ECT How alone is Grace alone salvation?

[Shasta]

Not through their own works then? Why do you claim we HAVE to obey?

We cannot earn a standing of righteousness before God by works of the LAW. Peter said that the Mosaic System was "a yoke neither they (he and his fellow Jews) nor their ancestors were able to bear. Jesus has a "yoke" though and He tells us to "take that yoke on us." A yoke indicates that we are to be doing His work. It also entails our being in submission to the One who is guiding the plow. His work unlike the yoke of the Law is not a burden and we even experience rest.

Paul connects obedience to faith in this scripture:

25 Now to Him who is able to strengthen you by my gospel and by the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery concealed for ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the writings of the prophets by the command of the eternal God, in order to lead all the nations to the obedience that comes from faith (Romans 16:25-26)

Paul evidently saw obedience to God as the an expression of real faith. Faith without obedience is, as James said, dead, inoperable, useless. A person has not begun to trust Christ until they ENtrust themselves TO Christ. Obedience is relational because "if we love Him we will keep His commandments."

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

We cannot earn a standing of righteousness before God by works of the LAW. Peter said that the Mosaic System was "a yoke neither they (he and his fellow Jews) nor their ancestors were able to bear. Jesus has a "yoke" though and He tells us to "take that yoke on us." A yoke indicates that we are to be doing His work. It also entails our being in submission to the One who is guiding the plow. His work unlike the yoke of the Law is not a burden and we even experience rest.

Paul connects obedience to faith in this scripture:

25 Now to Him who is able to strengthen you by my gospel and by the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery concealed for ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the writings of the prophets by the command of the eternal God, in order to lead all the nations to the obedience that comes from faith (Romans 16:25-26)

Paul evidently saw obedience to God as the outcome of faith. Faith without obedience is, as James said, dead, inoperable, useless. A person has not begun to trust Christ until they ENtrust themselves TO Christ. Obedience is relational because "if we love Him we will keep His commandments."

Obedience is Righteousness. Only God perfectly obeys God...

"Not My will, but Your's be done"

(Romans 10:3) ... by adding obedience of any kind to the gospel, you are attempting to establish your own righteousness. One mistake and your obedience is worthless.

A wise rhyme is...

"In my hands, nothing I bring,
To you, oh Lord, will I forever Cling...
Nothing of mine to You I bring,
To your cross, oh Lord, alone I Cling"

 

[Shasta]

Obedience is Righteousness. Only God perfectly obeys God...

"Not My will, but Your's be done"

(Romans 10:3) ... by adding obedience of any kind to the gospel, you are attempting to establish your own righteousness. One mistake and your obedience is worthless.

A wise rhyme is...

"In my hands, nothing I bring,
To you, oh Lord, will I forever Cling...
Nothing of mine to You I bring,
To your cross, oh Lord, alone I Cling"

Like many you ignore what is posted and go on to bring up another issue. Very well. Let's look at it this way. The Bible says,

30 Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

When a person who is convicted of their sins and repents, he is obeying the Lord's command to repent. Submitting[/B] to the Spirit's influence is obedience.

What is amazing is that so many assume that because we do not obey perfectly we do not have to obey at all...or they assume that whoever makes the simplistic statement "we must obey God" is speaking of the doctrine of "entire sanctification" which I do not believe. However, obeying the Spirit, is not my setting up my own righteousness. Paul wrote that we are to "yield our members to the Spirit." The scripture you cited is about the Jews who tried to establish their own righteousness through obedience to the Mosaic Law not walking in the Spirit and bearing the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

However, I do not believe any believer progressing through the "salvation package" does so without manifesting the spiritual evidence and works of the indwelling Holy Spirit that guarantees that salvation.

How much evidence? How many works?

:idunno:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Bible says,

30 Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

When a person who is convicted of their sins and repents, he is obeying the Lord's command to repent. Submitting[/B] to the Spirit's influence is obedience.

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "repent" is "to change one's mind" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

From the context the change of mind is in regard to these people changing their mind in regard what they thought about God. Paul told them:

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:29-30).​

 

[Shasta]

Yes, in the narratives the word "Jesus" is used as His name. But when referring to Him outside of the narratives this is how He should be addressed by Christians:

"For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil.3:20).​

Please consider His words here:

"Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am" (Jn.13:13).​

You are introducing commands the Lord never gave. Even if it were a practice for early Christians to say "The Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" you have insufficient evident to make this claim from the fact that "Jesus" was the common way of addressing Him in the gospels. The argument could also be made that longer titles were used primarily in the literary context of the epistles. As far as I can tell, the writers in the early Church (from 100-300AD) did not have a consistent way of addressing Him. They called Him, "Jesus," "Christ," "Jesus Christ," "Christ Jesus," and sometimes the "Lord Jesus Christ." In other words there was no customary practice that had been passed down to them from the Apostles.

This goes to a characteristic error in the hermeneutic of MAD in which the lack of positive evidence is ignored in favor of making inferences based upon extra-textual presuppositions. Now, it looks like even using the simple name of Jesus is part of a bygone dispensation. We must now employ longer titles as befitting believers who live in the current dispensation. Isn't there already enough bondage in the Churches without imposing requirements on how we address our Lord?

 

[Shasta]

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "repent" is "to change one's mind" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

From the context the change of mind is in regard to these people changing their mind in regard what they thought about God. Paul told them:

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:29-30).​

In Acts 17:29-30 Paul was speaking to a culture full of idolatry. It was not just that they had wrong "thoughts" or "ideas" in their minds that needed changing. Their souls were in bondage to the demons those idols represented. Not only that but their worship was infused with practices that bound the worshiper to their particular deity. Their beliefs were also culturally embedded and had been a part of their experience for generations. Changing that mindset was not as simple or as easy as deciding whether I am going shopping at WalMart instead of Albertsons. This is why Paul said that

4 The weapons of our warfare are not the weapons of the world. Instead, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.…(2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

He would not have needed such mighty Spiritual power to overthrow the strongholds in their minds if all that was required was simply to present a logical apologetic, upon which basis they could "change their minds."

One mistake you have made in defining the Greek word metanoia is that what you have identified only the literal definition (meta + noia) and have not searched out the connotations of the word. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (perhaps the most abbreviated lexicon) gives the following definition for repentance.

From metanoeo; (subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication, reversal (of (another's) decision) -- repentance.

Had you continued to read Thayer's Lexicon you would have read the following of metanoeo:

a change of mind: as it appears in one who repents of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done, Hebrews 12:17

especially the change of mind of those who have begun to abhor their errors and misdeeds, and have determined to enter upon a better course of life, so that it embraces both a recognition of sin and sorrow for it and hearty amendment, the tokens and effects of which are good deeds (Lactantius, 6, 24, 6)

that change of mind by which we turn from, desist from, etc. Hebrews 6:1
http://biblehub.com/greek/3341.htm

I have heard my own Pastor say "repentance" means simply "to change your mind" but this hardly captures the full import of the word. When God commands all men to repent He is commanding them to lay all their gods down, including Pride which is the primary god in the inner Kingdom of Self.

 

[Shasta]

How much evidence? How many works?

:idunno:

How about if there is no evidence of change and their sinful lifestyle continues unabated. Apparently whenever the Apostle John saw no change in a person claiming to be a believer, his conclusion was that they had never been born again.

9 Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil can be distinguished: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother.… (1 John 3:9-10 BSB).

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

How about if there is no evidence of change and their sinful lifestyle continues unabated. Apparently whenever the Apostle John saw no change in a person claiming to be a believer, his conclusion was that they had never been born again.

9 Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil can be distinguished: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother.… (1 John 3:9-10 BSB).

First... nice me...

The "sin" of the world is "unbelief"... which you are mastering.

Last... Not Nice Me...

Like all teachers of salvational unassurance and obedience, you all become a broken record stuck on God's Truth's favorite word and then all of you cockroach's skitter out of ToL's corners to high five one another's thinly veiled exaltation of self.

# Have a nice day, my six legged friend.

Yup... I said it... Yup I did that... Nope... I'm not always nice... Yup... You're correct, I'm not really listening to a word your flapping gums enunciate... one... second... longer.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

How about if there is no evidence of change and their sinful lifestyle continues unabated.

Wouldn't you need to monitor a person continually to know that?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This goes to a characteristic error in the hermeneutic of MAD in which the lack of positive evidence is ignored in favor of making inferences based upon extra-textual presuppositions. Now, it looks like even using the simple name of Jesus is part of a bygone dispensation. We must now employ longer titles as befitting believers who live in the current dispensation. Isn't there already enough bondage in the Churches without imposing requirements on how we address our Lord?

It is not a requirement but those of us who recognize Him as our Lord address Him that way just naturally.

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord" (1 Pet.3:15).​

"Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor.12:3).​

"Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am" (Jn.13:13).​

 

[patrick jane]

Wouldn't you need to monitor a person continually to know that?

Yes, you examine a person's every motive, thought and action, and then decide that there is no change, and they continue to sin "unabated"

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yes, you examine a person's every motive, thought and action, and then decide that there is no change, and they continue to sin "unabated"

Indeed, only God is qualified to be this kind of fruit inspector.

 

[Shasta]

Wouldn't you need to monitor a person continually to know that?

I guess you are right, unless their actions were so visible as to be obvious to everyone. I suppose the Apostle John was talking about cases like that. Of course, a person's sins can be invisible. It was not obvious at first that Simon the Magician had never really come to a saving knowledge of Christ but still had a demonic love of power and money until he offered to "buy" the Holy Spirit. Then Peter discerned that he was still "in the gall of bitterness, the bond of iniquity." Whatever the case, it is obvious that the Apostles did not believe in the modern idea that identifying certain actions as sins was "judging" and therefore forbidden by Jesus.

I am certainly not suggesting that we monitor people but, I have found that, sooner or later, people reveal themselves. I, for one, do not enjoy telling a believer that what they are in sin and do so only when I am put in that position. Still it is not "love" to pretend nothing is wrong.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have heard my own Pastor say "repentance" means simply "to change your mind" but this hardly captures the full import of the word. When God commands all men to repent He is commanding them to lay all their gods down, including Pride which is the primary god in the inner Kingdom of Self.

In the LXX there are several instances where the Greek word translated "repent" is used in the sense of just changing one's mind and not in regard to changing one's mind in regard to a sinful life style. For instance see 1 Samuel 15:29.

 

[Shasta]

Indeed, only God is qualified to be this kind of fruit inspector.

We are also told to "speak the truth in love that we might grow up in Him in all things." The word also says "confess your sins one to another." While no one should set themselves up as official fruit inspector, letting people go on in a delusion is not an act of love.

 

[Shasta]

In the LXX there are several instances where the Greek word translated "repent" is used in the sense of changing one's mind and not in regard to changing one's mind in regard to a sinful life style. For instance see 1 Samuel 15:29.

So you believe several instances in the LXX should govern the usage of the word in the Koine Greek of the NT. Since the word "repent" is usually in a moral context in the NT I assume that the word is more than merely changing one's opinion. If repenting of sin (and believing the gospel) is merely a mental exercise why do we require the conviction of the Holy Spirit before we do it?

 

[Shasta]

It is not a requirement but those of us who recognize Him as our Lord address Him that way just naturally.

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord" (1 Pet.3:15).​

"Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor.12:3).​

"Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am" (Jn.13:13).​

I see. It is not a requirement but those who are spiritually enlightened do it naturally. This form of reasoning still imposes an obligation whether you are willing to admit it or not since the inner circle who really reverence Christ will recognized by the special language they use. I say, that if God does not require such terminology then you have no right to judge people's motives by whether they use it or not.

The scriptures you have cited are about statements of belief. It is not a directive that we must use such titles whenever we speak to or about the Lord

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The scriptures you have cited are about statements of belief. It is not a directive that we must use such titles whenever we speak to or about the Lord

Call Him what you want to call Him. However, He did say that if you call Him "Lord" that you say well.

I will also defend the way by which I address Him by what He said at another place:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (Jn.5:23).​

Honor Him however you want. That is entirely up to you.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So you believe several instances in the LXX should govern the usage of the word in the Koine Greek of the NT.

Do you think that the meaning of that Greek word changed between the time when the LXX was translated and the time when the NT was written?