The Popular False Justification and False Sanctification View Today.

[Bible Highlighter]

When I say believer, I am talking a true believer, not a make believer

A make believer will fall away.

Prove your case biblically that every time the Bible talks about falling away it is in reference to a fake believer and not a genuine one.

Also, listen to yourself. What exactly is fake believer falling away from?
If a fake believer is in the clutches of the devil, he never left the devil. So he is not falling away from God.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

This sounds very Calvinistic.

I'm not familiar with Calvin's specific teachings. Perhaps I should look them up? Thanks for the tip.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

believers are not forced your right.

they are new creatures.

You missed the point I was trying to make. You believe that a genuine believer is a new creature.
Did they make themselves to be a new creature or did God make them to become a new creature?
If you say it was all God who made them a new creature, and man had no part in that whatsoever (like choosing Jesus Christ as their Savior of their own free will), then you are denying that God is forcing a person (who was once an unbeliever) to be a believer and to be a new creature.
Even if you believed that you had free will to choose Christ, did you agree with God that He was going to do a forced take over of your entire being?
Meaning, if you believe a genuine believer can never fall away, then the verses I provided simply would not be true. That’s what your not getting here.

a dog returns to his vomit (sin) because he is a dog. He was never created new in christ

You cannot return to your vomit if you never had the capacity to give up that vomit with God’s help in the first place.
Anyways, the Bible is merely describing how if one returns back to their sin, they are then presently a dog. But you think in terms of Justification and even if a believer is in sin, they are still saved from the penalty of sin.

a believe is new. Sin is poison to him now. he is also chastened by God. A can not nor does he want to live as he did before.

Then why do you imply the opposite line of thinking that believers sin daily or sin and still be saved in post #112? It sounds like you are speaking in a contradictory way.

Either way. Thanks for proving it is YOU, not me, who does not believe in the power of God to change lives

Sorry, I don’t believe you. Your other words in post #112 prove that you really cannot fully believe these words that you just said here.
For if a believer thinks they can sin and still be saved on any level, they are not changed. That is what unbelievers do. They justify sin. Again, I do realize you are not Hyper Grace, but I believe you are Partial Hyper Grace (you believe you are saved soley by a belief alone in Jesus and holy living really does not play a part in your salvation). You believe God overrides your will in the new birth to live just holy enough to just narrowly slip by into entering the Kingdom. It’s sort of like you believe in Reverse Calvinism. You think a one time decision in choosing Christ of your own free will leads to God creating a completely different person who will do just enough holy things to please God to enter the Kingdom.

 

[Taken]

Please take no offense, but if you stop using the caps key all the time on certain words, and you remove your avatar that looks demonic, and you don’t speak in fragmented English that sounds incoherent most times,

capital letters bug you oreo cookies look demonic and written english has sounds not nice to make fun of hard of seeing people

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not familiar with Calvin's specific teachings. Perhaps I should look them up? Thanks for the tip.

I debated with Calvinists since 2010. I believe Calvinism borderlines on being Sociopathic. Meaning, there is no morality or heart when a true Calvinist reads the Bible. The problem is that the god of Calvinism is simply not a just and good god because He creates life for the simple purpose of torturing that life for all eternity as their one and only sole destiny.

Calvinist Point #1 - Total Depravity (or Total Inability):

This point is basically saying that man is spiritually dead and has no ability to come to the god of Calvinism on his own without a regeneration from the god of Calvinism in order to make the person alive to be able to be be illuminated, and be saved.

First, it may surprise you that I believe in “Original Sin” (Not the Calvinistic version). I believe “Original Sin” is essentially saying that sin and or the sin nature has tainted humanity after Adam's fall. Ephesians 2:3 says we are by nature children of wrath. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” But the fallen nature that comes from Adam is not a total corruption of the human will whereby they cannot respond to God. We have free will to come to Christ on His terms (According to His Word), whereby God will then regenerate us (or convert us) (i.e. to born again spiritually) in order for us to be a new creature in Christ whereby all things become new (See: 2 Corinthians 5:17). For God argued with Cain in doing good (Genesis 4:7), and yet Cain was said to be of that wicked one (1 John 3:12). Meaning, Cain had a choice to either do good or sin. It's why God tried to convince him to not sin (Read all of Genesis 4 to get the full story).

Second, the Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ. The language of Jesus was, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). Notice, it is not a matter of whether or not you can come to Christ; it is a matter of whether or not you will come to Christ. Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . .how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37). Here again notice, He did not say, "How often would I have gathered you together, but you could not." No. He said, "Ye would not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would. Revelation 22:17, the last invitation in the Bible, says, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely ." If it is true that no person has the ability to come to Christ, then why would Jesus say in John 5:40, "Ye will not come to me." why didn't He simply say, "You cannot come to me."? The only thing that stands between the sinner and salvation is the sinner's will. God made every man a free moral agent; And God never burglarizes the human will.

Calvinist Point #2 - Unconditional Election:

This point is basically saying that the god of Calvinism Elects some to salvation based on no conditions found within the individual and those who are lost are either Non-Elected or they are Elected to Reprobation (Damnation). While Adam did make all men sinners, the god of Calvinism simply chooses to blame Adam's children for Adam's sin and not give them a chance to redeem themselves. The god of Calvinism would rather create the majority of mankind for the express purpose to simply be tortured eternally in hellfire to the good council of his will.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that those who perish are perishing not because the god of Calvinism did not Elect them to salvation but because THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED. This is the reason why they are perishing. Again, no conditions exist when the god of Calvinism elects a person. No reason is to be given as to why they are perishing. It's called UNconditional Election. There are no conditions as to why they are saved or not saved. The god of Calvinism simply just chooses based on no conditions. This is contrary to what we read in 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Jonah 3:10 is also another big one that refutes Unconditional Election. It is clearly talking about how God changed His mind or relented on not bringing destruction upon the Ninevites based on the fact that they had forsaken their evil ways. Also, Psalms 7:11. It says that God is angry at the wicked every day. This makes absolutely no sense involving the god of Calvinism. The real GOD of the Bible gets angry at the wicked because they have a free will choice to choose God and do what is good and yet they don't do so (Hence why God is angry). But the god of Calvinism makes God out to be like the incredible Hulk when he is on one of those uncontrollable anger rampages that destroys entire cities. Why cannot the god of Calvinism just elect men to salvation and have them do good? Why is the god of Calvinism angry? Is not the god of Calvinism sovereign over all things?

Calvinist Point #3 - Limited Atonement:

This point is basically saying that the Calvin version of Jesus only died for the Elect and he did not die for the sins of the whole world (i.e. the majority of human life).

This is easily refuted by 2 Peter 2:1, and 1 John 2:2. 2 Peter 2:1 says there are false teachers who deny the Lord who have bought them. Obviously false teachers are not saved, and yet the Lord has bought them. So either the Bible is teaching the Provisional Atonement or Universalism. Seeing Universalism (the salvation of the righteous and the wicked) is clearly a false teaching, we must conclude 2 Peter 2:1 is referring to the Provisional Atonement. 1 John 2:2 says that Christ is not only the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. The Calvinist would have me believe that the words “whole world” is in reference to a very small chosen Elect few. Whole world does not sound like the minority or a small group. Jesus said narrow is the way that leads unto life and FEW be there that find it. So the FEW are the Elect, right? If I talk about the whole world, you are not thinking of just a few people or some small group. So Calvinism is distorting the actual words in Scripture in order to make it's theology work. Also, a Calvinist preacher who says to a crowd that they can be saved is lying to them because most of them most likely cannot be saved because only a few will be saved. The Non-Elect are not capable of being saved and so the Calvinist preacher is lying to these Non-Elect.

(Continued in next post):
(Note: Source link for one paragraph I used in this post is provided in my next post).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Calvinist Point #4 - Irresistible Grace:

This point is basically saying that the grace of the god of Calvinism cannot be resisted. But you have Calvinists who doubt their experience in being saved by Calvinistic grace, and they question whether this experience was genuine because they are not living that holy life. There are Calvinists who believe they may be one of the Non-Elect and are doomed to hell. Yet, some of them still defend Calvinism (even when their god of Calvinism has abandoned them).

Paul tells the Corinthians not to receive the grace of God in vain and then Paul talks about how we are not to be unevenly yoked with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14). As a part of not receiving the grace of God in vain: We are to give no offence in anything, that the ministry be not blamed; We are also to in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God (See: 2 Corinthians 6:3-10). Galatians 5:4 says, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” So according to Galatians 5:4, a person can fall from grace. So grace is not irresistible according to the Bible.

Calvinist Point #5 - Perseverance of the Saints:

This point (also referred to as eternal security as well as the similar but distinct doctrine known as "Once Saved, Always Saved") is a teaching that asserts that once a person is truly "born again by the god of Calvinism,” or “regenerated by him,” nothing in heaven or earth shall be able to separate (them) from the love of the god of Calvinism (Romans 8:39) resulting in a reversal of their converted condition. Note: Please take note that I am aware that there are Non-Calvinists who hold to Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS).

Anyways, here is a General List of Verses on How Believers Can Fall Away:
(Thereby refuting this point within Calvinism):

Hebrews 3:12-14
Hebrews 4:11
Hebrews 6:4-9
Hebrews 10:26-30
Hebrews 12:15
1 Timothy 1:18-20
1 Timothy 4:1-7
Galatians 5:2-4
2 Peter 2:20-22
2 Peter 3:17
Luke 8:11-15
1 Corinthians 10:12
2 Thessalonians 2:3​

Now, do not misunderstand me, believers cannot lose their salvation (like they would a pair of car keys), but they can forfeit their salvation (i.e. they can willingly throw it away by rebelling against God). In fact,

Here is a list of believers who have forfeited their salvation:

Saul (1 Samuel 16:14) (1 Samuel 31:4)
Demas (2 Timothy 4:10)
The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)
Judas Iscariot (Psalm 41:9) (Luke 6:16) (Acts 1:25)
Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18)
Unnamed Christians destroyed by false teaching (2 Timothy 2:17-18)
Many Unnamed Disciples (John 6:66)
Some Younger Christian Widows (1 Timothy 5:14-15)
Some Christians Eager For Money (1 Timothy 6:8-10)
Ananias and Sapphira (Acts of the Apostles 5:1-11)​

And here is a list of potential fallen believers:

The Servant Who is Not Looking For Him (Luke 12:45-46)
Recent Convert Who is a Potential Spiritual Leader (1 Timothy 3:6)
The Unforgiving in Heart (Matthew 6:14-15)
Luke Warm Unrepentant Believer (Revelation 3:14-22)
Fruitless Christians (John 15:1-10) (Matthew 25:14-30)
Widows That Live in Pleasure (1 Timothy 5:5-6)
Believers Whose Seed Fell Upon the Rocks (Luke 8:13)
Believers Whose Seed Was Choked by Thorns (Matthew 13:22)
Gentile Believer Who Did Not Have on a Wedding Garment (Matthew 22:1-14) (Revelation 19:7-8)
The Potential Fellow Believer Who Erred From the Truth & Was Converted Back (James 5:19-20)​

In fact, Paul is against Eternal Security or a sin and still be saved type belief. For Paul says,

1. We can fall from grace (Galatians 5:4).
   
   
2. We can be moved away from the hope (Colossians 1:23).
   
   
3. We can be a castaway (1 Corinthians 9:27).
   
   
4. We can be cut off just like the Jews if we do not continue in God’s goodness (Romans 11:20-22).
   
   
5. We can sow to the flesh and reap corruption instead of sowing to the Spirit which reaps everlasting life. (Galatians 6:8).
   
   
6. We can deny God by a lack of good works (Titus 1:16).
   
   
7. We can shipwreck our faith (1 Timothy 1:19).
   
   
8. We can deny the faith and be worse than an infidel if we do not provide for our own household (1 Timothy 5:8).
   
   
9. We can err from the faith and pierce ourselves thru with many sorrows if we love and covet after money (1 Timothy 6:10).
   
   
10. Hymnenaeus and Philetus have overthrown the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:18).

These things would not exist in Scripture if things are as the Calvinist says.


Source used for one paragraph on the point involving Total Inability:
http://www.victorybaptistmg.org/Why I Disagree With All 5 Points of Calvinism.pdf

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Calvinist Point #1 - Total Depravit

Calvinist Point #2 - Unconditional Election

Calvinist Point #3 - Limited Atonement

Calvinist Point #4 - Irresistible Grace

Calvinist Point #5 - Perseverance of the Saints

Thank you for the above detailed information. I appreciate it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

capital letters bug you oreo cookies look demonic and written english has sounds not nice to make fun of hard of seeing people

I do capitalize words on occasion to highlight what is being said, but to do so often (especially in every post multiple times) comes off as shouting and or to make a person’s words hard to read. Don’t believe me?

Check out these articles here:

Why Text in All Caps Is Hard for Users to Read

Why You Shouldn't Write in All Caps

Why ALL CAPS Is Usually a Bad Idea

As for your avatar of a smiley face that has Oreo cookie eyes:

Well, for one, it is not noticeable that the eyes are Oreo cookies. Second, I am not sure how that makes much of a difference; The idea is that if you have a smiley face with big black empty eyes, it suggests that smiley faced person is possessed by evil.

Don’t believe me?

Here is a quote from a website:

“These days, when someone is possessed by demons, dabbling in the dark arts, psychically dominated by evil aliens, or gone evil in some other way, their eyes will go perfectly black with no whites at all.

Presumably this perfect blackness indicates the purity of the evil within them and their total lack of humanity. Even if a person's eyes are weirdly coloured, there is still a possibility of human connection, but if her eyes are gaping wells of nothingness...

One interesting feature of this trope is that these black eyes will return to their normal state if the demon is exorcised/psychic link is broken/etc.”​

Source:
Black Eyes of Evil
(Note: I do not approve of all the content on this website; I merely quoted this website to make a brief point).

As for having correct grammar:

It’s more than about sounding nice, it’s about sounding coherent. Coherent means: having clarity or intelligibility; It means to be understandable. In other words, I cannot in good faith reply to a post with Scripture in detail that sounds like ramblings or incoherent words. Why? Well, because I don’t want to misunderstand them. Communication is key to understanding in what we are saying. All I can do is encourage you to take an English course to improve your English so that others can understand you better and so that they will not ignore your posts. For if others have ignored your posts before, this would be one of the reasons, my friend. Again, please take no offense. I am only trying to help here.

May God bless you greatly even if we disagree on the way you communicate and even if I disagree with your avatar.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you for the above detailed information. I appreciate it.

Your welcome.

The Bible has led me to lean more towards Arminianism.

Here are the Original 5 Articles (or Points) of Traditional Arminianism:

1. Conditional Election.
2. Unlimited Atonement.
3. Total Depravity.
4. Prevenient Grace.
5. Conditional Preservation of the Saints.

Five Articles of Remonstrance - Wikipedia

I believe in something close to this.

Here are my points (that are similar to Arminianism):

#1. Conditional Election (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).
#2. Conditional Salvation.
#3. Unrestricted Initial Drawing(s) & Illumination(s) by God For Majority; A.K.A. Free Will Involving One’s Choice Towards the Lord, Grace, or Salvation (Note: Christ draws all men unto Himself, and God is not willing that any should perish.) (Note: All men are given an opportunity or opportunities by God to understand the "Offer of the Love of the Truth" so that they are able to receive it, or reject it of their own free will. - See: 2 Thessalonians 2:10.).
#4. Provisional Majority Atonement (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).
#5. Partial Depravity.
​

Note: My Arminian influenced points on my list above when rearranged spells CCUPP.

The differences in my points are:

(a) I believe in Partial Depravity, and not Total Depravity.

(b) I believe in Conditional Salvation, and not Conditional Preservation of the Saints. I do not believe God forces us against our own will to do what He wants. We need to be faithful (and it is not God who needs to be faithful on our behalf) (Yes, God can protect us, chastise us, etc., but we have to do our part first to make that so) (We are not puppets).

(c) I believe in Majority Atonement and not Unlimited Atonement. I believe that the sacrifice of Christ's atonement is for the majority of the world, and that it is a free will offer for a person to accept as a gift or to reject it of their own choosing, but God has excluded those who worship the beast in the future from the Lamb's book of life (See: Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8) (Note: While I am sure they had a free will choice to accept Christ, they were never going to do that and God knew that fact; They would do something that could never be forgiven).

(d) Unrestricted Initial Drawing(s) & Illumination(s) by God For Majority and not Prevenient Grace. They are similar but not exactly the same. My view takes into account that God desires all men to be saved, and it also takes into account Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8. Prevenient Grace does not also clarify that God may not make multiple attempts to try and save a person, as well.
​

Then again, do not take my word for what I have stated. Do your own homework with God's Word and check to see whether these things be so or not. Remember. Trust no one when it comes to what the Word of God says. Yes, there are things many believers may agree on for sure like the Trinity, etc. but there are other things out there that I have discovered we clearly do not agree on. Let God and His Word be your guide, my friend.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

I keep coming back to Romans 4.

What, then, are we to say about Abraham, our human ancestor? For if Abraham was justified by actions, he would have had something to boast about—though not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to someone who works, wages are not considered a gift but an obligation. However, to someone who does not work, but simply believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Likewise, David also speaks of the blessedness of the person whom God regards as righteous apart from actions: “How blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered! How blessed is the person whose sins the Lord will never charge against him!” - Romans 4:1-8 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 4:1-8 - International Standard Version

Where I get hung up is the notion of wages for works. On the one hand if God created a bunch of rules and said, "obey these and be saved" then we live under the law, but Paul is clear that is not the case. However, Paul is also clear that we must not be distracted by false teachers lest we be damned, so there is some form of law by another name.

But here's the rub: if we can coerce God's hand by our action then we are, in effect, raised above God. But that's nonsensical. No man can force God's hand. Now I'm back to square one...

In the words of Madonna, "Life is a mystery."

 

[farouk]

If I burned the books of authors who offend me then there would be no books.

"If I looked in the mirror......"

 

[Taken]

I do capitalize words on occasion to highlight what is being said, but to do so often (especially in every post multiple times) comes off as shouting and or to make a person’s words hard to read. Don’t believe me?

I am not 5yrs old requiring society to dictate what some dolt believes is suitable behavior for me.

Do your ears hurt at the “sound” of a newspaper headline?
Seriously man, observe the nonsense society pushes and wonder why you are riding their train.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is what ages me know you do not believe God and his word

Sorry. I disagree. You have not provided any good explanations using God’s Word to the verses I put forth to you that refutes your false belief. So your statement that I don’t believe God’s Word is merely a hollow one at that. You need to back up your beliefs, and I know you simply cannot do that. Why? This is not my first rodeo. I have been involved in these kinds of discussions since 2010.

1. God said 1 sin is all it takes.. How many sins have you committed?

Chapter and verse.
Note: I am aware of Adam’s one time sin that set the fall of mankind into motion.
This does not prove the Protestant View on Justification and their view on Sanctification. Nowhere does the Bible teach that we are forgiven of future sin.
Believers have to confess of sin to be forgiven of sin (1 John 1:9).
Romans 8:13 says that if you walk after the flesh (sin), you will die (die the second death), but if you put to death the misdeeds of the body (sin) by the Spirit, you will live (live eternally). This is written to the believer and not the unbeliever.

I am aware of James 2:10 that says that if you stumble in one point you break all of God’s laws. However, the point by James was not Protestant Justification in that God’s grace gives us diplomatic immunity to sin. James’ point was that if you disobey God’s royal law of love in not loving the brethren (like poor believers), then you are breaking all of God’s laws. That’s the context. James was not referring to some kind of universal forever truth on all types of sin here. 1 John 5:16 and Matthew 5:22 in the Amplified Translation prove that not all sin has the same punishment. Even Sodom should tell you that. Other cities sinned, but they did not commit the type of grievous sin on the level that Sodom did. Hence, why that city was destroyed by fire from Heaven (While other cities were not).

2. Anyone who says they do not deserve hell does not understand God period.

That’s not really what you were saying. You were saying that we all deserve hell in the present tense (Suggesting that one is still sinning so as to deserve hell). If one is forgiven of their past sins in coming to Jesus and His grace, and they are obeying God, they no longer deserve hell because they a child of the Kingdom (and abiding in Christ). God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. God is love, and He does not want anyone to perish.

Anyways, in Matthew 25:21, the Lord says, “His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”

Notice the words of the Lord saying…. Well done… good and faithful servant. The Lord did not say to that servant, I know you deserved hell but go ahead and enter the Kingdom anyways because I love you and because you exercised faith in the finished work of the cross alone plus nothing else.

That’s why I cannot take Protestant ramblings seriously.
They say things that are not even in the Bible.

No use doing what @mailmandan always says, and beat a dead horse

I can say the same thing, but the proof in the pudding that one is correct on this issue is Scripture. Does Scripture truly back the Protestant view of Justification and Sanctification? I don’t believe that is the case, and I provided verses that prove this fact. It is up to you to defend your false belief in Protestantism. But all I can do is encourage you to read the Bible without Protestants talking in your ear. Just let the Bible speak for itself and ask God for the understanding on it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not 5yrs old requiring society to dictate what some dolt believes is suitable behavior for me.

Do your ears hurt at the “sound” of a newspaper headline?
Seriously man, observe the nonsense society pushes and wonder why you are riding their train.

While unbelievers should not be followed in regards to being an absolute authority on morality, are you saying unbelievers can never be right about anything?

That’s what it sounds like to me.
I mean, did you not learn anything of benefit in school from unbelieving teachers?

Anyways, believe whatever you want to believe. Just know that the reasons I gave is why I ignore your posts. It’s not personal by any means. It’s just that I don’t want to misunderstand what you are saying. I also don’t deal well with folks promoting things that are evil, as well. I see your avatar as something that looks evil. You may not, but I do. The Bible says to abstain from all appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22 KJB).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I keep coming back to Romans 4.

What, then, are we to say about Abraham, our human ancestor? For if Abraham was justified by actions, he would have had something to boast about—though not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to someone who works, wages are not considered a gift but an obligation. However, to someone who does not work, but simply believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Likewise, David also speaks of the blessedness of the person whom God regards as righteous apart from actions: “How blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered! How blessed is the person whose sins the Lord will never charge against him!” - Romans 4:1-8 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 4:1-8 - International Standard Version

Where I get hung up is the notion of wages for works. On the one hand if God created a bunch of rules and said, "obey these and be saved" then we live under the law, but Paul is clear that is not the case. However, Paul is also clear that we must not be distracted by false teachers lest we be damned, so there is some form of law by another name.

But here's the rub: if we can coerce God's hand by our action then we are, in effect, raised above God. But that's nonsensical. No man can force God's hand. Now I'm back to square one...

In the words of Madonna, "Life is a mystery."

But Paul says if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine according to godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). James 4:6 says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. Paul says in Titus 2:11-12 that God’s grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world. Paul says in Titus 1:16 says that one can deny God by being reprobate unto every good work.

So is Paul contradicting himself?
Surely not.

I believe the solution to understanding Romans 4 is that Paul’s motivation for speaking the way that he did was to fight against a heresy of what I call: “Circumcision Salvationism.” In Acts of the Apostles 15:1, it says:

“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (Acts of the Apostles 15:1).

Did you catch what it said?
Gentile believers were being deceived into thinking they had to be circumcised in order to be initially saved.

Paul says in Galatians 5:2 that if you seek to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

Surely Paul is referring to the heresy in Acts of the Apostles 15:1.

In other words, if a person thought they had to first be circumcised in order to be saved, they would be making the Law or works the entrance gate and foundation of their salvation.

Paul says in Romans 3:1, what profit is there in circumcision?

Paul even brings up the order of faith and circumcision as his point in Romans 4:9-12.
Paul’s point was that faith came first with Abraham before he was circumcised. It was not that Abraham was not to be circumcised.

Genesis 17:14 says: “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”

But this would be the breaking of the covenant given to Abraham and his people, and not Christians.
Christians are not commanded by God to be circumcised as a part of keeping the New Covenant.

Paul’s point is that we need to first be saved by God’s grace without works in the 1st aspect of salvation.
Paul was speaking against “Works ALONE Salvationism” without God’s grace because certain Gentile Christians were being deceived into thinking they had to first be circumcised in order to be initially saved. Paul was not referring to being saved in the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit after one is saved by the gospel (See: 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). Many people love to read Ephesians 2:8-9, and Romans 4, but what about 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14? What about Romans 8:13?

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Paul was speaking against “Works ALONE Salvationism” without God’s grace because certain Gentile Christians were being deceived into thinking they had to first be circumcised in order to be initially saved.

Understood, but in the parables Jesus speaks of the Word falling on Rocky soil. It first takes root then dies. This seems the to imply salvation lost. That's confusing. If salvation can be lost then it was never had in the first place since to lose one's salvation suggests one can coerce God's hand (force him to un-save you) through wicked behavior, and why would God permit that?

 

[LearningToLetGo]

If salvation can be lost then it was never had in the first place since to lose one's salvation suggests one can coerce God's hand (force him to un-save you) through wicked behavior, and why would God permit that?

On the flip side, if one can gain salvation then was it ever lost to begin with? After all, why should we be able to force God's hand for good or bad? Logically either universal salvation reigns or arbitrary election does, and God being good, arbitrary election is out the window.

My head hurts.

 

[Taken]

While unbelievers should not be followed in regards to being an absolute authority on morality, are you saying unbelievers can never be right about anything?

I did not say that.

That’s what it sounds like to me.

Seems you have a comprehension issue.

I mean, did you not learn anything of benefit in school from unbelieving teachers?

Couldn’t say, since I never quizzed my teachers on their religious beliefs. Did you?

Just know that the reasons I gave is why I ignore your posts. It’s not personal by any means.

Ofcourse it is personal.

It’s just that I don’t want to misunderstand what you are saying.

Best to listen to what people do say, rather than you think for them.

I also don’t deal well with folks promoting things that are evil, as well. I see your avatar as something that looks evil. You may not, but I do.

I find it most particular that you equate Oreo cookies with the appearance of evil.
Is it a difficult experience for you to grocery shop, or hand out treats to costumed children on Halloween?

 

[Robert Gwin]

It means just because we think/feel something is right doesn't mean that it is.

I would say you nailed it sir, but I am taking it a step further, because of them practicing what they think is right, as those did in Mat 7:21-23 they believe they are righteous, or in other words saved. Do you agree sir? The verse basically states that everyone is righteous in their own eyes.

 

[Robert Gwin]

what is the penalty for failing t live up to that standard?

Do you own up to that?

No penalty for sure, but it does reveal character quality (fruit), therefore reflecting on your name.