We are not saved by faith alone as Martin Luther inferred..... here is the Biblical evidence

[Justicewolf]

I believe you are giving Martin Luther too much credit.

 

[atpollard]

His whole point, as well as with wondering, is trying to prove that our salvation is conditioned upon OUR good deeds in conjunction with Christ.

Respectfully, that is NOT what wondering is claiming or trying to prove.

She is claiming that a person who has no works during sanctification was not justified ... Just as God claimed in the scripture verses she presented but which you have ignored in your rush to slap the mud of "synergistic heritic" with your wide brush and narrow focus. (Since you will now swing your brush at me, again, I embrace Classic 5 point Calvinism and am utterly monergistic in my sotierology, yet I acknowledge the difference between a genuine faith that is from God and the 'dead faith' that James warns us cannot save anyone.)

 

[MCoop]

Respectfully, that is NOT what wondering is claiming or trying to prove.

She is claiming that a person who has no works during sanctification was not justified ... Just as God claimed in the scripture verses she presented but which you have ignored in your rush to slap the mud of "synergistic heritic" with your wide brush and narrow focus. (Since you will now swing your brush at me, again, I embrace Classic 5 point Calvinism and am utterly monergistic in my sotierology, yet I acknowledge the difference between a genuine faith that is from God and the 'dead faith' that James warns us cannot save anyone.)

Sure she is. And is why she believes loss of salvation is possible by works. And she also teaches works “maintains” ones salvation and is a cooperative effort in justification. But yet you ignore that correct? Since you profess to be a “Calvinist” you do well defending pelagians, or should I say Arminians. If you’ve read my post as well then you’ll know that I agree that no fruit in sanctification from a professing believer is the result of one not truly been saved or justified. So yes I understand what dead faith or no faith at all is. But yet you attack me rather than standing on the truth. If you were monergistic as you say, why attack me and defend a synergist? And why not expose the OP as heretical? I know the answer to that already just a rhetorical question. Side skirting the issue at hand is what many do out of compromise for the truth. Was Luther wrong as the OP states?

 

[OzSpen]

No he hasn’t and is why his statements about him are disingenuous. Or he chooses not to so he can justify works based salvation. His whole point, as well as with wondering, is trying to prove that our salvation is conditioned upon OUR good deeds in conjunction with Christ. That justification is merited by a sinners works, in cooperation with Christ. The judaizers did the same and is why Paul anathematized them as teaching another gospel, a false gospel that denies the cross. RCC did the same and is why Luther protested against it

MCoop,

If you have some issue with the soteriology of Rajesh and wondering, please address them directly and not through a secondary source in your comments to me.

Do you agree that good works MUST be after salvation to demonstrate that one's salvation/faith is genuine? I'm thinking of verses such as James 2:17-18 (NLT):

17 So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless.
18 Now someone may argue, “Some people have faith; others have good deeds.” But I say, “How can you show me your faith if you don’t have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds.”​

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

Sure she is. And is why she believes loss of salvation is possible by works. And she also teaches works “maintains” ones salvation and is a cooperative effort in justification. But yet you ignore that correct? Since you profess to be a “Calvinist” you do well defending pelagians, or should I say Arminians. If you’ve read my post as well then you’ll know that I agree that no fruit in sanctification from a professing believer is the result of one not truly been saved or justified. So yes I understand what dead faith or no faith at all is. But yet you attack me rather than standing on the truth. If you were monergistic as you say, why attack me and defend a synergist? And why not expose the OP as heretical? I know the answer to that already just a rhetorical question. Side skirting the issue at hand is what many do out of compromise for the truth. Was Luther wrong as the OP states?

Mcoop
I'm not feeling well and cannot write too much.
Read what atpollard and OzSpen have replied to you.
That is precisely my belief.
Works do not save us.
We do good deeds because we are saved.

 

[MCoop]

MCoop,

If you have some issue with the soteriology of Rajesh and wondering, please address them directly and not through a secondary source in your comments to me.

Do you agree that good works MUST be after salvation to demonstrate that one's salvation/faith is genuine? I'm thinking of verses such as James 2:17-18 (NLT):

17 So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless.
18 Now someone may argue, “Some people have faith; others have good deeds.” But I say, “How can you show me your faith if you don’t have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds.”​

Oz

I have and if you believe the OP then I see why you take offense. And my answer is yes to your question.. but if you’ve read my previous post, then you wouldn’t have ask me that. The same disingenuous assumption that Rajesh makes about Luther on this question you just asked me, is the same assumption you are making on me. And why synergist always assume that those who hold to justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to be antinomian. How r u any different?

 

[Justicewolf]

Mcoop
I'm not feeling well and cannot write too much.

I hope you feel better soon sister.


Some of the best medicine there is. Just let it sit on its woven spine and then let your fingers fall naturally into the pages. I've done that when I've the flu. And the words that are on both sides of each page there are a balm unto my soul. And my healing is increased far more than would have been without it.

God's mercies surround you.

 

[Justicewolf]

I have and if you believe the OP then I see why you take offense. And my answer is yes to your question.. but if you’ve read my previous post, then you wouldn’t have ask me that. The same disingenuous assumption that Rajesh makes about Luther on this question you just asked me, is the same assumption you are making on me. And why synergist always assume that those who hold to justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to be antinomian. How r u any different?

You sound angry that someone doesn't think as you do?

 

[OzSpen]

Sure she is. And is why she believes loss of salvation is possible by works. And she also teaches works “maintains” ones salvation and is a cooperative effort in justification. But yet you ignore that correct?

MCoop,

When talking of another person's views, please direct your comments to that person. Also, when you state that a person 'believes loss of salvation is possible by works', please extend to that person the courtesy of stating where she said that, including the post number. Otherwise, it is your interpretive assertion/opinion. She may have said that, but it's up to you to demonstrate that with specific quotes.

However, the best place to do this is in speaking directly with her so that we can view the interaction.

Since you profess to be a “Calvinist” you do well defending pelagians, or should I say Arminians.

Please demonstrate that Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrants were Pelagians. I would like to see you show me where Reformed/Classical Arminians today are Pelagians. I'm interested in your evidence that supports your accusations.

But yet you attack me rather than standing on the truth. If you were monergistic as you say, why attack me and defend a synergist?

Are you saying monergism is biblical and synergism is unbiblical? For those who don't know what these 2 terms mean, here are brief dictionary definitions:

In Christian theology:

• monergism is 'the Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit alone is responsible for the spiritual regeneration of human beings' (Collins Dictionary online 2017. s v monergism).
• synergism is 'the doctrine or belief that the human will cooperates with the Holy Spirit and with divine grace, esp in the act of conversion or regeneration' (Collins Dictionary online 2017. s v synergism).

Oz

 

[MCoop]

You sound angry that someone doesn't think as you do?

If you have no input regarding the OP and why you believe it to be true, why even make assumptions regarding my attitude?

 

[GodsGrace]

I hope you feel better soon sister.


Some of the best medicine there is. Just let it sit on its woven spine and then let your fingers fall naturally into the pages. I've done that when I've the flu. And the words that are on both sides of each page there are a balm unto my soul. And my healing is increased far more than would have been without it.

God's mercies surround you.

Thanks JW
Tomorrow will have more to say...

 

[OzSpen]

Mcoop
I'm not feeling well and cannot write too much.
Read what atpollard and OzSpen have replied to you.
That is precisely my belief.
Works do not save us.
We do good deeds because we are saved.

wondering,

I am praying that the Lord will bring healing to your body and encourage you in your spirit. May the God of healing be your comfort - healing through direct intervention of through the medical profession (James 5:14-16 ; 1 Tim 5:23).

Are you in a situation where you can call for the elders of the church to come to your house to pray for your healing?

Blessings,
Oz

 

[MCoop]

MCoop,

When talking of another person's views, please direct your comments to that person. Also, when you state that a person 'believes loss of salvation is possible by works', please extend to that person the courtesy of stating where she said that, including the post number. Otherwise, it is your interpretive assertion/opinion. She may have said that, but it's up to you to demonstrate that with specific quotes.

However, the best place to do this is in speaking directly with her so that we can view the interaction.



Please demonstrate that Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrants were Pelagians. I would like to see you show me where Reformed/Classical Arminians today are Pelagians. I'm interested in your evidence that supports your accusations.



Are you saying monergism is biblical and synergism is unbiblical? For those who don't know what these 2 terms mean, here are brief dictionary definitions:

In Christian theology:

• monergism is 'the Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit alone is responsible for the spiritual regeneration of human beings' (Collins Dictionary online 2017. s v monergism).
• synergism is 'the doctrine or belief that the human will cooperates with the Holy Spirit and with divine grace, esp in the act of conversion or regeneration' (Collins Dictionary online 2017. s v synergism).

Oz

How about rereading this whole thread instead of deflecting from the truth. Yes all Arminianism is ultimately Pelagian at heart. And yes monergism is the only correct view of soteriology biblically.. Synergism is unbiblical

 

[OzSpen]

How about rereading this whole thread instead of deflecting from the truth. Yes all Arminianism is ultimately Pelagian at heart. And yes monergism is the only correct view of soteriology biblically.. Synergism is unbiblical

I asked you to provide the evidence. You did not do that.

Oz

 

[MCoop]

I asked you to provide the evidence. You did not do that.

Oz

How about proving Arminianism ultimately isn’t pelagian at its core? Always has been. If you have a problem with what I said then you prove that it isn’t

 

[Papa Zoom]

Mcoop
I'm not feeling well and cannot write too much.
Read what atpollard and OzSpen have replied to you.
That is precisely my belief.
Works do not save us.
We do good deeds because we are saved.

100% with you on this wondering

 

[OzSpen]

How about proving Arminianism ultimately isn’t pelagian at its core? Always has been. If you have a problem with what I said then you prove that it isn’t

In #293 you stated: 'Yes all Arminianism is ultimately Pelagian at heart'.

It's up to you to demonstrate that Arminianism is Pelagian as you were the one to state this and I'm waiting for your evidence. Are you talking about Reformed Arminianism, Wesleyan Arminianism, Free-Will Baptist Arminianism, or are you trying to put all of these under the generic term of Arminianism?

What did Pelagius believe? What do Reformed Arminians believe? Are they identical? It's your call to demonstrate that Arminianianism = Pelagianism. It's you who labelled Arminians this way.

Oz

 

[Justicewolf]

How about proving Arminianism ultimately isn’t pelagian at its core? Always has been. If you have a problem with what I said then you prove that it isn’t

That is not how attribution of fact works in a polite discussion. You declared that about Arminianism. Now you reiterate with, always has been. Yet , yours is at this moment only an opinion posturing as fact unsubstantiated by a series of supportive proofs.
Please proceed with those.

 

[MCoop]

In #293 you stated: 'Yes all Arminianism is ultimately Pelagian at heart'.

It's up to you to demonstrate that Arminianism is Pelagian as you were the one to state this and I'm waiting for your evidence. Are you talking about Reformed Arminianism, Wesleyan Arminianism, Free-Will Baptist Arminianism, or are you trying to put all of these under the generic term of Arminianism?

What did Pelagius believe? What do Reformed Arminians believe? Are they identical? It's your call to demonstrate that Arminianianism = Pelagianism. It's you who labelled Arminians this way.

Oz

No the onus is on you to prove your opinion that Arminianism isn’t in essence pelagian. The fact remains that all forms of Arminianism are synergistic and centers around man. And is why the OP believes what he believes. Besides the smokescreen of the false teaching of “prevenient grace”, Arminianism is no different than Pelagianism

 

[MCoop]

That is not how attribution of fact works in a polite discussion. You declared that about Arminianism. Now you reiterate with, always has been. Yet , yours is at this moment only an opinion posturing as fact unsubstantiated by a series of supportive proofs.
Please proceed with those.

Are you still riding the belt loop of many synergist on this thread? Or are you gonna give input on why you believe the OP to be truth to you?