In article <FD9F3093-7F09-A331-ACE7-069D8C703373@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, gary
says...
><lsenders@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:7540DD2A-E0F4-D626-8C18-F566849D74FD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Dec 4, 1:25 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> In article <8CDCA0FE-CBD3-3A51-198C-776907494...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, gary
>>> says...
>>> No, rather, we are _chosen_ TO BE holy and w/o blame etc. So the
>>> complement is a complementary infinitive, "to be".
[snip]
>> Justification is not progressive. It is a singular declaration by
>> God declaring us righteous by the imputation of Christ's
>> righteousness to our account. It's not faith + works. It's faith
>> alone and that by grace.
>Precisely correct.
No, precisely INcorrect.
>In fact, God states the above again and again.
Where? Certainly not in the passage you cite below. You cite it very
much out of context. See below.
>For example, Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all like an unclean thing, And
>all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf,
>And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away." This is the
>Prophet Isaiah speaking for all men.
No, he is speaking for all men of Israel _of that time_. This is made
more clear in the JPS translation which reads:
Thou didst take away him that joyfully worked righteousness, those
that remembered Thee in Thy ways - behold, Thou wast wroth, and we
sinned - upon them have we stayed of old, that we might be saved. And
we are all become as one that is unclean, and all our righteousnesses
are as a polluted garment; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our
iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isa 64:5-6 JPS)
NB: those who _did_ joyfully worked righteousness" are NOT included in
the list of "all become unclean". Therefore neither are they included
in those whose "righteousnesses are as a polluted garment".
>ALL the righteousnesses of all men are like filthy rags in God's
>sight.
You are getting that from your theological bias, NOT from the
Scripture you quoted. It simply is not there at all.
>This includes the saved as well as the unsaved, for certainly Isaiah
>was a saved man speaking by the Holy Spirit for himself as well as
>all of us.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise about Isaiah.
>Not only is justification accomplished by God alone in the instant
Post-Luther Protestant hermeneutics says this, But _Scripture_ never
does.
>we believe in Christ, but our eternal destiny of salvation is also
>accomplished by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
>Scripture is so clear on this point that any one who teaches any
>gospel mixing grace and works is anathematized. Romans 11:6 "And if
>by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer
>grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work
>is no longer work."
I don't see anything about anathemas there. Is this just another
eexample of yoru 'eisegesis'?
>We are justified BY faith!
Well now, if I had said anything about being "justified BY works", you
might have a point here. But since I did not, you have no point.
>Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart
>from the deeds of the law.
This does not sup****t you, since as you can see from your own choice
of citation, Paul is talking about "deeds OF THE LAW", not 'works' in
general.
>Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with
>God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
And what is this 'peace'? What does it have to do with justification and
works?
>Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law
>but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that
we
>might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law;
for
>by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Once again: he is talking about "works OF THE LAW", nt o works in
general.
>Galatians 3:11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of
God
>is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
Once again: he is talking about "works OF THE LAW", not works in
general.
>Galatians 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ,
that
>we might be justified by faith.
This -horrible- translation -completely- misses the point Paul was
making! The word is not 'tutor' but 'paedogogue', which means a slave
whose duty it was to take the child to school and back, protecting him
from serious corrupting influences on the way.
>Those who oppose such justification cite James 2:24 You see then that
>a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
And it continues to amaze me that you do not yet realize your
interpretation is _completely_ ruled out by this verse. Maybe that is
why you make no effort to intepret it in the rest of your post.
>So thinking to make void the untold number of Scriptures which make
>justification by faith alone.
What on earth are you talking about? Do you really believe that we can
decide the message of Scripture by weighing verses against each other
like coins in a balance? How patently absurd!
>But even a casual reading of James shows such reasoning to be
>erroneous.
But how can this be so, when you have yet to correctly state what
_either_ the verse or the 'reasoning' even IS?
>Justification before God and justification before man are two
>entirely different things.
This is quite irrelevant. Both Paul and James are talking
_exclusively_ about "justification before God".
[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
