"THE" Doctrine of Grace

[rhutchin]

Not a matter of reconciling with one's theology but simply understanding what has been said. In addition to Ephesians, we have, as examples, Luke 3:23; Titus 1:12-13, and 2 Peter 3:9.

Still waiting on all those grammatical issues that people are unable to understand....

Not a matter of reconciling with one's theology but simply understanding what has been said. In addition to Ephesians, we have, as examples, Luke 3:23; Titus 1:12-13, and 2 Peter 3:9.

??

[Phat8594]

Still waiting on this one:

So what verses then speak of atonement with reference to Christ? And what verses speak of a limited atonement with reference to Christ?

Of course. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Christ is the propitiation for all sin and not some sin.

So if you hold to universal propitiation...then do you hold to the idea that the atonement is available to all?

[Phat8594]

??

You said that there were a bunch of problematic grammatical issues in Greek in support of the idea that Koine Greek is a difficult language (although it was created explicitly with the idea of being easy to learn).


So I am just wondering where are all these so grammatical issues are in the NT... where people are unable to understand whats going on? Feel free to explain what the problem is as to enlighten us all.

[Phat8594]

Well...it looks clear as can be to me. Abraham was counted righteous because he believed God.

It doesn't say that Abraham believed God because he was counted righteous, or because he was predestined, or because he was chosen. Rather, it was counted to him as righteousness, because he believed! It doesn't get any clearer.


But you apparently share a different opinion on Paul's teaching about the necessity of justification by faith. Have at it. Since Paul uses Abraham as the example, you work with that example to show how Abraham was saved prior to believing.

Still waiting to see how you are going to show that we are saved prior to faith...or how Abraham was saved prior to believing.

[rhutchin]

What I wrote was in perfect concert with what Paul wrote. If you think otherwise...go ahead and prove it. Until then you argument lays dead.

As if your argument really had any life, huh!

Paul establishes his theme early and does not deviate from that theme.

1:1,5. Paul...called to be an apostle…for obedience to the faith among all nations,…

1:17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

2:6 [God] render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

2;16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what says the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

The theme of Romans is living a life of obedience to Christ and the distinction between living by works and living by faith. When Paul says that a person is justified by faith, he means justified by obedience to faith. Paul’s argument here is James’ argument in his epistle.

When we come to Romans 5 and read, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:,” we know that Paul has “obedience to the faith,” in view because that is his theme and he is describing that life of faith lived by the believer.

The life of the believer is further described by Paul with these words, “we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation works patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope makes not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.”

Within this context, your comment, “See the problem is that one cannot be saved, unless one is justified....and one cannot be justified unless one has faith. One is justified by the blood of Christ“ makes no sense. To be justified by faith and justified by the blood of Christ are two different concepts. Justified by faith describes the life of the believer after being justified by the blood of Christ.

Paul is not talking about the blood of Christ except as background when he writes, “But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” His argument continues and he concludes, “Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life…That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Paul says that “grace will reign through righteousness” and by righteousness Paul means “obedience to the faith.”

You are trying to make the salvation Paul speaks of as occurring at a point in time, but Paul is clear that he is speaking of that salvation that the believer inherits at the end of a life lived in obedience to faith.

[rhutchin]

You said that there were a bunch of problematic grammatical issues in Greek in support of the idea that Koine Greek is a difficult language (although it was created explicitly with the idea of being easy to learn).


So I am just wondering where are all these so grammatical issues are in the NT... where people are unable to understand whats going on? Feel free to explain what the problem is as to enlighten us all.

I listed three. What's the problem?

[Phat8594]

I listed three. What's the problem?

You tell me. Whats the issue?

[Phat8594]

Paul establishes his theme early and does not deviate from that theme.

Yes, that we are justified by faith and not works.

When Paul says that a person is justified by faith, he means justified by obedience to faith.

What is obedience to faith even mean? True living faith leads to obedience to God. If you are saying that people are justified by obedience, then aren't you saying that people are justified by works?

Within this context, your comment, “See the problem is that one cannot be saved, unless one is justified....and one cannot be justified unless one has faith. One is justified by the blood of Christ“ makes no sense. To be justified by faith and justified by the blood of Christ are two different concepts. Justified by faith describes the life of the believer after being justified by the blood of Christ.

It makes total sense within the context of Pauls argument. You, however, seem to say that a person is justified twice?!? Once by the blood of Christ and once by faith? How does that work? Where does the Bible make a distinction between different types of justification?

You are trying to make the salvation Paul speaks of as occurring at a point in time, but Paul is clear that he is speaking of that salvation that the believer inherits at the end of a life lived in obedience to faith.

You were the one that said that people are saved prior to faith. So if Paul is clear that he is speaking of that salvation that the believer inhereits at the end of his life, then how can one be saved prior to faith?


You have still yet to show Biblically how one can be saved prior to faith....

[Phat8594]

Just a couple questions you missed:

So what verses then speak of atonement with reference to Christ? And what verses speak of a limited atonement with reference to Christ?

So if you hold to universal propitiation...then do you hold to the idea that the atonement is available to all?

Still waiting to see how you are going to show that we are saved prior to faith...or how Abraham was saved prior to believing

[Rdr. Arsenios]

i don’t see water baptism in view. If you want to make the claim that water baptism “washes” a person, or the church as in these verses, then show us the verses that support your claim.

This IS one of those verses that reflect the truth you are denying...

It would be nice if there were a verse that said, “baptism cleanses from sin,” or something close to that. Is there?

Yes, right here, in the verse I have just quoted for you...

That which cleanses a person, or the church, is christ’s blood shed on the cross.

Indeed so, and here again is the verse:

"In order that He should make Her Holy, having purified [Her] by the washing of water in spoken word."

So let's take that sentence and see what we can say that is true in virtue of it, OK?

1st - The whole is in order that He should make Her Holy, yes?

From this we can conclude that this is what is needed in order for Him to make Her Holy:
a- She must be purified...
b- This purification is done by Him...
c- This purification is by the washing of water...
d- This washing of water is done by Him "in spoken word"...
e- Sanctification is by purification that comes from "THE washing OF water IN spoken word..."

The unique thing that paul says here is “the washing of water by the word.” had paul just said, “the washing of water” we would not be having this discussion (i don’t think). When Paul adds, “by the word,” it seems clear that he is pointing the reader to the scriptures as the means by which a person is cleansed. This is consistent with that which jesus said in john 15, “now ye are clean through the word which i have spoken unto you.”

What is scintillatingly clear is the presence OF WATER... And not just ANY ol' water, but only that water which is IN spoken word... And this "water in spoken word" WASHES the Ekklesia, the Church, the Body of Christ...

So, i still do not buy into your claim that baptism is the washing of regeneration.

So how is it then that Christ "washes us by water in the spoken word?

And this washing in such a way that it is a needed pre-requisite for our sanctification by Him?

Is there a connection between purity and sanctification? Is there WATER involved?

You have been consistently denying WATER as a part of Christ's Baptism in the waters of the River Jordan in which we are all Baptized into Christ and His Death on the Cross wherein we have put on Christ... And here we have a verse that plainly tells us that our sanctification is by WATER... Now the term for "word" in this passage means "spoken word", and is not the Word in John 1 [Logos]... I mean, if you wash someone in water after saying words, and then say more words AFTER washing him in water, then the washing of him in water is WITHIN the speaking of those words, you see... No way out of THAT one, is there? And THAT is what John did with Christ, and what Christ's disciples did with those baptized into Christ...

So in your great denial of water in Christ's Baptism for us all, you are here confronted with this pesky little term: HYDOR... [HYDATOS in the genitive], and it has the big fat meaning of nothing OTHER than WATER...

Your claim that "washing of regeneration" refers to water baptism is made without a supporting scriptural argument.

Perhaps you would like to ERASE this HYDATOR from YOUR Bible???

The association of the one to the other is an arbitrary personal preference.

Water is water, my friend... This is the water of purification... It cleanses us unto holiness... Because it is enclosed in spoken words... [and ALL this from the above Scripture]...

And Christ told his Disciples to BAPTIZE all the Nations...

And the Church Christ Himself founded, and not Luther, and not Calvin, and not scholastic common taters, has without any dissent whatsoever for 2000 years now and still counting regarded this as referring to Christ's Baptism...

Stop squinting your eyes!

Arsenios

[rhutchin]

I listed three. What's the problem?

You tell me. Whats the issue?

You don't know! Guess that makes you a newbie. Maybe the issues will come up down the road in other threads.

[rhutchin]

Paul establishes his theme early and does not deviate from that theme.

Yes, that we are justified by faith and not works.

So, what is this faith? By context and the example of Abraham, faith is that expressed in the life of the believer. It is not that which leads to a person becoming a believer. Is it? If you think it is that faith which leads to a person becoming a believer, then where in the first four chapters preceding 5:1 do you see Paul developing that theme?

[rhutchin]

Indeed so, and here again is the verse:

"In order that He should make Her Holy, having purified [Her] by the washing of water in spoken word"....Now the term for "word" in this passage means "spoken word", and is not the Word in John 1 [Logos]...

1. You merely opine that the washing of water must mean "baptism" when no where in Scripture is "baptism" used to mean washing. You need to support that opinion with Scripture.

2. Now you make "word" to be "spoken word." Another opinion for which you offer no Scriptural support.

You can have all the opinions you want. But without Scriptural support, they can never rise above human opinion regardless what orthodoxy may claim.

[rhutchin]

What is obedience to faith even mean?

A proper question. So, what's your answer? Paul distinguishes obedience to faith from obedience to the law.

True living faith leads to obedience to God.

Paul argues that true living faith IS obedience to God. Note the example of Abraham - his obedience was counted as righteousness because he did it in faith and not by law.

If you are saying that people are justified by obedience, then aren't you saying that people are justified by works?

That is exactly the issue that Paul deals with especially as he comes to chapter 4--

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God [in going to sacrifice Isaac], and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

James picks up on this in chap 2 and writes--

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

[rhutchin]

Within this context, your comment, “See the problem is that one cannot be saved, unless one is justified....and one cannot be justified unless one has faith. One is justified by the blood of Christ“ makes no sense. To be justified by faith and justified by the blood of Christ are two different concepts. Justified by faith describes the life of the believer after being justified by the blood of Christ.

It makes total sense within the context of Paul's argument.

OK. Show us how Paul develops that argument in Rom 1-4. Lay it out for us - verse by verse.

Paul argues logically presumably so his argument should follow the form:

Premise 1 -
Premise 2 -
Conclusion: Therefore, since we have been justified by faith.

Fill in the missing premises of Paul's argument and show us the verses where he makes these points.

You, however, seem to say that a person is justified twice?!? Once by the blood of Christ and once by faith? How does that work? Where does the Bible make a distinction between different types of justification?

My claim is that Romans 1-4 deals with the believer living a life of faith.