It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Salvation By Works Alone, Why "Free Grace" is a False Doctrine

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




Against that are the clear requirements for righteousness in order to stand justified.


No, those are fruits of Justification, and the lack thereof is a proof that the faith one claims to have is dead. Besides, it's a stupid argument, people who love Christ desire to put the old man far away from themselves. The sins I used to enjoy I find repulsive now and I don't do them, I have no desire to anymore, they don't even sound fun.

Plenty of places in the Word call us to holiness. And Paul mocks the idea that we can continue to live in sin that grace might abound. You're arguing against a claim the Bible already calls absurd.




posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You keep falling back to the Tenach and the law of Moses because you do not believe the second covenant, when the second covenant was plainly prophecied of in the OT. You're doing exactly what the orthodox jews do even if your reasons are different.

If the Old Law could have been kept it would have been and the Diaspora would never have happened. The Diaspora was the direct result of them failing to keep God's commandments. As NuT mentioned earlier, they broke the law when Moses was still ontop of Sinai. I can show you were the prophecy for the second covenant is buried right in the OT and it pops up again in the NT in Hebrews 8.
Jeremiah 31: 31-34

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

This prophecy was 500 years before Christ's crucifixtion, when the Babylonian Exile was happening. See right here God is telling Israel that they broke his covenant and that he was going to make a new one, but not like the covenant of the old law. The secon covenant he writes his laws on your mind and on your heart so that you desire to do them, and those laws are found in the NT, Yeshua tells you exactly what they are and those are to #1 love him with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and #2 love your enemies as you love your friends. He doesn't want goats and sheep sacrificed to him, he wants you to offer compassion, forgiveness and mercy. Our sacrifices to him are burdens of love.


edit on 21-4-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Amen.

Don't forget Christ entered into the new covenant at the last supper the night before His crucifixion.(Matthew)


edit on 21-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Aorist Verbs FTW!!!

Here you demonstrate the cult member type approach that you take; rather than as a person who is seeking the truth, you seek to win victories for the sake of the cult.
If you had actually cared about truth, you would have taken the trouble to look up the verb form of the word in this verse translated as "saved" and realized it was not in fact of the Aorist tense.
I was getting a bit careless in my post last night and failed to be more specific as to what I meant as far as a biblical mention of people who are saved in the past tense. What I should have said was that it does not call specific individuals as being saved. What the writer of Ephesians (pretending to be speaking as the Apostle, Paul, in a letter by consensus acknowledged by biblical scholars who specialize in the subject, to be a forgery) is discussing the work of Christ among the entire congregation of the Ephesian church. My point being that nowhere in the Bible do you find people addressing themselves or other individuals as being "saved".
edit on 21-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

What other kind of grace is there? Free Grace is like saying Flaming Fire.

"Free Grace" is a theological term.

Free Grace theology is a soteriological view within Protestantism teaching that everyone receives eternal life the moment they believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Lord.
en.wikipedia.org...
Now this in itself would not be offensive to me if it is understood as a conditional salvation. Which by the way I did not make up but is one of the main concepts in Seventh Day Adventism, so you could accuse me of being cultish but I don't accept an entire package deal, and reserve the right to differ when I do not find things supportable by a straightforward reading of the Bible. Which by the way is allowable, where the SDA church does not require, as a condition of membership, a strict adherence to any sort of list of beliefs, other than what I mentioned on the rapture thread, which is a basic belief in what it means to be a Christian, including baptism.

edit on 21-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Im glad you're done. What's next to discuss?



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Ephesians 2:8-9 (AMP)

Just in case there are certain people not willing to take my word for it that Ephesians is a forgery, I could for the sake of argument, take a look at this verse to see if there is anything we can make of it.
To start with, it is not describing a condition that can be applied on an individual level, though obviously there are people who go ahead and apply it thus to themselves as a way of reinforcing in their minds this cultish philosophy given to those inclined to behave in an evil sort of way by habit, and have never quite brought themselves to the point of being able to let those cherished habits go.
I want to focus in on one word in verse 8, in this post, the one translated as "saved".

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— (NRSV)

The word in the Greek text is σεσῳσμένοι. That is a form of the word, σῴζω, transliterated as, sózó.
The way it is described in the Robinson Morphology Code format is:
Tense: peRfect
Voice: Passive
Mood: Participle
Case: Nominative
Number: Plural
Gender: Masculine
This particular grammatical form of sózó, sesōsmenoi, is found in the NT twice, both in Ephesians 2, in verses 8 and 9.
The verb form in general, meaning applying to any word, and not just for the word, sózó, is found in the NT 69 times. I don't know right now where all of them are, but I know some, enough for now to get an idea of how this form modifies the word's usage in a sentence. I could give a couple examples and comment on them.
Mark 15:32
Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also taunted him.

Here the word in this verb form is the word translated as, crucified. You could say that they were crucified by being nailed to crossed, but it is passive nominative, so it is talking about the fact that at the particular time the story is describing them, they were in fact nailed to crosses.
John 1:24
Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.

Here the word translated as "had been sent" is the word, apestalmenoi, meaning ones who had been sent. This is a form of the same word where we get the term, Apostles. At the moment they are being described in the story, these people were acting as apostles of "the Pharisees". Though they at some earlier point were made apostles by being given instructions to do something in a remote place from where the Pharisees were, the word is again, passive nominative, so it is describing one particular situation, where in that scenario, they were working on behalf of someone else. It does not mean that they were now, and forevermore, to be considered apostles of the Pharisees.
edit on 21-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


What is the Greek name of the "perfect" tense? What does the perfect tense imply?

Thats what the AORIST tense is, the "perfect" indicitive.



edit on 21-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

No, those are fruits of Justification, and the lack thereof is a proof that the faith one claims to have is dead.
Works are the fruit, as I recall. Is there something I am missing?
What I was talking about, that the quote above was a reply to, is my understanding (which I did not elaborate on) that the requirement for justification is righteousness. You seem to have it backwards, which is that justification produces fruit of righteousness, which to me seems to be a contradiction of what justification is.
Maybe a better description of what is going on is that there are people who, through the agency of Jesus and the holy Spirit, have by faith a form of salvation, meaning they believe there is a salvation out there and believe they can attain it, though behind this is the understanding that there are things involved before it is realized. In the process of attaining this goal, salvation, they have the Holy Spirit active inside them to where they behave a certain way, doing certain acts or deeds, which God finds acceptable.
For the sake of argument, let's say a person in this condition just described dies, for whatever reason, and goes to judgment. This condition of righteousness, as discernible through these good deeds, allow this person to be declared in the form of a verdict of this judgment, to be justified. At this point, the subject of this example has moved from the condition of having a hypothetical salvation which he believed he could have, through faith, to a condition of having his faith realized and being saved in reality.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Don't forget Christ entered into the new covenant at the last supper the night before His crucifixion.

It does not say anything of the sort.
What do you mean by "entered in"? Do you mean he entered into an agreement? An agreement with who? And why is it at that moment?
I don't see this as anything other than a declaration before the crucifixion, that his death was serving a purpose, and it was God's will that it be done. What Jesus was instituting at the Last Supper was a method of keeping in mind his personal sacrifice towards the bringing about of a way to salvation. A "New Covenant" is a figurative way to describe the new system of salvation, by recalling what existed earlier with Moses, and what was being replaced.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


What is the Greek name of the "perfect" tense? What does the perfect tense imply?

Thats what the AORIST tense is, the "perfect" indicitive.



edit on 21-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


What is the Greek term for the "perfect" tense jm since you so kindly brought it up? Go on, tell us.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

No, those are fruits of Justification, and the lack thereof is a proof that the faith one claims to have is dead.
Works are the fruit, as I recall. Is there something I am missing?
What I was talking about, that the quote above was a reply to, is my understanding (which I did not elaborate on) that the requirement for justification is righteousness. You seem to have it backwards, which is that justification produces fruit of righteousness, which to me seems to be a contradiction of what justification is.
Maybe a better description of what is going on is that there are people who, through the agency of Jesus and the holy Spirit, have by faith a form of salvation, meaning they believe there is a salvation out there and believe they can attain it, though behind this is the understanding that there are things involved before it is realized. In the process of attaining this goal, salvation, they have the Holy Spirit active inside them to where they behave a certain way, doing certain acts or deeds, which God finds acceptable.
For the sake of argument, let's say a person in this condition just described dies, for whatever reason, and goes to judgment. This condition of righteousness, as discernible through these good deeds, allow this person to be declared in the form of a verdict of this judgment, to be justified. At this point, the subject of this example has moved from the condition of having a hypothetical salvation which he believed he could have, through faith, to a condition of having his faith realized and being saved in reality.


Dont know how much gardening you've done but you cant grow fruit unless you're first connected to the vine. You dont grow fruit so that you can hope to be connected to the vine.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Don't forget Christ entered into the new covenant at the last supper the night before His crucifixion.

It does not say anything of the sort.
What do you mean by "entered in"? Do you mean he entered into an agreement? An agreement with who? And why is it at that moment?
I don't see this as anything other than a declaration before the crucifixion, that his death was serving a purpose, and it was God's will that it be done. What Jesus was instituting at the Last Supper was a method of keeping in mind his personal sacrifice towards the bringing about of a way to salvation. A "New Covenant" is a figurative way to describe the new system of salvation, by recalling what existed earlier with Moses, and what was being replaced.


Christ says so Himself in the last supper narriative in Matthew.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
I'm not giving Greek lessons.
You are the one who claims to be the expert.
All I claim is that I know more than you, regardless of your claim, which I do not believe.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Dont know how much gardening you've done but you cant grow fruit unless you're first connected to the vine. You dont grow fruit so that you can hope to be connected to the vine.
You're mixing metaphors until they make no sense.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Christ says so Himself in the last supper narriative in Matthew.

Maybe not everyone is a prophet like you claim to be (along with being a perfected saint), so it would be helpful to us mortals if you could explain it.
edit on 21-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Christ says so Himself in the last supper narriative in Matthew.

Maybe not everyone is a prophet like you claim to be (along with being a perfected saint), so it would be helpful to us mortals if you could explain it.
edit on 21-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Prophet is a calling, read Ephesians 4. And I've never claimed to be a perfected saint. No saint of God is perfect.

And there is no point explaining anything to you, you dont listen to anyone. Go buy another book if you want to learn something new.

edit on 21-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Dont know how much gardening you've done but you cant grow fruit unless you're first connected to the vine. You dont grow fruit so that you can hope to be connected to the vine.
You're mixing metaphors until they make no sense.


I dont know what else to tell ya then, you dont get the plain text, dont grasp the metaphor. Not much else left to tell ya there ol chap.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
I'm not giving Greek lessons.


Thank you Jesus.. Amen.

Here allow me. I said that word was in the Aorist tense, you disagreed, then quoted the breakdown which said the tense was the "perfect" tense..

Which is the "AORIST TENSE". You just swollowed your foot. You said NO then proved what I said was correct.

Epic facepalm.



edit on 21-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Aorist Tense
The aorist is said to be "simple occurrence" or "summary occurrence", without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action.

Perfect Tense
The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.
www.ntgreek.org...

I have no idea where you are getting your information from.

Verbs are conjugated in four main combinations of tense and aspect (present, future, perfect, and aorist)
en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 21-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join