ECT How alone is Grace alone salvation?

[Jerry Shugart]

In Galatians 6 Paul calls this idea "mocking God." It is like when children mock a teacher who gives orders but lacks the will to punish them.

…7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap in return. 8 The one who sows to please his flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; but the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
(Galatians 6:7)

These words are not speaking of Christians but men in general. Christians have already reaped eternal life (1 Jn.5:11) and the Lord Jesus said that those to whom he has given eternal life shall never perish (Jn.10:28).

 

[turbosixx]

"That you have heard..." Not the gospel that you have believed. Lots of people hear the Gospel and move away. It's the believing of it that means we are created IN HIM, and cannot be moved.

Thanks for your insight. I would suggest the context shows they did believer the gospel because it says they have been reconciled through Christ's death.

Col. 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach- 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard,

In another passage Paul says something similar. They are saved by the gospel if they hold fast.
1 Cor. 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

I see it like this parable Jesus told. Even though we are in Him, if we do not bear fruit we are cut off.
Jn. 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He Lit cleans; used to describe pruningprunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

 

[Nang]

He said that he was "alive" apart from the law and then he died when he broke a commandment.

No Paul didn't say that.

He said "when the commandment came."

So logic tells us in order to comprehend what he is teaching, is to learn WHEN the commandment actually came, . . and Scripture tells God told mankind, through Adam their head, the commandments I referenced in Genesis.

Here the Apostle Paul is contrasting the New Testament with the Ten Commandments (written and engraved in stones).

Not.

Here is the illogical Dispensational error in BOLD.

How could any reasonable mind think that the fulfillment in the N.T. of the O.T. Law and Promises can be "contrasted?"

In regard to the New Testament he says that "the spirit giveth life" so this is obviously referring to "spiritual life."

"Spiritual and physical life" was lost by and through Adam's original sin. The N.T. teachings point to a regeneration of "spiritual life" through the miracle of being born again and justification by faith alone, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A NEW Covenant, performed by Him, to provide His faithful children, everlasting life.

We are told to compare "spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor.2:13) so in order to maintain a logical consistency we must understand that the "ministration of death" refers to "spiritual" death. This idea is reinforced by the words of Paul ar Romans 7:9-11 where he states that he died when he broke one of the Ten Commandments.

Paul never premised his teachings on breaking "one of the Ten commandments." That is a false, unbiblical, distracting theory you are floating on this site.

Only meant to distract from the universal and total depravity of all mankind, that can only be remedied by the New Covenant promises fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

SOLUS CHRISTUS!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In another passage Paul says something similar. They are saved by the gospel if they hold fast.
1 Cor. 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Here is the kind of "believing" of which Paul was concerned:

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men" (Jn.2:23-24).​

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Poor proof... :nono: Truth is Love is God is Freedom

Poor proof... :nono: Truth is Love is God is Freedom

I'll sometimes say 'proof' but such, imh estimation, leans more often toward sensationalism. I do believe there are proofs, rather than just evidence, that God exists, but because He is Spirit, critics have a point to object to proofs. That said, Paul said God is clearly seen that all men are without excuse (thus proof). So, I do give proof sets ( "if A = B, and B = C; then A = C").

The 'proof' in this case means it is likely true and is demonstrably true. I assume you mean that by Romans 7 so I'll look for it. It should be as clear as A = C else we'd say 'inkling of Open Theology" or "Seems to uphold Open Theology" etc. :think: Onward...

I think 'inkling' at best and 'wrong' at worst and here is why: This is talking about our condition in conjunction with the law.
His proof set would look like this:

A) SInner, dying, but doesn't know it. Without God in the world, but in ignorant bliss.
B) Sinner, realizes there is a God, and that he is apart from God and because of sin, unacceptable to God : Troubled dying spirit.
C) Therefore, a knowledge of God's Laws doesn't create death, but an awareness of it.

Therefore, Romans 7 first, does not really discuss freewill theism (Romans 9 does by example) and second, it supports just as well, the idea of original sin, and because the law applies to all men (Romans 3:23) it actually is against any contenders as far as evidence. Did I prove that? :nono: I did, however, give good scriptural reasoning from A-C that my understanding is Biblical and from Romans 7.

I hope I've shown your cards aren't all the same suit, if even the same color. I'd suggest in this case, it was a bluff, because 1) all of Romans points to the opposite conclusion regarding original sin 2) That you seem to confuse the doctrine of Original sin with Free will (not the same and so you seem to be jumping around a bit in Christian doctrine without making connections) and 3) that Romans 7 rather is describing recognition of sin in all men, when any one of them sees the righteous requirements of God and realizes he, she, them, have all fallen short from the preceding chapter (Romans 3:23; 6:23).

You want me to be blunt... You are not a Calvinist. I am an Open Theist. You see Nangs corruption and you see they liked what you said. You don't see it... but you see past the theological veil of what your grey matter holds.

The scripture I complimented Romans 7 with tells what Paul was drawing from. The thing is... you simply give your opinion of how correct you think I am. I bound to scripture and you didn't address a bit of what I quoted in scripture.

I can simply say... you have Adam as the devil and the devil guilt free. The doctrine you are defending is at the heart of the Judaizers that limit His blood and profanity it as Paul warned against.

Until you theologically evaluate the scripture I cross refed... You are simply quoting opinion.

Not good enough Son of thunder... come with scripture and we'll see. Your letting seminary limit your ability to consider what I've posted.

So... No... your rebuttal exalts Satan as our liberator and is void of direct scriptural address.

- EE

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Insults and mocking are not the "rebukes of a friend."

Your interpretation of scripture is the insult. You are my enemy... I love you and I'll lay into you with a clear conscience.

Later for now Wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[turbosixx]

Here is the kind of "believing" of which Paul was concerned:

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men" (Jn.2:23-24).​

What makes you think these people aren't saved?

When a person believes, is it conditional?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"Spiritual and physical life" was lost by and through Adam's original sin. The N.T. teachings point to a regeneration of "spiritual life" through the miracle of being born again and justification by faith alone, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Here Paul speaks of "regeneration":

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

Joseph Henry Thayer says that the Greek word translated regenerartion "denotes the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, its renvation" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When a person is regenerated or made alive by the Spirit he is restored back to the state of being born of the Spirit. That means that all people emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

And then when a person sins he dies spiritually.

But you want us to dumb down our minds and accept your ridiculous idea that a person who is already dead spiritually can die spiritually at a time when he is already dead spiritually!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What makes you think these people aren't saved?

If they were saved the Lord Jesus would indeed commit Himself to them.

 

[turbosixx]

If they were saved the Lord Jesus would indeed commit Himself to them.

I would suggest "commit himself" means he wasn't ready to reveal that he is the Messiah. The people were not ready for that yet. It was way too early in his ministry.

When Peter confessed he was the Christ in Matt. 16, he told them not to tell.
Matt. 16:20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

In Jn. 7, they believed in Him and he did so many signs they couldn't imagine the Messiah doing more.
7:31 Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, "When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?"
You see, they believed in him but he wasn't telling them he was the Messiah because it wasn't time.

The purpose of the miracles were to prove Jesus is from God and when the time was right that he is the Christ.
Jn. 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[Lon]

Poor proof... :nono: Truth is Love is God is Freedom You want me to be blunt... You are not a Calvinist. I am an Open Theist.

We've both been told this before :think: (you're not, I'm not :idunno: what are we?) I don't fear it. I would 'expect' neither do you and would respond: "I am what I am."View attachment 25522

You see Nangs corruption and you see they liked what you said. You don't see it... but you see past the theological veil of what your grey matter holds.

I yam what I yam as well, neither of us overtly concerned except that it'd be said 'well done." For that, I study and work and toil, yet.... 1 Corinthians 4:7 John 15:5 Colossians 1:17

The scripture I complimented Romans 7 with tells what Paul was drawing from. The thing is... you simply give your opinion of how correct you think I am. I bound to scripture and you didn't address a bit of what I quoted in scripture.

You shotgunned it. I'd have had to have been all over the place if I didn't just stick in Romans 7. I'd certainly encourage you to bring any other particular verse, but I handle the 6 shooter better than all those pellets all over the place. You know what clean up is like. Don't blast that dad-burn double-barrel in the house (seriously, I read each and every one, but they need more context to be able to 1) Understand your points of them and 2) to be able to more effectively address them). One or two at a time with your explanation of how they apply specifically to your points, would help and thank you ahead of time.

I can simply say... you have Adam as the devil and the devil guilt free. The doctrine you are defending is at the heart of the Judaizers that limit His blood and profanity it as Paul warned against.

:nono: There are few Pelagians in Christendom and no Open Theist. You have to realize 'you' are outside the camp on this one. Even Catholics, who believe in works from a semi-broken sin condition, are at the very worst: Semi-pelagian by any accusation. In a word: Heresy against the full and whole church, including Catholics who view Pelagianism as heresy as well, and they are the closest thing to it.

Until you theologically evaluate the scripture I cross refed... You are simply quoting opinion.

1) I read the verses and failed to see the connection to Romans 7 with a good many of them. 2) You don't do this either, unless there is a request to address each and every scripture. 3) The unwritten rule for such would be to 'not' expect one to respond to a list of scriptures because they are rather given as support for the initial scripture, not direct address. 4) I'd like/appreciate just one or two at a time if your expectation is that someone addresses each and every one because our posts are already unruly. To respond to each and everyone would make an incredibly long post. 5) I'd have to make about ten posts for your one and such doesn't look like a fair expectation, especially when all you did was list them (mine would require a lot of work. 6) Posts of extreme length (what your expectation would require) are against TOL rules.

Not good enough Son of thunder... come with scripture and we'll see. Your letting seminary limit your ability to consider what I've posted.

:nono: Not true, I spent a LOT of time reading and expounding Romans 7. Did you even put in an hour? I don't mind any of this, but I'm asking you to step up your game if you demand the same.

So... No... your rebuttal exalts Satan as our liberator and is void of direct scriptural address.

- EE

Er, flimsy accusatory and I don't accept it. You may certainly disagree, but as I said, your theology is Pelagianism, not mine. Come away from it: We have no need of Savior if we are born sinless. Total Depravity or just 'depravity' with something in tact, is on the table. Born-sinless is not and cannot be on this forum, as orthodox (acceptable). Heresy would be from satan, but lets toss out flimsy accusatory. I frankly find it beneath any of us to resort to that kind of vitriol unless such is warranted. Even if you are full-blown Pelagian, I'll not stoop to that, but it would 'satanically' eliminate the need for a Savior and we'd be right back in his clutches. Such may be assumed anti-Christ, but I'd 'expect' you to step away from such doctrine as one who embraces Christ. -Lon

(this thread isn't about Free will theism or Open theism anyway, nor Total Depravity but strictly: Grace Salvation and also realize that Jerry and I 'think' Robert Pate are the only full-blown Pelagians on TOL, well beside yourself if that is true)

 

[Nang]

Here Paul speaks of "regeneration":

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of Original Sin precludes any offspring of Adam ever being born innocent of Adam's sin. Thus, it is Adam who lost communion with God via the Holy Spirit in the beginning.

The only way any soul can be re-communicated with the Spirit of God, is through the miracle of being born again from above, by the power of God. John 3:1-8

Joseph Henry Thayer says that the Greek word translated regenerartion "denotes the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, its renvation" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Right. And this goes back to the loss of the "pristine state" caused by Adam.

When a person is regenerated or made alive by the Spirit he is restored back to the state of being born of the Spirit.

No . . when a person is regenerated by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, he is resurrected to new spiritual life, that he never possessed, being born of natural Adam.

Read I Corinthians 15:44-49

That means that all people emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

This is only conjecture on your part, and posted without any Scriptural reference.

And then when a person sins he dies spiritually.

When any and all men sin, they only demonstrate the total depravity of man, inherited from the original sin of Adam.

 

[Nihilo]

You have to realize 'you' are outside the camp on this one. Even Catholics, who believe in works from a semi-broken sin condition, are at the very worst: Semi-pelagian by any accusation. In a word: Heresy against the full and whole church, including Catholics who view Pelagianism as heresy as well, and they are the closest thing to it.

I appreciate your grace in treating Catholicism, which is merely respectful. :e4e: BTW I don't think Catholicism is semi-Pelagian in the final analysis, but is full-on Augustinian, which is just Pauline. Unlike Protestant Augustinianism though the Church is also Petrine.

 

[glorydaz]

Even the Lord Jesus Christ was born into this world under the Law; although without sin.

He must have been born spiritually dead if what you claim is true.

 

[glorydaz]

The doctrine of Original Sin precludes any offspring of Adam ever being born innocent of Adam's sin.

When any and all men sin, they only demonstrate the total depravity of man, inherited from the original sin of Adam.

Sin is not passed down from Adam. Babies die before they can commit sin. If man was totally depraved, none would seek God, but we see from the Word that men do.

What all men do inherit is a body of flesh that is prone to sin via lusts of the flesh and the pride of life. Christ, alone, was able to not sin while living in this body of flesh.

 

[Nang]

Sin is not passed down from Adam.

You diametrically oppose the word of God. Romans 5:12-21

If man was totally depraved, none would seek God, but we see from the Word that men do.

Where?

Rather, the Word of God says the opposite. Romans 3:11

What all men do inherit is a body of flesh that is prone to sin via lusts of the flesh and the pride of life. Christ, alone, was able to not sin while living in this body of flesh.

Jesus Christ alone was sinless in body and soul.

The whole of mankind is born corrupted in both body and soul, due to the original sin of Adam. Romans 5:12

If it were not so, there would have been no need for the Christ of God to incarnate and suffer death, at all.

If you reject these divine and biblical truths, you have no basis upon which to proclaim the saving truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The doctrine of Original Sin precludes any offspring of Adam ever being born innocent of Adam's sin.

According to your ideas none of Adam's offspring are born innocent because all people emerge from the womb guilty of Adam's sin. So if you right then both Cain and Abel both shared the guilt of Adam's sin. However, the Scriptures tell a different story:

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son" (Ezek.18:20).​

The only thing you prove is that you are void of any spiritual discernment and are unable to carry on an intelligent discussion on this subject.

According to you a person dies spiritually as a result of his own sin at a time when he is already dead spiritually! You cannot even understand that in order to die spiritually a person must first be alive spiritually.

 

[glorydaz]

You diametrically oppose the word of God. Romans 5:12-21

No, sin entered the world. It didn't enter man. Man is perfectly capable of sinning on his own.

Where?

Rather, the Word of God says the opposite. Romans 3:11

That verse is referring back to Psalms 14 and 53 which is talking about the fool who claims there is no God. Those who have done abominable works and have become unprofitable. We know from Romans 1 that the things of God are manifest in us (conscience), and are clearly seen and understood by us. The very goodness of kindness of God lead us to seek Him. Romans 2:4KJV

Not all men have done so, else why would there be so many in search of God as Acts 17 points out. That not all find Him doesn't mean they don't seek Him. It begins early on in Genesis.

Gen. 4:26KJV And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.​

Jesus Christ alone was sinless in body and soul.

He was fully a man, as we are.

The whole of mankind is born corrupted in both body and soul, due to the original sin of Adam. Romans 5:12

You can continue to say that, but the verse does NOT.

If it were not so, there would have been no need for the Christ of God to incarnate and suffer death, at all.

Nonsense. God was not walking the earth as He was with Adam. We were cut off from His presence, which is why He had to come in the flesh. We had sin in the world, the god of this world, and God was not with us. Of course we all end up sinning.

If you reject these divine and biblical truths, you have no basis upon which to proclaim the saving truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You mean since I don't swallow your doctrine I can't proclaim the Gospel. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

I moved "Sinless" (Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism) to here

Why it is heresy as well as further discussion is too broad for this specific thread and it needs its own thread. Thanks for picking it up there. -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

I moved "Sinless" (Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism) to here

Why it is heresy as well as further discussion is too broad for this specific thread and it needs its own thread. Thanks for picking it up there. -Lon

Better to discuss the heresy of claiming God chooses some to save while damning the rest.