Salvation by faith alone/only?

[Drew]

Again, I am fascinated by all sorts of explanations as to how Paul must have meant something other than what he actually writes - that eternal life is granted according to what they have done.

Do any of you have an explanation as to why Paul would write something that he simply does not believe?

We have efforts to say that the chapter is about God's impartiality. Well, so it is, but that certainly does not legimate screening out statements connecting good works to final salvation.

And we have arguments about the "wider context". Well, that's all well and good, but it does not explain why Paul would write something he knows to be false, even if in service of some larger argument. Suppose I wanted to make an argument that the sky is blue. Would it make any sense at all for me to say "the sky is red" in support of that argument? Of course not!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Grubal,

Let me remind you, I am not just bouncing around these threads just peeking in. You addressed this directly to me. What is outrageous is your ATTEMPT to sound offended by my "false accusation". :bigfrown

How about you go re-read your post #340 and my response in post #358 and subsequent comments by you...

I see this as a truly desperate attempt to turn the tables, because I think you are realizing that on this subject, much of what you ASSUME in Scriptures is simply not FOUND in Scriptures. You took it for granted without actually reading what the verses state.

Regards

I still await your heart felt apology for offending my person...

 

[glorydaz]

Obviously, you refuse to read the passage in your desperate bid to escape the reality of your position.

Paul says he was BLAMELESS in following the Law - BEFORE his conversion...

Obviously, he WAS a "doer of the law".

What Paul realizes, if you could read what I post, is that THIS SORT of "doing the Law" is self-reliance, an assumption that one can earn salvation by being a doer. "God owes me". Paul realizes such sort of obedience, perfect as it is, cannot grant salvation. Only a faith IN GOD's righteousness can remain man's hope for being saved. Paul's own righteousness has no power to obligate God :nod

How many more times must I repeat this before it sinks in???

Regards

I don't know, Joe. I must be plain stupid.


So, you must admit, then, that Drew's analysis of Romans 2 is faulty.
Paul is not saying be will be given eternal life based on our persistance in well-doing?
Is this one thing we can agree on?

 

[glorydaz]

There is no "contentious spirit" here. It seems you are trying to get some thread sympathy, as if you are some sort of victim, while forgeting that I am not even an "adult"...

The underlined and highlighted/bolded words are meant to emphasize points that seem to be ignored by you. I could understand such a complaint if I never made these points before, but I have stated and restated, and had hoped that larger letters, red letters, bold letters, underlined letters, MIGHT get your attention, MIGHT get you to think.

Sorry, I had hopes...

Ooh...you mean it's possible to get "thread sympathy" around here?

I'm going to have to ponder on that one. ;)

 

[glorydaz]

I am certainly not kidding.

In several of the gospel accounts, Jesus declares all foods clean.

This is a direct, clear, and unambiguous challenge to the Law of Moses which declared that certain foods are indeed unclean.

And I can predict what will happen - people will transform that clear statement into something it is not, just like what is being done with texts like Romans 2:6-7.

I must have missed this one, but I have to respond.

Jesus didn't break the law...ever. He kept the letter as well as the spirit of the law in every way. He didn't eat unclean food Himself, nor did the apostles. He perfectly obeyed even the Law of Moses. Had Jesus broken even one law, the Pharisees would have pointed it out. When they rebuked Him for healing on the Sabbath, He said, " Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days." He was correcting their wrong interpretation of the law. When Jesus spoke of unclean food, and that being angry was the same as murder, He was presenting the New Covenant that would follow His death. The New Covenant came in when Jesus died. From birth to death, Jesus never broke the law.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Did Jesus, or did Jesus not declare all foods clean?

Remember: the Old Testament declares that some foods make you unclean.

Here is the relevant text as per Mark's gospel:

And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

How is this not a clear statement that conflicts with the Law of Moses?

Jesus did not "declare" anything of the sort because the word "declare" does not appear in the Greek manuscripts, nor is the parenthetical statement commentary by Mark, but a continuation of Jesus' teaching.

A more accurate interpretation would be:

He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purging all foods?

See post #387

 

[Free]

Jesus did not "declare" anything of the sort because the word "declare" does not appear in the Greek manuscripts, nor is the parenthetical statement commentary by Mark, but a continuation of Jesus' teaching.

A more accurate interpretation would be:

He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purging all foods?

See post #387

How is that more accurate? Clearly Jesus' point was that it is not what one eats that makes him unclean and not the fact that digested food is "purged". Such a translation is needlessly redundant, provided I am understanding what you have written correctly. I would also like to know on what you base this "more accurate" translation.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

How is that more accurate? Clearly Jesus' point was that it is not what one eats that makes him unclean and not the fact that digested food is "purged". Such a translation is needlessly redundant, provided I am understanding what you have written correctly. I would also like to know on what you base this "more accurate" translation.

See post #387

 

[Free]

See post #387

On what have you based this "more accurate" translation? And please don't respond with "Strong's". What are your sources for this translation?

 

[glorydaz]

SEE? You did it again!!! You do not even realizing your are contradicting yourself, do you... I am utterly amazed...

You state, "I am not ascribing to salvation law-following"

Then, in the next line, you state a "theoretical", that IF someone was perfect like our Lord, than THAT would gain salvation!!! So you ARE ascribing salvation to the potential law-follower...Elsewhere, you totally forget that Christ PUT ASIDE all such notions of self-justification!!!

CAREFULLY think about this...

If person "x" could be perfect, they gain salvation. Just because person "x" 'cannot' (according to you), that does NOT remove the mistake you have made - that the POTENTIAL exists for man to self-justify himself.

I have said this over and over again. I guess you just don't WANT to hear the point I am making. Let's try one more time.

For argument's sake, let's take Paul at his word, who said he was indeed perfectly following the Law.

According to you, HE HAS JUSTIFIED HIMSELF, a legitimate path to salvation (albeit "impossible to actually do, according to you)! God now owes Paul salvation. What does Paul SAY about this line of thinking in Philipians???

Salvation has become a "wage" that God owes Paul. It matters not whether this is hypothetical or not. The fact remains that in your mind, someone COULD obligate God!!!

In NO CASE can salvation be earned. Even a perfect follower of the law (like Paul) cannot be justify self in God's eyes. Boasting is of no avail in the realm of salvation.

Regards

Okay, I'm going to go through this one more time, although I'm not holding out too much hope.

How about we do take Paul at his word? But first, I'd like a scripture reference where Paul said he'd followed the law perfectly since that seems to be what you're basing your argument on.


He was following the law as he understood it as a PHARISEE.

In the same breath, he admits persecuting the church of God.

Surely you can understand what Paul is saying here. The Pharisees believed they were following the law, but they were judging others. That's a sin right there. In other words, Paul was saying some could follow the LETTER OF THE LAW, which does not and can not save a person. Why? Because they sin. Their outside may be clean, but their inside is filthy.

Following the law PERFECTLY, is not following the LETTER, but the SPIRIT of the law, which is Paul's entire point in the book of Romans.

When you say, "Even a perfect follower of the law (like Paul)" you have trashed your entire argument. Paul was not a perfect follower of the law. As a pharisee, Paul thought he followed the law. Did that make Paul perfect? NO. Was Jesus the only PERFECT FOLLOWER OF THE LAW? Yes.

Hopefully, we will get this straightened out, because it's getting very old listening to you claim I'm saying and meaning something I'm not. Just because you fail to understand what I'm saying, does not mean what I'm saying is not consistant with the Word. This isn't the only instance where Paul talks about how it was before he was saved. He puts himself in the place of those he's ministering to. He knows where they're coming from. Get it?

Oh, and I have never said it was possible for man to justify himself. I've said that was the requirement of the law to be perfect...never failing in even one point. That is not possible for man, but Jesus did it FOR US. He is the SPOTLESS LAMB OF GOD.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

On what have you based this "more accurate" translation? And please don't respond with "Strong's". What are your sources for this translation?

Grab an interlinear Bible.

Nowhere in the Greek is there any word in verse 19 that can be rendered "declare". Not only that, the entirety of the verse are the words of Jesus, there is no commentary by Mark. A plain reading of the Greek text makes this clear.

Jesus was making the point that unclean food passing through the digestive tract is not what seriously defiles a man; the unclean attitude in his heart does. The serious defilement emanates from an unclean heart, not unclean food entering the stomach.

In no way can Jesus be abolishing dietary laws if He is referencing the practice of eating unclean food to make His point in the first place.

 

[glorydaz]

Outrageous are your assumptions my dear friend. I said no such thing. This is truly an egregious attempt to "sully" my stand for truth. Your obvious "Modus operandi" is to place untruths to my person and thusly, misrepresent my views. Perhaps an apology would "accentuate" your grief for mentioning such a distorted menu of trifling error!!!

Yes, and I went back and read the entire exchange. You were giving general principles of faith and Joe was hung up on Romans 2. It continues to amaze me how some will get so hung up on isolated verses in Paul's book of Romans that they ignore the entire teaching. This is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. This continued misrepresentation of another's views is getting out of hand.

 

[reba]

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.


Get it together guys... I will not warn again.

 

[glorydaz]

Even if the POTENTIAL exists for the perfect law-follower to go to God and claim "you owe me salvation", you have turned salvation from gift to wages, payment due from God. It matters not if, in your mind, no one can fulfill the Law (despite tons of Scriptures to the contrary). The mere idea of earning salvation if one is perfect is "salvation through self-justification/works".

Now, not only is there indeed the potential to follow the Law, but at least Paul claims he DID follow the Law. Blamelessly. Recall my citation from Phillipians. What did Paul realize? That self-justification could not lead to salvation.

Paul, the blameless follower of the Law, realized (after Christ opened His eyes of faith) that no one can earn salvation. All that matters is trusting in God to righteously fulfill His promises to those who obey Him. But on no account can we consider salvation a wage.

Regards

I now recall your citation and you took it totally out of context. If you don't get it from reading a particular text, you need to look a little further. Paul considered himself "blameless" because he did it ignorantly in unbelief. As you can see quite clearly, he knows he was a terrible sinner while zealously following the letter of the law. Sin....sin is the problem. You can't have perfectly obeyed the law when you only follow the letter. Jesus, on the other hand, followed the law PERFECTLY....not the way the hypocrites (whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.).

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Self-justification certainly won't work for a sinner, but THE JUST ONE had no sin.

Thus, Christ was the only perfect "Doer of the Law". So, yes, it is possible because Christ did it...for us, I might add.

 

[glorydaz]

You're right in saying that salvation has ALWAYS been by faith. But that's not to say Lev 18:5 was not given, nor that Rom 6:14 was not stated.

Refer this post of mine. There is a justification by the law and a justification by the king. When everyone is a transgressor and can find life only under mercy, I would say that justification is only by the king and has always been so - though justification by the law was a theoretical possibility never realised practically.

So we see that the law always precedes mercy. One cannot then talk about the king's mercy over transgressions without setting it against the law of the land that condemns such transgressions.

Very well stated. The law has to be satisfied before mercy can be dispensed.
Isn't that what you're saying?
Jesus satisfied the law, paid the penalty we owed, and reconciled men to God in the process.

 

[francisdesales]

I still await your heart felt apology for offending my person...

You wrote what you wrote. It is there for all to see. I left the post number. Go read it for yourself.

 

[glorydaz]

Yea, tear down that wall "of ignorance", Mr. Gorbachev... ;)

Is this how you are going to address the serious holes in your theology? You present ideas that are simply not found in Scriptures. And now, we must pretend we never said something.

Here is the "doozy", in response to discussion on Romans 2 that I had made...

The Gentiles were entering eternal life because they were putting their faith in Christ, and becoming "born-again Spiritually." Not because they were following the law. For if they fell short in one area of the law, they were guilty of breaking the whole law...Therefore, it was a fruitless attempt and bound to fail...

Perhaps you want to try again on pointing to me where Romans 2 mentions anything about Gentile pagans having faith in Jesus Christ? Or, how about the requirement to be perfect in fulfillment of the Law???

Regards

As I said, Joe, you were focused on Romans 2:6-7 ONLY. Grubal was stating a principle, taking Paul's words before and after those two verses. I understood what he was saying the minute I read it, and there isn't one thing false about his statement. This is the problem with getting so hung up on one verse that you fail to look around. And when someone happens to be looking a few verses before or after what you're looking at, you assume they're wrong...insisting it's not even found in scripture.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Are you suggesting that those Gentiles listening to their conscience did not come by faith in Christ? That would leave out a lot of OT saints including Abraham.

 

[francisdesales]

Very well stated. The law has to be satisfied before mercy can be dispensed.

You must be JOKING!!! You state that no one can satisfy the Law except Jesus. By this twisted logic, God apparently didn't grant mercy until the New Testament era!!!! :eeeekkk

You apparently are clueless on what "mercy" means and how it is dispensed by God. Mercy doesn't await for the "law to be satisfied". Have you not read ANY parables of Jesus? Have you read, for example, the parable of the Prodigal Son? The wicked servant? WHEN did the master forgive that great debt? Only after that servant obeyed the Law???

God grants mercy without SOMEONE having to "earn it". Have you read the Old Testament??? Where do we have the Father awaiting man to "behave" before mercy is dispensed?

Didn't Jesus give His life while we were STILL IN SIN???

When is this going to sink in?

Even perfect works does not earn salvation.


Regards

 

[reba]

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.


Get it together guys... I will not warn again.

Come back tomorrow.

 

[reba]

Good morning guys!