Jesus & James

[tdidymas]

But I think you're givng with one hand what you take back with the other. To the extent that we sin, we aren't yet fully on God's side even as He's alway there to forgive, to build up, to restore. Again, the wildcard is never Him, but us. Augustine had this to say:

“It is the grace of God that helps the wills of men; and when they are not helped by it, the reason is in themselves, not in God.”

No, you're misrepresenting what I said. You're still trying to defend the idea that a born-again Christian can lose eternal life, which is a false idea. My statement doesn't even imply that.

 

[tdidymas]

I think the real point is that it's speculation; they could've also been in God's family and later left home-or were never there to begin with. We can't really know- except to know that loving the praise of men over the praise of God is not a good thing while it's nevertheless a common problem and challenge for us all, and, in fact, harkens back to the orignal disobedience- and reasons for it- in Eden: pride, fear of fellow man over God, etc.

No, that's not the real point. How a person interprets this verse depends on what doctrine you think the Bible teaches.

 

[tdidymas]

Ah, so works are involved.

The fruit of a tree shows what kind of tree it is. Since the Bible says "all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory," and "we (all) were by nature children of wrath," then what has to happen is that God determines to make some of those sinning trees into righteous trees. This is what being born again is about. Those who belong to God will bring forth good fruit, because God has made them good people. God is the one who justifies the sinner, thereby making him righteous, and then such people (i.e. believers) do righteous things. Good works are the RESULT of being born of God, NOT the cause.

 

[fhansen]

No, it does not mean what you claim. Jesus spoke that in context of knowing who is His and who is not.

So which is it? Can a true believer sin, produce bad fruit? Or does he become an automaton after all who cannot sin, or cannot sin sufficiently or without repentance?

 

[fhansen]

You're not proving that salvation is gained by faith + works. Being saved is not a sliding scale where there is some point that the "fruit" tips over to God's wrath and eternal condemnation.

Why not? The only honest alternative is antinomianism.

This statement you made looks to me like you don't believe 1 Pet. 1:5.

1 Pet 1:5 tells what God wants to do and is capable of doing. We only need to be on board and not thwart His plans.

 

[fhansen]

No, that's not the real point. How a person interprets this verse depends on what doctrine you think the Bible teaches.

Yes, which means that the real point is its speculative. But more so in the case of novel theologies like your own that have only best-guess concepts as their origin-and which must be conformed to fit those theologies. In the case of the early chruich and ECFs we have also the lived experience or legacy from the beginning with which to understand and know the faith.

 

[fhansen]

I don't care what you think about what Protestant apologists have acknowledged or not. That's a side issue not related to the truth I'm trying to convey here. I'm only interested in what the Bible teaches, and that's my standard.

Yes, and they say, just as sincerely, the same thing, that the Bible is their standard. And if you disagree with them and agree that righteousness is given/infused/imparted, then you're already closer to the ancient church teachings that the Reformers disassociated themselves from.

The NT repeatedly calls believers saints, righteous ones, etc. Jesus clearly stated "by their fruit you shall know them." He is talking about how to discern who belongs to Christ and who doesn't. Granted, new converts may commit even mortal sins, but they will not continue therein, according to 1 John 3:9. So I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

And if they persevere they will remain there. Again, we need to read the whole bible, not shying away from either the carrots or the sticks, the encouragements or the warnings. And, again, God has simply never been in the business of making puppets. He has a purpose for giving man free will, able to sin or not, even allowing him to really mess up his world by the abuse of that freedom. He wants to produce something great, not just stock heaven with a portion of lucky otherwise worthless sinners, and that necessarily requires our participation, our assent, no matter how weakly at first and in need of grace to prompt it, and then increasingly driven by our own willingness and understanding as we express and grow in the virtues of faith, hope, and love. That's where your justice/righteousness lies, in that simple yet profound communion with Him, impossible apart from human freedom. Animals need not-and cannot -apply.

 

[fhansen]

The fruit of a tree shows what kind of tree it is. Since the Bible says "all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory," and "we (all) were by nature children of wrath," then what has to happen is that God determines to make some of those sinning trees into righteous trees. This is what being born again is about. Those who belong to God will bring forth good fruit, because God has made them good people. God is the one who justifies the sinner, thereby making him righteous, and then such people (i.e. believers) do righteous things. Good works are the RESULT of being born of God, NOT the cause.

Good works are the result of drawing near to Him, prompted by our loving Him because He first loved us. Now we must remain near.

Will we? Must He make puppets in order for that to happen? Or does He want us to respond to the challenge, and to grow stronger in our coviction and love and consquently our worth as we meet the chanlllenges with the help of grace, with Him, the Creator, now partnered with His creatures as was always meant to be the case. If God wanted puppets, if He must do it all for us, then He could've done that at the beginning, in Eden.

 

[fhansen]

No, you're misrepresenting what I said. You're still trying to defend the idea that a born-again Christian can lose eternal life, which is a false idea. My statement doesn't even imply that.

That needs to be more than theory for any given individual, however. You've agreed that a true believer can sin-that perfect sinlessness is impossible in this life, correct? And also that righteousness is in some manner given at justifcation. These are in line with early Christian teachings. And as you believe that a true believer will produce good fruit, this certainly implies that he won't go around wantonly and persistently commiting grave, ugly sins against humanity. Would that be correct? You've also recognized that there are at least some sins that a brother might need to be exhorted to repent of. So, how do we know that? How do we identify what sins must be repented of, or might mean that a person is not a true believer?

 

[tdidymas]

So which is it? Can a true believer sin, produce bad fruit? Or does he become an automaton after all who cannot sin, or cannot sin sufficiently or without repentance?

Your exaggerations and straw man argument is a misrepresentation of what I said. But here's back at you: you believe that your works is added to God's grace in saving you, which is the "gospel" that Paul condemned in Galatians.

 

[tdidymas]

Why not? The only honest alternative is antinomianism.

Your response speaks volumes that you don't understand the gospel nor what I've been saying.

1 Pet 1:5 tells what God wants to do and is capable of doing. We only need to be on board and not thwart His plans.

God is the one who keeps us on board. This is what the verse says and means. But if you're so worried that you're going to jump off, perhaps you should consider that you haven't entered sabbath rest as Heb. is talking about.

 

[tdidymas]

Yes, which means that the real point is its speculative. But more so in the case of novel theologies like your own that have only best-guess concepts as their origin-and which must be conformed to fit those theologies. In the case of the early chruich and ECFs we have also the lived experience or legacy from the beginning with which to understand and know the faith.

The why don't you accept what Augustine taught? He taught perseverance of the saints. But you use his quotes only to support your bad soteriology.

 

[tdidymas]

Yes, and they say, just as sincerely, the same thing, that the Bible is their standard. And if you disagree with them and agree that righteousness is given/infused/imparted, then you're already closer to the ancient church teachings that the Reformers disassociated themselves from.

You continue to assume wrong conclusions. I never said nor implied that righteousness was not infused in the believer (unless "infused" means something unbiblical). I said before, and I'll say it again: you just don't believe that the grace of God not only justifies a person, but also makes him really righteous, which is the power of God. What you have is a bunch of fallible men teaching wrong things, and you believe them rather than the simple and clear message of scripture.

I do get your frustration, because you think that if you quote all those ECFs and councils that it would inundate me with complicated information to make me give in, but you're not being successful because I stand on what scripture says, and not a follower of men.

And if they persevere they will remain there. Again, we need to read the whole bible, not shying away from either the carrots or the sticks, the encouragements or the warnings. And, again, God has simply never been in the business of making puppets. He has a purpose for giving man free will, able to sin or not, even allowing him to really mess up his world by the abuse of that freedom. He wants to produce something great, not just stock heaven with a portion of lucky otherwise worthless sinners, and that necessarily requires our participation, our assent, no matter how weakly at first and in need of grace to prompt it, and then increasingly driven by our own willingness and understanding as we express and grow in the virtues of faith, hope, and love. That's where your justice/righteousness lies, in that simple yet profound communion with Him, impossible apart from human freedom. Animals need not-and cannot -apply.

"If they persevere" is your narrative that has the fear of losing salvation behind it. It tells me you haven't entered sabbath rest that God has available for His people. 1 Pet. 1:5 is a prime statement of perseverance, and the reason why the saints persevere is because they actually believe with all their heart.

 

[tdidymas]

Good works are the result of drawing near to Him, prompted by our loving Him because He first loved us. Now we must remain near.

Will we? Must He make puppets in order for that to happen? Or does He want us to respond to the challenge, and to grow stronger in our coviction and love and consquently our worth as we meet the chanlllenges with the help of grace, with Him, the Creator, now partnered with His creatures as was always meant to be the case. If God wanted puppets, if He must do it all for us, then He could've done that at the beginning, in Eden.

Your "puppet" straw man argument doesn't hold water. I believe the full gospel, that true believers will persevere because God will make them persevere, no matter how ugly the tribulation looks. It's about the faith the believer has that comes to him as a gift of God and maintained by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Phil 1:6 "being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ." If you want the power, energy, and willingness to persevere then you better be looking to God for that, rather than thinking you're on your own to produce.

 

[tdidymas]

That needs to be more than theory for any given individual, however. You've agreed that a true believer can sin-that perfect sinlessness is impossible in this life, correct? And also that righteousness is in some manner given at justifcation. These are in line with early Christian teachings. And as you believe that a true believer will produce good fruit, this certainly implies that he won't go around wantonly and persistently commiting grave, ugly sins against humanity. Would that be correct? You've also recognized that there are at least some sins that a brother might need to be exhorted to repent of. So, how do we know that? How do we identify what sins must be repented of, or might mean that a person is not a true believer?

What needs to be more than theory? You mean perseverance?

Everyone makes mistakes, since no one is perfect (save Christ alone). Most are immature at best. But if it were impossible to not commit sin, then why does Paul say "Awake to righteousness, and sin not" (1 Cor. 15:34), and John say "these things write I unto you, that ye sin not." (1 Jn. 2:1). But now you're the one sounding like an antinomian. We have a sin nature (1 Jn. 1:8) that we will have until death or resurrection (Rom. 8:10). Yet we are not to use that as an excuse to lower the standard. I'm sure you know that, I can see it from your responses. But it sure sounds like you're offering the idea of "perfect sinlessness is impossible" as an excuse. There is always room for improvement, and our feeble minds are forgetful. We have bad habits to break, spiritual maturity to gain, and Christlike character to conform to. It doesn't mean these works cause justification or salvation.

But if Jesus Himself had something to learn, in which Heb. 5:8 says, "though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered," and He was without sin, then we also can learn obedience without being sinful. If it is impossible to please God without faith, then isn't it true that faith pleases God? Usually the term "perfect sinlessness" is coming from a perfectionist idea which is an unbiblical and empty philosophy.

Again, why are you wanting to judge others, whether they be a Christian or not? I have known people who confessed belief in Christ, but subsequently did wicked things, and some of them no longer walk in the faith (that I know of). Why should I condemn them, since if they are condemned, they condemn themselves? If I see them on the street, I greet them as if they did not do anything wrong, because that's how I treat anyone. Jesus is the one who said "not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven." Mat. 18 tells us the process by which to reconcile with a Christian who hasn't repented. We have to do all we can to reconcile, and if it's not possible because of them, then we are to treat them the same as we treat those outside of the faith.

 

[fhansen]

Your exaggerations and straw man argument is a misrepresentation of what I said. But here's back at you: you believe that your works is added to God's grace in saving you, which is the "gospel" that Paul condemned in Galatians.

Call it what you like but a rose is a rose by any other name. You claim that a person is irrevocably regenerated, saved, all at once before even expressing faith and that they can longer do any wrong-at least enough wrong to permanently separate them from God since He'll always bring them back to repentance. Pretty much excludes the role of man's will entirely. And you say that a brother may be in need of exhortation to repentance lest he be lost. And yet you cannot identify what kind of sin might require that repentance.

So let me see. A regenerated person no longer sins at least sufficiently and persistently enough for him to be considered an unregenerated person. If he does sin, however, God will bring him back to repentance. And we can predict that we, individually, will persevere. And maybe it doesn’t even matter anyway since faith really does away with the need for obedience.

The truth is that we’re saved unto obedience: the two, salvation and obedience, going hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other. In Galatians, Romans, Philippians, and elsewhere Paul consistently objected to and condemned works of the law as worthless, the idea that an external show of holiness actually equated to holiness. This is why Jesus told the Pharisees in Matt 23 that they must be clean on the inside first of all in order for the outside to be authentically clean. And He told them to clean the inside, just as Rev 22 tells us to wash our robes. At the same time Paul also condemns deeds of the flesh, sin, i.e. lawlessness as the cause of death. How is this reconciled? How do we accomplish this cleansing? By the Spirit, who gives life, not by the letter, which kills. Grace, through the Holy Spirit, gives us that ability, to do good: Rom 2:7, to overcome sin: Rom 8:12-13, to be holy: Heb 12:14, to do those works prepared for us in advance: Eph 2:10. These are specifically not works of the law but works of grace given us by God as we turn to Him in faith, gifts that we’re to express, just as we accept and express that gift of faith to begin with. That’s how God works in man, and that’s how we invest the talents given us, as we cooperate with His work. Alternatively, we can also fail to invest, like the wicked and lazy servant.

Fruit is the result of justification as righteousness is the result of justification. Due to that state of justice, we are saved. If we walk unjustly, we are no longer in that state. And, in fact, again, this statement of Micah’s written some 700 years before Christ hasn’t changed a bit under the new covenant.

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

 

[fhansen]

Your response speaks volumes that you don't understand the gospel nor what I've been saying.

I'll translate: you had no answer.

God is the one who keeps us on board. This is what the verse says and means. But if you're so worried that you're going to jump off, perhaps you should consider that you haven't entered sabbath rest as Heb. is talking about.

We can enter His rest-and we can leave it. In any case works of the law have no place there, in that rest, while obedience nonetheless does- as entering His rest and disobedience are mutually exclusive. Again, Jesus' burden is light-not nonexistent.

 

[fhansen]

The why don't you accept what Augustine taught? He taught perseverance of the saints. But you use his quotes only to support your bad soteriology.

The church never accepted all that Augustine taught, such as his teaching on the transmission of original sin and his leaning towards double-predestination, as examples.

But that doesn’t even matter in this case because of very crucial nuances. To say the elect will persevere is redundant: the elect will obviously be saved- so they must persevere. But that’s theoretical as it applies to any one Individual because, as both Augustine and the church taught, no one can know with certainty that they have the gift of perseverance.

 

[fhansen]

Your "puppet" straw man argument doesn't hold water. I believe the full gospel, that true believers will persevere because God will make them persevere, no matter how ugly the tribulation looks.

They're not puppets but God will make them persevere. Sure, of course.

But looking to God is the answer, yes. If we don't have good fruit, if we're not overcoming sin, then we're not looking to God regardless of any self-anaylsis suggesting the contrary. With good fruit -born of love- we can have great confidence that we're now on the right path-with and to Him.

 

[fhansen]

What needs to be more than theory? You mean perseverance?

Everyone makes mistakes, since no one is perfect (save Christ alone). Most are immature at best. But if it were impossible to not commit sin, then why does Paul say "Awake to righteousness, and sin not" (1 Cor. 15:34), and John say "these things write I unto you, that ye sin not." (1 Jn. 2:1). But now you're the one sounding like an antinomian. We have a sin nature (1 Jn. 1:8) that we will have until death or resurrection (Rom. 8:10). Yet we are not to use that as an excuse to lower the standard. I'm sure you know that, I can see it from your responses. But it sure sounds like you're offering the idea of "perfect sinlessness is impossible" as an excuse. There is always room for improvement, and our feeble minds are forgetful. We have bad habits to break, spiritual maturity to gain, and Christlike character to conform to. It doesn't mean these works cause justification or salvation.

But if Jesus Himself had something to learn, in which Heb. 5:8 says, "though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered," and He was without sin, then we also can learn obedience without being sinful. If it is impossible to please God without faith, then isn't it true that faith pleases God? Usually the term "perfect sinlessness" is coming from a perfectionist idea which is an unbiblical and empty philosophy.

Again, why are you wanting to judge others, whether they be a Christian or not? I have known people who confessed belief in Christ, but subsequently did wicked things, and some of them no longer walk in the faith (that I know of). Why should I condemn them, since if they are condemned, they condemn themselves? If I see them on the street, I greet them as if they did not do anything wrong, because that's how I treat anyone. Jesus is the one who said "not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven." Mat. 18 tells us the process by which to reconcile with a Christian who hasn't repented. We have to do all we can to reconcile, and if it's not possible because of them, then we are to treat them the same as we treat those outside of the faith.

You’re not addressing the question. Who’s speaking about condemning anyone? I’m speaking of identifying the sin that can condemn us to death. And if we’re now going to just minimize sin as mistakes then sin should’ve never caused any riff between man and God to begin with in which case there would be no need for atonement and reconciliation. Or if we’re antinomian, then no such sin can exist now anyway for a believer.

So I'll ask a question: if I identity myself as a believer and yet I fall into and cannot seem to disengage from persistent adultery (I once knew a born-again pastor who experienced this), should I, 1) be unconcerned, resting in God and the knowledge that I’m saved by faith and not by works, or 2) start worrying about my relationship with Him and my eternal destiny?

The answer is that, yes, there are degrees of sin that mean separation from God, sin that leads to death. Now if you were to read the post from another thread that I recently suggested, we’d at least have some additional input with which to further this conversation profitability IMO, instead of just spinning our wheels. Post # 669:

SALVATION

The highlighted portion isn’t a mark because it’s not something that is noticeable. It is noticeable. I can see whether I'm forgiven or not. The fact that you can't see it makes no difference. Same is true of the new man that Christ created in me when He came to live in my heart. I can see it...

www.christianforums.com