Is belief "works"?

[reba]

Jesus never taught belief only saves for He taught repetance, confesson and
baptism are jsut as important and essential to salvation as believing. That is
why you cannot show me an exmpale of one living under Christ's NT who was saved
while still unrpentant, saved while still denying Christ, saved while still lost
in his unremitted sins.

Over and over this is posted.... It falls in the same category as can anyone show one verse where God says don't play IM.

 

[reba]

Thank you to all who have made this a more Christ like thread.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

No. I showed you that Paul said their obedience brought about their sanctification.

Being freed from sin guilt is justification (one meaning of it, anyway),

Being freed from sinful behavior is sanctification. That is how Paul is explaining their being set free from sin--being set freed from sinful behavior through their obedience, not freed from sin guilt through their obedience. That is impossible to do. If we could do that Christ died for nothing.

In Rom 10:17-18 Paul said the Romans had obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, then being made free from sins you became the servants of righteousness.

Their obedience brought about their being freed from sins and freed from sins = justification.

Then you believe that a man is justified by works of the law, for he uses four laws to demonstrate the behavior--the obedience--that justifies. The only way to reconcile it with what Paul teaches and not have a glaring contradiction in scripture is to see right there in the context that James is using the word 'justify' as to it's other Biblical meaning which is to SHOW one to be righteous. IOW, when we uphold the law, specifically 'love your neighbor as yourself' we are justified as being one who has faith in Christ. It's impossible to justify yourself as having faith in Christ (show yourself to have faith in Christ) if that 'faith' has not changed you into a new creation that upholds the righteous requirements of God 'do not murder', 'do not steal', 'do not covet', 'do not show favoritism', 'do not neglect the brother in need', etc, all summed up in the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Love is the signifying mark of the one who really is in covenant with God. Love, the fruit of the Spirit, the new creation, is how we know we have been justified by the blood of Christ and have right standing before God given to us apart from what we do. That's why we now do righteous things--we now have the righteousness of Christ.

Righteous work is how we know we have the righteousness of Christ given us apart from righteous work. This is foolishness to the undiscerning mind. This is the great stumbling block of the Jews and all the people who are sure salvation is based on the satisfactory performance of righteous work and not on the grace of God's forgiveness.

I have said man is justifed by obedience to God and that is true under both the OT and NT. James used two OT example of Abraham and Rahab. Just as obedience to God under the OT justified obedience to God under the NT law also justifies. Throughout the bible obedience to GOd justiifed, disobedience/sin/unrighteouness never justified. So one who is disobedient/unrighteous is in a lost state and REMAIN IN THAT DISOBEDIENT/UNRIGHTEOUS/LOST STATE until they do obey/do righteousness. Again, this is why you cannot show me one living under Christ's NT law who saved while he was still disobedient/unrighteous/unbelieving/unrepentant/denier of Christ/lost in his unremitted sins.


AGAIN, SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE OF ONE LIVING UNDER CHRIST'S NT WHO WAS CALLED RIGHTEOUS OR RECKONED RIGHTEOUS YET HAD NOT BELIEVED, WAS UNREPENTANT, CONTINUED TO DENY CHRIST AND WHO WAS STILL LOST IN HIS UNREMITTED SINS and you win this debate and I will admit I was wrong.

Again, Rom 6:16-18 Paul shows the Romans obedience to that form of doctrine justided them/freed them from sins.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Works righteousness vs faith in God alone is the only thing that separates true Christianity from the rest of all world religions.

Our election should humble us to the point of obedience unto death...because of this we should, in the least, never look "super-silly-ous" toward non-believers, let alone our own brethren and we can't even do that.

we can't even keep from fighting amongst ourselves and debating words.

We do not love God with all our heat, all our soul and all our mind...who can even grasp such a concept?

It amazes me that people have the gull to openly boast about their obedience to God....they certainly have no concept of human depravity and are in serious denial...almost to the point of damnation.

"He who loves a quarrel loves sin; he who builds a high gate invites destruction." - Proverbs 17:19

A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention. - Proverbs 15:18

There is misunderstanding on the part of those that side with faith only about works and that all works are not alike before God and that there is a difference between doing God's righteousness Acts 10:35 cf Acts 10:4-47 and one doing his OWN works of righteousness and trying to merit salvation. Paul shows a clear contrast in Rom 10:3 between works of merit that do not save and the work of submitting to God's righteousness that does save.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Over and over this is posted.... It falls in the same category as can anyone show one verse where God says don't play IM.

Still using bad, failed logic. God does not have to specify every little things he wants and does not want no more than you do. So when God told Noah to use gopher wood that automatically eliminated Noah from using any other type wood without God have to specifically eliminate by name all other types of wood. Likewise when God said to sing, that eliminates all types of other music.

If you think it doesn't, then that means you are arguing that when God told Noah to use gopher wood that really meant Noah had the freedom to use any type wood he chose to use and not the specific type of wood God said to use and what God telling Noah to use gopher wood Noah was just a waste of time or just a suggestion.

 

[Osgiliath]

Thank you to all who have made this a more Christ like thread.

I keep reading things about how people should be more "Christ like." My question is, what "Christ" are we talking about?

Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees "fools, hypocrites, blind guides, whited sepulchers, murderers, a generation of snakes," and many other such things. Jesus called them "hypocrites" seven times in one chapter. He spoke with scathing derision to the Scribes and Pharisees throughout His ministry; very few of them received a kind word from Him.

And yet countless Christians admonish others to be more "Christ like," as if Jesus never spoke like this or ever harshly rebuked religious people, or spoke an angry word in His life. Jesus surely did speak harshly, demeaningly, and with great anger in His voice to the Scribes and Pharisees—the religious Leaders of God's Church. Jesus was not mild and soft-spoken when it came to the sins and hypocrisy of these church leaders.

When the Pharisees asked Jesus, "Why do your disciples…?" Jesus did not softly answer their question in a sugary sweet voice; rather He retorted back with, "Why do YOU…?" Jesus was never on the defensive, but always on the offensive, and IN THEIR FACE!

Jesus was not referencing livestock when He said not to cast pearls or give what is holy to "the DOGS and PIGS!"

Jesus referred to the religious leaders as, "an EVIL and ADULTEROUS generation," "SERPENTS and SNAKES," and "children of the DEVIL." He even told the Scribes and Pharisees regarding King Herod: "Go ye, and tell that JACKAL…"

Cast your minds back to Matthew Chapter 23. Every one of these comments from Matthew 23 were spoken directly to the "Religious Scholars and Theologians" in the Church of God centered at the Temple in Jerusalem. Would Jesus speak in the same manner to the Religious Scholars and Theologians in God's Church today? Does Jesus "change"? NO. Has the Church changed in the past 2000 years? YOU BET! It has gotten WORSE!

Not ONCE did Jesus rebuke, scold, or even speak a threatening word to non-religious people (sinners). He told them to go in peace and sin no more. It was the religious folk whom Jesus harshly rebuked.

Many in this forum are not naive, ignorant unbelievers of the world. Many in this forum are religious scribes and Pharisees, maligning God's character by threatening the world of sinners with eternal torture in eternal fire....... a detestable idea that never even entered God's mind (see Jeremiah 32:35, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Corinthians 15:54, John 3:17, Colossians 1:20, etc.).

These are wolves trying to palm off the evil and vile doctrines of the Church to God's "little ones."

Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves…"

To these religious people, I agree, we should be "MORE CHRIST LIKE" - the REAL Jesus Christ - the Jesus Christ from Matthew 23 and the rest of Scripture that has Jesus dealing with such people.

In the context of your words, it would perhaps be more fitting to thank people for being more "ChristianForums.net like" which is a different story. But let's be Scripturally honest and stop looking at the words and teachings of Jesus with rose-colored glasses.

Just my two cents.

 

[Osgiliath]

And my previous post was not directed at you reba. Many Christians think Jesus is like sweet, jolly ol' Santa Claus that never raised His lovely, soft Shakespearean voice....... at least until unbelievers die - at which time He becomes a sadistic, savage, tyrant of torture!

 

[reba]

Still using bad, failed logic. God does not have to specify every little things he wants and does not want no more than you do. So when God told Noah to use gopher wood that automatically eliminated Noah from using any other type wood without God have to specifically eliminate by name all other types of wood. Likewise when God said to sing, that eliminates all types of other music.

If you think it doesn't, then that means you are arguing that when God told Noah to use gopher wood that really meant Noah had the freedom to use any type wood he chose to use and not the specific type of wood God said to use and what God telling Noah to use gopher wood Noah was just a waste of time or just a suggestion.

Exactly you make my point.. Asking for a specific verse to fit ones needs then not being able to supply one when asked is a double standard.
I will not continue as this will turn to a personal battle.

 

[reba]

And my previous post was not directed at you reba. Many Christians think Jesus is like sweet, jolly ol' Santa Claus that never raised His lovely, soft Shakespearean voice....... at least until unbelievers die - at which time He becomes a sadistic, savage, tyrant of torture!

I understood that We are not perfect. He was/is, we get goofy ideas about a lot of stuff. I will trust His grace and mercy ! and back to topic

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Exactly you make my point.. Asking for a specific verse to fit ones needs then not being able to supply one when asked is a double standard.
I will not continue as this will turn to a personal battle.

You are making the affirmative there is nothing wrong with using IM, so you have to prove your own affirmative and it's not up to me to unprove it. So can you prove God told NT the NT church to use IM, can you show from the bible an exmple of the first century church using IMs? This is what YOU must do to prove YOUR affirmative.

Just saying nowhere did God tell them not to use IMs does not prove your affirmative for I gave you an example of Noah and why your logic fails:

When God told Noah to use gopher wood did that mean Noah could use any wood he chose to use or that he was to us gopher wood and not any other type of wood?

 

[dadof10]

It directly relates to those who think their righteousness, what they do not matter what kind of work you want to call it, will justify them before God.

I think you are misunderstanding the position held by MOST of the people here who don't believe in sola-fide. There may be some who think that what saves is their works, but I don't know who that would be.

What justifies is the Grace of God alone. This Grace is made manifest in "works" of obedience. It is the "works and the will" to do the works that is all Grace. It is the very same principle as your concept of faith. We MUST accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, correct? If we fail to perform this ACTION, we are not justified, correct? It is the Grace of God that gives us the will to perform the act, correct? We still have to COOPERATE with this Grace, though, in order to be justified, correct?

Take any other salvific act and apply this same concept to it and you will have my position, and, as far as I can read him, Ernest's position also.

That's what Ignorance is saying. Ignorance says, "...I shall be justified before God from the curse through His gracious acceptance of my obedience to his law."

I'm not a big Bunyon fan, so this might not be the proper interpretation. Where he has Ignorance saying "I believe that Christ died for sinners and that I shall be justified before God from the curse through His gracious acceptance of my obedience to his law", I interpret the meaning as through the obedience of Christ's law, not God's. The next part seems to back this up "Or thus, Christ makes my duties that are religious acceptable to His Father by virtue of his merits; and so shall I be justified."

The point is, I have never seen anyone here who thinks this way, have you? That Christ takes our religious duties and somehow makes them acceptable to God?

I could be wrong on both counts, though, maybe some here do think this way.

Christian's refutation of Ignorance includes all a person's work, "This faith maketh not Christ a justifier of thy person, but of thy actions, and of thy person for thy actions' sake, which is false." When someone says, 'I put my faith in Jesus Christ,' the emphasis is on 'I.' A person doesn't justify himself by what he does. A person is justified by the deeds of Jesus Christ imputed to the person, the same way our sins are imputed to Jesus on the cross.

We can discuss imputed vs. infused righteousness some other time because whether the person actually becomes holy or is merely covered with holiness is a mute point to this thread. The point here is, if by the word "works" you think Paul means every action done, the act of accepting Christ, then would be a "work" to you because it's an action. Sure, you are cooperating with His grace, but so am I when I help the poor or refrain from sin. You seem to want to limit God's saving Grace to ONE action.

 

[savedbygrace57]

ernest

WHere does Paul say many are made righteous by faith only or by doing 
nothing?

I don't know, you tell me since you bought it up. However, I know you reject what Paul did write ! Rom 5:19

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

You teach against the witness of Pauls Gospel !

 

[CORE]

There is misunderstanding on the part of those that side with faith only

...and for some, I'm sure there is indeed.

The problem I see is when one takes that notion and seemingly blankets all those who claim faith alone as being without understanding after they've clearly support obedience as being necessary to the Christian life in one way or another. It divides and alienates true believers and puts us at each others throats.

There has to be a better way to deal with these issues, and I think the most practical way is to deal with these issues one-on-one in private as God puts certain people in our path.

I understand the benefit of believers discussing their faith openly in a public forum, but how do the benefits of this thread weigh against the negatives? I reckon that many people reading this stuff only see us fighting, especially non believers. They can't understand the truth we're trying to convey anyway so the negatives of our contention where there may not even be contention outweigh the benefits.

We have to be sensitive to the fact that non-believers are looking for any excuse to not believe, therefore we must be conscious of how we are being perceived by non believers. We can understand how they perceive things because most of us have been there, but they cannot understand our perception...therefore I think it's better for these contentions to remain private. If we are to speak openly, we need only to speak clear objective scripture and let the Spirit work in peoples lives without the influence of all our contentious commentary.

 

[ivdavid]

I've obviously joined this discussion quite late - kindly point me to the posts, if this has already been addressed and discussed.

If you credit God for one's obedience do you credit God for another's disobedience?

No, I don't. But you frame the question as if it is logically imperative to credit God(wholly) for man's disobedience if I were to credit God(wholly) for man's obedience.

If I drugged myself, and hence I got myself hurt badly and were gasping for life - and a good doctor finds me and administers to me and saves my life - I'd credit the doctor wholly for saving my life. But let's say I hurt myself badly and I gasp for life and I wasn't found by the good doctor and I die - what is the Cause of my death - my drugging myself Or my not being found by the doctor? Note, the doctor has promised he'd save anyone who comes to him - but in both my case scenarios, I haven't actually gone to him.

The above analogy is obviously limited and is intended to only show that between two players in a system, one could be credited for the negative effect while the other could be credited for the positive effect. Is there any contention on this specific point? Of course, the above analogy is not intended to be applied to God's omniscience - where the question may arise as to why God, who could find any hurt person anywhere, choose not to administer to all and save all.

This question requires an analogy on sovereignty. I think I've already stated this elsewhere - when a sovereign king chooses to show mercy upon one murderer and sets him free while he reserves just judgement against another murderer and condemns him to the gallows - what is the Cause of the second murderer's death - his own crimes or the king's not showing mercy upon him? Again, here we see that the first murderer has life because of the king and the second murderer has death because of his own actions. The king is not said to be partial here - for his decision is not based on any parameter concerned with the convicted - rather he is deemed sovereign for his decisions have no external basis.

The above analogy is only meant to show how it is just for God to sovereignly show mercy upon whom He will and to reserve just judgement against those who anyway deserve it. This also draws from the earlier analogy which squarely blames man for all his transgressions and the consequent condemnation he justly deserves. But what Caused either murderer to commit murder - God's creative choices Or sinful flesh? I'd state the latter - and what caused sin to enter into the world - Man or God?

Are we then to suffer for Adam's choice - no, that's what the federal headship of Adam is meant to explain. He is only a representative of what each of us would have done, if we had been in his place - and hence, we each suffer for potentially what is our very own choice. It's actually much larger than an individual's choice - it's more about the insufficiency of the flesh against the abundance of the Spirit.

God does not cause man against his will to either obey or disobey.

True. God changes man's will altogether so that what He causes thereafter in man, is Not against his will. That's what regeneration is all about - a new heart to love God instead of the hardened heart that rebelled against Him and a renewed spirit to understand His things and to mortify the deeds of the sinful fleshly mind that constantly disobeyed Him.

Again the imperative to believe or repent implies man has ability and responsibility

I'd agree in part. The imperative to repent and believe does imply responsibility - I don't see why that must also imply ability. As I've constantly mentioned - Wasn't man given the Lev 18:5 imperative for which he was responsible? But has any created man in the flesh been Able to keep that imperative? An imperative would imply ability if the sole purpose of that imperative were the keeping of that imperative - but if there were additional purposes to imperatives such as showing man his own inability to keep these imperatives, such obviously do not imply ability.

What use is it to man to be imposed responsibility but not be able to fulfill it? Man is not able but One who is able works it out in him - and man, who realizes his own inability, welcomes gladly God's working in him.

The question usually arises here - What then of all the Scriptures on man's obedience? Well, what of them - Good works of obedience are still being worked out of man - Caused by God, solely and sufficiently.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

ernest

WHere does Paul say many are made righteous by faith only or by doing 
nothing?

I don't know, you tell me since you bought it up. However, I know you reject what Paul did write ! Rom 5:19

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

You teach against the witness of Pauls Gospel !

I agree with Rom 5:19 but do not agree with how you twist it to create Universalism.

You've already lost your argument as seen by how you unable and refuse to answer a simple question about Rom 6:16. Does it bother your conscience any?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

...and for some, I'm sure there is indeed.

The problem I see is when one takes that notion and seemingly blankets all those who claim faith alone as being without understanding after they've clearly support obedience as being necessary to the Christian life in one way or another. It divides and alienates true believers and puts us at each others throats.

I agree that both side cannot be right, one side must be wrong and is believing in error therefore people's eternal destiny hangs in the balance over the differences.

There has to be a better way to deal with these issues, and I think the most practical way is to deal with these issues one-on-one in private as God puts certain people in our path.

I understand the benefit of believers discussing their faith openly in a public forum, but how do the benefits of this thread weigh against the negatives? I reckon that many people reading this stuff only see us fighting, especially non believers. They can't understand the truth we're trying to convey anyway so the negatives of our contention where there may not even be contention outweigh the benefits.

We have to be sensitive to the fact that non-believers are looking for any excuse to not believe, therefore we must be conscious of how we are being perceived by non believers. We can understand how they perceive things because most of us have been there, but they cannot understand our perception...therefore I think it's better for these contentions to remain private. If we are to speak openly, we need only to speak clear objective scripture and let the Spirit work in peoples lives without the influence of all our contentious commentary.

"Non-believers" are obviously not dumb, they know and have known over long periods of time that differences exist between one religious group to the next so it's no secret. It would naive for me to pretend differences do not exist therefore I am not one to try and hide and sweep differences under the carpet for I strongly disagree with these differences and want to show that Christianity is not made up of all these contradicting beliefs and doctrines. So I am more than willing to air these differences openly to show there is just one biblical way to be saved and that the bible does not contain contradictions as all these varying groups implies that it does. In other words, I am here to defend the bible and not all these others religious groups and their conflicting teachings and doctrines. They will have to defend themselves and their own teachings. I am a big believer in open discussions/debates and as far as I am concerned there are not enough public debates taking place today as there were in decades gone by.
And yes, those that back the manmade teaching of faith only are without understanding about biblical obedience, works and righteousness. For instance, I have posted many times Rom 10:3 where Paul makes a distinct contrast between works of merit that do not save and submitting-obeying God's righteousness that does save, yet faith only advocates refuse to acknowledge that difference.

 

[heymikey80]

Which is correct, A or B?

A) faith/belief, repentance, confession, baptism---------------------------------then saved

or

B) faith/beleif void of repentance confession baptism------------- saved-------then repents confesses and baptized AFTER already saved

If you chose B then you are saying salvation is gained by a faith/beleif void of repentance confession and baptism and that one repents confesses and baptized ONLY AFTER they have been saved. Meaning you have people saved while unrepentant, denying Christ and while still lost in their unremitted sins because you put repentance confession baptism AFTER they are already saved.

Neither A nor B.

repentance is not "penance". It isn't doing a list of things or even doing some vague, different thing. A repentance is a turn.
confession is not what's done in a little box with a priest.
baptism is not washing dirt off the body, but a good conscience's plea before God

All are faith; all are pistis. They're ontologically the same thing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think you are misunderstanding the position held by MOST of the people here who don't believe in sola-fide. There may be some who think that what saves is their works, but I don't know who that would be.

I'm pretty sure Ernest says our works are what literally justify us (MAKE us righteous before God).

What justifies is the Grace of God alone. This Grace is made manifest in "works" of obedience. It is the "works and the will" to do the works that is all Grace. It is the very same principle as your concept of faith. We MUST accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, correct? If we fail to perform this ACTION, we are not justified, correct? It is the Grace of God that gives us the will to perform the act, correct? We still have to COOPERATE with this Grace, though, in order to be justified, correct?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you define the works themselves as the grace of God that justifies. That's equivalent to those works making you righteous before God.

For grace to manifest in, and become equivalent to, works of righteousness makes ALL righteous work God presently commands required for justification. That's the damnable 'works' gospel that Paul fought against in the church.

The point here is, if by the word "works" you think Paul means every action done, the act of accepting Christ, then would be a "work" to you because it's an action.

Obviously Paul does not mean the 'work' of believing he is contrasting works with when he says justification is by the 'work' of faith "apart from works".

Sure, you are cooperating with His grace, but so am I when I help the poor or refrain from sin. You seem to want to limit God's saving Grace to ONE action.

Believing--trusting in God's forgiveness--is the only way a man can be made legally righteous. He can't earn it. He can't buy it. Unrighteousness can only be removed by it being removed through forgiveness and replacing it with a righteousness outside of himself. That is what the blood of Christ does. And Paul plainly says faith (not faithfulness) is how that grace is accessed (Romans 5:2). And James says that faith should be seen in what it does, or it may not be faith at all. But somehow that has to mean to some people that the action of faith itself is what does the justifying. I'm pretty sure Ernest is one of those. He continually quotes James 2:24 to defend that contention.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The problem I see is when one takes that notion and seemingly blankets all those who claim faith alone as being without understanding after they've clearly support obedience as being necessary to the Christian life in one way or another.

You're right, it is a problem.

People like to come into Christian forums like this and insist that 'faith alone' means you don't have to have any works of righteousness to be saved. They erroneously take James' conclusion to his 'faith alone' argument and apply it to Paul's very different 'righteousness (by faith) apart from works" argument as if they are the same argument, which they are not.

Paul says a man is justified by faith all by itself. James says a man doesn't have that faith if that faith can not be seen in what it does. Somehow some people conclude that must mean what faith does is the actual agent of justification. Perhaps the problem is not understanding the difference between being 'saved' and being 'justified' and thinking they mean the exact same thing. Even Paul makes the distinction:

"10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:10 NIV1984)

It's wrong to make what Paul says here--'with your mouth you confess'--to mean you are 'justified' by that confession. No, he says believing (faith) is how we are justified. The faith that justifies is the faith that saves, that faith that justifies being validated by what it does. 'Save' does not mean 'to justify', though only justified people can be saved on the Day of Wrath.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I've obviously joined this discussion quite late - kindly point me to the posts, if this has already been addressed and discussed.


No, I don't. But you frame the question as if it is logically imperative to credit God(wholly) for man's disobedience if I were to credit God(wholly) for man's obedience.

If I drugged myself, and hence I got myself hurt badly and were gasping for life - and a good doctor finds me and administers to me and saves my life - I'd credit the doctor wholly for saving my life. But let's say I hurt myself badly and I gasp for life and I wasn't found by the good doctor and I die - what is the Cause of my death - my drugging myself Or my not being found by the doctor? Note, the doctor has promised he'd save anyone who comes to him - but in both my case scenarios, I haven't actually gone to him.

The above analogy is obviously limited and is intended to only show that between two players in a system, one could be credited for the negative effect while the other could be credited for the positive effect. Is there any contention on this specific point? Of course, the above analogy is not intended to be applied to God's omniscience - where the question may arise as to why God, who could find any hurt person anywhere, choose not to administer to all and save all.

This question requires an analogy on sovereignty. I think I've already stated this elsewhere - when a sovereign king chooses to show mercy upon one murderer and sets him free while he reserves just judgement against another murderer and condemns him to the gallows - what is the Cause of the second murderer's death - his own crimes or the king's not showing mercy upon him? Again, here we see that the first murderer has life because of the king and the second murderer has death because of his own actions. The king is not said to be partial here - for his decision is not based on any parameter concerned with the convicted - rather he is deemed sovereign for his decisions have no external basis.

The above analogy is only meant to show how it is just for God to sovereignly show mercy upon whom He will and to reserve just judgement against those who anyway deserve it. This also draws from the earlier analogy which squarely blames man for all his transgressions and the consequent condemnation he justly deserves. But what Caused either murderer to commit murder - God's creative choices Or sinful flesh? I'd state the latter - and what caused sin to enter into the world - Man or God?

Are we then to suffer for Adam's choice - no, that's what the federal headship of Adam is meant to explain. He is only a representative of what each of us would have done, if we had been in his place - and hence, we each suffer for potentially what is our very own choice. It's actually much larger than an individual's choice - it's more about the insufficiency of the flesh against the abundance of the Spirit.


True. God changes man's will altogether so that what He causes thereafter in man, is Not against his will. That's what regeneration is all about - a new heart to love God instead of the hardened heart that rebelled against Him and a renewed spirit to understand His things and to mortify the deeds of the sinful fleshly mind that constantly disobeyed Him.


I'd agree in part. The imperative to repent and believe does imply responsibility - I don't see why that must also imply ability. As I've constantly mentioned - Wasn't man given the Lev 18:5 imperative for which he was responsible? But has any created man in the flesh been Able to keep that imperative? An imperative would imply ability if the sole purpose of that imperative were the keeping of that imperative - but if there were additional purposes to imperatives such as showing man his own inability to keep these imperatives, such obviously do not imply ability.

What use is it to man to be imposed responsibility but not be able to fulfill it? Man is not able but One who is able works it out in him - and man, who realizes his own inability, welcomes gladly God's working in him.

The question usually arises here - What then of all the Scriptures on man's obedience? Well, what of them - Good works of obedience are still being worked out of man - Caused by God, solely and sufficiently.

The last line of your post is "Caused by God, solely and sufficiently" and there is your problem.

When God is put 100% in control of man's eternal destiny and man has no control or choice in this matter, then God 100% determines who is saved and thereby automatically detemines 100% who is lost making God at fault and culpable for the lost. If my obedience is only a result of God causing me to obey (whether I want to obey or not) then God is the cause of other's disobedience (whether they want to disobey or not) for God has put them in a position where they can do nothing but disobey. God has commanded man to believe but then locks some men in unbelief/disobedience making it impossible for them to believe/obey.

And from Lev 18:5 God did command man to keep His laws...."Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord."

"If" is a conditional word meaning they had a choice to obey or not obey God, therefore they were not forced by God to either obey or disobey meaning their disobedience was their own fault and culpabilty and not God's.

Secondly, God knows that man will not keep His law perfectly and therefore will not be perfectly sinless else if man were perfectly sinless then there was no need for Christ to die for man's sins when man had none.

That's why God built into His laws avenues of atonement for sins when man does occasionally break God's law.

Under the OT they had various types of sacrifices to make for their sins, and those that kept the sacrifical part of the law had their sins forgiven and that is why Lk 1:6 says John's parents "were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." They were seen by God as blameless even though they did occasionally sin because they keep those sacrifices for sins the law required.

Under the NT God has provided repentance as an avenue of forgiveness, 1 Jn 1:7 - IF (conditional word, not forced by God to obey/walk) the Christian continues to walk in the light then Christ's blood continues to wash away all sins and that continued washing is why the Christian can be "holy and without blame" Eph 1:4 and "without spot and blameless" as Peter said. So even though the child of God does occasionally break Christ's NT law and sins, but if he keeps the part of the NT law as in 1 Jn 1:7 dealing with repentance, then even though he does sin he can still be spotless and blameless. But it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to ever be spotless or blameless without keeping God's law. One is either keeping God's law and doing God's righteousness and are blameless or they are lawbreakers that are doing unrighteousness and have blame...it's one or the other - no inbetween.