A
ajcstr
Guest
The clear teaching on progressive justification is the example of Abraham in Romans and James. But that does not fit your theology so you go into scriptural gymnastics that would make Nadia Comaneci proud.
- Status
L
lanman87
Guest
So I’ve pondered the question of “is faith a work” over the weekend.
My answer is that it depends on how you define work. If work is any action or movement that we do out of our free will then faith could be a work.
However, the works described in the Bible are more than any action or movement. They are actions or movement that earn or merit something.
For instance, if a man comes up to me and offers me $1000.00 in cash as a gift. Then I reach up and take the $1000 bill out of his hands, have I worked to earn that $1,000? No, I haven’t done anything to deserve or earn the money. I’ve simply accepted the gift of $1,000.00.
The Evangelical position is that we do not earn or merit salvation in any form or fashion, to do so would make salvation a wage instead of a gift. Instead, we accept the Gift of salvation by faith. Faith is reaching out and taking the gift God is freely offering us.
From what I can tell from my studies in Catholicism, is that it takes more than faith to reach out and take the gifts God is offering us. To an evangelical faith is the only way we accepts the gifts God offers. To a Catholic faith and works (in particular the sacraments) are how we accept the gifts of God.
Last edited:
B
Brendan
Guest
Or Classical Attic Greek vs Kione Greek. In Kione Greek, the common Greek of the time and it is also the Greek form used in the New Testament; petros and petras are inflected synonyms. The Attic Greek to which tg is referring, was over 200 years old at the time of Christ. The Greek language had changed.tgGodsway:
So then you would argue that Jesus spoke Greek and not Aramaic ?
Kione Greek had developed a word for a small rock, lithos. We see that in Matthew 4:3 where the Devil tells Christ to change these rocks ( lithoi) into bread, Or by Peter himself in 1 Peter 2:5 where Peter describes 'living stones" lithoi.
So yes, TG, the Greek IS accurate, just make sure to use the correct Greek, the one spoken at the time, and used by the New Testament writers.
And then, of course, there is the Aramaic word, Cephas, which means rock, as in the substance of Rock.
B
Brendan
Guest
But you DID something to gain that $1000, you reached out and took it. That is a human action, and thus a work.
Yes it was a gift, but the gift required you to DO something, it required an action on the part of you, not just on the part of the giver.
I presume that you agree that this gift is offered to everyone. If there is no human act that is required for this gift, then everyone has received this gift, that everyone is saved. Or is there a human action to either accept or reject this gift. That acceptance or rejection, being a human act, is a work
Yes it was a gift, but the gift required you to DO something, it required an action on the part of you, not just on the part of the giver.
I presume that you agree that this gift is offered to everyone. If there is no human act that is required for this gift, then everyone has received this gift, that everyone is saved. Or is there a human action to either accept or reject this gift. That acceptance or rejection, being a human act, is a work
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Brendan,. I’m a little amazed at some of the responses to last weeks post on Peter. Yours is also in the mix.
It is amazing how you guys can spin. The reason why petros is considered a small rock is simply because the word is used this way in Greek. However it is irrelevant whether it was a small rock or a large one. The attempt to undermine a clear word-play by Jesus is shameful. There is a word play between Petros and Petra. The first one is in masculine gender. Why? Because we are talking about Peter a human being. Thou art Peter = masculine Upon this ROCK (the Greek word here for Rock changed from petros, to petra, and it is NOT in a masculine gender, but feminine.
Why aren’t any of you asking why Petra is NOT in a masculine gender? …
(and there is no Greek text that will say it is) Did the holy Spirit make a mistake here? … No He did not. So why insult Him?
If Matthew intended to communicate what you guys insist, it would read like this: Thou art Peter (petros=masculine ) and upon this (petros=masculine) I will build my Church. But there is NO Greek text that reads this way and you know it.
You can blame it on the type of Greek used. You can blame it on the argument that Jesus spoke in Aramaic not Greek. You can blame it on the protestants. But you’ve got to be kidding.
The Greek text is reliable and accurate and there is not one credible Greek scholar who will deny what is found here in Matthew 16. Spin all you like, you know you are dead wrong.
This is where you guys need to get to some serious repentance in your hearts for such gross deception on your part.
Jesus clearly (by context) was responding to what Peter had just said, Thou Art the Christ the Son of the Living God… This statement is the Rock to which the Church would be build on by Christ. The Apostle Paul came along later only to agree that Christ is the head and there is no other. There is your second witness.
It is amazing how you guys can spin. The reason why petros is considered a small rock is simply because the word is used this way in Greek. However it is irrelevant whether it was a small rock or a large one. The attempt to undermine a clear word-play by Jesus is shameful. There is a word play between Petros and Petra. The first one is in masculine gender. Why? Because we are talking about Peter a human being. Thou art Peter = masculine Upon this ROCK (the Greek word here for Rock changed from petros, to petra, and it is NOT in a masculine gender, but feminine.
Why aren’t any of you asking why Petra is NOT in a masculine gender? …
(and there is no Greek text that will say it is) Did the holy Spirit make a mistake here? … No He did not. So why insult Him?
If Matthew intended to communicate what you guys insist, it would read like this: Thou art Peter (petros=masculine ) and upon this (petros=masculine) I will build my Church. But there is NO Greek text that reads this way and you know it.
You can blame it on the type of Greek used. You can blame it on the argument that Jesus spoke in Aramaic not Greek. You can blame it on the protestants. But you’ve got to be kidding.
The Greek text is reliable and accurate and there is not one credible Greek scholar who will deny what is found here in Matthew 16. Spin all you like, you know you are dead wrong.
This is where you guys need to get to some serious repentance in your hearts for such gross deception on your part.
Jesus clearly (by context) was responding to what Peter had just said, Thou Art the Christ the Son of the Living God… This statement is the Rock to which the Church would be build on by Christ. The Apostle Paul came along later only to agree that Christ is the head and there is no other. There is your second witness.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Because we have heard this argument before… See point 2 but read the whole thing
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, T!
But the problem is from the protestation of Cephas being chosen by Christ to lead the Apostles.
Regardless upon how you want to word it, you are wrong.
By your understanding Jesus is making fun of Simon. Jesus debases Simon by changing his male given name to a female… was Jesus insinuating that Simon was homosexual or effeminate?
Do you that first error?
Then you place Jesus as an overlord concerned that Simon will get too much attention from His Followers so he takes Simon down a few pegs–‘no, not you; it’s meeeeee! I’m the one… you are just a tiny speck of nothing… I’m building my Church on meeeeee!’
Confused much?
Maran atha!
Angel
But the problem is from the protestation of Cephas being chosen by Christ to lead the Apostles.
Regardless upon how you want to word it, you are wrong.
By your understanding Jesus is making fun of Simon. Jesus debases Simon by changing his male given name to a female… was Jesus insinuating that Simon was homosexual or effeminate?
Do you that first error?
Then you place Jesus as an overlord concerned that Simon will get too much attention from His Followers so he takes Simon down a few pegs–‘no, not you; it’s meeeeee! I’m the one… you are just a tiny speck of nothing… I’m building my Church on meeeeee!’
Confused much?
Maran atha!
Angel
T
tgGodsway
Guest
De_Mira,
“Let no man think he stands, lest he fall,” 1st. Cor. 10:12. that includes the Roman Catholic Church. Your words lead me to believe you are a babe in Christ, but much like the Corinthian Church full of pride and posture.
Of course the Church answers to the Church. We too have people in authority, Pastors, Elders, Bishops, and even Apostles. We answer to them, and they answer to God. They too are universal. They serve all over the world. But the difference between them and you is they know they are not infallible, you believe you are. sad.
The only thing in this world that is infallible is the written word of God and God Himself.
“Let no man think he stands, lest he fall,” 1st. Cor. 10:12. that includes the Roman Catholic Church. Your words lead me to believe you are a babe in Christ, but much like the Corinthian Church full of pride and posture.
Of course the Church answers to the Church. We too have people in authority, Pastors, Elders, Bishops, and even Apostles. We answer to them, and they answer to God. They too are universal. They serve all over the world. But the difference between them and you is they know they are not infallible, you believe you are. sad.
The only thing in this world that is infallible is the written word of God and God Himself.
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
…again, you miss the point.
When the Catholic Church Teaches, that’s infallible.
When non-Catholics teach… well that’s up in the air (a body of “xyz” take a vote and they proclaim doctrine).
Maran atha!
Angel
When the Catholic Church Teaches, that’s infallible.
When non-Catholics teach… well that’s up in the air (a body of “xyz” take a vote and they proclaim doctrine).
Maran atha!
Angel
T
tgGodsway
Guest
ajcstr, thank you for the link. I read all of it.
Not impressed. sorry.
This insistence to make the interpretation of Matthew 16 NOT include Peter’s declaration is the premise of the problem in my view, along with a lot of bias to see Peter in this light.
The fact that Mathew wrote it in Greek, despite inconclusive evidence of Aramaic, still plays its part. There is no universal agreement on such speculations. Even if Jesus spoke it in Aramaic and Matthew recorded it in Greek, he did so, by the power of the Holy Spirit. So that what we have today between these two controversial words, is still a God-breathed word. I’m sure Jesus knew the difference between these two words seeing that He had absolute fellowship with the Holy Spirit, the original Greek manuscript would have been corrected before the ink dried. But no such thing was needed. The Holy Spirit breathed the Matthew 16 passage from the Greek language to the parchment as confirmed by the thousands of manuscripts that were discovered and placed into the common text. These renderings are accurate.
Not impressed. sorry.
This insistence to make the interpretation of Matthew 16 NOT include Peter’s declaration is the premise of the problem in my view, along with a lot of bias to see Peter in this light.
The fact that Mathew wrote it in Greek, despite inconclusive evidence of Aramaic, still plays its part. There is no universal agreement on such speculations. Even if Jesus spoke it in Aramaic and Matthew recorded it in Greek, he did so, by the power of the Holy Spirit. So that what we have today between these two controversial words, is still a God-breathed word. I’m sure Jesus knew the difference between these two words seeing that He had absolute fellowship with the Holy Spirit, the original Greek manuscript would have been corrected before the ink dried. But no such thing was needed. The Holy Spirit breathed the Matthew 16 passage from the Greek language to the parchment as confirmed by the thousands of manuscripts that were discovered and placed into the common text. These renderings are accurate.
A
ajcstr
Guest
OK, add this to the list of our disagreements then and lets move on. 
The idea that Jesus was making a pun here is equally unimpressive to me.
The idea that Jesus was making a pun here is equally unimpressive to me.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
That is why I said it depends on what you mean by work. Not all actions are work. Works used in the Biblical sense doesn’t mean you don’t have to do anything it means you don’t have to earn anything. We don’t receive salvation like it a wage to be earned or a scholarship to be awarded. It is a gift we receive by faith (A heart changed by God). Then our actions reflect the fact that God has changed our heart.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Yeah… I don’t think there were any speed bumps intended on this Matthew 16 hwy
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Where does the word of God teach the Catholic Church is infallible?
A
ajcstr
Guest
Well, of course you would disagree with the interpretation but 1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
If the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth then it cannot teach error
You obviously trust that the Church was correct in its definition of the Trinity (where were the Protestant churches then?), in its declaration of the books that comprise the NT (for some reason I never understood, you reject some of the OT books - what did the protestant churches have to say about this?), and in its defense against heresies (prior to 1500 of course ah, there are the Protestant churches). The Word of God (Jesus) also said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (His Church - which church?).
But of course you will disagree with all of this because there is no verse in the Bible that states “The Roman Catholic Church is infallible”. Even if there was you would probably explain it away as you do with "you see a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Justification is an act that’s normatively completed at belief and at baptism. But what is justified can become unjustified, hence the lifelong progress of running the race.
W
Wesrock
Guest
How do you know what’s the written word of God?
A
ajcstr
Guest
I’ve showed you twice, you acknowledged neither - when was the ONE time Abraham was justified?
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
I think you’ve got that quote under my name in error there.
A
ajcstr
Guest
I saw that also, I didn’t do that… probably because I copied a sentence that was embedded. I was addressing tgGodsway … fixed it!
Last edited:
- Status