvation could be derived from James 2: 20:"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone". Naaa! I'm only posting these for anyone who might be reading with an open mind, genuinely seeking the truth.

1.  I know you don't care to see that salvation of Christian believers is NOT BY WORKS (Titus 3:5)

2.  I know that you see only what you want to see and ignore what others are saying (1 Tim. 5:21)

3.  I know it's inconvenient for you to address verses that contradict your arguments (1 Tim. 6:3)

4.  I know you do not care to see that James 2:24 has already been addressed earlier (post #18)

5.  I see you can't handle the fact that Abraham was justified by GRACE, and NOT BY WORKS (Romans 4:2)

6.  Romans 4:2 does not contradict James 2:24, because -

[list][li]IF Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but NOT BEFORE GOD[/li][/list]

[list][li]James' point in chapter 2 was that the Christian should prove their faith by their works - not the other way round as you argue: see verse 18 - 'I will shew thee my faith by my works'[/li][/list]

7.  JUSTIFICATION in the redemption we have in Christ is 'NOT BY WORKS' - both the Old Testament (Isaiah 64:6; Habakkuk 2:4) and New Testament (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38) teach this very same thing.

Sori abt d confusion bt d state or process or condition of purgation will happen in a place, hether physical or spiritual.

No problem. Yet, the Bible does not teach the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

#49 was to show that when we die, there's a place or state in the afterlife that is neither the eternal bliss of heaven or the eternal damnation of hell. Get it?

That 'place or state' is not 'purgatory'. This is why you need to clearly delineate your convictions instead of drawing conclusions half-ways by assumptions.

italo:
Ansa 2 post #58

Thanks, italo.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 says: "God will bring every deed into judgment." And In Matthew 12:36-37 Jesus says: "On the Day of Judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter."  

E.g: "To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16)
That was punishment for Eve's sin which still affects every woman today, whether they are "saved" or not. Has God taken away the punishment for that "original sin"? NO!

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). Did God 4giv? Yes. Did he still punish? YES!

So let me ask you directly two important questions:

(1) are you saying that YOU still have to pay for your own sins (including those sins which have already been forgiven)?

(2) IF you still have to pay for your sins by yourself (including those that have been forgiven), what then was the purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection for you?

italo:
I was using post #33, 34, 36, 43, 44, 46 to show scriptural evidence of some of the different parts of the doctrine of purgatory.

I read those posts, and I honestly don't see how purgatory could be derived from the verses you cited there.

That there is/are a place/places or state/states in the afterlife that is/are neither heaven(eternal bliss) nor hell(eternal damnation) and That there can be forgiveness of/atonement for sins after death.

For all intents and purposes, those do not amount to 'purgatory'. I also noted earlier that official Catholic doctrine does not refer to purgatory as a place - rather, it is more a process. It is confusing to read you refer to it as 'a place or state' because that is not saying something concrete or definite.

So while paradise is not exactly purgatory, its not irrelevant to my argument in that its neither heaven nor hell. Or do you disagree?

If we have already established that purgatory is neither heaven nor hell nor even paradise, why does the question (post #49) even appear in your argument at all? Your enquiry would perhaps have made some sense if the thief was ushered into such a state or process of 'purgatory', whereas Luke 23:42-43 shows he was not (and you agreed that purgatory is NOT paradise) - so what exactly was the point in your reference to it?

@italo,

Now that we know that the thief did not go to 'purgatory' (since paradise is not purgatory), can we then ask that you kindly address the pertinent issue at hand regarding salvation?

I'm still waiting to see what exactly you may mean by this -

italo:
Now in order to fully grasp this you must know that the Catholic Church teaches that we will pay for every sin we commit, in this life (through suffering, prayer, acts of charity etc) or in the next life (purgatory), even if those sins are already forgiven.

Where does the Bible teach that you will pay for those sins that are already forgiven? And if that were the case, WHY then did Jesus die for you - was it so that YOU will have to pay for your own sin by yourself?

italo:
So can u answer mi in clear terms too? Where did d penitent thief go immediately afta his death? Heaven, hell or somewhere else?

This question has already been answered in clear terms in post #51. I further explained in post #53 above.

The amazing thing about your style is that you seem to ignore what has already been said - which makes me wonder IF you ever read them at all before replying.

So again, as in post #56 above, the answer in clear terms is Paradise - Luke 23:42-43.

^^ Paradise. Luke 23:42-43.

italo:
You tell us if "paradise" is the same thing that protestants refer to as "heaven" or "hell"

That must be the eleventh wonder of the east! Is it that you don't know what Catholics refer to as paradise, or you just want to quickly and cleverly duck out of the thread?

No, Protestants certainly do not refer to "hell" as 'paradise'.
Nor do Protestants refer to "paradise" as "PURGATORY".
- in this, I speak for myself, and not on behalf of all Protestants.

I'm not sure that even Catholics use 'paradise' as meaning the same as 'purgatory' (although I've seen a few in Catholic forums that argue that they are the same thing - which was why I asked YOU in particular if that were true in your case).

Further, I don't think that Catholic doctrine officially refers to purgatory as a "place" - it is more a state or process in their doctrine, even though no such thing is taught in the Bible. Some Catholics argue that purgatory is "a place" more like a "prison" where people will be held until they have paid for every sin they have commited - including those sins which have already been forgiven!

Now, when Jesus spoke of PARADISE in Luke 23:43, He certainly was not referring to what Catholics assume is PURGATORY. For one, the word 'paradise' as used in Scripture is with reference to, or indicates a place - "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise". Revelation 2:7 says that the tree of life is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Seeing that paradise at least does not refer to "hell", the question would be whether you as a Catholic use that term ('paradise') for 'PURGATORY'?

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.

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 stup[color=Black]id re[/color]mark. 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.

italo:
I'll answer you 5solas(remember, we r talkn about purgatory, But just a question for you, Joagbaje and anyone else.

Okay, as long as we're talking about purgatory, we'll keep our eyes on that subject.

Where did the good thief on the cross go immediately after he died?

Heaven or hell?

My dear sir, the relevant verses should be sufficient to show that the 'good thief' did not go to "purgatory". Here, read it for yourself -

Luke 23:42-43
[list]'And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.
And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.'
(Douay Rheims version used by the Catholics)[/list]

Please tell us: is "paradise" in the Bible the same thing that Catholics refer to as "purgatory"?

5solas:
Bravo, Wordtalk.
I enjoyed your handling of faith and works. I didn't have the pleasure of joining as I came in too late. I am inviting you to this thread on the same issue: www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-754485.32.html#msg9166333.

Thanks 5solas. I've been trying to follow the discussions in both threads but have been quite busy as to be online to post comments. I appreciate how you handle these issues in a far simpler manner.

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?

One quick question before you go on.

italo:
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5: who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge.

Matthew 5:26 - 'Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison' (Catholic Douay Rheims version)

You said that the 'adversary' (ie., 'opponent' - antidikos) is likely a reference to the devil. If that were the case, the logical conclusion of that verse would be suggesting that believers were to 'BE AT AGREEMENT' with the 'antidikos' - the devil, according to you.

Bearing in mind that the NT teaches that Christians and the devil (ie., Belial) have no 'agreememnt' (2 Cor. 6:15), the question is: since when does the Catholic Church preach that Christian believers should "be at agreement" with the devil?

Perhaps you want to think again about the interpretation you're deriving from Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:58. Do Christians have any "agreement" with the devil?

italo:
Now in order to fully grasp this you must know that the Catholic Church teaches that we will pay for every sin we commit, in this life (through suffering, prayer, acts of charity etc) or in the next life (purgatory), even if those sins are already forgiven.

In other words, you will pay for every sin that has been forgiven? Nice. I'll wait to see your 'scriptural backing'.

^^ I get your point and I'll leave it at that.

^^
But you expressed a disagreement with his expansion of (2). I think there's more than the 3 possible answers that pres_elect gave. I suggest a fourth:

1. Yes
2. No/denial
3. Wait - be patient
4. Silence - when God says absolutely nothing.

While God's sovereignty and our relationship with Him are not at all in question in all cases, in reality we do not always know what reason there is in a no/denial situation. We may try to think that we have the assurance that there is a reason, but in all honesty what "reason" can we be assured of behind those denials, such as in the examples in my previous comment?

nuclearboy:
"pres-elect" sees denial as painful and I only tried to show another "face" to it. So I honestly wonder what you are about since we more or less said practically the same thing.

On the whole, denial is painful - no gainsaying that, unless the one who disagrees has himself never experienced deep denial ever in life. I could even make bold to say that almost every denial is indeed painful, and there are experiences in life that we can't even ask "what else?" Questions of "why" are quite legitimate (even though many Christians have been brought up traditionally to never ask such questions, as they fear it borders on 'challenging' God or even blaspheming).

nuclearboy:
Pres_elect has in my estimation, given the best answer here though I disagree with his expansion of (2).

IF the relationship is there (IF IF IF) between you & the Spirit of God, a prompting ought to be there giving assurance that there is a reason for "denial" - your safety, another's safety, a larger picture, a hiding (arrow in quiver) etc! Having assurance of a relationship, such prompting should push us to rather than ask for why, seek for "what else"?

President nuclearboy, I think it is only fair to say that we don't always know every outcome or every reason for unanswered prayers (or rather, 'denials') - and there are many instances in life to bear that point out so well. David had a relationship with God, but his fasting and prayers to save his child's life was 'denied' (2 Sam. 12:13-19). Some may argue that a reason was indeed given, such that God denied David's prayers on account of the latter's sin. But it is obvious that his sin was "put away", as Nathan said. Etc., etc., etc.

What happens then today in the situations where some parents lose their newborn kids - where sin or blasphemy is not even in view? I'm talking about Christian parents/couples. I know some deaths that have occured in the lives of very committed and exemplary Christian couples - and nobody to this day knows any 'reason' for the deaths of their young kids.

In other circumstances, some exemplary Christian couples have fasted and prayed for something they so longed for: children. They've been to their GPs and taken all the necessary tests, with results that there's nothing wrong with them to prevent their bearing children. Yet, for all those long years of fasting and praying (with FAITH), plus medical help. . . they still have no children. What do you say to such exemplary Christian couples? That God has a "reason"? And what "reason" is that supposed to be?

The bottom line is that we do not know nor understand the many mysteries of our faith and relationship with God. There are certain situations where we can absolutely be sure that our prayers are unanswered - not 'yes', not 'wait', but a definite NO. Not because it involves sin (some people face unfavourable situations without factoring in sin' - John 9:2-3) , and not because the prayers lacked faith or spiritual knowledge. It would be harum-scarum and slapdash to argue that every prayer is answered, or that we would know the 'reason(s)' for those which are 'denied'. Some we know, others we absolutely have no clue and should not even try to be clever about them. 'We know in part. . . we see through a glass, darkly' (1 Cor. 13:9 &12).

italo:
Oga, purgatory's in d Bible wether you can find it or not.

You can argue hard and long, but the doctrine of purgatory is not in the Bible. You like to see what is not there that is why you keep sounding it off like a broken record.

And like I said I'd love to discuss these things but not with someone who sees "work out your salvation" and says works have no effect on salvation.

Please don't confuse yourself all the more. There are more than a dozen verses that clearly show that nobody is saved by 'works' - I have quoted and reposted a few: see post #21. What do you have to say about those verses that clearly say that salvation is NOT BY WORKS? Why are you dodging behind excuses and evading those verses?

You are telling me that it is not 'work for'. So if I show you a place that says 'work for your salvation', you can as well tell me that its not the same thing as 'work towards your salvation'.

Please show me a place that says you should 'work for your salvation' and I'll ask you again to deal with those verses that say salvation is not by 'works'.

Looking at the number 1 definition of 'work out' in d pic and substituting it for work out in the verse, it reads 'achieve your salvation by effort'.

Games.
To work out your salvation does not mean that you are saved by your works - this is why you have forever ducked behind excuses so as to avoid dealing with those verses that say that salvation is "not by works" (Titus 3:5).

There's nothing wrong with definitions, but there is something patently wrong with drawing conclusions that contradict the clear teaching of Scripture on a subject. An example: if you use the same FreeDictionary to look up the word SUFFER, you find that the number 1 definition there is stated as "To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment."

Now in Matthew 19:14 Jesus says "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me" (KJV), would you then apply the same "number 1 definition of suffer" in FreeDictionary to conclude that Jesus is asking you to make little children to "feel pain, distress, injury, harm or punishment" so that they can come to Jesus?

Dude, when you want to cheat with English and pretend you don't understand the context of verses that clearly teach that salvation is 'NOT BY WORKS', you end up posting pictures of FreeDictionary to confuse things all the more for yourself. For all that, salvation is NOT BY WORKS - rather, it is the free GIFT of God. You will never obtain salvation in Jesus Christ by being a "doer of the Law" (as you earlier argued for, in quoting Romans 2:13).

italo:
I hope 'achieve your salvation by effort' should be enough. It's afterall common English, like you said.

Nobody is saved by 'works'. I hope this is clear as you read Titus 3:5 - afterall the English in that verse is not difficult to understand.

italo:
I would have loved to explain but after giving you these verses which clearly show that works are necessary for salvation and seeing you dribble around the words scandalously, its clear to me that you are more interested in your ego than finding out the truth.

This is not a question of dribbling around verses. The FACT is that there is not a single verse that teaches that works are necessary for salvation. That's why I wanted you to consider and address those verses I cited and repeated in post #21 above.

In this case, what do you expect me to say? Afterall the same scriptures that christians used to discern the Messiah is the same one the Jews used to reject him.

Please make up your mind: this is not a discussion about how some Jews reject the Messiah (not to even say anything about the FACT that MANY JEWS RECEIVED JESUS as their Messiah - John 11:45 and 12:42).

You cannot be playing that 'work for' 'work out' trick and expect me to keep discussing the bible with you seriously.

It's not a trick - common English bears out the point so well that they are not the same.

And if purgatory is not in the bible, bible is not in the bible too. So its no use referring to the bible to prove or disprove anything. Its not scriptural.

Let me make it simple: the doctrine of purgatory is not in the Bible. Happy now?

wordtalk:
But let me first answer your queries before I ask you to deal with the fact that people are not saved by works.

So, here is what I wanted you to deal with, italo. In the same manner as I have tried to provide answers to your queries, I wonder what you have to say on the FACT that the other verses I pointed out demonstrate clearly that salvation is NOT BY WORKS? What have you said about these verses -

wordtalk:
The thrust of the Gospel in the NT is that salvation is not by the works of any believer:

1. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9)

2. "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God" (Romans 4:2)

3. [God] "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Timothy 1:9)

4. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5)

. . . so, italo - what do you have to say about those verses that show that salvation is NOT BY WORKS?

italo:
You hav seen where the Bible says: "you see then that a man is justified by works, not by faith alone" ad you are still denying it.

I did not 'deny' anything. Rather I explained what possibly could be meant by 'justified' as used by James in his epistle.

The apostle DID NOT ask people to procure salvation by 'faith + [works]'; instead, he was urging people to demonstrate the reality of their faith by what they do - which is the essence of verse 18 where he says: "I will show you my faith by my works". His epistle does not say 'I will be saved by my works', which is what you seem to be arguing without foundation.

Okay deny this one too:

Lol, please use words carefully. I did not deny anything - I rather tried to explain them. Huge difference between the two. But let me first answer your queries before I ask you to deal with the fact that people are not saved by works.

italo:
Phillipians 2:12, 13: So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.*
13
For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.

Again, it is saying the same thing as I have tried to point out earlier. The 'works' of a believer in Christ follow after they have received salvation. Put them in juxtaposition and you will see the difference -

[center]'work out your salvation'[/center]

[center] IS NOT THE SAME AS[/center]

[center]'work in order to be saved'[/center]

To "work out" is not the same thing as to "work for" - the first (work out) is to demonstrate something that someone already has; the second one ("work for" is to engage in something as a means to obtain something else - and it is the second one that you argue which is not taught as the basis of our salvation in Christ.

And then this:

Hebrew 12:14: follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

Holiness is God's GIFT to Christians, just as righteousness and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). It is not something we try to do of our own effort so that we can obtain salvation thereby - rather, these are qualities that we live by as a demonstration of having already received salvation in Christ.

Romans 2:13: for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

But sir, as a Christian are YOU a "DOER of the LAW" ? Do you not yet understand that NO MAN shall be justified by the works of the Law? Should I quote them for you? Sample these -

1.  For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. [Romans 3:20]

2.  All have sinned and are justified by God's grace as a GIFT, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Romans 3:23-24.

3.  We know that a person is NOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS OF THE LAW but through faith in Jesus Christ. Galatians 2:16

4.  Now it is evident that NO ONE is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith. Galatians 3:11

So, italo. . . to argue to be a "doer of the Law" would only mean that you cannot be justified before God - for NO MAN is justified on the basis of the Law. Absolutely NO ONE.

And Matthew 7:21-27

Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." And so forth to verse 27.

What does it mean to do the will of the Father? Since you're interested in "works", then let me put it in the same manner of some who met Jesus at one time during His earthly ministry and asked Him a question in John 6:28 - "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"

And His answer? It's there in verse 29 - "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

My dear italo, there is no "work" we can do to procure or add to our salvation. It is a GIFT - we BELIEVE and thereby RECEIVE. To add 'works' to this before you can receive is to turn aside to something totally outside of the will of the Father.

And 1Cor 13:2 & 13.

2 Corinthians 13:2 & 13 - "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. . . .So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (ESV).

That passage does not teach that a person is saved by doing any 'works'. It rather presents the value of love as a vital part of the truly spiritual life of a believer. Love is the first thing that the apostle listed as the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23; and we know that the fruit of the Spirit is borne out in the lives of those who have already received salvation by faith in Christ and called to serve one another in the freedom that Jesus gives (Galatians 5:13).

Paul never taught the Corinthians or Galatians a doctrine of salvation or justification by 'works'.

italo:
Bros, purgatory is in d bible. It just isn't spelt out as P-U-R-G-A-T-O-R-Y.

Purgatory is not in the Bible, no matter how anyone wants to spell it.

italo:
Abt faith and works, pls read James 2:14-26.

Verse 24 says: you see then that a man is justified by works, not by faith alone.

Thanks for pointing to James 2. It should be obvious that the gist of James argument is simply that the believer should prove his faith by his works (verses 17 & 18). James nowhere argues that 'works' procure salvation in Christ; rather he was pressing home just this point - "I will show you my faith by my works" (v. 18).

Using the example of Abraham in verses 21-24, the same point is more cogently driven home: Abraham proved his faith by his works, and not the other way round as you seem to be arguing. Scripture is clear that Abraham simply believed God, and it was on that basis alone that God counted him as righteous.

The scenario around Abraham is explained in Romans 4:2 - "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, BUT NOT BEFORE GOD". Is it not clear yet that no one can boast of his or her own 'works' in matters of salvation before God, as in Ephesians 2:9 - ("not a result of works, so that no one may boast"?

In the justification connected with our salvation in Christ, it is everywhere testified that it is not based on our own works - no matter how good, righteous or dexterous. Isaiah the prophet already said that 'all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment' (Isaiah 64:6, ESV) - and in many various ways all the prophets agree on that. It is God who justifies the believer on the basis of faith alone and not of works.

Salvation through God's grace is a GIFT, not a 'reward'. Our works after being saved bear the 'rewards' rather than the 'gift'. There is a difference between a GIFT and a REWARD. This is borne out in Romans 4.

[list][li]Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.[/li][/list]

[list][li]And to the one who DOES NOT WORK but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.[/li][/list]

On the whole, James is not asking people to obtain salvation by 'faith + works'. In chapter 1 v 18 he already acknowledged that salvation is wholly and alone by God's will, not by man's doing - 'In accordance with his will he made us his children by the word of truth' (compare John 1:13). Rather, in chapter 2 he was urging those who have received salvation to show the reality of their faith by what they do and how they live ('I will show you my faith by my works' - verse 18).

italo:
@Wordtalk, u seem 2b getn me wrong. I'm not saying God wants us to be materially poor, I'm saying God is not against it. They're 2 different things.

I apologise if I read you wrongly.

italo:
@Wordtalk

Firstly you must know that I don't think you are saved just by your works. I believe salvation is by the grace of God but the human response which is FAITH & WORKS are necessary for salvation (faith working through love).

No sir. Faith in Jesus Christ obtains salvation for those who believe (John 3:16); and works are for rewards for those who have received Christ as Saviour (Ephesians 2:9-10).

The thrust of the Gospel in the NT is that salvation is not by the works of any believer:

1.  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9)

2.  "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God" (Romans 4:2)

3.  [God] "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Timothy 1:9)

4.  "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5)

A salvation by 'faith and works' is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as is clear from the examples of verses cited above. Salvation is freely given through God's grace to all who believe - for God is the Justifier of those who are not seeking salvation through works but rather through believing (Romans 4:5).

In a nutshell, both faith and works are necessary, not faith alone.

No, faith in Christ alone procures salvation. The 'works' do not procure salvation but only follow as a consequence of having received salvation.

Acts 16:31 shows dat u need to have faith to be saved, but it doesn't show that you only need faith and not works.

ACts 16:31 would have included 'works' if that was also necessary for salvation; but it does not do so - as it is clear that salvation throughout the NT is based only of the faith that a believer has in Jesus Christ.

It's like a student asking 'what must I do to pass the test?' And a teacher answering 'you hav 2kno everything we've done in class'. Does that mean that writing the exam is not necessary for the student to pass the exam? Of course it is.

Sir, that is an example of false analogy in logical reasoning. Salvation is NOT procured through our works - it is a GIFT from God. The moment you set up certain tests and exams to be passed through the hard work of certain students, you're turning to something else and not the GRACE of God. What does Romans 11:6 say? Read it -

[list][li]And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.[/li][/list]

[list][li]But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."[/li][/list]

I hope that helps.

---

italo:
I see you don't realize that 1Cor 3: 11-15 is talking about heaven and purgatory. However that is another topic.

Sorry, there is no purgatory in the Bible.

But for this topic, notice how everyone who was saved had works. Whether they were burned or they stood, they had works. They all did their works on the foundation which is Christ.

You should read well that passage - it does not say that their works saved them or that their works were necessary for their salvation. The 'works' were for "rewards", and salvation is not a reward for our works but rather a GIFT freely given to believers through GRACE by God. That is what 1 Corinthians 3:14 says -

[list][li]If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.[/li][/list]

If otherwise it could be argued that 'works' could procure salvation, what happens then to those whose works do not survive so that they lost everything? The answer? See verse 15 -

[list][li]If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. [/li][/list]

Salvation is obtained through grace as a GIFT; our 'works' bear REWARDS. These two things are never confused in the NT.

Now do you wonder where those who had no works at all are? They are further down in verse 17. That's those who will go to hell. Those who, rather than build, destroyed. "God will destroy them".

Those who had "no works" are not to be confused for BELIEVERS whose works are for REWARDS.

^^ Nice, and I'm not arguing about or against that.

However,

Joagbaje:
What was is about then? Was Jesus spiritually poor? The "poverty" of Jesus was materially.

The 'poor' in reference to Jesus in that verse (2 Corinthians 8:9) is not about materialism or the opposite of affluence. The fact that Paul was commending their GENEROSITY shows in context that material wealth was not the issue.

If the verse says that "though he was rich", we have to ask WHEN that occured. Was Jesus viewed as a materially wealthy Person in His earthly ministry? Do wealthy people get born into materially poor families? Do you describe someone as materially wealthy when He boasts of having no place to lay His head (Matthew 8:20)?

No, the Gospels do not present a materially wealthy Jesus. He Himself depended on other people to minister to His needs (Luke 8:3); and as italo noted earlier, He did not miraculously make anyone materially wealthy. Could it then be possible, at the very least, that His riches had to do with His glory as the Son of God, while His poverty had to do with His humility as the Servant - Phil. 2:6-11?

Although Jesus Himself was Deity in His "riches", yet for our sakes He became "poor" when He "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2)

Some have concluded that the word "riches" must by default be referring to material wealth, money and cash, etc. since the Greek for "riches" is "ploutos" (defined as 'wealth (as fulness), that is, (literally) money, possessions, or (figuratively) abundance, richness, (specifically) valuable bestowment').

I wonder: if that were the case, was Paul then saying he was given grace to preach "unsearchable money" in his quote on being commissioned to "preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Ephesians 3:? When did "unsearchable riches" translate to "unsearchable money" in that context when in very fact Jesus said that a man's life DOES NOT consist in the abundance of the things he possesses (Luke 12:15)? If the essence of Jesus' ministry was to preach "unsearcable money and possessions" to believers, why then would He yet teach that a man's life DOES NOT consist in those things?

They had deep poverty for a little season  not because it was Gods will for Christians. Remember they had economic crisis which was prophesied about by agabus .

That is a conjecture and has no bearing on what Paul was stating. He was commending their GENEROSITY, not some 'economic crisis' survival. Generosity is often commended when poor people give out of their deep poverty (Luke 21:1-4 and 2 Corinthians 8:2), or when people give BEYOND their ability (2 Corinthians 8:3). The "great trial of affliction" in 2 Cor. 8:2 is reminiscent of the trials of persecutions that believers experience in their commitment to Christ - compare 1 Thes. 1:6; 2:14 and 3:3-4.

So , poverty was not their way of life , it was only for that period.That's why paul made them contribute money, and the sure way out of poverty is giving. He made them practice the law of sowing and reaping.

No, Paul did not "make them" practise any such law of sowing and reaping as a means of escaping economic crisis. This cliche of 'the law of sowing and reaping' has been seized upon by money-grabbers in the Church to deceive simple-minded folks that it is the sure-fire means or "way out of poverty". Paul preached on giving, and when he did so he was careful to let his receipients know that he was NOT COMMANDING or DEMANDING them to give or sow by some law - compare 2 Corinthians 8:8 ('I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love').

The NT teaches a principle of sowing and reaping as an aspect of giving; but nowhere is it taught as a "way out of poverty". When people begin to make sowing and reaping the foundation of their "way out of poverty", you can bet your life savings that you're listening to an anti-gospel and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

When they give , they prosper.

We don't read that about the woman who gave her everything in Luke 21:1-4.

italo:
Are you trying to say, as far as you believe and accept Jesus, you are saved, regardless of what you do or do not do with your life?

1.  Salvation is obtained by simply believing in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).

2.  You don't do anything to earn salvation which is by grace and mercy of God alone (2 Tim. 1:9 and Titus 3:5)

3.  The 'works' of the believer are for rewards, not for obtaining salvation (see 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 5:1-5).

I still expect your response. What is Holy Communion to you?

I'm not PRO for Joagbaje; but whatever arguments may entail, Holy Communion does not save anybody. It is one of the rites that Christians celebrate following salvation - it is not a rite for obtaining salvation for anyone.

italo:
If poverty were evil, Jesus would not have neglected it in his ministry. He dealt with everything evil, he could not have omitted poverty if it were.

Being poor is not necessarily an indicator of something evil, for there are people who face such experiences as a matter of fact (Deut. 15:11). Yet, it is also important to note that poverty is evil if it becomes the foundation of an ideology or ministry (consider, for example, the sluggard - Proverbs 13:4; 20:4; 26:16).

BUT HE NEVER MADE ANYONE WEALTHY, though he had the power to do so.

And He never made anyone poor, although He had the power to do so.

italo:
Even Jesus himself had nothing, And Christians are supposed to be 'Christ-like'.

Can you truly say that you have NOTHING? NOTHING at all? There are many people who are so poor that they have almost nothing to boast of, and for all that these folks are NOT even Christ-like in any sense.

We should be thankful and put our trust in God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17).  

---

chukwudi44:
There is no where in the bible where Jesus promised beleivers that they will all be rich.

There's also no verse in the Bible where Jesus promised believers that they will all be poor. In fact, He actually left a huge promise for ALL believers who can exercise faith enough to receive from Him - NOW IN THIS TIME (Mark 10:29-30). As you said, however, material prosperity is not the essence of the incarnation and eventual death of Jesus.

Likewise there is no where it was stated dat unbeleivers would be poor.

There is no verse that states that unbelievers would be rich.

2hats why an atheist is the richest man in d world today

That's just your own figment of imagination. The fact is that people becoming wealthy or poor have nothing to do with whether they are Christians or atheists. A believer could be as poor as an unbeliever in the same way that either of them could apply certain factors in life to become wealthy.

Joagbaje:
Can you explain this scripture?

2 Corinthians 8:9
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

That verse (2 Corinthians 8:9) is not all about material riches. In fact, the believers Paul was writing about were materially poor and he was commending their GENEROSITY inspite of their DEEP POVERTY - please read the chapter from verse 1 and see the big picture:

[list] [1] Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; [2] How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.[/list]

I am not against true prosperity (material and spiritual) for Christians; but it is dangerous for people to just snatch up verses like 2 Corinthians 8:9 to promote a "gospel of materialism". Jesus did not become "poor" in order to make Christians materially or financially "rich". Materialism is not one of the PURPOSES or REASONS for Jesus' vicarious death and resurrection. Jesus Himself taught that a man's life DOES NOT consist in the abundance of the things he possesses (Luke 12:15). The apostles in the NT often presented 'riches' in the sense of spiritual soundness in contrast to material possession (Hebrews 11:26 and James 2:5-6 & 5:1).

Joagbaje:
[flash=200,200]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLs6oVZCcPg&feature=player_[/flash]

. . . He went ahead to say that Jesus or the apostles never taught on physical healing and material prosperity .

That's what I was referring to as ignorance , I quoted the wrong video. Jesus taught on healing and prosperity. Jesus died to give us dominion in life. Over sin ,sickness , poverty ,failure, death , and all the works of Satan. You can't say you will dwell on sin only. And besides , those who major on this Sin message mostly teach wrongly . You don't get people off sin by emphasising on sin. You get people off sin by teaching righteousness consciousness . Let people know who they are in christ . Let them know how to walk in the spirit.

You make very good sense there which not many people are able to grasp.

However, much as we may admire Zac Poonen (or any other preacher/minister - including Chris Oyakhilome), we should be very careful about their teaching. There are many things which are sound in Poonen's teaching; but there are also very many unsound arguments he makes.

For example, in the video above Poonen observes that while Jesus healed many people, He did not teach a single sermon on healing - THEREFORE, Poonen himself would also not teach on healing.

Now, anyone who has read the Bible will immediately recognize that is an example of the sort of slippery techniques found in erroneous teaching. Healing indeed was part of Jesus' teaching and ministry (Luke 4:18) - was it not? Poonen erroneously concluded that he would not teach on healing BECAUSE Jesus never taught a single sermon on healing - and if that kind of argument holds true, then in the very same manner Poonen should NOT teach any sermon on "grace" since Jesus NOWHERE mentioned the word "grace" in the Gospels! There are aso many things Poonen himself espouses which we do not find ANYWHERE in Jesus' teaching in the Gospels.

This is why I have said elsewhere that half-truths are dangerous - and it does not matter that such half-truths come from respected teachers with over half a century's experience in teaching ministry. Not everything that such men teach are sound.

Lucario007:
he says that there is no where in the bible that is against it.

Psalm 101:3a - 'I will refuse to look at anything vile and vulgar.' (NLT)

wordtalk:
Lol, others are "dumb" when you can't answer their questions and just prefer to ask your own!

sexkillz:
You Just defined an ATHEIST! I aint one!

See what I mean?