How Are We Made Right With God?

[Mysteryman]

Quote francis: "Scriptures never tell us HOW the blood itself redeems us... Because it doesn't. GOD'S DECISION TO DO SO is all that is necessary."


Francis

This is a blatherskite untruth !!

Genesis 9:5

I Peter 1:18 and 19

 

[Drew]

These very differing tanslations you brought to this arguement , have within them their own added words !! Are you blind ? ?

Please read this carefully:

1. I never implied or stated that translators do not make errors.

2. I never implied or stated that "words are never added".

The real issue is which is more likely to be correct:

A. Multiple different translations of Romans 2:6-7 which all agree on the basic notion that God will grant eternal life based on good works; OR

B. MM's thesis that the original greek could not possibly support such a basic message because, according to MM, the modern translations are inconsistent with the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[LaCrum]

Yet I ask you again.

If God does not need blood, why did he send his Son to die on the cross, and spill his blood on our behalf?

Matthew 26:28 ...this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

 

[Mysteryman]

These very differing tanslations you brought to this arguement , have within them their own added words !! Are you blind ? ?

Please read this carefully:

1. I never implied or stated that translators do not make errors.
You most certainly have implied as much ! How quickly the deaf forget.
2. I never implied or stated that "words are never added".
You barked me up a tree, making such a claim !!
The real issue is which is more likely to be correct:
B
A. Multiple different translations of Romans 2:6-7 which all agree on the basic notion that God will grant eternal life based on good works; OR

B. MM's thesis that the original greek could not possibly support such a basic message because, according to MM, the modern translations are inconsistent with the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[Drew]

These very differing tanslations you brought to this arguement , have within them their own added words !! Are you blind ? ?

Please read this carefully:

1. I never implied or stated that translators do not make errors.
You most certainly have implied as much ! How quickly the deaf forget.
2. I never implied or stated that "words are never added".
You barked me up a tree, making such a claim !!
The real issue is which is more likely to be correct:
B
A. Multiple different translations of Romans 2:6-7 which all agree on the basic notion that God will grant eternal life based on good works; OR

B. MM's thesis that the original greek could not possibly support such a basic message because, according to MM, the modern translations are inconsistent with the rest of the Scriptures.

Stop lying MM.

 

[LaCrum]

By the way, I trust you realize that, as per a request of yours in a previous post, I have identified a well-respected theologian who supports the position I am arguing for.

Oh absolutely, I read up on Andrew Wright and realized that’s who you were pulling your logic from. His argument about justification has also been taken to task by many other Biblical scholars, with an entire book written in response refuting his claims. I highly doubt his assertion, that for the past 2,000 years, we've gotten this whole "justification thing" wrong.

This argument is invalid as can be seen by its application in another context;

1. Assume that Paul denies justification by following the Boy Scout code and does not deny justification by doing "good works";

2. We know that Boy Scout code contains prescriptions about "good works";

3. Therefore to deny justification by doing the Boy Scout code also denies justification by "good works"

4. Therefore. to deny justification by following the Boy Scout code implies denial of justification by doing "good works"

Do I really need to explain what is wrong with this kind of argument? The problem is that to follow the Boy Scout code entails doing all the weird "non good works" stuff - wearing the funny hat, doing the funny salutes, doing the secret handshakes, etc. So if someone denies "justification by following the Boy Scout code", they are not necessarily denying justification by doing good works - they are denying justification to those who do all the stuff in the code.

But this isn’t the Boy Scout code we’re talking about. This is the Law handed to Moses by God which Jesus said is SUMMED UP with “love God and love your neighbourâ€. So these indeed are both the good works of the Torah and the same type of good works we are supposed to be doing now, are they not?

One can perfectly coherently deny justification by Torah without necessarily denying justification by the more general category of "good works", even though Torah does indeed prescribe "good works".

But the good works Jesus tells us to do and the summation of the good works of the Torah are one in the same.

 

[herald]

Jesus said, "Verily, verily I say unto thee (Nicodemus), Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God...Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN." John 3:3-7.

All it takes is to ask the Lord to enter into your own heart, and you will have eternal life.

 

[Mysteryman]

These very differing tanslations you brought to this arguement , have within them their own added words !! Are you blind ? ?

Please read this carefully:

1. I never implied or stated that translators do not make errors.
You most certainly have implied as much ! How quickly the deaf forget.
2. I never implied or stated that "words are never added".
You barked me up a tree, making such a claim !!
The real issue is which is more likely to be correct:
B
A. Multiple different translations of Romans 2:6-7 which all agree on the basic notion that God will grant eternal life based on good works; OR

B. MM's thesis that the original greek could not possibly support such a basic message because, according to MM, the modern translations are inconsistent with the rest of the Scriptures.

Stop lying MM.[/quote]

Drew

I didn't lie ! But can you accept the truth ?

You do realize, that your quest here is foolish ?

 

[francisdesales]

Quote francis: "Scriptures never tell us HOW the blood itself redeems us... Because it doesn't. GOD'S DECISION TO DO SO is all that is necessary."


Francis

This is a blatherskite untruth !!

Genesis 9:5

I Peter 1:18 and 19

No, it isn't. Before you cite Scripture, read the context around them.

Genesis 9 is the introduction of "an eye for an eye" law. Not God's desire to have blood, but to have justice. Those who kill can expect the same in return. Read the next verse...

This is not a demand for blood to receive forgiveness of sins...

1 Peter 1 does not tell us that God demanded Jesus blood, but that the value of Christ's sacrifice is all encompassing in the realm of redeeming the entire human race.

I am utterly amazed on this idea that someone who claims to read the Bible thinks that God is some sort of vampire...

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote francis: "Scriptures never tell us HOW the blood itself redeems us... Because it doesn't. GOD'S DECISION TO DO SO is all that is necessary."


Francis

This is a blatherskite untruth !!

Genesis 9:5

I Peter 1:18 and 19

No, it isn't. Before you cite Scripture, read the context around them.

Genesis 9 is the introduction of "an eye for an eye" law. Not God's desire to have blood, but to have justice. Those who kill can expect the same in return. Read the next verse...

This is not a demand for blood to receive forgiveness of sins...

1 Peter 1 does not tell us that God demanded Jesus blood, but that the value of Christ's sacrifice is all encompassing in the realm of redeeming the entire human race.

I am utterly amazed on this idea that someone who claims to read the Bible thinks that God is some sort of vampire...

francis

According to your reasoning then, God was a vampire for having Abraham take the ram in the thicket and sacrifice it instead of Isaac ?

I think you should read the whole Word of God again, but his time, without an influence from extra biblical accounts from others who only intend to contradict scripture.

If you would read Genesis 9:5 again, without your bias, you would see that God "requires" blood !

 

[Drew]

By the way, I trust you realize that, as per a request of yours in a previous post, I have identified a well-respected theologian who supports the position I am arguing for.

Oh absolutely, I read up on Andrew Wright and realized that’s who you were pulling your logic from. His argument about justification has also been taken to task by many other Biblical scholars, with an entire book written in response refuting his claims. I highly doubt his assertion, that for the past 2,000 years, we've gotten this whole "justification thing" wrong.

FIrst, the name is NT Wright, not Andrew Wright.

Second the fact that many disagree with him does not mean that he is mistaken. It is the content of the arguments that count, not how many people agree or disagree with you. Besides, based on your posts, you come from a reformational position – I trust you realize that the reformation took place only a few hundred years ago. So, it appears that you yourself implicitly accept ideas that have only arisen in the relatively recent past.

But this isn’t the Boy Scout code we’re talking about. This is the Law handed to Moses by God which Jesus said is SUMMED UP with “love God and love your neighbourâ€. So these indeed are both the good works of the Torah and the same type of good works we are supposed to be doing now, are they not?

No. The point for the present discussion is that for the Jew, the Law of Moses functioned to mark them out from their pagan neighbours.

Yes, the Law of Moses contains prescriptions about good works. But it is clear from numerous Pauline texts that when Paul says that the works of the Law do not justify, he is not saying "the good works prescribed in the Law of Moses do not justify", he is instead saying that being part of the set of people who do the works of the Law of Moses does not justify.

That is, being Jewish, does not justify. This text from Romans 3 shows that this is precisely what is on Paul's mind:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith

 

[francisdesales]

Yet I ask you again.

If God does not need blood, why did he send his Son to die on the cross, and spill his blood on our behalf?

I am sorry if I didn't answer you immediately, I have been busy writing, as I realize this is an idea that throws people for a loop who think God is a blood thirsty God...

Hasn't that ever made you wonder??? Doesn't the argument appear a bit lame - and it IS an argument, since the Bible doesn't state the reason why BLOOD redeems, in of itself.

However, with a bit of knowledge of what a sacrifice is, WHO Jesus is, and the overaching theme of what God wants from men, and vicarious sacrifices, it should become clearer...

1. Do not separate Christology from Soteriology. The Hypostatic Union makes ANY act by the Son of God AS A HUMAN has infinite value.
2. A sacrifice has two components, the value of the external and the inner disposition. If the value is of infinite value to the Recipient, the Recipient cannot help but be pleased.
3. As I have stated, the Law, the idea of particular animal/food sacrifices given to God, was in preparation of man's hearts. NOT that God desires the external, but that God desires the internal. God desires our hearts fully focused and in love with Him. ALL of the OT attests to this.
4. The idea of vicarious suffering/sacrifice comes into vogue shortly before the time of Jesus - specifically, the Maccabean wars. Isaiah prophesizes it first. Basically, the sacrifice of one can make up for the non-sacrifice of others. Actually, we can see this intercessionary effect with Abraham and his questioning of God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. Does everyone have to be innocent? No. God can put aside His righteous anger for the sake of fewer righteous people. This is on a global scale, not individually.

Armed with some of these ideas, and KNOWING that God does not require the blood itself, we can reason (with Paul) that Christ is the MEDIATOR between God and man - being both. He is our Advocate. He intercedes for us. I am sure you are familiar with the verses from 1 John, Hebrews, and Romans, as well as 1 Timothy. By becoming the Second Adam, Christ's vicarious offering (HE IS A SIN OFFERING, an expiation) of Himself is basically MAN ASKING GOD FOR FORGIVENESS on a global scale...

In other words, Christ, as the representative of mankind, is our intercessor. Thus, the sin of the world can be redeemed by vicarious offering of One's entire self, and the Father hears His Son and forgives mankind. This is on a global scale, just as original sin is on a global scale (see the effects of sin/redemption at Romans 5). As a result, Christ's Mediation is being offered for our sake. It is an expiation. In effect, Christ is saying...

"Father, forgive them on account of what I did at Calvary as one of them".

Sin has been defeated. Again, this is all on a global scale.

How is this applied to us individually? By what is already been OPEN to those who seek God from the beginning, since Christ's work is applied retroactively to all mankind before He became incarnate. It is FAITH that begins our journey, and this faith in God was always available to individuals who trusted in God and offered their own "blood" through the vicarious sacrifices of lambs. As Christ, these righteous are offering themselves to the Father through external offerings that are brought forward by internal movements of repentance. The desire to give to God begins with Cain and Abel, not Moses.

God does not desire the foods on the altar, but the humble hearts that bring it forth. This is culminated and subsumed in the offering of Jesus Christ Himself!

When we approach God with a humble heart, God hears us, an image of His Son. As to the blood that we are washed in, recall the words of Romans 6. By baptism, we are saved. How are we saved? By being immersed into the Paschal mystery of Jesus Christ, the death and resurrection. Thus, the Bible can say that the "Blood" of Christ "washed" us. "being washed" refers to baptism - and baptism unites us to that sacrifice.

It is the internal movements of love and humility that save us, not blood. But blood is the external result of those inner workings of the heart of Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn't cover us - QUITE THE OPPOSITE! We are EXPECTED to mimic His work - DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME....

Give yourself totally to the Father, Body and Blood...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

According to your reasoning then, God was a vampire for having Abraham take the ram in the thicket and sacrifice it instead of Isaac ?

I don't recall Abraham actually killing Isaac. Maybe in your secret bible, but not in mine...

 

[Mysteryman]

According to your reasoning then, God was a vampire for having Abraham take the ram in the thicket and sacrifice it instead of Isaac ?

I don't recall Abraham actually killing Isaac. Maybe in your secret bible, but not in mine...

This is rediculous. Did I say Abraham killed Isaac ? Didn't I say the ram ? Why change the subject ? But didn't God tell him to go up to the mountain and sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering ?

It is my belief, that you are trying you best to avoid being honest in your replies !

 

[francisdesales]

I don't recall Abraham actually killing Isaac. Maybe in your secret bible, but not in mine...

This is rediculous. Did I say Abraham killed Isaac ? Didn't I say the ram ? Why change the subject ? But didn't God tell him to go up to the mountain and sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering ?

It is my belief, that you are trying you best to avoid being honest in your replies !

Excuse me, I didn't catch the ram part... My fault.

 

[glorydaz]

Armed with some of these ideas, and KNOWING that God does not require the blood itself, we can reason (with Paul) that Christ is the MEDIATOR between God and man - being both. He is our Advocate. He intercedes for us. I am sure you are familiar with the verses from 1 John, Hebrews, and Romans, as well as 1 Timothy. By becoming the Second Adam, Christ's vicarious offering (HE IS A SIN OFFERING, an expiation) of Himself is basically MAN ASKING GOD FOR FORGIVENESS on a global scale...

In other words, Christ, as the representative of mankind, is our intercessor. Thus, the sin of the world can be redeemed by vicarious offering of One's entire self, and the Father hears His Son and forgives mankind. This is on a global scale, just as original sin is on a global scale (see the effects of sin/redemption at Romans 5). As a result, Christ's Mediation is being offered for our sake. It is an expiation. In effect, Christ is saying...


The desire to give to God begins with Cain and Abel, not Moses.

God does not desire the foods on the altar, but the humble hearts that bring it forth. This is culminated and subsumed in the offering of Jesus Christ Himself!

When we approach God with a humble heart, God hears us, an image of His Son. As to the blood that we are washed in, recall the words of Romans 6. By baptism, we are saved. How are we saved? By being immersed into the Paschal mystery of Jesus Christ, the death and resurrection. Thus, the Bible can say that the "Blood" of Christ "washed" us. "being washed" refers to baptism - and baptism unites us to that sacrifice.

It is the internal movements of love and humility that save us, not blood. But blood is the external result of those inner workings of the heart of Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn't cover us - QUITE THE OPPOSITE! We are EXPECTED to mimic His work - DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME....

Give yourself totally to the Father, Body and Blood...

Regards

That sounds like nothing more than an attempt to belittle the importance of the blood of Jesus Christ, and put salvation back on to man's scorecard. It has nothing to do with man's desire to "give to God." It has to do with the atonement of sin by the blood sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God. Sin isn't washed away by water. Sin is washed away by blood.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

It is only the blood that makes atonement and brings us into the presence of God. Nothing else will atone for our sin. When the death angel came to the doors of those Israelites back in Egypt, did he ask, "Have you done a good deed today?" "Have you lived a pretty good life and attended church regularly?" No. He looked for only one thing. Was the blood of the lamb upon the door, or not? If it was there the house was safe. If it was not upon the door the firstborn in that house died instantly. The Lord still looks for the same thing on the doors of our hearts today. He is still saying, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you" (Exo. 12:13). The blood is the life and without it there is only death and condemnation. But with the blood of Christ there is eternal salvation.

We enter into the holiest by the BLOOD of Jesus.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

"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).... and the washing in the Word "Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:25-26). The Word and Spirit of God are the agents in accomplishing regeneration ..the true washing of regeneration is not a ceremony or ritual, but an eternal reality, "shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:6). It has nothing to do with "works of righteousness", but only with "being justified by His grace".

 

[Dave...]

Amen! Nice post, g.

 

[Drew]

"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).... and the washing in the Word "Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:25-26). The Word and Spirit of God are the agents in accomplishing regeneration ..the true washing of regeneration is not a ceremony or ritual, but an eternal reality, "shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:6). It has nothing to do with "works of righteousness", but only with "being justified by His grace".

The ironic thing is that the Titus text works perfectly well with what Paul tells in places like Romans 2 and Romans 8 - ultimate salvation is based on works. Through the long meanderings we have taken, you and others both deny the clear meaning of texts as written, and / or suggest that "context" somehow causes them to mean something else. At the end of the day though - these texts says what they say - ultimate salvation is based on good works.

If, repeat if, Paul had prefaced these statements with any indication at all that he is about to say something that he actually does not believe to be true, then, yes, perhaps you might have an argument.

But, of course, he does nothing of the sort and, in the end, you simply reject these texts as is. Well, that is your right. And it is my right to continue to point out that neither you, nor anyone else, has given us any reason at all to not take Paul at his word.

However, let’s return to Titus 3:5. What does Paul actually write here:

he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

The clear meaning of this texts is that salvation is accomplished by rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. I am certain that you will simply deny the “and renewal by the Holy Spirit†part, since it cannot work with your “salvation is simply about a one-time confession of faithâ€.

As in many of our other interactions the issue is this:

You follow a mode of interpretation where you bring a conceptualization to the text, and modify the text to say something other than what it actually says, if the text does not fit your model.
I take the texts as written and develop a conceptualization that honours the texts, as they are written.

This is not an opinion, gd, this is a fact.

If you insist, we can go over any of a number of texts where you bend the English to say something that it cannot possibly say (if we assume that Paul means what he says).

 

[glorydaz]

"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).... and the washing in the Word "Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:25-26). The Word and Spirit of God are the agents in accomplishing regeneration ..the true washing of regeneration is not a ceremony or ritual, but an eternal reality, "shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:6). It has nothing to do with "works of righteousness", but only with "being justified by His grace".

The ironic thing is that the Titus text works perfectly well with what Paul tells in places like Romans 2 and Romans 8 - ultimate salvation is based on works. Through the long meanderings we have taken, you and others both deny the clear meaning of texts as written, and / or suggest that "context" somehow causes them to mean something else. At the end of the day though - these texts says what they say - ultimate salvation is based on good works.

If, repeat if, Paul had prefaced these statements with any indication at all that he is about to say something that he actually does not believe to be true, then, yes, perhaps you might have an argument.

But, of course, he does nothing of the sort and, in the end, you simply reject these texts as is. Well, that is your right. And it is my right to continue to point out that neither you, nor anyone else, has given us any reason at all to not take Paul at his word.

However, let’s return to Titus 3:5. What does Paul actually write here:

he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

The clear meaning of this texts is that salvation is accomplished by rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. I am certain that you will simply deny the “and renewal by the Holy Spirit†part, since it cannot work with your “salvation is simply about a one-time confession of faithâ€.

As in many of our other interactions the issue is this:

You follow a mode of interpretation where you bring a conceptualization to the text, and modify the text to say something other than what it actually says, if the text does not fit your model.
I take the texts as written and develop a conceptualization that honours the texts, as they are written.

This is not an opinion, gd, this is a fact.

If you insist, we can go over any of a number of texts where you bend the English to say something that it cannot possibly say (if we assume that Paul means what he says).

Salvation is based solely on Christ's work on the cross. Renewal by the Holy Spirit is speaking of regeneration....when we're born of the Spirit of God, and raised into newness of life. You really don't have a clue, do you?

To tell you the truth, Drew, I don't think you have much spiritual understanding, and you certainly don't have a handle on what I think...."my model", and my purported "one time confession of faith" is foolishness to you. You whine and carry on about others "lying" about what you say, and then you turn right around and scoff at the message of salvation by grace through faith. I'm not really surprised it's incomprehensible to you. You're simply blinded by your own "wisdom". You're making the Word of God a "could be" Gospel, and it's solid as a rock. All your attempts to twist it until salvation becomes a work of man is from the enemy and you're preaching a totally false doctrine. Every true believer can see clearly what you're doing...It's really a shame you can't see the truth for yourself.

 

[francisdesales]

That sounds like nothing more than an attempt to belittle the importance of the blood of Jesus Christ, and put salvation back on to man's scorecard.

Actually, it sounds like the Bible. Now, that it doesn't fit your thing about God ABSOLUTELY NEEDING BLOOD, sorry... But really, what does GOD, Existing before all creation, need with BLOOD???

Have you actually given this ANY thought???

It has nothing to do with man's desire to "give to God." It has to do with the atonement of sin by the blood sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God.

Please show me where that is required before sins are forgiven, and I might consider thinking about it...

I thought you were a sola scriptura guy, but the last week, it has been very little scriptures and all assertions and telling this and that without any evidence...

Sin isn't washed away by water. Sin is washed away by blood.

Baptism connects us to Christ, Romans 6. How else is the blood applied? We ask for Baptism.

"1 John 1:7" But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The Son asking the Father is what forgives sin!. Man has simply ASKED God for forgiveness. The blood is the extent of the "asking"...

God is not a blood thirsty God...Understand that Scriptrues says God doesn't need blood, it is the ACT that God desires, an expression of the heart.

To prove the point, Paul clearly says that the Mosaic Law does not save. Thus, blood IN OF ITSELF is not what saves. It is the inner disposition of the one who OFFERS the Blood that is what God desires. And when that Person is the Son of God, it has inestimitable value...

Do you understand what an expiation is???