"THE" Doctrine of Grace

[George Blaisdell]

I don't see how you will be able to get out of this one,
and remain intellectually honest.

His struggle is one of faith, my friend...
His faith informs his intellect...

So does yours and mine...
It is not a matter of intellect...

By now this should be clear...
Intellectual proofs are not working...

Hutch is a man of faith...
Different dogma, that's all...

Different precepts...
But faith nonetheless...

Arsenios

[rhutchin]

And where would that be?

In another thread.

[rhutchin]

Well since we are justified by faith, then it stands by reason that justification cannot precede faith.

So unless you believe that someone can be saved without being justified, I don't see how you will be able to get out of this one, and remain intellectually honest.

Assuming that you are citing 5:1 where it says that we are justified by faith, and this faith is that same faith Paul ascribes to Abraham, as an example, in the preceding chapter, can we agree that the faith in view is that faith expressed by the believer throughout his life; a life lived by faith in serving God?

[Phat8594]

Assuming that you are citing 5:1 where it says that we are justified by faith, and this faith is that same faith Paul ascribes to Abraham, as an example, in the preceding chapter, can we agree that the faith in view is that faith expressed by the believer throughout his life; a life lived by faith in serving God?

Doesn't matter. Either way justification cannot precede faith. Since I see faith as a way of life and not as intellectual belief, I have no problem with what you are saying....as long as you are not equating faith with a life lived by faith. By definition they cannot be the same thing. Faith is what the life is characterized by, is it not? It is also the means which God uses to justify.

[Phat8594]

In another thread.

And that would be where?

[rhutchin]

And that would be where?

Wherever you or I start it. How about you taking the first crack at it.

[rhutchin]

Since I see faith as a way of life...I have no problem with what you are saying....as long as you are not equating faith with a life lived by faith.

Now, that is a good example of liberal logic.

[rhutchin]

Here is John Chrysostom: http://www.ephesiansonline.com/chrys...esians-522-33/

“By the washing or laver” He washeth her uncleanness.
“By the word,” saith he.
What word?
“In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. xxviii. 19.)


Mat 28:19
Go ye therefore and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:

Let's look at Chrysostom's commentary.

Ver. 26. “And gave Himself up,” he says, “for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it.”

"So then she was unclean! So then she had blemishes, so then she was unsightly, so then she was worthless! Whatsoever kind of wife thou shalt take, yet shalt thou never take such a bride as the Church, when Christ took her, nor one so far removed from thee as the Church was from Christ. And yet for all that, He did not abhor her, nor loathe her for her surpassing deformity. Wouldest thou hear her deformity described? Hear what Paul saith, “For ye were once darkness.” (Eph. v. 8.) Didst thou see the blackness of her hue? What blacker than darkness? But look again at her boldness, “living,” saith he, “in malice and envy.” (Tit. iii. 3.) Look again at her impurity; “disobedient, foolish.” But what am I saying? She was both foolish, and of an evil tongue; and yet notwithstanding, though so many were her blemishes, yet did He give Himself up for her in her deformity, as for one in the bloom of youth, as for one dearly beloved, as for one of wonderful beauty. And it was in admiration of this that Paul said, “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die (Rom. v. 7.); and again, “in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. v. 8.) And though such as this, He took her, He arrayed her in beauty, and washed her, and refused not even this, to give Himself for her."

Chrysostom does not say that baptism is in view. He doesn't tell us that Paul is speaking of baptism because he writes, "So then she was unclean!...And though such as this, He took her, He arrayed her in beauty, and washed her, and refused not even this, to give Himself for her." He knows that baptism does not do this, thus, he does not attribute that which Christ did to baptism.

[Phat8594]

Now, that is a good example of liberal logic.

Ad hominems do nothing to further the discussion.

Until you can explain how a life lived by faith = faith your statement means nothing.

So go ahead, explain how

life lived by A = A

[rhutchin]

Since I see faith as a way of life...I have no problem with what you are saying....as long as you are not equating faith with a life lived by faith.

Now, that is a good example of liberal logic.

Ad hominems do nothing to further the discussion.

Not ad hominem as it focused on that which was said and not who said it. The phrase, "Since I see faith as a way of life...I have no problem with what you are saying....as long as you are not equating faith with a life lived by faith," is a good example of liberal logic in that it doesn't make sense.

Until you can explain how a life lived by faith = faith your statement means nothing.

Faith is believing God. A person who believes God will live a life that reflects that belief.

[George Blaisdell]

Let's look at Chrysostom's commentary.

You need to respond to the excerpt I gave you... That is the one that shows that it is Baptism that is meant by the term: "The washing of water in spoken word." Until you get that, you will not have a chance at the rest...

When a Protestant becomes a scholastic of the Holy Fathers in order to teach the Orthodox what the Holy Fathers say, he does the same thing with them that he does to the Bible, and the results are uniformly wretched... As I will hopefully show you as your commentary progresses here without you addressing the excerpt I provided to you...

Ver. 26. “And gave Himself up,” he says, “for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it.”

"So then she was unclean! So then she had blemishes, so then she was unsightly, so then she was worthless! Whatsoever kind of wife thou shalt take, yet shalt thou never take such a bride as the Church, when Christ took her, nor one so far removed from thee as the Church was from Christ. And yet for all that, He did not abhor her, nor loathe her for her surpassing deformity. Wouldest thou hear her deformity described? Hear what Paul saith, “For ye were once darkness.” (Eph. v. 8.) Didst thou see the blackness of her hue? What blacker than darkness? But look again at her boldness, “living,” saith he, “in malice and envy.” (Tit. iii. 3.) Look again at her impurity; “disobedient, foolish.” But what am I saying? She was both foolish, and of an evil tongue; and yet notwithstanding, though so many were her blemishes, yet did He give Himself up for her in her deformity, as for one in the bloom of youth, as for one dearly beloved, as for one of wonderful beauty. And it was in admiration of this that Paul said, “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die (Rom. v. 7.); and again, “in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. v. 8.) And though such as this, He took her, He arrayed her in beauty, and washed her, and refused not even this, to give Himself for her."

Chrysostom does not say that baptism is in view. He doesn't tell us that Paul is speaking of baptism because he writes, "So then she was unclean!...And though such as this, He took her, He arrayed her in beauty, and washed her, and refused not even this, to give Himself for her." He knows that baptism does not do this, thus, he does not attribute that which Christ did to baptism.

The Church of which he is writing here is that of the Old Temple Jews - He is not writing of the Christian Church...
Christ gave His Life to the Circumcision, his death upon the Cross, that whosoever should believe in Him should be Baptized into His very Death on the Cross... And it is in this purification through Christ's death on the Cross that the Bride, His Church, now unites with the Bride-Groom Christ in purity and unity, for we are Baptized into Christ, into His very Death on the Cross, and thus we become One with Him in His Baptism...

And he clearly references Baptism in the citation I provided you which you are currently ignoring...

Arsenios

[Phat8594]

Not ad hominem as it focused on that which was said and not who said it. The phrase, "Since I see faith as a way of life...I have no problem with what you are saying....as long as you are not equating faith with a life lived by faith," is a good example of liberal logic in that it doesn't make sense.

It makes total sense.

Faith is believing God. A person who believes God will live a life that reflects that belief.

Thats different from what you said before.

Based on what you just said, we could rewrite what you wrote before

belief = a life characterized lived in belief



Of course, we see its clear that life lived by a trait/spect is not the same as the trait/aspect.

[Epaphras]

As per the OP:

There are different views as to how grace is attained therefore I am opposed to this title being used exclusively for the Calvinist' view of grace. It seems to me it is unethical to declare one's doctrine "THE Doctrine of Grace" when there are other views which would exclude the Determinism injected into God's grace.

I thought I'd share similar opinion I came across:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=g...phemism&page=4