Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by them?
 

How is it that our works condemn us if they cannot save us?

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Great question!

What is it about our works that brings condemnation? It is the fact that we have transgressed the law, because 'sin is the transgression of the law'. So then sin = crime. Once we have that basic understanding, the question becomes solvable.

Imagine a person commits various crimes, and are then caught. They go to court. They are charged with the crimes they have committed. Suppose they plead 'Oh but wait! I obey the speed limits, I obey this and that law,' etc. The court will still find them guilty, because their obedience to some laws does not overcome their violation of other laws: they are still GUILTY CRIMINALS.

Now, suppose the court grants them a pardon upon condition of repentance. In order for the pardon to be granted, certain other requirements must be met - not by the accused, but by the government itself, to ensure the system of law and order doesn't break down and result in anarchy by the offering of pardon - and let's say they are met. So all that remains is for the accused to accept the offer of pardon and return to being a productive citizen.

Now, their works (obedience to the laws) are not what procured their pardon and their escape from punishment - that was an act of clemency by the government in granting pardon to them. But suppose they return to a life of crime... does their pardon cover their new crimes? Of course not, so then they would be found in violation of the terms of their pardon (repentance), would be found to be criminals, and would suffer the penalty of the law.

Thankfully, God is even more merciful than that, in that he allows backsliders who were once pardoned, and who fell back into crime, to repent and be restored to the condition of pardon they had received.

But, we can see that one's actions or deeds can indeed lead to condemnation, and yet still not be sufficient for justification.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

you give Anarchy a bad rap here, E; it is not Chaos.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Can you identify what your post has to do with my post?

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

you have presented a view of works as consistent with law and i ascribe to a different model, which is why i thought it best to merely point out that while we are programmed to believe Anarchy is "absence of laws" nothing could be further from the truth, and this misconception is necessary to support the idea that we need human rulers.

applying works to grace presents a different conception, but you were just using the model that comes...well, naturally to us, the crime/punishment law thing, for deeds (which are not works, imo) considered "evil" under the law, when good deeds, which the law does not address, will not save one either, right?

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

The model I am following is derived from reading the Bible's statements. I am not sure you have correctly identified the elements of that model however. And as a result you are misinterpreting what I said.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

well, maybe, but your treatise seemed to only deal with bad works and punishment under the law, and does not address good works, which will not save one either, and are not contained in your analogy. Which of His works was Christ condemned for, under the law?

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

so, not saying you are wrong, just that you are not done yet, and of course any analogy breaks down at some point, but to incorporate grace into the model you will end up discarding the court analogy, if memory serves me right.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

My statements and my analogy/example were addressed directly to the question.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

yes, and actually as the doctrine is an attempt to separate manifesting Christ from receiving Him a la a salvation experience, your answer was about as good as it gets. But while it can be established in Scripture, i think it does a disservice to Christ's Word suggesting that manifesting Christ in the now, loving your neighbor if you will, or whipping some profiteers from the temple, whatever, are actions that either come from the heart or do not, iow you would do them anyway because they are the right thing to do.

And there is no law for this; prolly you might even be breaking some law. And so 'not saved by works, but condemned by them' is just another ploy to move us back to the courtroom, and move salvation off to some past--at acceptance--or future--at being accepted because of works--date, when neither reflects service, now.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Sin and unbelief condemns us. Not good deeds

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

A friend of mine was commenting recently, they do an online game with several other people, he had set everything up, was going great, then found out everything he had done was not being uploaded, so as far as everyone else in the universe was concerned he was doing nothing at all. It was all on his system alone.

Kind of like people who are trapped in their own reality with no connection to the outside, yet aren't aware of it.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

That's the point. Our bad works (aka sins) condemn us. Our good ones do nothing for us.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

I would think that your system should be seen as a system where good works save you. Sure you couldn't have become free without the pardon but you cannot stay free without the good works (aka not sinning).

So your system is works based. Even though there may be unlimited pardons offered. In the end all the pardon does is give you a fresh start to attempt to not sin again.

I would submit that good works in your system are necessary for salvation but not sufficient by their selves. I would also submit that unlimited pardons are not sufficient for salvation but only a necessary condition as well. Because without good works (aka not sinning) you would immediately be placed back in jail.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Why should they?

Let me ask you. If a Murderer stands before a judge and says he should go free because he likes to feed stray dogs, should the judge let him go?

You see, sin is death. We have all sinned and our punishment is death. There isnt anything you can do to change that

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

So then you believe that a non-works based system would mean a person is saved regardless of whether they sin or not? So then a person can be pardoned, and continue in rebellion, and be fine?

So in other words, suppose a criminal lives a life of crime, then receives a pardon, and his sentence is set aside, his record is wiped clean, he gets a new chance with a clean slate. And suppose that person never stops his life of crime, but just continues robbing banks, molesting kids, running his pimp operation, uses his cell phone while driving through school zones, sells government secrets to foreign governments, etc. And it would be good, right, and 'gracious' for the government to say 'hey, we pardoned him, he's good to go!'

I submit that if that actually happened, you would object to the injustice and wrongfulness of such a government policy. Unless YOU were the unrepentant criminal in question, of course...

Obedience to God is a CONDITION of salvation, absolutely. But that doesn't mean 'saved by works'. Salvation includes both the receiving of a pardon for crimes committed, AND restoration of the (former) criminal to a lawful life.

BOTH of those are the act of God securing the voluntary cooperation of the individual. God issues the pardon, and imparts the power to live a holy, sanctified life unto God.

Now, in a truly 'saved by works' system, one would not even need a pardon. One would simply be acquitted in court of any wrongdoing, because one could point to their obedience to the laws as their defense. After all, if you are accused of crime, and you did not in fact break any laws, that is an affirmative defense.

But suppose you did indeed break the law, and are in fact a criminal. And receive a pardon. And from that moment on you never once break any single law whatsoever, but are a good upstanding citizen. The fact you are a free man is NOT 'because you obeyed the laws' nor are they because you do lots of charity work. It is because you were pardoned. And out of gratitude and thankfulness, you have been restored to being a law abiding and productive citizen.

The Bible teaches conditions for salvation, and they include the necessity of an Atonement (provided by Christ), and faith and repentance on the part of the one being saved. Repentance includes a return to full, present, obedience. A return to obedience is necessarily implied in the concept of repentance. Thus a person who does not return to obedience to God, has not repented, and does not truly have faith.

So then, what I have proposed is not a system of salvation by works, nor is it a system of 'keeping saved by works'. It is salvation by grace. The grace of God pardons the sinner, secures by the operation of the Spirit the sinner's faith and repentance, and maintains the believer's continued perseverance in holiness and righteousness and faith and steadfastness unto the end. Therefore, it is not salvation by works, which as the apostle Paul pointed out in a system of salvation by works the reward is reckoned as a matter of DEBT (you get what's coming to you, what is OWED to you). But true salvation is not a matter of debt. It is a matter of grace, the gift of God to people who in reality deserve to be locked up in jail and have the key thrown away.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

"3. Nor does justification by faith imply that a sinner is justified by faith, without good works, or personal holiness.

Some suppose that justification by faith only, is without any regard to good works, or holiness. They have understood this from what Paul has said, where he insists so largely on justification by faith. But it should be borne in mind that Paul was combating the error of the Jews, who expected to be justified by obeying the law. In opposition to this error, Paul insists on it that justification is by faith, without works of law. He does not mean that good works are unnecessary to justification, but that works of law are not good works, because they spring from legal considerations, from hope and fear, and not from faith that works by love. But inasmuch as a false theory had crept into the church on the other side, James took up the matter, and showed them that they had misunderstood Paul. And to show this, he takes the case of Abraham. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?--And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." This epistle was supposed (by some) to contradict Paul, and some of the ancient churches rejected it on that account. But they overlooked the fact that Paul was speaking of one kind of works, and James of another. Paul was speaking of works performed from legal motives. But he has every where insisted on good works springing from faith, or the righteousness of faith, as indispensable to salvation. All that he denies is, that works of law, or works grounded on legal motives, have any thing to do in the matter of justification. And James teaches the same thing, when he teaches that men are justified, not by works nor by faith alone, but by faith together with the works of faith; or as Paul expresses it, faith that works by love. You will bear in mind that I am speaking of gospel justification, which is very different from legal justification."

http://www.gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/...t_by_faith.htm

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Yes that would be a non-works based system. You are saved regardless of what you do or don't do.

that's my point. it is good for a man to be condemned by his works. Yet if he can be condemned by them then he can be saved by them.

In your example above what kept the man out of prison. Was it the pardon or was it hid good and law abiding works? It was both. Then man could not have been out of prison without either.

Of course, but isn't that my point? That we are saved by works and that if it were by pardon alone then it would be unjust?

When salvation is conditional on works then it requires works (aka works based salvation).

Totally agree. God is trying to ensure the individual does the good works and not the bad works.

Any system that requires works is a works based system. I have not denied we needed a pardon. There is a system which requires pardon and works. We are both describing that system except you refuse to call a spade a spade.

Yes your freedom required a pardon. But that doesn't mean it did not require works as well. The simple proof is this. If you had broken the law after your pardon would you remain free? So then your freedom is contingent on two things, the pardon and your keeping the laws.

So Pardon and Works? Your describing it. Can you actually call it by name?

It is a system of pardon and works. Both are required. But any system that requires works is to be classified as a works based system. Affirming works does not deny grace. That is the great lie.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

this is kind of what i meant, ya. It is keeping the focus on potential punishment instead of "you are to be like gods." The question that the doctrine attempts to answer is asked in innocence, but examining why the question was asked also points to why the doctrine is inadequate. Also, several Scriptures, many, indicate that it is too oversimplified.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, Esaias.

1Working together with Him, we also appeal to you, “Don’t receive God’s grace in vain.” 2For He says:

I heard you in an acceptable time,
and I helped you in the day of salvation.

Look, now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

yes, and even worse it is sin-based. If you are forgiven, why are you focusing on sin and redemption, laying the foundation over and over? For the same reason you find it necessary to dismiss and belittle people whose comments may not even be for you, possibly. I'll leave frog, you're telling it better anyway :)

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Is there a certain verse's statement you are implying here in your question?

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

I think there are many that say we are not saved by works. I also think there are many that speak of condemnation for those that do not maintain good works after their faith in Christ.

Maybe I'm mistaken?

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Just a couple of points to be made:

1.) When the Bible speaks of works, and their inability to save a person, one must always remember the context:

Works that cannot save, or dead works, are those efforts made by people to maintain personal righteousness and holiness before God, on their own, as a result of, and this is key, fulfilling the requirements of Mosaic Law!

Paul and James, more than anyone else, address works. And in context, especially in Paul's writings, the works in question have to do with the Law of Moses. James is slightly different. James doesn't address the Law of Moses so much as he shows how in the Abrahamic covenant, obedience to the commands of God were just as necessary as mental assent.

So, we Gentiles, grafted in, think of works like this: we think of helping little old ladies across the street, volunteering at a homeless shelter, donating money or clothing to the Salvation Army or Goodwill, and etc.

We see those "works", (as examples, there are of course, many more) and we say, "Aha! According to Holy Scripture, those works cannot save us", never realizing the Scriptures were never talking about those kinds of "works".

The Holy Scriptures, when referring to works, refers to things like circumcision, temple offerings, eating kosher, new moon and Sabbath day observances, and etc.

Paul makes it very clear in Galatians and Romans, that such works, in keeping the Mosaic Law, only allow a person to make themselves righteous apart from the righteousness of God.

But as he shows, if a man would seek to be made righteous by his religious works, works of the Law of Moses, he must perfectly keep all of them, without fail, always. Paul shows us this is impossible, because the Law, through the weakness of the flesh, actually activates the law of sin in our members, and causes us to lust beyond human control, for sinful behaviors. He shows that only the Holy Spirit and grace from God can empower a person to receive an imparted state of righteousness.

Therefore, if one's works condemn a person, it's only because such a one attempted to find righteousness with God through the keeping of Mosaic Law. Essentially, the person in question is seeking to be in covenant with God through a covenant that no longer exists.

Read Romans 7. We become dead to the law, so that the law has no hold over us, when we, by faith, and with faith, enter new covenant with Christ. Paul uses the analogy of a married woman. As long as her husband lives, she is bound to him. But if and when he dies, she is free to marry another.

As long as the Mosaic covenant was in effect, all circumcised Jews were bound to it. But once it was annulled/replaced with a better covenant, that is, it died a la the husband in the analogy, all Jews, and even Gentiles, are free to enter marriage, as it were, with Jesus.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

2.) Instead of analogizing law, grace, works, and all that those things entail by envisioning a courtroom, I submit we should think of it like this:

As a family, with children who disobey, but with parents who forgive.

As a father, I can testify to the world that my children frequently disobey. They test my patience. They are sometimes mean to one another. They talk back. They throw temper tantrums. They sometimes lie.

And the list goes on.

As the parent, along with my wife, we have a responsibility to discipline and correct improper behavior. We sometimes even need to not just discipline and correct, but to punish, as well.

And yet, here is the key: Our children will always, ALWAYS, have our unconditional love. Our grace toward them will always, ALWAYS be free. They will never have to earn or merit our approval, before we will love and forgive them anything.

But a requirement still exists: they must obey us. Taking care of their dishes, picking up their room, getting ready for bed, not fighting with each other, and etc.

All of those things and more are required of them by us. In this pattern, I stand in for the Lord, and my wife stands in for the Church.

Our children then, are like the saints. They are already a part of our lives, and will always continue to be so. They have been born into it. It is doubtful they will ever so heinously reject us and our authority over them, and so, find themselves removed from our love and grace. But it could happen.

It really could. :(

And if they maintain such a posture, they automatically lose out on all that we as mom and dad do and give for them. Our love for them doesn't dim, but it isn't felt, either. Our grace and forgiveness for them never changes, but they don't experience it as a reality.

So it is with us and God. It's not that our works save us any more than when one of my children obeys, it then qualifies them to stay as a member of our family.

Nor is it possible for one of my children to ever stop being my child. So, too, with the adopted child, the grafted in son or daughter of God. God will always be their father, the church will always be their mother.

But if and when the Father and Mother are rejected (note here that apostasy, a calque from Koine Greek literally means to stand off/away from), nothing the Father or Mother can do can change the fact that all the love and grace and forgiveness in the Father's heart doesn't do anything for the wayward son or daughter. As long as the son or daughter continues in sin, they automatically are found guilty of rejecting the love, grace, and forgiveness of God.

And in the end, that will be what condemns that son or daughter of God. See what James said:

When lust has conceived, that is, when a person has given themselves over to rejecting the love, grace, and forgiveness of God, it brings forth, or, that is, gives the law of sin in a person's members the desire and capacity to transgress. Left in such a state, that person will die, i.e. experience separation from the source of all life, i.e. God.

So then, it wasn't the sin, per se, that condemned the wayward son or daughter, it was that they walked away from God and allowed a lust to do wrong consume them until they caved in and obeyed the law of sin in their members.

Sinful actions are merely the result of a person already under condemnation. The condemnation isn't for the sins, but rather, because of the sins.

It's a distinct difference, and not easily discerned, but it's there, and it's important, I think, to make note of it.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Jesus said it this way:

"And this is the condemnation, that men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

See how a person loves darkness, or sinful living? It's because their deeds are evil. So the condemnation comes to them not for, but rather, because of, their evil deeds.

When a person doesn't love darkness, but rather, decides to come to the light, it shows that their deeds are not evil, but rather, are wrought in God.

Such deeds don't earn the person a chance to dwell in the light. Rather, the light shines on them and gives them a chance to break free from the darkness. Once loosed, the person then enters the light and begins to live a life full of light. All that they do from that point forward, as long as they continue to dwell in the light, are wrought in God.

"In" here, means inside of, or in the realm of, the sphere of God Himself. This means the person who has come to the light, and who has remained in the light, has begun, through and with the help of God, Who is Light, to do those deeds which are good.

Nothing then about earning one's salvation through good deeds. But rather, because the person came to love light instead of darkness.

We see therefore that both salvation and condemnation are merely a matter of love, or lack of love, for either light or darkness.

- Salvation = love of light

- Condemnation = love of darkness

Works merely proceed from the love of one or the other.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

well said VS :)

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Not sure what's been said, but my take on the issue is that works condemn because, while works do not save, they are fruit that indicates if we have the faith that saves or not. So, if a person lacks good works, they do not have the faith that generates those good works, but the faith is what actually saves.

So it's like saying, "I know you have not got a pizza in that box, because there's no aroma coming from it that smells like a pizza." The aroma is not what you want, it's the pizza. But the aroma has a scent and will ALWAYS be with what you actually want in the box.

It's like tongues being INITIAL evidence of the Spirit. The tongues are not what we seek nor the object of our lives, but the baptism of the Spirit is our target. But the tongues are evidence, and people get messed up when then they seek evidence more than they seek the Spirit.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

I'm hungry now.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

I wonder what Canadian Pizza tastes like?

And NO Brother Blume, don't try to send me a slice shoved in an envelope through the mail.

hahaha!!!

Pizza in Manitoba is trash. Toronto has good pizza. I'm a pizza snob so i should know.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Works and faith go hand and hand. They are not separate and distinct, but we are justified by faith and our works.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

The best pizza is homemade pizza, in my opinion :) I make it all the time, and we don't eat pizza "out" much any more.

Re: Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by t
 

Be nice to try. I've never had a homemade pizza I liked, though. lol. the best one's I've had were by a Greek man, Lebanese and an Italian.