1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by D28guy, Oct 26, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Well said. But Here is the problem - when "OSAS" is liberally tossed into the mix and so commonly accepte by the group that holds to the truth of Justified-by-faith "apart from the works of the Law" Rom 3 -- they shoot their own argument in the foot and open the door to the DT post exposing the problem for the "Justified-by-faith" group.

    Your response illustrates the problem perfectly

    Read carefully the list of examples that DT gave and SHOW that the texts "limit themselves to rewards among the saved" SHOW that they are in all cases "Describing the Gospel SAVED condition".

    The problem is that you assume it -- but don't actually show that the list of texts he gave could ever be bent to that extent.

    And that is the problem that when ignored leaves the two sides talkikng past each other.

    So while I agree with the Justified-by-faith group I also agree with DT that they have gone to such an extreme error with OSAS as to difuse the benefit of thei Justified-by-faith position.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    All true sir.

    A point that is rock solid from scripture "sola scriptura". As DHK and others have demonstrated here -- there really is no way to answer that part of your objection with Biblically sound arguments that pay attention to the details of scripture.

    So here is the big question for you -- Would you be willing to conclude then that because those whose traditions and man-made-doctrines are in contradiction the texts that you so rightly bring out - that their teaching must therefore be "error"?? Are you willing to set this up using scripture "As the test" of their doctrine?

    I certainly would -- but would you?

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #22 BobRyan, Oct 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2007
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Again you are taking a rock-solid position from scripture alone. And these arguments such as you are giving have practically FILLED the OSAS threads showing that it is OSAS that objects to them and seeks to avoid the inconvenient details listed in those texts.

    YET your argument continues to be a "sola scriptura" case made -- so are you willing to conclude then that based on a sola scriptura argument - the OSAS position is in error?

    If so -- I think we have progress. And certainly you will find that each time you opposed on this thread it will be from the OSAS position.

    But I would argue that we are saved by grace through faith "NOT of works" from a NON-OSAS position.

    From a position that IS able to freely accept the "loss of salvation" warnings of Romans 11 and of Matt 18 "Forgiveness revoked" lesson.

    My argument is that EVEN the good deeds of the saints do not "earn" heaven -- the SHOW the Matt 7 fruit of the "new Creation" they give evidence that one has been truly born again.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Your objection is to the OSAS flaw that must deny the Bible warnings about the loss of salvation - and you seem to claim that SINCE that part is in error SO ALSO is the part about being justified "by faith apart from the works of the law" Romans 3.

    You are missing two things.

    1. There are two justifications in scripture. The FUTURE one seen in Romans 2, and James 2 and Daniel 7, Matt 7.
    "Justified by works and not by faith alone". The future form is corporate and objective - it does not change the state of the sinner it merely confirms what it already is either lost or saved! "By their fruits you shall know them"

    The PAST one seen in Romans 3 and in Romans 5:1-3 "by faith apart from the works of the Law" -- it brings no merit of man -- and it changes the state from lost to saved.

    2. The other thing you are missing is that OSAS is not the only option of for "Justification by faith apart from the works of the Law" -- though the ones who embrace the error of OSAS like to invent that idea.

    The fact that the sinner MUST persevere to STAY saved is a proven Bible fact and you gave that evidence in triplicate -- well done.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #24 BobRyan, Oct 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2007
  5. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    If you were given Biblically sound arguments, would you even listen to them.

    A man convinced agaisnt his will is of the same opinion still.
    If you start with a false premise you obviously will conclude with error, and in most cases concerning theology--heresy.
    First of all, no one here has based any of their doctrine on tradition and man-made-doctrines, except for the Catholics (who will admit to Tradition), and the SDA's (who have woman-made doctrine from EGW). The Baptists have long held to sola scriptura. Don't accuse us of anything but.

    Those who purport having a rock solid argument against salvation by faith alone are in fact standing on sinking sand. Again, the verses quoted are quoted without their proper context considered.
     
  6. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    Bob,

    I think you and I agree on this issue more than you realize. I'll therefore respond to this particular post (and then at the end respond to your earlier comments about "sola Sciptura" as it relates to my argumentation)

    Not all--I agree 100% that one is justified "by faith apart from the works of the Law". :thumbs:

    Actually, I never "missed" this. I agree that there is more than one justification in Scripture related to salvation. (I was actually going to write a post on this yesterday, but I ran out of time). Justification simply means "to be reckoned, or considered, righteous". When we are initially "saved"--born again and made alive in Christ--we are initially justified or graciously reckoned righteous by God through our faith in Christ apart from any works we could possibly boast about--this speaks to the Eph 2:8-9 passage (and others) which I exegeted in the original thread on this topic. However, we are subsequently "justified" (reckoned righteous) as we continue to abide in Christ and bear fruit--ie works of loving obedience. This speaks to the works of James 2 and the fact we must actively abide in Christ--John 15--and continue in His goodness--Romans 11--if we don't want to be "cut off", and that we must "add" virtues/love to our faith--2 Peter 1. This especially speaks to our working out our salvation with fear/trembling as God works in us to will and do for His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13). So even here the works of loving obedience (ie not the "works of Law") we must do we can't boast about, because they are only possible by and in fact come from God in Christ working in us. Last, we are finally justified--finally reckoned righteous-- when we are judged by God "who will render to each according to his deeds" and given eternal life if we patiently continue (ie perservere) to work what is good. This of course is what is referred to in Romans 2 and John 5:28-29 (and 2 Peter 1:5-11). And even these works we can't boast about but are the fruits of our abiding in Him, for without Him we can do nothing (John 15:5). Yet, we must make the active decision to continue in Christ and perservere. God is able to keep us from stumbling, but we thereby must also keep ourselves (Jude).

    I don't disagree with this at all. In fact the key phrase is "apart from the works of the Law". In context this refers to the Mosaic Law, and by extension any meritorious system of works which we attempt to earn our way into Christ and by which we could "boast". This, however, is not the exact equivalent to saying "faith alone".

    Obviously this is not the only option, as I don't believe in OSAS while I do believe one is "justified by faith apart from the works of the Law". So I'm not really "missing" anything in this regard. :saint:



    Thanks. And the fact that the sinner must persevere shows that one is not ultimately justified by faith alone but by faith which continues working through love :thumbs:

    (Regarding the question of sola Scriptura...)

    Now I agree with you that this is the Scriptural position, and I have indeed argued thus from Scripture. However, the fact that DHK and D28guy also insist that theirs is the "Scriptural position", shows the weakness of sola Scriptura. As the Apostle Peter said Scriptures can be twisted by untaught and unstable men, as there are some hard things in them--particularly some of Paul's sayings (2 Peter 3:15-16). So while I would assert that Scriptures "contain all things necessary for salvation ("scriptura omnia continet"), I would continue to disagree that Scripture by itself--apart from the consensual teaching of the Church across time and space--is sufficient at arriving at it's own correct interpretation (ie "sola Scriptura"), as is demonstrated by the endless debates on this board as to what is "the Scriptural position" on this and many other issues. *In other words, Scriptures are materially sufficient--they have all the "stuff" necessary for salvation--but are formally insufficient--they need to be correctly interpreted.

    (I hope this clarifies my position on this issue)

    DT
     
  7. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    Um....DHK, I responded to a similar post of yours in the original thread almost two weeks ago, answering your assertions, and I've yet to get a response from you about it. So perhaps I can turn this charge around to you and suggest that you are the one who "would rather not respond to such an exposition and just avoid it."

    So here's my response again....

    You make a couple different assertions above (in addition to your persistent childish namecalling), including:
    1. I took James 2:24 out of context
    2. You somehow proved Eph 2:8.9 teaches "faith alone" (despite the absense of the word "alone") through "exegesis" and taking "nothing out of context"
    3. That I must somehow deal with Eph 2:8,9 without invoking James' clear statement since the latter (supposedly) "has nothing to do with" the former.

    Okay, to hopefully avoid the continued charge of being "childish", I'll deal with these in reverse order.

    First, you submit that despite the absence of the word "alone", Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9 somehow obviously teaches "justification by faith alone".
    In reaching this conclusion, I submit you are making two fundamental erroneous assumptions:
    1. That Paul is teaching that an individual's salvation is a once-for-all irrevocable event, and...
    2. That Paul is excluding any and all kinds of "works" from consideration in an individual's ultimate salvation

    Assumptions 1 & 2 overlap somewhat, but I'll look at each in turn with evidence from Paul's other writings which disconfirm DHK's assumptions before turning to Ephesians 2 itself.

    First, Paul teaches elsewhere in several places that salvation is not an irrevocable event, but that our ultimate salvation is contingent on our continuing in Christ or continuing in the faith. Paul instructs that we (gentile Chrisians) must continue in the goodness of God or we too will be cut off (Romans 11:22); we are saved if we hold fast the word (if not, we've believed in "vain") (1 Cor 15:2); and that we will be presented holy and blameles in His sight if we continue in the faith and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel (Col 1:22-23). Paul himself did not consider his final salvation yet assured or attained (Phil 3:12-13), stating he disciplined his body lest he should become disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:27). Of course, I'm sure that DHK will dispute that Paul really meant that one has to continue in His goodness and continue in the faith to remain in Christ and be presented pure and blameless in his sight--despite what Paul actually clearly stated. The point is that the burden of proof is on DHK to "explain away" these clear statements, as they are contrary to the underlying assumptions he employs in interpreting Ephesians to mean one is saved by faith "alone"

    (To be continued due to length of post...)
     
  8. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    (Continuing on...)

    Secondly, as I've stated elswhere in this thread, Paul's main concern is contrasting faith with "works of the Law" rather than works in general--particularly works of love. This can be seen succinctly in the epistle to the Galatians in which Paul states that "In Christ neither circumcision or uncircumcision avails anything but faith working through love" (Gal 5:6)

    Of course, dissecting Paul's sustained argument in the epistle to the Romans (for instance) would take a long time indeed, but this distinction--between "works of the law" and "works of loving obedience"--can be detected just from reading the book from start to finish, especially in context of his entire corpus. Particularly this distinction should be evident early in Paul's epistle where he does teach that God will grant eternal life (or its opposite) in accordance with our works:

    "[God] who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'; eternal life to do those who by patient continuence in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 2:6-10)

    So here's a clear statement from Paul himself that salvation (ETERNAL LIFE) will be given to those who work what is good. (So unless you want to propose that since Paul didn't have ROMANS in front of him when he wrote to the Ephesians that this statement in ROMANS can have no bearing on the meaning of "the other" (in EPHESIANS), then I suggest we must keep this passage in mind when turning to Ephesians 2).

    Now looking at Ephesians 2, knowing that Paul teaches elsewhere that one's salvation is simply not a once-for-all irrevocable event, what is Paul referring to when he says we "have been saved"? Looking back a couple of verses Paul states that God "made us [past tense] alive when we were dead in trespasses and sins" (2:1)..."made us [past tense] alive together with Christ" (2:5) and "and raised us [past tense] up together, and made us [past tense] to sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (2:6). Paul's "have been saved" [perfect tense], therefore, refers back to this initial moment of salvation (as described by Paul) for the Ephesian Christians which they (like he) had already experienced, the effects of which were extending into the present. Paul is addressing GENTILE Ephesians which is evident in verse 11 where he states that they (the same folks addressed in v.1-10) were "once (again past tense) Gentiles in the flesh--who are called [present tense] Uncircumcision by what is called [present tense] Circumcision ([ie, the Jews]". This gives us a context to what kind of "works" Paul has in mind when he is telling the Gentile Ephesian Christians it's "not of works" that they "have been saved"--namely a meritorious system of works, as exemplified by the works of the Torah, which one could boast about. However, Paul goes on to state that the Ephesians were "created [past tense] in Christ Jesus for good works" and we already have seen in Romans 2 that Paul teaches that God will render eternal life to those who actually do good works.

    So putting this together, in the immediate context and in the wider context of the Pauline corpus of writings, one can safely say that the teaching in Ephesians 2:8-9 is that one's initial moment of salvation--of being made alive in Christ--has nothing to to with the works of the Torah (or by extension, any system of works where one seeks to earn or obligate God to give them salvation about which they can therefore boast) but is rather a gratuitous gift received by faith. To assert that it teaches more than that is to ignore the grammar and immediate context of the passage, and to disregard other statements Paul made in his writings which teach we must continue in the faith to remain in Christ and that God will render to each one according to his deeds (Romans 2:6) and would thereby introduce serious contradictions into the teachings of Paul.

    So having said that it's an easy logical step to demonstrate that DHK has not "proven" that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches one is ultimately justified or saved by faith alone. This is particularly true when one considers "salvation" and "faith" and "works" in not only the wider Pauline context, but in the even wider NT context as a whole. So at this point we turn to the verse in James which DHK accuses me of taking out of context. The verse again:
    "You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). That James is referring in context to SALVATION is clear in this rhetorical question in verse 14: "What does it profit, my brethren, if one says he has faith but does not have works. Can faith SAVE him?" So now the burden of proof is on DHK to try to prove that when James says "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" that he is somehow not referring to that man's salvation.

    [This ends my original response in the original thread, with additional underlining added for emphasis]


    Not even close. He's quoted a lot of verses demonstrating that we're justified by faith in Christ--even by faith apart from the deeds of the Law--but not by faith alone.

    Yeah, I think you or Mike had better do that, because you'll need to do more than assert I'm taking these out of context; you'll have to prove it without begging the question. For already Mike has tried to dismiss my verses as somehow referring to a Christian just losing his "rewards" or to folks who supposedly were never actually Christians to begin with, or something else like that, and I've already responded by demonstrating how that is not the case.

    Why does James 2 need to be in a separate thread? It is highly relevant to the question at hand. So until you or someone else actually attempt to demonstrate how I'm allegedly taking this out of the context, I don't accept your assertions--either that I'm misinterpreting James 2 and/or that it needs a separate thread.
     
  9. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    Just so it's clear, DHK's original post to which I had originally responded (re: James 2 and Ephesians 2:8-9) is found on page 21 of the original thread of the same name: #202 (10/15/07 at 11:06 AM); and my original response was on that same page: #205 (10/15/07 at 3:45 PM).
    This is for documentation purposes
    . :smilewinkgrin:
     
  10. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    The Truth does indeed "extinguish the darkness of (misinterpreted) scriptural error", as I have demonstrated from Scriptures regarding the unscriptural error of "sola fide".

    God' Truth does "stand like a brilliant shimmering light in the midst of great darkness", your attempt to smear the truth by labeling it a Romish cultic perversion notwithstanding.

    And I've exegeted this passage (twice now) in my response to DHK above. It doesn't teach one is ultimately justified by faith alone.

    And none of them teach we are justified by faith alone.

    And, Mike, in the original post of this thread (volume 2), you tried to dismiss the relevance of the scriptures I had originally quoted by saying they only apply to Christian's losing "rewards" or to folks who were never actually Christians to begin with, or something else like that, and I in turn demonstrated that your dismissal fails on Scriptural grounds.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    DT -

    Your Biblically sound presentation for the real fallacy of OSAS and the fact that the Bible does not support it -- is irrefutable.

    Your explanation of your acceptance of Romans 3 "justified by faith apart from the works of the law" was well stated -- clearly I missed that in the scan of the discussion -- again you have done well and I applaud your careful presentation of details of scripture not entirely acceptable to those who cling to the man-made tradition of OSAS.


    Should you ever want to see the many here who agree with you on these points -- visit the OSAS threads!

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    How so?

    1. You have been arguing that when both views are compared to scripture - scripture clearly supports the one and debunks the other.

    2. Scripture is a "common authority" for both sides -- in fact that "same authority" so it is the closest you will ever come to a single arena of common ground to decide a disputed idea.

    3. By contrast EACH of you has his own "magesterium" telling him that this way is right and the other guy is wrong. Neither side is likely to go to the other side's magesterium and let them decide the matter.

    So how is "Sola Scriptura" not working here? What is "the alternative" in this case??

    True the bending of scripture has never been in question -- man-made tradition is good at it as we saw in Mark 7.

    But don't you have to BE a member of the church that you appeal to for doctrinal direction before you accept it's authority?

    Hint: No one debating this issue is catholic.

    Further - there is nothing in all of scripture indicating that church leaders can have wild doctrinal differences about scripture but still ALL church leaders will be infallibly doctrinally correct. In fact given the Jewish leaders rejecting their Messiah and the christian church becoming the RCC of the dark ages - we know that apostacy and corruption in leadership is almost "the norm" given 'enough lapse of time'. Spiritual entropy as it were.

    in fact we see Paul say that error comes from WITHIN the church in Acts 20.

    He sas that to Timothy in 1Tim 1 and he says that to Titus.

    So how would you use that in this case to resolve a disputed idea that is not resolved by the other side simply admitting to the truth of the scriptures you have posted?


    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #32 BobRyan, Oct 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2007
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    So then you're saying you want us to "click here"?

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1112299#post1112299
     
  14. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    If you click on the number of the post - you will get to the link that you need. then in the Browser path section at the top of your browser just cut and paste the info into the text of your post.

    (food for thought - from thoughtful food)
     
  16. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    Clearly you and I see this, but others will continue to accuse us of "twisting" the Scriptures on this issue.

    Oh, I'm not disputing that it's a common authority, or even the primary common authority. However, I think when people began to interpret Scriptures in a certain way, it should give those folks pause if that particular interpretation is contrary to how the consensus of the Church across time and space has interpreted Scripture on that issue.

    In practice we on all sides are usually first taught specific doctrines by our own particular "magisterium", and then we are shown the ostensible Scriptural support for our "mageterium's" views, as well as how to handle the seemingly problematic passages for that viewpoint. I experienced this as for years I was taught the standard SBC view on things such as OSAS--I knew the "proof texts" and how to "explain away" the "problem passages"...or so I thought.

    Sticking with Vincent of Lerins' criteria of "universality, antiquity, and consent" as the reliable quite for correctly interpreting Scripture. I can find the exact quote from his Commonitory later where he sets out the "rule", but for now it suffices to say that Vincent indeed acknowledges the high authority/sufficiency of Scripture along with the problem of having a plethora of conflicting interpretations of the same.

    Ah, but apostolic tradition is another matter as we see in 2 Thess 2:15. The key is distinguishing the apostolic tradition from mere man-made tradition, and that key is "universality, antiquity, and consent".


    Depends on what you mean by "catholic". I'm not Roman Catholic, but I do consider myself "catholic" (little "c"), as in "according to the whole (faith)".

    True, individual leaders may fall away, but God promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (corporately).

    And that's from folks drifting away from the norm of the apostolic tradition of the early church. Proper reform is in returning to the Scriptures and the ancient consensual norm of Scriptural interpretation in the Church. (*see my sig line below)

    True, but the WHOLE Church--the ground and pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15)--doesn't fall away (Matthew 16:18)


    I could point not only to the Scriptures (as I have done) but also to the consensus of how the early fathers interpreted them on this issue. That's all I can do, because some won't accept the evidence in either case.
     
  17. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Greetings all...

    Here is an excerpt from some excellent scripturally based teaching regarding this great and wonderful truth.

    Needless to say, it is flooded with scripture...


    (continued next post)
     
    #37 D28guy, Oct 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2007
  18. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    (continueing...)
    God bless,

    Mike


    http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/8449/just2.html
     
    #38 D28guy, Oct 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2007
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Is there any place in all of that that deals with justification as used in James 2 and Romans 2:11-14?
     
  20. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bob,

    Yes. From the same website. A different article....

    http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/8449/works.html

    Mike
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...