False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[rewriter]

Not sure that the Jews would have caught the reversal of Aeneid, but the similarity of the Iliad to Acts sounds familiar.
The Plato-like verse I have in mind is 1Cor. 13:12 (cf. the cave).

I associate Plato's Allegory of the cave more with 1 John 5:8.

And Luke-Acts was most likely written for a Roman audience, specifically one Roman who was nicknamed "Theophilus", likely by Luke. But again, without good knowledge, this time of history, you will likely miss the identification.

 

[ATG]

As for my "skewed" knowledge, it is well known among SCHOLARS, if not lay people, that until roughly 500 years ago, the purpose of history was to deliver a message, not record the facts.

It is well known among historians, that roughly 2500 years ago, the purpose of the first 'historian' Herodotus was to report objective facts by investigation of comparable/confirmed sources, both by eyewitness and physical evidence. As well as noting any unconfirmed hearsay and legends. Though He was a Hellene, his history included pro's and con's of Hellenes and foreigners, especially the Medes and Persians.

The next historians Thucydides modelled after Herodotus' standard, wrote eyewitness and investigative report according to comparable/confirmed facts, without bias. He was an Athenian that reported pro's and con's of both Athenian and Spartan allies.

If any message is delivered by such objective unbiased historical reports, it's the lesson of history, not of biased lying and propaganda at the expense of known and investigated fact.

Your unconcealed effort to falsely tarnish all ancient historians as nothing but propagandist political and/or religious tools is solely for the purpose of paint brushing the Bible with your own biased gray and black. You only paint yourself even darker, while never proving any such things with Herodotus, Thucydides, nor the Bible...

How do you maintain that it is pure coincidence that Acts seems to contain references to Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, local legends and then common comic characters among others?

You want to read the Bible 'seeming' like false hearsay, legend, borrowed philosophy, and comical relief. Go ahead. Get in line. There's plenty of revisionist pseudo-scholars that do a less-blatant job of it.

2 Timothy{6:20}
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of scholarship falsely so called.

That sounds like a very big coincidence, especially when it also seems to contradict Paul,

Almost doesn't count in historical and literary scholarship...Seems like never proves anything other than skewed reading...

that is unless two groups that fought with each other decided to cooperate for a very brief moment against one individual just because, even though one of the two groups had a history of tolerance for the type of activity the individual was engaged in.

I don't recall the unbelieving Jews ever working with believing Christians, whether Jewish or Greek.

And committed unbelievers only work with fault-finders.

But of course, that must be true because otherwise you are misunderstanding and applying a false meaning a word that no one is certain how to interpret.

In all your revisionist history-making and defaming of ancient historians, I forget which 'word' you've abused, that I've corrected.

By the way, if I am correct, then Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Acts and Paul's epistles all have an unrecognized common theme that resolves many known difficult passages, including 2 Timothy 3:16.

If you are correct, the Bible has references to Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, local legends and then common comic characters among others.

The Bible is made into an unrecognizable common theme, that dissolves verses into false hearsay, legend, borrowed philosophy, and comical relief. Especially 2 Tim 3:16:

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by uninspiring confusion of frauds, propagandists, and sophists, and is unprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness:

The Bible is not the author of confusion, but only antagonistic disbelievers...

 

[rewriter]

It is well known among historians, that roughly 2500 years ago, the purpose of the first 'historian' Herodotus was to report objective facts by investigation of comparable/confirmed sources, both by eyewitness and physical evidence. As well as noting any unconfirmed hearsay and legends. Though He was a Hellene, his history included pro's and con's of Hellenes and foreigners, especially the Medes and Persians.

The next historians Thucydides modelled after Herodotus' standard, wrote eyewitness and investigative report according to comparable/confirmed facts, without bias. He was an Athenian that reported pro's and con's of both Athenian and Spartan allies.

If any message is delivered by such objective unbiased historical reports, it's the lesson of history, not of biased lying and propaganda at the expense of known and investigated fact.

Your unconcealed effort to falsely tarnish all ancient historians as nothing but propagandist political and/or religious tools is solely for the purpose of paint brushing the Bible with your own biased gray and black. You only paint yourself even darker, while never proving any such things with Herodotus, Thucydides, nor the Bible...



You want to read the Bible 'seeming' like false hearsay, legend, borrowed philosophy, and comical relief. Go ahead. Get in line. There's plenty of revisionist pseudo-scholars that do a less-blatant job of it.

2 Timothy{6:20}
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of scholarship falsely so called.




Almost doesn't count in historical and literary scholarship...Seems like never proves anything other than skewed reading...



I don't recall the unbelieving Jews ever working with believing Christians, whether Jewish or Greek.

And committed unbelievers only work with fault-finders.





In all your revisionist history-making and defaming of ancient historians, I forget which 'word' you've abused, that I've corrected.




If you are correct, the Bible has references to Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, local legends and then common comic characters among others.

The Bible is made into an unrecognizable common theme, that dissolves verses into false hearsay, legend, borrowed philosophy, and comical relief. Especially 2 Tim 3:16:

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by uninspiring confusion of frauds, propagandists, and sophists, and is unprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness:

The Bible is not the author of confusion, but only antagonistic disbelievers...

Gee, I never realized that you know so much more than all the recognized biblical scholars that you contradict. Likely your teachers learned from some of these scholars you contradict. Or do you proclaim truth out of your ignorance?

I suspect that you do not know enough to bother with as the archeological record contradicts some of your claims, and the histories you cite contradict others.

 

[ATG]

Now Plato is suggested when the early church shares everything in common,

Then Nimrod was suggested, when the early Egyptians built the pyramids by forced labor.

And your knowledge of Plato's Republic is just another vain show of pseudo-knowledge. They only theorized raising all children in common, after the Spartan pattern.

Having all things in common began in the garden of Eden, and concludes on the new earth in the city of God.

Gen 2:15
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

In the beginning man and woman were created with shared labor and consumption of all natural things, that are made and owned by the Lord. It ended on this earth with transgressions, where we eat what we toil for:

Gen 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

2Th 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

1Ti 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Socrates is suggested when Paul preaches in Athens,

And so, as above, we see your vaunted demand for ancient knowledge, is a superficial joke of 'seeming' proofs. Such as, Paul was Aristotle reborn when teaching at Philippi of Macedon.

And the reference to Plato is not only lame, by just speaking in the same city, but is once again no good. Better to have Paul channeling Socrates by religious questioning Athenians in the streets, and then defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ on Pnyx hill, where Socrates' defended his own life.

A better historical channeling is Paul like Plato being arrested for his teachings, and then transported captive by ship at sea.

And Paul was channeling the wise and truthful Palamedes, when he was also falsely stoned as a traitor outside the Asia Minor city walls, of Troy.

And of course, the apostle Paul simply had to have his name changed from Saul, when his former religion of the Jews, is changed to that of the Son. 'Seemingly' just like the name of Akhenaten the apostle of the Sun, was changed from Amenhotep, the disciple of the old religion of Egypt.

And of course, Peter had to have been channeling the great priest of Marduk Bel, when preaching Jesus Christ in Babylon.

Virgil is suggested in multiple places,

Right. Who can forget the prophecy of Messiah Jesus entering the gates of the holy city in peace of God, and the founder Aeneas' own commanded entrance into the imperial city with peace from the Gods.

but the easiest to see is when Peter heals Aeneas, as Aeneas was a very common name in literature, but rare outside of literature, and the exact details almost scream a connection.

Speak of the devil, Aeneas again, now being healed by Venus' drug used by the physician, who first failed through natural means. Very sketchy of course, since none of the conditions nor means are the same, other than miraculous healing. As superficial as, People publicly speaking in the same city. But hey, the rarely used name is the same, which means they must be the same person.

However, since much of Virgil was in fact borrowed from Homer, including the hero's origin and Gods, then properly Virgil is just a medium between Homer and Peter. Especially the spin off from Asclepius, in the healing of Aeneas...

Finally, Homer is paralleled in in both the combination of Luke-Acts

Too vacuous to even consider.

You got this stuff from a beginner's pseudo-comparison literature course, that includes the Bible, right?

Job 38-41 is full of astrology and nature religion for man and beast...

as well as in Paul's shipwreck.,

Right. Where he was entertained by the island king, and out-performed the slender dancers in martial competitions... And he was altogether Heraklean, when he shook off the poisonous serpent.

So, now let's compare every other historical figure and event, to any mythological legends of old. We can certainly begin with Alexander's fictitious campaign across Asia, by only pointing to Bacchus' victories of the east as far as India...

The point being that historical records pointing to past legends, does not make them legends...Especially when the points are so weak.

Act 26:8
Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

God raising the dead, was nothing new in the ancient world, where even their own poets speak of all men being children of God.

God the Creator from the foundation of the world is told throughout the ages in so many common ways, that the truth of it was rarely denied, but rather all that is needed is an intelligent clear record. The Bible does so unerringly in bare bones records, without all the mythological machinations and fantasy:

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

1Ti 4:7
But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

No book of fable, myth, or fantasy ever denounces fables, myths, and fantasies...

 

[PAC-fit]

The Scriptures of Christ are all one perfectly unified word, even as the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Therefore, every Scripture must be taught in context of all other Scripture, not just from verse to verse within a chapter of Scripture.

Are we not to follow Jesus and the Apostles, with their many "it is written" by "rightly divided" the text just as they did, how is this subjecting the young to fear if not allowed the liberty just as they showed? Nope. In this case, 'ALL the Bible's refs' has now embraced an equal share of error the op wishes to impose on the above's liberty!

 

[GWH]

I associate Plato's Allegory of the cave more with 1 John 5:8.

And Luke-Acts was most likely written for a Roman audience, specifically one Roman who was nicknamed "Theophilus", likely by Luke. But again, without good knowledge, this time of history, you will likely miss the identification.

Actually, written TO a Roman, but FOR the edification of all.

It is unfortunate that Luke in Acts did not incorporate teachings in Paul's epistles that would have headed off confusion regarding SIT and WB (cf. Acts 2:38, 10:46-48, 28:1&16, 2Tim. 4:11, 1Cor. 14:5,19&39, 12:13, Eph. 4:4-6, Col. 2:11-12).

 

[ATG]

Are we not to follow Jesus and the Apostles, with their many "it is written" by "rightly divided" the text just as they did, how is this subjecting the young to fear if not allowed the liberty just as they showed? Nope. In this case, 'ALL the Bible's refs' has now embraced an equal share of error the op wishes to impose on the above's liberty!

Not sure what you're talking about. Maybe one main statement, of how Christian liberty is undone.

In any case, if anyone's liberty is hindered by treating all Scripture with equal authority of God, then that liberty is not from Jesus Christ, and needs to be hindered.

Jas 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

Likewise, if liberty is following Jesus, while sinning against His words, then neither the liberty nor the following is of Jesus Christ.

 

[ATG]

"The sole biblical mention of the name is found in the Book of Acts, where the Apostle Peter heals a paralyzed man in the city of Lydda. Because Lydda was a primarily Jewish town with deep historical roots, a distinctly Greco-Roman name like Aeneas likely suggests the man had Hellenistic roots or ties to Greek culture."

This reference can therefore reasonably be viewed as a prelude to the vision of Peter regarding salvation for the Gentiles in the next chapter of Acts. (Interesting, thanks.)

Yes, interesting. First comes healing anyone in need, and then also saving any soul in need.

Good point.

 

[ATG]

Regarding Plato's idealism, I can think of a passage by Paul that seems similar,
but what inference do you have in mind that you caught?

Although his examples are too superficial, I believe his main point is that if Scripture includes any religious and/or moral thought from outside the Bible, then the Bible is therefore only 'borrowed' and even plagiarized from other men, not inspired by God personally.

Which of course is nonsense. The Bible never says no other men that prophets and apostles ever understood truth, but only that if the understanding of men conflicts with the Bible, then the Bible is true, not the contradictory religion and morality.

Rom 3:3
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

There are plenty of books on religion, ethics, philosophy, etc...that do happen upon righteousness and wisdom and prophetic truth, but only the Bible is always written true and sure, without any error nor falsehood:

Psa 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psa 119:105
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Psa 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

 

[ATG]

But in Homer's Iliad, a key person gets shipwrecked, a viper bites them, a healer gets involved and there is prophesy. Now which of those things is missing in Paul's reported shipwreck in Acts.

It's really hard to take someone serious, that's so superficial in their comparisons, that they don't bother to study what the books say, whether the Bible or the Iliad. But, it is good for refreshing knowledge of such things:

Philoctetes was abandoned on Lemnos, after being bit by a snake. There is neither a healer nor prophecy with Paul. He simply gets bit by a snake, shakes it off, and lives on without damage.

Once again, someone speaking in the same city, or bit by a snake on an island, is too lame to say they are taken from one another.

Stick to the Greek tragedies, if you want to talk about books specifically written with traditional myths in mind...

 

[ATG]

Because I am aware of far too many "good Christian churches" that cannot distinguish between the Holy Spirit and a definitely unholy spirit. Further, given how many Christians, even in this forum, cannot agree about what the Holy Spirit "clearly" teaches, there exists a problem.

It's always meaningful to watch unbelievers try to tell believers how to believe the Bible and follow the God's Spirit. It proves yjr zBibler is God's authority on earth, that people will either stand for or against.

Mat 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Afterall, as an unbeliever in Buddha, Allah, Krishna, etc...as not being God nor His Spirit, I don't waste time judging nor telling them how to be Buddhists, Islamists, Krishnans, etc...None of those false gods matter after this life anyway.

 

[GWH]

Although his examples are too superficial, I believe his main point is that if Scripture includes any religious and/or moral thought from outside the Bible, then the Bible is therefore only 'borrowed' and even plagiarized from other men, not inspired by God personally.

Which of course is nonsense. The Bible never says no other men that prophets and apostles ever understood truth, but only that if the understanding of men conflicts with the Bible, then the Bible is true, not the contradictory religion and morality.

Rom 3:3
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

There are plenty of books on religion, ethics, philosophy, etc...that do happen upon righteousness and wisdom and prophetic truth, but only the Bible is always written true and sure, without any error nor falsehood:

Psa 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psa 119:105
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Psa 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

I agree that science and Scripture will not be contradictory when both are correctly understood,
because God created both natural and spiritual reality via His Logos/Word.

 

[PAC-fit]

Not sure what you're talking about.

What is there not to understand? I still see it clearly, which is a statement that expresses my agreement with the op reservedly. Reserving fear for the Lord, and to guard against misuse of the scriptures.

Are we not to follow Jesus and the Apostles, with their many "it is written" , , just as they showed?

Again, my objection. Those citations they quoted are not layer upon layer but limited. Romans ch4 is about as deep as it gets. None of those quoted are seen going that much by man's intellect. And I am sure you are not open to boasting in intellect (1 Cor 1:19).

 

[ATG]

I agree that science and Scripture will not be contradictory when both are correctly understood,
because God created both natural and spiritual reality via His Logos/Word.

Very true. And natural law made by God does not outlaw God from performing supernatural events, that are ungoverned by natural law.

When natural unbelievers object to supernatural events as being impossible by natural law, then they are only voicing their unbelief in anything other than the natural universe. Spiritual and suernatural events by defintion can't be proven nor explained by natural law.

Only to those whose faith and trust is in natural things alone, would declare unnatural things impossible, as though natural law rules over all things, including of the Spirit:

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
It's not that some people can't possibly understand spiritual and supernatural things, but rather that they refuse to acknowledge anything other than their own natural minds, and natural things that they can touch, see, hear...

Jhn 20:27
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight

Faith toward God and spiritual things is by definition unproven by sight and natural understanding.

 

[ATG]

What is there not to understand? I still see it clearly, which is a statement that expresses my agreement with the op reservedly. Reserving fear for the Lord, and to guard against misuse of the scriptures.

Well said. The fear of the Lord is the fear of changing His words.

Deu 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

One way of diminishing God's words is by isolating certain Scriptures from other Scriptures, so that some Scriptures are cut off: The words of God are thereby diminished.

Again, my objection. Those citations they quoted are not layer upon layer but limited. Romans ch4 is about as deep as it gets. None of those quoted are seen going that much by man's intellect. And I am sure you are not open to boasting in intellect (1 Cor 1:19).

Sill not sure here what you're getting at. The OP point is that every verse of scripture must be taken in context of all verses of Scripture, in order to conform to all the words of God as one word, even as the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God.

If you have any example of wrongly separating Scriptures, then I'd be glad to see it.

Here's an example: Those holding to a created Christ angel, separate the Son from the Father. They do so changing John 1:1 from the Word being God, to being a god. They then separate John 1:1 from all other Scriptures declaring the Father and Son are one in the Godhead (John 17), and the Son Jesus Christ is true God (I John 5).

 

[ATG]

Gee, I never realized that you know so much more than all the recognized biblical scholars that you contradict.

As many as Jesus contradicted by the Scriptures:

Jhn 7:15
And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

Jesus learned from Bible schools, but only from the Bible itself.

The Bible teaches itself. Bible scholars teach their scholarship. Bible worshippers teach Bible only. Scholar idolaters only repeat scholarship.

I suspect that you do not know enough to bother with as the archeological record contradicts some of your claims, and the histories you cite contradict others.

Good. Back to the subject at hand. If you have any evidence of bible factual error, or more claims of inner conflict, I'm always glad to see it. Even with flimsy surface stuff like yours.

 

[ATG]

It is unfortunate that Luke in Acts did not incorporate teachings in Paul's epistles that would have headed off confusion regarding SIT and WB (cf. Acts 2:38, 10:46-48, 28:1&16, 2Tim. 4:11, 1Cor. 14:5,19&39, 12:13, Eph. 4:4-6, Col. 2:11-12).

What's SIT and WB?

Acts is as it's called: The Book of acts beginning after Jesus' resurrection to Paul's first trip to Rome, as an accused prisoner of Rome.

Any teaching in Acts is not doctrinally taught, but learned from the recorded acts themselves.

 

[mailmandan]

The most shaky non-biblical theological argument is actually based not on a single verse but no verse at all.

Faith Alone Regeneration Theology is based on a surmised understanding of general verses about salvation.

The theology is based totally on conjecture and is at odds with multiple passages in the Bible.

It is even the polar opposite on James 2:24. Which is a rather straight forward verse.

The Bible makes it clear in many passages of scripture that man is saved through belief/faith - "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1-2; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-14, 26; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

Now we don't need to "add" the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of those passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus, works? NO. So, then it's faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone.

*This is not to be confused with a bare profession of faith/dead faith that remains alone/barren of works. (James 2:14, 24)

 

[ATG]

The Bible makes it clear in many passages of scripture that man is saved through belief/faith - "apart from additions or modifications."

Uniquely put. False gospel and teaching is modifying Jesus' salvation and faith, to suit man rather than please God.

But, the rebuke is for justification by faith-alone apart from works. Which does modify Jesus' justification and faith, to justify by faith-alone, them that are also doing evil.

Jesus Christ the righteous never justifies any evil doing, whether believer nor unbeliever:

Rom 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?...For there is no respect of persons with God.

Now we don't need to "add" the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of those passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE.

Odd. No need to add 'alone' to Scripture, where no 'alone' is, and then add 'alone' to the Scripture.

Faith standing alone, and alone is addition to Scripture and modification of faith in Scripture. Else alone is no more alone, or add and modify is no more add and modify.

Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus, works? NO.

No. Neither 'plus works' nor 'alone'. Not in any of those Scriptures.

However, to avoid separating Scripture from Scripture, and modifying Scripture, alone is with faith in James 2, and is dead.

And 'plus' works is in 2 Peter 1, where we must add works to our faith, to ensure our calling and election is with Jesus Christ.

To avoid modifying Scripture to our own liking, we must ensure that all Scriptures pertaining to the same thing, have been included, with none excluded. Such as with salvation and justification by faith.

So, then it's faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone.

Correct. As in only believing in Jesus Christ, and not any other Savior of God:

Mar 9:8
And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only...

Another good alone with Scripture, is believing Scripture alone: Sola Scriptura. Not anything added nor taken away to modify God's words...

*This is not to be confused with a bare profession of faith/dead faith that remains alone/barren of works. (James 2:14, 24)

Correct. Which is by not adding works to our faith:

2 pet 1:4
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

You mostly do good in standing with Scriptures alone, except when you declare FAITH ALONE is alive, rather than dead.

If you're trying to modify justification by faith-alone without works, into something Scriptural, then just leave out the modifying of Scripture in the middle.

 

[mailmandan]

Uniquely put. False gospel and teaching is modifying Jesus' salvation and faith, to suit man rather than please God.

But, the rebuke is for justification by faith-alone apart from works. Which does modify Jesus' justification and faith, to justify by faith-alone, them that are also doing evil.

Jesus Christ the righteous never justifies any evil doing, whether believer nor unbeliever:

Rom 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?...For there is no respect of persons with God.




Odd. No need to add 'alone' to Scripture, where no 'alone' is, and then add 'alone' to the Scripture.

Faith standing alone, and alone is addition to Scripture and modification of faith in Scripture. Else alone is no more alone, or add and modify is no more add and modify.





No. Neither 'plus works' nor 'alone'. Not in any of those Scriptures.

However, to avoid separating Scripture from Scripture, and modifying Scripture, alone is with faith in James 2, and is dead.

And 'plus' works is in 2 Peter 1, where we must add works to our faith, to ensure our calling and election is with Jesus Christ.

To avoid modifying Scripture to our own liking, we must ensure that all Scriptures pertaining to the same thing, have been included, with none excluded. Such as with salvation and justification by faith.






Correct. As in only believing in Jesus Christ, and not any other Savior of God:

Mar 9:8
And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only...

Another good alone with Scripture, is believing Scripture alone: Sola Scriptura. Not anything added nor taken away to modify God's words...


Correct. Which is by not adding works to our faith:

2 pet 1:4
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

You mostly do good in standing with Scriptures alone, except when you declare FAITH ALONE is alive, rather than dead.

If you're trying to modify justification by faith-alone without works, into something Scriptural, then just leave out the modifying of Scripture in the middle.

Allow me to sum it up for you. Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; yet genuine faith is (evidenced) by works. (James 2:14-26)

*Jesus Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works.* ( Romans 3:24-28; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9)

It is through faith "in Jesus Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ ( Romans 4:5-6; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-26) *Perfect Harmony*