Works Salvation is False

[Clare73]

Exactly-and transaltors arent necessarily "precise" in their defintions.

In the translators you use. . .

In the ones I use, the definitions are precise, as in

katastathesontai = to constitute (i.e., to place, to station--appoint--ordain to a position),
which does not include personal transformation

dikaiosis, dikaioma, dikaioo = legal and formal acquittal from guilt by God as Judge, the pronouncement of the sinner as righteous (by faith).

 

[fhansen]

In the ones I use, the definitions are precise, as in

katastathesontai = to constitute (i.e., to place, to station--appoint--ordain to a position),
which does not include personal transformation

I see, the translators you prefer also happen to be the precise ones. Anyway, katastathesontai is a verb that is often transalated in interlinears as "will be made". It literally means something like "stand" or "set", to set right when used with dikaioi IOW.

dikaiosis, dikaioa, dikaioo = legal and formal acquittal from guilt by God as Judge, the pronouncement of the sinner as righteous (by faith).

Yes, those can be translated as declared or aquitted, or simply made right or just, and yet according to even Strongs, or any Greek dictinary, dikaioi, the word used in Rom 5:19, has nothing to do with forensic aquittal, but, as said, simply, always, means right or just. And even the other words, although dikaioa doesn't come up, are often translated as simply make right. Dikaios means innocent, right, righteous, justice, righteous person, etc. Scholarship or just plain old truth-seeking at least needs to maintain objectivity in order to be responsible-and useful.

​

 

[Clare73]

I see, the translators you prefer also happen to be the precise ones. Anyway, katastathesontai is a verb that is often transalated in interlinears as "will be made". It literally means something like "stand" or "set", to set right when used with dikaioi IOW.

It literally means "to constitute" - to station in a position; to appoint or ordain to an office; to establish as lawful.

None of which means inner transformation (dikaiosune).

Yes, those can be translated as declared or aquitted, or simply made right or just,

Good for you. . .we are agreed.

and yet according to even Strongs, or any Greek dictinary, dikaioi, the word used in Rom 5:19, has nothing to do with forensic aquittal, but, as said, simply, always, means right or just. And even the other words, although dikaioa doesn't come up, are often translated as simply make right. Dikaios means innocent, right, righteous, justice, righteous person, etc.

Which are precisely the same as: a position (innocent, not guilty) by sentence of acquittal of guilt, by declaration of right standing with God's justice; i.e., forensic righteousness, not inner transformation (dikaiosune).

Scholarship or just plain old truth-seeking at least needs to maintain objectivity in order to be responsible-and useful.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. . .you left out needing to maintain Jn 7:24.

 

[fhansen]

All of which means a standing or position (innocent, not guilty) by sentence of acquittal of guilt, by declaration of right standing with God's justice; i.e., forensic righteousness

Um, no, it obviously does not necessarily mean that at all, either by the words themselves or in context.

 

[Clare73]

It literally means "to constitute" - to station in a position; to appoint or ordain to an office; to establish as lawful.
None of which means inner transformation (dikaiosune).
Good for you. . .we are agreed.
Which are precisely the same as: a position (innocent, not guilty) by sentence of acquittal of guilt, by declaration of right standing with God's justice; i.e., forensic righteousness, not inner transformation (dikaiosune).
Tsk, tsk, tsk. . .you left out needing to maintain Jn 7:24.

Um, no, it obviously does not necessarily mean that at all, either by the words themselves or in context.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

And it does "necessarily mean that" in the context of the rest of the NT, e.g.
where dikaiosune (inner transformation, Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19) is by works of obedience in the Holy Spirit,
while dikaioo (verb form of dikaiosis, n.) is not by works (Ro 3:28); i.e., dikaiosis/dikaioo is by God's sentence of acquittal of guilt, his declaration of "not guilty," which is a forensic righteousness (in right standing with the Court), not an inner transformation.

Which brings us back to Jn 7:24.

 

[fhansen]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

And it does "necessarily mean that" in the context of the rest of the NT, e.g. where dikaiosune (inner transformation, Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19) is by works of obedience in the Holy Spirit, while dikaioo (verb form of dikaiosis, n.) is not by works (Ro 3:28); i.e., dikaiosis/dikaioo is by God's declaration of "not guilty," which is a forensic righteousness (in right standing with the Court), not an inner righteousness.

Which brings us back to Jn 7:24.

All of which can be translated as "made just". It's not biblical demonstration but Koine Greek definitions that apply here. And as for Biblical demonstration, all of Romans makes it clear that at justification the gift of righteousness is given. Rom 5 perhaps explains this most clearly where real sin enters the world by Adam's sin, and real righteousness enters the world as a gift of grace through Jesus's obedience.

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (all men became actually sinful), so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (dikaioi katastathesontai-the many will now become actually righteous)." Rom 5:19

"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

 

[Clare73]

All of which can be translated as "made just". It's not biblical demonstration but Koine Greek definitions that apply here.

That explains a lot regarding comprehension.

It is precisely Biblical demonstration, using the koine Greek of the Bible.

And as for Biblical demonstration, all of Romans makes it clear that at justification the gift of righteousness is given. Rom 5 perhaps explains this most clearly where real sin enters the world by Adam's sin, and real righteousness enters the world as a gift of grace through Jesus's obedience.

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (all men became actually sinful), so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (katastathesontai-the many will now become actually righteous)." Rom 5:19

One more time. . .

And that is the same righteousness as Abraham i.e.,
imputed [Heb: chashab, to count as, Ge 15:6; Gr: logizomai, to reckon/credit as, Ro 4:3],
to constitute (katastathesontai) righteous; i.e., to station in a position (righteous), to reckon/count as righteous, an acquittal of guilt, a declaration of rightwise (righteous) standing, with justice; i.e.,
forensically righteous, not personally transformed as in Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19.

"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

Where trespass/death are contrasted to righteousness/life, and where

trespass = guilt, and righteousness = acquittal of guilt,
death = physical death, and reign in life = life in Christ (Eph 2:6, 2 Ti 2:12).

It is a righteousness from God (Ro 1:17),
of God (2 Co 5:21),
through remission of sin, by the payment of its debt through faith, not through sanctification,
a gift (2 Co 5:21),
God's acceptance of him as one who has fulfilled the whole of his requirements, counting/imputing him as righteous (Ro 4:3),
not as actually personally transformed in the righteousness of sanctification leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19).

Which brings us back to Jn 7:24.

 

[Der Alte]

I am not seeing any accredited Hebrew or Greek grammars or lexicons. I have all four in my personal library.

 

[Der Alte]

Clare73[/USER]]
Are you in disagreement?
I use Vine's.

Free online sources are outdated. I have the latest editions of Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon and Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon.

 

[fhansen]

It is precisely Biblical demonstration, using the koine Greek of the Bible.

It's the meaning of the words and the intention of the author using them, not preferential theology coming centuries after the fact, preceding oor misinterpreting those words. The church understood and worked all this out at the beginning, which is why the eastern and western churches all agree on the basics of justification.

The order of salvation: Grace>faith>man's response, yay or nay>justification if "yay">forgiveness and remittance of sin and righteousness now given to God's new creation. Grace, His life in us, now enables us to live as He created man to live, rigjhteously as His children should>continued life in the Spirit, remaining in Him in order to be nourished and so retain and grow in the righteousness/justice given, not returning to sin/the flesh, or repenting and returning if we do, all in order to retain and confirm our salvation which is intrinsically and directly related to our holiness, our state of justice. the justified state of being that begins with faith.

 

[fhansen]

And that is the same righteousness as Abraham i.e.,
imputed [Heb: chashab, to count as, Ge 15:6; Gr: logizomai, to reckon/credit as, Ro 4:3],
to constitute (katastathesontai) righteous; i.e., to station in a position (righteous), to reckon/count as righteous, an acquittal of guilt, a declaration of rightwise (righteous) standing, with justice; i.e.,
forensically righteous, not personally transformed as in Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19.

Sure if only we ignore the meaning of the words.

trespass = guilt, and righteousness = acquittal of guilt,
death = physical death, and reign in life = life in Christ (Eph 2:6, 2 Ti 2:12).

trepass=sin/unrighteousness, and righteousness equals, well, righteousness.

death = physical death, and reign in life = life in Christ (Eph 2:6, 2 Ti 2:12).

Even now, before physical death, we die and rise to new life, now united with God, the source of life. Were now "slaves to righteousness" instead of "slaves to sin". We're "born dead", in need of rebirth

"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. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness." Rom 6:11-13

"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 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 6:20-21

We're born again in this life, even as our new life is only fully complete and consummated in the next.

 

[Clare73]

It's the meaning of the words and the intention of the author using them, not preferential theology coming centuries after the fact, preceding oor misinterpreting those words.

I'm thinking koine Greek came before theology.

The church understood and worked all this out at the beginning, which is why the eastern and western churches all agree on the basics of justification.

Agreement doesn't prove correctness.

Sure if only we ignore the meaning of the words.

Then don't ignore them. . .

trepass=sin/unrighteousness, and righteousness equals, well, righteousness.
Even now, before physical death, we die and rise to new life, now united with God, the source of life. Were now "slaves to righteousness" instead of "slaves to sin". We're "born dead", in need of rebirth
"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. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness." Rom 6:11-13
"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 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 6:20-21

We're born again in this life, even as our new life is only fully complete and consummated in the next.

Agreed. . .

And now back to Jn 7:24.

 

[fhansen]

I'm thinking koine Greek came before theology.

Yes, that was the point-and you've outright ignored definitions as is convenient it seems.

Agreement doesn't prove correctness.

I forgot to mention agreement with the ECFs as well. As for yourself, much is guess-work on your part, agreeing with other guessers while ignoring history.

And now back to Jn 7:24.

Yes, now stay there awhile- and contemplate it.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, that was the point-and you've outright ignored definitions as is convenient it seems.

I forgot to mention agreement with the ECFs as well. As for yourself, much is guess-work on your part, agreeing with other guessers while ignoring history.

Sounds like misrepresentation to me. . .

I am well aware of history and its errors.

So you agree Jn 7:24 should be practiced?

 

[fhansen]

Sounds like misrepresentation to me. . .

I am well aware of history and its errors.

So you agree Jn 7:24 should be practiced?

Of, course, everyone should practice it. And to know Christian history one must study it, for themselves, rather than relying on various popular notions about it received from others and so often based on truths, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. Read the ECFs, early councils, catechisms, early church histories, theologians, etc. This is the legacy of all Christians.

 

[Clare73]

Of, course, everyone should practice it. And to know Christian history

It's not about Christian history, it's about the Scriptures, for history is not the arbiter of divine truth.
You present the wrong authority for God's truth.

one must study it, for themselves,rather than relying on various popular notions about it received from others

And how does one study this Christian history without relying on information from others?

and so often based on truths,

And the problem with that is?

half-truths, and outright falsehoods. Read the ECFs, early councils, catechisms, theologians, etc. This is the legacy of all Christians.

And again, neither history nor legacy is the arbiter of divine truth.

Interesting perception that no other Christians know the truth through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
And all of it assertion, no exegesis and Biblical demonstration needed.
Sounds like a recipe for self aggrandizement and error, which explains a lot.

 

[fhansen]

It's not about Christian history, it's about the Scriptures, for history is not the arbiter of divine truth.

Yes, history is not the word of God, although the Bible contains history, of course. But the history of the church, of our fellow believers from the past, can often inform us at least to the whats and whys of their beliefs from the perspective of "being there" so that we’re not just one more gal or fella picking up the bible and knowing what all it means to say while disagreeing with the next gal or fella down the line on what it means to say, with our private intepretations. There's a reason God gave us the church, warts and all. Anyway, to immerse oneself to one degree or another in Christian history, say from the more innocent time up through the 4th century, a time before the church was accepted and established, is to gain a real "flavor" for what Christianity meant to those who generally gave up much to be a follower of Christ.

And how does one study this Christian history without relying on information from others?

I'm speaking of other comtemporaries, who often skew or revise or cherry-pick in order to support an agenda rather than from original sources themsleves.

And the problem with that is?

The problem, satan being a prime example of utilizing this practice, is when truth is mixed with the others: half-truths and falsehoods.

Interesting perception that no other Christians know the truth through the illumination of the Holy Spirit

The problem is that all Christians believe in the illumination of the Holy Spirit, regardless of which varying "truths" they end up with. He does lead us, of course, but the more we continue to be open to the real, full truth, seeking it, the more He can work in and with us.

And all of it assertion, no exegesis and Biblical demonstration needed.

No, I've always done both, as the Church always has as well, using both Scripture and the received lived legacy of the Christian Church.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, history is not the word of God, although the Bible contains history, of course. But the history of the church, of our fellow believers from the past, can often inform us at least to the whats and whys of their beliefs from the perspective of "being there" so that we’re not just one more gal or fella picking up the bible and knowing what all it means to say while disagreeing with the next gal or fella down the line on what it means to say, with our private intepretations. There's a reason God gave us the church, warts and all. Anyway, to immerse oneself to one degree or another in Christian history, say from the more innocent time up through the 4th century, a time before the church was accepted and established, is to gain a real "flavor" for what Christianity meant to those who generally gave up much to be a follower of Christ.
I'm speaking of other comtemporaries, who often skew or revise or cherry-pick in order to support an agenda rather than from original sources themsleves.
The problem, satan being a prime example of utilizing this practice, is when truth is mixed with the others: half-truths and falsehoods.
The problem is that all Christians believe in the illumination of the Holy Spirit, regardless of which varying "truths" they end up with. He does lead us, of course, but the more we continue to be open to the real, full truth, seeking it, the more He can work in and with us.

No, I've always done both, as the Church always has as well, using both Scripture and the received lived legacy of the Christian Church.

Good for you. . .

 

[fhansen]

Good for you. . .

Thank you, yes- and good for all of us to do. It's the Christian way.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you, yes- and good for all of us to do. It's the Christian way.

However, the history, which to you is authoritative, of the last 500 years shows otherwise.