If I have offended any of you, I ask your forgiveness. I am very sorry. Please forgive me for any offenses I may have caused.

I know of no one here who has offended me, but if anyone feels they have, I forgive them.

Please pray for me a sinner that God may have mercy on me and forgive my many sins, just as I pray for all here that God may bless you, have mercy on you and forgive your sins.

Jim

Thank you for being straightforward and honest in your answer.

So we have no choice. You are wrong. I don't WANT to have a choice. I would much rather you were right so I can lay all the blame for whatever happens to me on God and not have to take any of the responsibility myself. The problem is that Scripture denies this udnerstanding, and I feel more compelled to follow Scripture than Calvin. "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge."

Corinthians 7 – where is our choice denied? It says godly sorrow works unto repentance. Of course it does. When I’m sorry for something I did, then I can repent of it. Choice is not denied here. Paul’s hearers could just as easily have ignored what he said, but no, they decided to respond with sorrow and repentance.

Hebrews 12:17 – He wanted to get his blessing back. This doesn’t refer to salvation at all. Esau had rejected his birthright, and when Isaac gave Jacob the birthright, Esua wanted Isaac to repent and change his mind, but Isaac refused.  The repentance he sought wasn’t his own repentance, but he sought get his father to repent of giving the birthright to Jacob. Yes, he sought repentance. He sought Isaac’s repentance.

And Timothy again; “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”

Notice who is recovering these people from the snares of the devil? THEY are. How is this possible if they have no choice? Why are they instructed if they have no choice in whether they repent or not? This passage, just like Philippians, talks about us cooperating with God.  

You read these passages and ignore others. “ These are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Ezekiel 33:11
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Jeremiah 36:3
It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.

If God’s the one who decides and we have no choice, how can God say “it MAY be that…”? Or has God not yet decided whether to make them repent or not? Is God trying to make up His mind? Or perhaps His will is battling itself to see whether His will to refuse them repentance is greater than His will to make them repent?


If we have no choice, this means God acts according to His own will, but He tells us His own will is that NONE should perish and that ALL should turn from wickedness. If my will plays no role, and only God’s will does, and God’s will is that ALL turn, please explain how it can be that all do not repent and find salvation? Is God forced by some necessity to do that which He doesn’t will? Does His will contradict His willYou said WE deny God’s sovereignty, but you force Him to do that which He doesn’t will to do. ? Your teaching turns God schizophrenic.

You must CHOOSE this day who you will follow, Calvin or the Lord. As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord. Joshua 24:15

OK Petro, I'm ging to ask a straightforward question now which requires nothing more than a simple answer.

Wjhen God commands us to repent, do we have a choice whether we repent or not?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth now. One minute you say we have no choice that we can only do it if God "grants" it to us. The next you say God doesn't make us do it. I want a straight answer. Do I have a choice whether to obey God's command or not?

And please, don't tell me I have the choice to obey it, but I don't have the choice to disobey it. That is meaningless.

Our view is illogical, yet you continue to say that God commands all men to repent, and then prevents some of them from doing so.

So God prevents people from doing that which He commands they do?

In case you don't like the God "prevents"  them angle,m i'll explain it anotehr way.

You sayd God commands all men to repent. But they can only repent if He makes them repent (after all, they have no choice in the matter). So God commands them to do something they can only do if He allows them,  and yet He refuses to allow them to repent. Thus, in your view, God commands all men to do something  which He refuses to allow them to do. And we're illogical? And we contradict Scripture?

Sovereignty is not an issue, as I explained previously.

[If the entirety of the argument you can make against me is “You really make me chuckle…but I guess that’s the orthodox slant you were taught” then I guess you really don’t have a Scriptural leg to stand on, do you.]

S4E

You really should read the entire discussion before jumping in. You totally failed to grasp what the whole “unbelief” thing was about. No one has denied that we are saved through faith and we are damned through unbelief. Read everything in its entirety before commenting.

Further, you have no idea what Orthodoxy is and what I was taught. You guys really drive me nuts with this junk. I spent 25+ reading Scripture all alone. I was NOT Orthodox. I was NOT Catholic. I was a simple Christian who believed the only thing that mattered was what Scripture said. So I read it. And I read ONLY it. And I prayed, every night, as I read Scripture, that God would guide me. I did that for 25+ years. Every day. I missed maybe 3 days in over 25 years. And I didn’t read just one chapter a day. I read., And I read. And I read. No notes, no lights, no motor car. Not a single luxury. I looked to NO MAN for guidance in how I was to understand Scripture. In the words of Paul, “I did not confer with any human being” (Gal 1:15). I studied only the Word of God without a single outside resource. Not even a cross-reference. I wanted NOTHING to taint the Word. And you know what I came to believe? Exactly what the Orthodox Church teaches. I changed not a jot or a tittle of my belief when I converted. THAT’S the difference. Calvin isn’t my guide to Scripture. Neither is any other man. No Sunday School teacher. No pastor. Only the Word Itself and the Holy Spirit. Believe that if you will, but it is absolute truth. I would swear on something, but Scripture teaches us “Let your yes be yes and your no be no.” So I was taught what I believe by NO ONE. Not Orthodoxy. Not Calvin. Not Hal Lindsey. Not Tim LaHaye. Not Billy Graham. Not ANYONE. Purely from the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, which if read honestly and sincerely will guide men “into all truth”. But your interpretations are so clouded by the “traditions of men” that you can’t see straight. Remove the log from your own eye, and then you will be able to see what Scripture itself says without all this junk you have obscured it with. So the truth is, S4E, that you haven’t got the first CLUE what I was taught. Why? Because you would rather be deceived. If you DID know what I was taught, then you would have to agree with Scripture, and THEN you couldn't stay in your comfortable deception where you can do whatever you like and God is obligated to save you because you parroted some "sinner's prayer" when you were 6 years old.

I have shown you the truth. I have warned you. If you reject the truth now, it is on your own head. (Ezekiel 33:9)

I'm sorry, but i'm getting a bit frustrated by the non-responsiveness of you Protestant types (with the exception of Petros -- at least HE deals with what I say, for the most part, instead of idiotic statements like "you really make me chuckle").

If the entirety of the argument you can make against me is “You really make me chuckle…but I guess that’s the orthodox slant you were taught” then I guess you really don’t have a Scriptural leg to stand on, do you.

Repentance is not mouthing words and executing rituals, true repentance involves the will.

So we have a choice in whether we repent or not? I can decide? If it involves my will, I can choose it or reject it. If God forces me to do it, it doesn’t involve the will.

This is a mystery

If your view can't account for all of Scripture, it is false. If your view entails looking at 2 Peter and saying "It makes no sense". Your view is false.

That's it. i'm done.  God's blessing to you, Petro. I sincerely wish you all God's best.
Jim

You're not really going to claim that a faith that is dead can save someone, are you?

LOL that's not a 'wild guess". That is he exact same answer James gives.

I answered your question, Petro.

The answer to your question re: James is that faith without works saves no one. So the answer is no, his faith cannot save him. This is exactly the same answer James gives. faith without works is dead.

Ok, Petro, I didn’t understand how this was relevant in your other thread, as it didn’t seem to fit in with our discussion. I will answer your question here though, since now I see what you were looking for. James says clearly we are justified by our works and not by faith alone. What does it mean to be justified by our works? Can we be saved without being justified?

1 Cor 3 is irrelevant.  Why? Because there are other possibilities. No one says every single work we do has to be absolutely perfect. Let's accept the interpretation (which seems clear, but isn't necessarily so) that when it says "the man shall be saved, yet as through fire" means that the man shall still attain the Kingdom of God.

Let’s look at this passage. The man who “suffers loss”: is this a man who has no good works or is this a man who has some good works (gold, rubies, etc.) and some bad works (straw,  stubble, etc.)?

I would suggest that what this passage is talking about is someone who HAS good works through faith, but yet not every work they have is good. We all have a plethora of works, good and bad. The good works will be refined by fire, and the good works will grant us rewards, and the bad works will cause us to lose the reward we would have received if the work had been good. And therefore, we shall suffer loss (of the potential reward) while still attaining the kingdom.

Everyone who is “saved” has good works. If they do not, they aren’t saved. This doesn’t mean we don’t have bad works too, and these works will cause us to suffer loss. This is what James says. We are justified by our works  and not by faith alone.

Your mistake is in interpreting the Corinthians passage to be all or nothing. Either it is all good works or all bad works. That is neither the case nor necessarily the case.

Works play a role in our salvation. Jesus James and all of Scripture are clear about that.  But works are not what save us. It is not a scale and if we have more good works than bad works, we're in. Faith and works cannot be separated. To do so renders both impotent.

Why should you have a problem being patient with us? I have no problem being patient with you? In fact, as I have stated, I have come to respect you, even though I disagree with you.


Petro,

Mark 6:12
They went out and preached that people should repent.


Why preach that people should repent if they have  no choice?

Matthew 11:20
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not

On what basis does Jesus criticize these cities if they had no choice?


Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

How can they be commanded to repent if they have no choice?

Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:


How can God command all men to repent, when we have no choice in whether to repent or not? Ared you saying God commands us to do things while making it impossible that we do them?

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

How can God be willing that all men come to repentance if He chooses who will and who will not repent? Does God contradict His own will?

There are many more, Petro. I do not reject your passages. I just do not interpret them the way you do. I put those passages together with these passages and see them as being complementary. God grants us repentance as the means of salvation. Does this mean we have no choice whether to repent or not? No, but it means if God had not granted it, repentance would effect nothing. We choose whether to repent, thus takingf hold of the gift, or to not repent, thus rejecting the gift.

If you have a different view of these passages and others where repentance is commanded, please share it.

The sin of unbelief, in the face of the teaching testimony of the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven, if one does not believe in this life, there is no other sin, which cannot be forgiven, however, all other sins are not the issue in this age

Nice interpretation, but it isn’t Scriptural. It is your opinion. Unsubstantiated by scriptural support. I’m not saying I disagree with you completely, but you act as if  the “sin of unbelief” is a special category of sin all to itself. This is false and unbiblical. I have read Romans 11, and Hebrews 3 and 4 numerous times and over and over again. You may INTERPRET then to categorize “unbelief” as some special unforgivable sin, but that’s just an opinion, not Scripture carved in stone. I’m even inclined to recognize it as plausible and not too problematic. But your claim that everyone who disagrees with you is contradicting Scripture is false. And the last statement is false and heretical. If you think sin is ok with God you are GREATLY mistaken. And if you think there is one criteria for salvation now and a different one later, you are again GREATLY mistaken, and THAT’S the heresy of Dispensationalism.

The problem is, you have a certain view, and you’re going to make sure Scripture fits it. You think God has ordained that we either go to heaven or hell with no response from us, so you come to passages like Peter “God does not desire than ANY should perish” and force your already preconceived view on it. You already believe works play no role, so when you read James or Matthew, you have to conform these passages to your already preconceived  view. That’s not sin. It’s normal. But it leads to a distorted view of Scripture, and it leads to errors like Calvinism and Armenianism. It’s a shame, because I think you’re a nice guy who is deeply committed to the Lord. Both of those are very good things. I just wish you could recognize the same in others, and recognize the difference between what Scripture says and what you THINK it says.

You’ve come to see particular interpretations of Scripture as being the same as Scripture itself. That’s a tragedy.

Just as there is a hierarchy of good works moving from particular acts of kindness (e.g. feeding the hungry) to belief/repentance/baptism to love, so also is there a hierarchy of sin which moves from particular evil deeds (e.g. murder) to unbelief to pride/arrogance/self love. My gripe with your categorization isn’t that you’ve turned something into a sin which isn’t a sin. Of course unbelief is a sin. My gripe is that you separate it from all other sin as if they are unconnected. This leads you into error in moral understanding and in Scriptural exegesis.

This is it, I have discussed this with you, to a conclusion.

I’m truly sorry you feel that way, because I’ve come to respect you as someone who is deeply committed to serving Christ as he understands him. It’s a shame, as I said above, that you can’t recognize the same in others who disagree with you. You really need to distinguish between what you think Scripture says and what it in fact says. Because as it stands, you seem to think everyone who views Scripture differently than you is a heretic.

I could consider you a friend if you could make that distinction. As it is, you aren’t open to it. That makes me truly sad. Remember my prayer in the other thread? It still applies. I wish God’s greatest possible blessings on you and your family and the rest of your life.

PS Carthage in 412 condemned Pelagianism, not semi-Pelagianism. This, just to reiterate what I wrote above, is not to declare semi-Pelagianism an acceptable teaching.

The problem is that there is no clear-cut understanding of what semi-Pelagianism is. And I summarized its heretical aspects briefly and clearly (I hope and think).

Ok, I’m going to try to keep this brief.

To answer your question as to what value faith without works has? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

When I was Protestant, I answered the question the same way you’re doing, but even then I knew it wasn’t a totally adequate answer. Let me explain why.

Your response that works merely DEMONSTRATE our faith is inadequate because James is saying more than that. It is NOT the case that works are merely signs that indicate a true faith, as if there could be a true faith without these works. No James is clear. It is NOT just that they demonstrate faith. They are what makes faith REAL. It is impossible to have real faith and NOT have works. To say that works a merely a sign is saying that they may or may not be there, but the faith is real on its own. After all, a sign is not the thing it signifies. If there is a sign on the road pointing to Dallas, whether the sign is there or not, Dallas is still down the road. You just may not KNOW Dallas is down the road. This is not what James is saying. If the “sign”, i.e. works, isn’t there, then faith isn’t there either.  That’s why faith without works is DEAD. It isn’t sick. It isn’t hidden. It is DEAD.

As for Cor 3, I see nothing here of relevance. That our straw will be burned up is agreed by both sides of this discussion. So whatever else is involved, isn’t germane here.

The Hebrews passage is even more complex. I know of NO “accepted” interpretation of that passage from anyone. But I’m not interested in discussing once saved always saved. I think that’s an open question (I actually think it’s meaningless, which is why I’m not interested in discussing it – it misunderstands all the terms it uses). So let’s just stay with what we’re on.

Also, I stated this earlier, but I need to state it again, I think. Works fall under a hierarchy. There are all the individual good works, e.g. helping a lady across the street, feeding the hungry, etc.. These (when they are the types of works that contribute to our salvation) all fall under the category the work of “believing, repenting, and being baptized”. As a genus falls under the category of species. Now of course, all these works can be done in such a way as NOT to contribute to salvation and even contribute to our DAMNATION, if they are done for the sake of personal glory for instance. If they aren’t the fruit of faith, they accomplish nothing. And believing, repenting and being baptized all fall under the further category of loving God and your neighbor, which is the ULTIMATE category of works. It is a hierarchy.

You are making distinctions again between works that aren’t to be distinguished. Feeding the hungry IS the work of faith. It IS believing. It IS being baptized. It IS repenting. Precisely because it IS loving God and our neighbor. All these  works you cite in James are merely subcategories of these HIGHER works. They aren’t distinct from them.

Is that clear?

(APPARENTLY, half my post got lost. Fortunately this time, I didn't delete it from my WP. So add this post to the end of the one before the one taht discusses heresies.

You know, I’m really starting to hate this site. That should make Juan happy. He can come back. But I have a feeling he’s here anyway. )  

I have no idea what point you are tyrying to make, every verse is inspired, and a part of the cannon, and none contradict the teaching of the whole word.

Yeah, that’s too bad. That’s part of what got lost.

Ok, here’s the gist of it, if I can make it clear. You take Romans and decided that Romans and Ephesians are the hermeneutical key to James and Matthew. Thus, you have elevated Romans and Ephesians to a level where they are a canon within the canon. Romans has more authority than James because James must be submitted to what Romans says, while Romans stands all by itself. This is illegitimate. They must be put together, not subordinated to one another. The leaves you with a distorted view of Scripture, as I think you have shown.

No I don't, you do, this is evidenced by infant baptism, which your church practices and you believe in, nowhere, in the scriptures will one find, any grounds for performing such a ceremony.

See your understanding of the Tribulation above. But contrary to your claim, there IS Scriptural evidence for this.



Acts 16:14 - 15 (NKJV)
Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

Do you honestly think there were no children in Lydia’s household? It says she “and her household”. No one is excluded here. Not children. Not infants. No one. The entire household was baptized.

Acts 16:32-33 (NKJV)
Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

The jailer’s ENTIRE FAMILY was baptized. Again, no one is excluded as being too young. They were ALL baptized. Infants children and adults alike. If you think it is unlikely that these households had no children and/or infants, I would respectfully suggest you do a little historical research.


But let’s suppose these passages didn’t exist. Or even that there is the remote possibility that neither of these families had children. So what? There is nothing in Scripture to prohibit baptizing infants. Especially not when there is even indication that people were baptized for the dead (1 Cor 15:29). If the dead can be baptized for, then certainly an infant can be baptized.  Further, given your Calvinistic understanding, your claim that they don’t understand why they are being baptized is irrelevant and hypocritical. If we don’t have the ability to choose whether we are saved or not, then it doesn’t really matter whether an infant understands what is being done or not, or whether he has been able to formulate a conscious decision. According to you, our conscious decision plays no role in our salvation anyway, so your criticism of us is hypocritical.

I separate them for your benefit, that yuou might see, the physical is the shadow of the real object. I have made this plane to you alteady, if you can't grasp this then, I can't help you.

So if you don’t separate them in practice, why do you criticize us for recognizing that they aren’t separated? Again Petro, your getting hypocritical. If you too understand that the physical can’t be separated from the spiritual, then what is the problem with our understanding? You can’t criticize us for relating the spiritual and material in an essential manner, if you too recognize this essential union.

I can use the verses that speak plainly to me about what they teach, (so long they do not contradict the rest of the teaching of scripture) the fact you separate what the gift encompasses, by the use of semantics, and defining words to support your theory, your way, puts you at odds with the rest of scripture, concerning works. (Scripture teaches man is saved by Grace through Faith) , now you seem to be claiming Faith is a work, is this what you are now saying.

This is what I always said. Notice the first of the three “works” I listed: BELIEVE. And if the only critieria for being an acceptable interpretation is that something not contradict the rest of Scripture, then it is perfectly legitimate for me to understand the appearance of god in Ezekiel as a spaceship? After all, that doesn’t contradict ANY Scripture. It is not enough to “not contradict” Scripture. It must be in conformity WITH Scripture. And your interpretation is NOT in conformity with Scripture. You must distort other passages to maintain it. Matt 7 (I REALLY wish my post hadn’t gotten lost, I dealt with this passage in detail)..I can only suggest you read it again. Pay attention how many times Jesus says the righteous are righteous because of what they DO, and how Jesus condemns those who called Him “Lord Lord” because they “practiced lawlessness”. It is ALL OVER that passage.

These verses, certainly make the point, faith had not been grasped, this is why men perish, and the promise could not come, because of the lack of faith, and verse 23, says, that "faith which should afterwards be revealed", I suppose you would teach that one day, you revealed Jesus to yourself, huh??

Of course not. Jesus revealed Himself and the father to ALL MEN. Faith hadn’t been revealed yet because the OBJECT of Faith hadn’t been revealed yet. That doesn’t mean faith didn’t EXIST. Even in the OT, we are told the righteous will live by faith. Just as sin still existed even without the law (remember, the Law only REVEALED sin, it didn’t CREATE sin), so also faith still existed before Christ, it just wasn’t recognized AS faith until Christ, the OBJECT of faith, had appeared.

I don't know whether we are getting anywhere, but at least we are considering scripture.

Blessings,

LOL. I am far too seldom wise enough to let the progress being made determine the persistence of my arguments.

Blessings back.
Jim