Is belief a work? Jesus' words from John 6

[Jaltus]

I am leading a Bible study on John, and I just finished reading this section:

John 6:28-29 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Jesus clearly says that the work of God, or the work we are to do, is to believe in/on Jesus.

Hmmm, is Jesus contradicting Paul?

I would like to see what you say before I come back with my own thoughts. No fair answering GP, if you are out there. Arminian, I would like to hear from you.

[seer]

I am leading a Bible study on John, and I just finished reading this section:

John 6:28-29 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Jesus clearly says that the work of God, or the work we are to do, is to believe in/on Jesus.

Hmmm, is Jesus contradicting Paul?

I would like to see what you say before I come back with my own thoughts. No fair answering GP, if you are out there. Arminian, I would like to hear from you.

I think that Jesus is simply playing off the form of the question.

[themuzicman]

I think that Jesus is simply playing off the form of the question.
He is, but the play is precisely that we are to believe. It is our 'work' (task) to do so.

The difference is that Jesus is using "work" as a noun, something that must be done, a task, something that we do.

Paul is using it as a verb, and more precisely Paul is usinig "work" as something worthy of wages... The one who works is....

So, no contradiction, as the context separates the meaning of each.

michael

[geebob]

Hmmm, is Jesus contradicting Paul?

Paul's statements against works wasn't meant to be taken as an absolute applying to anything that could take the label of "work". Paul's discussion of works vs. faith was specifically with works of the mosaic law as the identifiers of the people of God.

I know I'm right but did I win?

[Tercel]

It seems no different to Paul's phrase "work of faith" (1 Th 1:3, 2 Th 1:11), where he speaks of faith as a "work". And as geebob pointed out: Given the New Perspective, what is the problem?

[Nang]

I am leading a Bible study on John, and I just finished reading this section:

John 6:28-29 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Jesus clearly says that the work of God, or the work we are to do, is to believe in/on Jesus.

Hmmm, is Jesus contradicting Paul?

I would like to see what you say before I come back with my own thoughts. No fair answering GP, if you are out there. Arminian, I would like to hear from you.

Faith is indeed a work.

Faithfulness describes the work of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was the only Man who succeeded in perfectly performing the holy works (under the Law) of God. And He did so because He alone is a faithful Man.

Faith does not exist in mortals. It did not exist in Adam (or Adam would have obeyed God instead of sinning against God); therefore, faith does not exist in a one of his descendants.

That was the reason for the second "Adam" to come in the flesh; Jesus Christ, who would and could demonstrate perfect faithfulness to the Father and satisfy the all the Holy Law.

It is the faith (righteous works) of Jesus Christ that are imputed to the Elect, by the grace of God.

Faith is not conjured up from within sinners in order to cause salvation.

Faith comes as a gift of God, causing salvation.

Scripture plainly teaches:

"Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith . . ." Hebrews 12:2a

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8

As wondrous as the gift of faith is, it is not rocket science to figure out the source of faith. If one reads and believes the Bible, that is.

The only reason any religionist would think faith somehow emanates from the sinner is because of denial of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

Faith is a work, and it was the work of God.

Faith is given to sinners by God; sinners who without divine faith could never hope to please God (Hebrews 11:6), nor truly believe without the gift.

Nang

[themuzicman]

Faith is indeed a work.
....

Nang
Umm...

1) Faith isn't righteous works. It's placing one's trust in something.

2) Faith is something that we choose to do. Jesus repeatedly puts the condition of faith on eternal life (John 3:16, 6:47, et al.) As does Paul (Col 1:21-23).

3) Jesus clearly makes faith the work we must do in the passage Jaltus cited.

So, while your prooftexts are interesting, they fail the context of the remainder of scripture.

Michael

(James White bot...definately)

[Colossians]

Jaltus,

John 6:28-29 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Jesus clearly says that the work of God, or the work we are to do, is to believe in/on Jesus.
No he says it is the work of God.
"the work we are to do" was your addition.

[themuzicman]

Jaltus,

John 6:28-29 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Jesus clearly says that the work of God, or the work we are to do, is to believe in/on Jesus.
No he says it is the work of God.
"the work we are to do" was your addition.
Once AGAIN, Colossians is unable to read the context to see that "work of God" refers back to "works of God" in the previous verse, which the questioners wanted to do.

And, as if to reinforce this point, Jesus uses the active voice in telling them "You believe", clearly implying that THEY are the ones doing the believing, not God. Were it God's work, Jesus would have said so in the 2nd part, as well.

Thus, the context of the verse, both the question asked, and the form of the answer, demand that faith be the task of the person, not God.

Michael

[Colossians]

Nang,

Jesus Christ was the only Man who succeeded in perfectly performing the holy works (under the Law) of God. And He did so because He alone is a faithful Man.
He couldn't have: "(Keeping) the law is not of faith". Gal 3:12.
Christ never kept the law. Anything He did in line with the law was purely coincidental.

The law was not made for Christ because Christ was a righteous man, and "the law is not made for a righteous man".
Christ fulfilled the law in being punished by it. The law cannot be fulfilled unless it is allowed to act with full expression. Such requires it to be allowed to punish to the full extent.

There would have been no point in Christ's living until the age of 33 if His fulfilling of the law meant a perfect keeping of it: He would have fulfilled it already at age 16 or less, and then could have been crucified.
Conversely, there is no point in time when one can be said to have fulfilled the law completely until one is dead. Therefore it would not be possible for Him to have fulfilled the law while alive, for while alive, there is always the possibility of failure.
But if His death was required to fulfill the law (to terminate His life at a point up to which He had fulfilled the law) then you make death equal to life, and thus err.
So whichever way you go here you are cornered.







Faith does not exist in mortals. It did not exist in Adam (or Adam would have obeyed God instead of sinning against God); therefore, faith does not exist in a one of his descendants.
...Faith is not conjured up from within sinners in order to cause salvation.
Faith comes as a gift of God, causing salvation.
Correct.

[Colossians]

Muxicman,

John 6:28-29 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Jesus clearly says that the work of God, or the work we are to do, is to believe in/on Jesus.
No he says it is the work of God.
"the work we are to do" was your addition.
Once AGAIN, Colossians is unable to read the context to see that "work of God" refers back to "works of God" in the previous verse, which the questioners wanted to do.

Rather, you again fail to get the meaning.
Christ twisted the thing around onto His terms. You on the other hand make Him subordinate to the theology of those who were trying to trap Him.
Hypocritcal questioners are unlikely to come to Christ with rightly-worded questions. This time was no exception: He answered them on God's terms and clearly declared that faith is the work of God.
So your hermeneutic is wrong: the context is not primarily what is written, but what is right.

[themuzicman]

Muxicman,

John 6:28-29 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Jesus clearly says that the work of God, or the work we are to do, is to believe in/on Jesus.
No he says it is the work of God.
"the work we are to do" was your addition.
Once AGAIN, Colossians is unable to read the context to see that "work of God" refers back to "works of God" in the previous verse, which the questioners wanted to do.

Rather, you again fail to get the meaning.
Christ twisted the thing around onto His terms. You on the other hand make Him subordinate to the theology of those who were trying to trap Him.
Hypocritcal questioners are unlikely to come to Christ with rightly-worded questions. This time was no exception: He answered them on God's terms and clearly declared that faith is the work of God.
So your hermeneutic is wrong: the context is not primarily what is written, but what is right.
:rofl:

OK, so you're telling us that the written text isn't necessarily right? :lmbo:

NOW he denies the inerrancy of scripture

Honestly, Colossians, this is a Calvinist prooftext that has been exposed as exegetically bankrupt already. You didn't even deal with the last half of Jesus' statement, where He tells those asking Him that THEY are to believe in the one whom God has sent. "Believe" is active, and the subject is "You" (referring to the questioners). Thus, the task (in this case, believing) is to be done by those asking, not God.

Jesus DOES turn this around on them, because they think they're going to justify themselves by the law, and Jesus preaches justification by faith, but He does NOT say that faith is God's work, especially in light of the remainder of his statement.

Michael

[Nang]

Umm...

1) Faith isn't righteous works. It's placing one's trust in something.


"Placing one's trust in something," is an action; therefore, a work.

2) Faith is something that we choose to do.

Choosing "to do" is an action; therefore, a work.


Jesus repeatedly puts the condition of faith on eternal life (John 3:16, 6:47, et al.) As does Paul (Col 1:21-23).

Meeting requirements and "conditions" is action; therefore, they are works.

3) Jesus clearly makes faith the work we must do in the passage Jaltus cited.

See! You are preaching a "works-righteousness" gospel, which is false.

1. Sinful humans have no trust of God within them. They have been cursed with enmity against God; which curse must be removed before they can approach God at all.

2. Sinful humans do not have faith within them; it is not inherent to their corrupted nature. They can only choose to serve sin, death, and the devil. It is impossible for them to choose the things of God, let alone choose to have faith to believe. It is not within their grasp apart from God's grace.

3. Sinful humans cannot reconcile with God, or contract with God, or meet any requirements (Law) of God because they are dead in their trespasses. Salvation comes to them unconditionally, by grace, based upon the fact that Jesus Christ met all the requirements of the Law in His Person on their behalf.



Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Christ twisted the thing around onto His terms. You on the other hand make Him subordinate to the theology of those who were trying to trap Him.
Hypocritcal questioners are unlikely to come to Christ with rightly-worded questions. This time was no exception: He answered them on God's terms and clearly declared that faith is the work of God.
So your hermeneutic is wrong: the context is not primarily what is written, but what is right.

(Italics mine)


:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:
Colossians, your credibility is approaching zero.
:lmbo:

[themuzicman]

"Placing one's trust in something," is an action; therefore, a work.



Choosing "to do" is an action; therefore, a work.




Meeting requirements and "conditions" is action; therefore, they are works.

Glad to see you can admit all this... it's really too bad that you distort Paul so badly.

See! You are preaching a "works-righteousness" gospel, which is false.

You see, you've messed it up already.

1. Sinful humans have no trust of God within them. They have been cursed with enmity against God; which curse must be removed before they can approach God at all.

Hmm... Not sure that "curse" is the right word, here. Certainly the unsaved person does not believe in God. That much is true.

2. Sinful humans do not have faith within them; it is not inherent to their corrupted nature. They can only choose to serve sin, death, and the devil. It is impossible for them to choose the things of God, let alone choose to have faith to believe. It is not within their grasp apart from God's grace.


So, the unsaved MUST sin at every opportunity? They are incapable of even civic good?

3. Sinful humans cannot reconcile with God, or contract with God, or meet any requirements (Law) of God because they are dead in their trespasses. Salvation comes to them unconditionally, by grace, based upon the fact that Jesus Christ met all the requirements of the Law in His Person on their behalf.

Sure. And all the unsaved person needs to do is believe. It's still something THEY must do. John 6:44-45 says that we must hear and learn from God, and then we are able to believe. But drawing only gives us the ability. We still must choose to believe.


Your problem is that you can't distinguish between "work" (a task), and "work" ("to engage in constructive activity which deserves compensation"). Paul's statement that we do not gain salvation by works is in the context of earning one's salvation through obeying the law or otherwise appeasing God in one's own ability.

That's what the people in John 6:28 wanted Jesus to tell them: How they could appease God.

Christ's answer, on the other hand, tells us exactly what Paul tells us: faith earns nothing, but those who believe, like Abraham, are creditted with righteousness, so that none can boast that their works earned them a trip into heaven.

Christ's propitiaion is the agent that appeases God's wrath, and those who live by faith in Christ receive that justification by grace through faith.

Thus, Christ's instructions to the questioners in John 6:28 was that they did have to do something, but it wasn't going to be the works that they wanted, which would have earned them eternal life. They had to receive it as a free gift of God, and the condition they had to fulfill in order to receive that gift was to believe on the one whom the Father sent.

Those are CHrist's instructions to those asking the question and to us today.

Michael

[Nang]

[quote]Hmm... Not sure that "curse" is the right word, here. Certainly the unsaved person does not believe in God. That much is true.

Christ became accursed on behalf of His people, in order that the curse might be removed by the shedding of His blood:

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.' But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the 'just shall live by faith.' Yet the law is not of faith, but 'the man who does them shall live by them.' Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us . . ." Galatians 3:10-13a



So, the unsaved MUST sin at every opportunity? They are incapable of even civic good?

Every action of unsaved man is tainted by personal sin and corruption; therefore, all his works, even his attempts to do civil good, are considered filthy in the eyes of God. (Isa. 64:6)



And all the unsaved person needs to do is believe.

But unsaved people cannot believe. They are spiritually dead, and unable to help themselves.

It's still something THEY must do.

Yes, you are correct. The command of God is to believe God in order to live. But dead men are unable to obey the commands of God.

That is the terrible dilemma Adam cast all of us into.

We are commanded to believe God, but we can't.

That is why mankind needed a Savior. A Man who was without sin, who could and would believe the Father and obey Him in all ways. Jesus believed for His children, and then imputed this righteousness to them in exchange for their sins.



John 6:44-45 says that we must hear and learn from God, and then we are able to believe. But drawing only gives us the ability. We still must choose to believe.

"Drawing" brings us to belief. And the power of the Spirit of God Who draws is irresistible. The children of God will believe without choice to refuse. It is after regeneration that the child of God makes choices to walk according to the Spirit of God abiding within him, and no longer walk according to his flesh.


faith earns nothing, but those who believe, like Abraham, are creditted with righteousness, so that none can boast that their works earned them a trip into heaven.

Yes, this is the imputation of righteousness. The gift of faith, without which it is impossible to please God. (Hebrews 11:6)

Christ's propitiaion is the agent that appeases God's wrath, and those who live by faith in Christ receive that justification by grace through faith.

We agree.

Thus, Christ's instructions to the questioners in John 6:28 was that they did have to do something, but it wasn't going to be the works that they wanted, which would have earned them eternal life. They had to receive it as a free gift of God, and the condition they had to fulfill in order to receive that gift was to believe on the one whom the Father sent.

If men have to meet a "condition," to believe, then it is no longer grace that saves. It is men meeting a "condition" that saves them. I do not agree with this false notion.

God's covenant promises and work of salvation for undeserving sinners is unconditional, for Christ has met all Godly demands.

Nang

[themuzicman]

[QUOTE=themuzicman]





Christ became accursed on behalf of His people, in order that the curse might be removed by the shedding of His blood:

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.' But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the 'just shall live by faith.' Yet the law is not of faith, but 'the man who does them shall live by them.' Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us . . ." Galatians 3:10-13a

Well, now, that's a bit of a different context of a curse. Originally you were saying that none could beleive in God until a curse was lifted. In fact, is our faith in God that fulfills the condition for the curse of the law to be lifted.

very action of unsaved man is tainted by personal sin and corruption; therefore, all his works, even his attempts to do civil good, are considered filthy in the eyes of God. (Isa. 64:6)

Well, if you read that in context, you'll find that Isaiah isn't referring to individual acts ,but to attempts to justify oneself. Our righteousness (singular, referring to the sum of our actions) is as filthy rags. Some acts may be done according to the law (See Romans 2), but even a single sin causes us to break the whole law, and be under condemmnation. Thus, there may be individual acts of men that are not sin. Thus, your statement that man is unable to do anything good is simply untrue. Even Paul says that those without the law do things that are according to the law, and that becomes a law unto themselves (Romans 2).

So, you need to adjust your vision on this verse. It's not each individual action that is tainted, but our righteousness as individual that is stained upon even one sin.

But unsaved people cannot believe. They are spiritually dead, and unable to help themselves.

Can dead people walk?

Of course they aren't able to help themselves, but that doesn't make them unable to respond to the offer of salvation from Christ.


Yes, you are correct. The command of God is to believe God in order to live. But dead men are unable to obey the commands of God.

Again, Paul says otherwise. Those without the law who are condemned still do the things of the law.

That is the terrible dilemma Adam cast all of us into.

We are commanded to believe God, but we can't.

We're actually commanded to obey the law, and cannot. That is the dilemma.

That is why mankind needed a Savior. A Man who was without sin, who could and would believe the Father and obey Him in all ways. Jesus believed for His children, and then imputed this righteousness to them in exchange for their sins.

Jesus has children?

"Drawing" brings us to belief.


That's not waht John 6:44-45 says. If you read, drawing only enables us to come to Christ, because we ahve been taught by God. We, then, must hear and learn from Him. That is our role: to choose to believe what God has taught.

And the power of the Spirit of God Who draws is irresistible.

As yet unsupported by any scripture. Honestly, scripture is full of people who resisted, Israel being the main example.

The children of God will believe without choice to refuse.

Again, unsupported. Israel is your prime counter example.


It is after regeneration that the child of God makes choices to walk according to the Spirit of God abiding within him, and no longer walk according to his flesh.

Again, no scriptural support for regeneration. Furthemore, Christians still sin. Which is why Paul emplores us to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. Again, it remains our choice.


Yes, this is the imputation of righteousness. The gift of faith, without which it is impossible to please God. (Hebrews 11:6)

Faith isn't a gift. It's something we do. That's the point of John 6:28-29, which you seem to have convienently forgotten.


If men have to meet a "condition," to believe, then it is no longer grace that saves. It is men meeting a "condition" that saves them. I do not agree with this false notion.

Let's say that you're sailing a boat in the middle of the ocean, and you capsize and are too far from shore to swim. Within a few hours, you will die of hypothermia. However, the coast guard sends a helocopter, and a diver jumps into the water, throws you a rope, and tells you to grab hold.

You do so.

The helicopter then pulls you to a basket, where the diver helps you get in, and straps you in, and they lift you to safety.

Now, the condition of your salvation, in this case, was grabbing the rope. That'a faith.

However, the coast guard (grace) is the one that saved you. You simply fulfilled the condition by which the coast guard could accomplish its task.

Now, do you think that you saved yourself in this instance?

(I'm going to call this the Zipperhead test.)

God's covenant promises and work of salvation for undeserving sinners is unconditional, for Christ has met all Godly demands.

Really? That's not what Col 1:21-23 says. That's not what Heb 6 says. That's not what John 3:16 or John 6:47 say. Even Abraham had to believe before he was creditted with righteousness. Scripture simply disagrees with you.

I would agree that Calvinism is a coherent system. Unfortunately, it lacks proper scriptural support.

Michael

[Gabby]

It is after regeneration that the child of God makes choices to walk according to the Spirit of God abiding within him, and no longer walk according to his flesh.

I don't understand this. A person before regeneration doesn't have free will or a choice in thing, but after he is regenerated he does have free will or choice??

chris

[Nang]

[QUOTE=Nang]

In fact, is our faith in God that fulfills the condition for the curse of the law to be lifted.


By saying this, you give credit to men, rather than the cross work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ took the sins of His people upon His body in order to remove their cursedness before God. That is the meaning and purpose of propitiation.



Well, if you read that in context, you'll find that Isaiah isn't referring to individual acts ,but to attempts to justify oneself.

Isaiah is referring to any individual act; including attempt at self-justification. Every act of unsaved man proceeds from a corrupted and wicked heart. The motives, scrutinized by God, prove to be wicked and selfish in all instances. Until a new heart is given, that is "circumcised" of the flesh, and motivated by the love and Spirit of God, human motives are not valid or righteous in the eyes of God.

Our righteousness (singular, referring to the sum of our actions) is as filthy rags.

Correct. Individual acts produce a sum.


Some acts may be done according to the law (See Romans 2), but even a single sin causes us to break the whole law, and be under condemmnation.

Even if acts performed by the unsaved accord with God's law, the heart motive is wrong, for the unsaved do not follow the law out of faith in God, but for selfish reasons.



Thus, there may be individual acts of men that are not sin.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. There is no such thing as an act of unsaved man that is sinless. Sin permeates the unsaved mind, heart, and soul thoroughly and without exception.


Thus, your statement that man is unable to do anything good is simply untrue.

My "statement" is Biblical, thus you argue against the Word of God, not me:

"There is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:12, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3


Even Paul says that those without the law do things that are according to the law, and that becomes a law unto themselves (Romans 2).

You do not comprehend Paul's teaching. He is revealing that even the Gentiles, who did not live under knowledge of the Mosaic Law, lived under the natural law of creation, which declares them guilty:

"For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

This natural law of creation cannot work to save the soul, but it certainly works to convict all men of sin.



So, you need to adjust your vision on this verse. It's not each individual action that is tainted, but our righteousness as individual that is stained upon even one sin.

"There is none righteous, no, not one." Romans 3:10

You are teaching the error of Pelagius, inventing human virtue where this is NONE.





Of course they aren't able to help themselves, but that doesn't make them unable to respond to the offer of salvation from Christ.

There is no spirit or life in dead corpses with which they can respond. Before a dead person can walk, he must be resurrected to life.

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" John 3:3

"See," in the sense of comprehension and understanding. No man can accept an "offer" of salvation when they are non-functional (dead).

And Jesus does not "offer" salvation.

Jesus Christ purchased salvation. It is His possession to give to whom He wills.

Jesus Christ guarantees salvation for those for whom He died.

Jesus Christ has promised the Father that He will lose no children that the Father gave Him to redeem. (John 17:12)


Jesus has children?

His spiritual offspring.

". . That He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad." John 11:52

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Romans 8:16 (cp vss 17 and 21)

". . Those who are the children of the flesh; these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed." Romans 9:8 (cp vss 11, 26)

"Therefore, be imitators of God as dear children." Ephesians 5:1

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments." I John 5:2





Again, unsupported. Israel is your prime counter example.

Not all of Israel was elect. Only a remnant was saved.

I speak of the grace of God being irresistible to the Elect. The grace of God does not apply to the rest of the world. Grace is particular and was always applied to only a remnant of humanity. During the O.T. era as well as this N.T. era:

"Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. . .Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Romans 11:5-7






Again, no scriptural support for regeneration.

". . According to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Titus 3:5

Furthemore, Christians still sin. Which is why Paul emplores us to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. Again, it remains our choice.

I agree with this teaching. (Romans 8:1-14)




Faith isn't a gift. It's something we do. That's the point of John 6:28-29, which you seem to have convienently forgotten.

John 6:28&29 teaches belief is the work that pleases God, but one must first be born again by the Holy Spirit and gifted with faith in order to "see" and believe the truths of God. (See John 3:3 and Ephesians 2:8&9 in conjunction with John 6:28&29, please.)




Really? That's not what Col 1:21-23 says. That's not what Heb 6 says. That's not what John 3:16 or John 6:47 say. Even Abraham had to believe before he was creditted with righteousness. Scripture simply disagrees with you.

Abraham exhibited faith through his belief; proving the righteousness of God had been imputed to him.

"He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore 'it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was IMPUTED to him, but also for us. It shall be IMPUTED to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead . . ." Romans 4:24



1. Abraham comprehended the promise of grace from God. According to the teaching of Jesus, one must needs be born again by the Spirit of God before one can comprehend the Gospel promises. (John 3:3) Thus, Abraham had to have been first raised from death to life by the power of God. (Romans 8:11)

2. Abraham was strengthened in faith. Faith is given in measure simultaneously with regeneration of the Spirit. And faith builds upon faith; strengthening the new creature in Christ. (Romans 1:17)

3. Abraham was convicted and convinced through the Holy Spirit that God would perform all Covenant promises (unconditionally!) on his behalf. (Hebrews 11:8-19)

4. Abraham was imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ because he, via God's Spirit, grasped and trusted in the promises and work of God (versus his own works), only because of the necessary resurrection power of God, the gift of faithfulness from God, and the unconditional performance of Covenant by God.

Nang

[Nang]

I don't understand this. A person before regeneration doesn't have free will or a choice in thing, but after he is regenerated he does have free will or choice??

chris


Before regeneration, unsaved men are held in bondage to the devil, including their wills. They can make choices, but only sinful choices that serve their master and their wicked hearts. So their wills are not truly "free" because they are unable to choose to do the good things of God.

After regeneration, the heart is renewed and filled with love of God and His Word (law). The believer's will has been freed to choose to walk according to the Spirit, will, and Word of God. The Christian can choose to either serve the law of sin that remains in his body, or he can choose to obey God. However, in the strictest sense, his will is still not "free," in that the believer must submit to the sovereign will of God.

You see, only God has a truly "free" will, in that He cannot choose evil.

Human beings are created and not sinless like God; thus their wills always answer to whoever masters them.



"I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness." Romans 6:19

Nang

[themuzicman]

[QUOTE=themuzicman]


By saying this, you give credit to men, rather than the cross work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ took the sins of His people upon His body in order to remove their cursedness before God. That is the meaning and purpose of propitiation.

You ignored my Coast Guard example, which clearly refutes your assertion, here.

Isaiah is referring to any individual act; including attempt at self-justification. Every act of unsaved man proceeds from a corrupted and wicked heart. The motives, scrutinized by God, prove to be wicked and selfish in all instances. Until a new heart is given, that is "circumcised" of the flesh, and motivated by the love and Spirit of God, human motives are not valid or righteous in the eyes of God.

But our sins are for our actions, not our motives.

Even if acts performed by the unsaved accord with God's law, the heart motive is wrong, for the unsaved do not follow the law out of faith in God, but for selfish reasons.

Again, nowhere are motives in and of themselves attributed as sin.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

This is from Romans 13, and is specifically addressed to Christians. To use it in this context is to take this scripture OUT of context.

My "statement" is Biblical, thus you argue against the Word of God, not me:

"There is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:12, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3

You're ignoring the genre of Psalms, which is going to speak in extremes and hyperbole, and Paul uses it in this context. You're using it literally, which is invalid.

You do not comprehend Paul's teaching. He is revealing that even the Gentiles, who did not live under knowledge of the Mosaic Law, lived under the natural law of creation, which declares them guilty:

"For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

This natural law of creation cannot work to save the soul, but it certainly works to convict all men of sin.

I agree. However, Paul also clearly states that the gentiles DO the things of the law, which means that they (via their conscience) know the things of the law, and, as such, their conscience alternately accuses AND DEFENDS them.

Thus, they do things according to the law.

"There is none righteous, no, not one." Romans 3:10

Improper use of genre.

You are teaching the error of Pelagius, inventing human virtue where this is NONE.

You're abusing scripture to protect your own theology. Pelagius said that man was able to live a sinless life. I've made no such claim.

There is no spirit or life in dead corpses with which they can respond. Before a dead person can walk, he must be resurrected to life.

Really? Eph 2:2 says that those dead people walked. (So much for THAT point.)

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" John 3:3


This is NOT regeneration.

"See," in the sense of comprehension and understanding. No man can accept an "offer" of salvation when they are non-functional (dead).


Well, you ahve a problem with EPh 2:1 to resolve, first, since Paul says that dead people can walk.

And Jesus does not "offer" salvation.

No? He says in John 12:32 that he will draw all men until himself. He commands the disciples to go into all nations and preach the gospel. Both are clearly offers of salvation.

Furthermore, ROmans 10:9-17 CLEARLY show that the presentation of the gospel by a preacher is the forerunner to one hearing the word of God, from which faith comes. And how are they saved? "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Rom 10:13. Their choice to believe in Him is required.

Jesus Christ purchased salvation. It is His possession to give to whom He wills.

And who does He will? (John 6:40)

Jesus Christ guarantees salvation for those for whom He died.

Gee, he brought justification to ALL MEN. (Rom 5:18)

Jesus Christ has promised the Father that He will lose no children that the Father gave Him to redeem. (John 17:12)

No problem, here.

His spiritual offspring.

". . That He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad." John 11:52

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Romans 8:16 (cp vss 17 and 21)

". . Those who are the children of the flesh; these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed." Romans 9:8 (cp vss 11, 26)

"Therefore, be imitators of God as dear children." Ephesians 5:1

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments." I John 5:2

Umm...

16. The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17. and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

God the Father is our Father. Being co-heirs with Christ, adopted into the family, Jesus does not have Children.

Not all of Israel was elect. Only a remnant was saved.

No? THe Covenant was with the nation of Israel, not certain individuals. They all went into exile together.

I speak of the grace of God being irresistible to the Elect.

Again, unsupported in scripture. John 6:44-47 is pretty clear that we have a role in receiving salvation.

The grace of God does not apply to the rest of the world. Grace is particular and was always applied to only a remnant of humanity.


Gee, Paul said that justification comes to all men. (Rom 5:18)

During the O.T. era as well as this N.T. era:

"Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. . .Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Romans 11:5-7

That's nice.

". . According to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Titus 3:5

I rather dislike " . . . " in scripture.

5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

The context, here, is that We arent' saved on the basis of our deeds of righteousness, but by His mercy. Paul certainly isn't making a statement that we must be regenerated before we can be saved, so even this is taken out of context.

John 6:28&29 teaches belief is the work that pleases God, but one must first be born again by the Holy Spirit and gifted with faith in order to "see" and believe the truths of God. (See John 3:3 and Ephesians 2:8&9 in conjunction with John 6:28&29, please.)

Faith cannot be the gift in Eph 2:8-9. The greek grammar will not permit it.

John 3 doesn't imply regeneration, either.

Abraham exhibited faith through his belief; proving the righteousness of God had been imputed to him.

Excuse me?

"He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore 'it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was IMPUTED to him, but also for us. It shall be IMPUTED to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead . . ." Romans 4:24

"Righteousness is imputed (given) to us who believe." Belief is the condition of receiving that righteousness! It's odd that you can't see that, here.


1. Abraham comprehended the promise of grace from God. According to the teaching of Jesus, one must needs be born again by the Spirit of God before one can comprehend the Gospel promises. (John 3:3) Thus, Abraham had to have been first raised from death to life by the power of God. (Romans 8:11)

That's simply a major stretch of scripture, certainly beyond the breaking point. I'm suprised you haven't tried to use 1 Cor 2:14, yet. There simply isn't any context in Genesis to support your assertion.

2. Abraham was strengthened in faith. Faith is given in measure simultaneously with regeneration of the Spirit. And faith builds upon faith; strengthening the new creature in Christ. (Romans 1:17)


Building upon a crumbled foundation....

3. Abraham was convicted and convinced through the Holy Spirit that God would perform all Covenant promises (unconditionally!) on his behalf. (Hebrews 11:8-19)

THat would be for the birth of Isaac, long AFTER he was creditted with righteousness.

4. Abraham was imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ because he, via God's Spirit, grasped and trusted in the promises and work of God (versus his own works), only because of the necessary resurrection power of God, the gift of faithfulness from God, and the unconditional performance of Covenant by God.

Wow... My bible says that Abraham believed, and it was creidtted to him as righteousness. You went a long way around to change what scripture clearly says.


You obviously can't see it, but your misuse of scripture is really damaging your case. You take thing out of context, you fail to consider proper hermeneutics, and you use human logic to twist scripture to mean something other than what it says.


How about trying a plain reading of scripture, rather than having to explain everything away?

Michael

[Nang]

You ignored my Coast Guard example, which clearly refutes your assertion, here.

Your Coast Guard example did not impress me much.



But our sins are for our actions, not our motives.



Again, nowhere are motives in and of themselves attributed as sin.

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a men." Mark 7:21-23



This is from Romans 13, and is specifically addressed to Christians. To use it in this context is to take this scripture OUT of context.

No, it was a quote from Hebrews 11:6, which is in the context of Abraham being a man of faith.



You're ignoring the genre of Psalms, which is going to speak in extremes and hyperbole, and Paul uses it in this context. You're using it literally, which is invalid.

This is just your opinion.

Jesus said the Psalms were literally "concering Him." Read Matthew 24:44






You're abusing scripture to protect your own theology. Pelagius said that man was able to live a sinless life. I've made no such claim.

O.K. You are a semi-Pelagian, then.







Well, you ahve a problem with EPh 2:1 to resolve, first, since Paul says that dead people can walk.

Yeah. We all were the walking dead, until Christ made us spiritually alive and raised us up together in Christ. (Now who is being too "literal?") :lol:


He says in John 12:32 that he will draw all men until himself. He commands the disciples to go into all nations and preach the gospel. Both are clearly offers of salvation.

God is drawing men and women out of all the nations through the preaching of the Gospel. Where you derive "offer" out of an irresistible draw, is beyond me.

Can you present a single Scripture that speaks of the Gospel being an "offer?"

Furthermore, ROmans 10:9-17 CLEARLY show that the presentation of the gospel by a preacher is the forerunner to one hearing the word of God, from which faith comes. And how are they saved? "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Rom 10:13. Their choice to believe in Him is required.

I have no argument against the above. The point I am trying to make clear is what causes the sinner to "hear" the Gospel to begin with. I contend it takes the power of the Holy Spirit and the gift of faith, for a sinner to be able to comprehend ("hear, see") the message of salvation, in order to believe.



And who does He will? (John 6:40)

". . Everyone who sees the Son and believes . . ." This affirms my point of order. One must see (or hear) to believe, and spiritually dead people cannot see spiritual truths or hear spiritual truths until they are born again and in possession of new hearts, minds, eyes, and ears.




Gee, he brought justification to ALL MEN. (Rom 5:18)

"All men" quantified to mean "many" in verse 19.








16. The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17. and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

God the Father is our Father. Being co-heirs with Christ, adopted into the family, Jesus does not have Children.

Believers are "children of God." Are you saying Jesus Christ is not God? Yes, the children are adopted children, but legal heirs, born of the Spirit of Christ, so what's your problem?



No? THe Covenant was with the nation of Israel, not certain individuals. They all went into exile together.

Actually, the Covenant was with the Godhead; extended to those who would be the recipients of Christ's inheritance as fellow heirs, etc. etc. Very big subject to delve into at this point.



Again, unsupported in scripture. John 6:44-47 is pretty clear that we have a role in receiving salvation.

Well, of course. The elect are the objects of salvation. Who else is going to receive the grace of God, but them?



5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

The context, here, is that We arent' saved on the basis of our deeds of righteousness, but by His mercy.

At least we can agree on this much.

Paul certainly isn't making a statement that we must be regenerated before we can be saved, so even this is taken out of context.

Can you explain to me how sinners can be saved ~without~ being born again?





Faith cannot be the gift in Eph 2:8-9. The greek grammar will not permit it.

Oh, pooh. That is an old argument that holds no water. In fact, it is desparate in its nature, considering all the other Scriptures that affirm men are saved because of the faithfulness of Christ, and through His faith alone.

John 3 doesn't imply regeneration, either.

Tell us what Jesus was talking about then, if not being born again.




"Righteousness is imputed (given) to us who believe." Belief is the condition of receiving that righteousness! It's odd that you can't see that, here.

I don't see it because it is not there. Such conditionality is non-existent in the Gospel message.

Man has invented conditions. God's conditions have already been met in the Person of Jesus Christ. God performs all Covenant. Men are not equal parties, but simply the beneficiaries of the Covenant of Grace established and performed by the Triune Persons of the Godhead.




That's simply a major stretch of scripture, certainly beyond the breaking point. I'm suprised you haven't tried to use 1 Cor 2:14, yet. There simply isn't any context in Genesis to support your assertion.

Two things:

1. Abraham heeding the call to come out of the land of Ur into the land promised to him by God, signifies new life. (Genesis 15:7)

2. Jesus Christ said that Abraham "saw His day" and rejoiced. (John 8:56)

Abraham could not and would not have done either, if he had not been born again by the Spirit of God and gifted with faith.

And yes, I Cor. 2:14 is an excellent verse to affirm my position.

THat would be for the birth of Isaac, long AFTER he was creditted with righteousness.

Huh? Hebrews 11:8 testifies to Abraham's faith and trust in God to leave his homeland and go out to find his promised inheritance without "knowing where he was going." That was way before Isaac was born.



Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Nang

Noone was born again before Christ came. Otherwise it would conflict with Galatians. The OT saints were under Law, not Grace. The Law couldn't give life. Read Galatians again.

[Nang]

Nang

Noone was born again before Christ came. Otherwise it would conflict with Galatians. The OT saints were under Law, not Grace. The Law couldn't give life. Read Galatians again.

You are describing dispensationalist beliefs.

I hold to Covenant Theology.

We (Reformers) believe that all the elect are saved by the grace of God; both the O.T. saints and the N.T. saints are saved through faith in the Savior.

There is no difference between O.T. saints and N.T. saints.

For example: Abel, Enoch, Seth, Noah, Job, and Abraham were named as saved by the grace of God before the Mosaic Law was even given.

And later, under the Law, a remnant were likewise saved by grace, through faith in God and His Covenant promises. Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, David, the prophets, etc. all exhibited faith in the promises of God concerning the coming of the Messiah. These were all born of and possessed the indwelling Holy Spirit of God in order to grasp the truths of God and understand the prophecies of God.

All believers, both before Christ and after Christ, make up the spiritual body of Christ (the invisible and heavenly Church).

Christ Himself taught:

"And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 8:11

Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

You are describing dispensationalist beliefs.

I am not a dispensationalist, nor am I describing their beliefs. If the dispensationalist agrees with what I said, great.

I hold to Covenant Theology.

I know, I used to be a calvinist myself.

We (Reformers) believe that all the elect are saved by the grace of God; both the O.T. saints and the N.T. saints are saved through faith in the Savior.

I understand what the reformers believe.

There is no difference between O.T. saints and N.T. saints.

You didn't read Galatians. The OT saints were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
But that certainly didn't mean they went to hell either.

For example: Abel, Enoch, Seth, Noah, Job, and Abraham were named as saved by the grace of God before the Mosaic Law was even given.

See above.

And later, under the Law, a remnant were likewise saved by grace, through faith in God and His Covenant promises. Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, David, the prophets, etc. all exhibited faith in the promises of God concerning the coming of the Messiah. These were all born of and possessed the indwelling Holy Spirit of God in order to grasp the truths of God and understand the prophecies of God.

You'll have to provide scripture and a bit of exegesis for that. You forgot they had to obey the Law. But anyway, see above.

All believers, both before Christ and after Christ, make up the spiritual body of Christ (the invisible and heavenly Church).

They do now, correct.









Christ Himself taught:

"And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 8:11

Correct

[Colossians]

Muzicman,

OK, so you're telling us that the written text isn't necessarily right?
No you are. The text says this: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent”


NOW he denies the inerrancy of scripture
No you do, as shown above. You simply don’t except that Jesus means what He says, but with your Arminian perspective, instead declare by reason of your limited understanding that He was wrong when He said that believing is the work of God.
He has told you it is the work of God, so accept it, don’t argue with it.



You didn't even deal with the last half of Jesus' statement, where He tells those asking Him that THEY are to believe in the one whom God has sent.
And as I have said, He prefaced such with the information that such believing is the work of God.



Your approach is non-integrated. You need to take into account that "It is no longer I that liveth, but Christ", and that therefore 'my' faith is not my own, but Christ's in me, and that Christ being God, 'my' faith is God's and therefore God's work.
This is what Jesus was teaching.

[Nang]

[quote]The OT saints were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

What specific Scripture do you believe teaches this?



But that certainly didn't mean they went to hell either.

There is no way to escape Hell, except to be found in Jesus Christ. And there is no way to be in Jesus Christ, except by the power and sanctifying presence of His Holy Spirit.

What is your theory as to exactly how Noah escaped judgment and Hell?


You forgot they had to obey the Law.

All men are commanded to obey the Law. But no man can. Except the God/Man Jesus Christ.

Sinners are saved by resting and trusting in His works and abilities, not their own. And the purpose of the Law is to reveal this truth to sinners and draw them to Christ to find salvation.

". . By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is knowledge of sin." Romans 3:20

IOW's, no person of any era, was justified by following (or attempting to follow) the Law. For all mankind has "fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) by universally failing to live according to God's Law.

Except the Man Jesus Christ, who successfully and faithfully fulfilled all the Law in perfect obedience, as federal head and representative of His people.

Because He was declared righteous under the Law by God, so are all the elect (O.T. elect as well as N.T. elect) that He represented in His Person and incarnation.

Nang

[Colossians]

Nang,

All men are commanded to obey the Law. But no man can. Except the God/Man Jesus Christ.
Yet you also quote: "by the deeds of the law shall NO MAN be justified".
Christ was a man.

If we the Body are not justified by the deeds of the law, then necessarily also not our Head, for we two are one spirit with Him.

Christ lived by faith, and faith is not of the law.
You are simply going to have to drop this conventional superficially arrived-at teaching.
By the works of the law shall NO MAN be justified. This included Christ, who more than anybody knew that "the law is not of faith".

[Nang]

Nang,

All men are commanded to obey the Law. But no man can. Except the God/Man Jesus Christ.
Yet you also quote: "by the deeds of the law shall NO MAN be justified".
Christ was a man.

If we the Body are not justified by the deeds of the law, then necessarily also not our Head, for we two are one spirit with Him.

Christ lived by faith, and faith is not of the law.
You are simply going to have to drop this conventional superficially arrived-at teaching.
By the works of the law shall NO MAN be justified. This included Christ, who more than anybody knew that "the law is not of faith".

Oh please . . .you seem intent on only lending confusion to discussions.

Jesus Christ (as the "last Adam") demonstrated perfect faithfulness by His complete fulfillment of the Law.

(Reversing the failure of the unfaithful and disobedient "first Adam.")

This equates to righteousness.

And this faith/righteousness is imputed to those Christ represented.

Nang

[Colossians]

Nang,

You have not demonstrated that Christ was not subject to the same principle which states that by the works of the law shall no man be justified.
Pressing the quote button and then simply prattling off with your original assertion, gives the impression that you have responded properly to the rebuttal only to the most novice of debaters.


But since you are purposely evasive, here's a puzzle for you instead.
"Why didn't Jesus offer sacrifices as required by the law?"


And here's another one.
"How is it that Jesus could walk by faith, and yet keep the Sabbath law which is non-intuitive?"


And one more for good measure.
"Why is it you say Christ's keeping the law was the opposite of what Adam did, when the very sin of Adam was to look at the law? Would not Christ have done what Adam was supposed to do (ie resist looking at the law)?"

[Nang]

But since you are purposely evasive, here's a puzzle for you instead.
"Why didn't Jesus offer sacrifices as required by the law?"


Good grief.

What do you think the blood offering of Christ was?



And here's another one.
"How is it that Jesus could walk by faith, and yet keep the Sabbath law which is non-intuitive?"

What in the world does "non-intuitive" signify?



And one more for good measure.
"Why is it you say Christ's keeping the law was the opposite of what Adam did, when the very sin of Adam was to look at the law?"

I give up.

You make no sense.

Adam did not sin by "looking at the Law," but by disregarding the commands of God.

Post on, poor fool.

Nang

[Colossians]

Nang,


Why didn't Jesus offer sacrifices as required by the law?"
"Good grief
What do you think the blood offering of Christ was?.
It might not have dawned on you yet, but Christ's blood had not been shed while he was walking around supposedly fulfilling the law.
So the good grief is a tad more applicable to you.
But show us when He offered up heave offerings to God. Also show us why He illegally implied that He did not have to attend the feast of booths as stipulated in the law. (John 7:8).





"How is it that Jesus could walk by faith, and yet keep the Sabbath law which is non-intuitive?"
What in the world does "non-intuitive" signify?
Faith is essentially intuitive isn't it? Can you be exercising faith by following the law? Why is it that we are told "the law is not of faith"?





"Why is it you say Christ's keeping the law was the opposite of what Adam did, when the very sin of Adam was to look at the law?"
Adam did not sin by "looking at the Law," but by disregarding the commands of God.
Like saying that murder is not wrong in itself, only wrong because God said not to do it.
He disregarded one command only, not "commands". And that one was to not look at the knowledge of what is right and wrong, which knowledge the law contains.
Thus to look at the law, is to sin. It is to seek to achieve a righteousness apart from the cross.
Time and again the inflexibility of your neck causes you to blatantly disregard that fact that the law is not of faith. You simply stick your fingers in your ears, and turn away from such teaching in Galations.
Are you an SDA?





Post on, poor fool.
Yes it doesn't surprise me that you who promote the law disobey the command of Christ to not call a brother a fool.
And it surprises me even less that you as a female seek to teach men in contravention of your charter as a female in Christ.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

What specific Scripture do you believe teaches this?

I don't usually "proof text" as thats a poor way to explain ones position. I'll try to give a brief explanation instead.

Galatians 3
1You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

When they heard of the death and resurection of Christ, and they believed, the Holy Spirit was given. Notice how they did not receive the Spirit by works of the Law. And remember, the old covenant saints were under the law.

21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

"Life" described here is the indwelling of the Spirit, Nang.

23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

Notice again, they were under the law which could not impart "Life". Only when faith came could Life be given.

There is no way to escape Hell, except to be found in Jesus Christ. And there is no way to be in Jesus Christ, except by the power and sanctifying presence of His Holy Spirit.

What is your theory as to exactly how Noah escaped judgment and Hell?

I have no theory about this. What I do have is the Bible, which tells me in Genesis 6:9,
These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

All men are commanded to obey the Law. But no man can. Except the God/Man Jesus Christ.

Deuteronomy 30
10if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.
11"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach."

Surely thats not sarcasm.

[Nang]

Post on, poor fool.
Yes it doesn't surprise me that you who promote the law disobey the command of Christ to not call a brother a fool.

I have no evidence that you are my brother.


And it surprises me even less that you as a female seek to teach men in contravention of your charter as a female in Christ.

Charter? What charter?


Wait til Dee Dee hears about this . . .

Nang

[Colossians]

Post on, poor fool.
Yes it doesn't surprise me that you who promote the law disobey the command of Christ to not call a brother a fool.
I have no evidence that you are my brother.
Thus you declare you are not my sister, and thus you condemn yourself by your accusing me to be a "fool".



And it surprises me even less that you as a female seek to teach men in contravention of your charter as a female in Christ.
Charter? What charter?
No wonder then that you appear as one not under authority.

[Nang]

I don't usually "proof text" as thats a poor way to explain ones position. I'll try to give a brief explanation instead

Galatians 3
1You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

You declared the following was taught in the Book of Galatians:

"The OT saints were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit."

The above answer does not satisfy or explain your complaint against my beliefs that the O.T. saints were born again and possessed the Holy Spirit, just like the N.T. saints.

To deny the O.T. believers of the Holy Spirit is to disrupt the eternal and immutable workings of Truine God. (See Exodus 35:21, Psalm 51:11, Isa. 57:15 and Isa. 63:10&11 for confirmation of the Holy Spirit's presence with the O.T. men of God.)




21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

"Life" described here is the indwelling of the Spirit, Nang.

Right.

So, does Abraham live? Does David live? Do all the prophets live?

How?

23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

Notice again, they were under the law which could not impart "Life". Only when faith came could Life be given.

Yes, and I am saying that grace and faith came, by immutable neccessity, to regenerate and save Abraham, David, and all the O.T. believers in their time, just as it is gifted to N.T. believers in the fullness of time.

Otherwise, Abraham, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, and all the other patriachal saints of God would have been lost and condemned under the Law of God.



I have no theory about this. What I do have is the Bible, which tells me in Genesis 6:9,
These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

You have no idea how Noah was declared a "righteous man" before the Law was given? You MUST study this aspect to find truth!

"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Genesis 6:8 . . .declaring the grace of God the sole reason that Noah was declared righteous and blameless and able to walk with God.

One does not have to theorize, but simply read the Bible.



Deuteronomy 30
10if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.
11"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach."

Surely thats not sarcasm.

Indeed it is not.

The Law of God clearly and easily reveals to man what He is required to do to please God under the Law. The Law reveals what man should do, as well as reveals what all men fail to do.

All men have knowledge of either natural (creational witness) of the law, or they have knowledge of the formal (Mosaic) law.

It is clearly manifested to humankind, but all men fail to live according to the revelations of God's holiness. All men prove to be lawless, because they are faithless, and bereft of God's Spirit.

Thus the need for God to provide a substitional Savior, who could and would perform all the Law on behalf of His people.

Nang

[Nang]

[i][b]
No wonder then that you appear as one not under authority.

I refuse to be under ~your~ authority.

You have no spiritual authority, for you preach confusion and falsehood.

I am under the sound authority of my husband and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Both oversee what I post.

Nang

[Colossians]

If you call a bother a fool, which you have done, and before the Body of Christ in public, then you are most definitely not under the authority of Jesus Christ. If you claim you are, then you are defaming Him.

[Nang]

If you call a bother a fool, which you have done, and before the Body of Christ in public, then you are most definitely not under the authority of Jesus Christ. If you claim you are, then you are defaming Him.


I do not consider you my brother.

Sorry.

Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

The above answer does not satisfy or explain your complaint against my beliefs that the O.T. saints were born again and possessed the Holy Spirit, just like the N.T. saints.

Then you say the Spirit was given to folks because of works of the Law. The Spirit was given to those who heard with faith!!
If you want to fight Paul.......

1. Once again, the Spirit was given to those who heard with faith. Noone before Christ was born again, or regenerated. They couldn't have heard by faith because they were before Christ
2. But before faith came, (The time of Christ) we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. It was not revealed to the OT folks.
3. For if a law had been given which was able to impart life (indwelling of the Holy Spirit), then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

(See Exodus 35:21, Psalm 51:11, Isa. 57:15 and Isa. 63:10&11 for confirmation of the Holy Spirit's presence with the O.T. men of God.)

The Spirit worked on them and through them, but never permanently dwelt in them.


Yes, and I am saying that grace and faith came, by immutable neccessity, to regenerate and save Abraham, David, and all the O.T. believers in their time, just as it is gifted to N.T. believers in the fullness of time.
Otherwise, Abraham, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, and all the other patriachal saints of God would have been lost and condemned under the Law of God.

If these people were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, then why were they under the law???
Remember the scripture, Nang? For you are not under Law, but under Grace?? You can't be under both!!

I'm beginning to understand you don't fully realize why Christ came. Its a lot more than just having our sins forgiven. Thats milk.

"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Genesis 6:8 . . .declaring the grace of God the sole reason that Noah was declared righteous and blameless and able to walk with God.
Most, if not all modern translations use favor vice grace. And there's a good reason for that. There's no Hebrew word for grace AFAIK. Grace didn't exsist in the OT. Mercy, favor, kindness did. But not grace. Grace is Christ himself and what he did for us.


All men are commanded to obey the Law. But no man can.
Deuteronomy 30:11
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach."

You have a problem with scripture here.

[lee_merrill]

It's midnight, and I can't read all the thread, but has anyone said the "the work of God" might mean "God does it"? That is, that faith is his work? That's what I believe...

Philippians 2:13 ... for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Blessings,
Lee

[Nang]

Noone before Christ was born again, or regenerated. They couldn't have heard by faith.

So you do not believe Abraham was saved?





If these people were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, then why were they under the law???

Was Abraham under the Law? Was Noah? Was Job?


Grace didn't exsist in the OT.

God has always existent, and grace is the nature of eternal God; therefore His dealings with men has always reflected His mercy and grace, as O.T. Scriptures testifies and reveals:

"But Noah found grace in the eyes of God." Genesis 6:8

"Then Moses said to the Lord, 'See, You say to me, "Bring up this people." But You have not let me know whom You will send with me. Yet You have said, "I know you by name, and you have also found grace in My sight." Now therefore, I pray, "If I have found grace in Your sight, show me now Your way, that I may know You and that I may find grace in Your sight. . .So the Lord said to Moses, " I will lso do this thing that you have spoken for you have found grace in My sight, and I know you by name. . . .I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."'" Exodus 33:12&13,17,19

"And now for a little while, grace has been shown from the Lord our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and give us a measure of revival in our bondage." Ezra 9:8

"Surely He scorns the scornful, but gives grace to the humble." Proverbs 3:34

"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace . . ." Zechariah 12:10a

Mercy, favor, kindness did. But not grace. Grace is Christ himself and what he did for us.

But Christ is eternal God. He was no different before His incarnation, than after. It is our (N.T.) understanding of grace that is "better," but the grace of God towards His people is nothing new.

Nang

[Nang]

It's midnight, and I can't read all the thread, but has anyone said the "the work of God" might mean "God does it"? That is, that faith is his work?

Yes, I remember posting that faith is a work. The work of Jesus Christ was perfectly faithful and obedient to God, and that very righteousness and faithfulness is imputed to those He died for. But I am not sure I said so on this thread.


That's what I believe...

Indeed. It is the Godly truth!



Philippians 2:13 ... for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Amen!


Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Nang
Awaiting your response on:

"If these people were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, then why were they under the law???
Remember the scripture, Nang? For you are not under Law, but under Grace?? You can't be under both!!"

You're using Abraham, Noah, and Job to sidestep the issue.
I'll rephrase it for you. How can the folks in the Mosaic Covenant be under Law and Grace at the same time??

Explain the conflict here:

Quote: Originally posted by Nang
All men are commanded to obey the Law. But no man can.

Quote: Originally posted by God
Deuteronomy 30:11
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach."

[Nang]

Nang
Awaiting your response on:

"If these people were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, then why were they under the law???

Israel, as a nation, was a keeper of the Law and thereby obliged to keep the Law, but a remnant of the nation was Elect and saved by the grace of God.

Those who received salvation by grace, were led by the law to faith in the Covenant promises given by God of a Savior. These were born again by God's Holy Spirit and power, just as we.


Explain the conflict here:

Quote: Originally posted by Nang
All men are commanded to obey the Law. But no man can.

Quote: Originally posted by God
Deuteronomy 30:11
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach."

There is no conflict. God's commandment reveals to men their sin by telling them how they ~should~ live. The Word of God and His commands are not mysterious or too difficult to understand, nor was it out of the reach of the Jews, especially as they were the commissioned stewards of God's law amongst all the nations.

But having this stewardship did not mean any of them were able to perfectly obey all the Law of God.

It is only the grace of God that brings this realization of inability to live up to God's holy Law to the hearts of God's children, causing repentance of sin and casting of souls upon the mercies of God for salvation.

The Law was, and still is, a tutor to draw the sons of God to faith in His Christ, who alone and indeed perfectly obeyed and fulfilled all the Law perfectly.

Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

You can't be under Law and under grace at the same time, Nang. Its one or the other. People under the Law don't have the Spirit, period.

There is no conflict. God's commandment reveals to men their sin by telling them how they ~should~ live. The Word of God and His commands are not mysterious or too difficult to understand, nor was it out of the reach of the Jews, especially as they were the commissioned stewards of God's law amongst all the nations.


The text doen't state anything about the law being mysterious or being difficult to understand. What the text does say is "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you"

I'll translate that for you.
"They could do it"
God never commands something we cannot do.
God commands all to repent, therefore all can repent. Not all will, however. This is just another example where your reformed philosophy goes awry.

[Sheepdog]

too lazy, so i'm pasting my earlier work on it

v. 29: Jesus replied, "This is the deed God requires-to believe in the one whom he sent."

Now here we run into a bit of a rough spot. I have seen some Calvinist laypeople deduce from this verse that "faith is a work." The idea is supposed to be that works is something "you do," and thus if faith is something you do, Arminianism and similar views lead to works salvation. However, this seems to be imposing a Pauline view of works on Jesus' language, and if that is so, the Calvinists cause themselves a problem, since Paul, James, etc. make a strong contrast between works and faith. It is probable that Jesus had a "looser" meaning of "work" here, which is likely why the Calvinist exegetes I've consulted have avoided that interpretation.

A more popular interpretation is that "work of God" in v. 29 (e.g. NIV) means that belief is actually something that God works into people, and thus the individual has no part in bringing about faith. An individual who knows the Greek as informed me that this is a possible meaning of the original language, but it doesn't have to mean that. And as a matter of fact, it doesn't work. We find other examples of this word usage by Jesus which suggests the contrary: Jesus said, "As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me." John 9:4, NIV, and "I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do." John 17:4, NIV. In both cases, the work of Him (God) is something that Jesus or "we" (Jesus and His disciples?) do. Furthermore, the people aren't asking about what God does, but what they must do. Therefore, the better interpretation is that the "work of God" in 29 is what God desires that people do.

[seer]

The above answer does not satisfy or explain your complaint against my beliefs that the O.T. saints were born again and possessed the Holy Spirit, just like the N.T. saints.

Just a thought Nang. I do believe that the Holy Spirit influenced O.T. saints. But I do not belive that God could actually dwell in the tent of sinful flesh until Christ's sacrifice was complete. There are no O.T. references to regeneration in the N.T. sense, and you do not find men being personally filled with the Holy Spirit. Like the High priest could not enter the holy of holies without the correct sacrifice, the Holy of Holies could not enter us until the perfect sacrifice was complete in real time...

[Chytraeus]

OK, so you're telling us that the written text isn't necessarily right? :lmbo:

NOW he denies the inerrancy of scripture

Honestly, Colossians, this is a Calvinist prooftext that has been exposed as exegetically bankrupt already. You didn't even deal with the last half of Jesus' statement, where He tells those asking Him that THEY are to believe in the one whom God has sent. "Believe" is active, and the subject is "You" (referring to the questioners). Thus, the task (in this case, believing) is to be done by those asking, not God.

Jesus DOES turn this around on them, because they think they're going to justify themselves by the law, and Jesus preaches justification by faith, but He does NOT say that faith is God's work, especially in light of the remainder of his statement.

Michael

He doesn't deny the inerrency of Scripture, he just denies the inerrency of your interpretation. Yes, the person does the believing, God does not do that for Him. However, lost and degenerate people are not capable of trusting God, believing in Christ, or any other good thing. They are described as enemies of God, fleeing His wrath, walking in darkness, even haters of God. How can such a person ever believe that Jesus died for his sins? He can no more trust Christ for eternal life than a rock can make itself roll. In fact, he is a worse condition than the rock, for the rock just sits there, and will roll if someone pushes it, but the lost siner will even resist when pushed.

Therefore, faith must come from somewhere else as a gift. Paul says in Ephesions 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Not only are we saved by faith and not by works, but even that faith is given to us by God so that we can believe. The explanation Paul gives here is so we would have no reason to boast. If the faith by which I apprehend the gifts of God were something that I was able to do on my own, without God, I would still have a reason to boast before unbleivers. I would have a reason to think that I was better than they. But this has been taken away, for I cannot even take credit for my faith, for it was given to me by God.

Jesus' answer turned the question of the Pharisees upside down, as He often does to those who would be justified by their own works. They want to know what work they must do to please God. Jesus answers them using the terms of the question that they used, but then he gives them a "work" that is really no work at all. He says that they must believe on the One God sent. It is certain that the pharisees were offended by this answer, as they would have taken it as no answer to what they wanted at all. They wanted to hear about alms giving, fasting, long hours of praying, tithing and such, but Jesus tells them to simply believe. And He knew that this was something they were incapable of doing, since He had been proclaiming the Gospel of God to them day in and out, and they were continually resisting the Spirit. That is why at another place He warned them about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. One who accuses the Holy Spirit of God of lying can never be saved, for he will never believe what he has heard.

Having said all of this, I am not a Calvinist. Nor am I an Arminian. There are many points where I agree and disagree with both sides. In this case, I agree with the Calvinists...to a point.

[themuzicman]

You ignored my Coast Guard example, which clearly refutes your assertion, here.

Your Coast Guard example did not impress me much.

I'm sure it didn't. However, it does refute your contention that a response on the part of man in his salvation means that man saved himself.


But our sins are for our actions, not our motives.

Again, nowhere are motives in and of themselves attributed as sin.[/quote]

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a men." Mark 7:21-23

And they defile him when they come out. Notice that that come FROM within. The act (and these do list ACTS, not motivations) is the sin.

This is from Romans 13, and is specifically addressed to Christians. To use it in this context is to take this scripture OUT of context.

No, it was a quote from Hebrews 11:6, which is in the context of Abraham being a man of faith.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

1) This deals with salvation. There is nothing here about faith being required, or an act is sinful.
2) Your cite actually comes from:

23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith ; and everything that does not come from faith is sin .

(Romans 14, not 13, my bad) And this is in reference to Christian liberty and those who may fall because of it.



You're ignoring the genre of Psalms, which is going to speak in extremes and hyperbole, and Paul uses it in this context. You're using it literally, which is invalid.

This is just your opinion.

Actually, there is an entire field call "hermeneutics", which bible scholars have to study, which says this.

Jesus said the Psalms were literally "concering Him." Read Matthew 24:44

Really? So, Jesus is a worm? (Ps 22)

You're abusing scripture to protect your own theology. Pelagius said that man was able to live a sinless life. I've made no such claim.

O.K. You are a semi-Pelagian, then.

Whatever you call it, it's scriptural.

Well, you ahve a problem with EPh 2:1 to resolve, first, since Paul says that dead people can walk.

Yeah. We all were the walking dead, until Christ made us spiritually alive and raised us up together in Christ. (Now who is being too "literal?") :lol:

Well, at least you admit that this whole "dead men can't do anything" has finally be abandoned.

He says in John 12:32 that he will draw all men until himself. He commands the disciples to go into all nations and preach the gospel. Both are clearly offers of salvation.

God is drawing men and women out of all the nations through the preaching of the Gospel. Where you derive "offer" out of an irresistible draw, is beyond me.

It's not irresistable.

Can you present a single Scripture that speaks of the Gospel being an "offer?"

I just did. The disciples were to go into ALL THE NATIONS and PREACH THE GOSPEL. Not just seeking out the elect, but all the nations. Paul cites the OT in saying "EVERYONE who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." But how can they call, unless they have heard the message? ANd how can they hear the message, unless there is a preacher?

And what does a preacher of the gospel do? He presents the gospel to all who will listen to him, and offers salvation to all who will believe. Just like I said here:

Furthermore, ROmans 10:9-17 CLEARLY show that the presentation of the gospel by a preacher is the forerunner to one hearing the word of God, from which faith comes. And how are they saved? "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Rom 10:13. Their choice to believe in Him is required.

I have no argument against the above. The point I am trying to make clear is what causes the sinner to "hear" the Gospel to begin with. I contend it takes the power of the Holy Spirit and the gift of faith, for a sinner to be able to comprehend ("hear, see") the message of salvation, in order to believe.

But you've presented no evidence of either.

And who does He will? (John 6:40)

". . Everyone who sees the Son and believes . . ." This affirms my point of order. One must see (or hear) to believe, and spiritually dead people cannot see spiritual truths or hear spiritual truths until they are born again and in possession of new hearts, minds, eyes, and ears.


Well, we destroyed your "spiritually dead" argument above, when you acknowledged that spiritually dead people walk. If they can walk, then they can hear and see. There is simply no context in scripture that suggests that the unsaved are unable to hear and understand the gospel. In fact, John 6:45 says that they CAN.

Gee, he brought justification to ALL MEN. (Rom 5:18)

"All men" quantified to mean "many" in verse 19.

Actually, Paul rephrases to shut out the universalists out there. Justification came to all men, but only many will be made righteous.

19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Thus, Paul switches horses, here, Christ's work was to bring justification to all men, but Paul acknowledges that not all will be made righteous. Why? He addresses this above: The righteous live by faith.


16. The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17. and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

God the Father is our Father. Being co-heirs with Christ, adopted into the family, Jesus does not have Children.

Believers are "children of God." Are you saying Jesus Christ is not God? Yes, the children are adopted children, but legal heirs, born of the Spirit of Christ, so what's your problem?

Apparantly you missed the scripture I posted above. If we are co-heirs with Christ, then He is not our Father, but our brother, and we inherit with Him from the Father.



No? THe Covenant was with the nation of Israel, not certain individuals. They all went into exile together.

Actually, the Covenant was with the Godhead; extended to those who would be the recipients of Christ's inheritance as fellow heirs, etc. etc. Very big subject to delve into at this point.

I was referring to the Old Covenant.

Again, unsupported in scripture. John 6:44-47 is pretty clear that we have a role in receiving salvation.

Well, of course. The elect are the objects of salvation. Who else is going to receive the grace of God, but them?

You're assuming an unbiblical view of "elect", which was my point above. The elect are those who choose to believe. It's not a list fixed by God for all time, but a corporate election of those who embrace the New Covenant.

5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

The context, here, is that We arent' saved on the basis of our deeds of righteousness, but by His mercy.

At least we can agree on this much.

Good, so you're conceeding this point.

Paul certainly isn't making a statement that we must be regenerated before we can be saved, so even this is taken out of context.

Can you explain to me how sinners can be saved ~without~ being born again?

I think you're using "born again" to mean the wrong thing. You're inserting regeneration, when Christ had no such intention when speaking with Nicodemus.

One of the major issues among the religious elite of Christ's day was resurrection. Jesus' analogy was intended to say that resurrection was necessary to eternal life. He contrasts natural birth (born of water) with resurrection (born of the spirit) to show that we are first born into a world where we are condemned, but those who believe (John 3:16) will be born (resurrected) into eternal life.

Paul discusses this in Colossians when he calls Jesus the "firstborn of creation", clearly referring to the resurrection.

Even baptism suggests the same, identifying us with Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Clearly "born again" is a reference to our entrance into eternal life.


=MuzFaith cannot be the gift in Eph 2:8-9. The greek grammar will not permit it.

Oh, pooh. That is an old argument that holds no water. In fact, it is desparate in its nature, considering all the other Scriptures that affirm men are saved because of the faithfulness of Christ, and through His faith alone.

Oh? Perhaps you could explain how a neuter pronoun can agree with a feminine antecedent that's buried in a prepositional phrase, then, even though Greek requires a pronoun agree with it's antecedent in case, number, and gender, except in cases where a neuter pronoun is used and there is no antecedent, in which case the pronoun refers to the general idea of the sentence, which, in Eph 2:8-9, is salvation, not faith.

It's holds a LOT of water, because the Greek is fairly solid. I realize that you want to pooh pooh this, but it refutes your point quite solidly.

=Muz"Righteousness is imputed (given) to us who believe." Belief is the condition of receiving that righteousness! It's odd that you can't see that, here.

I don't see it because it is not there. Such conditionality is non-existent in the Gospel message.

No? You didn't read John 3:16 or John 6:40 or John 6:47 or Colossians 1:21-23, not to mention the many other places where faith is clearly the condition? You must have a lot of holes in your bible.

Man has invented conditions. God's conditions have already been met in the Person of Jesus Christ. God performs all Covenant. Men are not equal parties, but simply the beneficiaries of the Covenant of Grace established and performed by the Triune Persons of the Godhead.

Except for the part where man must choose to participate in that covenant throiugh faith.

That's simply a major stretch of scripture, certainly beyond the breaking point. I'm suprised you haven't tried to use 1 Cor 2:14, yet. There simply isn't any context in Genesis to support your assertion.

Two things:

1. Abraham heeding the call to come out of the land of Ur into the land promised to him by God, signifies new life. (Genesis 15:7)

2. Jesus Christ said that Abraham "saw His day" and rejoiced. (John 8:56)

Abraham could not and would not have done either, if he had not been born again by the Spirit of God and gifted with faith.

Pure assertion. Absolutely NO scripture supports your case, here. In fact, the bible says that Abraham believed, and then it was creditted to him as righteousness. Faith preceeded righteousness. There simply isn't anything more said. You're inserting what you want the text to say.

And yes, I Cor. 2:14 is an excellent verse to affirm my position.

You sure about that? Paul chides the Corinthian church for not being able to grasp those same spiritual things (1 Cor 3:1-3). Clearly Paul is NOT referring to salvation in 1 Cor 2:14.



You're simply spouting the Calvinist rhetoric, Nang, which has been examined in light of scripture and found wanting. You're going to have to do more than spout what you've heard from your side, if you think it's going to fly.

SO a search for "Prooftext exposed" here, and you shoudl find four Calvinist prooftexts that are exegetically refuted. You've already hit two of them.

Michael

[themuzicman]

He doesn't deny the inerrency of Scripture, he just denies the inerrency of your interpretation. Yes, the person does the believing, God does not do that for Him. However, lost and degenerate people are not capable of trusting God, believing in Christ, or any other good thing. They are described as enemies of God, fleeing His wrath, walking in darkness, even haters of God. How can such a person ever believe that Jesus died for his sins? He can no more trust Christ for eternal life than a rock can make itself roll. In fact, he is a worse condition than the rock, for the rock just sits there, and will roll if someone pushes it, but the lost siner will even resist when pushed.

Because, as Paul tells us in Romans 1 and 2, everyone knows that they've sinned, and that sin leads to judgment. If you want practical application of this, look at all the unsaved people trying to justify themselves by doing good things to make up for bad things, or claiming that "I'm a good person" or that "I'm not an axe murderer."

If they were as you say they are, they would revel in sin, rather than be ashamed of it.

Honestly, unless you're going to claim that every unsaved person must sin at every opportunity, I don't see how you can make any of these claims.

The reason people don't come to Christ without God first drawing them is that they are stuck trying to make it themselves. Only when they learn (from God, John 6:45), that they cannot, and that Christ has provided a way for them to receive eternal life (Rom 10:9-17), are they even able to come to Christ (John 6:44). However, they still must learn and choose to believe (John 6:45-47).

Therefore, faith must come from somewhere else as a gift. Paul says in Ephesions 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Not only are we saved by faith and not by works, but even that faith is given to us by God so that we can believe.

Sorry, but Greek grammar does not permit faith to be the gift, since the pronoun "this" doesn't agree with "faith" as it's antecedent. Faith is something we do, as Jesus said (per the OP) in John 6:28-29.

The explanation Paul gives here is so we would have no reason to boast. If the faith by which I apprehend the gifts of God were something that I was able to do on my own, without God, I would still have a reason to boast before unbleivers. I would have a reason to think that I was better than they. But this has been taken away, for I cannot even take credit for my faith, for it was given to me by God.

Sorry, but since salvation is a gift (Eph 2:8-9), you would STILL have no standing to boast before unbelievers, because you have done nothing to save yourself. You simply accepted the offer of salvation, and, in doing do, admitted that you ARE a sinner, and that you CANNOT save yourself. Hardly something to boast about.

Jesus' answer turned the question of the Pharisees upside down, as He often does to those who would be justified by their own works. They want to know what work they must do to please God. Jesus answers them using the terms of the question that they used, but then he gives them a "work" that is really no work at all. He says that they must believe on the One God sent.

EXACTLY! THEY must believe. God doesn't make them do it. THEY must believe. Faith is an ACTIVE verb being done by the subject "YOU".

It is certain that the pharisees were offended by this answer, as they would have taken it as no answer to what they wanted at all. They wanted to hear about alms giving, fasting, long hours of praying, tithing and such, but Jesus tells them to simply believe. And He knew that this was something they were incapable of doing, since He had been proclaiming the Gospel of God to them day in and out, and they were continually resisting the Spirit. That is why at another place He warned them about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. One who accuses the Holy Spirit of God of lying can never be saved, for he will never believe what he has heard.

No disagreement, here.

Having said all of this, I am not a Calvinist. Nor am I an Arminian. There are many points where I agree and disagree with both sides. In this case, I agree with the Calvinists...to a point.

I am neither, as well. However, the Calvinists have many exegetical issues in their soteriology, as I've shown here, and elsewhere.

(Search for "Prooftexts exposed" on this forum.)

Michael

[Nang]

You're simply spouting the Calvinist rhetoric, Nang, which has been examined in light of scripture and found wanting.

I pity the observer who tries to keep up with threads that degenerate into a tenacious slugfest, such as this exchange between the two of us has become.

So for the sake of readers (if any are left interested in our conversation), I will sum up your list of denials that makes up your system of belief:

1. God does not save man; men save themselves.
2. Motives of unsaved hearts are not sinful, only the actions of unsaved men constitute sin.
3. God's grace does not always save, but is resistible.
4. "Preaching" does not mean "proclaiming," and "calling" does not mean "calling, but both words mean "offer.
5. Spiritual life is nothing new because dead men can also walk, hear, and see the things of God.
6. I Corinthians 2 has nothing to do with salvation.
7. Romans 5 has been "rephrased".
8. Christians are not the spiritual issue (offspring) of Jesus Christ.
9. There is not only one Covenant.
10. Election is not individual but corporate.
11. Being "born again" does not mean regeneration.
12. Jesus Christ is called the "first born" solely due to His resurrection.
13. Baptism does not signify washing away of sins, or new newness of earthly life, but only signifies eternal life.
14. God's Covenant is not unconditional, and mankind is equal parties to the agreement.
15. Faith is not a gift.

Now, rather than continue the game of producing long and wearing posts, and providing Scriptural answers that are insulted and tossed aside, I choose to simply state my disagreement with all these erroneous conclusions.

I consider this to be a bad theology, for it is man-centered. I have presented the Reformed theology that is God-centered.

It is for every reader to be convinced and convicted by the Holy Spirit of God as to which view holds the most truth.

Several of your remarks speak of "destruction," and "conceding," on my part, but while you busy yourself with denying Scripture, I choose to deny your claims of victory.

You have not won the debate, for denial is not debate.

To go back to the OP; I contend that faith comes from the heart and produces action; therefore faith is a work. But no man is saved by his works. The only answer can be that faith is the work of Jesus Christ, and His faithfulness that produced all His righteous works has been gifted to God's elect children.

By this divine imputation, sinners are saved by Christ alone, through faith alone, because of the grace of God alone, through the agency of Holy Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone.

Solus Christus
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria

Nang

[Jaltus]

Where in the Bible does it say no man is saved by a work?

Remember, you need to dfine what you mean. Faith is certainly NOT a work of the law, and Paul only excludes works of the law as bringing righteousness. Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. It does NOT say God caused Abraham to believe.

[Nang]

Where in the Bible does it say no man is saved by a work?

Are you asking people to prove a negative?

Remember, you need to dfine what you mean. Faith is certainly NOT a work of the law,

Faith is required to obey the Law.

Only one Man was ever faithful to God, and that Man perfectly obeyed and fulfilled all the Law; thereby demonstrating holy righteousness. He met all legal requirements necessary to be the sufficient offering for the sins of those the Father gave Him.

Jesus prayed to the Father:

"I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do." John 17:4

It is by the gift of this kind of faith that men come to realize their justification before God, and thereby are made willing to repent and walk according to the will and Word of God.

and Paul only excludes works of the law as bringing righteousness.

So unlawful works will bring righteousness? You are being illogical, as well as unbiblical.

Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Abraham's belief, proved he had received the gift of faith, which proves God's righteousness was imputed to his account, which proves his justification, which proves his regeneration, which proves by the grace of God the Holy Spirit of Christ indwelt his being. (And he was an O.T. saint!)



It does NOT say God caused Abraham to believe.

It is rather risky to form doctrinal beliefs on what is not said . . .plus:

There is nothing inherent in sinful mankind that can ~cause~ belief unto salvation. Nothing.

All men would perish in their sins if left to their own devices or choices.

Only the intervention of God's power and grace can cause and achieve all the aspects of the salvation of individual souls.

". . . Without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

Nang

[themuzicman]

I pity the observer who tries to keep up with threads that degenerate into a tenacious slugfest, such as this exchange between the two of us has become.

So for the sake of readers (if any are left interested in our conversation), I will sum up your list of denials that makes up your system of belief:

Now you claim to be psychic!

1. God does not save man; men save themselves. Bzzzzzt.
2. Motives of unsaved hearts are not sinful, only the actions of unsaved men constitute sin. Bzzzzzzzzzzt.
3. God's grace does not always save, but is resistible. Awkardly put.
4. "Preaching" does not mean "proclaiming," and "calling" does not mean "calling, but both words mean "offer. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
5. Spiritual life is nothing new because dead men can also walk, hear, and see the things of God. Bzzzzzt.
6. I Corinthians 2 has nothing to do with salvation. In context, that's the only way to read it.
7. Romans 5 has been "rephrased". By you.
8. Christians are not the spiritual issue (offspring) of Jesus Christ. You must be singing "I'm my own grandpa".
9. There is not only one Covenant. Perhaps you missed the part in Jeremiah 33, where God said He was going to establish a "New Covenant", or in New Testament, where Jesus said, "This is the New Covenant in my blood." Apparantly that means nothing to you.
10. Election is not individual but corporate. That's scriptural.
11. Being "born again" does not mean regeneration. Again, context doesn't point us that way.
12. Jesus Christ is called the "first born" solely due to His resurrection. You have another meaning?
13. Baptism does not signify washing away of sins, or new newness of earthly life, but only signifies eternal life. Umm.. Baptism represents our identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. See Romans 6.
14. God's Covenant is not unconditional, and mankind is equal parties to the agreement. Who said anything about "equal parties"?
15. Faith is not a gift. As per John 6:28-29.

Now, rather than continue the game of producing long and wearing posts, and providing Scriptural answers that are insulted and tossed aside, I choose to simply state my disagreement with all these erroneous conclusions.


Erroneous in Calvinism, true enough. However, not with scripture.

I consider this to be a bad theology, for it is man-centered. I have presented the Reformed theology that is God-centered.

I'm sure you do. But you refuse to examine the numerous exegetical issues that, when exposed, cause your systematic theology to crumble.

Several of your remarks speak of "destruction," and "conceding," on my part, but while you busy yourself with denying Scripture, I choose to deny your claims of victory.

So, after I point out your exegetical issues with scripture, you claim that I deny scripture?

You have not won the debate, for denial is not debate.

Neither is making lofty claims based upon bad exegesis.

To go back to the OP; I contend that faith comes from the heart and produces action; therefore faith is a work. But no man is saved by his works. The only answer can be that faith is the work of Jesus Christ, and His faithfulness that produced all His righteous works has been gifted to God's elect children.

And, as such, your argument is with Christ, because HE cl