Did you use the term, “faith alone”?
Yeah, he does. I remember the quote. He also quoted these words:
Are we told that they were born again, before Calvary?
Because they still had Original Sin on their souls. Jesus Christ washed them perfectly, in His Blood, and led them into heaven.
Jesus Christ descended to the place of the dead precisely to bring them out.
You can discuss all you want. But the Scriptures which you claim to hold as your highest authority explains that the Law of Moses justified, but not of all things. Thus, not perfectly.
He is still with us and returns to us in a special way, every time we communicate with Him, in the Holy Eucharist.
It has worked for me very well. What sort of objections have you received that made you feel it was worthless?
They’re probably just turning in for the night. I was about to do the same.
Have to watch ToTell The Truth per wife’s orders
This is really sad Michael. Really lame. People with lives have all kinds of reasons to leave the conversation at any point.
I think so…I think their spirits that were once dead in trespasses in sins were quickened…I do not think Mary or Joseph or John the Baptist or David etc were not born of God, of the Spirit…they did not live by nor born only of the flesh…yes they were regenerated, born again…to say otherwise is to say they were spiritually dead.
Not like us in scale, perhaps from time to time, for a specific occassion…but generally no, they had the Holy Spirit with them, but not in them, just as the apostles did not until Jesus breathed on them after Calvary…but they were born again before this…they were not spiritually dead before this
Absolutely…both justified by faith, and certainly both with sanctified works to prove it…but correct, Paul would immediately go to heaven where Abraham had to wait but those are consequential differences apart from justification.
I do not think the law was given to justify, but rather to be a school matster, to show sin, to show need of dependence on mercy, forgiveness in blood, even in the Blood, as Paul states…he also states none are righteous by the Law , save One, the new Adam.
Not sure about that as much as I am sure that propitiation had not taken place yet…but there sins were forgiven just as ours are by faith in Calvary…I mean I think one can be forgiven even though the penalty had not been paid yet…never the less they were justified…like they were God"s sons and daughters, just that the ransom had not been paid yet.
But that is not what the word “free” means under any sane definition of the word. From dictionary.com:
For instance, the expression “a free lunch” does not mean that the chef is not forced to make food for you. It means that you are not charged for the lunch; you do have to give anything or do anything in return. So if you claim that we have to meet certain requirements and do certain things in order to receive the “free” gift of God, you have thereby perverted the meaning of the word.
This is rather an example of conditional election. You normally do not require the person having his/her birthday to do anything in return in order to receive the gift. In that sense only is it a free gift.
If the policy of the company is to give a reward to employees who have performed exceptionally well, then it is by definition not a free gift. If a randomly selected employee would get this gift for no other reason than being an employee, then it could be considered “free”.
Rather, my definition corresponds to what “free” actually means. If you expect something in return (or in advance) for something you give, then it is by definition not a free gift (it could even be argued that it is not a gift at all).
Gladly.
Christ came to save sinners and not the righteous.
They are not His sheep because they did His will—they did His will because they are His sheep. A tree is recognized by its fruit. And Matt. 25:31–46 is not a parable explaining how we are saved, but in which way mankind will be judged.
Can you provide the verse? Because, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit came about in the New Testament. It is the Holy Spirit which brings about new birth.
If you can provide a verse, I would be grateful.
That’s New Testament.
Thank you! And that’s the difference between being justified before Baptism and being justified in Baptism.
You’re wrong.
There was no washing of regeneration for Abraham at Mamre. This is the difference between our Justification in Baptism and their justification by faith and works.
Not anymore. But Abraham, when he died, was less justified than anyone who has been baptized.
St. Paul’s Teachings were difficult to understand. He spoke in superlatives. But he did not contradict the Teaching of our Lord. Jesus said:
They were not sons and daughters as we are. Listen to Scripture.
they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.Amen to it.JonNC:
Did you use the term, “faith alone”?
Yeah, he does. I remember the quote. He also quoted these words:
Galatians 5:6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Sorry, but I don’t follow what you are trying to say. Do you mean that you (at least in part) are justified by doing good works? How does that kind of justification relate to what Paul says with regard to the cross of Christ?
I think the past tense of “justified” is important. I do not find any biblical support for the idea that we are continually justified by doing good works.
And I believe that Christ came to make us free, and that includes liberating our will from its bondage to sin. Before that, we were dead in trespasses (Eph. 2:1) and God had to enable us to come to Christ in faith (John 6:65).
I think I understand how you think about grace. Out of curiosity: can you find any support in the Bible for the notion that grace is given in order to “bolster our capabilities”?
I am not versed in Luther’s teachings (not being a Lutheran myself), but perhaps he had passages like this one in mind:
Well then, Protestants are using the word wrong. You see, I’m just using the term “free gift” in order to accommodate Protestant terminology. We simply call it God’s gift of salvation. Protestants tend to use words like “free”, “alone” and “infallible”, incorrectly.
Thank you! Conditional election. I like that terminology. God elects those who obey His Word and gives them His free gift.
On the contrary, the Agreement makes no mention of this gift. And the Company has ceased to give it. Many have complained that it is due to us, but the Company was under no obligation to give it in the first place.
Your definition does not correspond to how the combination of words, “free gift” is normally used.
You can argue all you want, but a look around at real life will prove you wrong.
Did those sinners repent, first? Yes or no.
Christ came to bring sinners to repentance and then to save them. But, any unrepentant sinners remained unsaved. Or do you deny this?
Yeah, they are.
No. They are His sheep because they did His will.
It’s a metaphor. God recognizes His children by their works. If it was as you mean, it would say, “Only my appointed apple trees bear fruit.” Scripture does not teach double predestination.
Yes.
It prepares one for it. And afterwards, it maintains one in it.
Do you believe that you are continually sanctified by doing good works?
All that is true. But did you notice that the Apostles kept preaching to the new Christians that they should remain free of sin and continue to repent of their sins?
Hebrews 4:16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Perhaps. But have you then heard of Calvin’s teaching that all men are “totally depraved”?