The Mangling of Ephesians 2:8-9

[glorydaz]

Re: precisely

I find it interesting that you cannot discuss the Word of God without accusing me of "distorting." The fact that you're unable to understand what Paul is saying, does not give you the right to constantly accuse me of distorting the Word. I could say the same to you...on a very regular basis, but what would that prove?

You are distorting in the sense that you re-work the words of Paul into something other than what you are. And this is easy to see, as has already been shown.

And stop saying I deny what Paul is saying in Romans 2. That's a lie.

No gd, it is not a lie. This has been shown over and over. You reach in with your exegetical scalpel and carve the "he will give eternal life" out of Romans 2:6-7.

If that is allowed, where does it end?

If you're allowed to say we earn our salvation, then I'm pretty sure I can freely share what Paul is teaching so that a works based salvation is not falsely put forth. I'm only standing in the gap so the truth can be heard. You are the one who is expending so much energy re-working what Paul teaches. Paul never teaches what you claim, and you can pitch a fit if you want to. I will continue to point out your error.

 

[Free]

I'm only standing in the gap so the truth can be heard.

That is to say, what you think the truth is.

I will continue to point out your error.

You still need to show that it is error. Disagreement with currently held doctrines does not mean the other person is in error.

 

[Drew]

Re: precisely

If you're allowed to say we earn our salvation,......

Gd, I am going to ask you to not misrepresent what I post. Either this is intentional or you are not carefully reading my posts.

It is not acceptable to do what you repeatedly do - repeatedly attribute to me a position I have repeatedly and cleary distanced myself from.

 

[Drew]

gd is telling us that salvation is achieved by those who are over 6 feet tall.

Now....do you understand what it means to have your position misrepresented? How would you feel if I kept telling posters that you ascribe to "salvation by being tall".

You would, I suspect, strenuously object to such a misrepresentation.

Well, now you know how I feel

 

[Drew]

Re: precisely

You are the one who is expending so much energy re-working what Paul teaches.

You mean how I rework this from Paul:

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

....into this, my intepretation of that statement from Paul:

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Now, gd, please point out the rework.

Now you take this from Paul:

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

....and read it as follows:

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give something other than eternal life.

 

[stranger]

Re: precisely

stranger wrote:
The Holy Spirit would not teach two men differently, agreed? Let's pick Martin Luther and the apostle James. You will be aware that Martin Luther called the book of James an epistle of straw? Why? I suggest it's the text James 2:17-18 and Luthers own belief in 'justification by faith alone'.

Whether it is written to Jews or Gentiles does not change the fact that works are either 'works of the Spirit' or 'works of the flesh'. You won't find the context in scripture where the works of the Holy Spirit are condemned. So where works are condemned in any context this does not include good works or fruit of the Holy Spirit.

gd wrote:

But, we're not talking about Martin Luther...he didn't write divinely inspired words given by God. Paul and James not only ARE in agreement, but they MUST be in agreement. The Scripture cannot be broken, but man's understanding often fails.

There are many perspectives floating around. Long held beliefs suggests to me the following: People move in movements - the Protestant doctrine of 'justification by faith alone' (traceable historically to Luther and other reformation leaders) provides a strong hermenuetic mindset for reading scripture in a particular way that shuts out a serious consideration of justification by works as a legitimate line of enquiry. Futhermore, the Gospel itself is perceived to be under threat from such an enquiry. I can only spell this out and presently have my own lines of enquiry to pursue.

Yes I agree that, James and Paul should be interpreted in such a way that the seeming difficulty of 'justified by faith and justified by works' is resolved. Luther seems to have failed in regard to James' apostolic teaching. I am solely interested in the textual evidence for 'faith and works.'

This involves "showing" as opposed to "saying". The proof's in the pudding. "Faith being alone" is dead...not possessing the life of the Holy Spirit that produces the fruit man can see.

'Your faith has no works, so it's dead faith. You can see my faith in my works.
James 2:17-18 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
To put it simply...
"Proverbs 20:11" Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.
James uses the word "see" and "show"... we can see with our own eyes and aren't left to rely on the "mouth" of those making claims of faith.

See- yes, show- yes, but James was also saying it. It is, after all, written...

James 2: 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Abraham "believed God"...and it was imputed unto him for righteousness (justified).
Note the use of the word "see". Man can't know someone's faith is alive unless he sees the physical acting of good works which come as a result of a circumcised heart.
James 2: 23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
A man, without the Holy Spirit, is dead in sin...so...we will know them by their fruit. If they don't have fruit, they are still dead in their sin but claiming to be righteous....hypocrites, which is what the first part of this chapter is addressing.
James 2:26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I underlined the summation of James' argument about Abraham in V24. To me this is definitive - by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. It is not a denial of justification by faith -- but a recognition of the textual evidence that refutes a man is justified by faith alone.

I think we can sum up what we agree on, and what we disagree on, by way of closing arguments.
What do you think?

blessings brother

 

[francisdesales]

Re: precisely

Paul is quite clear that how we act determines whether we are in the flesh or in the spirit.

No, that's not what Paul is saying. We are in the Spirit when we are regenerated. It's positional...not situational.

I fear you are inventing another non-biblical separation of terms, sophistry, like the "bema throne" vs the "judgment seat for unbelievers". There is no such biblical warrant for this. I think it is the sola fideist' manner of explaining away the very clear words of James, which totally destroys sola fide. In other words, a tradition of men to be ignored.

We are in the Spirit when the Spirit of God dwells in us. The Spirit does not move out when we walk after our old fleshly nature...

Not entirely, but His effect lessens as we grow in the ways of sin again, returning to the vomit of our former lives. Eventually, we become deadened once again to the effects of sin and are lured back to it.

but we're told to mortify the deeds of the flesh. That does not mean, in any way, that we are in the flesh.

What flesh is Paul telling us to mortify???

Real life tells us that even Christians have flesh to mortify.

Those who are under the law of sin and death are children of the flesh. Those under the Law of the Spirit of life are sons of God...children of the promise.

Sin has no more dominion over the believer...death (spiritual) doesn't either.

Again, real life says otherwise. The point Paul is making is NOT that sin cannot effect a child of the promise, but that we now have ANOTHER principle to follow. We no longer have just one choice, sin. We now have joy in following a life in Christ. But that, ultimately, depends upon our choice. The Bible clearly says that believers can again become unbelievers and return to their former lives.

"Romans 8:1-2"

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

No problem. There is no condemnation for those who REMAIN in Christ. I've been saying that from the beginning, but some people have a difficult time reading another person's ideas, and so they must continue to misrepresent them.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: precisely

No, that's not what Paul is saying. We are in the Spirit when we are regenerated. It's positional...not situational.

I fear you are inventing another non-biblical separation of terms, sophistry, like the "bema throne" vs the "judgment seat for unbelievers". There is no such biblical warrant for this. I think it is the sola fideist' manner of explaining away the very clear words of James, which totally destroys sola fide. In other words, a tradition of men to be ignored.

There certainly is Biblical warrant, but you prefer to believe God's sons aren't covered by the blood of Christ and must stand before the Great White Throne with the rest of mankind. There is no condemnation to those in Christ. You contend there is.

We are in the Spirit when the Spirit of God dwells in us. The Spirit does not move out when we walk after our old fleshly nature...

Not entirely, but His effect lessens as we grow in the ways of sin again, returning to the vomit of our former lives. Eventually, we become deadened once again to the effects of sin and are lured back to it.

Oh, not entirely? What kind of partial salvation are you preaching? Those who return to the vomit are those who were never saved to begin with. Where's the belief in this "new creature" you're always preaching who can become holy and righteous before God? Perhaps some aren't as "changed" as you think they are. Obviously many will claim to know the Lord...even hear the Gospel preached every Sunday while they sit in their pews pretending to be something they're not. You continue to think they're saved and lost....as if God is incapable of keeping His own.

but we're told to mortify the deeds of the flesh. That does not mean, in any way, that we are in the flesh.

What flesh is Paul telling us to mortify???

Real life tells us that even Christians have flesh to mortify.
They have flesh to mortify, but they are not of the flesh...they are of the Spirit. Paul makes that abundantly clear in this portion of Scripture. It's our position in Christ...or don't you think we have a position in Christ?

Those who are under the law of sin and death are children of the flesh. Those under the Law of the Spirit of life are sons of God...children of the promise.

Sin has no more dominion over the believer...death (spiritual) doesn't either.

Again, real life says otherwise. The point Paul is making is NOT that sin cannot effect a child of the promise, but that we now have ANOTHER principle to follow. We no longer have just one choice, sin. We now have joy in following a life in Christ. But that, ultimately, depends upon our choice. The Bible clearly says that believers can again become unbelievers and return to their former lives.

Thus saith francisdesales, but the Word doesn't. ;) You're simply reading defeat into verses that aren't even intended for the believer. Like this natural man spiritual man discussion we're having right now. You think man can move back and forth between being in Christ and out of Christ like a yo yo. The Word does not support that at all. You have to ignore hundreds of promises in order to cling to two or three verses that you've misinterpreted to fit your belief the Lord is unable to keep His promises. He simply cannot train up His own children in the way they should go....such a failure of a Father.

"Romans 8:1-2"

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

No problem. There is no condemnation for those who REMAIN in Christ. I've been saying that from the beginning, but some people have a difficult time reading another person's ideas, and so they must continue to misrepresent them.

Do you notice the Law of life in that verse? We are now under a LAW...the Law of Life with Christ in us. We may still sin, but it has no power over us....we are forgiven for ALL our iniquities. We are now sons of God, worthy of receiving the chastening of the Lord. There is not a man alive who, after being given a new heart, can fall into such a deep pit the Good Shepherd cannot pull him out. Perhaps the God you worship isn't the loving Father the Bible says He is, and he treats his own sons as "bas*ards". I don't believe that for one minute. If you weren't so quick to think someone is saved, then you might not be so quick to think they've gotten themselves "unsaved".

 

[Drew]

Re: precisely

There is no condemnation to those in Christ.

Indeed.

And why is there no condemnation? Paul gives us the answer in Romans 8, which he has introduced with this statement. And it is an answer with which you apparently disagree. Does Paul says there is no condemnation because of people are "covered in the blood"?

As much as you may wish hard that this is what Paul says, it is not:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

And, as we all know, Paul goes on to shortly state that it is through walking in the Spirit that we get life - as verse 4 strongly implies. No matter how hard we concentrate and wish that Paul says something else, the words are what they are - life is granted based on "walking in the Spirit".

Despite the egregious and continual misrepresentation that goes on here, let me be clear: I am not, in any sense, undermining the centrality of the cross - it is only through the cross that man is liberated from enslavement to sin and can, then, walk in the Spirit, and, yes, live.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: precisely

stranger wrote:
The Holy Spirit would not teach two men differently, agreed? Let's pick Martin Luther and the apostle James. You will be aware that Martin Luther called the book of James an epistle of straw? Why? I suggest it's the text James 2:17-18 and Luthers own belief in 'justification by faith alone'.

Whether it is written to Jews or Gentiles does not change the fact that works are either 'works of the Spirit' or 'works of the flesh'. You won't find the context in scripture where the works of the Holy Spirit are condemned. So where works are condemned in any context this does not include good works or fruit of the Holy Spirit.

gd wrote:

But, we're not talking about Martin Luther...he didn't write divinely inspired words given by God. Paul and James not only ARE in agreement, but they MUST be in agreement. The Scripture cannot be broken, but man's understanding often fails.

There are many perspectives floating around. Long held beliefs suggests to me the following: People move in movements - the Protestant doctrine of 'justification by faith alone' (traceable historically to Luther and other reformation leaders) provides a strong hermenuetic mindset for reading scripture in a particular way that shuts out a serious consideration of justification by works as a legitimate line of enquiry. Futhermore, the Gospel itself is perceived to be under threat from such an enquiry. I can only spell this out and presently have my own lines of enquiry to pursue.

Yes I agree that, James and Paul should be interpreted in such a way that the seeming difficulty of 'justified by faith and justified by works' is resolved. Luther seems to have failed in regard to James' apostolic teaching. I am solely interested in the textual evidence for 'faith and works.'

[quote:11qwojce]This involves "showing" as opposed to "saying". The proof's in the pudding. "Faith being alone" is dead...not possessing the life of the Holy Spirit that produces the fruit man can see.

'Your faith has no works, so it's dead faith. You can see my faith in my works.
James 2:17-18 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
To put it simply...
"Proverbs 20:11" Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.
James uses the word "see" and "show"... we can see with our own eyes and aren't left to rely on the "mouth" of those making claims of faith.

See- yes, show- yes, but James was also saying it. It is, after all, written...

James 2: 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Abraham "believed God"...and it was imputed unto him for righteousness (justified).
Note the use of the word "see". Man can't know someone's faith is alive unless he sees the physical acting of good works which come as a result of a circumcised heart.
James 2: 23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
A man, without the Holy Spirit, is dead in sin...so...we will know them by their fruit. If they don't have fruit, they are still dead in their sin but claiming to be righteous....hypocrites, which is what the first part of this chapter is addressing.
James 2:26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I underlined the summation of James' argument about Abraham in V24. To me this is definitive - by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. It is not a denial of justification by faith -- but a recognition of the textual evidence that refutes a man is justified by faith alone.

I think we can sum up what we agree on, and what we disagree on, by way of closing arguments.
What do you think?

blessings brother[/quote:11qwojce]
The answer to James 2:23-26 is found in Romans 4...
What did Abraham find pertaining to the "flesh?" Why is that written?

Abraham was justified by works as pertaining to "the flesh"...which is before man...not God.
Because man looks at the outside and God looks at the heart.

Man can't see faith but he can see works. James says it's not faith "alone", because it is by works unto men, and by faith unto God. What justifies us before God is our belief in the work of Jesus on the cross. God does not count our good works for our justification, as Romans 4 makes clear, but man does (since he cannot judge a man's faith any other way.)

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

 

[Drew]

Re: precisely

The answer to James 2:23-26 is found in Romans 4...

The "works" in Romans 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses. The argument for this has already been provided.

If I re-post the argument, will you read it?

If so, will you engage it, showing where the flaws of the argument are?

Please note:

(1) Merely making a statement of doctrine is not a proper engagement of such an argument.

(2) Making an argument that does not actually demonstrably connect to what I have written is not a proper engagement of such an argument.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: precisely

There is no condemnation to those in Christ.

Indeed.

And why is there no condemnation? Paul gives us the answer in Romans 8, which he has introduced with this statement. And it is an answer with which you apparently disagree. Does Paul says there is no condemnation because of people are "covered in the blood"?

As much as you may wish hard that this is what Paul says, it is not:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

And, as we all know, Paul goes on to shortly state that it is through walking in the Spirit that we get life - as verse 4 strongly implies. No matter how hard we concentrate and wish that Paul says something else, the words are what they are - life is granted based on "walking in the Spirit".

Despite the egregious and continual misrepresentation that goes on here, let me be clear: I am not, in any sense, undermining the centrality of the cross - it is only through the cross that man is liberated from enslavement to sin and can, then, walk in the Spirit, and, yes, live.

It isn't a question of my wanting it really bad or wishing it into existence.
The Word is clear and you just refuse to see it.

Life begins at birth...that's what new birth is all about. "Walking in the Spirit" is the sanctification process. Life begins at birth, not in our toddler years or our teen years, but at birth. So, I'll say again, you are confusing justification with sanctification. The Lord doesn't kick us out when we're toddling around the house or even when we're in our rebellious teen years. We are sons by adoption....the papers have been finalized; God is the witness and we're sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Here we see how we pass from death unto life.
Life is not contingent on whether we 'walk", but on whether we're born to begin with.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: precisely

The answer to James 2:23-26 is found in Romans 4...

The "works" in Romans 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses. The argument for this has already been provided.

If I re-post the argument, will you read it?

If so, will you engage it, showing where the flaws of the argument are?

Please note:

(1) Merely making a statement of doctrine is not a proper engagement of such an argument.

(2) Making an argument that does not actually demonstrably connect to what I have written is not a proper engagement of such an argument.

You merely make statements and I'm supposed to swallow them whole.
Romans 4 is not talking about the law of Moses. The law had not even been given when Abraham walked the earth. Your "argument" failed then and reposting it will only show the same thing, but feel free.

You pick and choose when works speaks of the law and when it doesn't. That's simply the wrong way to present an argument...no wonder it's rejected. Mankind...not just the Jews, has always tried to "work" their way into heaven. All men have something to glory over before other men by the works they do...not just those who follow the law of Moses. Remember the "good deeds" of Romans 2? This verse in Romans 4 is clear as it stands. It needs no explanation about Abraham being justified by the works of the law...he wasn't. He was justified by faith.

 

[Drew]

Re: precisely

The Word is clear and you just refuse to see it.

Oh really? Paul says this:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

Here is my interpretation:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

Here is your interpretation:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will be sanctified, having already acquired life by other means.

Do you not see a problem here gd?

This is all about taking Paul at his word. I am doing just that, in respect to this text. You are not, despite how much you may earneslty wish otherwise. Paul is clear here - if you live according to the Spirit you get, yes, life. And by context, this is clearly life in the coming age.

I know that you need Paul to saying something else.

But, he say what he says. He does not say "if you walk in the Spirit, you get sanctified", he says, "if you walk in the Spirit, you get life".

Let me force the issue. Please fill in the blank, gd.

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will [blank],

What is Paul saying the "blank" is?

 

[francisdesales]

Re: precisely

I fear you are inventing another non-biblical separation of terms, sophistry, like the "bema throne" vs the "judgment seat for unbelievers". There is no such biblical warrant for this. I think it is the sola fideist' manner of explaining away the very clear words of James, which totally destroys sola fide. In other words, a tradition of men to be ignored.

There certainly is Biblical warrant, but you prefer to believe God's sons aren't covered by the blood of Christ and must stand before the Great White Throne with the rest of mankind. There is no condemnation to those in Christ. You contend there is.

Are you just trolling, someone who cannot read, or just clueless?

I would ask you to kindly stop your poor attempts to side track this discussion with your CONTINUED false accusations.

Why do you continue to provide false witness? Control yourself...

If there was a biblical warrant for "situational" vs "conditional", you would have explained it. I guess there isn't. However, it appears you are much better at erecting strawmen to knock down, rather than actually thinking about your theology and what I am saying...

What kind of partial salvation are you preaching?

I am talking about the Spirit's presence within the man born from above, not eternal salvation. People once saved, whether Jews in the OT or Christians in the NT have subsequently lost that status because the presence of God has left. As Christ remains within us, we will be saved.

Remember Scriptures? How about 1 John 5:12? And how does the rest of John tell us that we are to KNOW we have Christ's presence? Because you said so? What did you say again about the "name it and claim it" bunch?

Those who return to the vomit are those who were never saved to begin with.

We've had that discussion, and you were wrong then, and are still wrong. The section in question clearly describes a man who was once saved. If you think otherwise, perhaps you might want to humor me and describe what "being saved" is. I recall that conversation, and it was quite funny watching the hoops you had to jump through to avoid the clear reading of Scriptures.

Where's the belief in this "new creature" you're always preaching who can become holy and righteous before God? Perhaps some aren't as "changed" as you think they are. Obviously many will claim to know the Lord...even hear the Gospel preached every Sunday while they sit in their pews pretending to be something they're not. You continue to think they're saved and lost....as if God is incapable of keeping His own.

A person's actions are the way the Bible tells us we know about the new creation. Those who obey the commandments have Christ working in them. They are MADE holy, not just pretend-holy...

Christians don't just play being holy (at least the people I know). We share in the divine nature. If you remain filthy rags, that is your fault for your lack of trust...

They have flesh to mortify, but they are not of the flesh...they are of the Spirit.

The act of mortifying the flesh is an act of the Spirit recognizing that one has flesh to mortify in the first place!!! Those walking in the Spirit realize that they continue to require God's aid to become more like Christ - and thus, to continue to die to self.

Of course, you don't understand the process and necessity of BEING sanctified in the first place, so this is probably lost on you...

Paul makes that abundantly clear in this portion of Scripture. It's our position in Christ...or don't you think we have a position in Christ?

I am not familiar with the idea of "positional" in Scriptures and how this differs with "situational". It is an invented scheme to deny the Word of God and supplant it with the word of man.

Again, real life says otherwise. The point Paul is making is NOT that sin cannot effect a child of the promise, but that we now have ANOTHER principle to follow. We no longer have just one choice, sin. We now have joy in following a life in Christ. But that, ultimately, depends upon our choice. The Bible clearly says that believers can again become unbelievers and return to their former lives.

Thus saith francisdesales, but the Word doesn't. ;)

We had a long discussion on this, and I cited a number of Scriptures, don't say otherwise. The problem here is that you don't want to admit that the Scriptures DO INDEED tell us that men can revert back to a condition that is even worse than before. Define "being saved", and you'll see that Peter is saying that such a man has indeed left fellowship and returned to their former walk. Your efforts to deny that are just dishonest.

You're simply reading defeat into verses that aren't even intended for the believer.

You apparently have never heard of the OT, since it is full of such admonitions. Ever hear of Amos, Joel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah? God's people have a responsibility, not a free ticket. The "Day of the Lord" is not just one of joy, but it is also one of unexpected condemnation. Have you read Amos? Your brand of Christianity reminds me of the people who are so secure in their supposed salvation whom Amos chastises. The "defeat" is man's, not God's inability to save. God offers aid, and some men choose not to accept it. Fruit is dependent also upon the soil.

Like this natural man spiritual man discussion we're having right now. You think man can move back and forth between being in Christ and out of Christ like a yo yo. The Word does not support that at all.

Sure it does. Those in Christ are KNOWN by their obedience to the Commandments. If you are disobeying God's commandments willingly, you aren't in Christ.

You have to ignore hundreds of promises

You don't understand any of the promises, since you equate them as unconditionally given, although you cannot explain how they were given to YOU, when God Himself says He desires ALL men to be saved.

[Are] ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Amos 9:7

Or,

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:10-11

Just because of your supposed status of being a child of God doesn't give you a free ticket into heaven!

Now, please explain how YOU came to receive the promise, when salvation relies entirely upon God?

Salvation is conditional. Always has been.

in order to cling to two or three verses that you've misinterpreted to fit your belief the Lord is unable to keep His promises. He simply cannot train up His own children in the way they should go....such a failure of a Father.

You are the one blaming God for when a man is not saved, not me... :gah

Do you notice the Law of life in that verse? We are now under a LAW...the Law of Life with Christ in us.

The Mosaic Law is not the Law of Life.

We may still sin, but it has no power over us....

It does, if we want it to. You are misinterpreting "power over us". What planet are you living on?

we are forgiven for ALL our iniquities.

Of the past. THOSE sins have no power over us...!!! I know of pastors who are alcoholics. You trying to tell me sin has no power over someone? Baloney. Our past sins no longer hold us under the power of guilt and such. Not that future temptations cannot overcome us.

We are now sons of God, worthy of receiving the chastening of the Lord.

and more... God is in charge, not you. Shall I cite Ezekiel 18 again for you?

There is not a man alive who, after being given a new heart, can fall into such a deep pit the Good Shepherd cannot pull him out.

God only pulls out those who desire to be pulled out.

The Good Shepherd the God you worship isn't the loving Father the Bible says He is, and he treats his own sons as "bas*ards". I don't believe that for one minute. If you weren't so quick to think someone is saved, then you might not be so quick to think they've gotten themselves "unsaved".

Apparently, you think that one must be good and REMAIN good to "prove" that you are saved. Thus, you never can know you are saved, because any subsequent falling away might reveal you are actually deluded..

No thanks, I'm not interested in that tradition of men...

I KNOW I was saved - but I also know I must work out my salvation to eternal life, in fear and trembling. Being saved upon baptism was just a first step in my journey.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: precisely

I fear you are inventing another non-biblical separation of terms, sophistry, like the "bema throne" vs the "judgment seat for unbelievers". There is no such biblical warrant for this. I think it is the sola fideist' manner of explaining away the very clear words of James, which totally destroys sola fide. In other words, a tradition of men to be ignored.

There certainly is Biblical warrant, but you prefer to believe God's sons aren't covered by the blood of Christ and must stand before the Great White Throne with the rest of mankind. There is no condemnation to those in Christ. You contend there is.

Are you just trolling, someone who cannot read, or just clueless?

I would ask you to kindly stop your poor attempts to side track this discussion with your CONTINUED false accusations.

Why do you continue to provide false witness? Control yourself...

If there was a biblical warrant for "situational" vs "conditional", you would have explained it. I guess there isn't. However, it appears you are much better at erecting strawmen to knock down, rather than actually thinking about your theology and what I am saying...

What kind of partial salvation are you preaching?

I am talking about the Spirit's presence within the man born from above, not eternal salvation. People once saved, whether Jews in the OT or Christians in the NT have subsequently lost that status because the presence of God has left. As Christ remains within us, we will be saved.

Remember Scriptures? How about 1 John 5:12? And how does the rest of John tell us that we are to KNOW we have Christ's presence? Because you said so? What did you say again about the "name it and claim it" bunch?

Those who return to the vomit are those who were never saved to begin with.

We've had that discussion, and you were wrong then, and are still wrong. The section in question clearly describes a man who was once saved. If you think otherwise, perhaps you might want to humor me and describe what "being saved" is. I recall that conversation, and it was quite funny watching the hoops you had to jump through to avoid the clear reading of Scriptures.

Where's the belief in this "new creature" you're always preaching who can become holy and righteous before God? Perhaps some aren't as "changed" as you think they are. Obviously many will claim to know the Lord...even hear the Gospel preached every Sunday while they sit in their pews pretending to be something they're not. You continue to think they're saved and lost....as if God is incapable of keeping His own.

A person's actions are the way the Bible tells us we know about the new creation. Those who obey the commandments have Christ working in them. They are MADE holy, not just pretend-holy...

Christians don't just play being holy (at least the people I know). We share in the divine nature. If you remain filthy rags, that is your fault for your lack of trust...

They have flesh to mortify, but they are not of the flesh...they are of the Spirit.

The act of mortifying the flesh is an act of the Spirit recognizing that one has flesh to mortify in the first place!!! Those walking in the Spirit realize that they continue to require God's aid to become more like Christ - and thus, to continue to die to self.

Of course, you don't understand the process and necessity of BEING sanctified in the first place, so this is probably lost on you...

Paul makes that abundantly clear in this portion of Scripture. It's our position in Christ...or don't you think we have a position in Christ?

I am not familiar with the idea of "positional" in Scriptures and how this differs with "situational". It is an invented scheme to deny the Word of God and supplant it with the word of man.

Again, real life says otherwise. The point Paul is making is NOT that sin cannot effect a child of the promise, but that we now have ANOTHER principle to follow. We no longer have just one choice, sin. We now have joy in following a life in Christ. But that, ultimately, depends upon our choice. The Bible clearly says that believers can again become unbelievers and return to their former lives.

Thus saith francisdesales, but the Word doesn't. ;)

We had a long discussion on this, and I cited a number of Scriptures, don't say otherwise. The problem here is that you don't want to admit that the Scriptures DO INDEED tell us that men can revert back to a condition that is even worse than before. Define "being saved", and you'll see that Peter is saying that such a man has indeed left fellowship and returned to their former walk. Your efforts to deny that are just dishonest.

You're simply reading defeat into verses that aren't even intended for the believer.

You apparently have never heard of the OT, since it is full of such admonitions. Ever hear of Amos, Joel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah? God's people have a responsibility, not a free ticket. The "Day of the Lord" is not just one of joy, but it is also one of unexpected condemnation. Have you read Amos? Your brand of Christianity reminds me of the people who are so secure in their supposed salvation whom Amos chastises. The "defeat" is man's, not God's inability to save. God offers aid, and some men choose not to accept it. Fruit is dependent also upon the soil.

Like this natural man spiritual man discussion we're having right now. You think man can move back and forth between being in Christ and out of Christ like a yo yo. The Word does not support that at all.

Sure it does. Those in Christ are KNOWN by their obedience to the Commandments. If you are disobeying God's commandments willingly, you aren't in Christ.

You have to ignore hundreds of promises

You don't understand any of the promises, since you equate them as unconditionally given, although you cannot explain how they were given to YOU, when God Himself says He desires ALL men to be saved.

[Are] ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Amos 9:7

Or,

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:10-11

Just because of your supposed status of being a child of God doesn't give you a free ticket into heaven!

Now, please explain how YOU came to receive the promise, when salvation relies entirely upon God?

Salvation is conditional. Always has been.

in order to cling to two or three verses that you've misinterpreted to fit your belief the Lord is unable to keep His promises. He simply cannot train up His own children in the way they should go....such a failure of a Father.

You are the one blaming God for when a man is not saved, not me... :gah

Do you notice the Law of life in that verse? We are now under a LAW...the Law of Life with Christ in us.

The Mosaic Law is not the Law of Life.

We may still sin, but it has no power over us....

It does, if we want it to. You are misinterpreting "power over us". What planet are you living on?

we are forgiven for ALL our iniquities.

Of the past. THOSE sins have no power over us...!!! I know of pastors who are alcoholics. You trying to tell me sin has no power over someone? Baloney. Our past sins no longer hold us under the power of guilt and such. Not that future temptations cannot overcome us.

We are now sons of God, worthy of receiving the chastening of the Lord.

and more... God is in charge, not you. Shall I cite Ezekiel 18 again for you?

There is not a man alive who, after being given a new heart, can fall into such a deep pit the Good Shepherd cannot pull him out.

God only pulls out those who desire to be pulled out.

The Good Shepherd the God you worship isn't the loving Father the Bible says He is, and he treats his own sons as "bas*ards". I don't believe that for one minute. If you weren't so quick to think someone is saved, then you might not be so quick to think they've gotten themselves "unsaved".

Apparently, you think that one must be good and REMAIN good to "prove" that you are saved. Thus, you never can know you are saved, because any subsequent falling away might reveal you are actually deluded..

No thanks, I'm not interested in that tradition of men...

I KNOW I was saved - but I also know I must work out my salvation to eternal life, in fear and trembling. Being saved upon baptism was just a first step in my journey.

Knock off the lectures, Joe, you do exactly what you accuse me of.

Just listen to yourself once in awhile. Look at the tirade you dole out because I dare to say there is, indeed Biblical warrant for what I'm saying. Frankly, I'm tired of your fleshly behavior. Neither you, nor Drew, can discuss anything without hurling out plain old trash-talk. I can read...I'm not clueless...and I don't have to stoop to your "debate tactics" to have my say.

In other words...I simply refuse to read past your first sentence. You don't deserve the time I'd spend listening to what you have to say. Perhaps you should contemplate the difference between works and fruit. I see you working hard to prove some point, but the fruit you produce STINKS.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: precisely

Knock off the lectures, Joe, you do exactly what you accuse me of.

I will lecture you until you provide some actual Scriptures that you don't twist around to mean something else out of context, such as your gymnastics with James 2 and the supposed "just before man" nonsense...

I will lecture you when you continue to MISREPRESENT me, PURPOSELY, such as when you accuse me of saying the blood of Christ does not heal us. What is your problem? I have denied this charge countless occasions and have explained my position, and yet you again must falsely charge me. I suppose I should counter in kind and accuse you of supporting abortion or homosexual activity, and when you deny it, charge you again with it. How would you feel about that?

I will lecture you when you talk about "positional" and "situational", and when I ask for clarification, you ignore it and cry that "Scriptures state it", but provide not a verse to back it up. Because "glorydaz says so"? Sorry, that doesn't work for me. You need to state your case, and then I will weigh the idea in my mind to see if it makes sense or not.

I will lecture you when you continue to deny, against the Bible and against life experience and common sense, that man can fall away from God - even Jesus Himself said so (for example, the parable of the sower and the seed).

And finally, I will lecture you when you talk about doctrines that are EXPLICITLY DENIED in the Scriptures as foundational! Sola fide is denied. Paul and James both deny it. Jesus denies it. John denies it. Peter never mentions faith alone as salvific. As long as you hold such a false doctrine as foundational, I will continue to point out where you are wrong. The more we continue, the more obvious to OTHERS that you are wrong, as I continue to provide common sense attacks upon the sacred cow. The Truth requires that I do so. If I didn't, people might get the message that you are correct. FAR from it!

Just listen to yourself once in awhile. Look at the tirade you dole out because I dare to say there is, indeed Biblical warrant for what I'm saying.

Tirade? What tireade? Long posts do not equate to being "tirades"

Now, WHERE IS THE BIBLICAL WARRANT???

I asked nicely. I asked several times for explanations. Perhaps your pride is miffed because I don't buy it? If it is so "obvious", then it should be quite simple to explain it... but no, you would rather misdirect and attack my "tirades".

Your logical fallacies are duly noted for all to see. rather than explain, you prefer to misdirect...

Frankly, I'm tired of your fleshly behavior. Neither you, nor Drew, can discuss anything without hurling out plain old trash-talk. I can read...I'm not clueless...and I don't have to stoop to your "debate tactics" to have my say.

On the subjects we are refering to recently, you are indeed clueless. As to my "fleshy behavior", you don't read your own posts, do you...? When people continue to falsely accuse me, they should not expect kid gloves... My patience is only so much, I am not going to give you free shots at me all day.

In other words...I simply refuse to read past your first sentence. You don't deserve the time I'd spend listening to what you have to say. Perhaps you should contemplate the difference between works and fruit. I see you working hard to prove some point, but the fruit you produce STINKS.

The fruit produced depends upon the recipient, as well. Did Jesus' fruit "stink" because the Pharisees were stubborn and proud in their understandings of Scriptures? Apply this to yourself...

You are not open to anything but your own opinions. You refuse to listen to common sense attacks upon your sacred cow, so you must whine about my "rough" tactics... The man confident in the truth will be able to take on divergent opinions and weigh them without getting personally miffed, as you do.

If you want "spiritual" discussions, perhaps you should do so, as well.

 

[stranger]

Hello glorydaz,

Time to summarise where we agree and disagree.

Feel free to ask me any questions.

Q 1. Do you believe in justification by faith alone?

blessings brother

 

[glorydaz]

Re: precisely

I will lecture you until you provide some actual Scriptures that you don't twist around to mean something else out of context, such as your gymnastics with James 2 and the supposed "just before man" nonsense...

I will lecture you when you continue to MISREPRESENT me, PURPOSELY, such as when you accuse me of saying the blood of Christ does not heal us. What is your problem? I have denied this charge countless occasions and have explained my position, and yet you again must falsely charge me. I suppose I should counter in kind and accuse you of supporting abortion or homosexual activity, and when you deny it, charge you again with it. How would you feel about that?

I will lecture you when you talk about "positional" and "situational", and when I ask for clarification, you ignore it and cry that "Scriptures state it", but provide not a verse to back it up. Because "glorydaz says so"? Sorry, that doesn't work for me. You need to state your case, and then I will weigh the idea in my mind to see if it makes sense or not.

I will lecture you when you continue to deny, against the Bible and against life experience and common sense, that man can fall away from God - even Jesus Himself said so (for example, the parable of the sower and the seed).

And finally, I will lecture you when you talk about doctrines that are EXPLICITLY DENIED in the Scriptures as foundational! Sola fide is denied. Paul and James both deny it. Jesus denies it. John denies it. Peter never mentions faith alone as salvific. As long as you hold such a false doctrine as foundational, I will continue to point out where you are wrong. The more we continue, the more obvious to OTHERS that you are wrong, as I continue to provide common sense attacks upon the sacred cow. The Truth requires that I do so. If I didn't, people might get the message that you are correct. FAR from it!

Just listen to yourself once in awhile. Look at the tirade you dole out because I dare to say there is, indeed Biblical warrant for what I'm saying.

Tirade? What tireade? Long posts do not equate to being "tirades"

Now, WHERE IS THE BIBLICAL WARRANT???

I asked nicely. I asked several times for explanations. Perhaps your pride is miffed because I don't buy it? If it is so "obvious", then it should be quite simple to explain it... but no, you would rather misdirect and attack my "tirades".

Your logical fallacies are duly noted for all to see. rather than explain, you prefer to misdirect...

Frankly, I'm tired of your fleshly behavior. Neither you, nor Drew, can discuss anything without hurling out plain old trash-talk. I can read...I'm not clueless...and I don't have to stoop to your "debate tactics" to have my say.

On the subjects we are refering to recently, you are indeed clueless. As to my "fleshy behavior", you don't read your own posts, do you...? When people continue to falsely accuse me, they should not expect kid gloves... My patience is only so much, I am not going to give you free shots at me all day.

In other words...I simply refuse to read past your first sentence. You don't deserve the time I'd spend listening to what you have to say. Perhaps you should contemplate the difference between works and fruit. I see you working hard to prove some point, but the fruit you produce STINKS.

The fruit produced depends upon the recipient, as well. Did Jesus' fruit "stink" because the Pharisees were stubborn and proud in their understandings of Scriptures? Apply this to yourself...

You are not open to anything but your own opinions. You refuse to listen to common sense attacks upon your sacred cow, so you must whine about my "rough" tactics... The man confident in the truth will be able to take on divergent opinions and weigh them without getting personally miffed, as you do.

If you want "spiritual" discussions, perhaps you should do so, as well.

You're obviously very "miffed." I've never accused you of saying the "blood of Christ does not heal us". That is not a part of any terminology I would even use. If you insist on reading between the lines, at least get it straight.

Actually, I don't see that I've misrepresented you in any way. You deny that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. If you can lecture me while denying such a basic tenant of the faith then lecture away. I will just have to ignore the bulk of your posts since they deny the very foundations of the faith.

 

[glorydaz]

Hello glorydaz,

Time to summarise where we agree and disagree.

Feel free to ask me any questions.

Q 1. Do you believe in justification by faith alone?

blessings brother

I would say we're justified the same way we're saved...by grace through faith.

That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.