Works Salvation is False

[Clare73]

I'll go for that. I wouldn't have even known who won the the Super Bowl (let alone who was playing) if our neighbors had'nt enticed us over for homemade pizza! (Be forewarned tho, God is Catholic)

I know. . .

No, success, now partnered with our Lord, is how He saves us. There's absolutely no glory in suddenly changing His mind and saving a portion of His creation without regard to their success in becoming righteous/overcoming sin. There's no comdemnation in Chrsit because, with and in Him, and remaining in Him, we are now slaves to righteousness rather than to sin.
, again.That's the point, dear. By showing what sin looks like...it's disclosed-so that we become convicted of the sin that we cannot overcome even though God created no one to sin. So, why, then do people sin? Because they born alienated from, no longer in fellowship with, God. Faith opens the door to righteousness for man as it opens the door back to Him, the very source of our righteousness. You see,
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:20-21

Exacrtly, if one even understands what that means, as explained above. Faith is the means to true, authentic righteousness for man, not a reprieve from the obligation to be righteous.

Faith is the same is both the OT and NT. It's to rejoin God in the fellowship man was created for. Again, faith is the basis, for justice or righteousness for man. To know Jesus is to know God, to believe in Jesus is to believe in God, to hope in Jesus is to hope in God, and, most importantly, to love Jesus is to love God.
"Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:21
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

And, again,
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:33-34

As a person comes to know the true God, they begin to believe, first of all. That's why Jesus came. Then He does what only He can do: He justifies us, putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts.

No, you're separating what was never meant to be separated. That's the error of Sola Fide, where the obligation to be righteous is no longer cosidered to be fulfilled by grace-imparted personal righteousness but by a strictly imputed righteousness instead while the person still remains a sinner. This is so foreign to the true gospel as undestood by all from the beginning. Where Sola Fide equals, for all practoical purposes, sola the remission of sin, in truth, justification entails both the remission of sin and the imparted righteousness given with which we work our salvation. That's the message all throughout Romans, for one. This bears repeating, even tho I fear it will continue to fall on deaf ears:
"What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:21-22

Justification and sanctification are part and parcel of the same thing, sanctification being a contination of or growth in the journey towards our purpose and perfection that God set us on through faith.

Um, God's always known what man needs to learn-what Adam didn't yet appreciate in Eden. And He's been patiently working with us for centuries since the Fall to get us there, rather than just saving us to begin with, rather than just "disposing" us towards Himself to begin with. Instead, when the "fulness of time " had come He sent His Son to reveal, by every word and deed, what we need to learn. Hopefullly by now man will be able to appreciate this, appreciate Him, having become jaded enough of sin and the world'[s ways and values so that he might turn, and respond to His revelation and the grace that draws us to Himself. Some open the door when He knocks, some don't. He prompts us to open it but never opens it for us- just as He allowed Adam to close it to begin with in Eden.

All has been previously addressed.

 

[Clare73]

And your's are airy faincful notions based on wooden interpretations.
It's as shallow or deep as He makes it. You, just haven't delved deeply enough yet.

Previously addressed.

 

[fhansen]

Previously addressed.

Might've been addressed but the delving hasn't been done . Tell you what tho, we both feel like we've more that adequately addressed each other's arguments-and you're probably as exasperated as myself pondering why your positions shouldn't be obvious. I'm ready for a break. Didn't think I'd ever come to that point .

 

[Clare73]

Might've been addressed but the delving hasn't been done

That's where the ethereal human fancies are located.

God's word is exoteric (PTL!), not esoteric.

The Greek is all that needs to be done.

 

[fhansen]

That's where the human fancies are located.

God's word is exoteric (PTL!), not esoteric.

The Greek is all that needs to be done.

The Greek needs to be understood- in the context within which the words were intended, as with any interpretation of text, and which is what delving will help you improve upon. Then fancies are done away with. Right now your interpretations are part exegesis, part eisegesis, and in large part guess-work.

 

[Clare73]

The Greek needs to be understood- within the context within which the words were intended,

There is no "intended," there is simply their context which demonstrates their meaning, which is not that complicated to determine.

as with any interpretation of text, and which is what delving will help you improve upon. Then fancies are done away with. Right now your interpretations are part exegesis, part eisegesis, and in large part guess-work.

Which assertion is without Biblical demonstration and, therefore, without Biblical merit.

 

[fhansen]

There is no "intended," there is their context, which is not that complicated to determine.

That's very poor scholarship. The words referred to can be understood in more than one way. You even insisted on defining a word, dikaioa, to your personal liking rather than according to its actual defined meaning. Anyway, intention is most everything in textual criticism.

Which assertion is without Biblical demonstration and, therefore, without Biblical merit.

I've done all that over and over -and you've managed to demonstrate very little truth and understanding with your own demonstrations anyway. But,
1) Anyone believing that the bible is perfectly perspicuous on all pertinent matters is living in dreamland, participating in wishful thinking.
2) Once we've distanced ourselves too far from the past, from the historical teachings of the Christian church, we're bound to fall into error, not to mention disagreement even with others using the same "method" for determining or ruling on Christian truths, namely Sola Scriptura..

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's a joint effort; God leading, us following, or not. That's the way He wants it, at His sovereign discretion, according to His perfect wisdom and will.

So, our effort adds to God's? God's work is not enough to save us? The Gospel is entirely of Grace. And no, I'm not saying that we needn't work, subsequently, nor that we needn't even exhaust ourselves in effort. But for me to live is Christ.

I keep insisting on a sane gospel from a sane God who's revealed His nature and will and both are consistent with sanity. Calvinisim, by comparison, is not. You have more homework to do.

Can you show me, even one way, that Calvinism is insane? You cannot. All you have is your narrative, which, as I have shown repeatedly, depends on self-determination and the illogical self-contradiction of determinism via chance. You will say you don't, but you have no sound structure where man can do anything in and of himself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, I don't think I have ever met or heard of any Christians trying to keep the Mosaic law. Do you have examples?

She said, "eg" not "ie". The point is not whether it is the Mosiac law or not, but the notion that we can "live up to" God's standard, or even do good enough, by sheer effort. The bed is too short, the blanket too narrow to wrap around oneself.

 

[Der Alte]

There is no "intended," there is their context, which is not that complicated to determine.

Which assertion is without Biblical demonstration and, therefore, without Biblical merit.

When Jesus called Herod a fox was he actually a fox? When Jesus named Simon, Petros/Stone was he literally a stone? When Jesus called the sons of John "sons of thunder" were they literally sons of thunder?

 

[fhansen]

So, our effort adds to God's? God's work is not enough to save us? The Gospel is entirely of Grace. And no, I'm not saying that we needn't work, subsequently, nor that we needn't even exhaust ourselves in effort. But for me to live is Christ.

God does whatever God wants. And if He deems it best to involve my particaption, then so be it. Personally I see nothing but wisdom in that.

So, our effort adds to God's? God's work is not enough to save us? The Gospel is entirely of Grace. And no, I'm not saying that we needn't work, subsequently, nor that we needn't even exhaust ourselves in effort. But for me to live is Christ.

Can you show me, even one way, that Calvinism is insane? You cannot. All you have is your narrative, which, as I have shown repeatedly, depends on self-determination and the illogical self-contradiction of determinism via chance. You will say you don't, but you have no sound structure where man can do anything in and of himself.

It's irrational because on the one hand we have God demanding obedience and righteousness of man, obliging him to obey His rightful commands and patiently working with him down through the centuries, and then suddenly, saying, never mind, I'll just alter some of you so that you can't help but obey.

 

[Der Alte]

God does whatever God wants. And if He deems it best to involve my particaption, then so be it. Personally I see nothing but wisdom in that.

It's irrational because on the one hand we have God demanding obedience and righteousness of man, obliging him to obey His rightful commands and patiently working with him down through the centuries, and then suddenly, saying, never mind, I'll just alter some of you so that you can't help but obey.

I have been trying for weeks to get some of the UR-ites to admit that they believe that either in this life or after death God will say to the remaining sinners, "Never mind, I'll just alter some of you so that you can't help but obey."

 

[Clare73]

That's very poor scholarship.

Or just not your scholarship.
I say 500 years of solid Biblical scholarship trumps 1500 years of theological/philosophical scholarship governed by tradition.

The words referred to can be understood in more than one way. You even insisted on defining a word, dikaioa,

I did not define dikaioa, I defined dikaiosis and dikaiosune.

to your personal liking rather than according to its actual defined meaning.

Asssertion without demonstration is without merit.

Anyway, intention is most everything in textual criticism.

And "intention" is determined by context. . .it's not that complicated.

I've done all that over and over -and you've managed to demonstrate very little truth and understanding with your own demonstrations anyway.

You have asserted over and over -- and you've managed to Biblically demonstrate no error in my presentations.

But,
1) Anyone believing that the bible is perfectly perspicuous on all pertinent matters is living in dreamland, participating in wishful thinking.

I have a higher view of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Ti 3:16). . .where matters become perspicuous in light of the whole counsel of God.

What matter do you find not perspicuous that I may examine the Scriptures regarding it?
Of course, that means taking Scripture at its word, which I suspect is the real problem in this lack of" perspicuousness."

2) Once we've distanced ourselves too far from the past, from the historical teachings of the Christian church, we're bound to fall into error,

Which historical teachings also fall into error. . .as demonstrated by the Catholic monk, Martin Luther.

The truth is the text itself, understood in the light of the whole counsel of God.

 

[Clare73]

When Jesus called Herod a fox was he actually a fox? When Jesus named Simon, Petros/Stone was he literally a stone? When Jesus called the sons of John "sons of thunder" were they literally sons of thunder?

You forgot the parables. . .

That takes us to context for its meaning. . .which context here is its meaning in ordinary parlance. . .where it means "like" (having the same characteristics), as its meaning in the parables.

 

[fhansen]

I did not define dikaioa, I defined dikaiosis and dikaiosune.

Sorry, the word in question was dikaioi, not "dikaioa". I had stated that "dikaioa" doesn't come up at all as a Greek word even though you had defined it along with the other two in post #61. You stated this in post #57 about dikaioi:
"Dikaioi is a form of dikaiosis = declaration of right standing with God's justice.

And this is simply not the definition of dikaioi, having nothing to do with a declaration of anything, but simply meaning right or just.

And "intention" is determined by context. . .it's not that complicated.

Historical context. To know an author's intention is often quite difficult. Fortunately we have the church, based on experience, shedding light as well.

I have a higher view of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Ti 3:16). . .where matters become perspicuous in light of the whole counsel of God.

No, you just have an overly high view of yourself-of your abilities to interpret. Many people share this unique ability, while disagreeing with each other over pertinent issues all day long. You've already displayed the inability to discern correctly regarding baptismal regeneration, a matter of soteriology that many of your fellow Sola Scriptura adherents disagree with you over -while the ancient churches expressed no such disagreement to begin with, based on their received belief and practice.

Which historical teachings also fall into error. . .as demonstrated by the Catholic monk, Martin Luther.

Nope, the Catholic monk was patently wrong. Except for a few things such as baptismal regeneration, believng the sacrament to be necessary for salvation.

 

[Clare73]

Sorry, the word in question was dikaioi, not "dikaioa". I had stated that "dikaioa" doesn't come up at all as a Greek word

Good catch. . .that was a typo, it should have been dikaioma.

You stated this in post #57 about dikaioi:
"Dikaioi is a form of dikaiosis = declaration of right standing with God's justice.

And this is simply not the definition of dikaioi, having nothing to do with a declaration of anything, but simply meaning right or just.

I note that dikaioi still remains a form of dikaiosis (i.e., forensic righteousness), the substance of which does not change.

And again, to have merit, you must demonstrate, not just assert, that my assertion is incorrect.

No, you just have an overly high view of yourself-of your abilities to interpret.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black. . .that it takes one to know one, and

meknows you have yet to Biblically demonstrate your assertions, leaving them without merit,

while bringing to mind: "as sounding brass and tinkling cymbal."

Nope, the Catholic monk was patently wrong.

The NT disagrees.

 

[fhansen]

To have merit, you must demonstrate, not just assert, that my assertion is incorrect.

Look up the word for yourself instead of asserting definitions for it that don't apply!

 

[fhansen]

The NT disagrees.

Nope, just yourself and a few others who've strayed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God does whatever God wants. And if He deems it best to involve my particaption, then so be it. Personally I see nothing but wisdom in that.

Oh no doubt your participation is involved! I never say otherwise. But your participation is not what brings about your regeneration, and your participation subsequent to regeneration is also God's work. Not "a joint effort", as though we improve on what God does, but God in us doing in us. Involved? —oh my yes! Intimately!

It's irrational because on the one hand we have God demanding obedience and righteousness of man, obliging him to obey His rightful commands and patiently working with him down through the centuries, and then suddenly, saying, never mind, I'll just alter some of you so that you can't help but obey.

I agree your strawman is irrational. You even make as though (according to Reformed Theology, (or perhaps you mean, my theology)), the believer doesn't have to struggle to obey, to be continually putting to death the old man, to be in agony over his own sinfulness, to be exhausting himself and sometimes even in despair over his lack of Godliness, and to continue to plod on and on, pursuing the work of faithfulness in denial of self. You also don't seem to recognize (in our theology) the joy of knowing Christ, in the beauty of God's majesty and the power of his purity.

 

[Clare73]

Look up the word for yourself instead of asserting definitions for it that don't apply!

Nope, just yourself and a few others who've strayed.

Falls somewhat short of demonstration. . .