Sin, Salvation, Grace..cont'd

[EricH]

We must keep in mind in Galatians 5:1,, as well as the entire Paulian epistles, that grace does not equate salvation. Instead grace is merel a method to salvation. This is shown in Ephesians 2:1 where Paul states by grace you have been saved. In other words, grace is not what saves us but instead an agent that brings us to faith, faith that saves us. Going back to galatians 5:4 Paul states that they have fallen from grace. What does this term mean? The verses prior to it is explaining the reprocussions for the Galatians beliefs that we must use the Mosaic laws in order to obtain salvation in the modern age. Thus verse four is saying they have fallen away from the true agent that brings man to salvation. He is condemning using the law in bringing people to salvation, or using the law as a replacement for grace (cross refrence 2:21 where law is mentioned as unworkable). Thus "fallen from grace" does not mean they have lost their salvation, it means that they cannot bring anyone to salvation because they have destroyed the agent that brings people to salvation. Thus, to assert that "fallen from grace" is refering to salvation takes the entire scripture out of context. Paul is not speaking of salvation at all in chapter five but instead he is speaking about the method to salvation.

Also, to expand upon Matthew 7:22-23, it is a clear cut case when looked at in the Greek.

[Kansasdad]

I'm disappointed that much of what I've taken the time to post has gone ignored...but oh well.

Tess you make me wary.

In Post #4 I responded to your questions,verses 4 different times, In post #24 I responded to 8 different verses, in post #15 1Diem responded to one of your verses, In post #21 tsth responded to one of your questions, in post #25 Fisher of men gave numerous, numerus responses. Your accusations are totally untrue, unfounded, and inaccurate. I have not even listed the many times I have responded to Eric and addressed his points directly. The reason these debates end up not being productive is because you take them in that direction.

You accuse me of using scripture to combat scripture yet that is exactly what you are doing, you accuse me of plucking out verses out of context, yet that is exactly what you have done. I have already pointed out where you did this in previous post right after you accuse me of doing it. I have over and over again asked you to stop putting in your personal jabs yet you refuse to stop. Do you want me to copy and paste where you have done this. Then you jump into another thread and try to do the same thing there. You have become a distraction to me that does no benefit. I am having a great conversation with Eric, Idem, tsth, cats, The objectivist and others before you highjacked this thread and moved it to a different area. Sorry Tess I have lost my patients with you. You stated from the first how (those of us apposing your view) do not offer our comments with grace, yet you are the one who has shown little grace. Tess I am sorry I am being so blunt but you don't seem to get it. The way you say thing is an obstacle to hearing your words. EricH has made a very good and compelling post that deserves my respect, attention and thought. I hope this distraction does not stop the discussions, However I find that it will be better for me not to respond to your post, on this thread and probably on others as well.

First, it's honestly sort of unfair that you insist that we rehash the same few verses, when you are unwilling to address the many others Eric and I have brought forth. In essence you are using Scripture to combat Scripture.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

[apothanein kerdos]

For a 41 year old man you certainly are beginning to act quite childish. The fact is none of Tessie's responses were truly responded to. Instead it was a re-hashing of what she had already addressed.

My advice to you kansasdad is to grow up, act a bit more mature, and realize that you, and no one else, did respond, it was merely a rehashing of previous posts. Your ad hominem style of debate is what is making us weary, of appealing to emotions and not the facts.

Furthermore, when you respond to a post, simply saying, "Nu-uh, this scripture says this!" is not a response. Whilst Tess offered analysis and counter interpretation on a passage, you and others merely brought up new analysis and new scriptures whilst completely bypassing what she said. You ignored her analysis and refused to reply to her analysis. This is what she means by ignoring her. Putting another person's in words in quote and typing out words does not mean you have responded. Putting thoughtful analysis that is in direct response to what she has stated is responding. By this standard your posts do not qualify as a response.

[Kabowd]

Sadly, I expected an ad hominem response. Still, you'd rather attack me personally than address the issue at hand.

In Post #4 I responded to your questions,verses 4 different times,

No, you ignored the majority of my post in order to re-state what you had already stated. As Super Jew pointed out, you offered no other interpretation or further insight into any Scripture. You have failed repeatedly to address Scripture, especially with regard to the original text.

In post #24 I responded to 8 different verses

Most of which were you repeating what you had already stated about the other verses. Yes, you vaguely responded to a few...but then proceeded to add additional verses that you subsequently misapplied (which I thoroughly addressed).

in post #15 1Diem responded to one of your verses, In post #21 tsth responded to one of your questions, in post #25 Fisher of men gave numerous, numerus responses. Your accusations are totally untrue, unfounded, and inaccurate.

Incorrect. As I pointed out in my last lengthy reply...there are NUMEROUS Scriptures and biblical accounts which I brought forth and no one has addressed. I re-posted them because they were ignored. My "accusations" about being ignored are completely accurate and true (see the evidence in my last post).

I have not even listed the many times I have responded to Eric and addressed his points directly. The reason these debates end up not being productive is because you take them in that direction.

Personal attack. Not even an attempt to address the content of my posts.

You accuse me of using scripture to combat scripture yet that is exactly what you are doing, you accuse me of plucking out verses out of context, yet that is exactly what you have done. I have already pointed out where you did this in previous post right after you accuse me of doing it.

You did no such thing. You accused me of taking a verse out of context, but failed to prove that I had done so with Scriptural accuracy. Basically, you were responding with nothing substantial to offer except a "Nu uh, you are taking it out of context!" As Super Jew stated..this does not constitute a valid response.

I have over and over again asked you to stop putting in your personal jabs yet you refuse to stop.

Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. More ad hominem, still not addressing the content of my posts.

Do you want me to copy and paste where you have done this.

Sure..so I can respond with copying and pasting where you've done so too? Like your entire last post? Where would that get us? I'd prefer that you adhere to Proverbs 19:11 (as I encouraged you via a PM), show your wisdom and maturity by overlooking an offense. Instead of choosing to judge me based on my posting style, why not show yourself wise by responding to what I've posted instead of how I've posted it? Is it because you have nothing to respond with..so you just attack me personally instead?

Then you jump into another thread and try to do the same thing there. You have become a distraction to me that does no benefit. I am having a great conversation with Eric, Idem, tsth, cats, The objectivist and others before you highjacked this thread and moved it to a different area. Sorry Tess I have lost my patients with you.

More accusations and personal attack. Sorry Kansasdad, you never showed yourself as having any patience to begin with. I sent you a private message right off the bat explaining who I am and hoping to head off any negativity...you responded immediately with a judgmental and harsh attitude. It was evident from the start that you would resort to personal attack rather than the issues.

You stated from the first how (those of us apposing your view) do not offer our comments with grace, yet you are the one who has shown little grace. Tess I am sorry I am being so blunt but you don't seem to get it. The way you say thing is an obstacle to hearing your words.

There are numerous people who would disagree with you, Kansasdad. Bluntness I don't mind, it's false accusations that I don't appreciate. I'd even accept your bluntness if you had something substantial to offer regarding the topic..however, apparently you are not able to do the same. You have chosen to degrade me publicly (which is unscriptural by the way), attack me...and then have the audacity top accuse me of hijacking the topic. I think anyone with an IQ over plant life can read through this thread and see that I have offered a substantial amount of input into this topic..and had thus far tried to refrain from making it personal. I would've continued on target had my integrity not been insulted.

I hope this distraction does not stop the discussions, However I find that it will be better for me not to respond to your post, on this thread and probably on others as well.

Basically your entire last post proves that you are prideful and unwilling to learn. A truly patient, wise and humble person would not respond the way you have in your last post (as well as the way you publicly scorned me in the other topic). In all honesty, you have revealed your heart. Apparently you are unable to respond to the arguments I've made, so you'd rather shift the attention to my posting style and make the topic all about how much of a "distraction" I am. Is that really all you have? This tactic may have worked for you on other discussion boards, but sorry...it doesn't work here. You've shown yourself to be unteachable and lacking in grace...exactly as I predicted the discussion would go.

Sadly, I don't expect you to address any of the issues and interpretations I brought forth. You'll ignore them (because you have nothing to counter them with), you'll throw out more misapplied Scripture (because you can't reconcile them with the others brought forth) or you'll continue attacking me personally. Either way, because of your unteachable and easily offended spirit it's evident this discussion has ceased to be very fruitful.

[Kabowd]

Furthermore, when you respond to a post, simply saying, "Nu-uh, this scripture says this!" is not a response. Whilst Tess offered analysis and counter interpretation on a passage, you and others merely brought up new analysis and new scriptures whilst completely bypassing what she said. You ignored her analysis and refused to reply to her analysis. This is what she means by ignoring her. Putting another person's in words in quote and typing out words does not mean you have responded. Putting thoughtful analysis that is in direct response to what she has stated is responding. By this standard your posts do not qualify as a response.

Thank you! Exactly.

[Kansasdad]

We must keep in mind in Galatians 5:1,, as well as the entire Paulian epistles, that grace does not equate salvation. Instead grace is merel a method to salvation. This is shown in Ephesians 2:1 where Paul states by grace you have been saved. In other words, grace is not what saves us but instead an agent that brings us to faith, faith that saves us. Going back to galatians 5:4 Paul states that they have fallen from grace. What does this term mean? The verses prior to it is explaining the reprocussions for the Galatians beliefs that we must use the Mosaic laws in order to obtain salvation in the modern age. Thus verse four is saying they have fallen away from the true agent that brings man to salvation. He is condemning using the law in bringing people to salvation, or using the law as a replacement for grace (cross refrence 2:21 where law is mentioned as unworkable). Thus "fallen from grace" does not mean they have lost their salvation, it means that they cannot bring anyone to salvation because they have destroyed the agent that brings people to salvation. Thus, to assert that "fallen from grace" is refering to salvation takes the entire scripture out of context. Paul is not speaking of salvation at all in chapter five but instead he is speaking about the method to salvation.

Also, to expand upon Matthew 7:22-23, it is a clear cut case when looked at in the Greek.

[apothanein kerdos]

There were no insults, merely observations of how you were reacting to what Tess had addressed. I stand by what I said and believe it to be accurate.

[Kansasdad]

We must keep in mind in Galatians 5:1,, as well as the entire Paulian epistles, that grace does not equate salvation. Instead grace is merel a method to salvation. This is shown in Ephesians 2:1 where Paul states by grace you have been saved. In other words, grace is not what saves us but instead an agent that brings us to faith, faith that saves us. Going back to galatians 5:4 Paul states that they have fallen from grace. What does this term mean? The verses prior to it is explaining the reprocussions for the Galatians beliefs that we must use the Mosaic laws in order to obtain salvation in the modern age. Thus verse four is saying they have fallen away from the true agent that brings man to salvation. He is condemning using the law in bringing people to salvation, or using the law as a replacement for grace (cross refrence 2:21 where law is mentioned as unworkable). Thus "fallen from grace" does not mean they have lost their salvation, it means that they cannot bring anyone to salvation because they have destroyed the agent that brings people to salvation. Thus, to assert that "fallen from grace" is refering to salvation takes the entire scripture out of context. Paul is not speaking of salvation at all in chapter five but instead he is speaking about the method to salvation.

I have said all along that I agree it is his grace that allows for our salvation, our works can not earn it.  I guess my question is can we ever loose Gods grace.  His gift. Does God extend his gift just once never to extend it again? We are given his gift because of our faith. As you stated it is faith that saves us.  So as I have asked then how do you define faith.  I have no problems with your reasoning and logic stated above.  That makes sense.

Also, to expand upon Matthew 7:22-23, it is a clear cut case when looked at in the Greek.

[apothanein kerdos]

I have said all along that I agree it is his grace that allows for our salvation, our works can not earn it.  I guess my question is can we ever loose Gods grace.  His gift. Does God extend his gift just once never to extend it again? We are given his gift because of our faith. As you stated it is faith that saves us.  So as I have asked then how do you define faith.  I have no problems with your reasoning and logic stated above.  That makes sense.

We must determine what salvation is first, if it is a one time act of if it is something that must be maintained. If it must be maintained, if we continually have to use grace to obtain faith which is salvation, then in essence salvation is by works. While salvation may not be initially gained by works, it certainly must be maintained by works and if works are not done it is lost. Thus it becomes salvation by works.

So what is faith? Faith is the acceptance of Christ as Lord and allowing Him to come in and begin a transformation within one's life. Salvation is not a pit stop in that, someone says a prayer, they are saved, and justified. While a person is saved from the isolation of hell upon the point of salvation, the person begins a journey that brings them closer to God and works out their salvation. This is what faith brings about. A lack of faith, a rejection of grace while a child of God simply means we are retarding our growth in Christ and in some instances stunting it. However we never stop growing. We must remember that true salvation is a journey that takes a person along a growth pattern that is completely guided by the Holy Spirit. While that person can step out of God's Will (aka sin) ultimately they do not have the final say, God does.

Faith is letting God kill you and live within you.

This is an excellent post concerning my example of people I know who claim to be saved but continue to do horrid things.  According to this they never really accepted Gods Grace in the first place because they never had real faith in the first place.

So again How do we know if we have real faith

John Calvin had it right in perseverance of the saints (note, I am not a Calvinist, I believe in free will). Perseverance in salvation proves salvation. This means after a time of proving growth, or of demonstrating the faith (working out one's faith) we can begin to know we have faith. Does this mean we will never sin, or never backslide for a period? Of course not, though the work of God is perfect He sometimes allows us to run away Him in order to either demonstrate His power or show what life is like without Him. Just as Hosea, the representative of God in his predicament, let Gomer go God will let us go. However He will pursue us if we are truly His children.

Thus, to know if we have real faith we must look at our works. A true child of God demonstrates his love for his Father. If a husband said he loved his wife but had no actions to show for it, would his words mean much? While the marriage is still there, the love dwindles. It is the same with us and God. Faith without works brings about the question of if a person truly has faith. In other words, works do not maintain faith but instead are the proof that the faith is there.

But is this all inclusive. God states there will be a group of people who approach me like this, and these people never had faith and therefore I never new them.

But does this preclude that there could be another group of people that approach God whom had faith but walked away from it. This verse definitely establishes that many who profess to be with God are liers. But it does not discount the other possibility.

When it comes to judgement with Christ it is extremely black and white. There are goats and there are sheep. There are those He knows and those He doesn't know. This passage doesn't limit it to solely two groups, but instead talks about true believers and those that claimed His name but never truly accepted it. In other words, Christ is saying that those that claimed His name but did not show it never had the faith to begin with. We cannot walk away form faith because once we accept faith our life and end condition no longer is within our control.

The further context of the scripture shows that Jesus is speaking of false prophets, or what He called false prophets (teachers). These are people who under the guise of the name of Christ would teach a message that hurt Christians. Christ is saying that in order to tell a true Christian from a false one is to look at the fruit he bears.

Also, add to the fact that the Bible does not speak of people who fall from faith. Jesus never even addresses the concept, nor do any of the epistles. The concept simply is not in the Bible and the only way to truly draw the concept involves the twisting of scripture and ignoring the context that scripture is found within. The idea of faith is that it's a covenant that both man and God enter into. Part of this covenant is relasing our will over to God...though we may attempt to break this covenant God ultimately brings us back to it. This is seen in how God treated the Hebrews when they attempted to run away from the covenant He had established with them. He always brought them back to it.

[Kansasdad]

I think the parable of the Prodigal son demonstrates what you are saying. We have the father, who would be God, we have his children who would be us who are