Passive Righteousness

[Lamb]

Romans 10:9-10

Look very closely again at that verse and see this part your faith .

Do you see it in there?

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Now, do you see how that verse is to be understood now that you see that "faith" is there prior to the person confessing it? The confession isn't what is saving. It's the faith in the Savior and faith is given to us by God first. Faith is received by us (passively). The confession of faith is a response to the faith we passively received. The confession is active, yes. But the reception of faith first given to us by God is received passively. We did nothing to earn it or ask for it because all we had to bring to Him was our sin.

 

[Lamb]

If one believes then they live according to believe, which would include turning from sin as well.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Yes, it is God's will that as believers we are to turn away from sin. The problem comes from the fact that we still live in sinful bodies...but that's another thread.

 

[Josiah]

Is it valid to think that one has a change of heart prior to the gift of salvation. Why or why not please using scriptural reference please.

I ask you because I value your knowledged opinion. That in no way that I don't want anyone else's opinion on the matter.

Thanks,

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk[/QUOTE [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[MENTION=37]popsthebuilder[/MENTION]


You sent me a MENTION here, but I'm not exactly sure what post you are responding to.....


There are a few Protestants who THEORIZE (expressing a possible opinion, not anything dogmatic or divisive or binding or even necessarily true) that part of the way God does all this is to FIRST change the will of the person, THEN grant them the gift of life/faith/justification - so that there is a time sequence of first changing the will.

I don't denounce that as THEORY (even less than a pious opinion) but of course there's not a single Scripture that remotely states that; it is totally "out-of-the-blue" and entirely unsupported biblically. But again, I don't denounce the THEORY as such.

But I much prefer to leave it where God chose to: God does it, God does the saving, it is the free GIFT of God, it is not because of anything a person thinks/says/images/decides/wills/accomplishes - lest anyone have any reason to credit self for anything (and thus make self the Savior of self, Jesus bumped entirely off that role to something MUCH less such as an Offerer or Helper): God is the giver of life, not self.

The way classic Arminianism cranks this out is that Jesus saves no one, Jesus simply earned it and OFFERS it freely to all. But it's up to each person to consciencely DECIDE if they want to take it ("free will") and then take it. Thus, the Savior of self is self.... and this is a reward for the good work of taking it... it's all a matter of LAW (Jesus tells all to take it) and our OBEYING (a few take it, doing as commanded): Pure law, pure works righteousness. Jesus becomes the Offerer. Some (more mild) Arminianists claim we need HELP to obey the command and perform the Good Word that saves self, and this HELP they claim comes from the Holy Spirit - who becomes the Helper, the Enabler. But neither saves us.... neither gives anything.... Jesus simply OFFERS something and issues the Law Command to take it, and the Holy Spirit simply empowers us to accomplish the good work that saves; it is self that saves self by performing the good work that Jesus commands - taking life/justification. IMO, the theory that GOD actually CHANGES the will is a theory that abandons Arminianism and "Free Will" - and I like it better. It just goes too far and is without any biblical support: it's best to leave it as God did.


I hope that helps.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Staff Notice: I have moved the posts out of this thread into a new one here concerning the vine, the vinekeeper and being cut off...this thread should now remain on topic.

 

[Imalive]

If you do not take a fruit scale to church w 10 bananas 5 apples and 21 grapes you're not saved.

 

[Imalive]

Staff Notice: I have moved the posts out of this thread into a new one here concerning the vine, the vinekeeper and being cut off...this thread should now remain on topic.

oops sorry i was too quick

 

[Lamb]

LOL Imalive!

 

[Josiah]

If you do not take a fruit scale to church w 10 bananas 5 apples and 21 grapes you're not saved.

My doctrine teacher calls that "Hoop Jumping Arminianists". Always something else... another good work we have to perform (and good enough).... When you are finished reading this book, there's a new one coming out..... The "What You Gotta Do" sermon series never ends....

That mentality is UNAVOIDABLE in Arminianism..... if self saves self, there's ALWAYS going to be the question of if I've done all I need to do - and done it well enough. Isn't this what the rich young man asked Jesus, "Is there still something I've left undone?" The mentality is that self saves self via the Law - by jumping through the never-ending series of hoops (all a slap in the face of Jesus). Similarly, the Calvinist theory creates the unavoidable question of Am I one of the Elect, one of the very few whom God loves and Jesus died for, is there anything there for my faith to trust/rely upon or is my faith totally worthless and in vain? Many reasons to reject both of these 16th Century theories and stick with what God said.

 

[popsthebuilder]

[MENTION=37]popsthebuilder[/MENTION]


You sent me a MENTION here, but I'm not exactly sure what post you are responding to.....


There are a few Protestants who THEORIZE (expressing a possible opinion, not anything dogmatic or divisive or binding or even necessarily true) that part of the way God does all this is to FIRST change the will of the person, THEN grant them the gift of life/faith/justification - so that there is a time sequence of first changing the will.

I don't denounce that as THEORY (even less than a pious opinion) but of course there's not a single Scripture that remotely states that; it is totally "out-of-the-blue" and entirely unsupported biblically. But again, I don't denounce the THEORY as such.

But I much prefer to leave it where God chose to: God does it, God does the saving, it is the free GIFT of God, it is not because of anything a person thinks/says/images/decides/wills/accomplishes - lest anyone have any reason to credit self for anything (and thus make self the Savior of self, Jesus bumped entirely off that role to something MUCH less such as an Offerer or Helper): God is the giver of life, not self.

The way classic Arminianism cranks this out is that Jesus saves no one, Jesus simply earned it and OFFERS it freely to all. But it's up to each person to consciencely DECIDE if they want to take it ("free will") and then take it. Thus, the Savior of self is self.... and this is a reward for the good work of taking it... it's all a matter of LAW (Jesus tells all to take it) and our OBEYING (a few take it, doing as commanded): Pure law, pure works righteousness. Jesus becomes the Offerer. Some (more mild) Arminianists claim we need HELP to obey the command and perform the Good Word that saves self, and this HELP they claim comes from the Holy Spirit - who becomes the Helper, the Enabler. But neither saves us.... neither gives anything.... Jesus simply OFFERS something and issues the Law Command to take it, and the Holy Spirit simply empowers us to accomplish the good work that saves; it is self that saves self by performing the good work that Jesus commands - taking life/justification. IMO, the theory that GOD actually CHANGES the will is a theory that abandons Arminianism and "Free Will" - and I like it better. It just goes too far and is without any biblical support: it's best to leave it as God did.


I hope that helps.



- Josiah

I like how you closed your argument. I would agree and tried to state as much when asking. That is that it is the will of GOD that causes even the initial change in one's heart even prior to receiving salvation.

But how does one separate this from sanctification after salvation?

If we are saved would we not be caused by GOD and out love for GOD, to show works of the spirit that coincide with the actual Spirit of GOD? how is such not out of love which is the singular command? Rather; how is it not considered salvific?

Thank you sincerely

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

I like how you closed your argument. I would agree and tried to state as much when asking. That is that it is the will of GOD that causes even the initial change in one's heart even prior to receiving salvation.

But how does one separate this from sanctification after salvation?

If we are saved would we not be caused by GOD and out love for GOD, to show works of the spirit that coincide with the actual Spirit of GOD? how is such not out of love which is the singular command? Rather; how is it not considered salvific?

Thank you sincerely

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I have begun a new thread on Sanctification to answer your question here.

 

[user1234]

*Thinking this was moved by mistake. This post was not about sanctification, it was refuting sanctification being erroneously mixed into the discussion by another poster, which I was correcting. The post was clearly about salvation. I fixed it.*

•...That (the previous posters assertion) would be part of SANCTIFICATION, it has nothing to do with being saved. Salvation is by believing in Jesus, His finished work on our behalf.

[Quote ↓ Originally Posted by popsthebuilder View Post
What does scripture tell us?]

Scripture tells us once saved always saved. Our eternal destiny is secure in Christ, our works dont apply.

(That ↑ is a salvation post, not sanctification, and is better suited for the Passive Righteousness thread, not the other one on sanctification)

 

[Lamb]

Maybe the Once Saved Always Saved could have its own thread?

 

[user1234]

Maybe the Once Saved Always Saved could have its own thread?

I guess that's possible, but for the purposes of this thread, when someone asked 'What does the bible say?' I figured the clear answer in keeping with the thread was , 'The Bible says we're saved...bc Jesus saved us'.

So I guess maybe the question was for the sanctification thread, but the answer was for this thread, lol

 

[Josiah]

Maybe the Once Saved Always Saved could have its own thread?

There's this one already: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?3358-quot-Once-Saved-Always-Saved-

 

[popsthebuilder]

*Thinking this was moved by mistake. This post was not about sanctification, it was refuting sanctification being erroneously mixed into the discussion by another poster, which I was correcting. The post was clearly about salvation. I fixed it.*

•...That (the previous posters assertion) would be part of SANCTIFICATION, it has nothing to do with being saved. Salvation is by believing in Jesus, His finished work on our behalf.

[Quote ↓ Originally Posted by popsthebuilder View Post
What does scripture tell us?]

Scripture tells us once saved always saved. Our eternal destiny is secure in Christ, our works dont apply.

(That ↑ is a salvation post, not sanctification, and is better suited for the Passive Righteousness thread, not the other one on sanctification)

Scriptural references for osas please.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

Scriptural references for osas please.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Snerf says he believes osas, but when a guy cheats on his wife and goes live w another he says he's not saved, so he may say that our works don't apply, but apparently he doesnt mean that in the extreme. Thus noone understands each other while they believe the same if you ask me. There is Scriptural reference for this form of osas, like Hebrews 11 that I posted.

 

[user1234]

Snerf says he believes osas, but when a guy cheats on his wife and goes live w another he says he's not saved, so he may say that our works don't apply, but apparently he doesnt mean that in the extreme. Thus noone understands each other while they believe the same if you ask me. There is Scriptural reference for this form of osas, like Hebrews 11 that I posted.

That is not quite what I say, and I can't quite figure out what you're saying here.
Why dont ppl just try talking to me like a friend and brother in Christ and actually listen to what I say and believe it, instead of making implications to others that may then be misunderstood by them?

And if you or someone else doesn't understand, simply ask me so I can explain. ..... I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY, I AM A CHRISTIAN SAVED BY JESUS AND THATS ALL I'M HOPING FOR FOR EVERYONE ELSE HERE .....I HAVE TRIED TO EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF BROTHERLY LOVE AND GOOD CHEER AND SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND OFFER THE SAME LOVE OF GOD AND SALVATION IN JESUS THAT HE WANTS FOR US ALL .... I admit sometimes I do get a bit weary of the misrepresentations and accusations of having something evil in mind, simply by wanting to see ppl saved and give Jesus the glory (and yes, see the REAL enemy get his due) ... And maybe I'm not the most eloquent of speakers and maybe I get a bit frustrated when I continue to get either thrown under the bus or that disgusting anti-christian thing ... ignored (cant wait to find the punk that invented that button and convinced some christians that it's a christian thing to do, I'd like to personally shove it up that devils ugly .... nose! but anyway...)

A post that starts out 'Snerf says...' ummmm, wouldn't it be better to talk to Snerf and find out what he says and believes or let him tell the person himself?
Idont know why, but you've taken sides against me alot of times, (even defending things I know for a fact you dont believe in ... And I dont know why you would do that to me, just for laffs or to put me down, I dont know your motive in that, but that's ok), but with this post ↑ here I cant even tell if your trying to support me or accuse me again, but either way, what you told pops is not exactly accurate, so now I dont know what he thinks I believe, plus I'm starting to wonder if ANYone here understands what osas means, bc mostly what I see is ppl put their own spin on it and then condemn it and everyone that believes in it...

But I dont know why anyone who calls themself a christian would want to ridicule and belittle another person who is trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, but the only alternative I see is works-righteousness, which the Bible says is not possible, it's either all of grace, or not at all.

Btw, if your post was somehow a defense of me and my position, that would be great YAY! and a welcome surprise, absolutely, so if that was the case, thank you, but it's still not a completely accurate explanation of what I believe, which I'd be happy to share if anyone cares.

 

[Lamb]

Once again, could any OSAS posts be taken to a different thread? I'd like to have it separate please.

 

[tango]

Then it's not a free gift AT ALL. It's the reward for you following. In that senario, the Savior is not Jesus but self. It's not grace but works. In that case, Jesus is AT MOST a possibility-maker but in no way the Savior.

So if we do absolutely nothing essentially what you're saying is that some of us are saved, some of us are not, and there's nothing we can do to determine whether or not we are saved? When John 3:16 talks of "whosoever believes in him" what it means is "whoever is lucky enough to be given the faith to believe", and we have precisely no choice in the matter at all?

I don't see how requiring us to accept something in any way diminishes the work of Jesus on the cross. Using my check analogy the person receiving the check did nothing to deserve it, they can do nothing to earn it, they just need to take the active step to accept it to make all their money worries go away. They can't claim that they were responsible for solving their financial problems - all they did was take the check to the bank - someone else did all the work and all they had to do was accept the free gift.

No, in the example you used, Jesus just opens the door to heaven but you get through it because of YOU - not grace, not mercy, not the gift of God, not the blessing of God, not an inheritance. Jesus is not in any sense the Savior, the GIVER of life, but just a possibility-maker. I don't believe that God is the OFFERER of life but (as the ancient creed says) the GIVER of life.

I'm really not sure that make any sense. It would be akin to arguing that someone escaped from prison when the warden opened the doors and released them after their lawyer got the conviction overturned. The lawyer did the work, the warden opened the door, but they are still in prison until they take the step of walking out of the door. They did none of the work, they just get the benefits if they only accept them.

Which of course is exactly what the Bible says, what the Ecumenical Council of Orange stated, what we confess in the Creed..... "You did not choose Me but I choose you" Jesus said. Yes, one who is DEAD has only one way of being ALIVE - it must be given to them (not just offered to them).

Consider we are in a morgue.... looking at a DEAD body.... you can say "Choose to come alive! Decide to live! Follow the living!" You can shout that forever, at a deafening level - and I assure you, the DEAD body won't do a thing. You can say "Jesus OFFERS you life!" You can shout that to the DEAD body all day long, as loud as you can and the DEAD isn't going to do a thing. God doesn't just hold an OFFER in front of us, God GIVES it to us. Not sending a DEAD person a check in the mail which of course he cannot fetch much less cash.... God does a direct deposit, God GIVES us life, God SAVES us, God ENLIVENS us, God is the GIVER of life (not offerer of life), Jesus is the Savior (not just the Possibility-Maker).

I'll admit there is mystery here.... but the Arminian theory to remove it destroys the Gospel IMO and contradicts a whole bunch of Scriptures. The Chief Article of the Christian faith is that Jesus IS THE Savior. Which means salvation is something Jesus DOES - not simply make possible. Until Calvin and Arminius came along in the 16th Century, both insisting that God's brain is subject to ours, both insisting that self is designated to make God "logical" and self is designated the "Answer Man" for God, for 1500 years, Christians left this where the Bible does and confessed we have some mystery here, we simply don't KNOW how this cranks out. BUT however it does, GOD is the GIVER of life (not offerer), Jesus is the Savior (not possibility-maker).... if we have justification/faith/spiritual life it is only and solely because GOD GAVE IT TO US, as the free gift of God, not because of ANYTHING we think/say/do (our works) but because of what JESUS did (His works, His Cross, His heart, His mercy, His grace). Why don't all have this? God doesn't say beyond the point that not all have faith (which we admit doesn't answer the question). For 1500 years, Christians were okay with that - because that's what the Bible says, that's what Jesus taught. Jakob Arminius and John Calvin both came up with LOGICAL "answers" but they both destroy Christianity in the process (or at least seriously threaten it).

A very important discussion.... it is the heart and core of Christianity.

- Josiah.

I'm not sure it is as simple as the idea that we are 100% predestined - going too far that way makes the whole concept of free will meaningless and renders us as little more than automatons living a life that was scripted down to the finest detail since before the dawn of time. It immediately renders so much of what Jesus said utterly pointless - why would he bother saying "go into the world and preach the gospel" and "love one another as I have loved you" if the truth of the matter was that some of us were predestined to go and preach the gospel and none of us had any choice in whether we actually did it or not? It also raises the question of why God would create people predestined for eternal torment, knowing they had no chance of a future that was anything other than eternal torment, and how that reconciles with the notion that God wishes that none should perish.

I know God isn't required to fit into anything we might call "logical" but I think we also need to be careful of just accepting things as "mystery" without checking they are accurate first.

John 1:12 talks of how those who received (Jesus) received the right to become children of God". They received the right to become, not they became automatically.

I can't help thinking this is another one of those issues where straying too far in either direction leads into places that make no sense. If we accept total predestination we may end up with universalism, we may end up with a concept where a "god of love" (small g intentional, as the term may or may not describe the God of the Bible in this context) who creates people, claims he has no desire to see them perish, claims he wants them to be saved, all the while knowing they have no chance of being saved because they were predestined to burn since before the dawn of time. We may end up with the idea that "God so loved the few that he gave his only begotten Son, that they may live and too bad for the rest" On the other hand if we go too far down the works-based route we don't need Jesus any more because we made our own way to heaven thanks to our own righteousness.

 

[Lamb]

In Passive Righteousness we have the judicial declaration being made where we are set free from the bounds of the Law because of Christ Jesus. This is entirely done apart from us.

A judge declares a prisoner free. The prisoner walking out does not make the declaration any more true. But the prisoner cannot say he's free because he walked out. The Christians who say they're saved because they...did whatever...is not the same as a prisoner saying he's free because he was set free. See that difference?

Any response is going to fall under sanctification. The response doesn't make what initially was declared any more true! It's placed upon us. Adam could only breathe because he was first given breath. We can breathe in the joy of being called holy because of Jesus. We did nothing to make that more real. God opens our eyes in faith so we can see His salvation.

A response doesn't make it any more true and is not a condition for receiving it...it's already place upon us by faith. Adding human conditions to what God already declares as truth is not the Gospel.