Mr. 5020
New member
Self-righteousness? What are you talking about?
Attn: godrulz, AMR and Sozo!
- Thread starter Lighthouse
- Start date
- Status
Sozo
New member
You think you are right, because you do right, so you enjoy going around pointing your finger at those who don't do right. You should spend more time focusing on what people believe, just as Christ did. Inside, not outside of the cup.
Mr. 5020
New member
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have made the sovereignty of God a salvific issue here. Yet above you bemoan being labeled the same non-Christian, and hence serving another master, that you would label others. You are either foolishly double-minded, or you are perniciously conscious of what you are doing and saying. Which is it?
Last edited:
eveningsky339
New member
Sozo and Lighthouse,
Say something without insulting someone. I dare you.
Say something without insulting someone. I dare you.
The bottom line is that Sozo has not changed his mind on this.
What's the difference?
Neither Jesus nor Paul divorced belief and practice. It is both/and, not either/or (orthodoxy and orthopraxy).
You say that as though I never do.
They are aspects of the process of redeeming sinful man to godly saint. Justification deals with the past; sanctification deals with the present; glorification deals with the future.
There is a sense that we are sanctified (past tense) at justification. We are initially set apart as holy unto God (there are a couple texts for this; monergistic; positional). There is also a sense that we progressively grow and mature in our knowledge of Christ (explicit verses) until we see Him face to face and even our bodies are raised and glorified. Many more verses picture sanctification as progressive and cooperative (synergistic; practical).
Hebrews 10:14 KJV
John Sanders, in a paper on the strident attacks on Open Theism, wisely notes that many of the attacks are by Calvinists who are against other free theisms as well. The Evangelical Society smeared his and Pinnock's name over supposed inerrancy issues. They figured that since OT deny EDF, they must be denying the inerrancy of Scripture.
This is like saying modalists or Arians who base their views on an infallible Bible reject inerrancy. This is false. When people say 'the Bible clearly teaches', they seem to be saying 'our interpretation of Scripture is inerrant.'
This is to confuse the inerrant Scripture with our fallible understanding of it. Our subjective interpretations of Scripture are human understandings and are fallible because we are finite and never know all there is to know AND the effects of sin which can distort our reasoning process as we interpret Scripture (equally capable, godly believers disagree on interpretation while claiming Spirit illumination?!).
Application: Sozo and I and others can agree on the essentials of the faith, but disagreeing about OSAS, 2 vs 1 nature in Christ, Christians can sin or not, Jesus can sin or not, positional vs progressive sanctification, tongues or not, etc. should not be seen as one being a demon-possessed, Christ-hating pig, while the other being infallible (not to mention names).
Mature believers understand these basic concepts and work for love, unity, and dialogue in the Church without compromising biblical convictions. Those who resort to extreme fundamentalism/dogmatism or ad hominem attacks, shut down the needed dialogue as we explore issues that have not been resolved fully for centuries.
As an aside, Rome was not built in a day, nor was Calvinism. Open Theism is on the right track, but needs more time to develop a solid, biblical theology. Calvin had comments about Arminian proof texts, but they were not always solid. OT's are wrestling with biblical evidence for our position, but need time and grace as we learn together to be faithful to Scripture vs cling to philosophically tainted traditions that may not always be right.
This is like saying modalists or Arians who base their views on an infallible Bible reject inerrancy. This is false. When people say 'the Bible clearly teaches', they seem to be saying 'our interpretation of Scripture is inerrant.'
This is to confuse the inerrant Scripture with our fallible understanding of it. Our subjective interpretations of Scripture are human understandings and are fallible because we are finite and never know all there is to know AND the effects of sin which can distort our reasoning process as we interpret Scripture (equally capable, godly believers disagree on interpretation while claiming Spirit illumination?!).
Application: Sozo and I and others can agree on the essentials of the faith, but disagreeing about OSAS, 2 vs 1 nature in Christ, Christians can sin or not, Jesus can sin or not, positional vs progressive sanctification, tongues or not, etc. should not be seen as one being a demon-possessed, Christ-hating pig, while the other being infallible (not to mention names).
Mature believers understand these basic concepts and work for love, unity, and dialogue in the Church without compromising biblical convictions. Those who resort to extreme fundamentalism/dogmatism or ad hominem attacks, shut down the needed dialogue as we explore issues that have not been resolved fully for centuries.
As an aside, Rome was not built in a day, nor was Calvinism. Open Theism is on the right track, but needs more time to develop a solid, biblical theology. Calvin had comments about Arminian proof texts, but they were not always solid. OT's are wrestling with biblical evidence for our position, but need time and grace as we learn together to be faithful to Scripture vs cling to philosophically tainted traditions that may not always be right.
Sozo
New member
Another one of your godless false teachings, and more evidence that you do not know the gospel.
Both Jesus and Paul made the distinction between faith and works. You do not, because you are of the devil.
Yes, this is the one proof text of my first point about initial setting apart using past tense. Now, you must look up dozens or hundreds of other verses that use the word or root words and note the different verb tenses and contexts that develop the other theme of an ongoing, practical work of the Spirit from conversion to death or Second Coming.
2 Peter 1:3-11; I Peter 1:13-16; 2 Cor. 7:1; Rom. 6-8; Eph. 4-6, Heb. 6, etc. shed some light on this (expository dictionaries of sanctify, sanctified, etc. will show your verse is only one e.g. among a semantical range of meanings for this concept/word). This is the danger of building doctrines on one proof text instead of all relevant verses in context.
In the book on sanctification (5 views) I have mentioned, the Calvinists, Reformed, Arminian, Pentecostal, Augustinian-dispensational, Keswickian, etc. views did not dispute the biblical evidence for positional and practical/progresive sanctification.
This is the danger of Bob George's myopic view boiling everything down to 'life' initially without fleshing out the rest of the story.
Jesus and Paul both taught about faith and works in proper perspective. Paul's letters often were 1/2 doctrinal/belief with the last half being an application of this to practical Christian living flowing out of this.
I distinguish the root of faith from the fruit of works (Eph. 2:8-10). This is a different issue than my valid point that beliefs and practices are related, not diametrically opposed.
If I believe I can fly and jump off a building and die, I would say my false beliefs led to foolish practices. Those who have correct beliefs would live because they would not jump.
What on earth is your beef with this basic concept that no sane person would dispute?
:help:How is it that stating truth a child can understand is tantamount to proof that I have a false gospel?
Mr. 5020
New member
Are you saying that a person is saved by their works, or that works are simply proof of that salvation?Jesus and Paul both taught about faith and works in proper perspective. Paul's letters often were 1/2 doctrinal/belief with the last half being an application of this to practical Christian living flowing out of this.
I distinguish the root of faith from the fruit of works (Eph. 2:8-10). This is a different issue than my valid point that beliefs and practices are related, not diametrically opposed.
If I believe I can fly and jump off a building and die, I would say my false beliefs led to foolish practices. Those who have correct beliefs would live because they would not jump.
What on earth is your beef with this basic concept that no sane person would dispute?
How is it that stating truth a child can understand is tantamount to proof that I have a false gospel?
A person is not saved by self-righteous works (Eph. 2:8-10; Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10; Rom. 1:16; Titus 3:5; I Jn. 5:11-13).
Faith, not works, is the condition of receiving salvation in Christ provided by His finished work that we cannot add to.
Works are the fruit of this saving faith as God works in and through us. It contrasts with mere mental belief like the non-saved devil has (James 1).
I have a thread on justification by grace through faith (Paul) and faith that bears fruit in subsequent practical Christian living (James).
Sozo misrepresents my views here, so get it from the horse's mouth.
Blessing in Him (Eph. 1:3).
Mr. 5020
New member
So, you would say that works are simply proof of salvation then, right?
Sozo
New member
Faith is the evidence that a person is saved, not works. When people teach that works are the evidence, then if the works are not there, then you are not saved. Therefore, for them, works are the proof, not faith in Christ. However, it is the work of God in Christ that saves us, if we believe in Him. We are to walk by faith in Jesus, not put confidence in the works of the flesh. God is at work in us, but that is His business, not yours, and certainly not the business of self-righteous pigs like William (godrulz).
- Status