Jesus & James

[fhansen]

I say it's the wisdom of men, not the wisdom that comes from God, as I have explained previously.

Sure, and so did I at one time.

 

[fhansen]

Your logic is impeccable as far as natural human reasoning goes. But Paul in 1 Cor. 2 says that natural man can't understand or receive the things of the Spirit. It takes a spiritual person made spiritual by God to accept the true gospel of grace. So your response reveals something about your belief: it reveals that you really do not believe that one born of God is a new creature and that his "wanter" has been changed by the sovereign act of God. I really do believe that you disagree with the apostle John in 1 Jn. 3:9.

Our "wanter" is coaxed and informed and appealed to, but not forced. That's not how God has ever dealt with man. And those claiming to be spiritual persons disagree with each other over these and other understandings of God's Word all day long BTW.

 

[fhansen]

Irresistable grace was taught by Augustine. Yet, I think you like quoting him only when it's convenient to your dogma. No, I don't agree. Peter clearly states that we are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation.

Augustine wrote a huge amount of stuff-a very fertile minded man and prolific author was he-and he also evolved in his thinking over time and so, yes, it's very easy for anyone to pick and choose what they want from his works. And when he wrote against Pelagianism he necessarily strongly emphasized the role of grace, as Paul did in his similar battle against legalism. But Augustine was no John Calvin and Paul didn't understand things exactly the Reformed way either.

Here're a few excerpts from Augustine's "On The Spirit and the Letter" (CHURCH FATHERS: On the Spirit and the Letter (St. Augustine)),
that give some understanding of his view on the law and grace, written around the time of his bout with Pelagianism:

"For whoever did even what the law commanded, without the assistance of the Spirit of grace, acted through fear of punishment, not from love of righteousness, and hence in the sight of God that was not in the will, which in the sight of men appeared in the work; and such doers of the law were held rather guilty of that which God knew they would have preferred to commit, if only it had been possible with impunity."

"Must then the unrighteous man, in order that he may be justified, — that is, become a righteous man — lawfully use the law, to lead him, as by the schoolmaster's hand (Galatians 3:24), to that grace by which alone he can fulfil what the law commands? Now it is freely that he is justified thereby — that is, on account of no antecedent merits of his own works; otherwise grace is no more grace (Romans 11:6), since it is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but that we may be able to do them — in other words, not because we have fulfilled the law, but in order that we may be able to fulfil the law.”

"The law was given that grace might be sought; and grace was given that the law might be fulfilled."

This is one purpose of grace, for us to be able to fulfill the law without regard to the law, with true righteousness now, apart from the law (Rom 3:20), that comes from God on the basis of faith (Phil 3:9).

And if we understand Paul, too, as speaking of this righteousness bestowed, as Augustine put it, the full meaning of the gospel and Scripture is better illumined.

While you think that grace means complete freedom from the penalty of all sin for all time, Paul and Augustine understood that grace means more than forgiveness of sin only but also of the ability to overcome the sin now that condemns and leads us to death. Faith is a turning away from the world and sin-and from the law if the person has ever heard it-and a turning to a new life, with God, with a new heart and a new Spirit given. Intrinsic to justification is real personal righteousness. Justification can only take place by virtue of man uniting with and being empowered by God who justifies the ungodly. Again, this is what turned me to Christianity, seeing what God would do in me: that which I could not do for myself if apart from Him:

“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.” Jer 31:33

The law is just me, while grace is me plus God. Faith is access to that grace because faith means access to Him. Faith implies more than believing in some basic truths about Jesus and trusting in Him whereupon God declares us just/righteous even though we’re not. You cut it short at faith alone, leaving out what all that's implied in having faith in God, which Paul does not do. Rather, faith is to become a child of God and that state of being, itself, is true righteousness for man and will remain his to the extent that we remain in Him. If we are sinning willfully, wantonly, then we are not just, we haven’t remained in Him, we're not His.

Someone may object, saying that we’ll all continue to sin, and there are a few possible answers.

• A true believer is strictly declared righteous, sinless, and so no sin can ever separate them from God. But this effectively means antinomianism or the notion that a believer should be able to rape, murder, and kill to the end of their lives and still make it into heaven.
• A true believer will overcome sin, live righteously, etc.; by whatever name and however it happens, God grants them the ability to do so as they're justifed. But then a question arises: if they won’t overcome sin completely, then does it really even matter if they overcome sin at all?
• There’s some middle ground under the new covenant, as we’re living by the Spirit. There must be some degree or quality of sin that should indicate that the person must not be a true believer, or in any case has turned and left the treasure that he had previously found and is no longer following Christ. A true change of heart and repentance and confession would be essential, as they're willing. Then God will forgive and purify them from all unrighteousness again (1 John 1), restoring them to justice/righteousness. This is the position the church arrived at centuries ago.

 

[tdidymas]

No, both of our versions require that a righteousness not our own be freely given us in order to be jusitfied, and therefore saved. The righteousness that you believe in is merely declared, amounting to forgivness of sins only, while the Christian version is that actual righteousness is given while sins are also forgiven. Because real righteousness is part of our being justified, we can also forfeit it, by turning back to the flesh and living unjustly. We're responsible to embrace and act upon the gifts, the grace, given.

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

"The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom 5:20-21

"In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires." Rom 6:11-12

"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

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

When you say "merely declared," you are treating the righteousness declared and imputed by God as if it is nothing more than theory or imagination. Is this an accurate description of what you think of imputed righteousness?

The gospel declared by the angel to Joseph says, "He shall save His people from their sins." Therefore, your idea that imputed righteousness is "forgiveness of sins only," as if we are not delivered from sin, is a misrepresentation of what Reformed Theology teaches.

But you admitted that your understanding is that salvation results from faith plus works. In this, it cannot be a free gift. According to RCC teaching it is merited by works of penance, is it not? But if grace is not free, then it's not grace, but reward.

 

[tdidymas]

Our "wanter" is coaxed and informed and appealed to, but not forced. That's not how God has ever dealt with man. And those claiming to be spiritual persons disagree with each other over these and other understandings of God's Word all day long BTW.

This is where our paths diverge. It appears to me that you base your narrative on subjective experience rather than on what God's word says:
"Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to His Son, that He might be firstborn among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called, and whom He called, these He also justified, and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

"Coaxed, informed, and appealed to" is not in the NT. God saves those He chooses to without our permission. God doesn't need our permission, nor want it. The elect of God are saved by God, and after being saved, we submit.

 

[tdidymas]

Sure, and so did I at one time.

Are you implying that you once believed in salvation as a free gift, and then converted to the idea of meriting salvation by faith + works?

 

[tdidymas]

Augustine wrote a huge amount of stuff-a very fertile minded man and prolific author was he-and he also evolved in his thinking over time and so, yes, it's very easy for anyone to pick and choose what they want from his works. And when he wrote against Pelagianism he necessarily strongly emphasized the role of grace, as Paul did in his similar battle against legalism. But Augustine was no John Calvin and Paul didn't understand things exactly the Reformed way either.

Here're a few excerpts from Augustine's "On The Spirit and the Letter" (CHURCH FATHERS: On the Spirit and the Letter (St. Augustine)),
that give some understanding of his view on the law and grace, written around the time of his bout with Pelagianism:

"For whoever did even what the law commanded, without the assistance of the Spirit of grace, acted through fear of punishment, not from love of righteousness, and hence in the sight of God that was not in the will, which in the sight of men appeared in the work; and such doers of the law were held rather guilty of that which God knew they would have preferred to commit, if only it had been possible with impunity."

"Must then the unrighteous man, in order that he may be justified, — that is, become a righteous man — lawfully use the law, to lead him, as by the schoolmaster's hand (Galatians 3:24), to that grace by which alone he can fulfil what the law commands? Now it is freely that he is justified thereby — that is, on account of no antecedent merits of his own works; otherwise grace is no more grace (Romans 11:6), since it is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but that we may be able to do them — in other words, not because we have fulfilled the law, but in order that we may be able to fulfil the law.”

"The law was given that grace might be sought; and grace was given that the law might be fulfilled."

This is one purpose of grace, for us to be able to fulfill the law without regard to the law, with true righteousness now, apart from the law (Rom 3:20), that comes from God on the basis of faith (Phil 3:9).

And if we understand Paul, too, as speaking of this righteousness bestowed, as Augustine put it, the full meaning of the gospel and Scripture is better illumined.

While you think that grace means complete freedom from the penalty of all sin for all time, Paul and Augustine understood that grace means more than forgiveness of sin only but also of the ability to overcome the sin now that condemns and leads us to death. Faith is a turning away from the world and sin-and from the law if the person has ever heard it-and a turning to a new life, with God, with a new heart and a new Spirit given. Intrinsic to justification is real personal righteousness. Justification can only take place by virtue of man uniting with and being empowered by God who justifies the ungodly. Again, this is what turned me to Christianity, seeing what God would do in me: that which I could not do for myself if apart from Him:

“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.” Jer 31:33

The law is just me, while grace is me plus God. Faith is access to that grace because faith means access to Him. Faith implies more than believing in some basic truths about Jesus and trusting in Him whereupon God declares us just/righteous even though we’re not. You cut it short at faith alone, leaving out what all that's implied in having faith in God, which Paul does not do. Rather, faith is to become a child of God and that state of being, itself, is true righteousness for man and will remain his to the extent that we remain in Him. If we are sinning willfully, wantonly, then we are not just, we haven’t remained in Him, we're not His.

Someone may object, saying that we’ll all continue to sin, and there are a few possible answers.

• A true believer is strictly declared righteous, sinless, and so no sin can ever separate them from God. But this effectively means antinomianism or the notion that a believer should be able to rape, murder, and kill to the end of their lives and still make it into heaven.
• A true believer will overcome sin, live righteously, etc.; by whatever name and however it happens, God grants them the ability to do so as they're justifed. But then a question arises: if they won’t overcome sin completely, then does it really even matter if they overcome sin at all?
• There’s some middle ground under the new covenant, as we’re living by the Spirit. There must be some degree or quality of sin that should indicate that the person must not be a true believer, or in any case has turned and left the treasure that he had previously found and is no longer following Christ. A true change of heart and repentance and confession would be essential, as they're willing. Then God will forgive and purify them from all unrighteousness again (1 John 1), restoring them to justice/righteousness. This is the position the church arrived at centuries ago.

You said, "While you think that grace means complete freedom from the penalty of all sin for all time, Paul and Augustine understood that grace means more than forgiveness of sin only but also of the ability to overcome the sin now that condemns and leads us to death. Faith is a turning away from the world and sin-and from the law if the person has ever heard it-and a turning to a new life, with God, with a new heart and a new Spirit given."

The implication is that you think that complete freedom from the penalty of all sin for all time means the same thing as forgiveness of sin ONLY, which is a false premise.

 

[fhansen]

When you say "merely declared," you are treating the righteousness declared and imputed by God as if it is nothing more than theory or imagination. Is this an accurate description of what you think of imputed righteousness?

The gospel declared by the angel to Joseph says, "He shall save His people from their sins." Therefore, your idea that imputed righteousness is "forgiveness of sins only," as if we are not delivered from sin, is a misrepresentation of what Reformed Theology teaches.

But you admitted that your understanding is that salvation results from faith plus works. In this, it cannot be a free gift. According to RCC teaching it is merited by works of penance, is it not? But if grace is not free, then it's not grace, but reward.

Merely declared means that one's state of righteousness is a matter of declaration and aquittal only; simul iustus et peccator, as Luther put it. And that, alone, meets the requirement for entry into heaven froim that standpoint.

If, by the term "delivered from sin", an additional aspect is meant: the abilty to retain that deliverance, that righteousness, to sin no more, IOW, meaning that this ability is intrinsic to being justified, then, yes, "merely declared" would not fully describe that view of justification.

Now, if by "works" you mean living obediently and rightly, lawfully, whether cognizant of the law or not, then I think a question must be asked: does a true believer never sin?

 

[fhansen]

The implication is that you think that complete freedom from the penalty of all sin for all time means the same thing as forgiveness of sin ONLY, which is a false premise.

Why would that be? Ps 32:1-5 and Rom 4:8 are constantly brought up to insist upon that very thing.

 

[fhansen]

Are you implying that you once believed in salvation as a free gift, and then converted to the idea of meriting salvation by faith + works?

I'm saying that a wanton sinner will not enter into heaven. And that the righteousness that keeps one from sinning in that way is a free gift-pure grace-so that justification is not merely a matter of not having one's sins counted against them. We both apparently maintain that this righteousness or holiness comes to the justified person in any case, which already aligns with the teachings of the ancient church.

The main difference seems to be that while you say the true believer cannot help but live righteously, I maintain that he can stray-and that if he strays far and persistently enough then he either wasn't a true believer to begin with, or he spurned and lost his justified status by turning back to the flesh. And that those two possibilities are really just distinctions without a difference at the end of the day.

 

[fhansen]

This is where our paths diverge. It appears to me that you base your narrative on subjective experience rather than on what God's word says:
"Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to His Son, that He might be firstborn among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called, and whom He called, these He also justified, and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

Mine is based on both, Scripture and experience-Scripture affirming experience and experience complimenting Scripture-as it should be. The church, dealing with the variety of Scriptural commentary involving the will of man along with the faith as received at the beginning, does not take isolated verses and make complete theologies out of them. Thomism, Molinism, et al, do not give totally satisfying answers to this question either. From the catechism:

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":

 

[fhansen]

"Coaxed, informed, and appealed to" is not in the NT. God saves those He chooses to without our permission. God doesn't need our permission, nor want it. The elect of God are saved by God, and after being saved, we submit.

There are a whole bunch of contingencies-"ifs"-in the bible, that really have no need to exist at all if it's all to be done for us.

If you hear my words and put them into practice, if you remain in Me and my words remain in you, if you open the door, if you pick up your cross and follow, if you don't return to the flesh, if you overcome sin, if you believe, if you don't become entangled back into the world, if you make effort to be holy, if you obey the commandments, if you persevere, of you wash your robes, if your righteousness exceeds that of the Phariesees, if you take My yoke upon you, etc, etc. All of this is possible with the Holy Spirit, whom we receive by turning to God in faith.

Grace is there, not all will respond even as God desires them to. Everything God creates is good.; He did not create man to sin or else He would be blameworthy and accountable for it, not man. He didn't give Adam a command that he wanted Adam to disobey, He didn't give Moses commandments that He wanted man to disobey. He wants all to repent and come to Him now. Not all will.

"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ‘For in Him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are His offspring.’ Therefore, being offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by man’s skill and imagination. Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:26-31

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Pet 3:9

 

[tdidymas]

Merely declared means that one's state of righteousness is a matter of declaration and aquittal only; simul iustus et peccator, as Luther put it. And that, alone, meets the requirement for entry into heaven froim that standpoint.

If, by the term "delivered from sin", an additional aspect is meant: the abilty to retain that deliverance, that righteousness, to sin no more, IOW, meaning that this ability is intrinsic to being justified, then, yes, "merely declared" would not fully describe that view of justification.

Now, if by "works" you mean living obediently and rightly, lawfully, whether cognizant of the law or not, then I think a question must be asked: does a true believer never sin?

You're asking the wrong question, this is the reason why you don't understand what I'm saying. Obedience to God comes after salvation, as a result of it, not a cause. But you are making it the cause, which is wrong. Here is the order according to Paul's teaching:
1. After the gospel is preached, God acts upon a person's spirit to raise them to life spiritually (Eph. 2:5)
2. The faith comes into that person's heart as a gift of the Spirit who comes to dwell (Rom. 10:13, 1 Jn. 5:1)
3. This person is justified by God (Rom. 3:24-25, 5:1, 8:1)
4. This person is sanctified by the Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2)
5. This person begins to obey God, first in faith (Rom. 1:5), then in actions (Jn. 14:21), after being thirsty for God's word (1 Pet. 2:2)

Salvation is something a person has inherently when they become a child of God. When a person is in Christ, he is a new creature, and "free indeed" (Jn 8:32), no longer a slave to sin (Rom. 6:22-23).

 

[tdidymas]

Why would that be? Ps 32:1-5 and Rom 4:8 are constantly brought up to insist upon that very thing.

Your idea is an imposition on those scriptures and out of context. Ps. 32 has the context of "in whom is no deceit." This means that God has done more in the person forgiven than "mere forgiveness."

And the context of Rom. 4 has this statement: "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness," which you appear to avoid, because it slaps your idea in the face.

 

[tdidymas]

I'm saying that a wanton sinner will not enter into heaven. And that the righteousness that keeps one from sinning in that way is a free gift-pure grace-so that justification is not merely a matter of not having one's sins counted against them. We both apparently maintain that this righteousness or holiness comes to the justified person in any case, which already aligns with the teachings of the ancient church.

The main difference seems to be that while you say the true believer cannot help but live righteously, I maintain that he can stray-and that if he strays far and persistently enough then he either wasn't a true believer to begin with, or he spurned and lost his justified status by turning back to the flesh. And that those two possibilities are really just distinctions without a difference at the end of the day.

No, they are not "distinctions without a difference." The fact that a person becomes apostate is proof positive he does not believe, nor ever did. "Not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven." 'Shall enter' means they didn't enter, even when calling Him 'Lord.'

The difference is the agenda of the person calling Jesus "Lord." If they are really seeking God and His will, seeking to know Him, willing to go through whatever trial He puts him through, even like Job, such a person proves his faith and thus proves he is born of God. If they are just seeking to escape judgment by calling Jesus "Lord," they won't have faith that endures, and will fall away like the seed on the wayside. "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." If someone has no interest in such an experience, then can they really say they are God's elect? Whether they are or aren't would be beyond their knowledge.

 

[tdidymas]

Mine is based on both, Scripture and experience-Scripture affirming experience and experience complimenting Scripture-as it should be. The church, dealing with the variety of Scriptural commentary involving the will of man along with the faith as received at the beginning, does not take isolated verses and make complete theologies out of them. Thomism, Molinism, et al, do not give totally satisfying answers to this question either. From the catechism:

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":

There is a difference between imposing the interpretation of experience on scripture in an attempt to make scripture say the same thing, and extracting truth from scripture and then evaluating experience to interpret experience by the truth of scripture. The former of these is the whole problem with most church dogmas, doctrines, catechisms, and such which end up as doctrines of men. This is why there is so much controversy, especially over the most basic and fundamental ideas about salvation. My view of Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that errors of past Christian writers have been allowed to creep into the teachings of the churches, and now what is seen is a caricature of Christianity.

 

[tdidymas]

There are a whole bunch of contingencies-"ifs"-in the bible, that really have no need to exist at all if it's all to be done for us.

If you hear my words and put them into practice, if you remain in Me and my words remain in you, if you open the door, if you pick up your cross and follow, if you don't return to the flesh, if you overcome sin, if you believe, if you don't become entangled back into the world, if you make effort to be holy, if you obey the commandments, if you persevere, of you wash your robes, if your righteousness exceeds that of the Phariesees, if you take My yoke upon you, etc, etc. All of this is possible with the Holy Spirit, whom we receive by turning to God in faith.

Grace is there, not all will respond even as God desires them to. Everything God creates is good.; He did not create man to sin or else He would be blameworthy and accountable for it, not man. He didn't give Adam a command that he wanted Adam to disobey, He didn't give Moses commandments that He wanted man to disobey. He wants all to repent and come to Him now. Not all will.

"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ‘For in Him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are His offspring.’ Therefore, being offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by man’s skill and imagination. Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:26-31

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Pet 3:9

No, the "ifs" are written to separate the true from the false. Jesus said, "Those who are of the truth listen to Me."

 

[Aaron112]

So we who are of the truth do not listen to forum chatter. We run from it! (keep a distance from it, don't believe it nor trust it)

Jesus said, "Those who are of the truth listen to Me."

 

[fhansen]

You're asking the wrong question, this is the reason why you don't understand what I'm saying. Obedience to God comes after salvation, as a result of it, not a cause. But you are making it the cause, which is wrong. Here is the order according to Paul's teaching:
1. After the gospel is preached, God acts upon a person's spirit to raise them to life spiritually (Eph. 2:5)
2. The faith comes into that person's heart as a gift of the Spirit who comes to dwell (Rom. 10:13, 1 Jn. 5:1)
3. This person is justified by God (Rom. 3:24-25, 5:1, 8:1)
4. This person is sanctified by the Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2)
5. This person begins to obey God, first in faith (Rom. 1:5), then in actions (Jn. 14:21), after being thirsty for God's word (1 Pet. 2:2)

Salvation is something a person has inherently when they become a child of God. When a person is in Christ, he is a new creature, and "free indeed" (Jn 8:32), no longer a slave to sin (Rom. 6:22-23).

You've got the cart ahead of the horse-and not all Protestant theology agrees with your's here, as you probably know. And salvation is ultimately known when God judges us at the end. And the criterion will be on how we loved, born out by how we lived, once touched by Him. Obedience comes as we respond first to the gift of faith, as we say "yes" to God, IOW, From there a relationship, a union, exists within which I work out my salvation with even more grace given, unless I depart again. This is why salvation is expressed as being a past, present, and future event in the bible. At justification we're all His, and heaven bound. But depending on the time, opportunity, and what we do with grace given, we can compromise that status, that relationship, we can mock God and His justice/righteousness and grace by living a life opposed to them/Him.

Again, are you saying that a believer cannot sin, cannot become a slave to sin again? You rejected the puppet or automaton concept but is that what you're saying after all?

 

[fhansen]

Your idea is an imposition on those scriptures and out of context. Ps. 32 has the context of "in whom is no deceit." This means that God has done more in the person forgiven than "mere forgiveness."

And the context of Rom. 4 has this statement: "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness," which you appear to avoid, because it slaps your idea in the face.

"My" idea is only what Sola Fide folks often report to me. And Ps 32:2 actually makes it sound as if no deceit was found in the person to begin with, but either way, which is it then?? Is the person given righteousness in some manner, which is consistent with the teachings of the ancient churches, or are they only aquitted and delcared to be righteous at justificaton? I would only welcome the former because that position is still consistent with the early church teachings, but I know that's not the case for many, who profess novel theologies now.

Apparently you're of the camp that recognizes that real, personal righteousness is an intrinsic part of being justified-but that we will not be judged on that obedience/righteousness? And that we cannot lose or compromise it-that we cannot sin???