Weep Over Jerusalem?

[cygnusx1]

Romans3:28

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

3:27-31 God will have the great work of the justification and salvation of sinners carried on from first to last, so as to shut out boasting. Now, if we were saved by our own works, boasting would not be excluded. But the way of justification by faith for ever shuts out boasting. Yet believers are not left to be lawless; faith is a law, it is a working grace, wherever it is in truth. By faith, not in this matter an act of obedience, or a good work, but forming the relation between Christ and the sinner, which renders it proper that the believer should be pardoned and justified for the sake of the Saviour, and that the unbeliever who is not thus united or related to him, should remain under condemnation. The law is still of use to convince us of what is past, and to direct us for the future. Though we cannot be saved by it as a covenant, yet we own and submit to it, as a rule in the hand of the Mediator.

 

[Hammster]

Thanks, but that did not answer my question. All it takes is a yes or no. Here it is again.

'Do you believe a person can be saved without good works?'

My answer is no, what is yours?

I did answer your question. "Be saved" has two different meanings. I gave the answer to both.

 

[DArceri]

God has provided His word through which I am able to have faith. I believe it is God producing good works in me, but I also have my part in carrying out those good works. If I do not act upon and actually do the good works as of myself, they will not get done.

Ok Arcoe. As long as you don't believe it is these same works that help justify your standing with Christ. These works only prove you are of the faith.

The fig tree Jesus cursed, was God not producing fruit in it? Do you not think God gave it everything it needed to produce fruit? If so, then why was it not producing fruit as expected? Could it possibly be the fault of the tree, or do you consign fault to God for it not producing fruit?

Do you consider the branches cut off as being saved? If not, how did a man living in the flesh ever get united to the vine? He prunes those who are already producing fruit, so they may bear more fruit.

Ummm....Maybe because that vine represents the Nation of Israel and not the True Israel, ie. Jesus Christ. Didn't Steven say before they stoned him in Acts 7:51, "you stiff necked people, 'uncircumcised in heart and ears, as your Father's did, so do you."... Maybe you should stick with after PENTECOST and stick with Jesus Christ as the "True Vine".

Okay, 'when' God moves you to love, you still must actually do it. How is that?

Yes. The Holy Spirit witnesses to our spirit and moves us to act in love. Love is a fruit of the Spirit, is it not? Or do you assume it is a fruit of your spirit? ...See also my response to your very 1st question above.

What difference is there? Do you believe a man who has no good works is saved? There is only one other option: evil works. Do you believe those who do evil works are saved? If not, then you must believe it is those who do good works who are saved. There is no middle ground; it's either one or the other.

Seriously Arcoe, after all we've discussed and you throw me straw mixed with red herring.

Very true. The whole law hangs on those two.

Yes it does.

Why do you think I cannot discern that repentance plays its role in justification, and obedience plays its role in sanctification? It's as clear as day to me.

..... Ok.

Then why did Jesus tell the churches in Revelation to repent, if they were already clean and justified? I've already shown you justification comes from repentance. Why do you think it's a one-time procedure? Who told you this? A man may be clean, but he still needs to wash his feet, or he has no part with Jesus.

Because the Church includes both wheat and tares. In Mt 7:22 there will be some who say Lord, Lord, did we not do this and did we not do that,.... But you see, they relied on the false doctrine of relying on their own works. The Father's will is that everyone believe in the works of the Son. It's about having faith in the Son's righteousness, not ours. Rather than say, 'nothing in my hands I bring, only to the cross I cling', they boasted about all the works they were doing. The Lord ended up saying, "... depart from me, you workers of lawlessness."

What contributes to my justification is genuine, heart-felt repentance. For it is by repentance, I am remitted of my sins. I am sure Jesus knew this when He told the churches to repent.

.... See above.

So tell me how those branches which do not bear fruit became united with the vine. Did they somehow become united to the vine by themselves?

It's no different than the analogy of the wood, hay, and stubble being burnt off.

Those branches 'united' to the vine (or to Christ), who are cut off and thrown into the fire, did not 'naturally' bear fruit, so I will have to disagree with your statement. It is those who are ready, willing, and able, from the Spirit, who bear fruit.

... See above.



.

 

[jdbear]

griff said,
This is what you do:

Debating Calvinism - The Sacred Sandwich

Remember when I started that thread on Romans 9 and didn't mention Servetus? Which makes you a what griff?

 

[jdbear]

cygnusx1 quotes Matthew Henry;
Romans3:28
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
3:27-31 God will have the great work of the justification and salvation of sinners carried on from first to last, so as to shut out boasting. Now, if we were saved by our own works, boasting would not be excluded. But the way of justification by faith for ever shuts out boasting. Yet believers are not left to be lawless; faith is a law, it is a working grace, wherever it is in truth. By faith, not in this matter an act of obedience, or a good work, but forming the relation between Christ and the sinner, which renders it proper that the believer should be pardoned and justified for the sake of the Saviour, and that the unbeliever who is not thus united or related to him, should remain under condemnation. The law is still of use to convince us of what is past, and to direct us for the future. Though we cannot be saved by it as a covenant, yet we own and submit to it, as a rule in the hand of the Mediator.

Of course. All we have to do is turn faith into a work and Calvinism is true. Now, lets apply Calvinisms truth to the scriptures:
"Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

Jesus desperately wanted to save the children of Jerusalem but wouldn't...because nobody has faith to come to Him unless He grants it to them and He wouldn't grant it to them.

Hi psycho Jesus. Have you taken your meds today?

The fact is, faith is not a work, even though someone with Henrys intelligence wanted it to be.

 

[Hammster]

Of course. All we have to do is turn faith into a work and Calvinism is true. Now, lets apply Calvinisms truth to the scriptures:
"Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

Jesus desperately wanted to save the children of Jerusalem but wouldn't...because nobody has faith to come to Him unless He grants it to them and He wouldn't grant it to them.

Hi psycho Jesus. Have you taken your meds today?

The fact is, faith is not a work, even though someone with Henrys intelligence wanted it to be.

I haven't seen that verse ripped out of context and abused in about a week. Kudos.

 

[jdbear]

Hammster said,
I haven't seen that verse ripped out of context and abused in about a week. Kudos.

Yes, Jesus sitting in a field, pulling petals from a flower...."Will I...or won't I...will I...or won't I...

 

[Hammster]

Yes, Jesus sitting in a field, pulling petals from a flower...."Will I...or won't I...will I...or won't I...

Non sequitur.

 

[guuila]

Remember when I started that thread on Romans 9 and didn't mention Servetus? Which makes you a what griff?

Ok fine. You didn't do the Servetus part that time. Sorry about that.

 

[jdbear]

Hammster said,
Non sequitur.

Yes, maybe you should look at what that term means.

 

[guuila]

Yes, maybe you should look at what that term means.

I just did. Hammster's usage was correct.

 

[jdbear]

griff said,
Ok fine. You didn't do the Servetus part that time. Sorry about that.

Example please.

 

[jdbear]

griff said,
I just did. Hammster's usage was correct.

Then Hammster (or you) should easily be able to show how my statement is non sequitur. Be my guest.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, maybe you should look at what that term means.

Or maybe you should be more articulate so the charge won't be leveled against you.

Yeah. Going with that.

 

[jdbear]

Hammster said,
Or maybe you should be more articulate so the charge won't be leveled against you.

Yeah. Going with that.

Staying with ignorance then. Ok.

 

[jdbear]

Looks like the Pope is popular, so I'm going to buy a new car....<----non sequitur

 

[Hammster]

Staying with ignorance then. Ok.

Thanks for letting us know.

 

[jdbear]

Hammster said,
Thanks for letting us know.

Glad to. Now that you know the correct meaning, would you give the class your exegesis on why God reproves sinners?

"He, that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed and that without remedy." Pr.29:1

 

[Hammster]

Glad to. Now that you know the correct meaning, would you give the class your exegesis on why God reproves sinners?

"He, that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed and that without remedy." Pr.29:1

What is the relevance to this discussion? And if it's relevant, why aren't you making an argument?

 

[guuila]

Example please.

Of what?