Featured Justified while Ungodly !

For the umpteenth time SBM, you are the one that started using John 3:36, as you have here. I agreed with you, and then you deny my post and have falsely accused me of salvation of works, when it is you that believe in a salvation of works.
Let's examine the situation here.

Unbelievers, according to John 3:36 are under God's wrath. We both agree with that. But that is only a small part of that verse.

The part that you don't like to highlight and didn't highlight, is the first part of the verse: He that believeth on the son has everlasting life. This part of the verse cannot be ignored.
Unbelievers will not see life, as you said.
However, believers will not only see life, they have eternal life.
Believers are those that believe. They believe on the name of the Son of God.
They, by their own intellect, choose to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and his atoning work. For that they are granted the gift of eternal life. You cannot ignore the first half of the verse. Both parts of the verse are vital.

 

Jesus said that UNLESS you belive in him, you SHALL perish in your sins!

When did you believe in him ?

 

Let me make a simple argument by asking a question. Now I believe in Jesus. I believe Jesus forgave, forgives, and will forgive all my sin that I have, and I will commit. Now this being the case what is your argument that I can't be saved or anyone else who doesn't hold your faith distinctives?

 

All in termonolgy and definitions! What do you mean by "believe"? If he died and paid for any of your sins it had to be ALL of them as He died 2000 years ago and ALL your sins were yet future.

 

The question was directed to Yeshua. But now we are getting to the heart of the Matter specifically your view that 1) I'm not saved; not because I don't believe Jesus died for my sins. Nor because I didn't accept him into my life as lord and savior. but because 2) whatever, I believe that the word believe means doesn't match up to what your word of what believe means. Therefore whatever requirement you wish to impose on someone (full acceptance of your belief system rather than what someone can determine from scripture themselves) is necissary to be saved. IE to have your type of faith regardless of what they believe scripture to say. Because if I say scripture says this or that your reply is easy enough "you are not following my definition which is predetermined by me on what stuff means in the bible."

I actually expected a better answer from you than Yeshua1 because of your experience and knowledge but you walked right into it revealing a simple truth. You don't believe I'm saved or anyone else is saved unless they find themselves in your camp. So the real issue is that when you tell someone that they must believe in Jesus to be saved they cannot believe anything apart from what you tell them to believe or else they aren't elect even though they hold to scripture. The fact that I think doing the will of God is what God requires of me past his initial Justification ( ie what you mean by "saved") to be sanctified and pleasing to God doesn't agree with your view thus even though I've given my life to Jesus Christ and rely on his grace alone to see me to glory is irrelevant to you because the very fact I want to do the will of God by being redeemed rather than just accepting redemption doesn't match your belief of faith without response to that faith (also known as alone). And since it doesn't match your requirement I can't be saved. Thus in your theology who determines salvation? The Lord or you?

 

When I was justified (one time act), I was declared righteous in the sight of God. At that time He forgave all my sins: past, present and future. There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.

 

I made no personal references to your individual salvation. I do know this, if you are saved you were not saved by believing what Rome teaches about salvation or the Roman Catholic Gospel.

Futhermore, you are playing a word game and you fully well know it is all about definitions not mere words and you have already admitted to that fact in a previous post.

If they do not "beleive" how THE BIBLE defines it, and it does not define it as Rome defines it AND if they do not have the BIBLICAL gospel as the object of that faith, and Rome does not have the BIBLICAL gospel, then there is no salvation for them or anyone else that embraces "another gospel" because that is precisely the gospel of Rome - "another gospel" about "another Jesus" and empowered by "another spirit."

 

You teach to have faith in Jesus to believe upon him for your salvation. The Catholic Church teaches to have faith in Jesus to believe upon him for your salvation. It seems in both cases the requirement for salvation is met.

What I have admitted is that your misunderstandings of Catholic teaching (much of what you believe about Catholic teaching) stems from inproper definitions asigned to words with specific meanings.

which is my point. The bible is not a dictionary it associates things, contrast things, uses figures, it reveals, it teaches, and many other things besides. But it is not a dictionary and the bible doesn't go around "defining" things. Much of the bible assumes or pre-supposes an already established teaching which scriptures builds on. Look what Paul says

and a few verses later

And look at the issue Peter addresses regarding understanding scripture without the pre-existing teaching faithfully passed on

Because of this scriptural presuposition which protects against error in interpretation. By ignoring this you can easily "re-define" words to match your theology. In which case, Both you and Yeshua face the issue of not fully meaning what you say. Yeshua asked the simple question. Did you believe on Jesus. But what he meant was do you have the same view of belief I have about Jesus which is all you have to do is "accept in your heart and belief that Jesus raised from the dead and will save you." Regardless of what you do from that point on. If you believe faith is followed up by action then you are considered not to have a belief in Christ Sufficiency to save you on his own thus "you don't believe in Jesus". Which is something other than what asked by the words he used. I can say that Yes I believed on Jesus. Yes I believe he rose from the dead. Yes I believe that it is him and not me that brings me to and leads me through salvation. But that isn't what he wants to know he wants to know if I believe like he does. Because if I said that I believe that I must follow up by obedience in action by being baptized following his commandment to love one another then he holds that I don't believe but that isn't true.

 

We are using similar language but with entirely different meanings in connection with every single solitary term in that sentence.

True, the Bible is not a Webster's dictionary that provides etymological roots, and the variety of usages of individual terms. However, it does define terms by contextual use and contrast and it does define doctrine by explanation and it is profitable for that very purpose (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Nice try! However, that is not the issue at all. The issue is that I do know what I mean by the terms I use and I know that your use of the same terms do not have the same meaning.

Just as the Scriptures say there is "another Jesus" and "another gospel" that saves no one, so there is another confession of Christ based upon that different Jesus and gospel that does not save.

Your profession above merely asserts ONE PART of the gospel - the resurrection and one part of the gospel saves no one (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Which Jesus are we talking about? The "another JESUS" referred to in the "another gospel" found in scriptures or the authentic Jesus found in the authentic gospel? What "save" are we talking about? The "save" of "another gospel" which saves no one or the "save" of the true gospel of Jesus Christ?

Rome teaches another gospel, another Jesus by another spirit and so their verbage may be similar in form but totally void of truth and Biblical meaning.

 

Do you now denty that the RCC teaches that sinners MUST co assist God int the process of partaking of the 7 Graces of God sufficient enough manner to become transformed into being 'close enough' to jesus in order to have God freely declare us as rightous, because we now actually have that intrisicly in us?

 

Your sentence is confused. I think I know what you are getting at but I am unsure.

First of all I'm not changing a stance so I'm not sure whether your accusation of denial of something is factual. Next Catholics don't "co-assist" God in anything. We participate in our salvation or we don't. But what do I mean by participation? Living out the faith once given and delivered to the believer. Jesus by his own Merits alone atones us and reconciles us to God. I think this is the point at which you believe one is "saved". For Catholics its the begining of salvation or initial point of justification. Salvation is inclusive of more things. Why are we saved? Well to be placed in right standing with God certainly. However, that isn't the sum and whole of salvation. Paul says

. This too is a part of salvation. Not that they "save us" in the sense of providing initial justification and entry into the kingdom. But that we live out our salvation by doing the things God wants us to do. We must will to do them but we can only will and actually accomplish these things by the power of the Holy Spirit and not in our own strength. They "save" us in the sense that as we obey God and daily conform ourself to his will we are being transformed into his likeness. But this is not to be confused with entry into salvation. If salvation were an ark (boat). God alone by his Grace and atonement places us into that ark. We cannot earn passage on that ark. However, once we are on the ark and it deparks towards our destination we are now part of the crew participating in the voyage to our destination. Our participation doesn't create the ark or put us on the ark but it is our right and duty to participate on the voyage home. If we aren't participating in the voyage are we really on the ark? My suggestion is no. Thats an example of how we look at participation in salvation. Not that we save ourselves but that in salvation we by choice work with Christ who works in us to make us like him. thus at the end of the Journey I will truelly say Christ did all for me even my good works are because he enabled me to do them not because I was capable.

So despite the confusion of your inqjuiry, I hope I have answered your question.

 

What you mean is that you don't assist God in the provision of salvation as Christ obtained that alone. However, you do ASSIST Him in the personal application of salvation/regeneration/justification because you beleive the candidate in baptism is requesting the Roman church to give salvation through submission to ordinances. So you do believe in co-assistance; co-operation - contribution in the work of applying salvation to the individual.

In contrast, we believe that God must first CHANGE the heart of rebellion to a submissive heart and this work is done without the assistance of a rebellious heart - Ezek. 36:26. It is this new heart that hates darkness and loves light and it is with this heart man believeth as the old heart is at enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God and never indeed can be (Rom. 8:7) so they that are "in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8) and to please God one must come to him by faith (Heb. 11:6) and that is why the old heart cannot please God because it will not come to God to obtain life (Jn. 5:44).

Hence, we believe that justifying faith is a gift of God (Jn. 6:44; 64-65; Eph. 2:8) and the sole work of God (Jn. 6:29; Heb. 12:2) completely by grace (Rom. 4:16) and it is through the channel of faith that justification is received without our assistance (Rom. 4:21) of any kind (Rom. 4:21-24).

 

No not quite right but nice try. co-assistance is not the same as co-operation. Its a participation in the divine life of Christ which Christ gave to us. Your nuance is wrong.

I don't see how this is any different from my view. Catholics believe this.

Yes, I agree with the first part but I must ask about the last part. Are you suggesting two people are living inside one person? like for example there is one person who is a bad person sins all the time. Instead of changing the bad person into a new Person God creates a new person after the fashion of the old person like a good clone standing next to the evil original (but inside the same body of the person) where they fight endlessly (kind of like Captain Kirk found a man who faught his anti-mater equivelant endlessly) until the body in which they both dwell dies off with the old man and the clone continues? I don't think thats scriptural. God wants you as you are now to be redeemed and tranformed into his image. Not a version of you that he supplies at belief.

I agree with this. And Flesh is connotated with in sin.

Yes because a sinner cannot come to God save by faith.

God wants to bring alive the current dead heart and make it new living flesh that serves him and loves him. I believe in the resurrection of the body do you?

I also believe Justifying faith is a gift of God.

I believe Justification is the sole work of God as well. And when I choose to and do live rightly it is because of God. But I think you divorse choosing to live rightly. So in essense you can continue in sin wait for the body to die so that your clone can live in heaven?

Faith is never without our actions. What you propose is intellectual assent.

 

True they are not one in the same in meaning but they do overlap in meaning and so my nuance is correct. Co-operation is assisting in any way you can. When you assist in a positive sense you are cooperating with. When you will not assist where you can you are not cooperative.

Catholic doctrine says regeneration occurs IN baptism not PREVIOUS to baptism. Indeed, Catholic doctrine says that the request for baptism is a request for faith from the church.

In the unregenerate person - he is wholly unregenerate in nature.

In the regenerate person he still possesses the unregenerate nature (old man) in addition to the regenerate nature (new man). One must be put off in order to put the other on.

The old nature cannot be saved but is destroyed in death.

Not so! What I propose is a distinction between faith and faithfulness. Consider the difference between Abraham's response to God's promise of a child with Sarah's handmaid in contrast to his response to God's promise in Romans 4:21.

Again, consider the following sentence:

I Beleive IN God and therefore I am faithful TO God.

There is a clear difference between "faith" and "faithfulness" in this sentence as denoted by the difference of prepositions ("in" versus "to").

Sure, they are inseparable as cause is to consequence but they are not identical in meaning and one must precede the other.

In regard to justification before God one is not justified by "faithfulness" TO God but is justified by faith "IN" Christ and His redemptive work.

It is this subtle difference between faith and faithfulness that is the difference between the gsopel of Christ and "another gospel."

 

Do you deny that when one places faith in jesus, that person is justified by the basis of the Cross ONLY, and that God reckons to the sinner the full merits of Christ at that time, so to God he is FULLY justified?

That NO sacramental grace required at all to get that state?

 

Ok, I agree with that. So why can't you see that Romans 3:28 is speaking of that very thing?

Why can't you see that Romans 4:1-3 is speaking of that very thing?

Why can't you see that Romans 4:5 is speaking of that very thing?

Why can't you see that Romans 4:22-5:2 is speaking of that very thing?

Why can't you see that Romans 5:10-11 is speaking of that very thing?

 

Tell me what aspect of your statement you think I do not agree with. You define your own terms but as far as I can see the terms you use do not conflict with my view unless you define the same terms differently. So point out what you think we are in conflict.