Is belief "works"?

[Davies]

While the vessels can be seen as individuals in Paul's example, that does mean he has changed his focus from Israel to individuals. The entire three chapter segment of Romans, from 9-11, deals with the prophetic aspects of God dealing with Israel. It is not separate from the rest of Romans, either, but a continuation of many of thoughts and ideas he raised earlier in the epistle. For Romans 9 to be lifted out of this context and offered as proof of what really amounts to "limited" unconditional election and limited atonement is ludicrous, and requires wholesale revision of our understanding of the biblical languages, for example, claiming "all" doesn't really mean "all." The only time that is the case is when it is used in the Pharisees' hyperbole -- exaggerated utterances -- or when there is a qualifier obviously attached that would limit what is meant by all. There is not instance in Koine Greek in which pas does not mean "all" except under those aforementioned circumstances.

TND,

I have to take a close look at Romans 9 though I understand Paul is referring to the Jews. That doesn't mean everything Paul is writing about is only about the Jews as he is talking about the will of God and the will of man. Remember, not the one who runs, but according to God who has mercy. When Jesus said we need to be born again to see the kingdom of God, I don't think He meant that we do good deeds in order to be born again. We never take credit for being born in the flesh, why would we take credit for being born of the Spirit? Being born of the Spirit is not a light switch we turn on and then, wa la, we are born again. Our faith and righteousness imputed is all a work of God, and there is nothing we can do to merit and are entirely dependent on God. If a person thinks they can repent and believe in Jesus of their own volition, they are delusional.

- Davies

 

[ivdavid]

there is no created man in the flesh who makes the right choice and hence all are under the curse.

(your quote)
You say its a sovereign decision, that immediately ELIMINATES human volition Plus you say we are CREATED to make the wrong choice. And that says that God sends people that he CREATED to make the wrong choice to hell because He wants too.

Why have I been selectively quoted? And I wish to clarify that it is "my" quote in only so far as it is written in my post - not that I actually originated this belief in any way. I myself have quoted this out of Scripture as seen in my full quote -
ivdavid - "While man is asked to choose and given the choices(Deut 30:19), there is no created man in the flesh who makes the right choice and hence all are under the curse(Gal 3:10) because of sin in the flesh(Rom 3:19-20)."

And again clarifying, I used the phrase '"created" man in the flesh' in order to include every single human being, past-present-and-future, but exclude Christ alone - to show that every single human being that walked the surface of the earth has been under the curse of the law except the One Human Being who is Jesus Christ. And for this, I used the adjective "created" since that differentiates properly - between Christ who is the only One on earth not created and the rest who were all created.

Therefore, I did not write that men were "created" - causatively by God - to choose death. They choose death on their own because of sin in the flesh - and this sin is not caused by God - therefore God does not cause any man's choosing of death - hence He is not unjust in any way. You misread a simple adjective usage of "created" to differentiate between Christ and the rest, to incorrectly imply that God causes His creation to choose death.

But then again, what does your position state? We both know that God had appointed/foreordained Christ's sacrifice and our election in Him before the foundation of the world - and for that, God should have known about man's choice to sin or not before the foundation of the world. Having such fore-knowledge, what is your understanding on why God still chose to create all those whom He foreknew would not believe in Him and hence perish?

He creates us condemned with no way out and then sends us to hell.

Again, I never said God created us condemned - we are condemned because of our own actions - owing to sin in the flesh - and God did not cause sin in any way. Where is God's unrighteousness here?

And I am saying that Rom 5:18 was given to us because if God did it this way He could Have Mercy on all! In making it this way God has His righteousness intact and could make EVERYONE a object of salvation.

Though I might have slight differences in your usage of Rom 5:18, they are irrelevant to the point you are making. As you say, Christ's sacrifice is the bridge between God's justice and His justification of sinners - and yes, God now is in a position to have mercy upon each and every one and simultaneously be Just. But where you're missing the point is - just the same, God need not have mercy on any single person and instead condemn all for their own transgressions and still remain Just - for who is entitled to God's mercy in the first place? If you can see this, then you wouldn't have an issue with none or all or some being shown mercy - since God's attribute of mercy does not affect His Just nature at all. I mean, don't you agree that God is Just when He states Rom 9:15,18?

Because nobody deserved mercy! Condemnation before salvation. John 6:40

Didn't quite follow this train of thought. I see you've repeated this argument often enough to make do with a few words - but since I can't see the connecting dots that are quite clear to you, you may have to elaborate for me to follow.

Also, your quoting of Pro 1 shows forth the accountability on human volition and the consequences of its wrong choices - which I myself have already quoted from Deut 30:19 and Gal 3:10. But where does it show human volition alone making the right choice? In fact, the right choice is enabled independent of human volition(Rom 9:16). Is that not what denies the flesh any glory and renders all glory to God alone?

If I teach that all can believe and come to Christ and it is all determined in the end, I am out nothing.

If I teach that it is all determined and nothing really matters what we do(because we were CREATED to make the wrong choice). And in the end it was belief and mans responsibility to believe. I would Hate to see the consequences for that.

Is this a form of Pascal's wager? I thought Christians didn't wager. I mean, that's why we're having this discussion, aren't we? To determine truth according to knowledge instead of wagering on possibilities.

And besides, why do you incorrectly paint my position as saying nothing we do matters - of course, man is commanded to obey and his disobedience Matters in that it results in his condemnation. Of course, man is to believe in Christ for his justification and his rejection of Him Matters in that it further justifies God's just wrath being poured out on him. Of course, there are consequences for what responsibilities we rebel and disobey against. And as stated before, God did not create anyone and cause them to choose death. These are not challenged by my position at all. What my position puts forth is that man's actions do not matter in his salvation(only God's mercy does - Rom 9:16), given that his own actions have mattered unto just condemnation.

 

[gr8grace]

Why have I been selectively quoted? And I wish to clarify that it is "my" quote in only so far as it is written in my post - not that I actually originated this belief in any way. I myself have quoted this out of Scripture as seen in my full quote -
ivdavid - "While man is asked to choose and given the choices(Deut 30:19), there is no created man in the flesh who makes the right choice and hence all are under the curse(Gal 3:10) because of sin in the flesh(Rom 3:19-20)."

And again clarifying, I used the phrase '"created" man in the flesh' in order to include every single human being, past-present-and-future, but exclude Christ alone - to show that every single human being that walked the surface of the earth has been under the curse of the law except the One Human Being who is Jesus Christ. And for this, I used the adjective "created" since that differentiates properly - between Christ who is the only One on earth not created and the rest who were all created.

Therefore, I did not write that men were "created" - causatively by God - to choose death. They choose death on their own because of sin in the flesh - and this sin is not caused by God - therefore God does not cause any man's choosing of death - hence He is not unjust in any way. You misread a simple adjective usage of "created" to differentiate between Christ and the rest, to incorrectly imply that God causes His creation to choose death.

But then again, what does your position state? We both know that God had appointed/foreordained Christ's sacrifice and our election in Him before the foundation of the world - and for that, God should have known about man's choice to sin or not before the foundation of the world. Having such fore-knowledge, what is your understanding on why God still chose to create all those whom He foreknew would not believe in Him and hence perish?


Again, I never said God created us condemned - we are condemned because of our own actions - owing to sin in the flesh - and God did not cause sin in any way. Where is God's unrighteousness here?


Though I might have slight differences in your usage of Rom 5:18, they are irrelevant to the point you are making. As you say, Christ's sacrifice is the bridge between God's justice and His justification of sinners - and yes, God now is in a position to have mercy upon each and every one and simultaneously be Just. But where you're missing the point is - just the same, God need not have mercy on any single person and instead condemn all for their own transgressions and still remain Just - for who is entitled to God's mercy in the first place? If you can see this, then you wouldn't have an issue with none or all or some being shown mercy - since God's attribute of mercy does not affect His Just nature at all. I mean, don't you agree that God is Just when He states Rom 9:15,18?


Didn't quite follow this train of thought. I see you've repeated this argument often enough to make do with a few words - but since I can't see the connecting dots that are quite clear to you, you may have to elaborate for me to follow.

Also, your quoting of Pro 1 shows forth the accountability on human volition and the consequences of its wrong choices - which I myself have already quoted from Deut 30:19 and Gal 3:10. But where does it show human volition alone making the right choice? In fact, the right choice is enabled independent of human volition(Rom 9:16). Is that not what denies the flesh any glory and renders all glory to God alone?


Is this a form of Pascal's wager? I thought Christians didn't wager. I mean, that's why we're having this discussion, aren't we? To determine truth according to knowledge instead of wagering on possibilities.

And besides, why do you incorrectly paint my position as saying nothing we do matters - of course, man is commanded to obey and his disobedience Matters in that it results in his condemnation. Of course, man is to believe in Christ for his justification and his rejection of Him Matters in that it further justifies God's just wrath being poured out on him. Of course, there are consequences for what responsibilities we rebel and disobey against. And as stated before, God did not create anyone and cause them to choose death. These are not challenged by my position at all. What my position puts forth is that man's actions do not matter in his salvation(only God's mercy does - Rom 9:16), given that his own actions have mattered unto just condemnation.

Its simple ivdavid,

You say Sovereign decision. and that ends all argument. It is determined, no matter how you want to intellectually convince anyone with "but".

He is completely Sovereign. You say He is Sovereign in salvation. That means He has to be Sovereign in creating man also. if we are not all Condemned at birth, that says we have a chance to" maybe" make it to perfection with out sinning? Or did He create us totally condemned? Rom 5:12; Rom 5:18 And if He did (He did) create us condemned and did not give one man a way out he would be unjust. Ps 9:8

I believe the Gospel is For all. And all men have the God given ability to make a decision for him. Ecc 3:11

 

[ivdavid]

You say Sovereign decision. and that ends all argument. It is determined, no matter how you want to intellectually convince anyone with "but".

Of course, each man's end is determined by God alone. Where did I try convincing(intellectually or otherwise) that the end result was not determined by God alone? "But" the end result being completely determined by God does not necessarily imply that the end result was caused by God - specifically in the case of those who perish. That was the sum total of my argument.

He is completely Sovereign. You say He is Sovereign in salvation.

True.

And if He did (He did) create us condemned and did not give one man a way out he would be unjust. Ps 9:8

Are we all born in sin today - I'd answer yes. I assume that is your position too, from what you've written(correct me if I'm wrong). I wouldn't term it as "God created us condemned" though - for it carries the connotation that God is the sole root cause of our being born in sin today - which isn't true.

And why do you think I say that God has not given man a way out - did I not mention -
ivdavid - "We are given a law to follow - the law of works(Lev 18:5) - which states that we shall live if we keep the law and we shall die under the curse if we keep not the law. Is this not justice? "
And
ivdavid - "He further extends His offer of salvation by faith to all, commanding them to choose to receive it "

How is God unjust if man in the flesh never ever chooses the provided means of escaping condemnation?

 

[gr8grace]

Of course, each man's end is determined by God alone. Where did I try convincing(intellectually or otherwise) that the end result was not determined by God alone? "But" the end result being completely determined by God does not necessarily imply that the end result was caused by God - specifically in the case of those who perish. That was the sum total of my argument.


True.


Are we all born in sin today - I'd answer yes. I assume that is your position too, from what you've written(correct me if I'm wrong). I wouldn't term it as "God created us condemned" though - for it carries the connotation that God is the sole root cause of our being born in sin today - which isn't true.

And why do you think I say that God has not given man a way out - did I not mention -
ivdavid - "We are given a law to follow - the law of works(Lev 18:5) - which states that we shall live if we keep the law and we shall die under the curse if we keep not the law. Is this not justice? "
And
ivdavid - "He further extends His offer of salvation by faith to all, commanding them to choose to receive it "

How is God unjust if man in the flesh never ever chooses the provided means of escaping condemnation?

Rom 5:12; Rom 5:18. Created condemned. You have to see that as good news, we are instantly a object of salvation that way! (he knew we would sin and do, so we deserved it)

But this all hinges on your belief of a Sovereign decision. it is determined and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it

if salvation is determined, then hell has to be determined also, and if we were condemned at birth or born in sin God would be unjust in doing so.

 

[Webb]

But you said the point you were making was not about justification. The point you never made, by the way.

Seems you want to make a point about justification, if so, do it and stop going round in circles.

 

[ivdavid]

if salvation is determined, then hell has to be determined also, and if we were condemned at birth or born in sin God would be unjust in doing so.

Why so? I hope this analogy that I've used earlier in this thread can help make this clear -

Two murderers are brought before a sovereign king after their guilt has been proved. Now, the king has the choice to either show mercy or to reserve just judgement against each one.
If the king reserves just judgement - the murderer dies.
If the king shows mercy - the murderer lives.
Is not the end result of the murderers determined by the king alone at this point in time? What part of the murderer's volition can either merit the king's mercy or evade the just judgement that is the consequence of his committing murder? How is the king unjust if he chooses to reserve just judgement instead of showing mercy to one of the murderers while showing mercy to the other - given that the king did not cause the murderers to commit murder, that resulted in their state of guilt?

 

[gr8grace]

Why so? I hope this analogy that I've used earlier in this thread can help make this clear -

Two murderers are brought before a sovereign king after their guilt has been proved. Now, the king has the choice to either show mercy or to reserve just judgement against each one.
If the king reserves just judgement - the murderer dies.
If the king shows mercy - the murderer lives.
Is not the end result of the murderers determined by the king alone at this point in time? What part of the murderer's volition can either merit the king's mercy or evade the just judgement that is the consequence of his committing murder? How is the king unjust if he chooses to reserve just judgement instead of showing mercy to one of the murderers while showing mercy to the other - given that the king did not cause the murderers to commit murder, that resulted in their state of guilt?

Once again ivdavid, Rom 5:12; Rom 5:18 The king condemned Them in their guilt in the First place, before they were Born, the King placed them in Prison. everybody is guilty.

And with determinism you have one prisoner begging for mercy and hates his condition and the King throws him in Hell, and saves the other one who is Just fine in His condition because he was determined to be saved.

God would be UNJUST if he did not offer the other prisoner a way out.

 

[Davies]

Hi Jarrod,

You almost quoted Scripture when you said God would be UNJUST.

Romans 9:19-24

New King James Version (NKJV)

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


James 4:15

New King James Version (NKJV)

15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.”



Jesus said we can do nothing without Him, that is a good deed. So, if we can't do a good deed without Jesus, we shouldn't think we can have repentance and faith without Him either.


- Davies

 

[gr8grace]

Hi Jarrod,

You almost quoted Scripture when you said God would be UNJUST.

Romans 9:19-24

New King James Version (NKJV)

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


James 4:15

New King James Version (NKJV)

15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.”



Jesus said we can do nothing without Him, that is a good deed. So, if we can't do a good deed without Jesus, we shouldn't think we can have repentance and faith without Him either.


- Davies

2 Tim 2:20-21
20Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. 21Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
Jer 18:5-12
5Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, 6“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. 7“At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9“Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. 11“So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’ 12“But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’

1 Tim 2:4

4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

The Lord wills ALL men to come to Belief, He has put ALL men In prison. Rom 5:12; Rom 5:18; Gal 3:22....If he did not offer everybody a chance at belief he would be UNJUST. Psa 9:8, Rom 1:16-17.

 

[gr8grace]

2 Tim 2:20-21
20Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. 21Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
Jer 18:5-12
5Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, 6“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. 7“At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9“Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. 11“So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’ 12“But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’

1 Tim 2:4

4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

The Lord wills ALL men to come to Belief, He has put ALL men In prison. Rom 5:12; Rom 5:18; Gal 3:22....If he did not offer everybody a chance at belief he would be UNJUST. Psa 9:8, Rom 1:16-17.

This is the Crux of the matter idavid and Davies. I spent a whole lot of time in calvinism,determinism, soft determinism, and I could never maintain Justice with my theology. It was a question that I always wanted to evade. I can debate with the best of them of Sovereign Choice, But when I was asked to maintain His Justice With that theology, I could not do it.

 

[ivdavid]

And with determinism you have one prisoner begging for mercy and hates his condition and the King throws him in Hell, and saves the other one who is Just fine in His condition because he was determined to be saved.

This is where you raise yourself contradictions when there aren't actually any. Determinism does NOT have the above scenario at all. Determinism only determines who will be shown mercy by God and by mutual exclusion, also those who will not be shown mercy. But how does such mercy work out? It begins with God's regeneration of that object of mercy - wherein his hardened heart is removed and he is given a new heart and a renewed spirit by which he, who could not love God but rather loved sin, is now able to hate his sinfulness and clings on to God, willing God's superseding work in him always. So, given God's regenerative work as a succeeding step of His showing mercy - there can be NO man "who is just fine in his (depraved)condition and is still determined by God to be saved". Your objection there is negated.

As seen above, determinism has depravity too as one of its tenets. No man born in sinful flesh(which is in enmity against God) will ever obey God's commandments - neither can he. So, there is NO man in the flesh "who will beg God for mercy, hate his condition - and still be condemned". If any man repents and clings on to God for his salvation, that is evidence of God's regenerative work in him - which in turn is evidence that God has shown mercy upon him who had earlier had no such love for God nor hatred towards sin.

God would be UNJUST if he did not offer the other prisoner a way out.

If, and only if, your above scenario plays out, can one perhaps point out any injustice. But as stated above, your scenario is not possible within Determinism - and hence no injustice is found. In fact, the king(to show forth his justice in all his decisions) even offers each and every one of the prisoners to choose the atoning sacrifice that will set them free - and each and every one of them shuts the prison doors from inside and say they are fine in choosing their murderous condition. Is not the king at this point justified in condemning them all as they are?

Once it has been proved that none now deserve anything better than the condemnation they've put themselves under - It is at this point that the king shows mercy upon whom he wills and converts them into having a new nature by which they are able to live according to the king's laws. Where in this scenario do you find injustice?

I spent a whole lot of time in calvinism,determinism, soft determinism, and I could never maintain Justice with my theology. It was a question that I always wanted to evade. I can debate with the best of them of Sovereign Choice, But when I was asked to maintain His Justice With that theology, I could not do it.

Calvinism or for that matter, any of the other similar doctrines, are not philosophical pursuits that are to be evaluated independently. These all are derived from one's knowledge of God's nature and His ways of dealing with mankind, as seen from Scripture. This is the pivotal question that forms most of my beliefs in this context - am I any different in nature or ability from the unbeliever who rejects the very same Gospel I've accepted now? My answer was NO. And hence my beliefs were formed well before I even heard the terms 'calvinist' or 'arminian' - and these beliefs of mine surprisingly aligned with those of TULIP/determinism too. Then began the process of being taught from Scripture on the exact reconciling of all Scripture.

I am not wanting to evade any issue - and I hold no issues that are currently not reconciled. I can see how you have run into contradictions because of erroneous scenarios that you simultaneously hold - but I can explain my faith wherever required.

 

[savedbygrace57]

grazer

So why did Jesus say what he did?

Why shouldnt He had said it ? It was True !

 

[savedbygrace57]

If faith without works is dead, then they are distinctly different. Otherwise it would have said works without works is dead?

Faith is a work, something man does with his mind. Its also keeping the Law Matt 23:23

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

 

[gr8grace]

This is where you raise yourself contradictions when there aren't actually any. Determinism does NOT have the above scenario at all. Determinism only determines who will be shown mercy by God and by mutual exclusion, also those who will not be shown mercy. But how does such mercy work out? It begins with God's regeneration of that object of mercy - wherein his hardened heart is removed and he is given a new heart and a renewed spirit by which he, who could not love God but rather loved sin, is now able to hate his sinfulness and clings on to God, willing God's superseding work in him always. So, given God's regenerative work as a succeeding step of His showing mercy - there can be NO man "who is just fine in his (depraved)condition and is still determined by God to be saved". Your objection there is negated.

As seen above, determinism has depravity too as one of its tenets. No man born in sinful flesh(which is in enmity against God) will ever obey God's commandments - neither can he. So, there is NO man in the flesh "who will beg God for mercy, hate his condition - and still be condemned". If any man repents and clings on to God for his salvation, that is evidence of God's regenerative work in him - which in turn is evidence that God has shown mercy upon him who had earlier had no such love for God nor hatred towards sin.


If, and only if, your above scenario plays out, can one perhaps point out any injustice. But as stated above, your scenario is not possible within Determinism - and hence no injustice is found. In fact, the king(to show forth his justice in all his decisions) even offers each and every one of the prisoners to choose the atoning sacrifice that will set them free - and each and every one of them shuts the prison doors from inside and say they are fine in choosing their murderous condition. Is not the king at this point justified in condemning them all as they are?

Once it has been proved that none now deserve anything better than the condemnation they've put themselves under - It is at this point that the king shows mercy upon whom he wills and converts them into having a new nature by which they are able to live according to the king's laws. Where in this scenario do you find injustice?


Calvinism or for that matter, any of the other similar doctrines, are not philosophical pursuits that are to be evaluated independently. These all are derived from one's knowledge of God's nature and His ways of dealing with mankind, as seen from Scripture. This is the pivotal question that forms most of my beliefs in this context - am I any different in nature or ability from the unbeliever who rejects the very same Gospel I've accepted now? My answer was NO. And hence my beliefs were formed well before I even heard the terms 'calvinist' or 'arminian' - and these beliefs of mine surprisingly aligned with those of TULIP/determinism too. Then began the process of being taught from Scripture on the exact reconciling of all Scripture.

I am not wanting to evade any issue - and I hold no issues that are currently not reconciled. I can see how you have run into contradictions because of erroneous scenarios that you simultaneously hold - but I can explain my faith wherever required.

1 Tim 2:4

4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

The Lord wills ALL men to come to Belief, He has put ALL men In prison. Rom 5:12; Rom 5:18; Gal 3:22....If he did not offer everybody a chance at belief he would be UNJUST. Psa 9:8, Rom 1:16-17.
Ps 9:8
And He will judge the world in righteousness;
He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.

Rom 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IS REVEALED from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

Ps 96:10
Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with EQUITY.”

 

[ivdavid]

If he[God] did not offer everybody a chance at belief he would be UNJUST.

How should I have worded these any different in order not to be misread?

Again, God offers salvation to all. Man, by his own volition, chooses against it. Man now deserves condemnation. God has mercy upon whom He wills - and works out His salvation in these whereby these are led and caused to obey Him and walk in His ways. Hence, God is not unjust in not offering a means of salvation to any - yet His mercy is only upon whom He wills to show mercy upon.

And why do you think I say that God has not given man a way out - did I not mention -
ivdavid - "We are given a law to follow - the law of works(Lev 18:5) - which states that we shall live if we keep the law and we shall die under the curse if we keep not the law. Is this not justice? "
And
ivdavid - "He further extends His offer of salvation by faith to all, commanding them to choose to receive it "

How is God unjust if man in the flesh never ever chooses the provided means of escaping condemnation?

 

[gr8grace]

How should I have worded these any different in order not to be misread?

Hey its been interesting and challenging. Thanks ivdavid.

God bless.

 

[dadof10]

Abraham's knowledge of who the Promised Son is only extends as far as the son born to him named Issac.

Then THAT is the ONLY promise he had faith in. How can someone have faith in something he has no knowledge of? This just keeps getting sadder and more fallacious as we go on.

For us, we now know the full revelation of who the Son promised to Abraham is, and we are responsible to have faith in that completed revelation.

We are not talking about us, we are talking about what saved/justified Abraham and whether he was justified in Gen. 12.

In Abraham's limited revelation Issac is the One promised by God through whom all are blessed. Understand? Will you let yourself understand? Without actually being told Jesus is the ultimate Seed of Promise, Abraham's faith is only responsible to what he knows...that being Issac is the promised son of blessing, which he is, but just not THE Promised Son. He didn't know this. How can he put his faith in, and be responsible to the specific Son he did not know? But if he thinks what he knows about the promised son is the full reality and specific revelation of God, because he doesn't know better, then that is what he must place his trust in to be reckoned as righteous.

Wow. What a convoluted mess. Abraham had faith of God's promise of a son (Isaac). Sarah was barren and old, so childbirth was "impossible". He believed God could do what He promised and so was justified. This is what Scripture plainly says, so, no, I don't "understand" non-Scriptural gobbledegook. I would ask you to prove FROM SCRIPTURE that Abraham's justification came from his faith IN CHRIST, but you'll either post an irrelevant verse (like Gal. 3:16), or ignore it, as you did with "deeds...done in righteousness" or "Heb. 11 refers to persevering in non-saving faith".

His faith was firmly planted in the promise of a son who would inherit the blessing on his behalf and possess the land he now dwelt in as a stranger. He just didn't know all the specifics. Nobody did until Jesus was revealed.

Then, by definition, he couldn't have put his faith in "the Seed". At best, what you have here is that Abraham was justified by faith in a promise of a son whose lineage would eventually dwell in the land promised. How in the world does this equate into faith in Christ?

Now we are responsible to THAT specific revelation about the Promise of a Son made to Abraham to be reckoned as righteous in his sight, apart from what we do.

Again, we are not talking about US, but about what JUSTIFIED ABRAHAM.

This is not hard.

Abraham had faith in God's promise of a son through whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Abraham believed that promise and was reckoned as righteous. The actual details about that son and how that was to be fulfilled are not what determines if the faith he had in God's promise of a son could declare him righteous or not.

Of course it is. The details are ALL that matter. He believed that God could do the IMPOSSIBLE. He could bring forth a son from an old man and a barren, old woman. He was performing a miracle. Are you kidding me? If God had come to Jacob when he was in his 20's and said "you will have a son", would he have been "justified" for believing that a fertile 20 year old could bear children?

Regardless of the details revealed at that time, it's still faith in God's promised son...and the blessing that son would inherit on his behalf.
The point is he had faith in God's promised Son, just as we are to have faith in God's promise of a son (who we now know to be Jesus Christ, not just Issac) and will also be reckoned as righteous before God for having THAT faith.

Nice slight of hand. The revelation about "God's promised Son" (capital "S") wasn't given to Abraham. Let me say that again. God didn't reveal His plans for a DIVINE SON to Abraham. God didn't reveal to ANYONE IN THE OT that He planned to send the Second Person to inherit a blessing. Sorry, but you are flailing here.

That is Paul's point. That is the faith that justifies, faith in the promise of a son!

Is this supposed to be an exegesis of Gal.3:16?

Again, here is the verse and an actual exegesis.

"Now the promises..."

The "promise of the Spirit through faith" in verse 14

"...were made to Abraham..."

The promise of the Spirit through faith was made TO Abraham. This means that God GAVE the promise and Abraham received the promise.

"...and to his offspring."

The promise of the Spirit through faith was made TO his offspring. This means that God GAVE the promise and his offspring received the promise.

"It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ."

The promise of the Spirit was GIVEN to Christ.

Because the words "Seed" and promise" are in the same verses, doesn't mean Paul is saying that Abraham had faith in "the Seed". More flailing...

A person can only be responsible to what God has revealed about that promise. Abraham had faith in what he knew about that promise and was declared righteous by that faith. Faith that was later validated as real when he offered Issac up on the altar. Again, validation in line with the faith that justified him...faith in the promise of a son, not the faith to go to a new land to check it out, or build an altar, but faith in the promise of a son.

Right, a son named Isaac. Simply prove this by Scripture, that Abraham was justified by faith in "the Seed". This is what you are hopelessly trying to prove in an attempt to "prove" that the faith spoken of in Hebrews was NOT a "saving" faith, so you can keep your erroneous OSAS doctrine.

 

[dadof10]

Help me out here. Where does it say we are justified (made righteous) by doing these things???? Why does being saved by something have to equate to being MADE righteous by those things?????

It's a terrible mistake to assume that what we do saves us because the doing of those things makes us righteous (that is the very definition of the damnable works gospel) instead of those things showing us to have the righteousness of Christ and, therefore, saved, showing our calling and election to be a sure thing (Hebrews 6:9-12 NIV1984) and not false, ensuring our grand entrance into the kingdom of God (2 Peter 1:10-11 NIV1984).

"Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:18 NIV1984)



Yes, and as I showed you repeatedly it's IMPOSSIBLE that the theme of James' teaching is that we MAKE ourselves righteous by acting on our faith because he uses examples of keeping the law (the law which defines sin for us--the very law Paul says can't justify a person) as how we are to be justified by what we do.

Understand the rift your doctrine creates? There's no way around it. The only way to avoid the obvious conflict your doctrine creates is to stubbornly insist the obedience to the law James uses to illustrate the works that justify a person are somehow not the same required obediences to the law that Paul says can not justify a person. That's not reasonable. That's irrational. That's totally unacceptable.



And again I ask. Where does it say baptism justifies??????

No twisting going on in my camp. You are the one that has to make 'saved' and 'justified' mean the same thing to fit them into your 'faith + works' mold.

Wow, I haven't heard this argument in years. Probably because it's been debunked over and over. Let me ask you a question, Jethro. Is there such a thing as a person who is "saved", but not "justified"? What about "justified" yet not "saved"? If your answer is no, this is just another attempt at distraction. I know your definition of "justify" is "declared legally righteous", and your definition of "saved" is not. So what? We are discussing whether Scripture teaches that Abraham was justified/saved (as you have written MANY times) by his faith in God's promise of a son, or his supposed faith in Christ. Stop distracting....Speaking of which...

'Justification' has two distinct BIBLICAL, and secular, definitions and usages that the Catholic Church apparently refuses to acknowledge.

It's easy to see, for all the reasons I've pointed out, that James is using one definition of 'justified' (to SHOW one to be righteous), while Paul is using another (to MAKE one righteous). I find it embarrassingly stubborn and proud for one to not be able to acknowledge that 1) the word has more than one recognized and used definition, and 2) the context where the word is used in the Bible validates and supports the different definitions of the word.

It's so simple and obvious the error the Catholic Church is making it's hard to grasp that they can not humbly acknowledge that error.

It's hard to have respect for a church that has to make it a point to specifically point out the error of competing beliefs in sharing it's own beliefs. In Protestant circles we generally see this in those who defend false, fringe beliefs.

Which, when properly understood, means a person is both justified (MADE righteous) by faith, AND justified (SHOWN to have that righteousness) by works.

Obviously, justifying faith MUST also be validated by what it does...or it can't reasonably be labeled the faith that justifies. Given the nature of what it means to 'have faith in God's promise of a son' it's obvious that a person must be justified according to both definitions of the word 'justified' for them to be saved on the Day of Wrath. Just as it's obvious Abraham's faith that God would fulfill the promises he made about the son he gave him MUST be seen in his actions concerning the child for that faith to be considered real in the first place. A faith that can't prove itself as able to justify by what it does is not the faith that justifies apart from what it does.

If people knew what 'faith alone' meant in the mainline Protestant world, AS PAUL TEACHES THAT CONCEPT, nobody would make this statement. But as it is, the Catholic Church, among others, erroneously assumes 'faith alone', as Paul means that, means works do not have to accompany faith (they most certainly do!). What it means is the actual agent of justification is faith, not the works that faith most certainly MUST produce (for it to be validated as the faith that justifies).

What will it take to make people see they don't even get the argument???? Really, I'm being serious!!!! Our detractors don't even understand the Protestant argument for 'righteousness apart from works' (Romans 4:6), and that it is hardly the same argument James is making, let alone see the truth of it!


Oi vey...lot's of stuff here. And how sad much of it is based on a misunderstanding of the very argument they're coming against.

I'll be back later, lol.

Just quickly...

I'm amazed at how short sided and misinformed a person shows themselves to be when they hear someone say 'faith alone' in regard to Paul's argument and immediately connect it with James' argument for 'faith alone' and foolishly assume they HAVE to mean the same thing. If they would just LISTEN to the argument for both they'd understand we're not the one's erroneously equating the two...THEY ARE!

If they'd just stop and listen to the difference between 'faith alone' in Paul's letter (actually stated as 'righteousness apart from works'), and 'faith alone' in James' letter they'd understand the two truths they both represent and not jump to the uneducated knee jerk reaction based on the belief that 'faith alone' HAS to mean the exact same thing in any and all conversations. Just as they erroneously conclude that 'justified' HAS to mean the exact same thing in any and all conversations.

Personal attacks, irrelevant rambling and attacks on my Church. Typical distraction tactics. Sorry, not falling for it. Here are the two RELEVANT topics that you keep ignoring. See if you can find time in your busy "working man" day to actually address the point. That would be a nice change. Just give the same amount of effort to these topics that you give to Ad hom's and straw men.

1) You said Hebrews 11 was all about persevering to the end. I asked the question: "Persevere to the end" in what kind of faith, Jethro? This is what we are discussing, whether the "faith" in Hebrews is a "saving faith". Is it your contention that the author of Hebrews is exhorting people to persevere in non-saving faith?

2) You made the point that "deeds...done in righteousness" means all "righteous works".
2a) Where does scripture teach this?
2b) How do you deal with the verses that tie "righteous deeds" DIRECTLY to "works of the Mosaic law"?

I don't have unlimited time to answer all your misguided points to all the verses I posted. I posted them to make a point, that there are plenty of verses that say we are not justified/saved by faith alone, you just accept all the specious arguments you have heard, like "justify" in James means "shown to be righteous".

Just stop distracting and answer the questions that apply to this thread.

 

[WIP]

Let's not turn this into a debate about Catholicism. It's been tip-toeing the edge enough as it is.

Discussion of Catholic doctrine will be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is Catholic in nature.