How Are We Made Right With God?

[Mysteryman]

If you deny it's the righteousness of Christ that gains us access to God then you're walking in darkness.

Oh dear.....

Here is what I posted just a few posts back.

I deny that we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ. But that does not mean that I deny that Christ has indeed acted righteouslessly in a manner that basically procures ultimate salvation for all who do not turn their back on the Spirit and walk away.

How can you say that I "deny it's the righteousness of Christ that gains us access to God", given this statement of mine?

Now how can we have a discussion when you do things like this? Do I mispresent you?

No I do not. I may not agree with your theology, but I do not tell other posters untruths about what you believe.

Please do not misrepresent my position.

Hi Drew

In reading your statement , you say that you deny, that we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ. Yet, that is what the Word is telling us, that which you deny ! Then you go on to say, that you do not deny that Christ acted righteously, as long as we do not walk away.

Of course Jesus "acted" righteously, because he always did the will of the Father. What you are doing, is telling us, that his act of righteousness along with our willingness or unwillingness to walk in righeousness. Allows us eternal life or denies us eternal life. Am I correct so far ?

And here is where the problem lies . You are basing everything after the righteous acts of Jesus , upon yourself for eternal life, or the denial of eternal life. Which means, that you either will, by your walk, attain eternal life ,or your walk will be the cause of your eternal damnation.

What you fail to see, is that you are born into the sin of Adam, like we all are. And because of this sin of Adam, all of mankind dies, without any hope of eternal life. And because eternal life is a free gift, you fail to see it as a free gift, but something you have to work for, thus you claim you must produce good works in order to receive eternal life. This is salvation by works, no matter how you cut it, or explain it ! You are leaving the choice totally up to you and yourself, even though you are claiming the help of those good works by the Holy Spirit. All of your after thoughts negates the free gift of eternal life In Christ. Your after thoughts (extra biblical thoughts) negates the very reason God has chosen us from before the foundations of the earth, and that we would be holy and blameless, in love, in Christ - Ephesians 1:4

We are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, and we should act like it. Not to gain eternal life, but because we were chosen unto eternal life with Christ. This is why it is called - grace - Drew ! Ephesians 1:3 tells us in the "past tense" , that God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings. It does not say, if we do this or do that. He has blessed us with all spiritual blessings . So as to enable us to do the will of the Father.

Ephesians 1:7 - "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins (< which I argued with francis, but to no avail), according to the riches of his grace" < Not our works Drew ! But by his grace , which is unmerited divine favor. Unmerited, means we didn't earn it Drew !

We can expend it, which means we can loose the rewards of our inheritance, by when we do not walk in righteousness.

Fire shall try every man's work, good or evil. But the man shall not loose his eternal life, because he has already been saved as of by fire. A pure sacrifice , which was the perfect sacrifice for our sins, the lamb of God , who was not only the saviour of the body, but of the world.

Only those whom God has taken their names out of the book of life , will be sent to eternal damnation. However, in God's foreknowledge, God foreknew those whom he chose to be in Christ. That they would not have their names taken out of the Lamb's book of life. And God sent Christ as the shepherd of the two folds, and his Father promised him that he would loose not one of the sheep.

Yet you denounce the promise of God by proclaiming that you could loose the salvation promised by God in the manner in which God has promised eternal life unto the body of Christ. Which starts to explain to my understanding anyways, that maybe you are not one of the chosen. Because it appears, that you are trying to gain access. Instead of accepting the access to heaven that has been given us.

Bless

 

[Adullam]

In both the works based salvation scheme and the popular cheap grace scheme it is men deciding that they are justified. This is the reason that the truth is seen by self-justifiers as works based. It is not of course. The truth is that it is only God who justifies.

Error 1: I am justified because I'm so good and I do good works.

Error 2 : I am justified because I accepted Jesus to die instead of me.

Notice the "i's" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

So one who is biased cannot see the truth. A human being cannot interpret the scriptures truthfully. Rather, the word of God discerns our hearts. The selfish salvation scheme is made up by the selfish. The cheap grace scheme is made up by imposters. The sinful saint scheme is made up by the lawless. etc...

The first person you fool is yourself.

 

[Drew]

In reading your statement , you say that you deny, that we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ. Yet, that is what the Word is telling us, that which you deny !

Anyone can claim that the Bible teaches anything.

The real issue is: does the Biblical evidence support such claims.

So, please, pick any text you like that supports this idea that we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ, and we can discuss it.l

What you are doing, is telling us, that his act of righteousness along with our willingness or unwillingness to walk in righeousness. Allows us eternal life or denies us eternal life. Am I correct so far ?

Yes.

Let me word it this way:

"if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,.."

And yes, I am cheating - I am stealing these words from the mouth of Paul.

These words mean what they mean, MM.

And here is where the problem lies . You are basing everything after the righteous acts of Jesus , upon yourself for eternal life, or the denial of eternal life.

Absolutely not.

Paul is crystal clear about this, and I have been crystal clear in shamelessly copying Paul - after the work of Jesus, the Holy Spirit does the basic work that results in eternal life.

You should know that this is what I have been saying.

So, I ask you: are you intentionally misrepresenting my position on the matter? Or did you not read my posts? Or did you forget what I have written.

Because I have repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, clearly given credit to the Holy Spirit for the regeneration that leads to life.

 

[Drew]

What you fail to see, is that you are born into the sin of Adam, like we all are.

False. I have never denied this and I challenge you to, yes, actually support, this assertion that I "fail to see that I am born into the sin of Adam' like everyone else.

You are leaving the choice totally up to you and yourself, even though you are claiming the help of those good works by the Holy Spirit.

MM, Paul actually wrote the following words. Yes, they are in the book of Romans in chapter 8. Yes, these very words are actually in the Bible:

if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

It appears that you do not accept this statement. Am I right? Do you accept it or not?

 

[Mysteryman]

What you fail to see, is that you are born into the sin of Adam, like we all are.

False. I have never denied this and I challenge you to, yes, actually support, this assertion that I "fail to see that I am born into the sin of Adam' like everyone else.

You are leaving the choice totally up to you and yourself, even though you are claiming the help of those good works by the Holy Spirit.

MM, Paul actually wrote the following words. Yes, they are in the book of Romans in chapter 8. Yes, these very words are actually in the Bible:

if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

It appears that you do not accept this statement. Am I right? Do you accept it or not?

Drew

I do not believe that you read what I wrote to you, with the intent to just read what I intended. I believe that you do not read the context of my comments, just like you do not read the context of scripture !

In other words -- There is a tremendous lack of communication between the two of us.

 

[glorydaz]

In both the works based salvation scheme and the popular cheap grace scheme it is men deciding that they are justified. This is the reason that the truth is seen by self-justifiers as works based. It is not of course. The truth is that it is only God who justifies.

Error 1: I am justified because I'm so good and I do good works.

Error 2 : I am justified because I accepted Jesus to die instead of me.

Notice the "i's" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

So one who is biased cannot see the truth. A human being cannot interpret the scriptures truthfully. Rather, the word of God discerns our hearts. The selfish salvation scheme is made up by the selfish. The cheap grace scheme is made up by imposters. The sinful saint scheme is made up by the lawless. etc...

The first person you fool is yourself.

Cheap grace? I can only shake my head when I hear this kind of talk.
Where do you people come from? :crazy

It doesn't matter in the least what you think of God's Grace. There is nothing cheap about it, and without it you wouldn't even be typing words on this page. The Bible is clear...we are saved by grace through faith. If you don't like the "scheme" God uses to save mankind then you'd best pack up your satchel and look into another religion. You can't seem to find any good no matter where you look.

Man is justified...made right with God by the work of the cross.
When we believe, we are counted as righteous because we are IN CHRIST.
We are "counted" as righteous, and made right with God because Jesus took away our sin, and now we can come boldly before the throne of grace. I'm getting so tired of hearing the Gospel belittled and believers attacked......this kind of talk comes from the enemy.

Praise the Lord the saints can recognize the spirit of fear and doubt...this kind of negativity is not the sign of regenerate man. It's the old man trying to bring those with liberty back under the bondage of fear.

 

[glorydaz]

And here is where the problem lies . You are basing everything after the righteous acts of Jesus , upon yourself for eternal life, or the denial of eternal life. Which means, that you either will, by your walk, attain eternal life ,or your walk will be the cause of your eternal damnation.

What you fail to see, is that you are born into the sin of Adam, like we all are. And because of this sin of Adam, all of mankind dies, without any hope of eternal life. And because eternal life is a free gift, you fail to see it as a free gift, but something you have to work for, thus you claim you must produce good works in order to receive eternal life. This is salvation by works, no matter how you cut it, or explain it ! You are leaving the choice totally up to you and yourself, even though you are claiming the help of those good works by the Holy Spirit. All of your after thoughts negates the free gift of eternal life In Christ. Your after thoughts (extra biblical thoughts) negates the very reason God has chosen us from before the foundations of the earth, and that we would be holy and blameless, in love, in Christ - Ephesians 1:4

Exactly right, Mysteryman.
It is salvation by works even though he denies it.
You have summed it up perfectly. I couldn't agree more. :amen

 

[glorydaz]

If you deny it's the righteousness of Christ that gains us access to God then you're walking in darkness.

Oh dear.....

Here is what I posted just a few posts back.

I deny that we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ. But that does not mean that I deny that Christ has indeed acted righteouslessly in a manner that basically procures ultimate salvation for all who do not turn their back on the Spirit and walk away.

How can you say that I "deny it's the righteousness of Christ that gains us access to God", given this statement of mine?

Now how can we have a discussion when you do things like this? Do I mispresent you?

No I do not. I may not agree with your theology, but I do not tell other posters untruths about what you believe.

Please do not misrepresent my position.

LOL You call me a liar at every turn....so yes, you do misrepresent me.

When you deny Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us, then you deny the very basis of how we come before the throne of God. You can't have it both ways, Drew. Either you claim you go before the throne by your own righteousness, or it's by Christ's. We enter through the veil by the body and blood of the only Righteous ONE. That is not you...or any man. You can claim the Word doesn't say we have Christ's righteousness counted to us, but you have to deny Christ Our Righteousness to do so. He exchanged our sin for His righteous robe so that we can have boldness to enter through the veil. Any man that claims any other righteousness is walking in unbelief. Exalting himself rather than God.

"And be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." Philippians 3:9

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19

"For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:21

"But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption:" 1 Corinthians 1:30

 

[francisdesales]

When you deny Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us, then you deny the very basis of how we come before the throne of God. You can't have it both ways, Drew.

Ah, but you can, with your sola scriptura on the one hand, and your inability to provide ONE Scripture verse that says Christ's righteousness is imputed to us...

So which is it? Is it a tradition of men, this "Christ's righteousness is imputed to us", or are you now providing lip service to sola scriptura, as well???

Nowhere do we find that a person cannot go to the Throne of God without Christ's righteousness - OR ANYONE'S. The Bible clearly states that OUR deeds will be judged. In almost every book of the NT, that is what we find. Not that Christ's righteousness covers our deeds, but that OUR deeds (whether done by the Spirit's promptings, or our ignoring them) are judged for eternal life or condemnation.

Thus, the traditions of men are shown. Christ's righteousness imputed to others and the necessity that God demands perfection before standing before Him to be judged...

Next, you'll be telling us that God demands blood before forgiveness is given to any man...

:gah

 

[Adullam]

GD said... Man is justified...made right with God by the work of the cross.

What is meant by man? Mankind? "A man" you agree with? yourself? your friends? your choice? Who is this man you speak of?

Man cannot justify himself. God is well aware of the work on the cross. He did it. So having knowledge of this and agreeing with this does not justify any man. There is no saving "gnosis" (knowledge). God looks on the heart. The fact remains that no man can claim to be justified...ever. It is God who justifies.


When we believe, we are counted as righteous because we are IN CHRIST.

You are making a credo here, a dogmatic statement. IF we have real faith then God will justify us. We don't justify ourselves based on our own estimation of what kind of faith it takes to please God. Since when does someone else decide what pleases you? So it is with God. God is alive and has a say in the matter. How does one know he is in Christ. An active imagination, or resurrection power?
...He did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:26)

(notice no mention a a man estimating his own justification)


[b]We are "counted" as righteous, and made right with God[/b] because Jesus took away our sin, and now we can come boldly before the throne of grace. I'm getting so tired of hearing the Gospel belittled and believers attacked......this kind of talk comes from the enemy.

Sorry to burst your bubble. We must exhibit true faith and a clean heart to go before the throne in reality. Only God can determine when it is appropriate to elevate a man into His presence. Many imagine themselves sitting on God's lap....but there is a real attaining that is being mocked by the pretenders. People can believe whatever they want. But we must correct what goes against the word and the Spirit. Who counts us as righteous????? Do you have the book of life in your back pocket? Have you seen your name there?

God can do as He sees fit. He can add names and blot them out. You do not have this power no matter how much you have to say about it.

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

““Next, you'll be telling us that God demands blood before forgiveness is given to any man...â€â€

The Catholic Catechism says this,

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his
whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness
and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood.
But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the
apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of
reconciliation." (2Corinthians 5:18) The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with
"God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to
God." (2Corinthians 5:20)

1846 The Gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God's mercy
to sinners. The angel announced to Joseph: "You shall call his
name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."114 The same
is true of the Eucharist, the sacrament of redemption: "This is my
blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28)

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of
Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and
pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of
atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in
Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness
of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its
purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal
life:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart
from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to
it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for
all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified
by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his
blood, to be received by faith. This was to show Gods
righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had
passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time
that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has
faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

JamesG

 

[francisdesales]

.
Francisdesales

““Next, you'll be telling us that God demands blood before forgiveness is given to any man...â€â€

The Catholic Catechism says this,

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his
whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness
and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood.
But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the
apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of
reconciliation." (2Corinthians 5:18) The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with
"God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to
God." (2Corinthians 5:20)

James,

Thank you for giving me another opportunity to spread the truth and clarify what God is teaching us here...

Christ "acquired for us ...at the price of His blood" does not mean the Father DEMANDED blood.

God is a God of Love. The Father desired that a most fitting means of securing our redemption would take place for the sake of mankind. He didn't demand BLOOD, but desired that such an extravagant sacrifice would show forth His deep love and willingness to save mankind.

616 It is Love "to the end" that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value (not blood itself!) as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction...

Since Chirst is the High Priest of the New Covenant, He is able to intercede for our sake, being the Victim and the Priest. He is able to continuously intercede for our sake, based upon this extravagant display of love and faithfulness to the Father's will, His obedience overriding the disobedience of man and Adam in particular.


It is not the BLOOD per sec, that God is interested in so much as the sacrifice of Love, that the Church calls "fitting" of a God who IS Love Itself. Love must express itself in such an unselfish manner. This sacrifice has won our freedom, not because of blood, but becasue of Christ's obedience and faithfulness to the Father's will to show forth that love. God has clearly told us that He does NOT demand the blood of animals, and certainly not the blood of His Son for the sake of sheeding it... God demands that we rent our hearts, not our garments, or kill a wave of animals, or our children. It is this very idea that God demands mere blood that led to mere external works that could not save, while the inner man remained evil and wicked.

The Father was not a blood thirsty Father, but desires to show forth His Love for mankind through an offering of His only Son, for our sake. He didn't "need" to do any of that. And the blood doesn't have any "magical powers" to win redemption, it is the FATHER who forgives sin, not the blood...

 

[Adullam]

.
Francisdesales

““Next, you'll be telling us that God demands blood before forgiveness is given to any man...â€â€

The Catholic Catechism says this,

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his
whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness
and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood.
But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the
apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of
reconciliation." (2Corinthians 5:18) The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with
"God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to
God." (2Corinthians 5:20)

James,

Thank you for giving me another opportunity to spread the truth and clarify what God is teaching us here...

Christ "acquired for us ...at the price of His blood" does not mean the Father DEMANDED blood.

God is a God of Love. The Father desired that a most fitting means of securing our redemption would take place for the sake of mankind. He didn't demand BLOOD, but desired that such an extravagant sacrifice would show forth His deep love and willingness to save mankind.

616 It is Love "to the end" that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value (not blood itself!) as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction...

Since Chirst is the High Priest of the New Covenant, He is able to intercede for our sake, being the Victim and the Priest. He is able to continuously intercede for our sake, based upon this extravagant display of love and faithfulness to the Father's will, His obedience overriding the disobedience of man and Adam in particular.


It is not the BLOOD per sec, that God is interested in so much as the sacrifice of Love, that the Church calls "fitting" of a God who IS Love Itself. Love must express itself in such an unselfish manner. This sacrifice has won our freedom, not because of blood, but becasue of Christ's obedience and faithfulness to the Father's will to show forth that love. God has clearly told us that He does NOT demand the blood of animals, and certainly not the blood of His Son for the sake of sheeding it... God demands that we rent our hearts, not our garments, or kill a wave of animals, or our children. It is this very idea that God demands mere blood that led to mere external works that could not save, while the inner man remained evil and wicked.

The Father was not a blood thirsty Father, but desires to show forth His Love for mankind through an offering of His only Son, for our sake. He didn't "need" to do any of that. And the blood doesn't have any "magical powers" to win redemption, it is the FATHER who forgives sin, not the blood...

Amen! It amazes me that Christ's sacrifice can be so manipulated by men so as to call good evil, and evil, good.

 

[Drew]

If you deny it's the righteousness of Christ that gains us access to God then you're walking in darkness. You're doing exactly what the Jews did in going about to establish their own righteousness.

It is very difficult to interact with you because you are either not reading my posts, or bearing false witness, or have a serious intellectual deficit that makes you incapable of understanding clearly expressed statements.

I have, of course, never denied that Christ's righteousness gains us access to God. Why are you saying otherwise? Do you think its acceptable to make false statements here gd? I have, instead, denied that we are imputed with Christ's righteousness.

In any event, the mistake of the Jews was that they believed that righteousness was achieved through the ethnic specificity of the Law of Moses - that is Paul's actual argument, as can be clearly seen if one objectively looks at the relevant Romans material.

If you insist that they were trying to establish righteousness through their own "good works", you are simply not honouring the details of Paul's argument.

But that would not be news - you clearly ignore Paul in many places.

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

Fascinating! It continues to amaze me and to be the biggest hindrance to my faith how Christians can look at one thing and see so many different things, or at least so many variations of several different things. Glorydaz and I see the matter of being Justified by the faith of Jesus Christ quite differently, as I have seen by perusing his many posts that include the matter. And what we see is different from other Protestants who believe that we are Justified by our faith in Christ. Yet it is not just limited to Protestants or the Bible. It is also in relation to Catholics and the Catholic Catechism, as in this case. In another section, it is in relation to the movie Avatar by James Cameron, wherein I see something totally different from other Christians who have posted there. I see no relationship between Avatar and antichrist or anti-US militarism or the New Age Movement or Hinduism that other Christians seem to see in that movie. If the only way that we can understand reality is by our interpretations of it, perhaps you can see why this is the biggest hindrance to my faith. There are a lot of interpretations that exist, as many interpretations as there are Christians when they are honest about their disagreements with what their chosen denomination believes. It is much more of a hindrance to me than how non-Christians, particularly Atheists, view the religion. After all, what would they know about the matter? They don’t have the vested interest in the religion that we have.

My concern over the matter of interpretation was why I started that thread dealing with whether or not the Bible can be understood apart from the practice of interpretation. The fact that the thread became a discussion on different interpretations regarding salvation pretty much answered the question.

I listened to a lecture on Utube by one Kenneth Miller, a biologist who gave the best presentation against the creation of the universe by God and for the philosophy of the Evolutionists that I have ever heard. When I found out that he is a Catholic, I almost passed out laughing. I really was astounded that he is not an Atheist. Apparently Miller believed that he was only giving a lecture against one version of Creation. Then I found out about George Coyne who was the head of the Vatican Observatory for over thirty years and believes much the same as Kenneth Miller. He explained that in his case his science belief and his religious belief were kept apart as if in different compartments. And certain parts of each belief enhanced the other belief without ever changing either. How that is even possible, I can’t fathom. But I wish I could do that. Things would be so much easier. It wouldn’t matter what I believed because the different compartments would never really affect any of the other compartments. Like murder and business. Nothing personal because business is business. Or murder and war. We merely interpretively define each in such a way that both can exist simultaneously without either affecting the other.

I look at those Catechism references that I presented and see a definite relationship between forgiveness and the blood of Christ. Your explanation of the centrality of the love of God did not change what I see one iota, even though I agree that the love of God is part of the equation. And I have no choice but to stand by what I see in both the Bible and the Catholic Catechism on the matter. Your interpretation that you believe is different from mine merely shows why I can not be a Catholic where I would just have to believe in, and be confused by, the interpretations of others. For even among Catholics, not only do the interpretations differ, but which interpretations are followed or ignored differ.

I know because my wife is a Catholic. She is the one who tells me to ignore my differences of belief with what I believe the Church teaches and go ahead and attend the Mass and take communion. She does that very thing herself. And some Priests agree with her, and some Priests say that she is committing a mortal sin by doing so because the Catholics practice a closed communion wherein total acquiescence to Catholic belief must be followed. An impossibility when even the Catholics have different understandings as to their understanding of the Catholic Faith. If God can forgive their ignorance so can he forgive mine. And for many Catholics, their only agreement with the teachings of the Church is to participate fully in the Mass, or at least in the Eucharist, every Sunday and perhaps a few of the moral standards. Nevertheless, I agree with the acquiescence view and don’t attend the Mass or take communion there for that reason. No sense in attending a Christian meeting where I am not allowed to take communion, at least according to my own understanding. I used to argue with Protestants about what I perceived to be their misunderstanding of Catholic belief, until I discovered the different understandings of that belief by Catholics themselves.

Frustrating, as well as fascinating. But I decided long ago to just believe what I believe and to worry about my differences with others as little as possible. Glorydaz took that as an arrogant stance initially. But actually, I have a very live and let live kind of attitude to what others believe, whether Christian or non-Christian. Unless their fist comes too close to my nose. Kind of like my attitude toward my own impending death. I try not to think about it.

Being on Christian forums makes that a little harder to do because of the greater range of understandings of what should be the same understanding of the one true reality. Ideally, we should have the same understanding of reality and merely be sharing what we know of that reality for the purpose of mutual growth. But I realize that so long as we are intent on understanding that reality by means of the practice of interpretation, we will never be sure as to what that reality is until we experience it more perfectly for ourselves unhindered by our own interpretive understandings in the life to come.

That is, unless the understanding of the Evolutionists is correct. And if they are correct, then we really are wasting our time arguing over, I mean discussing, our different interpretations, aren’t we? And the more that I read about Evolutionism and the more that I understand it, the more I agree with the possibility that it is true. And that is unfortunate because that is a further hindrance to my religious belief. That is, unfortunate depending on ones point of view or interpretation of reality.

JamesG

 

[Drew]

You can put the verse up 10,000 times and it will never make it say what you claim.

This is the fatal flaw in your position - I have presented at least 2 texts that clearly and unambiguously assert ultimate salvation by works.

And this places you in the decidedly challenging position of having to explain why Paul would write something that he does not believe to be true.

Paul is talking about something far and above whether some believer might actually "fall away". Paul is talking about our position in Christ...the indwelling Spirit...and the laws man lives under. The natural man lives under the law of sin and death...the regenerate man lives under the law of the Spirit of Life. One is to bondage and fear and the other is our adoption as sons.

Again, the same old issue arises. You simply have no respect for the rules of english language. As you have been shown over and over, there is no legitimate way to read the text the way you do. And yet you feel free to do so in spite of this.

 

[hebrews1017]

Geez I did not read all the post here but the ones I did I find interesting. I would add that we are made right with God by God; it is all by Him and none of us.

 

[Drew]

Sin has no more dominion over the believer...because we are under the LAW of the SPIRIT OF LIFE. Paul is talking to the church, and yes, there are believers in the mix, but he is talking about the natural man versus the spiritual man. Did you hear that? ABOUT, not TO

A classic example of the hatchet job you apply to the scriptures to force-fit texts into the model to which you ascribe. No objective person, competent in english, could read the following text as entailing anything other than an admonition to the believer to reject reverting to the sinful nature and, instead, to follow the Spirit and thereby attain unto life:

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live

Of course, you cannot allow this reading. So what do you do? In complete and utter disregard for the clear sense of the text, you argue that since the believer is under the law of Spirit of Life, Paul cannot be suggesting the possibility that believers can revert to the old nature. Well there are two huge problems with this. First, the fact that we are indeed "new creatures" does not mean that it is impossible for us to revert to the old nature. Second, you have to explain why Paul says what he says here - instructing people that life - yes life gd!! - is attained by following the way of the Spirit and rejecting any temptation to revert to the place from which we have been delivered.

It is fascinating to see how tenacious adherence to a clearly unsustainable doctrine - unsustainable in light of this text if not others - results in willingness to simply re-work the obvious meaning of texts.

This thread, and others, provide fascinating insight into the human capacity for rationalization and denial.

 

[Adullam]

You can put the verse up 10,000 times and it will never make it say what you claim.

This is the fatal flaw in your position - I have presented at least 2 texts that clearly and unambiguously assert ultimate salvation by works.

And this places you in the decidedly challenging position of having to explain why Paul would write something that he does not believe to be true.

Paul is talking about something far and above whether some believer might actually "fall away". Paul is talking about our position in Christ...the indwelling Spirit...and the laws man lives under. The natural man lives under the law of sin and death...the regenerate man lives under the law of the Spirit of Life. One is to bondage and fear and the other is our adoption as sons.

Again, the same old issue arises. You simply have no respect for the rules of english language. As you have been shown over and over, there is no legitimate way to read the text the way you do. And yet you feel free to do so in spite of this.

It's seen no doubt as a sin for some to think things through! :help

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales

Fascinating! It continues to amaze me and to be the biggest hindrance to my faith how Christians can look at one thing and see so many different things, or at least so many variations of several different things. Glorydaz and I see the matter of being Justified by the faith of Jesus Christ quite differently, as I have seen by perusing his many posts that include the matter. And what we see is different from other Protestants who believe that we are Justified by our faith in Christ. Yet it is not just limited to Protestants or the Bible. It is also in relation to Catholics and the Catholic Catechism, as in this case.

James,

I agree, I find it interesting that there are so many versions of reading the entire Bible to come up with theology, soteriology, in this case... I would be happy to explain our view on justification, etc. I have found that many Protestants DO agree with Catholics on this particular subject, which is heartening that we share this in common.

In another section, it is in relation to the movie Avatar by James Cameron, wherein I see something totally different from other Christians who have posted there. I see no relationship between Avatar and antichrist or anti-US militarism or the New Age Movement or Hinduism that other Christians seem to see in that movie. If the only way that we can understand reality is by our interpretations of it, perhaps you can see why this is the biggest hindrance to my faith. There are a lot of interpretations that exist, as many interpretations as there are Christians when they are honest about their disagreements with what their chosen denomination believes. It is much more of a hindrance to me than how non-Christians, particularly Atheists, view the religion. After all, what would they know about the matter? They don’t have the vested interest in the religion that we have.

I think there is a lot to be said for authority on such situations. I think that even IF a person was wrong in a particular, that God would grant the benefit of the doubt to someone who was of pure heart and intentions and thought they were obeying God without breadking other basic commandments, like killing in the name of God...

My concern over the matter of interpretation was why I started that thread dealing with whether or not the Bible can be understood apart from the practice of interpretation.

It is impossible, since the Bible is vague on a number of issues. We also see the emotional attachment to non-Biblical notions, even when shown over and over, such as alien righteousness imputed to the believer... The Bible is NOT MEANT to be a systemtic theology book, but rather, a witness to God's interaction with humans. Some aspects of that remain a mystery.

I look at those Catechism references that I presented and see a definite relationship between forgiveness and the blood of Christ. Your explanation of the centrality of the love of God did not change what I see one iota, even though I agree that the love of God is part of the equation. And I have no choice but to stand by what I see in both the Bible and the Catholic Catechism on the matter. Your interpretation that you believe is different from mine merely shows why I can not be a Catholic where I would just have to believe in, and be confused by, the interpretations of others. For even among Catholics, not only do the interpretations differ, but which interpretations are followed or ignored differ.

The examples you give on the biologists regarding Creation are a subject matter open to some leeway in belief. In other words, we are not bound to the literal 6 day creaton story, we can interpret it as a particular literary genre where truth is expressed behind the story. I have noted that some biologists trip over themselves to distance their faith fromtheir science, because they feel that their work is not taken seriously if there is any indication of reliance on an immeasurable factore, such as God. This is a false worry based upon a false idea of compartmentalizing science from other schools of thought.

As to blood, God didn't require blood, the Bible is clear on this. The Church sees it as FITTING, noting that God is a God of Love and would act fittingly in such an extravagant manner. That the blood forgives sins is not out of necessity of requirement, but that the Father considers the extravagant offering of His Son, lovingly given for our sake. The offering was His Life - it was not required, and those who know what love is will understand that. Recall, Christ is our Mediator, and He certainly could have done so JUST by becoming one of us, the Incarnation. Death was certainly not necessary...


Displays of love are not considered requirements... Unfortunately, many have been indoctrinated into the idea that Christ's death was necessary, ignoring the implications of what that meant regarding a loving Father who "demanded" His Son's blood, as if the FAther could not find another way to forgive sins, bound to some force outside of Himself. A Thinking man would find this ridicuoous, but an emotional man stuck on this notion will find it strange when I or someone else offers this alternative interpretation that better takes into account ALL of Sccriptures....

I know because my wife is a Catholic. She is the one who tells me to ignore my differences of belief with what I believe the Church teaches and go ahead and attend the Mass and take communion. She does that very thing herself.

She is wrong to tell you to take communion. That very Catechism strictly forbids such action, since the Eucharist is a sign of our unity, and we are not united in that manner yet. Your wife would be better off to show you HOW the Eucharist is so important in her life so that YOU hunger for it... Not to pass it out like a free grace chip.

And some Priests agree with her, and some Priests say that she is committing a mortal sin by doing so because the Catholics practice a closed communion wherein total acquiescence to Catholic belief must be followed.

I don't know about mortal sin, but those priests who agree with her on in danger of sin, as well, giving faulty advice that they KNOW is incorrect, just to win the good favors of men. Recall what Paul said about trying to please men, rather than God??? That is what such poor priests are doing, worrying more about being politically correct than about teaching the truth. Those who lead the sheep to such perdition are in serious danger of worse punishment.

An impossibility when even the Catholics have different understandings as to their understanding of the Catholic Faith.

Here is your confusion. You think that Catholics NORMALLY are supposed to have the same mindset as Protestants, the freedom of private interpretation. Some Americans have been bedazzled by the political arena, and transfer their ideas of "freedom of thought" to the Gospel, when in actuality, there is only one Gospel, taught by the Church. Those who teach their own opinions that differ from dogmatic proclamations or the constant teachings of the Church are in grave error. NOT the Church. Where the Church has defined the faith, there is one understanding, andwhen people teach their opinions, the problem is that person, not the Church.

Nevertheless, I agree with the acquiescence view and don’t attend the Mass or take communion there for that reason. No sense in attending a Christian meeting where I am not allowed to take communion, at least according to my own understanding. I used to argue with Protestants about what I perceived to be their misunderstanding of Catholic belief, until I discovered the different understandings of that belief by Catholics themselves.

Again, the problem is with Catholcs who are acting like Protestants regarding private interpretation on doctrinal issues that the Spirit has already revealed to us..

Frustrating, as well as fascinating. But I decided long ago to just believe what I believe and to worry about my differences with others as little as possible. Glorydaz took that as an arrogant stance initially. But actually, I have a very live and let live kind of attitude to what others believe, whether Christian or non-Christian. Unless their fist comes too close to my nose. Kind of like my attitude toward my own impending death. I try not to think about it.

Being on Christian forums makes that a little harder to do because of the greater range of understandings of what should be the same understanding of the one true reality. Ideally, we should have the same understanding of reality and merely be sharing what we know of that reality for the purpose of mutual growth. But I realize that so long as we are intent on understanding that reality by means of the practice of interpretation, we will never be sure as to what that reality is until we experience it more perfectly for ourselves unhindered by our own interpretive understandings in the life to come.

That is, unless the understanding of the Evolutionists is correct. And if they are correct, then we really are wasting our time arguing over, I mean discussing, our different interpretations, aren’t we? And the more that I read about Evolutionism and the more that I understand it, the more I agree with the possibility that it is true. And that is unfortunate because that is a further hindrance to my religious belief. That is, unfortunate depending on ones point of view or interpretation of reality.

JamesG

[/quote]

There are a variety of reasons to discuss theology, and part of it is to learn more about God by interacting with other Christians. We have been tasked to go outinto the world and spread the Gospel, and I don't recall a "live and let live" attitude among the disciples when they discovered errant teaching.

Regards