ECT Works of Law and Works of Grace, Is That Biblical?

[Cntrysner]

Proof text battles are such a gigantic waste of time that they're almost comical to watch.

I've just quickly read through the last several post and I just have to chuckle when I realize that both parties are wrong but for different reasons. One, of course, if far more wrong than the other but neither have any hope of winning the debate! One is so blind that he uses several proof texts that argue against his position and the other not only does the same thing but is so completely miopic and biblically ignorant that he is entirely incapable of taking advantage of his apponent's error. So on the one hand you have someone who is just flatly wrong and on the other you have someone who has the right answer but hasn't any idea why it's the right answer and is using an argument that is just as wrong as the arguments for the other side!

It's just astounding! But, to one degree or another, such is the nature of every proof-texting battle I have ever seen! When you build your doctrine on individual sentences plucked willy-nilly from the bible, you can believe nearly anything you want to believe and you have no ground from which to launch any arguments against someone who has built the opposite doctrine by the same means.

You guys might as well just boil your arguments down to "I'm right and you're wrong because the bible says so!"

Just post that one sentence in response to anything else the other one says. It'll be just as effective and no less right (or wrong) than what either of you are doing now.

Clete

I agree, sounds like...I'm rubber and you're glue.

 

[Cntrysner]

The only people who can possibly fall from grace are those who are justified by the law. And since no one is justified by the law then none fall from grace:

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Jn.3:20).​

Of course you will not believe what is said there because you refuse to believe what is written here:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).​

Besides, the Scriptures reveal that eternal life is a gift (Ro.6:23) and the LORD will not take back a gift which He has given:

"for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Ro.11:29).​

The word "irrevocable" means "not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final."

All you are doing is trying your very best to try to prove that what is said in the following verse is not true:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).​

I continue to answer your verses but you never even attempt to answer mine.

You are so hung up on the written law by letter but there is another law written on our hearts and many are called but few are chosen. Definition of scripture is defined by scripture and does need your learned bias, your words will do.

 

[Clete]

I have you on ignore, though very brief.

What in the world for?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

One is so blind that he uses several proof texts that argue against his position and the other not only does the same thing but is so completely miopic and biblically ignorant that he is entirely incapable of taking advantage of his apponent's error.

So tell us how you define a "proof text" and why what is said in that text doesn't mean exactly what it says.

For example, in the past you have called the following words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews who lived under the law a proof text so please tell us your interpretation of the true meaning of His words:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

Are you actually capable of actually dealing with this "proof text"?

Or are we supposed to just ignore what the Lord and Savior said in that verse because Clete calls it a "proof text"?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are so hung up on the written law by letter but there is another law written on our hearts and many are called but few are chosen. Definition of scripture is defined by scripture and does need your learned bias, your words will do.

Yes, I am hung up on what is WRITTEN in the Bible because what is written there are the words of the LORD God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why don't you give us your interpretation of the meaning of the following words?:

"For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).​

You have only two choices:

• Nobody in the entire history of the human race has believed in Jesus the Chris, the Son of God.
• Eternal life does not begin until the Resurrection of the Righteous.

Also, eternal life is described as being a "gift" (Ro.6:29) and the LORD will not take back a gift once He gives it:

"for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Ro.11:29).​

You have only two choices:

• Nobody in the entire history of the human race has ever been given the gift of eternal life.
• God does not give eternal life until the Resurrection of the Righteous.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You have only two choices:

• Nobody in the entire history of the human race has believed in Jesus the Chris, the Son of God.
• Eternal life does not begin until the Resurrection of the Righteous.

You have only two choices:

• Nobody in the entire history of the human race has ever been given the gift of eternal life.
• God does not give eternal life until the Resurrection of the Righteous.

All you prove is that you refuse to believe what the Lord Jesus told the Jews who lived under the law before the Resurrection of the Righteous:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

The Lord and Savior said that believer "have" eternal life. He did not say that believers "will have" eternal life in the future.

 

[genuineoriginal]

All you prove is that you refuse to believe what the Lord Jesus told the Jews who lived under the law before the Resurrection of the Righteous:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

Since every one of the people standing there when Jesus spoke those words are now dead, that appears to be proof that they did not receive eternal life.

The Lord and Savior said that believer "have" eternal life. He did not say that believers "will have" eternal life in the future.

Since none of the people that heard Jesus speak those words is still alive, then we have to figure out why they died.
One possibility is that there was a problem with their belief that prevented them from receiving eternal life.
The other possibility is that eternal life begins with the Resurrection of the righteous.

Your insistence that those dead believers had eternal life before they died has problems.
You have shown that you believe eternal life does not have anything to do with life, death, the Resurrection, or the world to come.

So, what is this eternal life™ you are talking about and how is it different from living forever in the world to come?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Since every one of the people standing there when Jesus spoke those words are now dead, that appears to be proof that they did not receive eternal life.

One possibility is that there was a problem with their belief that prevented them from receiving eternal life.

When a Jews believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, they were born of God:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1-5).​

Peter certainly knew that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in the following passage we see the Lord Jesus asking His Apostles who they thought that he was:

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Mt.16:15-17).​

Peter was born of God and became a son of God when He believed that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And he received eternal life when He believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The Lord Jesus said:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

Of course, you will continue to deny that anyone received eternal life before the Lord's resurrection even though the Lord Jesus made it plain that believers possess eternal life upon belief. That is because you put more faith in what some people say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[genuineoriginal]

you put more faith in what some people say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

No, I look at the scriptures, compare verses that appear to be in conflict, look at the rest of the Bible to see if there is someway to unify the verses, and find a way to be fully persuaded in my mind about what the verses are talking about.

Peter was born of God and became a son of God when He believed that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And he received eternal life when He believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Did Peter die?
Please explain what you believe eternal life is when someone who you claim received eternal life can die.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Did Peter die?
Please explain what you believe eternal life is when someone who you claim received eternal life can die.

Did Peter believe?

Why do you think that He didn't receive eternal life when he believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, despite the fact that the Lord Jesus said the following to the Jews who lived under the law?:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

Peter died physically but the Lord Jesus said the following to the Jews who lived under the law:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Of course all of the believers whom the Lord Jesus addressed died physically so when the Lord said that the believers living then would never die he was saying that they would never die spiritually.

That is speaking of the "inward man" and not the "outward man" of which Paul makes reference in the following passage:

"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day" (2 Cor.4:16).​

The Lord promised that the inward man will NEVER die spiritually so in effect the believer received eternal life the moment when he believed.

 

[Right Divider]

Did Peter believe?

Peter believed that they needed to keep the law. :french:
And so did James.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Peter believed that they needed to keep the law. :french:
And so did James.

Then when they both used the words "free" and at "liberty" were they speaking of keeping the law? The Apostle Paul repeatedly used the words "free" and "liberty" when referring to the fact that all believers have been set free from the law:

"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal.2:4).​

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal.5:1).​

In fact, Paul charged the Galatians not to use the liberty as a base of operations for sin:

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another" (Gal.5:13).​

The following words of Peter are likewise speaking of being free and at liberty from the law:

"As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Pet.2:16).

James speaks of the "perfect law of liberty":

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed" (James 1:25).​

Are we to believe that the "law of liberty" spoken of here is the Law, which Peter referred to as a "yoke"?:

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10).​

Paul also referred to the Law as a "yoke of bondage":

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal.5:1).​

Paul contrasted the "yoke of bondage" with the "liberty" which belongs to all who have been set free from the law. So common sense dictates that the "perfect law of liberty" of which James speaks is not the Law of Moses.

In fact, James said the following in regard to how he and those whom received his epistle were saved:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

Peter said practically the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

:french:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Peter died physically

If a person can die physically, that person does not have eternal life.

The Lord promised that the inward man will NEVER die spiritually

If it isn't physical, then it isn't real.
What is real is the Resurrection to come.

Acts 24:14-16 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. 16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void to offence toward God, and toward men.​

The resurrection has not happened yet.
The person must be resurrected from the dead and raised in a spiritual body in order to have eternal life.

1 Corinthians 15:42-50 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.​

Don't get so caught up in the tense (past,present,future) of words that you miss the real message.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If a person can die physically, that person does not have eternal life.

All you prove is you are unable to distinguish between the inward man and the outward man.

If it isn't physical, then it isn't real.

So the "spiritual body" of which Paul speaks of in the following passage not real?:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).​

true believers will put on spiritual bodies because flesh and blood bodies cannot enter the heavenly kingdom:

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:49-50).​

Don't get so caught up in the tense (past,present,future) of words that you miss the real message.

I happen to believe that the Lord used the correct tense when he used the "present" tense in the following words which He spoke to the Jews who lived under the law:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

You want us just to ignore the tense He used because that tense completely destroys your argument.

 

[Right Divider]

Then when they both used the words "free" and at "liberty" were they speaking of keeping the law? The Apostle Paul repeatedly used the words "free" and "liberty" when referring to the fact that all believers have been set free from the law:

"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal.2:4).​

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal.5:1).​

In fact, Paul charged the Galatians not to use the liberty as a base of operations for sin:

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another" (Gal.5:13).​

The following words of Peter are likewise speaking of being free and at liberty from the law:

"As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Pet.2:16).

James speaks of the "perfect law of liberty":

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed" (James 1:25).​

Are we to believe that the "law of liberty" spoken of here is the Law, which Peter referred to as a "yoke"?:

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10).​

Paul also referred to the Law as a "yoke of bondage":

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal.5:1).​

Paul contrasted the "yoke of bondage" with the "liberty" which belongs to all who have been set free from the law. So common sense dictates that the "perfect law of liberty" of which James speaks is not the Law of Moses.

In fact, James said the following in regard to how he and those whom received his epistle were saved:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

Peter said practically the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

:french:

Was the law only given to prove people sinners?

They were still zealously keeping the law late in Acts. Did nobody tell them that they were not under the law?

Act 21:17-21 KJV And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. (19) And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. (20) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: (21) And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.​

Why are they not "on the same page" YEARS after Paul started preaching the gospel of the grace of God?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Was the law only given to prove people sinners?

The main purpose that it was given is stated at Exodus 19:5-6. But I notice you have no comment about the verses I quoted from James and Peter where they both speak of "liberty"and being "free." Can you not even understand that they are speaking of being free from the law?

They were still zealously keeping the law late in Acts. Did nobody tell them that they were not under the law?

Why are they not "on the same page" YEARS after Paul started preaching the gospel of the grace of God?

Why did Paul take part in the ordinances prescribed under the law late in Acts (Acts 21:26)? It was for the same reason that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem continued to keep the law. Here is the reason Paul gave for keeping the law and the Jewish believers in Jerusalem kept the law for the same reason Paul kept the law at that time.

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (1 Cor.9:20).​

Later, by the time the Hebrew epistles were written both James and Peter spoke of having liberty and being free from the law. And here is what the author of the book of Hebrews said about the law:

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God" (Heb.7:18-19).​

 

[Right Divider]

The main purpose that it was given is stated at Exodus 19:5-6. But I notice you have no comment about the verses I quoted from James and Peter where they both speak of "liberty"and being "free." Can you not even understand that they are speaking of being free from the law?

No, they don't. That's your bias driving your "interpretation".

Why did Paul take part in the ordinances prescribed under the law late in Acts (Acts 21:26)? It was for the same reason that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem continued to keep the law. Here is the reason Paul gave for keeping the law and the Jewish believers in Jerusalem kept the law for the same reason Paul kept the law at that time.

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (1 Cor.9:20).​

Later, by the time the Hebrew epistles were written both James and Peter spoke of having liberty and being free from the law. And here is what the author of the book of Hebrews said about the law:

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God" (Heb.7:18-19).​

Once again, your ideas "force" the scripture.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So the "spiritual body" of which Paul speaks of in the following passage not real?:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).​

When we receive the spiritual immortal body in the Resurrection, then we will begin our eternal life.
Before that time we are in our natural mortal bodies and will die
We do not have eternal life in our natural mortal bodies.
Humans do not have an immortal soul, that concept comes from Hinduism and other pagan religions.

I happen to believe that the Lord used the correct tense when he used the "present" tense in the following words which He spoke to the Jews who lived under the law:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

You want us just to ignore the tense He used because that tense completely destroys your argument.

No, I want you to reconcile the apparent contradiction so you can gain some stability instead of being blown about by every wind of doctrine.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Was the law only given to prove people sinners?

Proving that people are sinners was never a goal of the Law.

A lot of Christians were taught: "God gave the Law to reveal His standard of absolute righteousness to convict us all of our true guilt before Him, so that we would see our need for the gospel."
But, that is a false doctrine.