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

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Sucks for the people who lived before the exodus then huh? And go look at Exodus 24, the covenant was broken before Moses came down from the mountain. The Bible ALSO repeatedly says no one is righteous, and that no man can keep the Law in it's entirety, and that to fail in 1 part is to fail it all.

Then there is a contradiction in your bible.
Because it also says that the law is easy.... and that those who keep the law are considered righteous.
Read Jesus' own words regarding the teachers of the law.

"So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

Jesus endorsed the law being taught by them, and taught people to "do as they say"... but not do "what they do" because they were hypocrites who never kept the law themselves.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


The second covenant did not terminate the law as you believe.

Don't listen to me, listen to Jesus.

1. Regarding the teachers of the law...
"So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
Jesus endorsed the law being taught by them, and taught people to "do as they say"... but not do "what they do" because they were hypocrites who never kept the law themselves.

2. Regarding the law's importance...
until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Pay attention to "until heaven and earth disappears."


3. Regarding the law and righteousness...
-I could go on and on, but I'll just pick one from Revelations... written AFTER the death of Jesus.
'Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.' -Revelation 14:12

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Once again, a distinction is made based on how people go about the law.

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.

If the old law could not be kept, God would not have said that it was "easy"...and that it is to be eternal.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Then there is a contradiction in your bible.

You've only found one? There are hundreds of apparent contradictions. They are called a "Remez", or a hint to something deeper. Basically a sign that reads:

"Dig Here, slow down you'll miss something."

Most folks are ignorant to Biblical Hermeneutics and never dig to find the nugget and run off to make blogs about the contradictions in the Bible.

"So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

Thanks for providing an example of a Hermeneutics fail.

A. Did Jesus say that before or after He instilled the New Covenant? (Historical fail)
B: Was Jesus speaking to Jews or Gentiles? (Contextual fail)

reply to post by jmdewey60


I was in error, thanks for correcting me, I'm still learning myself. Much appreciated. Both Aorist and Perfect are past tenses though. And the "perfect" tense is even more damaging to your claims that the Aorist would be. The Aorist it says is a past tense verb, the Perfect tense is also past tense, but continues into the future with completion with present results to the speaker/writer.

Aorist -> Simple or Summary Occurrence -> Past tense
Perfect -> Completed with Results -> Past tense with present results.

So when "have been saved" is in the "perfect" tense, it's something that happens and will not end, present results, a completed past tense action. The Aorist is just a past tense that may or may not still be in effect at that time. So if "have been saved" is perfect tense, it's a "salvation" that cannot be ended, it's in the perfect tense, a completed action with present results to the speaker.

Are you now going to admit your error that "saved" isn't used in the past tense in the NT? Star for that, thank you.

Again, stressing how vital Greek tenses are to understanding Greek:

"No element of Greek language is of more importance to the student of the New Testament than the matter of tense. A variation in meaning exhibited by the use of a particular tense will often dissolve what appears to be an embarrassing difficulty, or reveal a gleam of truth which will thrill the heart with delight and inspiration. Though it is an intricate and difficult subject, no phase of Greek grammar offers a fuller reward. The benefits are to be reaped only when one has invested sufficient time and diligence to obtain an insight into the idiomatic use of tense in the Greek language and an appreciation of the finer distinctions in force."

"A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament", H.E.Dana and Julius R.Mantey, pgs 176-177

Also suggested:

"Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek", Bruce M. Metzger

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

Sources are above ^^^^. Again, thanks for pointing out I was slightly off-track, greatly appreciated. But you're still in hot water about "saved" not being in the past tense in the NT. See below:

Since there is no verse that says a person is saved, as in the past tense, in this life, then you have adopter the explanation that when it says justified, it also means "saved" and a person is justified in this life.

Your turn to admit error now. Aorist and perfect tenses are past tense verbs. You showed by your copy/past that "saved" was the perfect tense.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You've only found one? There are hundreds of apparent contradictions. They are called a "Remez", or a hint to something deeper. Basically a sign that reads:

"Dig Here, slow down you'll miss something."

"Dig Here, slow down you'll miss something."

You mean that's your cue to commence doing what you normally do best....
Connecting unrelated verses... reading things into verses... seeing what you want to see.
Pareidolia with verses.

Its all a game where you can read eveything and anything you want out of the bible.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You've only found one? There are hundreds of apparent contradictions. They are called a "Remez", or a hint to something deeper. Basically a sign that reads:

"Dig Here, slow down you'll miss something."

"Dig Here, slow down you'll miss something."

You mean that's your cue to commence doing what you normally do best....
Connecting unrelated verses... reading things into verses... seeing what you want to see.
Pareidolia with verses.

Its all a game where you can read eveything and anything you want out of the bible.

I didn't say that, don't straw man. There are other rules to follow in Hermeneutics, especially historical and contextual applications. Line upon line, precept upon precept. The entire council of God.

It's called a "Remez", a "hint to something deeper".

Google it if you don't want to take my word for it. Or don't. But the bible declares there are hidden things to be found for the diligent student:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Because it also says that the law is easy....

That's in Deuteronomy, which means something like the re-giving of the Law.
So regardless of the first "giving" being annulled so to speak by the rebellion, it was a sort of do-over, where by their experience, and further explanation, it was somehow doable.
Jesus in the Gospels refers to this concept when talking about divorce, where he said Moses made allowance for the people's hardness of heart.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

The second covenant did not terminate the law as you believe.

I don't know if there really is a new covenant so much as a revelation of the correct understanding of just the way things are, that evildoers are not going to inherit the kingdom, whatever that happens to be. I think the general idea back in the old era was about having your burial place in a land where your ancestors are also buried, and your descendants will be, so that you all can share a sort of after-death fellowship which is dependent on the geographical proximity to your respective burial places.
The new and improved version is one where the proximity can be transcended by all the individual's spirits being able to share a nicer spot, not under the ground, but up in the sky somewhere.
The old Law was an interpretation at that time what it meant to be doing good instead of evil, and the minimum requirements to go to that better place (better than oblivion by not having any kin to share with).

1. Regarding the teachers of the law...

What these teachers were doing is constantly updating the interpretation of the Law to fit current circumstance, which I imagine Jesus supported, and so we have today within the new church based religion of Christianity.

2. Regarding the law's importance...

Back to my earlier explanation in this post, above, this "the way things are" is always going to be so, that there is a minimum requirement for this better afterlife, and if anything, Jesus tightened them up, by explaining that it takes a real change of heart and not just going through the motions.

3. Regarding the law and righteousness...

I don't personally see Revelation as being a theological authority, but it is a sort of record of early Christian thinking at least by one faction, the one who believed that the OT Law still applied. I think the general concepts still apply but that what is really important is the spirit of God through Jesus being in us in order to do things in the right spirit ourselves to make us fit for entering tha afterlife and not be ruining the experience for everyone else.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

A. Did Jesus say that before or after He instilled the New Covenant? (Historical fail)
B: Was Jesus speaking to Jews or Gentiles? (Contextual fail)

You fail to take these questions to a higher level of substance.
These are completely irrelevant questions since there was no historical moment where somehow the old system quit, nor is there a historical moment when the new system took over.
Time goes on and new people enter into the kingdom by different paths, according to their particular circumstance, the important thing being seeking God and finding Him and connecting to Him through the spirit, and from there, you will be guided to where you go.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And the "perfect" tense is even more damaging to your claims that the Aorist would be. The Aorist it says is a past tense verb, the Perfect tense is also past tense, but continues into the future with completion with present results to the speaker/writer.

I gave the one verse in Mark as an example: of the other crucified people. The being crucified was in the past, whenever they got nailed up onto a cross. But at the moment they are being described, they are still nailed up, and so the perfect tense. This does not mean that from that point on, they are always crucified. Once they were taken down, then their description would be in another tense, probably in the Aorist.

So when "have been saved" is in the "perfect" tense, it's something that happens and will not end, present results, a completed past tense action. The Aorist is just a past tense that may or may not still be in effect at that time. So if "have been saved" is perfect tense, it's a "salvation" that cannot be ended, it's in the perfect tense, a completed action with present results to the speaker.

I think you are being a bit presumptuous, wanting me to admit an error when you seem to be just finding out this way to understand the Greek tenses. I gave another example, from John, where I was talking about the ones sent by the Pharisees, where they were the "sent ones" as long as they were acting out what they were instructed to do. There is no implied assumption that they are from that point forward, always the "sent ones".
I may not have a conclusive argument, and that will take time by going through all 69 instances of this particular verb form in the NT, but I feel I have enough examples right now to disprove your conjecture.

Your turn to admit error now. Aorist and perfect tenses are past tense verbs. You showed by your copy/past that "saved" was the perfect tense.

Seriously . . No!
There are a lot of peculiarities that you need to get a grip on with the perfect tense in Greek before you can be making absolutist remarks like that. I have to guess this is why you are attracted to a cult, where you have the assurance that everything is all worked out and cut and dried. Reality is not like that. For example, you can look at the translator's remark for Ephesians 2:5 on the line, "saved by faith" in NETBible

1 tn Or “by grace you have been saved.” The perfect tense in Greek connotes both completed action (“you have been saved”) and continuing results (“you are saved”).

classic.net.bible.org...
I have to just repeat what I said elsewhere a few days ago, that Ephesians is a forgery, meaning someone wrote it and made it look like it was by Paul, but was by someone else who probably knew some things Paul said, and he was giving a condensed and rather less precise version of the concept, from the way Paul himself would have explained it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Great job here in the thread I must say. Unfortunately it is falling on deaf ears.
Wasn't going to post in thread but feel prompted...
These verses popped into mind while reading and I believe every Word of it.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
------------
NotUrTypical, Isn't the love /grace of Jesus something wonderful? Grace that pardons and cleans within.

Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Thank God ! He is able to present us faultless when we stand before Him! NONE of us are considered perfect or righteous in works / or ANY of our good deeds ...We cannot work or earn our way to heaven .

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
We will never be able to live a sin-free life here on earth thus why Jesus came to pardon , forgive, and redeem! Praise be to GOD! If all would but believe, we can be free indeed!

just my ONE comment jm.... ETA corrected -quoted ALL of the verse. It is only by and through faith that one can have this grace! One must have faith in it to receive it.
Note the avenue in how this grace comes? Through faith.

(Mark 16:15-18)

Go now into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe... in my name shall they cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

reply to post by SeekerLou

It is only by GRACE that we are saved, and that NOT of ourselves lest any man should boast.

The "by grace" is how we get the faith, which without, we would not be saved.
What this means is that we can't on our own, without that gift, be able to live an acceptable life where at the end we are justified.