ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF SAVING FAITH

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,070
9,928
The Keep
✟581,493.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Having spent a lot of time learning about and talking with Catholic and Orthodox Christians, I actually think in many ways a lot of the Protestant world is more works-oriented and works-focused when it comes to salvation. In both Catholicism and Orthodoxy it is still understood that faith is properly a matter of grace rather than human effort. Rome has never denied that faith is a gift, but has argued that faith is a gift we receive by accepting it and cooperating with God's grace by acting upon that faith through good works.

What I see in a lot of the various modern Protestantisms is, instead, that faith is the work we do and that we come to God offering our work of faith and that God responds positively by calling our good work of faith righteous. Thus it is a salvation by works, not even a salvation by grace alone through faith in and with good works; but by our works. God's "grace" is reduced to merely a reward on the basis of our own righteous merit.

In that sense, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are far closer to the doctrine of the Reformation than much of modern Protestantism.

Lordship Salvation certainly is, as best as I've understood it, pretty close to Rome's view of cooperation, but even then I think Rome is more grace-focused than the proponents of Lordship Salvation. As the ruling principle of even the doctrine of cooperation is still God's free grace. From the perspective of the Reformation Rome errs because she confesses justification not as imputed righteousness, but as infused righteousness. But, again, what I observe in the theology of many Protestants is neither imputed nor infused righteousness, but rather a totally personal righteousness exhibited in the act of believing. Thus there is no righteousness from God, but only the righteousness of the sinner. Infused righteousness is closer to imputed righteousness than either are to self righteousness.

-CryptoLutheran
I have a hard time trying to wrap my head around it. I think Christians in general are too focused on going to heaven and practically ignoring the benefits we and those around us recieve during our lifetime. The reason for doing good works is simply because that's what God wants. We should be doing good works for God, rather than for ourselves, as in trying to merit our way into heaven. And when we're receptive to God, God enables us to do good works.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
bling said:
I never said faith was not a gift, but all mature adults have been gifted with some faith which enables them ti trust, believe and worship many things. A saving faith comes when the person of their own free will direct their faith toward a beneficent Creator for help.
Mark Quayle said:
Or so your narrative goes. Now you need to support your bare assertion. And I really don't care even if you find it necessary, lacking Scriptural support, to do it from a merely logical point of view. We can do that.




"Suggesting", to whom? You show nothing here that suggests to me that they are able to repent apart from God's enabling. You aren't even referencing prevenient grace.





(I don't know why it is putting that little empty quote box there. Hmm)

Oh well. There are many such verses. It is, after all, through faith that we are saved. And yes, whoever believes —after all, Calvinism also says that whosoever will, may come, and he that comes to Christ he will in no way cast out.

If it doesn't say 'whoever was made to believe', how does that demonstrate 'saving faith is possible apart from the work of God'.


How do these show that faith is not a gift of God?

Regardless of whether saved or not saved, we each will fulfill precisely that for which God individually created each of us; just as the Devil steps precisely where God had intended, to accomplish that for which God made him.

Notice Thomas was convinced, without even touching the Lord.
Here in rests the huge problem, in order to keep salvation totally dependent on God choosing the individual, you have to interpret “whosoever and whoever” to be as you say: “whoever was made to believe”. If you throughout the preconception: “man has no choice in God’s election”, then no one would question the idea “whosoever and whoever” is contingent on the individual’s choice.

“If” and “may”, also cannot be contingent.

I understand and agree with the requirement of man not being able on his own, prior to regeneration, doing anything worthy, honorable, righteous, glorious and holy. Man does not start out with Godly type Love so anything he does by 1 Cor. 13:1-3 is nothing, gains nothing and is like a clanging cymbal.

Man is in a dead state, but Christ describes the prodigal son as being in a dead state and in that dead state the prodigal son could still do different sinful stuff. The prodigal son could for selfish reasons (sinful reasons) turn (repent from his wicked ways) to humbly return to the father for undeserved pure charity of a livable job.

Our turning to God is nothing worthy of anything, since we come just wanting some kind of undeserved help to relieve our mental burden, we created by sinning and hurting others (including God Himself) in the past. We are not doing it out of “Love” for God and we might even be blaming God for the burden.

What forces the interpretation of “Whosoever” to be “whoever was made to believe”, the only way to interpret “Whosoever believes”? The best communication words were used by Christ, so what meaning would those first century understand “whoever”? Do we have statements saying: “You make no choices?”
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then see 1 Co 1:30, Ro 1:17, Ro 3:21, Ro 4:1-11.
OK, I read these verses and there is nothing about God or Christ imputing their righteousness to us. yes, we can do nothing of value to others on our own, but we have the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love, so we can be righteous.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'll be honest, if one doesn't believe in justification by grace alone through faith alone then they are denying and negating the whole point of the Reformation. The Reformation stands or falls on this singular doctrine of justification, and if the Reformation was wrong then nobody has any business being "Protestant", because then Rome is correct in saying that Protestants are in open rebellion against Christ and His Church.

If all that remains is schism for the sake of schism, then it is sin pure and simple.

-CryptoLutheran
I am not saying we come to "deserve righteousness or to be justified. Our faith/trust in God and Jesus allows God to shower us with many gifts and power through the Spirit. Godly type Love being the greatest gift.
Yes, we can stand reconciled, righteous and justified before God because of God's merciful forgiveness of our sins, the Godly type Love we now have and the indwelling Holy Spirit, all from God.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
758
405
Oregon
✟106,237.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
OK, I read these verses and there is nothing about God or Christ imputing their righteousness to us. yes, we can do nothing of value to others on our own, but we have the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love, so we can be righteous.
Romans 5: 17
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the GIFT of RIGHTEOUSNESS will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.


18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of RIGHTEOUSNESS there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made RIGHTEOUS. 20
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Romans 5: 17
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the GIFT of RIGHTEOUSNESS will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.


18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of RIGHTEOUSNESS there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made RIGHTEOUS. 20
Where does it say the righteousness of Christ is imputed to "all" humans?
Yes, all mature adults sin and it is the result of Adam sinning. Adam and Eve had only one way to sin, but today with the knowledge of good and evil, mature adults have tons of ways to sin. Christ provided a way which some will choose to follow, which will allow them to become righteous and justified.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,096
6,100
North Carolina
✟276,593.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK, I read these verses and there is nothing about God or Christ imputing their righteousness to us. yes, we can do nothing of value to others on our own, but we have the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love, so we can be righteous.

Review Ro 4:1-11 again. Then there is Ro 5:19.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,092
5,667
68
Pennsylvania
✟788,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
What forces the interpretation of “Whosoever” to be “whoever was made to believe”, the only way to interpret “Whosoever believes”? The best communication words were used by Christ, so what meaning would those first century understand “whoever”? Do we have statements saying: “You make no choices?”
What forces the interpretation of "Whosever" to mean, "anybody at all, God doesn't know or care who, it's all up to chance and perhaps some good within whosoever in and of himself"?
Here in rests the huge problem, in order to keep salvation totally dependent on God choosing the individual, you have to interpret “whosoever and whoever” to be as you say: “whoever was made to believe”. If you throughout the preconception: “man has no choice in God’s election”, then no one would question the idea “whosoever and whoever” is contingent on the individual’s choice.
I can't speak to the meaning of the English translation, "whosoever", back in 1611, but the Greek in John 3:16 reads, "so that everyone (or "all those") believing in him should not perish...". I haven't looked up the Greek in all the other similar passages, but it seem that to do so would require using the KJV, or such, because not all translations use "whosoever", in each case, and rightly so. In Mark 16:16, which seems to be the one you are referring to, which you quote as, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned", doesn't even have "Whosoever" in your rendition. You see no difference? Ok, look at the Greek there: "...the [one] having believed" and, "..the [one] however having disbelieved"
“If” and “may”, also cannot be contingent.
What passage(s) are you referring to here? In 1 John 1:9 "If" is grammatically introducing a contingency —that is, it is implied that God's forgiveness is contingent on our confession. Offhand, I can't think of any use of "if" that does not pose a hypothetical, a contingent clause, or a propositional statement.

"May" —also "might", "should" (such as in John 3:16) are generally subjunctives, but do not necessarily imply an unknown that perhaps may or perhaps may not come to pass, but in many cases simply denote purpose, or implied effect —often preceded by a conjunction: "so that" or "in order that".
I understand and agree with the requirement of man not being able on his own, prior to regeneration, doing anything worthy, honorable, righteous, glorious and holy. Man does not start out with Godly type Love so anything he does by 1 Cor. 13:1-3 is nothing, gains nothing and is like a clanging cymbal.
I'm glad to hear that. But in another place you said something to the effect that faith was a work of man? I think it was on another thread, I was reading today. Ah! found it, here in this thread: "Faith is our “work” and really the only thing we bring to the relationship..."
Faith is our “work” and really the only thing we bring to the relationship, so we can talk about justification and righteousness being the outcome of our faith through God’s Love and mercy.
Your Arminian friends work hard to show that belief and even accepting/receiving are not works, so you oppose them on that faith is not a work, or you agree it is not? Do you see no conflict between the several things you say here? It would be bad enough to say that faith is a work, but worse, to extrapolate that mistake to claim that justification and righteousness —both by faith— are the outcome of our works.
Man is in a dead state, but Christ describes the prodigal son as being in a dead state and in that dead state the prodigal son could still do different sinful stuff. The prodigal son could for selfish reasons (sinful reasons) turn (repent from his wicked ways) to humbly return to the father for undeserved pure charity of a livable job.
The prodigal son was already a son. And if I remember right, Christ didn't describe him as dead, but his father considered him as good as dead, no? Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
Our turning to God is nothing worthy of anything, since we come just wanting some kind of undeserved help to relieve our mental burden, we created by sinning and hurting others (including God Himself) in the past. We are not doing it out of “Love” for God and we might even be blaming God for the burden.
I hope you can forgive me for saying that this sounds like a construction to settle certain elements of your theology in your mind. I don't see it laid out that way in Scripture, and things that Scripture does say, make it sound wrong, and logically, it doesn't add up to me; HOW is one at enmity with God, turning to God out of selfish motives, actually TURNING TO GOD? Is he at enmity with God or not? Again, this isn't even prevenient Grace, nevermind Regeneration.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,427
26,867
Pacific Northwest
✟731,303.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Let's try and get back to some of the basics.

A number of years ago I struggled with the idea of Original Sin, or more specifically, with the idea of an "inherited" guilt. It sounded like what was being said was that God holds us culpable and accountable for Adam's sin. Adam sinned, and now God still holds that against me, rather than me being culpable only to my own sins. As, certainly, when I mess up I should be held accountable, but why should I be held accountable for something I never did? And when I spoke to non-Christians, they raised this objection as well and I accepted their objection. And so I wrestled with this for some time.

But then I learned about this word concupiscence. Which is really just a very fancy word that can mean "desire" or "lust". It's what is otherwise called the lusts or the passions of the flesh. Now, is desire in and of itself bad? I become hungry and in my hunger I desire food--is this bad? Is this sin? I went through puberty, hormones set in, I found women pleasant to look at and be around, I desired to eventually have a mate, a partner in life, to share life with. Is this a sin? Well, no, natural desire is not itself sin, but concupiscience isn't speaking about the mere fact that we are biological creatures that have drives--drives for sex and companionship, drives to feed ourselves when we are hungry because our bodies need calories to exist, or the desire to be warm in the cold, or the like. Rather the issue is, with concupiscence, it is that the natural desires or natural appetites have become perverted, twisted. To borrow the Latin, man has become incurvatus in se, inwardly curved or bent, toward himself. Natural desire has been twisted, perverted, become depraved and so the natural desires have become unnatural (in regard to God's original good purposes and intentions for the order of creation). God said "be fruitful and multiply" and thus the act of procreation is good, and so the animal instinct, the drive to mate and bear offspring is a good part of God's good order for creation. However, those instincts and drives have become twisted and perverted on account of sin.

Sin, therefore, is not merely the thing I do that I ought not do. Sin, instead, is a thing that has infected me. There is something within me that is dark and twisted, that is out of alignment with how God originally created me to be. I bear in myself, even in my own bodily members, as though in my own skin and bones, something that is disjointed, something deeply and fundamentally wrong, that is fundamentally at odds with God's will, with God's Law, with God's desire for creation.

It is that something in me, that Sin, that is the real and actual cause of why I do what I should not do, and I fail to do what I should do. It is like a law within myself that is contrary to what I know to be right and good. For the Law has taught me what is good, and I do not do it; and so the Law that was intended to bring me life now puts me to death.

This is what the Apostle St. Paul is talking about in Romans 7. It's the reason why we try to be good but end up not doing good. It's not that I merely mess up now and again, it's that I am from the outside to the inside completely and totally infected with something deeply wrong. There is a deep wound that cuts right into the middle of my humanity, everything about me, all that I am, is tainted by it. Like a gangrene, an infection buried deep, below my my skin, deeper than my bones and marrow, to my very heart, my mind, my reason, even my very soul, to the essence of who and what I am.

That is the problem. That is the problem because I came into this world Adam's progeny. I bear the same humanity of our fore-parents, Adam and Eve. I didn't learn to become a sinner as I grew older, as I began to learn more and then made conscious choices to do wrong.

As my mind developed there, right in the middle of myself, was sin--to hear and to disobey, to see and to plan evil designs. I have old memories, I can remember things from when I was incredibly young. I can remember things I said and did even as young as four or five years old. Ways that I hurt my parents, disobeyed my parents. I did these things quite naturally. Nobody needed to teach me to lie, I just lied. Nobody needed to teach me to be selfish, I just was selfish.

In iniquity I was conceived, in iniquity I was formed, in iniquity I came into this world. When I was still but a zygote, a mere split gamete, I was a sinner. Without ever having committed any sin of my own, sin took root in me. Sin taking root poisoned me, and infected me with the rottenness of death, despair, faithlessnes, and every manner of thing that keeps us from enjoying communion with God as His precious God-bearing creatures.

I came into this world bearing guilt, not a guilt by which God held me accountable for the actions of another; but rather the guilt of my own sinful conscience. A conscience that was held under the bondage of sin and death, captive to the powers and principalities of this fallen age, I entered this world a slave to death.

This is not an easy thing to accept, the vanity and pride of the flesh does not wish to accept it. Because the very distorted and twisted passions within me also want to vindicate themselves in me. The very things that bury me in death want me to rot in death but pretend that it is life. Death grips me, but I want to be alive and so my flesh wills to fake it, to pretend righteousness, to pretend holiness, to pretend piety. But the guilty conscience lay there, hurting and riddled with many wounds. We try to silence it, we try to occupy it with lies and many vices. But beneath all of it, it still groans in the pains of death, the pains of guilt, in the uncomfortable reality that something is wrong. Perhaps we will seek to alleviate it by many different means, blaming ourselves and becoming haters of ourselves, or blaming others and hating others. Scapegoating this person or that person, or claiming if we only did this or did that, or change this thing, or that thing, fix this bit of society, improve this part of our lives--then we will be in a better condition than we were yesterday.

But it is always empty. It is constantly death upon death. And at the end of our days, what will we have for it all? That we gained the whole world but forfeited our soul? That we might stand on the Day of Judgment and claim all the wonderful things we did, even the things we did in the name of Jesus Christ? That we worked wonders, miracles, prophecies? That we gained millions of dollars? That we lived good lives? That we lived wholesome lives? Fulfilling lives? But what of it? What does it matter? What were we when we looked at our neighbor and judged them? Or what were we when we gave ten dollars but there was a hundred in our wallet? What were we when we became heated in the midst of an argument and lashed out against our mother, our father, our spouse, or our children, or friend? When we raged, even silently, on the way to work. What were we? What are we?

If we are nothing more than animals that by a mere quirk of genetics became aware of ourselves, then on the one hand what does it matter; but on the other, such is so great a curse as to be merely matter that has become aware of the darkness of death and cosmic entropy. The universe a horror, existence a dreadful thing. To be alive for but a moment and in the next be nothing. To be born, to know love, and then watch as love crumbles to dust and life to ashes.

What hope, what answer, can there possibly be to all of this except Jesus Christ, and the Good News of His death and resurrection? Who justifies the unjust, who makes righteous the unrighteous, who gives life to the dead, who speaks and it comes to be. God, who being rich in mercy, who made all things, unwilling that what He made perish but be full of the glory of Himself and to dwell in eternal goodness with Him. That I, though dead and dying, am alive together in and with Christ. That I, unworthy sinner and full of unrighteousness, should be called righteous by God. That I, unholy beggar and wretch and walking corpse should be called the child of God, the beloved of God, the heir of God.

Let us truly grasp the depths of the darkness in which we our in, that we might behold the light that shines all the more brightly.

O Light of the World, you stepped down into darkness.
God be merciful to me, a sinner.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,775
2,568
PA
✟274,209.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Let's try and get back to some of the basics.

A number of years ago I struggled with the idea of Original Sin, or more specifically, with the idea of an "inherited" guilt. It sounded like what was being said was that God holds us culpable and accountable for Adam's sin. Adam sinned, and now God still holds that against me, rather than me being culpable only to my own sins. As, certainly, when I mess up I should be held accountable, but why should I be held accountable for something I never did? And when I spoke to non-Christians, they raised this objection as well and I accepted their objection. And so I wrestled with this for some time.

But then I learned about this word concupiscence. Which is really just a very fancy word that can mean "desire" or "lust". It's what is otherwise called the lusts or the passions of the flesh. Now, is desire in and of itself bad? I become hungry and in my hunger I desire food--is this bad? Is this sin? I went through puberty, hormones set in, I found women pleasant to look at and be around, I desired to eventually have a mate, a partner in life, to share life with. Is this a sin? Well, no, natural desire is not itself sin, but concupiscience isn't speaking about the mere fact that we are biological creatures that have drives--drives for sex and companionship, drives to feed ourselves when we are hungry because our bodies need calories to exist, or the desire to be warm in the cold, or the like. Rather the issue is, with concupiscence, it is that the natural desires or natural appetites have become perverted, twisted. To borrow the Latin, man has become incurvatus in se, inwardly curved or bent, toward himself. Natural desire has been twisted, perverted, become depraved and so the natural desires have become unnatural (in regard to God's original good purposes and intentions for the order of creation). God said "be fruitful and multiply" and thus the act of procreation is good, and so the animal instinct, the drive to mate and bear offspring is a good part of God's good order for creation. However, those instincts and drives have become twisted and perverted on account of sin.

Sin, therefore, is not merely the thing I do that I ought not do. Sin, instead, is a thing that has infected me. There is something within me that is dark and twisted, that is out of alignment with how God originally created me to be. I bear in myself, even in my own bodily members, as though in my own skin and bones, something that is disjointed, something deeply and fundamentally wrong, that is fundamentally at odds with God's will, with God's Law, with God's desire for creation.

It is that something in me, that Sin, that is the real and actual cause of why I do what I should not do, and I fail to do what I should do. It is like a law within myself that is contrary to what I know to be right and good. For the Law has taught me what is good, and I do not do it; and so the Law that was intended to bring me life now puts me to death.

This is what the Apostle St. Paul is talking about in Romans 7. It's the reason why we try to be good but end up not doing good. It's not that I merely mess up now and again, it's that I am from the outside to the inside completely and totally infected with something deeply wrong. There is a deep wound that cuts right into the middle of my humanity, everything about me, all that I am, is tainted by it. Like a gangrene, an infection buried deep, below my my skin, deeper than my bones and marrow, to my very heart, my mind, my reason, even my very soul, to the essence of who and what I am.

That is the problem. That is the problem because I came into this world Adam's progeny. I bear the same humanity of our fore-parents, Adam and Eve. I didn't learn to become a sinner as I grew older, as I began to learn more and then made conscious choices to do wrong.

As my mind developed there, right in the middle of myself, was sin--to hear and to disobey, to see and to plan evil designs. I have old memories, I can remember things from when I was incredibly young. I can remember things I said and did even as young as four or five years old. Ways that I hurt my parents, disobeyed my parents. I did these things quite naturally. Nobody needed to teach me to lie, I just lied. Nobody needed to teach me to be selfish, I just was selfish.

In iniquity I was conceived, in iniquity I was formed, in iniquity I came into this world. When I was still but a zygote, a mere split gamete, I was a sinner. Without ever having committed any sin of my own, sin took root in me. Sin taking root poisoned me, and infected me with the rottenness of death, despair, faithlessnes, and every manner of thing that keeps us from enjoying communion with God as His precious God-bearing creatures.

I came into this world bearing guilt, not a guilt by which God held me accountable for the actions of another; but rather the guilt of my own sinful conscience. A conscience that was held under the bondage of sin and death, captive to the powers and principalities of this fallen age, I entered this world a slave to death.

This is not an easy thing to accept, the vanity and pride of the flesh does not wish to accept it. Because the very distorted and twisted passions within me also want to vindicate themselves in me. The very things that bury me in death want me to rot in death but pretend that it is life. Death grips me, but I want to be alive and so my flesh wills to fake it, to pretend righteousness, to pretend holiness, to pretend piety. But the guilty conscience lay there, hurting and riddled with many wounds. We try to silence it, we try to occupy it with lies and many vices. But beneath all of it, it still groans in the pains of death, the pains of guilt, in the uncomfortable reality that something is wrong. Perhaps we will seek to alleviate it by many different means, blaming ourselves and becoming haters of ourselves, or blaming others and hating others. Scapegoating this person or that person, or claiming if we only did this or did that, or change this thing, or that thing, fix this bit of society, improve this part of our lives--then we will be in a better condition than we were yesterday.

But it is always empty. It is constantly death upon death. And at the end of our days, what will we have for it all? That we gained the whole world but forfeited our soul? That we might stand on the Day of Judgment and claim all the wonderful things we did, even the things we did in the name of Jesus Christ? That we worked wonders, miracles, prophecies? That we gained millions of dollars? That we lived good lives? That we lived wholesome lives? Fulfilling lives? But what of it? What does it matter? What were we when we looked at our neighbor and judged them? Or what were we when we gave ten dollars but there was a hundred in our wallet? What were we when we became heated in the midst of an argument and lashed out against our mother, our father, our spouse, or our children, or friend? When we raged, even silently, on the way to work. What were we? What are we?

If we are nothing more than animals that by a mere quirk of genetics became aware of ourselves, then on the one hand what does it matter; but on the other, such is so great a curse as to be merely matter that has become aware of the darkness of death and cosmic entropy. The universe a horror, existence a dreadful thing. To be alive for but a moment and in the next be nothing. To be born, to know love, and then watch as love crumbles to dust and life to ashes.

What hope, what answer, can there possibly be to all of this except Jesus Christ, and the Good News of His death and resurrection? Who justifies the unjust, who makes righteous the unrighteous, who gives life to the dead, who speaks and it comes to be. God, who being rich in mercy, who made all things, unwilling that what He made perish but be full of the glory of Himself and to dwell in eternal goodness with Him. That I, though dead and dying, am alive together in and with Christ. That I, unworthy sinner and full of unrighteousness, should be called righteous by God. That I, unholy beggar and wretch and walking corpse should be called the child of God, the beloved of God, the heir of God.

Let us truly grasp the depths of the darkness in which we our in, that we might behold the light that shines all the more brightly.

O Light of the World, you stepped down into darkness.
God be merciful to me, a sinner.

-CryptoLutheran
What a great testimony. The only thing I can add is that through His grace and our perseverance we can throw off the old sinful nature and become a new creation, a true son or daughter of God.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Review Ro 4:1-11 again. Then there is Ro 5:19.
Ro. 4 Abraham believed; it did not say God made Abraham a believer.
Ro. 5
Where does it say the righteousness of Christ is imputed to "all" humans?
Yes, all mature adults sin and it is the result of Adam sinning. Adam and Eve had only one way to sin, but today with the knowledge of good and evil, mature adults have tons of ways to sin. Christ provided a way which some will choose to follow, which will allow them to become righteous and justified.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Romans 5: 17
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the GIFT of RIGHTEOUSNESS will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.


18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of RIGHTEOUSNESS there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made RIGHTEOUS. 20
We are talking about how we are made righteous and not if it is a gift or not. Adam sinned and so we all sin, but Adam did not sin for us or in our stead. We do not "deserve" to be counted as righteous, but with the gift of the Holy Spirit and the gift of Godly type Love we can become righteous (doing what is right, by allowing the Spirit to live through us.) If it is Christ's righteousness imputed to us then we are not the righteous one but Christ is the righteous one.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What forces the interpretation of "Whosever" to mean, "anybody at all, God doesn't know or care who, it's all up to chance and perhaps some good within whosoever in and of himself"?
We have to go back to the context and we are looking for the most likely alternative interpretation.

Jesus is the perfect communicator, but it is for the people of that time and place and knowledge they had at the time he was speaking. These people do not have the New Testament to study over, but even the commoners had some knowledge of the Old Testament. If Jesus is directly addressing Pharisees, they have excellent knowledge of the OT.

Whoever is used 126 times in the OT, so did it only refer to the saved or did it refer to group of Jews or individuals out of a much larger group who did something? Whoever is used 117 time I the NT, so how was it use?

Genesis starts out talking about whoever being part of the group of everyone, Exodus has the whoever as part of all the Jews.

The “whoever” can do something bad or good which results in something being done to them.

If the people listening to Jesus at the time believed an individual could make some free will choices and could be totally responsible for making those choices, they would have thought the “whoever” were individuals making free will choices and fully responsible for those choices. That would have been what they hear and if that is not what Jesus was trying to communicate, than He should have used other words.

What might cause you to think these first century Jews did not believe man had some limited free will?
I can't speak to the meaning of the English translation, "whosoever", back in 1611, but the Greek in John 3:16 reads, "so that everyone (or "all those") believing in him should not perish...". I haven't looked up the Greek in all the other similar passages, but it seem that to do so would require using the KJV, or such, because not all translations use "whosoever", in each case, and rightly so. In Mark 16:16, which seems to be the one you are referring to, which you quote as, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned", doesn't even have "Whosoever" in your rendition. You see no difference? Ok, look at the Greek there: "...the [one] having believed" and, "..the [one] however having disbelieved"
I said “and”, yes, all new translations use whoever, which I included with “and”, let’s not jump down some rabbit hole, we can use “whoever” exclusively.
What passage(s) are you referring to here? In 1 John 1:9 "If" is grammatically introducing a contingency —that is, it is implied that God's forgiveness is contingent on our confession. Offhand, I can't think of any use of "if" that does not pose a hypothetical, a contingent clause, or a propositional statement.

"May" —also "might", "should" (such as in John 3:16) are generally subjunctives, but do not necessarily imply an unknown that perhaps may or perhaps may not come to pass, but in many cases simply denote purpose, or implied effect —often preceded by a conjunction: "so that" or "in order that".
I said “can be contingent” and not have to be contingent. Yes, we have to look at the context for the meaning.
I'm glad to hear that. But in another place you said something to the effect that faith was a work of man? I think it was on another thread, I was reading today. Ah! found it, here in this thread: "Faith is our “work” and really the only thing we bring to the relationship..."
John 6:29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

I was using Jesus’ definition of “work”.
Your Arminian friends work hard to show that belief and even accepting/receiving are not works, so you oppose them on that faith is not a work, or you agree it is not? Do you see no conflict between the several things you say here? It would be bad enough to say that faith is a work, but worse, to extrapolate that mistake to claim that justification and righteousness —both by faith— are the outcome of our works.
It all depends on which definition of “work” you are using. John 6; 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
The prodigal son was already a son. And if I remember right, Christ didn't describe him as dead, but his father considered himself as good as dead, no? Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
Can a son of God become dead? Jesus has the father say the very best words to describe the son’s situation in the foreign land and Jesus chose the word “dead” even after the father knew the son was not physically dead.

By the definition Jesus used for “dead”, the son could still do stuff.
I hope you can forgive me for saying that this sounds like a construction to settle certain elements of your theology in your mind. I don't see it laid out that way in Scripture, and things that Scripture does say, make it sound wrong, and logically, it doesn't add up to me; HOW is one at enmity with God, turning to God out of selfish motives, actually TURNING TO GOD? Is he at enmity with God or not? Again, this isn't even prevenient Grace, nevermind Regeneration.
A soldier who surrenders to his enemy is not at that point joining his enemy nor has he quit thinking of his enemy is his enemy. He is hoping his enemy will not torture and kill him for past war crimes and have just some mercies on him to extend some totally undeserved charity toward him, which he is now willing to accept from his enemy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,092
5,667
68
Pennsylvania
✟788,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
We have to go back to the context and we are looking for the most likely alternative interpretation.

Jesus is the perfect communicator, but it is for the people of that time and place and knowledge they had at the time he was speaking. These people do not have the New Testament to study over, but even the commoners had some knowledge of the Old Testament. If Jesus is directly addressing Pharisees, they have excellent knowledge of the OT.

Whoever is used 126 times in the OT, so did it only refer to the saved or did it refer to group of Jews or individuals out of a much larger group who did something? Whoever is used 117 time I the NT, so how was it use?

Genesis starts out talking about whoever being part of the group of everyone, Exodus has the whoever as part of all the Jews.

The “whoever” can do something bad or good which results in something being done to them.

If the people listening to Jesus at the time believed an individual could make some free will choices and could be totally responsible for making those choices, they would have thought the “whoever” were individuals making free will choices and fully responsible for those choices. That would have been what they hear and if that is not what Jesus was trying to communicate, than He should have used other words.

What might cause you to think these first century Jews did not believe man had some limited free will?
Apparently you think, "whoever" is the meaning of the Hebrew as well as the Greek, and since you were right (in your own mind) about the Greek in spite of evidence to the contrary, you are therefore right about the Hebrew. Sorry, man, but that's some lousy logic. Since you didn't pick any particular references and tried to overwhelm me with impressive numbers, I'll do the picking, and that, at 'random'; who knows —I might run into one that really can mean only, "whoever"!

Proverbs 17:9 the word translated into English "whoever", twice, means, "He who".
Exodus 22:1 the English "whoever", means, "a man"
Genesis 4:14, 15 "anyone - who"
Leviticus 11:25 "whoever"
Proverbs 13:3 "he who" (twice)
Isaiah 54:15 "who....., he (shall fall)"

I confess. For conscience sake I went out of my way to avoid a couple that I thought were most likely not "whoever" in the Hebrew. Nevertheless, even the ones I thought might be "whoever" turned out to be "he who" and "whoever", if I remember right. Nor does Strong's numbering system insist that any of the above renderings HAVE TO be as rendered. The common current use you make of the word, a random "whosoever", seems a far cry from the Greek AND the Hebrew.

You do realize, I expect, that these people who you think thought that "whoever" meant only "whosoever" (as though it was some random person), only had a one-time mention in the OT of "free will", and it is meant, "voluntary" —i.e. not commanded (as in voluntary offering), for some reason you think believed in free will in the same vein as you do. (As Job says, "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you.") From what I understand, ancient people had a tendency to think less individualistically than modern people do. While no doubt they considered themselves capable of REAL, causal, choice, you don't know that they considered it Libertarian Free Will. But, 'Limited ability", yes, I expect they did believe in that.

So what you think is "most likely" what is meant, is not at all proven here.

Regardless, your point is moot anyway. You continue with your narrative implying that I believe in God's Decree as denying human choice. And there is your huge mistake. God's decree is not only hierarchically compatible with human choice —it establishes it, just as surely as God's decree establishes human existence, not only to start with, but in its continuation.


I said “and”, yes, all new translations use whoever, which I included with “and”, let’s not jump down some rabbit hole, we can use “whoever” exclusively.
But even "whoever" is not exclusively what is meant. And, I'm not sure that all new translations use "Whoever" in all the same places. Nor do I know what you consider "new translations". In other words, your generous, "we can use 'whoever' exclusively" is fruitless generosity. I hope you didn't think I'd fall for that.
I said “can be contingent” and not have to be contingent. Yes, we have to look at the context for the meaning.
Well, no. What you said was,
bling said:
“If” and “may”, also cannot be contingent.
—not that the question is relevant to anything anyway.
John 6:29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

I was using Jesus’ definition of “work”.
It all depends on which definition of “work” you are using. John 6; 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
You notice, too, that 'to believe' is said to be "the work of God" in John 6:29 Contextually it could mean, man's work, since they were asking what they could do to do the works of God. But since they mentioned not only [them] doing, but they mentioned "the work of God", it could be that Jesus was playing with their presumptuous words, turning it on them. Wouldn't be the first time we see him doing that.

But even if you show that you only meant by faith being a work that they do, that it was God's work you meant, you still have to admit that what I all along have been claiming —that you have not shown that Salvation, by Grace, through Faith, is not a work of man, and thus the Faith-produced-belief that man must do, is still beyond the ability of the lost.
Can a son of God become dead? Jesus has the father say the very best words to describe the son’s situation in the foreign land and Jesus chose the word “dead” even after the father knew the son was not physically dead.

By the definition Jesus used for “dead”, the son could still do stuff.
Again, the father, in the story, is the one who used the word "dead". And no doubt you will insist on the notion that the parallel is altogether applicable in all its particulars as definite parallels, since it is a parable and not just a story, particularly since you think the use of a person who is said to have been dead, actually doing something in the parable, helps your thesis. Yes, the son did stuff. But he was already a son. —I mean, since you insist on paralleling stuff. And if parallels consistently apply, then you will notice that the son came to his senses: Could this not imply regeneration, along with your other parallels? Yes, the son returning to the father, must have been pleasing to the Father. But the natural man cannot please God (Romans 8:8)
A soldier who surrenders to his enemy is not at that point joining his enemy nor has he quit thinking of his enemy is his enemy. He is hoping his enemy will not torture and kill him for past war crimes and have just some mercies on him to extend some totally undeserved charity toward him, which he is now willing to accept from his enemy.
A soldier who surrenders to his enemy, has stopped fighting his enemy. The lost don't stop fighting until they are regenerated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Regardless, your point is moot anyway. You continue with your narrative implying that I believe in God's Decree as denying human choice. And there is your huge mistake. God's decree is not only hierarchically compatible with human choice —it establishes it, just as surely as God's decree establishes human existence, not only to start with, but in its continuation.
What did Jewish people in the first century believe about individual responsibility?

Did they believe; mature adults did not really have some limited free will to make choices they could personally be held accountable for making, since that is what comes across in the OT and the NT. If that is not true then where is the teaching against it?

The idea of whoever, who, whosoever, a person, he who, a man and so on is saying the person themselves made a choice, which that person can be held accountable for making. It is not suggesting in any way those God chose to make the choice, made the right choice.

The “whoever” sometimes makes bad choices and sometimes good choices, so is God making the choice for whoever good choices and the whoever making bad choices made them on their own or did God make those choices also. The same word is used so how are good choices God’s manipulation and bad choices man’s manipulation for “whoever”
You notice, too, that 'to believe' is said to be "the work of God" in John 6:29 Contextually it could mean, man's work, since they were asking what they could do to do the works of God. But since they mentioned not only [them] doing, but they mentioned "the work of God", it could be that Jesus was playing with their presumptuous words, turning it on them. Wouldn't be the first time we see him doing that.
That is a possibility. Jesus is using the word “work” in a unique way here and is playing on their understanding. The meaning is still: “They are commanded to believe (have faith in) the one God sent.” Now if having faith in the one God sent is something God does for them, then Jesus is asking them to do something some will not be able to do, so why is He telling all of them to do it?
But even if you show that you only meant by faith being a work that they do, that it was God's work you meant, you still have to admit that what I all along have been claiming —that you have not shown that Salvation, by Grace, through Faith, is not a work of man, and thus the Faith-produced-belief that man must do, is still beyond the ability of the lost.

Again, the father, in the story, is the one who used the word "dead". And no doubt you will insist on the notion that the parallel is altogether applicable in all its particulars as definite parallels, since it is a parable and not just a story, particularly since you think the use of a person who is said to have been dead, actually doing something in the parable, helps your thesis. Yes, the son did stuff. But he was already a son. —I mean, since you insist on paralleling stuff. And if parallels consistently apply, then you will notice that the son came to his senses: Could this not imply regeneration, along with your other parallels? Yes, the son returning to the father, must have been pleasing to the Father. But the natural man cannot please God (Romans 8:8)
This “father” in this story is not an actual person talking, but he is representing God and Jesus will have him saying what God would say in that situation or Jesus is misleading us.

OK this brings up another topic. Paul tells us: Acts 17: 29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.

I do not go along with the doctrine of original sin, so every child starts out sinless (a child of God) and at maturity sins and follows satan by choice.

The son got himself in a situation which finally brought him to his senses on his own. He can still make the choice of: being macho, hanging in there, taking the punishment he fully deserves, not pestering his father further, not fueling his brothers contempt and starve to death in the pigsty or he can wimp out, give up on self and surrender to the father he has been hating.

These points of coming to our senses can happen many times and we have to make the choice, hopefully before we reach bottom in the pigsty of our life.

The “regeneration” comes with the father running to him to shower him with gifts and now the son experiences a real contrast in his life.

I am not saying the selfish nature of the young son changed when he came to his senses, the son selfishly wanted to go on living with some kind of livable life. He did nothing commendable, honorable, righteous, worthy or holy in his returning to the father for a job he did not deserve. The young son was just willing to humbly accept pure undeserved charity as chrity and had faith the father he knew might just provide such charity.
A soldier who surrenders to his enemy, has stopped fighting his enemy. The lost don't stop fighting until they are regenerated.
Soldiers, who surrender still hate their enemy and would love to see their enemy destroyed and they are at that point still soldiers of satan, just not battling at the moment (the human part of satan’s army are mostly lazy and poor soldiers thinking about themselves).
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,427
26,867
Pacific Northwest
✟731,303.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
We are talking about how we are made righteous and not if it is a gift or not. Adam sinned and so we all sin, but Adam did not sin for us or in our stead. We do not "deserve" to be counted as righteous, but with the gift of the Holy Spirit and the gift of Godly type Love we can become righteous (doing what is right, by allowing the Spirit to live through us.) If it is Christ's righteousness imputed to us then we are not the righteous one but Christ is the righteous one.

"If it is Christ's righteousness imputed to us then we are not the righteous one but Christ is the righteous one"

Bingo.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟801,184.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"If it is Christ's righteousness imputed to us then we are not the righteous one but Christ is the righteous one"

Bingo.

-CryptoLutheran
There have been righteous people and some I feel were justified before God prior to Christ going to the cross. Why can we not become righteous like they were righteous?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,427
26,867
Pacific Northwest
✟731,303.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
There have been righteous people and some I feel were justified before God prior to Christ going to the cross. Why can we not become righteous like they were righteous?

They weren't righteous on their own merits. Our father in the faith, Abraham, was justified by his faith in God's promise, not his own righteousness.

Before the cross it was the cross that still justified. Noah, Abraham, Moses, all wretched sinners without any righteousness to call their own. Noah was a drunk who cursed his grandson, Abraham lied, Moses murdered and was forbidden from entering the promised land by disobeying God. King David was an adulterer and a murderer. Solomon a womanizer and idolator.

Name any of the saints who came before Christ and I will show you a sinner who was righteous only on the basis of God's mercy on account of Jesus Christ and His righteous and atoning work. His life, death, and resurrection alone is righteousness before God.

It is written, "There is no one righteous, no, not even one" and "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." There are no exceptions except one, and His name is Jesus Christ the Son of God. The only righteous human being to have ever walked the earth.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0