How Are We Made Right With God?

[Drew]

[quote="Dave...":vynczwqv]Drew, God is not a respecter of persons.

This is simply not a correct way to argue this matter.

Actually, it's a very profound statement in light of your interpretation of the passage in question. Think about it, Drew.[/quote:vynczwqv]
No Dave.

You cannot, legitimately, import a statement from an entirely different argument, into the context of the passage we are talking about.

 

[Dave...]

There is no point going further with someone who ignores Scriptures in black and white and then holds to notions that are NOT in Scriptures, and then in his hypocritical mode, complains when someone else not bound to sola scriptura offers a doctrine for belief that doesn't fit YOUR notion of Scriptural citations...

Yes. MM has, in the past, made the same, frankly outrageous claim that gd sticks with - that all the Bible translators have made an error in how they render Romans 2:6-7.

When pressed for evidence of this claim which, if correct, would revolutionize Biblical scholarship, we get, of course, nothing.

Hey, it was my pleasure to so thoroughly dismantle these vain inventions like sola fide and alien righteousness and legal fiction... What is sad is that everyone reading but our interlocutors realized the poor defense of such a "pillar" of sand...

Regards

Francis and Drew, there is no scripural substance to your claims. And the many false accusations, and very dishonest tactics being used by you two, aside from your butchering of scipture, is getting old. And you do understand that boasting does not make your claims any less false, right? No matter how much each of you would like to smash Cathoicism into the text, it's just not there.

You want simple clear scripture?

"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."

We have even more clarity...

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Yet even in the face of such clarity (and that's just a few passages of many), Drew and Francis will tell everyone here that grace and works will save you. Imagine that!

Go back and read the thread and you'll see much more of the same. They will always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. The proof is in the thread itself.

I left this forum 4 years ago because Drew was allowed to contue to post here even though he only trolled. I see that nothing has changed. In my mind, the dishonesty of both Drew and Fancis has been proven to be deliberate for all to see.

 

[Mysteryman]

There is no point going further with someone who ignores Scriptures in black and white and then holds to notions that are NOT in Scriptures, and then in his hypocritical mode, complains when someone else not bound to sola scriptura offers a doctrine for belief that doesn't fit YOUR notion of Scriptural citations...

Yes. MM has, in the past, made the same, frankly outrageous claim that gd sticks with - that all the Bible translators have made an error in how they render Romans 2:6-7.

When pressed for evidence of this claim which, if correct, would revolutionize Biblical scholarship, we get, of course, nothing.

Hey, it was my pleasure to so thoroughly dismantle these vain inventions like sola fide and alien righteousness and legal fiction... What is sad is that everyone reading but our interlocutors realized the poor defense of such a "pillar" of sand...

Regards

Francis and Drew, there is no scripural substance to your claims. And the many false accusations, and very dishonest tactics being used by you two, aside from your butchering of scipture, is getting old. And no matter how much each of you would like to smash Cathoicism into the text, it's just not there.

You want simple clear scripture?

"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."

We have even more clarity...

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Yet even in the face of such clarity (and that's just a few passages of many), Drew and Francis will tell everyone here that grace and works will save you. Imagine that!

Go back and read the thread and you'll see much more of the same. They will always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. The proof is in the thread itself.

I left this forum 4 years ago because Drew was allowed to contue to post here even in the face of obvious blatant dishonesty. I see that nothing has changed. In my mind, the dishonesty of both Drew and Fancis has been proven to be deliberate.[/quote]




We know Dave, we know ! Honesty must be a rare commodity these day :yes

 

[Drew]

Francis and Drew, there is no scripural substance to your claims. And the many false accusations, and very dishonest tactics being used by you two, aside from your butchering of scipture, is getting old. And no matter how much each of you would like to smash Cathoicism into the text, it's just not there.

What an outrageous falsehood.

Name one example, Dave, just one, of my being "dishonest".

As for "butchering of scripture, it is not me who entirely ignores the logical flow of an argument and comes to a conclusion that is simply not supported by text. You (and gd for that matter) simply re-work the texts to support your position. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.

The nature of 1 Corinthians 3 material, if read and taken seriously in the details, does not allow for your reading. You have, of course, not engaged my detailed analysis of the text which shows this.

And you call me dishonest?

Please.

 

[Drew]

"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."

All right Dave, lets talk about this text in context:

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew (Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3"Lord, (G)THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." 4But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace

What are the works here? Are they good work in general, or are they the works of the Law of Moses? You believe that these are good works and, tellingly, you do not actually make a case.

Well, they are not - Paul is talking about how some Jews are within the kingdom family, but by grace, not by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

How do we know that these are the works of the Law of Moses?

Well, first of all, if we are to be “honestâ€, we must acknowledge that Paul sometimes uses the terms “works†to denote the practices of the Law of Moses. This is a fact, Dave. So when Paul uses the term “works†here in Romans 11, he could mean good works or he could mean the works of the Law of Moses.

And a “Law of Moses†makes much more sense in context. At the beginning of chapter 10, Paul speaks about Jews trying to attain a status of righteousness of their own, that is, for Jews and Jews only. This is Paul’s critique of the Jew – that they believed that only Jews, only those who do the “works†of the Law of Moses – are the only ones who will be justified.

You retroject the idea that he is critiquing “good works†in the Romans 11 context. Not likely. The “works†here are the same works that the Jew thinks will justify Jews only as per chapter 10 – the works of the Law of Moses.

So Paul is not contradicting what he clearly states in Romans 2 and Romans 8 – that ultimate salvation is based on good works – he is instead saying (here in Romans 11) that the Jews who are saved, are saved not be being Jews (doing the works of Torah) but rather by grace.

And “salvation by grace†is entirely consistent with ultimate salvation by good works, precisely because the gift of the Spirit, that generates the works (Romans 8) is an act of pure grace.

 

[Drew]

I left this forum 4 years ago because Drew was allowed to contue to post here even though he only trolled. I see that nothing has changed. In my mind, the dishonesty of both Drew and Fancis has been proven to be deliberate for all to see.

You have, of course, not a shred of actual evidence that I am a "troll". Quite the contrary, I provide clear, detailed arguments that appeal to the scriptures.

How, precisely does this make me a troll?

Dave, I challenge you to support your accusations with actual evidence. Surely, if I a dishonest troll with over 6000 posts under my belt, you should be able to find at least one which shows dishonesty, and / or "troll" behaviour.

So, please, enlighten us all - give us any evidence at all that I am either dishonest or a troll.

Oh and by the way, I also honour the rules of english composition when I read the Bible.

 

[Drew]

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Here is Ephesians 2:8-9 from the NASB:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that (Y)no one may boast.

In verse 9, Paul is denying the salvific power of doing the works of Torah, and not the more general category of “good worksâ€.

A point of method: It simply will not do to declare up front that Paul is talking about good works here – that begs the question. No, the fair-minded reader needs to ask which of the following views makes more sense given both the local context and the broader context of the whole letter:

1. The salvific power of doing good works is being denied;

2. The salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses (the Torah) is being denied.

Explanation 2 is the one that makes sense in light of what Paul goes on to say in verse 11 and following as well as what he says in Romans 3, where he makes it clear that, in respect to good works, the Jew and the Gentile are in the same boat.

Proceeding to an examination of Ephesians 2:11 and following, Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of his denial of salvation by “worksâ€

Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Paul is clearly now talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, and how the actions of Jesus have brought Jew and Gentile together. Doing the works of Torah, of course, is what demarcates Jew from Gentile in terms of covenant membership and shuts the Gentile out of citizenship in Israel. Paul continues:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

How much more clear could Paul be? What has divided the Jew from the Gentile and been the barrier? Good works? Obviously not, both Jew and Gentile are on “the same side†of any good works barrier (first 20 or so verses of Romans 3). It is doing the works of Torah, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific.

 

[Drew]

We know Dave, we know ! Honesty must be a rare commodity these day :yes

You mean like the kind of honesty where someone backs up their claim that the original scriptural manuscripts say something other than what scholars have interpreted them as saying?

 

[LaCrum]

Thus, it is my contention that blood is not a pre-requisite for God's declaration of justification or the forgiveness of sins.

Blasphemy.

Hebrews 9:11-28

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

 

[Mysteryman]

We know Dave, we know ! Honesty must be a rare commodity these day :yes

You mean like the kind of honesty where someone backs up their claim that the original scriptural manuscripts say something other than what scholars have interpreted them as saying?

Drew

Show me one person within these conversations that have even given a hint, that they think you are on the right train of understanding ?

It is an honest comment by me, to say that the originals are no longer available. And it is honest of me to say, that the texts from which our translations come from , can not be trusted as if they have no flaws in them. It is honest of me to say, that our translations are so different, because of the fact that the translators were influenced to change and alter and even add certain comments to the translations because of those influences.

You yourself are influenced by those who have told you these things you claim that you believe. I could say the same about myself, and even glorydaz or even Dave. However, influence is not always a bad thing. But we all know that an influence can not be trusted. It must be document to the facts !

This is where you are failing misserably Drew. You are claiming the infallibility of a translation. This kind of thinking, is ludicrous, and redundant of you. You do so, so as to try and make your point. Time and time again you fall flat on your face, without even realizing it. Because of the fact, that the whole Word of God is also the context of itself. You are pulling one or two pieces of scripture out of context, even if you do not realize you are doing this.

It is my contention, that you will say just about anything to try and win your argument. However, in doing so, you have to ignore the obvious other scripture that proves you to be in error.

Heck, even Francis has told me outrightly, that he literally eats the body of Christ and drinks his blood literally. But when we take him to task on this, he then explains that he is just eating bread and drinking wine. Then he turns right around and then claims he is still eating and drinking literally the body and blood of Christ.

These exchanges of conversations by you and francis and even Chester, are so humorous, it is now not funny anymore. It is down right madness ! Equal with the prophet Balaam talking to his donkey - where even the Word of God states clearly, that Balaam being of a mind set of - "madness" - II Peter 2:16. This word "madness" is defined as - "wrong mindedness"

Now I understand that blindness is a huge issue for many people on differing subjects. And you are not alone when it comes to this problem. But being totally irrational about a certain subject, and just misunderstanding a different subject is two totally different things.

When a discussion of a subject becomes totally irrational. Something is seriously wrong. Which is the case here.

Have a nice day -

 

[LaCrum]

It is doing the works of Torah, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific.

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that Paul is referring to the Torah (which he is, I agree) and that these works can’s save, but somehow “good works†outside of the Torah can save? I’m just not following your logic.

What does Jesus teach is the greatest commandment? Is it not loving God first and treating others as yourself?

Is not the Law and the Prophets summed up in this?

Matthew 22:36-40
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Matthew 7:12
12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

According to your argument, loving God and loving our neighbor are good works that do not save us.

But are not these the “good works†that you are arguing lead to “ultimate salvation� Loving God and loving your neighbor? But then wouldn’t this verse suggest these are the “good works†the Torah and the Prophets teach as well? So are not, in a sense, these works synonymous with one another?

How can loving God and loving your neighbor inside of the Law that God gave Moses not save us, but loving God and loving our neighbor outside of the Law save us? Do you not see how this makes no sense?

 

[francisdesales]

Thus, it is my contention that blood is not a pre-requisite for God's declaration of justification or the forgiveness of sins.

Blasphemy.

Hebrews 9:11-28

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Blasphemy? Perhaps you should think this through a bit more... I am putting forth Biblical doctrine and am countering your base idea that GOD HIMSELF NEEDS BLOOD BEFORE HE forgives sin! Numerous citations state otherwise... I listed over a dozen verses just from the Minor Prophets, and I refer to nearly a dozen Gospel citations. Please...

Hebrews is talking about the intercessionary VALUE of the Person offering the sacrifice. Note the "How much more..." comparison. If the external acts of the Jews that displayed their inner love of God - the sacrifice of bulls, sanctified - so much more does the external acts of Jesus Christ brings forth a pleasing "reaction" from the Father. The Father sees more intercessionary value in the Son's act, than all of Judaism combined.

The Father has no utilitarian use for blood. Please.... That is pagan talk.

What He is interested in is a person of a humble heart. The Bible states this over and over again. Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ is humble and meek, and the VALUE of His offering is infinite, being the SON of God!

HOW MUCH MORE than the value of bulls - which the Bible states God has no need of...

26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [/u]27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

I will go to greater lengths to explain myself, since this is probably a new thought for you...However, if you keep an open mind, it will make more sense than what you have been taught and is much clearer to the Gospel throughout the Scriptures, OT and NT.

This section of Hebrews does not address my statement - that God hears the cries of a humble heart throughout the Bible and forgives them of sin - BEFORE any gift of blood or meat is offered. Again, it is my contention from Scriptures that God doesn't AWAIT for BLOOD before He forgives...

You are confusing the actual element - blood - with what God desires as a result of the spent sacrifice - inner conversion and repentance. If the former happens as a result of the later, great. That was the PURPOSE of the Law - to teach (Gal 3)

I also point you to Paul, who clearly says "works of the LAW" (BLOOD SACRIFICES) do not save - Mosaic sacrifices...

Here are a couple of citations from Scriptures on what God desires and how important ACTUAL blood is to Him...

With what shall I come before the LORD, [And] bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, With calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, The fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what [is] good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6:6-8


"Now, therefore," says the LORD, "Turn to Me with all your heart, With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning." So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the LORD your God, For He [is] gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He relents from doing harm. Joel 2:12-13

"To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats. "When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies-- I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing [them]. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; [fn] Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow. Isaiah 1:11-17

Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God, The God of my salvation, [And] my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, And my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give [it]; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God [are] a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart-- These, O God, You will not despise. Psalm 51:14-17

There are numerous more that I cited before, but this is enough... What keeps you from seeing the truth of this is the "total depravity" scheme, which the Bible refutes. The God of our fathers EXPECTS us to turn to Him in sorrow and "don sackclothes in repentance"...

And what does JESUS CHRIST SAY???

Jesus ate with sinners at a feast in the calling of Levi, and tells his critics that he came for the sake of the sinner, not the righeous. There is no extravagent outward sacrifices here before God forgives, there was no compensation required before He joined them at table (Mat 9:13, Mark 2:17).

The parable of the lost sheep conveys the same message (Mat 18:12). The shepherd made no prior conditions before he set out in search of it.

When Peter asked if he should forgive his brother seven times (Mat 18:21), the answer was not about "paying back God first", but that merely UPON REQUEST, we are to forgive 70 times 7.

The paralytic lowered through the roof (Mark 2) was cured AND forgiven of sins without ANY prior sacrifice or offering to God. His dramatic approach made it clear of his intentions.

The sinful woman who anointed Jesus feet while he was at dinner (Luke 7:36) was forgiven simply on the strength of her love. No lambs were killed...

The prodigal son (Luke 15) emphasizes the idea most clearly of all, because the situation obviously called for payment back to the Father. He did not require anything but the son's repentance.

The good thief on the cross (Luke 23) made a simple request for acceptance and was promised forgiveness and paradise.

The narrative on the woman taken in adultery (John 8) is an example of unconditional forgiveness.

Peter's threefold profession of love (John 21) indicates yet again that God does not desire sacrifices BEFORE HE FORGIVES.

------------------

It is plainly clear to me that God established a sacrificial system as a teacher to train recalcitrant Jews on how to have the proper mindset in offering something valuable to God so as to move one's heart and mind to God Himself. The more rebellious, the more codes God gave them. Correct???

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.

It is the value of the offerer and what he gives that makes something important to the Father...

CHRIST GAVE HIS LIFE TO THE FATHER!!! That is true love, just what the Father deeply desires from us. Not the blood of bulls...

 

[Drew]

Show me one person within these conversations that have even given a hint, that they think you are on the right train of understanding ?

In such a small sample size, the "number of people who agree with me" is hardly a good indicator of the correctness of my position.

It is an honest comment by me, to say that the originals are no longer available. And it is honest of me to say, that the texts from which our translations come from , can not be trusted as if they have no flaws in them. It is honest of me to say, that our translations are so different, because of the fact that the translators were influenced to change and alter and even add certain comments to the translations because of those influences.

You are evading the issue - in the past you have claimed that you somehow "know" that all the renderings are incorrect, that they have missed a mysterious "in". Do you think that posters will not remember your claim.

So please - do not change the subject. We can all agree that there may be errors. But you have gone beyond this and claimed you have knowledge that has been missed by all the Bible translators.

Please address the issue: Do you claim that the modern translations are wrong. Not that it is possible that they are wrong, but that you have some reason to believe that they are, in fact, wrong.

 

[Drew]

This is where you are failing misserably Drew. You are claiming the infallibility of a translation. This kind of thinking, is ludicrous, and redundant of you.

I am doing no such thing. Oh, how I wished the moderators had the power to correct misrepresentations.

This is what is so difficult about discussing with you and gd - I adhere to a standard where I do not misrepresent. You and gd do not. So, in a sense, this puts me at a disadvantage.

I have never made this claim you ascribe to me. Don't try to bend the issue here. The basic implication of my posts about this issue has always been that in the absence of other data, the best approach is to go with what all the translators agree on. And in the case of Romans 2:6-7, all the translations have eternal life rendered according to good works.

It is you, MM, who claim that they have all missed this "in" that you have talked about in the past.

It is my contention, that you will say just about anything to try and win your argument. However, in doing so, you have to ignore the obvious other scripture that proves you to be in error.

Give me one text where I have erred and we can talk about it. But, please, no "adding in" words that are not there in the best greek manuscripts we have.

Heck, even Francis has told me outrightly, that he literally eats the body of Christ and drinks his blood literally. But when we take him to task on this, he then explains that he is just eating bread and drinking wine. Then he turns right around and then claims he is still eating and drinking literally the body and blood of Christ.

Howdoes what fds post bear on my arguments?

 

[Mysteryman]

Show me one person within these conversations that have even given a hint, that they think you are on the right train of understanding ?

In such a small sample size, the "number of people who agree with me" is hardly a good indicator of the correctness of my position.

It is an honest comment by me, to say that the originals are no longer available. And it is honest of me to say, that the texts from which our translations come from , can not be trusted as if they have no flaws in them. It is honest of me to say, that our translations are so different, because of the fact that the translators were influenced to change and alter and even add certain comments to the translations because of those influences.

You are evading the issue - in the past you have claimed that you somehow "know" that all the renderings are incorrect, that they have missed a mysterious "in". Do you think that posters will not remember your claim.

So please - do not change the subject. We can all agree that there may be errors. But you have gone beyond this and claimed you have knowledge that has been missed by all the Bible translators.

Please address the issue: Do you claim that the modern translations are wrong. Not that it is possible that they are wrong, but that you have some reason to believe that they are, in fact, wrong.

Hi

Your reply shows, us the readers, that you are still ignoring the full context of all scripture !

It is you that is evading the issue here !

If you agree that there might be errors in the translations, then why not acknowledge it. Instead, you claim that the translators have without flaw, translated the truth. Not to mention , that the texts themselves can not be trusted !

The word "in" should be put back in that verse, as it would render its meaning correctly. And that would be according to the context of all the scriptures ! Thus all the scriptures would then be in harmony with one another.

You have totally ignored what glorydaz has shared with you, and you have ignored what I have shared with you as well.

This is not just about one verse of scripture here ! This is about the full context of all scripture.

You claim that by your works one is saved. And you base this fallacy upon your own rendition / private interpretation,soley based upon the translations you have pulled and pasted for us to read. The funny thing is, we all have access to those translation on line. We all can see the differing ways in which the translators translated each individual translation. This alone should show you that the translators were not in agreement with one another. And it should show you, that they themselves were influenced in some way, in which they translated those verse the way in which they did. They moved whole words out of place, placing them where they fit into their style of translating. This is disshonesty by the translators who did this. It would take a blind man, not to recognize this !!

Yet, you ignore the obvious, and stick to your guns, that the translators are infallible in doing their translating of their paticular bible translation.

Don't you think its time you woke up and at least admit some of the obvious things that anyone can see ?

 

[francisdesales]

Francis and Drew, there is no scripural substance to your claims.

No, actually, there is no Scriptural evidence for YOUR claims.

1.I have asked for Scriptural evidence of Christ's righteousness covering me. Nothing
2.I have provided evidence that justification is an ongoing process. Nothing.
3.I have asked for a logical reason, Scriptures or otherwise, on what is the point of sanctification with a perfect covering on me? Nothing.
4. I have noted that James 2 is speaking about justification before God, providing the actual WORDS.
Nothing.
5. WE continue to ask for this evidence from SCRIPTURES, not your fabled fathers, luther and calvin, for the idea that faith ALONE saves.

The more I talk to this group, the more I find their ideas are based on a twisted verse or two - and must ignore a LOT of Scriptures to make it stick (or just pretend it says something else). Anyone following the conversation can see who is coy and using every trick to avoid issues, trying to ride both sides of the fence, and not taking thoughts to their logical conclusion. The forensic imputation theory belongs in the dustbin of theological "thought".

You want simple clear scripture?

It would be refreshing, rather than the constant ASSERTIONS...

"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."

This is an OT and NT theme, nothing new here. Jesus uses the term "hypocrites" applied to those who conduct external sacrifices WITHOUT inner conversion. Paul is going even further - since he understands (as God has revealed) that NOW, the Gospel is for all men, not just those who have been given the Mosaic Law... Gentiles cannot be saved IF the Mosaic law is the only means to come to God. Naturally, the OT clearly dismisses external sacrifices without a pure heart. I have cited Scriptures, despite your claims.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Already explained, Dave. Maybe you should go back to the beginning of this thread before you make your outlandish claims...

If we don't repeat everything again on every page is something you'll have to deal with. This HAS been addressed, I have done so and so has Drew. We are working independently of each other, so you'll have it with two slightly different takes. Go and read them.

Yet even in the face of such clarity (and that's just a few passages of many), Drew and Francis will tell everyone here that grace and works will save you. Imagine that!

That is because you only read a few lines here and there, not understanding the subtlety of the argument.

No one can obligate God to pay back for their own works. Thus, just DOING the external works without the internal repentance is worthless. However, the same external works are of value, IF they are done with a humble heart, moved by the Spirit of God upon regeneration.

I left this forum 4 years ago because Drew was allowed to contue to post here even though he only trolled. I see that nothing has changed. In my mind, the dishonesty of both Drew and Fancis has been proven to be deliberate for all to see.

Yea, I agree with the other poster, you are insane... :crazy

 

[Drew]

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that Paul is referring to the Torah (which he is, I agree) and that these works can’s save, but somehow “good works†outside of the Torah can save? I’m just not following your logic.

Hi LaCrum:

What does Jesus teach is the greatest commandment? Is it not loving God first and treating others as yourself?

Is not the Law and the Prophets summed up in this?[/quote]
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.

It is, of course, true that Torah contains prescriptions about doing "good works". But your implied argument here is not correct. You seem to be putting forward an argument of the following form:

1. Assume that Paul denies justification by doing Torah and does not deny justification by doing "good works" (this is Drew's position);

2. We know that Torah contains prescriptions about "good works";

3. Therefore to deny justification by Torah also denies justification by "good works";

4. Therefore the position set forth by Drew cannot be sustained because it is self-contradictory

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.

Or put another way, imagine that someone made this kind of argument in a context where to graduate from Harvard, you need to get a score of > 80 % on a national exam (which could indeed be case):

1. I deny that being a Harvard graduate is the criteria for being hired by Law firm X;

2. Being a Harvard graduate entails scoring more than 80 % on the national exam;

3. Therefore to deny that graduating Harvard is the basis for being hired by Law firm X also means you are also denying that scoring 80 % is the criteria for being hired by Law firm X.

This is simply invalid reasoning. And substitute "doing Torah" for being a Harvard grad, and "good works" for scoring > 80 %, and "justification / salvation" for being hired by law firm X and you can see the problem.

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".

 

[Drew]

If you agree that there might be errors in the translations, then why not acknowledge it. Instead, you claim that the translators have without flaw, translated the truth. Not to mention , that the texts themselves can not be trusted !

Please do not make untrue statements, MM.

Moderators, can something not be done about this? Assuming that MM can read, he is engaged in wilfull misrepresentation, pure and simple.

I never stated that that "the translators have without flaw, translated the truth". Please stop with the false statements.

The word "in" should be put back in that verse, as it would render its meaning correctly. And that would be according to the context of all the scriptures ! Thus all the scriptures would then be in harmony with one another.

Well at least you are willing to admit what you have said earlier - that you have a better translation than all the Bible scholars. You operate on a very shaky principle, namely this: if the translated text does not fit my (i.e. MMs) model of the overall scriptural picture, then I (MM) conclude that the original text says something other than what legions of Biblical experts have concluded it said.

Good luck with that.

You claim that by your works one is saved.

Not quite. I follow Paul and claim that the good works generated by the Holy Spirit are the basis for ultimate salvation.

And you base this fallacy upon your own rendition / private interpretation,soley based upon the translations you have pulled and pasted for us to read. The funny thing is, we all have access to those translation on line. We all can see the differing ways in which the translators translated each individual translation. This alone should show you that the translators were not in agreement with one another.

The point is that they are all in agreement with respect to the claim that God will give eternal life according to deeds.

Unless, of course, we arbitrarily insert additional words. No wonder things seem so simple to you - you feel free to rewrite the text.

 

[Drew]

Yet, you ignore the obvious, and stick to your guns, that the translators are infallible in doing their translating of their paticular bible translation.

Don't you think its time you woke up and at least admit some of the obvious things that anyone can see ?

I have never implied or stated that translators are infallible.

 

[Mysteryman]

If you agree that there might be errors in the translations, then why not acknowledge it. Instead, you claim that the translators have without flaw, translated the truth. Not to mention , that the texts themselves can not be trusted !

Please do not make untrue statements, MM.

Moderators, can something not be done about this? Assuming that MM can read, he is engaged in wilfull misrepresentation, pure and simple.

I never stated that that "the translators have without flaw, translated the truth". Please stop with the false statements.

The word "in" should be put back in that verse, as it would render its meaning correctly. And that would be according to the context of all the scriptures ! Thus all the scriptures would then be in harmony with one another.

Well at least you are willing to admit what you have said earlier - that you have a better translation than all the Bible scholars. You operate on a very shaky principle, namely this: if the translated text does not fit my (i.e. MMs) model of the overall scriptural picture, then I (MM) conclude that the original text says something other than what legions of Biblical experts have concluded it said.

Good luck with that.

You claim that by your works one is saved.

Not quite. I follow Paul and claim that the good works generated by the Holy Spirit are the basis for ultimate salvation.

And you base this fallacy upon your own rendition / private interpretation,soley based upon the translations you have pulled and pasted for us to read. The funny thing is, we all have access to those translation on line. We all can see the differing ways in which the translators translated each individual translation. This alone should show you that the translators were not in agreement with one another.

The point is that they are all in agreement with respect to the claim that God will give eternal life according to deeds.

Unless, of course, we arbitrarily insert additional words. No wonder things seem so simple to you - you feel free to rewrite the text.

Drew

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