Works based salvation

>Works based salvation
I never understood how people can believe in this. You're never going to be good enough, why are you trusting your works?

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Its the struggle to be good that matters, not the acts themself and not lip service.

And you tell me: is this possible? No, so it's saying that the only way for us to receive God's salvation is either by complete faith in him (Read Galatians) or be completely perfect without flaw (which we know is impossible)

Christianity is not Buddhism,its the relationship with Jesus that matters

And God obviously wants us to be good, but that is not what saves us.

We are not fighting against humans. We are fighting against forces and authorities and against rulers of darkness and powers in the spiritual world.

Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
4:10 (KJV) Said to Satan

If you are a christian, you will naturally do works. You wont go anywhere just doing works to do works.

nobody claims to be saved by works. however, if one is truly saved through faith in Christ, works will necessarily follow as a by product.

It's very simple. Realize that Paul has no fucking clue what he's talking about, and that his formulation (never uttered by Jesus) that the Old Law is impossible to uphold, only absolute perfection can endure in heaven, etc. is bullshit.

>What is the Holy Spirit
>The Word of God is less important here then there
Shake my head

This desu.

In Maccabees Jews are promised rewards for works. Hence prodies throwing it out.

Jesus also mentions works.

Mention, yes. But he does not say that they are what gives us salvation.

>What is the Holy Spirit
A presence of God that shows up to hang over certain holy places.
>The Word of God is less important here then there
But you don't avoid that, you just kick the can over to somewhere else by believing Paul. After all, Paul's views on supercessionism are inconsistent with Deuteronomy 4:26-end of chapter, and his views that the Old Covenant is impossible are inconsistent with Deuteronomy 30:11, and his view that Jesus's crucifixion renders sin offerings (what about other offerings? That never gets addressed.) is inconsistent with Ezekiel 45:22.

>You're never going to be good enough,
Who are you to judge what's enough? Only God know.

The Holy Spirit is God sweetie, sorry to break it to you. And Christ was the final offering, honey. Oh and good luck keeping all those commandments that Christ made even more strict.

>They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

You might want to actually read the Bible. I know it's hard, but it really does help you understand this stuff.

Already have, hun. I just fail how you came to the conclusion that our works are NOT dirty tags in God's sight.

*rags

By coming to the conclusion that Paul has no idea what he's talking about, and therefore all of the ideas he came up with (like works being worthless) are garbage.

Any scriptural evidence sweetie? I did not know that you were perfect like God and that salvation was easy for you.

Paul claims that with Jesus's crucifixion, sin offerings are redundant. (Among others, Hebrews 10:18)

That is in stark contrast to Ezekiel 45:16-24, which describes the Messiah inaugurating the third temple, and among other things, bringing a sin offering.

>what is the new covenant

Nigga you can't into Christianity.

Something that is scripturally contradicted?

No, I simply don't into Paulianity.

>The Word of God is inspired expect when I say it's not

>scripturally contradicted
where? and if you cite the old testament for this claim again I'm forced to assume you're legitimately retarded.

>I can't into paulianity
Are you the judaizer? I wish you would stop shitting up every thread

>The Word of God is inspired and inerrant, which is why this part contradicts this other part.
So, the Old Testament isn't Scripture? What weird cult are you part of?

Yes, shitting up the thread with actual Bible. Terrible, terrible.

>new covenant
>new
the entire point is that through Christ, we are no longer judged by adherence to old Jewish laws. are you circumcised too? do you keep kosher? do you refrain from work on the sabbath?

I don't know any serious Christians that are as ill informed as you are about OT/NT matters. How did this happen? Do you just read by yourself and never discuss this shit with anyone who has studied this seriously?

>Ezekiel 45:16-24
That's not messianic
This, however, is:
"I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Jeremiah 31:34

>are you circumcised too? do you keep kosher? do you refrain from work on the sabbath
Yes on all accounts.

We're going round and round aren't we? If the new covenant through Christ means the elimination of Jewish laws, why is Ezekiel prophesying the Messiah bringing a sin offering, which sounds an awful lot like keeping those Jewish laws.

I haven't seen a refutation, just a lot of "UR RONG!" What, do you think Ezekiel just got his prophecy wrong? Do you think that a guy who can't tell the difference between a sin offering and a paschal offering is reliable?

Why did Jesus die?

>why is Ezekiel prophesying the Messiah bringing a sin offering
He isn't
Why is Jeremiah prophesying non-imputation of sin, which would make sin offerings obsolete?

Yes it is. Why do you think the chapter opens up with dividing up the land by lot for inheritance? In case you missed it, Ezekiel was around quite a bit after the original settling/conquest of Israel. Statements like

>and My Princes shall no more wrong My people; but they shall give the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes
doesn't sound like a messianic perfect era?

If it isn't the Messiah, what exactly do you think Ezekiel 45 is talking about?

He isn't. Remember how sin offerings lead to forgiving of iniquity and the wiping away of sin?

because the new covenant was instituted at the last supper in the form of the Eucharist, towards the very end of Christ's time on earth

Does this mean I can covert on my deathbed?

>the chapter
This passage begins 5 chapters earlier, and starts with "In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day, the hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me to the city."
>doesn't sound like a messianic perfect era?
No.
>If it isn't the Messiah, what exactly do you think Ezekiel 45 is talking about?
The restoration of Jerusalem

He says "I will remember their sin no more". That means non-imputation

Constantine did that

But user don't you know that Christ will be sacrificing animals on our behalf

No

>works based
>faith based
>implying it's either and not both

fuck all continental christians honestly

>This passage begins 5 chapters earlier, and starts with "In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day, the hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me to the city."
Yes, and it's talking about the Messianic era.


>The restoration of Jerusalem
Go on, show me which tribes, multiple have territory in Jeursalem that the "prince" needs to divide up. And if it's talking about some other restoration of Jerusalem, well fuck, there's only 2 tribes, how hard can it be to divide their plots of land up? When it continues onward to 47:13, it mentions all twelve tribes. Guess what? Most of them are lost, and ingathering the lost tribes is one of the Messiah's jobs. And then look at the borders in the following verses, All the way up to Damascus, down to the Red and Arabian seas. Israel never had that kind of size when Cyrus let them go back, if you think that's what its referring to.

>Go on, show me which tribes, multiple have territory in Jeursalem that the "prince" needs to divide up
It's also the restoration of Israel, and Jerusalem was the capital
>Most of them are lost
All of them are lost these days, the Romans destroyed the genealogies

>It's also the restoration of Israel, and Jerusalem was the capital
But he's dividng the land between the 12 tribes. If you don't have 12 tribes to divide it amongst, Ezekiel can't be talking about that.

>All of them are lost these days, the Romans destroyed the genealogies
Are you retarded? First off, what "genealogies" did the Romans destroy? Secondly, h ow come they didn't erase the Old Testament, which records among other things, kingly genealogies? You think people just forget what tribe they're from because the Romans burned a city down? Thirdly, the lost tribes of Israel thing happened way before the Romans, and before Ezekiel himself; he was living in a time when there were only 3 "active" tribes, Levi, Judah, and Benjamin; to talk about all twelve implies an ingathering of those guys the Assyrians took away, which itself implies Messianic times.

>But he's dividng the land between the 12 tribes
How many tribes lived in Israel?
>First off, what "genealogies" did the Romans destroy?
The genealogies of the Jews, which was how the Israelites knew their tribes.
>Secondly, h ow come they didn't erase the Old Testament, which records among other things, kingly genealogies?
Well, they killed the last King of Israel :^)
>You think people just forget what tribe they're from because the Romans burned a city down?
What tribe are you from, user?

>How many tribes lived in Israel?
12, once upon a time. 3, if you're talking about the end of the Babylonian exile, and the Levites aren't supposed to own land, which makes it two that have to have stuff divided between them.

>The genealogies of the Jews, which was how the Israelites knew their tribes.
Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? What 'genealogies of the Jews'? Who wrote them? Who stored them? Why would anyone bother in a society that's largely illiterate? Do you have any citation for such documents ever existing?

>Well, they killed the last King of Israel :^)
And didn't stop people from writing about him.

>What tribe are you from, user?
I'm not Jewish. I just read this stuff, which you apparently have not.

>12
K thanks, I guess that settles that then

>ctrl + f
>no James 2:14-26

>14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

>18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

>25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

>26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I even used the disgusting King "Thou" edition.

>K thanks, I guess that settles that then
Only if you're an idiot.
You've been asserting, that the passage is talking about a non-messianic restoration of Jersualem.

The only such restorations have happened when there were fewer than 12 known tribes. So it doesn't settle things unless you find those lost tribes and get them back to Israel. Guess what? That's something the Messiah does.

>I'm not Jewish
I don't believe you

I don't really care whether you believe me or not. What I do care about is coming up with an explanation as to how this passage in Ezekiel is not supposed to be messianic if it presupposes finding the lost tribes so that land can be divided between the 12 of them.

>I'm not Jewish
I don't believe you

If you say you're Christian, but never actually lift a finger to help those around you as Christ would have, can you really call yourself one?

Case in point, Matthew 25:41-46. It makes no differentiation between the faithful and non-believers, since they both refused to carry out Christ's will
>[41] Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
>[42] For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
>[43] a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
>[44] Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
>[45] He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
>[46] And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Also see for another relevant passage.

In Mt 25 he kinda does. And in James 2 James does as well. He outright says works "NOT FAITH ALONE" justify you.