Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the question is still present within those posts, as you quoted him?
Apparently, you are not hearing what is being asked, or said?
He has not answered my question which asks if he believes Paul's statement that you are saved by grace through faith, and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), as well as his statement that for grace to be grace it must exclude works on our part (Romans 11:6).
If he acknowledges that what Paul said is true then he cannot honestly claim that I believe a modern theory.
Continuing to call what Paul said in Ephesians 2:8-9 my theory is foolish.
Perhaps a better word would be "interpretation," because it is your interpretation based on your insistence on simplistic definitions of "faith" and "believe" that are clearly contrary to the understanding of the early church, and of those of us who take a holistic approach to believing on the one who said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." They and we believe that "faith" entails knowledge of what Christ expected us to be when the rebirth occurs as well as a welcoming excitement about the love of God and the opportunity to demonstrate it in our lives.
It just doesn't make any sense that God and Christ would set up a system that could (and apparently does) circumvent their desires for us.
Mike #218 Paul said that “if grace is to be grace then it has to exclude works on our part” (Romans 11:6).
Mike555, you are starting to reword Paul so as to edge the sacred text closer to your theory. I cannot tell if this is due to personality or if this is another example of the mis-contexting that happened in your post # 117 with 1 Clement. Pauls term “…Ουκετι εξ εργων…” is NOT an indication that the principle of grace “has to exclude works on our part” and NOTHING within the greek "has to exclude works on our part".
Be very careful Mike555. Using the tactic of changing Pauls' words in scripture to reflect your own desires blurs the line between honesty and dishonesty. The subtle changing of scripture to support an interpretation is not worth the loss in credibility it causes. Also, other readers are quite intelligent and are bound to see the subtle interpretative changes that is suggested to them.
Please do not become offended at my question Mike. I have already told you that I agree with Paul but do not agree with your interpretation of Paul. That is the source of the conflict. I believe the early Christians and their interpretation is a superior interpretation to yours.
Mike, I have answered your question and my question now appears eight times in various posts without an answer. Why must I believe your interpretation, instead of the interpretation of the earliest judeo-christians in their texts and in their own words?
I asked you :
If early Christians taught that repentance and desires and attempts to improve our moral status in thoughts and actions was an integral part of a “living faith”, then why is your interpretation to be preferred to the interpretation of the orthodox Christians living in the apostolic age, who tell us how they interpreted the christian message of early texts.
Perhaps a better word would be "interpretation," because it is your interpretation based on your insistence on simplistic definitions of "faith" and "believe" that are clearly contrary to the understanding of the early church, and of those of us who take a holistic approach to believing on the one who said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." They and we believe that "faith" entails knowledge of what Christ expected us to be when the rebirth occurs as well as a welcoming excitement about the love of God and the opportunity to demonstrate it in our lives.
It just doesn't make any sense that God and Christ would set up a system that could (and apparently does) circumvent their desires for us.
Again, the issue is what the Bible teaches. What did the apostles say? Since Paul said that we are not saved by works, then we are not saved by works. That means that works are not a part of faith.
And since Jesus Himself said that the only work of God for eternal life was to believe on Him (which is non-meritorious), as opposed to the meritorious works (plural) that the crowd thought they could do to earn eternal life, that means that works are not a part of faith. (John 6:27-29).
And again, since you people who are arguing with me don't seem to understand, I have not said that works are not an important part of the believer's spiritual life. Works are a result of spiritual growth. They are not a requirement for salvation.
Again, the issue is what the Bible teaches. What did the apostles say? Since Paul said that we are not saved by works, then we are not saved by works. That means that works are not a part of faith.
And since Jesus Himself said that the only work of God for eternal life was to believe on Him (which is non-meritorious), as opposed to the meritorious works (plural) that the crowd thought they could do to earn eternal life, that means that works are not a part of faith. (John 6:27-29).
And again, since you people who are arguing with me don't seem to understand, I have not said that works are not an important part of the believer's spiritual life. Works are a result of spiritual growth. They are not a requirement for salvation.
It boggles the mind how some just cannot understand what is being said. You have explained it very well but they refuse to accept your answer and continue to argue against something you did not say. Seem's they only want strife and confusion.
Post # 86 : Nateswift, Mystic PhD and myself wondered regarding why and when Mike555’s interpretation of salvation by faith without any action first originated in Christian thought since it did not exist in early Christian interpretations and texts
Clears question appears in posts # 151; # 155, #158(mikes post), & #168 : If early Christians taught that repentance and desires and attempts to improve our moral status in thoughts and actions was an integral part of a “living faith”, then why is your interpretation to be preferred to the interpretation of the orthodox Christians living in the apostolic age, who tell us how they interpreted the christian message of early texts.
Mike555 replied # 172 : You have not answered my question. Do you believe the apostle Paul when he wrote that you are saved by grace through faith and not by works ? (Ephesians 2:8-9) Furthermore, do you believe Paul when he wrote that if it is by grace then it is not by works, otherwise it is no longer by grace? (Romans 11:6) If you believe both of Paul's statements, then are you able to understand that since salvation is by grace, and that grace is not by works, then salvation cannot be by works? There is nothing complicated about this. Do you believe Paul or do you not?
Mike555;
If you remember, the context of your theory and interpretation is that : “… Jesus was simply saying that the only thing required for eternal life was to believe on Him. Period. Post # 127
I think ALL of us who disagree with your personal theory and interpretation that ”the only thing required for eternal life was to believe on Him. Period.” have always indicated that works cannot save man, and in this, we agree with Paul. I believe you have been told this several times and other readers are aware of this. Also, the salvation of mankind is inextricably linked, not only to faith, but to God’s grace; his love; and his mercy as well. This also, the readers know.
The point is that grace is not and never was a “stand alone principle” that is independent of other considerations. God is more than simply “grace”. Other Characteristics such as God’s Power, God’s intelligence; God’s love, etc are also necessary in the salvation of man. Take any single principle away from this list of critical characteristics of God, and man cannot BE saved.
For examples:
God must have sufficient power to save mankind, else mankind cannot be saved.
God must have sufficient intelligence to save mankind, else mankind cannot be saved.
God must have love for man sufficiently to want to save mankind, else mankind would not be saved by God.
God must have sufficient mercy to allow for and create a mechanism for sufficient sanctification so as to allow mankind to become able to live in a heaven of individuals who have overcome tendencies to do great evil.
IF god lacked sufficient power to save, then mankind could not BE saved by God. If God lacked sufficient intelligence to save mankind, then mankind could not BE saved by God., etc, etc.
Grace was never a stand-alone principle, but other principles are assumed to exist in the process of the sanctification of, and the salvation of mankind. That is partly whay your theory and interpretation would have been seen as inconsistent with and heretical to the earliest Christian doctrine and it is why your attempt to use 1 Clement as an evidence for your theory backfired so badly.
So Mike555, the question as to why your interpretation and theory is to be preferred over the ancient christian interpretation remains :
If early Christians taught that repentance and desires and attempts to improve our moral status in thoughts and actions was an integral part of a “living faith”, then why is your interpretation to be preferred to the interpretation of the orthodox Christians living in the apostolic age, who tell us how they interpreted the christian message of early texts.
Clear
Quote:
MysticPhD replied in post #215 “You will never get an answer to your question, Clear . . . there is none. The current anti-Christ apostasy is the majority view as prophesied for the "latter days." It tickles the ear and eliminates a lot of "cross-carrying" or trying to "love God and each other" daily and repenting when we don't. The Good News is . . . it really doesn;t matter to their eternal salvation . . . but it will make their reaping of what they sowed very unpleasant I'm afraid . . . as they are "saved as by fire."
MysticPhD :
I think that it is difficult for Mike555 (as well as the rest of us at times) to see that his viewpoint is simply one small fish’s interpretation in a large pond of other fish with other interpretations. I believe that this is a natural and common tendency of human nature (I have found myself doing the same thing at times ).
I do not necessarily expect mike555 to be able to give a reasonable and logical answer to the question as to why his interpretation is superior to the early judeo-christian interpretation. I do expect readers to consider what the inability to give a reasonable and logical answer to this question reveals regarding a specific interpretation or theory.
The early judeo-christian interpretation and worldviews on these same issues of salvation, were, in my opinion, more reasonable, more logical and frankly more superior than the later theories and interpretations that characterize the age of theologians.
Mike555 is certainly NOT my enemy, and in fact, I feel he and I are brothers who simply disagree on a historical principle.
It boggles the mind how some just cannot understand what is being said. You have explained it very well but they refuse to accept your answer and continue to argue against something you did not say. Seems they only want strife and confusion.
What then? If some do not have faith, surely their lack of faith will not nullify the Faithfulness of Christ, will it?
It boggles the mind how some just cannot understand what is being said. You have explained it very well but they refuse to accept your answer and continue to argue against something you did not say. Seem's they only want strife and confusion.
It boggles the mind that he keeps saying the same thing no matter how it is explained to him that it is not a matter of works being necessary to salvation, it is a matter of the attitude of the heart that is only demonstrated by that "eager(ness) to do good works" that Jesus gave Himself for. Titus 2:14. It is about a whole measure of faith in all that Christ is. He is so focussed on merit that he can't see tht no one is looking at merit when it is Christ in us that demonstrates His love in the things we do that only show his presence in our lives.
who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
It boggles the mind that he keeps saying the same thing no matter how it is explained to him that it is not a matter of works being necessary to salvation, it is a matter of the attitude of the heart that is only demonstrated by that "eager(ness) to do good works" that Jesus gave Himself for. Titus 2:14. It is about a whole measure of faith in all that Christ is. He is so focused on merit that he can't see tht no one is looking at merit when it is Christ in us that demonstrates His love in the things we do that only show his presence in our lives.
who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
Amen, nateswift! He is missing the crucial part . . . which is HOW we accept Christ as our Savior and trust in Him. It is by following the guidance of His Holy Spirit (Comforter) within in all we DO. That is Christ abiding with and working in us so that we will "love God and each other " daily and repent when we don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the question is still present within those posts, as you quoted him?
He is missing the crucial part . . . which is HOW we accept Christ as our Savior and trust in Him. It is by following the guidance of His Holy Spirit (Comforter) within in all we DO. That is Christ abiding with and working in us so that we will "love God and each other " daily and repent when we don't.