Saved by Grace not of works !

[Grubal Muruch]

Please identify specific threads and posts numbers in which Grubal, or anyone else, has actually engaged the argument that I have put forward in respect to this famous text from Ephesians 2.

In all fairness drew if you desire that kind of info, you should do the "footwork" yourself...

 

[Drew]

In all fairness drew if you desire that kind of info, you should do the "footwork" yourself...

Excuse me?

You are the one who simply claimed that my argument was "untruth".

It is clearly your responsibility to either engage the argument, or tell us where it has been engaged.

Frankly, I suspect that you have not engaged it, in any post, in any thread, notwithstanding the claim made on your behalf by glorydaz.

But, pry'thee, prove me mistaken, and we'll take it from there.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

This is not really an acceptable answer, if, repeat if, we are engaged in serious debate.

I trust that I need not state the obvious: unwillingness to engage a clear counter-argument to one's position will be seen as a sign the position in question has some serious flaws.

If you want this to be a serious discussion, you simply cannot simply declare that an argument is false - you need to show how it is false.

If one gives no "validity" to the subject, than he need not "engage."

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Excuse me?

You are the one who simply claimed that my argument was "untruth".

It is clearly your responsibility to either engage the argument, or tell us where it has been engaged.

Frankly, I suspect that you have not engaged it, in any post, in any thread, notwithstanding the claim made on your behalf by glorydaz.

But, pry'thee, prove me mistaken, and we'll take it from there.

I cannot. You cannot or will not listen nor understand...It would be a "futile" attempt to try and "sway" someone who does not have an "open" mind to such things...

 

[Drew]

I cannot. You cannot or will not listen nor understand...It would be a "futile" attempt to try and "sway" someone who does not have an "open" mind to such things...

An outrageous falsehood, consisting in unsubstantiated speculation about my motives. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how you can make such a baseless statement.

I have presented a clear, reasonably concise, Biblically grounded case about the meaning of this text from Ephesians 2.

If you can show the readers where this argument fails, why not simply do so? Your ungenerous (and entirely untrue) speculations about my motivations here will not disguise this simple fact:

In this thread at least, you have (1) not engaged a clear argument that challenges your position; (2) resisted repeated efforts to prompt you to do so.

 

[Drew]

While the sadly common "CF Net dance of evasion" continues, I put forward this further actual argument. Note how I make an actual case, and abstain from vain and ungenerous speculations about the motivations of other posters:

Paul is not denying “salvation by good works” in Ephesians 2, he is denying “salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses” (the Torah). However, this view appears vulnerable to the following critique: Since Torah contains moral prescriptions (such as the 10 commandments), any statement that doing the works of Torah does not save really amounts to a statement that good works do not save. As will be demonstrated, this objection turns out to have no force.

As per an argument provided earlier in this thread, the “works” of verse 9 (that do not save) are the works of Torah. As that argument shows, Paul is focusing on the role of the Torah as an ethnic delimiter, not as a code of good moral conduct. That is why Paul weaves circumcision into the argument. In verse 11, he contrasts the status of the Gentile by birth (not by good works) to that of the Jew's status as being circumcised. This is not a good works issue - Paul describes a dividing line that is ethnic, and circumcision is the hallmark "work of Torah" - it is not a "good work".

In verse 12, Paul describes the Gentile as not being a citizen of Israel and being an outsider of to the covenants. Again, this is not relevant to any argument about good works. It is a claim about the Jew's status as a member of an ethnic group. And it is the Torah that is the charter of the Jews as a people - it is the Torah that marks them out as distinct from the Gentile. So, once again, this is not the kind of argument one should be mounting if a denial of salvation by good works is on the table. And it is precisely the argument that denial salvation by works of Torah is Paul’s intent.

Let's be clear here - while the Torah indeed has a "moral" or "good works" dimension, Paul is focusing on its function of splitting the world into two camps - Jews and Gentiles. And the Torah does this through things like Sabbath, circumcision, and kosher purity laws.

We already know that Paul sees Jew and Gentile as both morally bankrupt (Romans 3). The rhetoric of the argument (in Ephesian 2:11 and following) is clear: Paul is saying that the abolition of the Law of Moses has brought Jew and Gentile into one family. Therefore, Paul is clearly seeing the Law of Moses as an ethnic delimiter. If you are going to make the point that Jew and Gentile are in the same family, the perfect way to do this is to undermine the function of Torah as an ethnic delimiter. Thus the perfect thing to say that "the works of the Law of Moses do not justify"

 

[Grubal Muruch]

An outrageous falsehood, consisting in unsubstantiated speculation about my motives. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how you can make such a baseless statement.

I have presented a clear, reasonably concise, Biblically grounded case about the meaning of this text from Ephesians 2.

If you can show the readers where this argument fails, why not simply do so? Your ungenerous (and entirely untrue) speculations about my motivations here will not disguise this simple fact:

In this thread at least, you have (1) not engaged a clear argument that challenges your position; (2) resisted repeated efforts to prompt you to do so.

What I have presented was the "simple" truth...I really don't believe it necessary to create "grandiose" (War and peace) length presentations. It tends to "bore" the reader and more than likely, they won't read it in it's entirety...

 

[Drew]

What I have presented was the "simple" truth...I really don't believe it necessary to create "grandiose" (War and peace) length presentations. It tends to "bore" the reader and more than likely, they won't read it in it's entirety...

More evasion.

Again:

1. I have presented a detailed argument as to why Ephesians 2:8-9 does not deny justification by good works;

2. You have implied that this argument has been engaged, yet a request that the relevant posts be identified;

3. You otherwise are basically evading your responsibility - as a participant in what is presumably a serious discussion - to engage the content of arguments that challenge your position;

4. In addition, you have thrown in some miscellaneous, and untrue, insulting remarks.

Explain yourself, please.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

More evasion.

Again:

1. I have presented a detailed argument as to why Ephesians 2:8-9 does not deny justification by good works;

2. You have implied that this argument has been engaged, yet a request that the relevant posts be identified;

3. You otherwise are basically evading your responsibility - as a participant in what is presumably a serious discussion - to engage the content of arguments that challenge your position;

4. In addition, you have thrown in some miscellaneous, and untrue, insulting remarks.

Explain yourself, please.

With all due respect, I need not explain my intentions...I have presented the, "simple" truth and it's "simply" not acceptable to you...You seem to desire long "diatribes" that lead to no conclusions...That's not my kind of debate...

 

[Drew]

With all due respect, I need not explain my intentions...I have presented the, "simple" truth and it's "simply" not acceptable to you...You seem to desire long "diatribes" that lead to no conclusions...That's not my kind of debate...

Let me ask you this very simple question;

Do you not agree that when a person "A" posts a comprehensible Biblical argument, a person "B", who is holding to a position that such an argument challenges, has some moral obligation to actually engage the content of that argument, given that, presumably, "A" and "B" are both motivated by a pursuit of Biblical truth?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

 

[Drew]

With all due respect, I need not explain my intentions...I have presented the, "simple" truth and it's "simply" not acceptable to you...You seem to desire long "diatribes" that lead to no conclusions...That's not my kind of debate...

I want to ask you another very specific question. You state above that you have presented "simple truth". Well, one of the things you have presented is this:

You cannot or will not listen nor understand...It would be a "futile" attempt to try and "sway" someone who does not have an "open" mind to such things...

Is this characterization of me "simple truth"? If so, please enlighten us:

1. On precisely what grounds have you concluded that "I will not listen understand"?

2. On precisely what grounds have you concluded that that "I do not have an open mind"?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I want to ask you another very specific question. You state above that you have presented "simple truth". Well, one of the things you have presented is this:


Is this characterization of me "simple truth"? If so, please enlighten us:

1. On precisely what grounds have you concluded that "I will not listen understand"?

2. On precisely what grounds have you concluded that that "I do not have an open mind"?

Perhaps it could, "per chance" be, the fact that you "dispute" every word I say...That's also a sign that you do not understand...

 

[glorydaz]

Please identify specific threads and posts numbers in which Grubal, or anyone else, has actually engaged the argument that I have put forward in respect to this famous text from Ephesians 2.

Oh, Ephesians 2.

Are you saying you want to make Eph. 2 as "famous" as you made Romans 2? If that's the case, I'm not sure I'd care to enter in. Your form of debate is the same as SbG's. Every answer someone puts forth is dismissed as not an answer at all, but you add, "What does the verse say?" in bigger and bigger type until you weary your opponent down. ;)

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Oh, Ephesians 2.

Are you saying you want to make Eph. 2 as "famous" as you made Romans 2? If that's the case, I'm not sure I'd care to enter in. Your form of debate is the same as SbG's. Every answer someone puts forth is dismissed as not an answer at all, but you add, "What does the verse say?" in bigger and bigger type until you weary your opponent down. ;)

I agree with this "assessment" 100% AMEN!!!!

 

[glorydaz]

You are making Faith a Saviour instead of Christ, thats teach against Christ. You are promoting Salvation by works..

No, Christ is the saviour and we come to him "through" faith.

Think of faith as the "strait gate" and "narrow way."

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Let me ask you this very simple question;

Do you not agree that when a person "A" posts a comprehensible Biblical argument, a person "B", who is holding to a position that such an argument challenges, has some moral obligation to actually engage the content of that argument, given that, presumably, "A" and "B" are both motivated by a pursuit of Biblical truth?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

With all due respect, I've read your stuff and do not "agree" with you, nor you I, so why bother...You will not/can not be "swayed" by anything I present , as I will not be swayed by anything you say... You and a few others, only comeback (to every presentation) is,
1) You didn't answer my question, (that's #1 on your hit parade)
2) Your wrong
3) I don't understand
4) You didn't answer my question (still remains #1)

 

[glorydaz]

An outrageous falsehood, consisting in unsubstantiated speculation about my motives. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how you can make such a baseless statement.

I have presented a clear, reasonably concise, Biblically grounded case about the meaning of this text from Ephesians 2.

If you can show the readers where this argument fails, why not simply do so? Your ungenerous (and entirely untrue) speculations about my motivations here will not disguise this simple fact:

In this thread at least, you have (1) not engaged a clear argument that challenges your position; (2) resisted repeated efforts to prompt you to do so.

Unfortunately, you've used Rom. 2 in your argument. We've all been down that road and it was a dead-end. Going down dead-end roads is not going to get us anywhere.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

No, Christ is the saviour and we come to him "through" faith.

Think of faith as the "strait gate" and "narrow way."

AMEN!!!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Unfortunately, you've used Rom. 2 in your argument. We've all been down that road and it was a dead-end. Going down dead-end roads is not going to get us anywhere.

TRUE

 

[savedbygrace57]

No, Christ is the saviour and we come to him "through" faith.

Think of faith as the "strait gate" and "narrow way."

You are promoting Salvation by works too. Scripture condemns that !