By faith alone or by faith and acting?

The Doctrines of God are contained within the Bible though!
So the HS authored the Book that we get the very doctrines from!

 

[inflammatory]

 

Which one?
Dog found in thre Bible, or else the HS authored the bible?

 

All the above!

DoG is not in the Bible, neither taught by Jesus nor the HS.

[snipped - inflammatory]

John

 

Calm down a little, and make some actual arguments that prove how the DoG is not biblical.

 

I dont have to prove a lie.

All I have to do is prove the truth....you concentrate on the lies

John

 

In that case, state and prove the truth as you understand it.

 

The systematic theology is not taught in the bible, but election is taught in the bible. DoG or Calvinism is the system that tries to explain it.

BTW, I would never call Jesus a Calvinist or any other "ist".

 

Just like in court, I am under no obligation to prove the truth, it is up to you to try to disprove it.

John

 

I am not referring to these words you put here which have nothing to do with these words that I AM referring to:

That could not be clearer. It could not be clearer. You believe that saving faith is not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE but believing and ACTING ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

ANY objective person can see that this statement, on it's on merit, declares just that.

Now you can withdraw the statement, but have the integrity to at least OWN what you have ACTUALLY said.

There must be this willingness to act for WHAT Skandelon?

No. They just prove you lack reading comprehension skills. You could not find a reputable scholar on EARTH to agree with you that Edwards views on original sin and the origin of evil are identical to the Arminian divines.

The problem Skandelon is a deficiency in your ability to comprehend what you read.

Really?

And???

I do that constantly. Be man with some integrity and OWN your actual words, Skandelon.

If you are not intelligent enough to understand that I was referring to the obvious inference from your proof texting in the context of this conversation, then I have thought more of you than I should have.

I do constantly. You weasel out from under your own quotes so what difference does it make?

I explained this already. My third grader can get it. Why can't you?

More proof that you believe salvation comes by faith PLUS acting somehow.

THIS is your core Skandelon.

And you ought to resign your moderator status today if you can't speak any more respectfully than this.

 

See, you have this same problem with interpreting scripture. You latch on to one verse, you think you know what it means, and then you just ignore all the others which could actually help you to understand the first one.

Allow scripture to help you interpret scripture, and then you can learn to allow my clarifying explanations help you understand the intent of other less clear statements that you have obviously misconstrued to fit your straw-man...

At least with scripture there is a debate about the author's intent, here there is NO DEBATE because I know my intent and I explained my intent clearly. You choose to ignore it with statements like this one above which shows you to be disingenuous and unwilling to have a honest exchange of ideas and views. That is more of a reflection on your character than anything.

Now, let's examine the two phrases of mine you have plucked out of their context:

You don't agree with this? What is there to disagree about here? How does this statement deny 'sola living fide.' Noticed I added the word living since you keep avoiding that subject...for obvious reasons.

You don't believe that saving faith acts? That is all this says, and I've heard you make the argument yourself.

Which you and I both agree will result IF the faith is living and not dead, right? Again, nothing here rises to the level of saying what you put in my mouth.

Now, I'll await your apology. :love2:

 

Even the demons believe and shutter. What KIND of believing are you talking about, Luke?

 

James shows the difference between a creedal faith and a genuine saving faith. A genuine faith is not dead. A genuine faith is not the result of works but produces good works. A genuine faith is proven in the fruit produced from a genuine faith. A creedal faith is also proven in its works from a dead faith.

 

For the FAITH to be shown as being 'alive' and not 'dead,' for if one chooses to NOT ACT on what they believe then their faith is dead and they aren't saved. But if they choose to act on what they believe then they prove to the world their faith is the living and saving faith.

1. I never claimed his views on 'original sin' were the same. You keep making that mistake. We were only discussing the origin of evil.

2. I don't need to find any other scholar, I have Edwards making that claim of his own views. You'll have to take it up with him.

3. This has nothing to do with your avoidance of AA Hodge and C. Hodges actual words.

And, he just said the same things I was. So, you agree that 'faith encompasses obedience' and ‘To believe is to obey.’”?' Good. So do I. Why don't you accuse MacArthur of believing in Faith PLUS works as his opponents do? Funny that the title of his book is "Faith Works." The very point of this book is the same point I was attempting to show. That was my intent and your intent seems to be similar to MacArthur's opponents as they say many of the same things you have here. Interesting.

What I call explaining my intent and answering objections, you call 'weaseling.' I think you are more interested in winning debate points and demeaning others than actually understanding and debating the point of disagreement.

 

I noticed you cherry picked the quotes of your that I posted which you could more easily spin.

And...

Once again you clearly state in order to be saved you must ACT upon what you believe.

But Scripture clearly states that you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Not believe and ACT in order to be saved. Believe. That's it.

James simply says if you really believe, if your faith is sufficient it will PROVE itself by your works. If there are no works of charity then your faith is deficient. James is not saying that you must believe and then ACT upon your believing and THEN you will be saved. He is saying that saved people who truly believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will, AS A RESULT OF HAVING BEEN SAVED BY BELIEVING ON HIM, perform works of charity.

 

So then you are now saying it is NOT necessary to ACT upon your faith to be saved?

Yes, I do keep making that mistake. But you knew what I meant.

No you have your horrible spin on Edwards.

I haven't avoided them. I have repeatedly embraced them.

 

I responded directly to your last post and the quotes of mine that you pointed out. I'm glad to respond to any of my quotes...

Ok, lets take the opposite of this statement to see if you will affirm it: For a person to be consider truly born again there doesn't need to be a willingness to act in accordance with what you know to be true. But as long as you believe like the demons do, even if you refuse to follow Christ like the demons do, just as long as you believe what they believe you can rest assured that you are truly born again."

Is that what you believe Luke? I guess so?

And by that choice we will know if their faith is living or dead. They aren't saved by the choice to obey or not obey, their choice to obey reveals the nature of their faith...as to whether it is living or dead. Now do you understand? Or, is it as I suspect, that you don't really want to understand me, but instead relentlessly attack while keeping your eyes closed?

Where did I say "in order to be saved." You are reading that part into my quotes leading you to your false conclusions. I already told you that I agree with MacArthur's view in his book "Faith Works." You sound just like his critics with this line of attack, which is why I asked if you were familiar with that controversy.

Which is what I told you that I believe as well, but you ignored me and continued drawing false conclusions and acting like I'm too stupid to understand you.

 

No you didn't. I put up four quote and you responded to the two which were easiest to spin.

Salvation is through faith alone- not ACTING upon it.

Believing like the demons do will not save because their faith is deficient.

The PROOF of that is their works.

But what you have been saying is that in order to be saved you must NOT ONLY BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, but you must THEN ACT UPON THAT FAITH.

I could not agree more. But that's not what that statement of your even remotely implies.

You posted a permanent post that only moderators can do a while back about "getting personal." In that post you stated that we should avoid the personal pronoun "you". I agree with this.

Aside from STT and Webdog, perhaps no one uses that pronoun more than you do.

It was the context of the thread in which you were quoted. The thread was about what it takes to be saved. Your answer was that you must ACT upon you faith. OBVIOUSLY then you were stating that in order to be saved you must ACT UPON YOUR FAITH.

No. You keep waffling.

I set out to prove that faith is not a choice and since salvation comes through faith then we do not CHOOSE to be saved.

You agreed that faith is not a choice. You set out to prove, however, that salvation comes by ACTING UPON FAITH.

I responded by rightly pointing out that this is not sola fide.

You are now saying that you were NOT saying that salvation comes by ACTING UPON YOUR FAITH.

Is this not waffling?

 

I've never changed what I have been saying, you are just now starting to understand me. There is a difference in "in order to be saved" and "in order to know if you are saved...." You seemed to take my argument for the latter and apply it to the former all the while ignoring all my clarifying comments.

Someone can believe that Jesus is the son of God and NOT choose to follow him as the Lord of their life. (like a demon)

Do you affirm or deny this? Please explain.

Well, sometimes I'm not sure because you have done it many times and that one qualification does make your statement true because Edwards did have a differing view of Original Sin. He didn't, according to HIS OWN WORDS, have a different view on the 'origin of evil, from that of the Arminian divines.

If you mean by 'spin,' where he disagrees with your hard deterministic conclusions and agrees with Arminians (by his own conclusion), then I guess so. :rolleyes:

You've avoided AA Hodge's quote and its clear as to why. It is even more clear than C Hodge because he uses the exact words you do. :)