In context: Romans 4:4-5

[Cassian]

Righteousness actually is the means to salvation. You can either come to God based on your own righteousness, or clothed in Christ's righteousness. Scripture is clear that Christ is the only way, and that we can attain heaven by his righteousness alone.

Sorry, I reject catholic and eastern orthodox soteriology. You'll have to prove your case from the Bible.

That you reject the Gospel is your free choice even though you ascribe to Calvin's theology.

Eastern Orthodoxy is in complete alignment with scripture. It has been from the beginning. I have already shown it from scripture as it has always been understood.
You are the one that needs to show that Calvinism is actually the Gospel as given in the beginning which is quite obvious you cannot do.

 

[Cassian]

No actually that's what arminius believed as well. Wesley also embraced the gospel I shared with you above. There are some distinctives with calvinism, but I didn't go into any of those in my post.

Cassian, you're spreading much more heat than light. You need to study these issues more.

There is no need to study some guy's false suppositions passed off as scriptural. They are quite obviously not scripture as it was given in the beginning. Just because a man uses some texts to prove his errant suppositions does not make it scriptural any more than any other sola scripturists.

 

[Elin]

So you believe that God believes for you. You are completely passive. When He commands us to love Him, it is He that is loving Himself for you. When He commands that we be obedient, it is He that is obedient to Himself, not you.

Do you even know and understand what you are saying?

It is you who does not know or understand what I am saying.

 

[Elin]

Rom 8:1 condemns your interpretation. It is a conditional statement.

Not in my Bible. . .it applies unconditionally to all in Christ Jesus.

 

[Elin]

That question is clearly answered in the NT.


Read it.

 

[Cassian]

Not in my Bible. . .it applies unconditionally to all in Christ Jesus.

It applies to those that are believers, those IN Christ. However, many believers fail to continue, fail to be faithful to the Covenant. Just because one might have believed at some point does not guarantee that one will endure.

This is why your use of the Satisfaction theory of "not guilty" or OSAS is false and unscriptural.

 

[Elin]

It applies to those that are believers, those IN Christ. However,
many believers fail to continue, fail to be faithful to the Covenant. Just because one might have believed at some point does not guarantee that one will endure.

This is why your use of the Satisfaction theory of "not guilty" or OSAS is false and unscriptural.

Those who are born again always persevere.

There is true faith and counterfeit faith with no root of rebirth (Lk 8:13; Mt 7:21-23).

The born again have true faith and always persevere.

 

[Cassian]

Those who are born again always persevere.

There is true faith and counterfeit faith with no root of rebirth (Lk 8:13; Mt 7:21-23).

The born again have true faith and always persevere.

nice philosophical statement to shore up a presupposition that scripture does not support. In both instances these texts portray a former believer, one who did not endure. The parable of the sower is a classical explanation of the kinds of believers who are in the Kingdom. In this parable the ONLY ones who did not enter are those of the first example which depicts an outright rejection of the gospel.

Same for Matt. The context is in the past tense. These are OSAS's who thought that if they believed at one time, bore fruit for a time they were guaranteed eternal life. Eternal life is given to those that endure.

Another good example is the parable of the "unfaithful steward" in Matt 24:45ff who failed in his stewardship and was cast into outer darkness. Does not sound like OSAS nor salvation.

It would be quite presumptuous to think that a believer who lives in a sinful world, has a fallen nature, and Satan is still around seeking to devour him, that he could actually be more faithful than Adam who did not have the first two elements to contend with. You are living a myth and in a dream world. Sounds nice, very psychologically appealing, but hardly scriptural.

It also destroys the whole purpose of why God created man and then saved man.

 

[SeaBass]

What do you think "contradiction of terms" between "Christian" and "not do any good works" means?

So here you seem to be saying for one to be a Christian he MUST do works...and just killed your workless theology.

 

[dcontroversal]

So here you seem to be saying for one to be a Christian he MUST do works...and just killed your workless theology.

No...unlike you and your Alexander Campbellism, she understands that WORKS have nothing at all to do with biblical salvation which is by faith dia grace......

 

[Elin]

nice philosophical statement to shore up a presupposition that scripture does not support.
In both instances these texts portray a former believer, one who did not endure.

Read it again. . .those in Mt 7:21-23 did endure. . .in a counterfeit faith which they claimed at the judgment seat.

The parable of the sower is a classical explanation of
the kinds of believers who are in the Kingdom.

Read it again. . .not according to the parable.

It is a parable of the four kinds of hearers of the word of God,

where only one group are true believers, those who produce a crop of obedience through faith.

In this parable the ONLY ones who did not enter are those of the first example which depicts an outright rejection of the gospel.

That is your assumption.

Same for Matt. The context is in the past tense. These are OSAS's who thought that if they believed at one time, bore fruit
for a time they were guaranteed eternal life. Eternal life is given to those that endure.

Did "not endure" is not in the text. . .that is your assumption.

Another good example is the parable of
the "unfaithful steward" in Matt 24:45ff who failed in his stewardship and was cast into outer darkness.
Does not sound like OSAS nor salvation.

Right. . .because this is a case of "not saved, never saved" (NSNS).

It would be quite presumptuous to think that a believer who lives in a sinful world, has a fallen nature, and Satan is still around seeking to devour him, that he
could actually be more faithful than Adam who did not have the first two elements to contend with.

And it would be unbelief to say that all true believers do not sin (1Jn 1:8-10) as did Adam.

It wouldlso a be unbelief to say that all true believers are not forgiven because of the blood of sacrifice,
as was Adam.

You are living a myth and in a dream world. Sounds nice, very psychologically appealing, but hardly scriptural.

The truth of God's word is so much greater than your human view of it.

It also destroys the whole purpose of why God created man and then saved man.

Contrare. . .it is the purpose God created man and saved those who are born again into eternal life in Jesus Christ.

 

[Elin]

So here you seem to be saying for one to be a Christian he MUST do works...and
just killed your workless theology.

Actually, what it killed was your strawman.

To be a Christian one must have saving faith, which is belief + works,

where only the gift of belief (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3) by grace
gives him salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) at the final judgment.

 

[Elin]

Rom 8:1 condemns your interpretation. It is a conditional statement

Not in my Bible. . .it applies unconditionally to all in Christ Jesus.

You are not consistent:

It applies to those that are believers, those IN Christ. However,
many believers fail to continue, fail to be faithful to the Covenant. Just because one might have believed at some point does not guarantee that one will endure.

This is why your use of the Satisfaction theory of "not guilty" or
OSAS is false and unscriptural.

So salvation in Christ is not permanent.

I need to be careful here because most Protestants don't use these terms as scripture does.

Salvation wrought by Christ is eternal, permanent and man cannot contribute a thing to Christ's work. It is why we needed Christ.

So salvation in Christ is permanent. . .once saved, always saved.

So I submit that 'tis not protestants who don't use these terms as Scripture does.

I submit that 'tis those whose theology contradicts itself that do not use these terms as Scripture does.

 

[Cassian]

Read it again. . .those in Mt 7:21-23 did endure. . .in a counterfeit faith which they claimed at the judgment seat.


Read it again. . .not according to the parable.

It is a parable of the four kinds of hearers of the word of God,

where only one group are true believers, those who produce a crop of obedience through faith.


That is your assumption.


Did "not endure" is not in the text. . .that is your assumption.


Right. . .because this is a case of "not saved, never saved" (NSNS).


And it would be unbelief to say that all true believers do not sin (1Jn 1:8-10) as did Adam.

It wouldlso a be unbelief to say that all true believers are not forgiven because of the blood of sacrifice,
as was Adam.


The truth of God's word is so much greater than your human view of it.


Contrare. . .it is the purpose God created man and saved those who are born again into eternal life in Jesus Christ.

So you have nothing substantive to counter what scripture has always meant from the beginning.

Still need to cling to your relativistic, humanistic, sectarian philosophical interpretation.

 

[Cassian]

Not in my Bible. . .it applies unconditionally to all in Christ Jesus.

never disagreed.. Your view that OSAS, "NOT GUILTY" verdict upon initial believe cannot be found in scripture, only in a man made theory. Most initial believers, I suspect, do not make it to the end.

[quotre]You are not consistent:[/quote] It has been consistent for 2000 years already. I don't think the Holy Spirit will fail in His promise to preserve His Gospel as well as His Church.

So salvation in Christ is not permanent.

once one achieve whatever end is appropriate it is permanent. Only death determines if one has been faithful or unfaithful or never/ever believed. However, the attaining of eternal life is a progressive journey and it must be continuous.

So salvation in Christ is permanent. . .once saved, always saved.

Incorrect application. The salvation that Christ gave to the world is the gift of His love, mercy and grace to all men, to His created order. This is accomplished by His Incarnation and resurrection. There will be a new heaven and new earth. All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. Christ's work is a completed historical event that will be consummated at His Second Coming. It is this salvation from death and sin that makes it possible for any man to be freely joined with Christ to attain eternal life.

So I submit that 'tis not protestants who don't use these terms as Scripture does.

d You in particular are far afield of what scripture actually teaches.

I submit that 'tis those whose theology contradicts itself that do not use these terms as Scripture does.

another personal conviction. Its not so much your theological view is contradictory as it just does not align with scripture. As long as you are led by many false suppositions it will never align.

 

[Elin]

nice philosophical statement to shore up a presupposition that scripture does not support.
In both instances these texts portray a former believer, one who did not endure.

Read it again. . .those in Mt 7:21-23 did endure. . .in a counterfeit faith which they claimed at the judgment seat.

The parable of the sower is a classical explanation of
the kinds of believers who are in the Kingdom.

Read it again. . .not according to the parable.

It is a parable of the four kinds of hearers of the word of God,

where only one group are true believers, those who produce a crop of obedience through faith.

In this parable the ONLY ones who did not enter are those of the first example which depicts an outright rejection of the gospel.

That is your assumption only.

Same for Matt. The context is in the past tense. These are OSAS's who thought that if they believed at one time, bore fruit
for a time they were guaranteed eternal life. Eternal life is given to those that endure.

Did "not endure" is not in the text. . .that is your assumption.

Another good example is the parable of
the "unfaithful steward" in Matt 24:45ff who failed in his stewardship and was cast into outer darkness.
Does not sound like OSAS nor salvation.

Right. . .because this is a case of "not saved, never saved" (NSNS).

It would be quite presumptuous to think that a believer who lives in a sinful world, has a fallen nature, and Satan is still around seeking to devour him, that he
could actually be more faithful than Adam who did not have the first two elements to contend with.

And it would be unbelief to say that all true believers do not sin (1Jn 1:8-10) as did Adam.

It would also be unbelief to say that all true believers are not forgiven because of the blood of sacrifice, as was Adam.

You are living a myth and in a dream world. Sounds nice, very psychologically appealing, but hardly scriptural.

The truth of God's word is so much greater than your human view of it.

It also destroys the whole purpose of why God created man and then saved man.

Contrare. . .it is the purpose God created man and saved those who are born again into eternal life in Jesus Christ.

So you have nothing substantive to counter what scripture has always meant from the beginning.

I note your difference between what Scripture "actually states," and what Scripture "has always meant."

At least you don't claim that Scripture actually states what you represent it to mean.

However, I feel you will understand why I will be going with what Scripture actually states.

Still need to cling to your relativistic, humanistic, sectarian philosophical interpretation.

The texts of the parables are clear, speak for themselves and do not need explanation.

We are left only with deciding whether to believe them or not.

 

[Cassian]

I note your difference between what Scripture "actually states," and what Scripture "has always meant."

another incorrect paraphrase. The reason is defer is that man has and can make scripture mean anything they desire to make it mean. All one needs to do is look at the vast landscape of sola scriptura which has birthed thousands of ideas all based on scripture and what is even more amazing that everyone claims their view is of the Holy Spirit.

At least you don't claim that Scripture actually states what you represent it to mean.

I have explained what it has always meant from the beginning. The fact that you have never been able to refute what I have explained is testament to the Truth of the Holy Spirit in preserving His Gospel within the Body to whom it was entrusted. It has not changed in 2000 years.
You have yet to get beyond your personal opinion, hardly could pass for Gospel once given in the beginning believed by all everywhere.

However, I feel you will understand why I will be going with what Scripture actually states.

that would be a great start. You will need to jettison all those false presuppositions you have been espousing.

The texts of the parables are clear, speak for themselves and do not need explanation.

yet, the Apostles, their immediate students and all subsequent believers never believed them as you do. You would need to accept that fact that the Holy Spirit got it wrong or the Apostles never understood it as they taught for decades before it was written. Especially Matthew who wrote probably after 70 Ad. It is surmised that he was residing in Antioch which corresponds to the same time that Ignatius was a bishop, the third bishop of Antioch.

We are left only with deciding whether to believe them or not.

I believe them because they were given by the Holy Spirit and the meaning preserved ever since unchanged within His Body, the Church.

You are certainly welcome to your sectarian philosophical concepts developed and interpreted by some modern man or worse by yourself.

 

[Elin]

Most initial believers, I suspect, do not make it to the end.

You are not consistent:

It applies to those that are believers, those IN Christ. However,
many believers fail to continue, fail to be faithful to the Covenant. Just because one might have believed at some point does not guarantee that one will endure.

This is why your use of the Satisfaction theory of "not guilty" or
OSAS is false and unscriptural.

So salvation in Christ is not permanent.

I need to be careful here because most Protestants don't use these terms as scripture does.

Salvation wrought by Christ is eternal, permanent and man cannot contribute a thing to Christ's work. It is why we needed Christ.

So salvation in Christ is permanent. . .once saved, always saved.

So I submit that 'tis not protestants who don't use these terms as Scripture does.

I submit that 'tis those whose theology contradicts itself that do not use these terms as Scripture does.

nice philosophical statement to shore up a presupposition that scripture does not support.
In both instances these texts portray a former believer, one who did not endure.

Read it again. . .those in Mt 7:21-23 did endure. . .in a counterfeit faith which they claimed at the judgment seat.

The parable of the sower is a classical explanation of
the kinds of believers who are in the Kingdom.

Read it again. . .not according to the parable.

It is a parable of the four kinds of hearers of the word of God,

where only one group are true believers, those who produce a crop of obedience through faith.

In this parable the ONLY ones who did not enter are those of the first example which depicts an outright rejection of the gospel.

That is your assumption only.

Same for Matt. The context is in the past tense. These are OSAS's who thought that if they believed at one time, bore fruit
for a time they were guaranteed eternal life. Eternal life is given to those that endure.

Did "not endure" is not in the text. . .that is your assumption.

Another good example is the parable of
the "unfaithful steward" in Matt 24:45ff who failed in his stewardship and was cast into outer darkness.
Does not sound like OSAS nor salvation.

Right. . .because this is a case of "not saved, never saved" (NSNS).

It would be quite presumptuous to think that a believer who lives in a sinful world, has a fallen nature, and Satan is still around seeking to devour him, that he
could actually be more faithful than Adam who did not have the first two elements to contend with.

And it would be unbelief to say that all true believers do not sin (1Jn 1:8-10) as did Adam.

It would also be unbelief to say that all true believers are not forgiven because of the blood of sacrifice,
as was Adam.

You are living a myth and in a dream world. Sounds nice, very psychologically appealing, but hardly scriptural.

The truth of God's word is so much greater than your human view of it.

It also destroys the whole purpose of why God created man and then saved man.

Contrare. . .it is the purpose God created man and saved those who are born again into eternal life in Jesus Christ.

So you have nothing substantive to counter what scripture has always meant from the beginning.

I note your difference between what Scripture "actually states," and what Scripture "has always meant."

At least you don't claim that Scripture actually states what you represent it to mean.

However, I feel you will understand why I will be going with what Scripture actually states.

Your view that. . ."NOT GUILTY" verdict upon initial believe
cannot be found in scripture, only in a man made theory.

The above is clear and speaks for itself.

 

[Cassian]

Read it again. . .those in Mt 7:21-23 did endure. . .in a counterfeit faith which they claimed at the judgment seat.


Read it again. . .not according to the parable.

It is a parable of the four kinds of hearers of the word of God,

where only one group are true believers, those who produce a crop of obedience through faith.


That is your assumption only.

To the contrary. It is based on scriptural/historical understanding for 2000 years. During that time it has not changed notwithstanding all the myriad interpretations by man since the Reformation under the doctrine of sola scriptura. Its quite evident the method does not work.

Did "not endure" is not in the text.

. .that is your assumption.

The Gospel is not based on one text. It must be taken as a whole. Proof texting works only for those who need certain texts to support their errant unscriptural suppositions.

Right. . .because this is a case of "not saved, never saved" (NSNS)

hardly. It speaks directly against your "Not Guilty" satisfaction theory. A believer is not declared NOT GUILTY and attains finitely eternal life. One takes possession of it and he must remain faithful and endure to the end. This is a stewart of the Kingdom, Christ is depicted as His Master. I must presume that since he was not a believer that Satan could be part of the Kingdom as well but never saved using your philosophy.

And it would be unbelief to say that all true believers do not sin

(1Jn 1:8-10) as did Adam.

which has nothing to do with what I stated. It shows an ignorance of the existing power of Satan in this world and the weakness of man. It lacks any scriptural understanding and reality.

It would also be unbelief to say that all true believers are not forgiven

because of the blood of sacrifice,
as was Adam. [/quote] The blood sacrifice was for everyone. Sin is not forgiven unless repented/confessed. By virtue of continuing to sin, which any believer does, but not confessing their sin, they are beginning to walk in darkness again. This is one of the many ways a believer falls. It is the meaning of the two middle examples of the parable of the sower.

The truth of God's word is so much greater than your human view of it

I don't depend on any human view of it. I believe the Gospel as it was given in the beginning, as it has been preserved by the Holy Spirit within His Body as He promised.

Contrare. . .it is the purpose God created man

and saved those who are born again into eternal life in Jesus Christ.[/quote] It might be the purpose of your sectarian, philosophical view, but is far from what scripture teaches.

I note your difference between what Scripture "actually states," and what Scripture "has always meant."

Incorrect paraphrase. Scripture states exactly what it means but that meaning has been the same from the beginning as it was once delivered to the saints.

At least you don't claim that Scripture actually states what you represent it to mean.

You missed that one also. I have made that exact claim as history authenticates it as well. I don't see you refuting what I stated. At best you have your opinion along with false suppositions of others you have latched onto.

However, I feel you will understand why I will be going with what Scripture actually states

If only you would.

 

[Elin]

To the contrary. It is based on scriptural/historical understanding for 2000 years.

So you have nothing substantive to counter what scripture has always meant from the beginning.

I note your difference between what Scripture "actually states," and
what Scripture "has always meant."

Incorrect paraphrase. Scripture states exactly what it means but. . .that meaning
has been the same from the beginning as it was once delivered to the saints.

"Interesting" twist of actually stating, to differently meaning.

I'm sure you will understand if I go with what Scripture actually states.

If only you would.

My response, here, to your distinction between what Scripture states and what it means,

is clear, speaks for itself and needs no further response.