Salvation is something God did for us. We can't do that for ourselves. Only God can save us, and he did.So, we could access salvation? I don't really get the question.
That's not how the new covenant works.
Hebrews 6:13 NIV
When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself,
Romans 4:16 NIV
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
Steven, you can't just slap down two verses and walk away as IF they self-evidently deliver some kind of absolute answer. They don't.
(By the way, I have been slowly reading your e-book link....it's going to take some time ... )
Lol! It's just an analogy, but if you think it's useful, then be my guest in using it.Great!
May I use it sometime?
Well, I don't know that I'd say that. The problem, I think, is that there's likely a lot that is claimed to be "of the Holy Spirit" that isn't. Whether those things that some Christians do in their respective churches qualifies as either "humanism" or "fellowship" would have to be identified and evaluated on a case by case basis. I try not to lump these things together all in one fell swoop.It's basically just humanism and fellowship. . .
While you're at it you need to read Definitive Proof of Universalism by Professor Dr. Hendrick Von Hassenpfeffer PhD, MrF, RFd, jpL, QFD, SPQR
You'll be starting with volume 1
Lol! It's just an analogy, but if you think it's useful, then be my guest in using it.
Well, I don't know that I'd say that. The problem, I think, is that there's likely a lot that is claimed to be "of the Holy Spirit" that isn't. Whether those things that some Christians do in their respective churches qualifies as either "humanism" or "fellowship" would have to be identified and evaluated on a case by case basis.
But it's so much simpler that way!I try not to lump these things together all in one fell swoop.
I suspect we are talking about conditional vs. automatic by natural birth.Why did Jesus die if salvation is conditional? (we can earn it)
He may be indicating unilateral vs. bilateral covenant.Steven, you can't just slap down two verses and walk away as IF they self-evidently deliver some kind of absolute answer. They don't.
(By the way, I have been slowly reading your e-book link....it's going to take some time ... )
He may be indicating unilateral vs. bilateral covenant.
You referred to the covenant as bilateral, whereas the new covenant is unilateral, hence "that's (bilateral) not how it works."
Now you're in my wheelhouse.. . .all covenants in the bible are Bi-lateral, even if it's God who has the Senior and Sovereign position, we the junior position of subject. We have to respond to God through Christ by faith ... and faith isn't a 'passive' concept in the New Testament.
... but somehow, so many seem to interpret "faith" in this vain.
No we don't save ourselves obviously. But nowhere does scripture say God unconditionally saves.Salvation is something God did for us. We can't do that for ourselves. Only God can save us, and he did.
Now you're in my wheel house.
Faith itself is not performance of works, it's a mind and heart set.
Faith simply admits you into the covenant, in which no performance is required to receive the promise, as in the unilateral Abrahamic covenant of the land grant, Canaan, and the unilateral New Covenant.
Passive is your word. . .and a strawman.Faith does respond AND it performs. Period. There is no such thing as a "passive faith." Asserting that faith is passive comes out of what is essentially a poor excuse for any kind of real exegesis of the Bible.
No problem. . .just because it's you.(I hate to say it like that, but since everyone else seems to be doing the "just so because I say it's so, and if you don't look out I'll post a bible verse" tactic--------------then so can I.
The difference is, I'll post the entire biblical document (typically, it ends up being the letter to the Romans, doesn't it?), and not just a 'singular' verse or two of it.
It seems the proponent of ECT has to explain God's love; whereas, if UR obtains, God's love operates as one would expect it to operate.
And that in itself is all we need to know. . .if it hasn't been given that it's true, then why are we even proposing it, particularly when it is in opposition to much in the NT?It's not so much that the gospel message loses something with UR, it's quite the opposite. All we really need to know is if it's true, but that has not been given.
Tradition? . . .the word of God is much more than tradition.The tradition has fostered a sense of certainty where none should exist, except for those who know God. Love will always know God (1 John 4:8).
Speaking of wheelhouse. . .In my understanding, all covenants in the bible are Bi-lateral, even if it's God who has the Senior and Sovereign position, we the junior position of subject. We have to respond to God through Christ by faith ... and faith isn't a 'passive' concept in the New Testament.
... but somehow, so many seem to interpret "faith" in this vain.
Careful. Faith = not by works.In my understanding, all covenants in the bible are Bi-lateral, even if it's God who has the Senior and Sovereign position, we the junior position of subject. We have to respond to God through Christ by faith ... and faith isn't a 'passive' concept in the New Testament.
... but somehow, so many seem to interpret "faith" in this vain.
In time they will.No we don't save ourselves obviously. But nowhere does scripture say God unconditionally saves.
If he already saved everyone, everyone on earth would already be a Jesus follower.
No, that's not what Hermeneutics is, Clare. It's a WHOLE LOT MORE than that ...Speaking of wheelhouse. . .
Think about this. . .hermeneutics supposes that the "what, where, when and how" of a text will give you the writer's meaning.
... sort of. In communication theory, when we handle a message, we don't know all of the writer's mind since we can't be there in the time and place of the writer in order to observe their lives, hear additional thoughts spoken that aren't included in their writings or ask him question for clarifiication. So, to assert what you're asserting here is a bit of balderdash.Actually, it is the writer's mind that gives you the writer's meaning. Familiarity with Paul's mind is what gives you the meaning of what he is saying everywhere on an issue, no matter what, where, when or how of the text.
Actually, those are topics within the corpus of the extant writings that we have from Paul. In order to become familiar with 'Paul's contents,' this REQUIRES that we can accurately access and understand what he wrote. The problem is that Paul is dead and has been for 2,000 years; we can ONLY read (through English translation) his written topics and to read these letters alone is not to 'know' Paul's full mind.For example, familiarity with Paul's mind gives you the meaning of saving faith, justification, credited righteousness, sanctification's righteousness, works, law, reconciliation, peace, the body of Christ, the church, sin, condemnation, fallen nature, etc., etc., etc. wherever Paul discusses it.
No, it actually isn't "simply" a result of studying Scripture. To say this like you do--- and I've heard it before elsewhere ---is a highly pretentious position to take and not one that I'd advise anyone to just 'easily' assume.And familiarity with Paul's mind is simply the result of studying Scripture.
No, the only BS is that which exists when people who claim to be Christian and led by the Holy Spirit are utterly irresponsible with reading Scriptures and somehow "magically" come to the conclusion that they can just slap down bits and pieces of disconnected Scripture as they fit together disconnected verses and then follow that up by 'believing' they've actually asserted something on God's behalf by having done so.Too much of the hermeneutics argument goes to making the meaning of Scripture unknowable (BSD), which suggests an agenda. Seems to be about authority over Scripture.