Is faith or works necessary for Salvation ?

[francisdesales]

Excellent words, Grubal.

It all comes back to what the Bible says because it, alone, is the inspired Word of God.

I find it ironic how you pretend to believe this without providing me any Scriptural evidence on a fundamental belief that you hold to... :bigfrown

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I find it ironic how you pretend to believe this without providing me any Scriptural evidence on a fundamental belief that you hold to... :bigfrown

I would dare to assume, Glory is using his common sense to answer your questions, based upon his knowledge of Scripture...

 

[francisdesales]

Here's a "foreshadowing" of what was to come, Leviticus 23:12--"'Now on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb one year old without defect for a burnt offering to the LORD." You won't except this but, I thought I might throw it in...

This is another example of ritual purity. When we offer to God, we are to offer the best we have available as an expression of our recognition that God is holy and demands our best.

However, considering that God KNOWS that our best can never be perfect, does this mean that God will then not provide mercy? What sort of God do you believe in Who is LESS MERCIFUL than men on this planet, who are willing to forgive debt and punishments based upon their OWN idea of mercy, imperfect as it is????

From these Scriptures, do we get an idea that the Jews were NOT being granted mercy while they awaited that perfect law follower?

You are confusing what God found to be "fitting" with what God did out of necessity. There was no necessity for God to await an utterly perfect person before His justice was satisfied. Even humans do not need to await "payment" quid pro quo before he can grant mercy. WHY do you think God does???

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I would dare to assume, Glory is using his common sense to answer your questions, based upon his knowledge of Scripture...

I would expect nothing less from someone who unabashedly cheers someone on in their error... His 'common sense" has been found wanting, such as his definition of mercy!!!

I have yet to see any Scriptures to back up his point. Citing Scriptures in of itself doesn't mean much if they don't support his claim.

And not a single one has yet even implied that God had to await a perfect law follower (even if it was a future coming) before mercy could be granted to mankind.

God's mercy is freely given, not purchased by a perfect law follower.

Re-read Romans 4:4 again, if you continue to doubt me.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

Mercy is not punishment withheld. That is just foolishness repeated again.

If I see a man homeless on the street, am I withholding punishment due him by giving him a dollar for food? My merciful act has NOTHING to do with punishment withheld!

This is just plain common sense. Your focus on the law as some power that requires perfect fulfillment is keeping you from seeing the true meaning of Christ's coming...

As to the Spotless Lamb coming - who or what exactly was preventing God from granting mercy until the "law" was fulfilled? Who was binding God to prevent Him from granting mercy???

WHERE OH WHERE is this found in Scriptures????

Again, this idea is based upon human justice - that a perfect God REQUIRES absolute perfect apologies... Even humans do not require "an eye for an eye", as I have explained and you have ignored (again) on the broken window... This is where you "theology" fails. It is based upon human presumptions of what God requires for justice to be served...

You're speaking of some men's understanding of mercy, and I'm speaking of God's.
God's ways are higher than man can understand with any amount of common sense.

What you show by giving a homeless man some food, is compassion not mercy...by a Biblical definition.

Jesus coming to the cross was God's mercy to us - punishment withheld until judgment is administered.
During the interim, man has an opportunity to believe and be saved.

God's Justice required a payment for man's sins before they could be reconciled to Him.
Thus Jesus Christ offered Himself...the spotless lamb. He redeemed man....with His own blood.

God did "wink" or overlook the punishment due to man until the cross, and NOW commands all to repent. All those who died in faith before the cross could now rejoice because the price for their sins had been paid.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

[Danus]

Well, all I can say is, you must have "special" insight and how can I fight that "phantom" logic...

That speaks to you, not me. If Calvin is that confusing to you, yet you have a whole library at your fingertips to study him, what else could you be confused on?

You have expressed a mixed bag of theology not making it very clear where you stand logically.

You refer to yourself not as an Armenian or what your terming, a Calvinist, yet you don't understand that Christian Theology falls one way or another to a large extent. If both of these positions, Armenian and Calvinist are false, then nothing you say is correct in line with the Theology of Christianity. However, you could believe both and try to mix them together, but you deny both. .....so what are you claiming again? What argument are you selling with all this?

This is what is frustrating because in one post you express some Armenian understandings and in other post you lean a little to Calvin. You never bring them together and you deny both......It then fails to make sense. It Turns in to a bunch of Christian cliche's.

I can stand on any corner and say to people that God loves them and all they have to do to be saved is place their faith in Jesus Christ. Is that statement wrong? NO, but anyone can say that....That's not the heart of Theology. However, I'm safe in just saying that. No one can argue with that. That's all I'm seeing from you.

Can't you go deeper? You can't without claiming one or both in some form, Armenian or Calvin?

For your arguments to flow logically against Armenian then your going to have to lean to Calvin. The only thing not allowing you to claim Calvin is an Armenian thinking that faith in God is initiated man by his choice given his free will, yet you don't claim to be an Armenian.

There are mixes of these two theologies, but there is not a Christan theology that makes any logical sense outside of one or both, unless you just step outside of the bible and pick up the Qur'an, or the book of Mormons, of visit your local Scientology office. ....so what are you again? Christian? Evangelical Christian? What's that for you?

 

[glorydaz]

I would expect nothing less from someone who unabashedly cheers someone on in their error... His 'common sense" has been found wanting, such as his definition of mercy!!!

I have yet to see any Scriptures to back up his point. Citing Scriptures in of itself doesn't mean much if they don't support his claim.

And not a single one has yet even implied that God had to await a perfect law follower (even if it was a future coming) before mercy could be granted to mankind.

God's mercy is freely given, not purchased by a perfect law follower.

Re-read Romans 4:4 again, if you continue to doubt me.

Regards

Here's the verse you cited. Grace is not mercy if that's what you're saying. Grace is undeserved favor.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Have MERCY on me, Oh God. That's a plea to God to not punish me even though I am guilty.

What was the reason for the Mercy Seat in the OT? I've asked you to look at this because if you don't understand the purpose of the Mercy Seat, you will not see mercy from God's perspective.

The Mercy Seat was to cover the law so that Justice would not be dispensed....punishment withheld.

 

[glorydaz]

This is another example of ritual purity. When we offer to God, we are to offer the best we have available as an expression of our recognition that God is holy and demands our best.

However, considering that God KNOWS that our best can never be perfect, does this mean that God will then not provide mercy? What sort of God do you believe in Who is LESS MERCIFUL than men on this planet, who are willing to forgive debt and punishments based upon their OWN idea of mercy, imperfect as it is????

From these Scriptures, do we get an idea that the Jews were NOT being granted mercy while they awaited that perfect law follower?

You are confusing what God found to be "fitting" with what God did out of necessity. There was no necessity for God to await an utterly perfect person before His justice was satisfied. Even humans do not need to await "payment" quid pro quo before he can grant mercy. WHY do you think God does???

Regards

It isn't about us, Joe. This is about God's requirements. The requirement was a perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I would expect nothing less from someone who unabashedly cheers someone on in their error... His 'common sense" has been found wanting, such as his definition of mercy!!!

I have yet to see any Scriptures to back up his point. Citing Scriptures in of itself doesn't mean much if they don't support his claim.

And not a single one has yet even implied that God had to await a perfect law follower (even if it was a future coming) before mercy could be granted to mankind.

God's mercy is freely given, not purchased by a perfect law follower.

Re-read Romans 4:4 again, if you continue to doubt me.

Regards

Putting your obvious, "impertinence" aside, you "cannot" be persuaded by truth or Scripture. You've already, made up your mind and that's OK. We ALL must make our choices and then, live with them...I won't fault you for that, it's within your right...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

It isn't about us, Joe. This is about God's requirements. The requirement was a perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

I KNOW truth when presented with it. Amen Brother...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

That speaks to you, not me. If Calvin is that confusing to you, yet you have a whole library at your fingertips to study him, what else could you be confused on?

You have expressed a mixed bag of theology not making it very clear where you stand logically.

You refer to yourself not as an Armenian or what your terming, a Calvinist, yet you don't understand that Christian Theology falls one way or another to a large extent. If both of these positions, Armenian and Calvinist are false, then nothing you say is correct in line with the Theology of Christianity. However, you could believe both and try to mix them together, but you deny both. .....so what are you claiming again? What argument are you selling with all this?

This is what is frustrating because in one post you express some Armenian understandings and in other post you lean a little to Calvin. You never bring them together and you deny both......It then fails to make sense. It Turns in to a bunch of Christian cliche's.

I can stand on any corner and say to people that God loves them and all they have to do to be saved is place their faith in Jesus Christ. Is that statement wrong? NO, but anyone can say that....That's not the heart of Theology. However, I'm safe in just saying that. No one can argue with that. That's all I'm seeing from you.

Can't you go deeper? You can't without claiming one or both in some form, Armenian or Calvin?

For your arguments to flow logically against Armenian then your going to have to lean to Calvin. The only thing not allowing you to claim Calvin is an Armenian thinking that faith in God is initiated man by his choice given his free will, yet you don't claim to be an Armenian.

There are mixes of these two theologies, but there is not a Christan theology that makes any logical sense outside of one or both, unless you just step outside of the bible and pick up the Qur'an, or the book of Mormons, of visit your local Scientology office. ....so what are you again? Christian? Evangelical Christian? What's that for you?

Who said ANYTHING about confusion??

 

[Grubal Muruch]

That speaks to you, not me. If Calvin is that confusing to you, yet you have a whole library at your fingertips to study him, what else could you be confused on?

You have expressed a mixed bag of theology not making it very clear where you stand logically.

You refer to yourself not as an Armenian or what your terming, a Calvinist, yet you don't understand that Christian Theology falls one way or another to a large extent. If both of these positions, Armenian and Calvinist are false, then nothing you say is correct in line with the Theology of Christianity. However, you could believe both and try to mix them together, but you deny both. .....so what are you claiming again? What argument are you selling with all this?

This is what is frustrating because in one post you express some Armenian understandings and in other post you lean a little to Calvin. You never bring them together and you deny both......It then fails to make sense. It Turns in to a bunch of Christian cliche's.

I can stand on any corner and say to people that God loves them and all they have to do to be saved is place their faith in Jesus Christ. Is that statement wrong? NO, but anyone can say that....That's not the heart of Theology. However, I'm safe in just saying that. No one can argue with that. That's all I'm seeing from you.

Can't you go deeper? You can't without claiming one or both in some form, Armenian or Calvin?

For your arguments to flow logically against Armenian then your going to have to lean to Calvin. The only thing not allowing you to claim Calvin is an Armenian thinking that faith in God is initiated man by his choice given his free will, yet you don't claim to be an Armenian.

There are mixes of these two theologies, but there is not a Christan theology that makes any logical sense outside of one or both, unless you just step outside of the bible and pick up the Qur'an, or the book of Mormons, of visit your local Scientology office. ....so what are you again? Christian? Evangelical Christian? What's that for you?

Calvin's correct in a "Twisted" sort of way, relating to the "inability" to lose ones Salvation
Arminius is "wrong" in suggesting we "can" lose our salvation

So their "both" wrong in these areas. To one extent or another...

 

[Gazelle]

And where does ONE of them mention that the Messiah would be the uniquely perfect law follower which would allow God to have mercy on everyone, even retroactively???

Really? You could begin here: http://http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txh/proph.htm

Verses showing Christ is God:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/Doctrines/jesus_is_god.htm

]I am supposing that you either are brand new at this study, or you are merely wanting to stir a pot. If you truly wish to study, fine, otherwise, I'll not be responding to you.

Sometimes scholars like Grubal and I don't put the Scripture references when the verse is a commonly used one, or familiar to those who actually Read the Bible. ;)

 

[Grubal Muruch]

That speaks to you, not me. If Calvin is that confusing to you, yet you have a whole library at your fingertips to study him, what else could you be confused on?

You have expressed a mixed bag of theology not making it very clear where you stand logically.

You refer to yourself not as an Armenian or what your terming, a Calvinist, yet you don't understand that Christian Theology falls one way or another to a large extent. If both of these positions, Armenian and Calvinist are false, then nothing you say is correct in line with the Theology of Christianity. However, you could believe both and try to mix them together, but you deny both. .....so what are you claiming again? What argument are you selling with all this?

This is what is frustrating because in one post you express some Armenian understandings and in other post you lean a little to Calvin. You never bring them together and you deny both......It then fails to make sense. It Turns in to a bunch of Christian cliche's.

I can stand on any corner and say to people that God loves them and all they have to do to be saved is place their faith in Jesus Christ. Is that statement wrong? NO, but anyone can say that....That's not the heart of Theology. However, I'm safe in just saying that. No one can argue with that. That's all I'm seeing from you.

Can't you go deeper? You can't without claiming one or both in some form, Armenian or Calvin?

For your arguments to flow logically against Armenian then your going to have to lean to Calvin. The only thing not allowing you to claim Calvin is an Armenian thinking that faith in God is initiated man by his choice given his free will, yet you don't claim to be an Armenian.

There are mixes of these two theologies, but there is not a Christan theology that makes any logical sense outside of one or both, unless you just step outside of the bible and pick up the Qur'an, or the book of Mormons, of visit your local Scientology office. ....so what are you again? Christian? Evangelical Christian? What's that for you?

Both Arminius and Calvin have "elements" of truth, but fall way to short of the Scriptures meanings... I'll take the Scriptures, you can have, "Arminius and Calvin" That's a fair trade...

 

[glorydaz]

Putting your obvious, "impertinence" aside, you "cannot" be persuaded by truth or Scripture. You've already, made up your mind and that's OK. We ALL must make our choices and then, live with them...I won't fault you for that, it's within your right...

This is true. We're only told to put forth the message, beyond that it's up to the Lord to convict someone's heart.

I've posted scripture for everything I've said, but when someone will not hear...

And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

This is true. We're only told to put forth the message, beyond that it's up to the Lord to convict someone's heart.

I've posted scripture for everything I've said, but when someone will not hear...

You can't look past that advise. Amen and Amen...

 

[glorydaz]

You are confusing what God found to be "fitting" with what God did out of necessity. There was no necessity for God to await an utterly perfect person before His justice was satisfied. Even humans do not need to await "payment" quid pro quo before he can grant mercy. WHY do you think God does???

Regards

If you really believe the portion in red, then you're saying there was no need for Jesus to die on the cross.

 

[Gazelle]

And not a single one has yet even implied that God had to await a perfect law follower (even if it was a future coming) before mercy could be granted to mankind.

God's mercy is freely given, not purchased by a perfect law follower.

Regards

I am ignoring the idea of "God waiting" and hope you are just making speak.

Ephesians 1:6-8
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; (KJV)

Eph 2:4-7

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (KJV)

1 Pet 1:3

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (KJV)

Semantically we agree because God is Christ and Christ is God.

But as you see from even these few verses, that mercy is presented and administered upon us through Christ.

Is that what you were requesting?

 

[Gazelle]

God's mercy is freely given because of Christ taking the Redeemer-Kinsman role.

Duties of Kinsman-Redeemers
By Wendy Anderson, eHow Contributor


The kinsman-redeemer is an important concept in both Jewish and Christian theology. For the Jew, the position of kinsman-redeemer was a legal one, with specific qualifications and specific responsibilities. For the Christian, this Jewish legal concept translates into a description of the purpose of the incarnation and a foreshadowing of the role of Jesus in the redemption of sinners.
Qualifications

To be a kinsman-redeemer, a man had to meet four specific criteria. He had to be a near kinsman, as set forth in Leviticus 25:25 and 48-50. He must, himself, be free. He must be able to perform the redemption. And he must be willing to perform the redemption. The qualifying process is illustrated in the book of Ruth, where both Boaz and another man qualified as near kinsman to redeem the land and Ruth. But the other man, though nearer in kinship, was unwilling to perform the redemption for fear of jeopardizing his own inheritance.
Rescue from Slavery

One responsibility of a kinsman-redeemer was to rescue his kin from slavery or captivity, or pay their way to freedom. This duty is detailed in Leviticus 25, though it was clearly a common custom prior to the codification of the Mosaic Law. Abraham fulfilled this responsibility when he rescued his nephew Lot from the Canaanite kings in Genesis 14.
Securing the Family Estate

If land belonging to the family had to be sold by a family member, the kinsman-redeemer was permitted, at any time, to restore it to the family. Land, in ancient Israel, could not be permanently sold. It reverted to the original owner at the year of Jubilee. However, a kinsman-redeemer could redeem the land prior to that time. In the book of Ruth, the land of Ruth's father-in-law, Elimelech, was one of the items at issue between Boaz and the other kinsman.
Avenger of Wrongs

The nearest kinsman was responsible to avenge the blood of a murdered kinsman. Leviticus 35:12-28, Deuteronomy 19:1-13, and Joshua 20:1-9 give the rules under which manslaughter (unintentional killing) was to be prosecuted and penalized. The Israelites were to establish cities of refuge to which a person convicted of manslaughter could flee. The killer had to remain in that city until the death of the high priest. If he left before that time, the kinsman-redeemer had the right to put him to death to avenge the wrongful death of his relative.



ehow.com

 

[glorydaz]

Both Arminius and Calvin have "elements" of truth, but fall way to short of the Scriptures meanings... I'll take the Scriptures, you can have, "Arminius and Calvin" That's a fair trade...

Yep. We're to preach the Gospel...not Calvin or anyone else.

Contentions about which man to follow are spoken of here in Corinthians.

Paul warned against saying we follow any man.

11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

We're sharing the power of God when we put forth scripture.

17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Man's wisdom is not God's.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

We need only preach Christ and Him crucified....not what some man has taught, for his teaching is not the inspired word.

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;