"I Don't Want Free Will" by Martin Luther

My "creative interpretation"? You went through the "whole book in context"?

I remember well that you didn't address the text in a logical or consistent fashion, and you constantly appealed to Roman Catholic interpreters as that somehow solidified your illogical and inconsistent interpretation.

If you want to clear everything up right now, then why don't you show me how you think that Romans 9 does not teach what we are saying. I would be more than happy to show you again how your interpretation and the interpretation of Roman Catholics throughout the years have been wrong.

You never showed anything. You barked at me to "DEAL WITH THE TEXT OF ROMANS 9 PLEASE".http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364357-Is-Satan-more-powerful-than-God/page68 When I did, placing Romans 9 in context with the whole book, there were crickets.(It wasn't a Roman Catholic interpretation, but my own, so save that speech for someone else.)

You attack whatever faith base people have while elevating your chosen group as "biblical christianity". The hatred and arrogance is almost palpable in your posts for anyone who is not of your "elect" group of Calvinists. So,again, what profit is there in posting your viewpoint if not to gloat over what you believe is your secured position? If all is decided beforehand, what is the purpose in telling others of the futility of their efforts? Or do you feel the need to tell a few more victims of rape and incest, how much they deserve to be treated like they were, and how it was all done by God's design???
 
Blah, blah, blah...same old charge.

Actually, anyone who doesn't accept the wisdom of other godly men is really saying that they are the best Bible interpreter in history. I don't believe I am the best Bible interpreter in history, so it is the humble position to want to seek other men's views on Scripture.

Great. So have you looked at John Wesley's view on scripture? How about Jacob Arminus' view on scripture? Why is the only view on scripture that matters is the one that agrees with your point of view? I doubt your "Obedience to Jesus is of the devil" view of scripture is even supported by John Calvin.

This is nowhere in Scripture. If you want to talk about salvation, then speak in terms that Paul spoke in. Paul never used this language or this concept. Paul used the language of grace and law. He used legal terms, not these modern fuzzy feeling concepts.

The view that man is saved by his relationship with Jesus is EVERYWHERE in the New Testament! Here's just one place.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’


If you don't know someone it's because you don't have a relationship with them.

Further the entire story about the vine and the branches is about a relationship with Jesus. If you "abide" in Jesus and He "abides" in you, you have a relationship. I can't believe your that ignorant of scripture.

How obedient are you jmdrake? Are you sure you are doing enough to keep yourself saved (since your are saying its in your power)? How many lustful thoughts did you have yesterday? how many times did you get angry at something? How many times did you lie yesterday? How many times yesterday did you not perfectly love God and perfectly love your neighbor?

Unlike Pharisees/Calvinists I'm not going around trying to brag about my salvation. I'm more like the publican who cries to God "Be merciful to me a sinner". I actually believe that repentance is a requirement. You don't. I can tell you this. I get angry less today than I did yesterday or the day before. For example, I'm no longer allowing myself to get angry at you no matter what you do or say. I view God at the perfect Father. As a father I require obedience from my sons. That doesn't mean I abandon them when the make mistakes. But when they make mistakes I expect them to own up to those mistakes when I bring those mistakes to their attention. Obedience is a requirement in my home, but justice is mixed with mercy. I believe my heavenly Father is the same way. You apparently believe in a heavenly Father that "loves" some children by forcing them to repent and "hates" some children by not attempting to get them to repent and then throwing them out of the house for not repenting.

How is your obedience working out for you, sir?

It's working out fine as far as I can tell. I'm growing in grace. I believe that's what Jesus expects. How is your "I don't have to obey Jesus" plan working?
 
Yes. Romans 5:12 says that. It is clear from the context that the time at which that sin occurred was when Adam sinned.

No it's not. It's funny how Calvinists play games with the word "all". If "all" means "all" then "God wills that all should come to repentance". Oh....but you don't think all means all do you?

Look back at Romans 5:12. It doesn't say "all humans". It says all men. A fetus isn't a man. An infant isn't a man. Even a child isn't a man. I agree that by the time every infant reaches the age where he can make some kind of cognitive choice, he sins.

The part you pointed out saying that sin is not imputed when there is no law is crucial to the argument. Paul is explaining why death reigned over those from Adam until Moses. He recognizes that it cannot be because of sins they committed in their lifetimes, since sin is not imputed when there is no law. He explains that the reason they die is because they are guilty of Adam's sin.

No. Quite the opposite. Paul explains why everyone is under the penalty of Adam's sin. He doesn't say everyone is guilty of Adam's sin. Here's how the NIV puts Romans 5:13

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

In other words, people are under the penalty of Adam's sin because it brought both a fallen nature and death to all of his descendants. Even when Jesus blood forgives us for our own sins, we're still under the penalty of sin (physical death in this life). If your interpretation of Romans 5 was correct, then the moment someone was saved they would start physically living forever.
 
No it's not. It's funny how Calvinists play games with the word "all". If "all" means "all" then "God wills that all should come to repentance". Oh....but you don't think all means all do you?
The meaning of "all" like every other word depends on the context in which it is used. When it says God wills all to come to repentance, yes, it means all, not just the elect.

Look back at Romans 5:12. It doesn't say "all humans". It says all men. A fetus isn't a man. An infant isn't a man. Even a child isn't a man. I agree that by the time every infant reaches the age where he can make some kind of cognitive choice, he sins.
It does say "all humans." The Greek is pantas anthropous. If you're using a translation that says "all men," then it was made by translators who choose to use the word "men" inclusively for all humans. And this passage isn't saying that all people choose to sin on their own. It's saying that they sinned when Adam sinned.


No. Quite the opposite. Paul explains why everyone is under the penalty of Adam's sin. He doesn't say everyone is guilty of Adam's sin.
He says "all sinned." That doesn't just mean we have the penalty, but we're guilty of it. Yes, he talks about the penalty as well. But just because he talks about the penalty doesn't mean that he doesn't talk about guilt.

Paul's point in this section is to illustrate how Jesus's righteousness is imputed to many, by comparing it to the way Adam's sin is imputed to many. When people are justified in Jesus, it's his righteousness, not their own, that is imputed to them. And when people are reckoned sinners in Adam, it's his sin, not their own, that is imputed to them.
 
Last edited:
The view that man is saved by his relationship with Jesus is EVERYWHERE in the New Testament! Here's just one place.

One problem I have with that language is that everyone has a relationship with Jesus. Some people are his enemies. That's a relationship.
 
You never showed anything. You barked at me to "DEAL WITH THE TEXT OF ROMANS 9 PLEASE".http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?364357-Is-Satan-more-powerful-than-God/page68 When I did, placing Romans 9 in context with the whole book, there were crickets.(It wasn't a Roman Catholic interpretation, but my own, so save that speech for someone else.)

You attack whatever faith base people have while elevating your chosen group as "biblical christianity". The hatred and arrogance is almost palpable in your posts for anyone who is not of your "elect" group of Calvinists. So,again, what profit is there in posting your viewpoint if not to gloat over what you believe is your secured position? If all is decided beforehand, what is the purpose in telling others of the futility of their efforts? Or do you feel the need to tell a few more victims of rape and incest, how much they deserve to be treated like they were, and how it was all done by God's design???


Okay, let's see if I can try to find something about Romans 9 in your link. Here is the only thing I could find:

Your potter verse is merely dealing with the whining that insues when one complains they were born to a particular station in life and are victims of circumstance. It is more of a rise above your perceived difficulties. Accept your circumstances for that is your lot in life and move forward in faith.

This...is...I don't mean to be harsh here, but this, in no way, shape, or form is a contextual interpretation of Romans 9. Romans 9, in no way shape or form, is speaking about a "rise above your circumstances sort of thing." If this is the way that you handle Scripture, then it is no wonder why you are confused about what it says.

In Romans 9, Paul is answering how, if God is so powerful, why do most of the Jews not believe in the gospel? It begins:

Romans 9:6-7

It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children.

So, not all who are descended from Israel are actually Israel. It's not the children physically descended from Abraham, but it is the ones spiritually connected to Abraham who are God's children:

Romans 9:8

In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.


The chosen people of God are chosen by HIS grace and HIS purpose in election:

Romans 9:10-16

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,


“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

Salvation does not depend on your physical heritage or your works, it depends solely on God's grace. This is why most of the Jews of Paul's day do not believe...because they were not chosen.


Next verse. God mercies whom He wants and He hardens whom He wants. He raised Pharoah up and then condemned Him for the purpose of proclaiming His name in all the earth. God used evil Pharoah for His own purposes and then held Pharoah responsible for his sin.

Romans 9:17-18

For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.



Then, here is the next verse, the Potter verse:

Romans 9:19-21

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

So Paul is answering the objection of someone who questions God for hardening Pharoah. The Potter has the right over the clay to harden some (like Pharoah) or show mercy to some and make them for noble purposes (his elect children of promise). It is useless to ask "why does God still hold us responsible if we can't resist His will?" because it is His sovereign right to make some pots for noble use and some for common use.

There is nothing in Romans 9 about "rising above your circumstance".
 
Last edited:
Great. So have you looked at John Wesley's view on scripture? How about Jacob Arminus' view on scripture? Why is the only view on scripture that matters is the one that agrees with your point of view? I doubt your "Obedience to Jesus is of the devil" view of scripture is even supported by John Calvin.

One way I know that I have established my point (and the Bible's point) beyond a shadow of a doubt with you is that you will not ever represent my view correctly. I have not said "obedience to Jesus is of the devil", I said (and what Paul said in the book of Galatians) is that making obedience a requirement for salvation is of the devil.

The law is holy, righteous, and good. It is not the law's fault that it condemns us to death, it is our fault. It is because of human weakness that we can never be justified by our obedience.

And if you want further confirmation of this, then you need to read and understand the Judiazer heresy and Paul's condemnation of it in the book of Galatians.





The view that man is saved by his relationship with Jesus is EVERYWHERE in the New Testament! Here's just one place.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’


If you don't know someone it's because you don't have a relationship with them.

Further the entire story about the vine and the branches is about a relationship with Jesus. If you "abide" in Jesus and He "abides" in you, you have a relationship. I can't believe your that ignorant of scripture.

I can assure you that you would not agree with how Jesus is using "knew" in that passage, because He is using it in the sense that He has never "known" them from all eternity and never chosen them.

If THAT is the kind of relationship you are talking about, then I might agree with you. But the point I was making is that Paul uses the language of law, and accounting, and imputation in the book of Romans. That is the kind of language that a Christian should use about salvation...LEGAL language. Salvation is not a "relationship", it is a legal transaction...it is based on accounting of merit and imputing merit. This is the language that a Christian should use...the same kind of language Paul uses in the book of Romans.





Unlike Pharisees/Calvinists I'm not going around trying to brag about my salvation. I'm more like the publican who cries to God "Be merciful to me a sinner". I actually believe that repentance is a requirement. You don't. I can tell you this. I get angry less today than I did yesterday or the day before. For example, I'm no longer allowing myself to get angry at you no matter what you do or say. I view God at the perfect Father. As a father I require obedience from my sons. That doesn't mean I abandon them when the make mistakes. But when they make mistakes I expect them to own up to those mistakes when I bring those mistakes to their attention. Obedience is a requirement in my home, but justice is mixed with mercy. I believe my heavenly Father is the same way. You apparently believe in a heavenly Father that "loves" some children by forcing them to repent and "hates" some children by not attempting to get them to repent and then throwing them out of the house for not repenting.
It's working out fine as far as I can tell. I'm growing in grace. I believe that's what Jesus expects. How is your "I don't have to obey Jesus" plan working?

You never answered my question. How do you know your working hard enough? You said repentance is a "requirement". But how do you know you've repented enough?
 
Last edited:
It struck me afterwards that you typed this:
I'm more like the publican who cries to God "Be merciful to me a sinner".


And then, you go on to talk about your righteousness:
I actually believe that repentance is a requirement. You don't. I can tell you this. I get angry less today than I did yesterday or the day before. For example, I'm no longer allowing myself to get angry at you no matter what you do or say. I view God at the perfect Father. As a father I require obedience from my sons. That doesn't mean I abandon them when the make mistakes. But when they make mistakes I expect them to own up to those mistakes when I bring those mistakes to their attention. Obedience is a requirement in my home, but justice is mixed with mercy. ....It's working out fine as far as I can tell. I'm growing in grace. I believe that's what Jesus expects.


You dont sound like the tax collector who went home justified, you sound exactly like the Pharisee who was confident in his own righteousness before God. The Pharisee said: "I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.". You and the Pharisee are the same...you are both confident in your righteousness. You depend on how obedient you are and you are proud of it. You think God's laws are able to be kept if you try hard enough.

You and the Pharisee don't think in terms of imputed righteousness. You two think in terms of infused righteousness. You don't think that righteousness is alien to you, you think righteousness is infused into so that you can merit your own goodness.

This is not an abstract theological matter. Being confident in your righteousness and obedience is the most wicked sin there is, pride. God is going to cut down all those who are confident in their own obedience. Your obedience will not avail before a holy God, I promise you.
 
Okay, let's see if I can try to find something about Romans 9 in your link. Here is the only thing I could find:



This...is...I don't mean to be harsh here, but this, in no way, shape, or form is a contextual interpretation of Romans 9. Romans 9, in no way shape or form, is speaking about a "rise above your circumstances sort of thing." If this is the way that you handle Scripture, then it is no wonder why you are confused about what it says.

In Romans 9, Paul is answering how, if God is so powerful, why do most of the Jews not believe in the gospel? It begins:



So, not all who are descended from Israel are actually Israel. It's not the children physically descended from Abraham, but it is the ones spiritually connected to Abraham who are God's children:




The chosen people of God are chosen by HIS grace and HIS purpose in election:



Salvation does not depend on your physical heritage or your works, it depends solely on God's grace. This is why most of the Jews of Paul's day do not believe...because they were not chosen.


Next verse. God mercies whom He wants and He hardens whom He wants. He raised Pharoah up and then condemned Him for the purpose of proclaiming His name in all the earth. God used evil Pharoah for His own purposes and then held Pharoah responsible for his sin.





Then, here is the next verse, the Potter verse:



So Paul is answering the objection of someone who questions God for hardening Pharoah. The Potter has the right over the clay to harden some (like Pharoah) or show mercy to some and make them for noble purposes (his elect children of promise). It is useless to ask "why does God still hold us responsible if we can't resist His will?" because it is His sovereign right to make some pots for noble use and some for common use.

There is nothing in Romans 9 about "rising above your circumstance".

You are again cherry picking and are well aware of what you are doing. You took one line out of a post that explained to you that you needed to look at the whole book to get the context of what was being said in the potters verse. Your dishonesty is astounding. You purposely seek to humiliate people. As someone who believes he is a saved member of the elect, what fruits of the spirit are you exemplifying to establish your claim to your position?

My question to you AGAIN, what profit is there in posting your viewpoint if not to gloat over what you believe is your secured position? If all is decided beforehand, what is the purpose in telling others of the futility of their efforts?
 
Okay, let's see if I can try to find something about Romans 9 in your link. Here is the only thing I could find:



This...is...I don't mean to be harsh here, but this, in no way, shape, or form is a contextual interpretation of Romans 9. Romans 9, in no way shape or form, is speaking about a "rise above your circumstances sort of thing." If this is the way that you handle Scripture, then it is no wonder why you are confused about what it says.

In Romans 9, Paul is answering how, if God is so powerful, why do most of the Jews not believe in the gospel? It begins:



So, not all who are descended from Israel are actually Israel. It's not the children physically descended from Abraham, but it is the ones spiritually connected to Abraham who are God's children:




The chosen people of God are chosen by HIS grace and HIS purpose in election:



Salvation does not depend on your physical heritage or your works, it depends solely on God's grace. This is why most of the Jews of Paul's day do not believe...because they were not chosen.


Next verse. God mercies whom He wants and He hardens whom He wants. He raised Pharoah up and then condemned Him for the purpose of proclaiming His name in all the earth. God used evil Pharoah for His own purposes and then held Pharoah responsible for his sin.





Then, here is the next verse, the Potter verse:



So Paul is answering the objection of someone who questions God for hardening Pharoah. The Potter has the right over the clay to harden some (like Pharoah) or show mercy to some and make them for noble purposes (his elect children of promise). It is useless to ask "why does God still hold us responsible if we can't resist His will?" because it is His sovereign right to make some pots for noble use and some for common use.

There is nothing in Romans 9 about "rising above your circumstance".

Romans 9 in context is not what you are making it out to be. You are taking the words from Romans 9 and using them out of context to try an silence anyone who dares to disagree with your point of view.

Back up to Romans 2. 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

It isn't by works they are saved but they are making themselves known by their choices. Their consciences, even without the law, are condemning or exonerating them. Romans 3 then tackles the issue that by faith we are saved and the law informs of transgressions. Jump to Romans 8

. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ

This reaffirms Romans 2. We know them by their fruits of the spirit, Galatians 5:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law

Then Romans 8 goes into the matter that he foreknew (by their choices) so they were given to the path of glory as brothers and sisters to the firstborn Son. Romans 9 is speaking of the jews. There is this attitude that they are destined to glory and that by the law they are validated to a specific position. Having already discussed the nuances of the law and faith he is culminating his position that

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[m]

Your potter verse is merely dealing with the whining that insues when one complains they were born to a particular station in life and are victims of circumstance. It is more of a rise above your perceived difficulties. Accept your circumstances for that is your lot in life and move forward in faith.

Romans 10 then continues to differentiate between the attitude of those who feel justified by the law vs those who act in faith. Romans 11 then states that this does not mean to those who were given the law are not excluded for that reason but that by their transgressions opportunity has been afforded to the gentiles.
 
But the point I was making is that Paul uses the language of law, and accounting, and imputation in the book of Romans. That is the kind of language that a Christian should use about salvation...LEGAL language. Salvation is not a "relationship", it is a legal transaction...it is based on accounting of merit and imputing merit. This is the language that a Christian should use...the same kind of language Paul uses in the book of Romans.

So, the law does count, and an accounting of merit will take place, but it isn't the spirit of the law that counts, but the letter of the law? Do I have that right?

And you're not a Pharisee? Do I have that right?
 
So, the law does count, and an accounting of merit will take place, but it isn't the spirit of the law that counts, but the letter of the law? Do I have that right?

I think that for those who hope to be declared righteous on account of their obedience to the law, you have it mostly right, except that it's not that they have to obey the letter rather than the spirit, but that they have to obey both the letter and the spirit. Obeying the letter without the spirit won't cut it, neither will disobeying the letter.

If this sounds impossible, that's Paul's point (Romans 3:19-20). For him that's part of why it was such good news that God had revealed another righteousness, one that is apart from the law (Romans 3:21).
 
I think that for those who hope to be declared righteous on account of their obedience to the law, you have it mostly right...

And I think you missed my point--he's contradicting himself yet again.

except that it's not that they have to obey the letter rather than the spirit...

Don't even think about quoting me while I try to clarify what he said, and acting like the fact that I typed it makes it my opinion. 'Kay? I've seen enough legal wrangling, misrepresentation and cherry picking in this thread. I'm not going to let it happen to my own words.
 
And I think you missed my point--he's contradicting himself yet again.



Don't even think about quoting me while I try to clarify what he said, and acting like the fact that I typed it makes it my opinion. 'Kay? I've seen enough legal wrangling, misrepresentation and cherry picking in this thread. I'm not going to let it happen to my own words.

Maybe I shouldn't have butted in. But I think you misunderstood what I did.

SF was referring to Paul's legal language in the quote you were replying to. You said back to him what you thought he was saying (which was clear to me, even if I didn't make that clear in my response). I said that what you said was pretty much correct with a little tweaking, as a restatement of Paul's argument, as well, I assume, as SF's. I'm not sure if SF contradicted himself or not, and that's not really my concern. But as for Paul, yes, you pretty much got what Paul is saying right with the caveat that I made. I never said nor implied anything about what your own opinion is.
 
Last edited:
So, the law does count, and an accounting of merit will take place, but it isn't the spirit of the law that counts, but the letter of the law? Do I have that right?

And you're not a Pharisee? Do I have that right?

Yes. That's right. The law does count. It counts in every single detail. And as Paul says in Galatians, the man who thinks he is able to fulfill the righteous demands of the law by his obedience is under the curse of death, because "cursed is he who does not abide by EVERYTHING written in the law."

It is not possible to abide by the law. Righteousness does not come from your obedience or good works. Righteousness comes apart from the law...and we take hold of that righteousness by faith in Jesus.

Don't you see how beautiful and simple faith is? Christ's perfect sinless life and His righteousness is imputed to me so that I can stand before God holy and blameless, and my sinful life was imputed to Jesus at the cross, who bore the punishment due to me. Isn't it so wonderful and simple? My works and my goodness have nothing to do with the equation because in the final analysis, man has no goodness. Man is dead in sin.

An accounting of merit will take place at the judgement. Every sin of every man will be punished. It will either be punished in the sinner, or thank God it has been already punished in the Son.
 
Don't you see how beautiful and simple faith is?

Sure do. Salvation is a legal transaction, I must pay for my lack of merit because I'm incapable of having enough merit, but you don't have to pay for your lack of merit because Jesus paid for it and imputed his perfection to you, so you can sin all you want because you have the faith equivalent of diplomatic immunity--and like the son of a diplomat, you were born with it. Yet you'll be fit for heaven even though this immunity seems to have spoiled you into a brat and you deserve it because you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Beautiful, indeed. Of course, the beauty of that silliness is more in the eye of the beholder than in any real, intrinsic value it may have...
 
Sure do. Salvation is a legal transaction, I must pay for my lack of merit because I'm incapable of having enough merit, but you don't have to pay for your lack of merit because Jesus paid for it and imputed his perfection to you, so you can sin all you want because you have the faith equivalent of diplomatic immunity--and like the son of a diplomat, you were born with it. Yet you'll be fit for heaven even though this immunity seems to have spoiled you into a brat and you deserve it because you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Beautiful, indeed. Of course, the beauty of that silliness is more in the eye of the beholder than in any real, intrinsic value it may have...

"Sin all I want"? How do you think your obedience will in any way merit you before God?

When the law says we are cursed to death because we cannot ever fulfill the demands of the law, what do you think your imperfect obedience is going to add to your salvation? Don't you see that when you rely on your obedience, you are making Christ's sacrifice of no effect?

This is the same thing that Paul condemned in Galatia. The Judaizer heresy was that obedience to God's commands were required after you were saved. Paul condemned this heresy with the harshest language possible, and I feel justified in condemning it harshly as well.

Galatians 5:4 NIV

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

In no way will I ever attempt to lean on my obedience for the basis of my salvation, because I know the holy demands of the law and the sinfulness of my own heart.
 
"Sin all I want"? How do you think your obedience will in any way merit you before God?

In no way will I ever attempt to lean on my obedience for the basis of my salvation, because I know the holy demands of the law and the sinfulness of my own heart.

Talking to you is just depressing. I shudder to think...

But never mind all of that. Now, if I was predestined for this or predestined for that, and it was all decided before I was born, how am I doing any harm by trying to be worthy? Does my putting a little effort--imperfect enough to be worthless though it may be--into the thing bad? If sinning all I want makes no difference to my predestination, does attempting not to make any difference to my predestination? Or, since Paul told me I cannot succeed, does even making the effort condemn me because I didn't listen to Paul when he told me to give it up? And if so, what happened to my predestination after all?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Or, since Paul told me I cannot succeed, does even making the effort condemn me because I didn't listen to Paul when he told me to give it up?

The answer is yes. Continuing to make the effort instead of giving up condemns you.

Romans 9:30-32:
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top