news:t7buuv4igmblvs97f1m2mbssqd4kfp2fq7@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:01:55 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
> <anybodyleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mujin" <baka@hornedking.com> wrote in message
> >news:ijutuvktmb75dhj541t3usdkqgs5qcfbd3@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:37:49 +0000 (UTC), Lenny Flank
> >> <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Constance Vigilant wrote:
> >>
> >> [piggy-backing to reply to Constance since the original hasn't reached
> >> me yet]
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Your response was very amusing, I thought. That and well written,
which
> >> >> always helps.
> >> >>
> >> >> I just want to add that if someone believes that doing abunch of
works
> >makes
> >> >> thema Christian, even if they saw their repentance as a 'work' and
got
> >saved
> >> >> by the quality of their own repentance, rather than solely by the
power
> >and
> >> >> mercy of Christ, then they would have missed the mark.
> >> >>
> >> >> We were talking about similar things in the thread with Charles C,
> >which
> >> >> unfortunately got rather acrimonious,
> >> >>as I think both he and I get quite
> >> >> passionate about what we think and it's good we were on Usenet and
not
> >in
> >> >> the same room, or voices might have been raised.
> >> >>
> >> >> In Charles case, he said he was a Calvinist for many years, and
> >believed in
> >> >> salvation by faith, and then he read the Bible at last and
discovered
> >that
> >> >> it doesn't say salvation by faith,
> >>
> >> On the contrary - he said it doesn't say salvation by faith *alone*.
> >>
> >> >>but talks a lot about the law and works
> >> >> and the requirements of God for holiness.
> >>
> >> Specifically, he gave a sound scriptural argument that demonstrated
> >> Jesus's position on the law and salvation: i.e. that the 613 point law
> >> of the Old Testament was the law of the flesh, and that to achieve
> >> paradise it is necessary to discard the flesh and accept him as lord,
> >> and *obey* his commands (which are specifically laid out in some of
> >> the verses Charles cited) as evidence of the sincerity of your vow to
> >> submit to him.
> >>
> >> Yes, the old law is obsolete and rejected.
> >> No, Jesus doesn't mean there are now *no* rules at all.
> >> Yes, faith in him and absolute submission to his holiness is
> >> necessary.
> >> No, faith isn't sufficient in itself: it's necessary to prove the
> >> sincerity of your faith through works as well - i.e. submission to the
> >> simple *spiritual* law he provides in place of the fleshly law that
> >> preceded him.
> >>
> >> >>The argument leaves aside the fact
> >> >> that most people believing in salvation by Grace do of course read
the
> >Bible
> >> >> from cover to cover, not a small minority as he said, which tends
> >rather to
> >> >> be the case with legalists. The point is that the Bible shows
standards
> >> >> required by God that no man but Christ can answer. the law is a
> >schoolmaster
> >> >> that shows us the holiness of God in a way we can understand and by
> >doing
> >> >> the law nobody can be justified; when we do it we don't need to be
> >thanked,
> >> >> we're just doing our job, and when we disobey, then we are damned,
as
> >it
> >> >> says 'accursed is he that continueth not in all points of the law'.
So
> >we
> >> >> are all cursed, and all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Once we
> >see
> >> >> that we cannot keep the law and are completely reliant on someone
else,
> >> >> namely Christ to do it for us and redeem us in his own
righteousness,
> >then
> >> >> we have learnt what the law has for us. Further works are purely of
> >> >> gratitude for salvation already granted, and are called fruits of
the
> >spirit
> >> >> in Galatians, which verses Charles twisted to try to make them
> >necessary to
> >> >> gain salvation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do I bring up Charles here, in a different thread?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because I didn't really know what to say to him earlier, when he
went
> >on his
> >> >> rant, and caused me, if I had said anything to him yesterday, to
have
> >been
> >> >> rather rude, and I try never to be that way. And now, on seeing this
> >point
> >> >> about whether we can fall from grace, the answer is clear. Paul says
in
> >> >> Galatians ye are fallen from grace to those who started to be
pursuaded
> >that
> >> >> God wanted their obedience to the law for their salvation, and not a
> >pure
> >> >> gift of God, as they had received it.
> >>
> >> Obedience to the OLD law, the fleshly law. But this isn't what
> >> Charles was talking about. He was talking about obedience to the
> >> spiritual law, the law that Jesus himself gave from his own mouth and
> >> through his apostles. Refuse to obey this law, he says, and your
> >> faith will not be enough to attain paradise.
> >>
> >> Charles provided more than adequate scriptural references to specific
> >> instances where Jesus says just this.
> >>
> >> >>And here it clicks. Charles believed
> >> >> and preached the Gospel of Grace, but fell from Grace when he
believed
> >that
> >> >> works were needed. Starting to believe in a works gospel when he had
> >> >> believed a Grace gospel caused him soon to stop believing in
anything,
> >so
> >> >> that he now presents as an atheist or agnostic, or whatever. I can
> >easlity
> >> >> understand that. For someone who has known the gospel of faith to
> >abandon
> >> >> that doctrine for works is a sure fire way to get so depressed about
> >our
> >> >> inability to do the works that the next stage is surely abandonment
of
> >the
> >> >> faith altogether, that which in worldly language is broadly
understood
> >by
> >> >> the Pauline term in Galatians "fallen from grace".
> >>
> >> You didn't understand the point Charles was trying to make at all, did
> >> you? Charles *knows* it's impossible to achieve perfection, he
> >> *knows* that perfection through works is an empty doctrine. But he
> >> didn't say it was a matter of salvation through works alone; anyone
> >> who read his post could have seen that, yet you refuse to - I wonder
> >> why? The point Charles made, and the point he supported excellently
> >> with a scriptural foundation, was that the Galatian fall from grace
> >> was about returning to the fleshly laws of Abraham and Moses. "Enough
> >> of the flesh!" Jesus tells us. "Purification of the flesh is
> >> meaningless! The sin that condemns you isn't a sin of fleshly
> >> cleanliness, but of *spiritual* disobedience."
> >>
> >> No one has grace - Original Sin prevents it. No manner of obeisance
> >> or prayer can clean us of sin - only the intervention of Jesus himself
> >> can pave the road to paradise. And he says he will intervene only if:
> >>
> >> 1. We submit in our hearts to him, and him alone.
> >> AND
> >> 2. We prove the sincerity of our faith and submission by obeying his
> >> commands - the laws of *spiritual* (not fleshly) cleanliness he
> >> directs us to uphold in the Gospel.
> >>
> >> Charles made it very clear, with lots and lots of evidence from the
> >> words of Jesus himself that *neither* of these is sufficient in and of
> >> itself. Jesus speaks plainly when he lists the new, spiritual laws
> >> that he expects Christians to be obedient to, and makes it clear that
> >> no matter how rich in faith you might be, the faith is empty without
> >> the surety of your sincerity in the form of works. By refusing to
> >> show your sincerity, by refusing to *act* with works, you say to the
> >> world "I do not know Him."
> >>
> >> God knows you mean well, but without the courage to back up your faith
> >> with obedience and public declaration for him in the form of works
> >> well meaning isn't enough - and Jesus *says* this plainly in many of
> >> the scriptures Charles cited.
> >>
> >> And yet...you attempt a vague hand-waving argument to rationalise your
> >> own failure to *obey* the one you claim to follow. Jesus commands you
> >> to work. Why do you deny him? Could it be that your faith is only in
> >> your mouth, not in your heart? Could it be that you don't have the
> >> courage to follow faith and trust with the obedience of works? Are
> >> you afraid that your works will never be enough? No matter! Jesus
> >> *knows* you can never do enough to atone; all he asks is for your
> >> faith and *obedience*, and in return he will wash you clean **when you
> >> reach the gates of paradise** so that you will be pure enough to take
> >> the place he has prepared for you.
> >>
> >> Charles supports this with scripture, with the words of Jesus himself.
> >> All you have is rationalisation, or so it seems. Can you support your
> >> doctrine of faith alone scripturally?
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know if he was a Christian or not.
> >>
> >> Judge not lest ye be judged.
> >>
> >> >>If so, then he needs to get back
> >> >> doctrinally onto salvation by grace through faith.
> >>
> >> But he's *NOT* denying faith! He's simply showing - through the words
> >> of Jesus himself - that faith alone is meaningless. Jesus demands
> >> obedience, he demands the courage to take the words of your mouth and
> >> *prove* their sincerity by obedience to the spiritual laws he ordains
> >> us to uphold. Only then can you be cleansed of your sin. Faith AND
> >> Works; neither alone is enough.
> >>
> >> >>Contrary to his claim, he
> >> >> will find that if he only reads scripture. He doesn't need to read
> >Calvinist
> >> >> or Evangelical literature.
> >>
> >> You didn't read his posting very closely, or you would have seen that
> >> his crisis came *because* he read scripture, and because he chose to
> >> base his faith on scripture alone.
> >>
> >> What do *you* base your faith on? Obviously not scripture, since
> >> scripture clearly tells us that Jesus wants faith AND works, but you
> >> insist on denying the works.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If he was never a Christian, it might possibly mean that even when
he
> >> >> claimed to believe in Grace, he was in his heart of hearts still
> >trusting in
> >> >> his works.
> >>
> >> As you are trusting in your faith alone? So, when they ask you will
> >> you answer "I do not know Him" or will you show the sincerity of your
> >> faith through works as he has commanded us?
> >>
> >> >>Now he knows the theory, and he really has to ask himself did I
> >> >> ever really trust in Christ wholly, or was I trusting in the quality
of
> >my
> >> >> own repentance? He can then manage to get born again really this
time,
> >being
> >> >> older and with hopefully more self-knowledge.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know which of the cases he's in, but I do know he needs to
stop
> >> >> believing the devil's lies.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> The devil's lies!? Is the Gospel Satan's lies? Charles gave you the
> >> scripture where Jesus clearly and explicitly commands not only faith
> >> but obedience to the new, spiritual laws he wants us to uphold.
> >>
> >> Search your heart and ask yourself why you deny him.
> >>
> >> --
> >> K
> >>
> >> When the sun shineth, make hay.
> >> John Heywood "The Proverbs of John Heywood" (1546)
> >>
> >
> >Maybe we should go through the entire New Testament and list all the
verses
> >that talk about the law and see if they means that people will actuially
be
> >able to keep that law, and then list all the verses that talk about free
> >salvation, not of works, with workd purely out of gratitude for salvation
> >already received, and see 1. which verses are more plentiful and 2. which
> >side has the better explanation of the "other side's" verses.
> >
> >Since that is gonna be quite a big project I want to make sure whether
you
> >are in agreement with the method, otherwise the work will be in vain and
you
> >and others could try to wriggle out of it when the results come in.
> >
> >First step; does anyone have a KJV in Excel format?
> >
> You can do this all you want, I do not care to partake in it. I
> devoted too many years of my life to just such a project, just not as
> asinine as using a spreadsheet and using statistics on the occurrence
> of words. (what was the name of the person that used excel to prove
> evolution wrong?)
>
> And I'll tell you right now why you CV, Davey, Mr. Wizard, or whatever
> else you want to be called, are going to fail.
You're trying to pick a fight with me because someone else has trodden on
your toes.
If I want a fight with you I'm quite able to handle it without assumed
personae.
You have no reason to assume Constance is anything other than she says she
is.
Kindly don't draw me in to your battles.
Now as to Antrinomianism, I don't see anyone preaching antinomianism.
Christians are to seek to please God. They don't get saved that way, though.
To get saved in your own works would mean that you would need perfect works.
I wouldn't begin to qualify and neither would anyone else, other than
Christ, who did qualify, with flying colours. "Christ died for sinners, the
just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God". If we can come alone,
then what was He thinking of?
If someone puts up no fight against sin, sure they need to assume something
went wrong with their new birth and start over.
If someone sometimes fails in the fight against sin, they should not be
surprised. this will happen. We get back on the path again, and God responds
always favourably to our repentance, which is what he promises to do.
I don't see anyone preaching for Christian pornstars, as you mention in
another post, but if someone has done that and wishes to repent, than as far
as I can see they can repent with the expectation of forgiveness.
And then I have to note that it is a curious thing that you are telling us
all how to live as Christians when you have given up on the religion
altogether yourself. I don't see the logic there.
If Christianity is not right then why are you preaching any version of it?
Hmmmmmmn?
Best,
Uncle Davey
|
|