Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

I'll take this as your concession that whatever point you were trying to make, fell through.

---

Don't be an Oldbear. You can do better.

---

Clearly, you realized you went nowhere. If anything, you strengthened my point and significantly weakened yours. I'm sure this wasn't what you intended.

---

Disappointing. I guess my respect for you was misplaced.

---

You know you went to playing your usual games because your point fell through. I know that you know. That's all that matters.

I don't want or need your respect. I'd much rather you stop your defense mechanism of playing games and open your eyes, be honest, have clarity, and see that what I'm saying is right.

---

You're making a basic logical error with your thief on the cross argument, which is why others don't find it as compelling as you seem to expect. I don't say that to score a win, or to make you look bad, but just to help you understand our point of view a little better and disagree a little more intelligently.

As one of our priests said, "Disagreement is a rare achievement, and most of what is called disagreement is simply confusion."

---

And what "basic logical error" is that?

The thief on the cross, the house of Cornelius, and anyone else who was saved by the gospel in Scripture was saved in the same way - through faith. The story of the thief on the cross is in Scripture for a very good reason. It's to be a constant foil to all the man-made institutions like Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy which try to be the "middle-man" between Jesus and a believer through their own man-made rules.

It isn't AT ALL surprising that you and "others", i.e. RC's and Orthodox, don't find it compelling. You can't let it be. It completely dismantles your church's view.

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-7
"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant."

JOHN 13:14-15
"Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you."

LUKE 22:27
"For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."

GALATIANS 5:13
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love."

EPHESIANS 4:32
"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

Sacrifice- serving everyone in need and forgiving even those who despise you and Jesus. Keeping his commandements even when your flesh tells you to do something else.

Jesus was the blood sacrifice, the cup of wine seals the covenant of the blood, the obediance to Christ upholds your end of the covenant.

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-7
"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant."

JOHN 13:14-15
"Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you."

LUKE 22:27
"For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."

GALATIANS 5:13
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love."

EPHESIANS 4:32
"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

Sacrifice- serving everyone in need and forgiving even those who despise you and Jesus. Keeping his commandements even when your flesh tells you to do something else.

Jesus was the blood sacrifice, the cup of wine seals the covenant of the blood, the obediance to Christ upholds your end of the covenant.

---

I'm not seeing how any of those verses you posted answers whether "taking up one's cross", confessing and repenting daily, and offering your idea of "sacrifice" are required to be saved.

You also seem to be saying in your last sentence that taking the Eucharist wine is necessary for salvation, as well as obedience to Christ. Is thiis correct? Be clear.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS and OldBear,

The topic of this thread is about Mary, so why not a Mary question?
Do you believe that Roman Catholic and Orthodox prayers/liturgy to Mary which say the following:

" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,

I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....

... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...

... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"

OR

"Mary is the propitiation of the whole world. Through Mary our sin is remitted."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."


.... do you believe that these prayers are idolatrous and heretical?

---

BUDOS and OldBear? What is your answer?

---

BUDOS?? OldBear??

Answer?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-7
"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant."

JOHN 13:14-15
"Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you."

LUKE 22:27
"For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."

GALATIANS 5:13
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love."

EPHESIANS 4:32
"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

Sacrifice- serving everyone in need and forgiving even those who despise you and Jesus. Keeping his commandements even when your flesh tells you to do something else.

Jesus was the blood sacrifice, the cup of wine seals the covenant of the blood, the obediance to Christ upholds your end of the covenant.

---

I'm not seeing how any of those verses you posted answers whether "taking up one's cross", confessing and repenting daily, and offering your idea of "sacrifice" are required to be saved.

You also seem to be saying in your last sentence that taking the Eucharist wine is necessary for salvation, as well as obedience to Christ. Is thiis correct? Be clear.

---

I think you may need to brush up on your historic Jewish wedding traditions.. you will find the cup of wine, the brides cleansing akin to baptism, the separation of the bride and the bridegroom while preparations are made, and many more references that bring clarity when properly understood.

The hour is late, the watch must be kept.

I pray that all of us will lean into Him and keep His commandments.

4th and InchesSo if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-7
"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant."

JOHN 13:14-15
"Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you."

LUKE 22:27
"For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."

GALATIANS 5:13
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love."

EPHESIANS 4:32
"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

Sacrifice- serving everyone in need and forgiving even those who despise you and Jesus. Keeping his commandements even when your flesh tells you to do something else.

Jesus was the blood sacrifice, the cup of wine seals the covenant of the blood, the obediance to Christ upholds your end of the covenant.

---

I'm not seeing how any of those verses you posted answers whether "taking up one's cross", confessing and repenting daily, and offering your idea of "sacrifice" are required to be saved.

You also seem to be saying in your last sentence that taking the Eucharist wine is necessary for salvation, as well as obedience to Christ. Is thiis correct? Be clear.

---

I think you may need to brush up on your historic Jewish wedding traditions.. you will find the cup of wine, the brides cleansing akin to baptism, the separation of the bride and the bridegroom while preparations are made, and many more references that bring clarity when properly understood.

The hour is late, the watch must be kept.

I pray that all of us will lean into Him and keep His commandments.

---

And all this means what, exactly?

You're continuing to speak in veiled terms instead of coming right out with it. This isn't clarity, this is doing exactly what the Roman Catholics and Orthodox are doing, which is the antithesis of clarity. Why are so many of you unable to just be clear and speak plainly?

TELL US what you mean. Are "taking up one's cross", confessing and repenting daily, offering "sacrifice", drinking the Eucharist wine, and obedience to Christ all NECESSARY for salvation?

1 John 2:3
And this is how we know [daily, by experience] that we have come to know Him [to understand Him and be more deeply acquainted with Him]: if we habitually keep [focused on His precepts and obey] His commandments.

Romans 12:1
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to Godthis is your true and proper worship."

Philippians 4:8
"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things."

James 1:5
"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."

This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word.

He is at the door, I pray that each one of us are ready.

4th and Inches said:

---

1 John 2:3
And this is how we know [daily, by experience] that we have come to know Him [to understand Him and be more deeply acquainted with Him]: if we habitually keep [focused on His precepts and obey] His commandments.

Romans 12:1
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to Godthis is your true and proper worship."

Philippians 4:8
"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things."

James 1:5
"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."

This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word.

He is at the door, I pray that each one of us are ready.

---

"This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word." - but you have to have an understanding OF His word. And based on your understanding, do all these verses you post mean that taking up one's cross, confessing and repenting daily, offering "sacrifice", drinking the Eucharist wine, and obedience necessary for one's salvation?

Why are you avoiding the opportunity for clarity? If you were asked this by someone wanting to learn about what it takes to be saved, how would you answer? Would you just cryptically quote verses?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

1 John 2:3
And this is how we know [daily, by experience] that we have come to know Him [to understand Him and be more deeply acquainted with Him]: if we habitually keep [focused on His precepts and obey] His commandments.

Romans 12:1
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to Godthis is your true and proper worship."

Philippians 4:8
"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things."

James 1:5
"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."

This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word.

He is at the door, I pray that each one of us are ready.

---

"This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word." - but you have to have an understanding OF His word. And based on your understanding, do all these verses you post mean that taking up one's cross, confessing and repenting daily, offering "sacrifice", drinking the Eucharist wine, and obedience necessary for one's salvation?

Why are you avoiding the opportunity for clarity? If you were asked this by someone wanting to learn about what it takes to be saved, how would you answer? Would you just cryptically quote verses?

---

you try to make it transactional, it is relational. Declaring it with your mouth and believing it in your heart are required for salvation. What does believing in your heart look like..

When your heart is replaced, you are part of the vine and naturally produce good fruit. No matter how much you declare, if you dont naturally produce fruit then you arent.

Those who only have a short time between salvation and death, clearly do not produce the same fruit as someone who has spent years in the sanctification process.

Sharing the gospel with someone is driven by the spirit., It's relational and I listen to Him.

Suppose you are a homeless person, and you find a place where you can sleep safely and get something to eat every day.

You would share that with someone else in need, would you not?

It's like that for us, only we are in spiritual poverty. There is no reason not to share good news with our brothers and sisters in need of hope.

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

1 John 2:3
And this is how we know [daily, by experience] that we have come to know Him [to understand Him and be more deeply acquainted with Him]: if we habitually keep [focused on His precepts and obey] His commandments.

Romans 12:1
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to Godthis is your true and proper worship."

Philippians 4:8
"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things."

James 1:5
"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."

This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word.

He is at the door, I pray that each one of us are ready.

---

"This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word." - but you have to have an understanding OF His word. And based on your understanding, do all these verses you post mean that taking up one's cross, confessing and repenting daily, offering "sacrifice", drinking the Eucharist wine, and obedience necessary for one's salvation?

Why are you avoiding the opportunity for clarity? If you were asked this by someone wanting to learn about what it takes to be saved, how would you answer? Would you just cryptically quote verses?

---

you try to make it transactional, it is relational. Declaring it with your mouth and believing it in your heart are required for salvation. What does believing in your heart look like..

When your heart is replaced, you are part of the vine and naturally produce good fruit. No matter how much you declare, if you dont naturally produce fruit then you arent.

Those who only have a short time between salvation and death, clearly do not produce the same fruit as someone who has spent years in the sanctification process.

Sharing the gospel with someone is driven by the spirit., It's relational and I listen to Him.

---

"Relational" vs "transactional" has nothing to do with this. You're just trying to find a way to marginalize the call for clarity while justifying being ambigous and veiled. This is a just a dishonest dodge. This is indicative that you're not speaking in truth. Wanting clarity is not being "transactional".

If you recall, you stated that "we must take up our cross, confessing and repent daily, offer "sacrifice", drink the Eucharist wine (it "seals the blood covenant"), and obey Christ" in response to a question about what was "necessary". This is just as much a "transactional" statement as any.

I'm giving you an opportunity to be CLEAR, and frankly, your avoidance is pretty revealing. To make this simpler, let me take only one from your list - drinking the wine as a "seal" of the blood covenant. This seems to indicate that you believe that one's salvation is dependent on drinking the communion wine. Can you be CLEAR in this regard? Is this what you believe? This isn't a "relational vs transactional" issue, so you can't use this as a dodge. You are speaking of a very specific act, and a very specific result achieved by that act. So be clear in your answer.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Suppose you are a homeless person, and you find a place where you can sleep safely and get something to eat every day.

You would share that with someone else in need, would you not?

It's like that for us, only we are in spiritual poverty. There is no reason not to share good news with our brothers and sisters in need of hope.

---

And what is that "good news"? If they ask you if they have to "take up their cross", confess and repent daily, offer "sacrifice" (as he explained it), drink the communion wine, and obey Christ in order to be saved, how would you answer them?

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

1 John 2:3
And this is how we know [daily, by experience] that we have come to know Him [to understand Him and be more deeply acquainted with Him]: if we habitually keep [focused on His precepts and obey] His commandments.

Romans 12:1
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to Godthis is your true and proper worship."

Philippians 4:8
"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things."

James 1:5
"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."

This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word.

He is at the door, I pray that each one of us are ready.

---

"This is what I have been instructed to respond with.. I lean not on my own understanding but His word." - but you have to have an understanding OF His word. And based on your understanding, do all these verses you post mean that taking up one's cross, confessing and repenting daily, offering "sacrifice", drinking the Eucharist wine, and obedience necessary for one's salvation?

Why are you avoiding the opportunity for clarity? If you were asked this by someone wanting to learn about what it takes to be saved, how would you answer? Would you just cryptically quote verses?

---

you try to make it transactional, it is relational. Declaring it with your mouth and believing it in your heart are required for salvation. What does believing in your heart look like..

When your heart is replaced, you are part of the vine and naturally produce good fruit. No matter how much you declare, if you dont naturally produce fruit then you arent.

Those who only have a short time between salvation and death, clearly do not produce the same fruit as someone who has spent years in the sanctification process.

Sharing the gospel with someone is driven by the spirit., It's relational and I listen to Him.

---

So, do I have this straight? - if someone who wanted to learn what it takes to be saved asks you if taking up one's cross, confessing and repenting daily, offering "sacrifice", drinking the Eucharist wine, and obedience to Jesus are necessary for salvation....

... your answer would be to merely cite verses (which don't answer the question at all) and tell them they're being "transactional" for asking the question??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Jesus was the blood sacrifice, the cup of wine seals the covenant of the blood, the obediance to Christ upholds your end of the covenant....

..... I think you may need to brush up on your historic Jewish wedding traditions.. you will find the cup of wine, the brides cleansing akin to baptism, the separation of the bride and the bridegroom while preparations are made, and many more references that bring clarity when properly understood.

---

Since you're not willing to respond to my question whether or not this is saying you believe that drinking the Eucharist wine is necessary for salvation, I'll make this point: Scripture, rather, says that the Holy Spirit is the "seal" of the covenant, which is given to a person upon hearing the gospel, and believing:

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:13-14

Don't put Jewish ceremonial typology ahead of what Scripture says.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?

---

That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?

---

Define "follow".

---

I don't care. Define it however you want.

---

If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?

---

You'll see.

---

Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.

---

Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.

---

You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?

---

I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.

---

Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.

And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.

But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?

---

So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?

---

aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.

The flesh must die daily so the spirit can live. You must take up your cross daily. You must confess and repent daily. You must offer sacrifice daily. You must humble your flesh self until you have the heart of a small child who relies on their father.

Lean into Him, and He will lean into you.

---

Does one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved?

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

You just said asking for divine help is something all Christians should do. But asking is an act of will, it's effort. If exercising your will or any effort at all toward God doesn't compromise grace at the asking stage, on what basis does it compromise grace at the cooperating with the answer stage? Either the will's involvement is compatible with grace, or it isn't.

Synergy isn't 'Christ does 99%, I do 1%'. not. If God unilaterally overrode the will to produce faith and repentance, that's not cooperation, that's coercion. Your framework is coercion.

'Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself' (Mt 16:24)

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

You just said asking for divine help is something all Christians should do. But asking is an act of will, it's effort. If exercising your will or any effort at all toward God doesn't compromise grace at the asking stage, on what basis does it compromise grace at the cooperating with the answer stage? Either the will's involvement is compatible with grace, or it isn't.

Synergy isn't 'Christ does 99%, I do 1%'. not. If God unilaterally overrode the will to produce faith and repentance, that's not cooperation, that's coercion. Your framework is coercion.

'Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself' (Mt 16:24)

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

---

In the "asking stage", you're not compromising God's grace, because you're simply asking for his help without thinking you have to do your part in "earning" his help. The help you receive is a free gift that you receive simply by asking. However, in your view of salvation, this is not the case. You ask for salvation, but believe that receiving it is contingent upon your free will effort. You DON'T receive it simply by asking, you have to do your part in "earning" it. See the huge difference? In the former, grace is not compromised, but in the latter it is.

You: "Your framework is coercion" - once again, and as usual, you assume things that just aren't true. I do not believe that God "forces" faith onto people. This is you punching at your straw men again.

You: "Whoever desires to come after me, let him deny himself" - are you sure this is a verse about salvation, or is it about following in Jesus' footsteps as an apostle, i.e. someone who will continue his work building his body of believers and thus face the same persecution he would face, which might even include death?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

You just said asking for divine help is something all Christians should do. But asking is an act of will, it's effort. If exercising your will or any effort at all toward God doesn't compromise grace at the asking stage, on what basis does it compromise grace at the cooperating with the answer stage? Either the will's involvement is compatible with grace, or it isn't.

Synergy isn't 'Christ does 99%, I do 1%'. not. If God unilaterally overrode the will to produce faith and repentance, that's not cooperation, that's coercion. Your framework is coercion.

'Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself' (Mt 16:24)

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

---

In the "asking stage", you're not compromising God's grace, because you're simply asking for his help without thinking you have to do your part in "earning" his help. The help you receive is a free gift that you receive simply by asking. However, in your view of salvation, this is not the case. You ask for salvation, but believe that receiving it is contingent upon your free will effort. You DON'T receive it simply by asking, you have to do your part in "earning" it. See the huge difference? In the former, grace is not compromised, but in the latter it is.

---

No, not unless you believe your efforts entitle you to something.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

---

In your framework, it seems like the gift of "repentance" is all you really need. There is no need to "cooperate" or "deny oneself" at all - just repent at the end for all your failures at cooperating and denying yourself.

God doing 100% of the righteousness, performance being perfect or it's worthless (with regard to saving ability) - this isn't just my framework, this is literally the framework of the gospel in Scripture. With regard to monergism vs works-righteousness, free will vs grace, you're just presenting more false dilemmas. This is your MO.

The doctor-patient analogy does not apply to salvation. God does not write us a prescription for salvation that we have to go get filled on our own. A more apt analogy is a water rescuer and a completely spent drowning person. The water rescuer has to hold the drowning person and do all the swimming to safety; the drowning person has absolutely nothing within themselves to help, they are completely dependent on the rescuer. The rescuer doesn't tell the drowning person "hold onto me, and swim with me". That person has absolutely nothing left, they are completely spent, helpless, and can't do anything to help his own cause.

Your free will "cooperation" framework always collapses to salvation being contingent upon one's merit, by definition. It compromises the whole concept of grace, by definition. That was precisely the apostle Paul's point. And thus, ultimately, as Paul strongly argues, it compromises the whole gospel itself.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

You just said asking for divine help is something all Christians should do. But asking is an act of will, it's effort. If exercising your will or any effort at all toward God doesn't compromise grace at the asking stage, on what basis does it compromise grace at the cooperating with the answer stage? Either the will's involvement is compatible with grace, or it isn't.

Synergy isn't 'Christ does 99%, I do 1%'. not. If God unilaterally overrode the will to produce faith and repentance, that's not cooperation, that's coercion. Your framework is coercion.

'Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself' (Mt 16:24)

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

---

In the "asking stage", you're not compromising God's grace, because you're simply asking for his help without thinking you have to do your part in "earning" his help. The help you receive is a free gift that you receive simply by asking. However, in your view of salvation, this is not the case. You ask for salvation, but believe that receiving it is contingent upon your free will effort. You DON'T receive it simply by asking, you have to do your part in "earning" it. See the huge difference? In the former, grace is not compromised, but in the latter it is.

---

No, not unless you believe your efforts entitle you to something.

---

"Entitlement" has nothing to do with it. If your belief is that your efforts are required, without which you would NOT receive anything, then it is no longer grace.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

You just said asking for divine help is something all Christians should do. But asking is an act of will, it's effort. If exercising your will or any effort at all toward God doesn't compromise grace at the asking stage, on what basis does it compromise grace at the cooperating with the answer stage? Either the will's involvement is compatible with grace, or it isn't.

Synergy isn't 'Christ does 99%, I do 1%'. not. If God unilaterally overrode the will to produce faith and repentance, that's not cooperation, that's coercion. Your framework is coercion.

'Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself' (Mt 16:24)

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

---

In the "asking stage", you're not compromising God's grace, because you're simply asking for his help without thinking you have to do your part in "earning" his help. The help you receive is a free gift that you receive simply by asking. However, in your view of salvation, this is not the case. You ask for salvation, but believe that receiving it is contingent upon your free will effort. You DON'T receive it simply by asking, you have to do your part in "earning" it. See the huge difference? In the former, grace is not compromised, but in the latter it is.

---

No, not unless you believe your efforts entitle you to something.

---

"Entitlement" has nothing to do with it. If your belief is that your efforts are required, without which you would NOT receive anything, then it is no longer grace.

---

If you're not entitled to it, it's still grace.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

You just said asking for divine help is something all Christians should do. But asking is an act of will, it's effort. If exercising your will or any effort at all toward God doesn't compromise grace at the asking stage, on what basis does it compromise grace at the cooperating with the answer stage? Either the will's involvement is compatible with grace, or it isn't.

Synergy isn't 'Christ does 99%, I do 1%'. not. If God unilaterally overrode the will to produce faith and repentance, that's not cooperation, that's coercion. Your framework is coercion.

'Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself' (Mt 16:24)

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

---

In the "asking stage", you're not compromising God's grace, because you're simply asking for his help without thinking you have to do your part in "earning" his help. The help you receive is a free gift that you receive simply by asking. However, in your view of salvation, this is not the case. You ask for salvation, but believe that receiving it is contingent upon your free will effort. You DON'T receive it simply by asking, you have to do your part in "earning" it. See the huge difference? In the former, grace is not compromised, but in the latter it is.

---

No, not unless you believe your efforts entitle you to something.

---

"Entitlement" has nothing to do with it. If your belief is that your efforts are required, without which you would NOT receive anything, then it is no longer grace.

---

If you're not entitled to it, it's still grace.

---

You mean if you believe you're not entitled to it, then it's still grace, because that's what you stated. Which is still incorrect either way, because 1) you don't have to believe something is an entitlement for it to be one, and 2) the part that makes it cease to be grace is not that you have a "right" to something, it's simply that you had to work to bring it about. "Entitlement" doesn't need to be in the equation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

---

In your framework, it seems like the gift of "repentance" is all you really need. There is no need to "cooperate" or "deny oneself" at all - just repent at the end for all your failures at cooperating and denying yourself.

God doing 100% of the righteousness, performance being perfect or it's worthless (with regard to saving ability) - this isn't just my framework, this is literally the framework of the gospel in Scripture. With regard to monergism vs works-righteousness, free will vs grace, you're just presenting more false dilemmas. This is your MO.

The doctor-patient analogy does not apply to salvation. God does not write us a prescription for salvation that we have to go get filled on our own. A more apt analogy is a water rescuer and a completely spent drowning person. The water rescuer has to hold the drowning person and do all the swimming to safety; the drowning person has absolutely nothing within themselves to help, they are completely dependent on the rescuer. The rescuer doesn't tell the drowning person "hold onto me, and swim with me". That person has absolutely nothing left, they are completely spent, helpless, and can't do anything to help his own cause.

Your free will "cooperation" framework always collapses to salvation being contingent upon one's merit, by definition. It compromises the whole concept of grace, by definition. That was precisely the apostle Paul's point. And thus, ultimately, as Paul strongly argues, it compromises the whole gospel itself.

---

You're not tracking what repentance actually is. Repentance isn't feeling bad about doing something sinful, or shame/gulit and it's not a verbal apology tacked on after failure.

Repentance is the turning of the will. It's not separate from 'cooperating' and 'denying oneself': it's the name for the will doing exactly that, every time it fails and turns back. You're treating repentance as a cheap escape hatch that makes the rest of the effort optional. It's the opposite…repentance is effort. It's the will's continual re-orientation toward God. There's no 'just repent at the end' in this framework, there's 'repent constantly, as the ongoing behavior of the Christian life', which is denying oneself, over and over.

Show me the verse that says performance must be perfect or worthless with respect to saving ability, not a verse about grace being a gift (I affirm that), but one that states or proves its binary.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says salvation isn't 'of works, lest any man should boast. In context that means "Hey guys, you can't keep following the old covenant (Torah law keeping) to be right with God…the only way is through Jesus now". Paul's whole point in Ephesians 2 is Jew/Gentile unification in Christ apart from Torah observance (circumcision, food laws, Sabbath which were the badges that marked out covenant membership), not a general statement that any human response whatsoever nullifies grace. Thats why in the very next verse he says "you're called the uncircumcision by those who are circumcised by hands". The context there is the works of Jewish law.

In Galatians it says the only faith that counts is faith working through love. Paul already saw this coming and torched it: 'Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!' (Rom 6:1-2).

No amount of apparent faith, professed faith, felt assurance, ever counts as proof for you because if the fruit doesn't show up later, you'll just say it was never real. You've got a system where you can never actually know in the present whether you have 'true faith', only anxiously infer it from behavior you're simultaneously telling me doesn't matter for salvation. Which is it, does the behavior matter, or doesn't it? You keep needing it both ways depending on which objection you're dodging.

Just FYI guys, Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:6 ("Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness") as his proof text for justification by faith. But Genesis 15 is not Abraham's first act of faith.

By the time we get to Genesis 15:6, Abraham has already: responded to God's call in Ur (Acts 7:2-4), left everything on that word, journeyed to Canaan, and built altars worshiping God (Gen 12:7-8)… that's not a man having his first flicker of faith in Genesis 15.

Years of demonstrated, obedient, worshiping trust already in place. Paul reaches for that specific verse not because it's the origin point of Abraham's faith, but because 'accounted for righteousness' language fits his argument about how righteousness is reckoned: through faith, not Torah-works. It says nothing about faith existing in isolation from a life already being lived in obedient response to God. The obedience isn't competing with the faith.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayDoes one have to "take up their cross daily", confess and repent daily, "offer sacrifice" daily in order to be saved? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to be CLEAR in what you say. And what is the "sacrifice" that we must offer daily, exactly?

---

Ah, I see, so we can be total, degenerate, unrepentant sinners...oh, wait, no, "a real Christian WILL produce fruit and repent." Got it.

So the real question isn't whether fruit is required, it's about free will.

EVERYONE who has ever conquered a sinful passion, addiction or sinful behavior has to use their free will to say yes to grace. You don't wait around and hope God controls you like a puppet. When you get tempted, you reach out to Christ and say "Lord help me". That's synergy. To you, asking Christ for help is works-righteousness and or its God making you ask for help: both ridiculous and don't comport with reality.

This is the degeneracy that monergism creates on full display.

How do you personally handle sin in your life?

---

This doesn't answer the question. It only presents a false dilemma. The issue is NOT free will. Whether or not one uses their free will to "cooperate" with grace does not answer the question. Mischaracterizing my position (that asking for Jesus' help during temptation is "works righetousness"), still does not answer the question. How I personally handle sin in my life does nothing to answer the question.

Instead of clarity, we're getting more avoidance, diversion, non sequiturs, and straw men.

---

I'm not mischaracterizing your position at all. I'm working with your once saved, always saved logic and that fact that dead faith doesn't save, so it absolutely is about free will.

If you don't have fruit ( taking up your cross, repenting, struggling against sin), you won't be saved. So the question is how does fruit come to fruition?

If you think I'm strawmanning you...then state your denomination and theological positions. You know I'm Eastern Orthodox, but you could be any one of the 40,000 denominations.

---

I have repeatedly stated here that I belong to no denomination, that I'm simply a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian. I HAVE BEEN stating my theological positions here, endlessly. Saying that my view is that it's "works righteousness" when you ask Jesus for help to defeat temptation, is a complete mischaracterization. You have a strong tendency towards mischaracterizing/straw manning like this. You do it quite often.

And this still has nothing to do with free will. That's something you're shoe-horning into the discussion. Again, the question is regarding whether the aforementioned "fruit" (taking up one's cross, confessing, drinking wine, etc) is required for salvation - whether this is by one's free will or not, is immaterial. Whether this "fruit" comes to fruition by one's free will or monergistically isn't what I'm asking. I'm simply asking if it is required according to your belief system. The answer is simply a "yes", "no", or even an "I don't know".

Asking for divine help to defeat sin is what all Christians who are already saved should always do. It becomes "works righteousness", however, when you believe that achieving it, which involves your own will, is how one becomes justified, i.e. righteous before God. You're essentially saying that you play a part in your righteousness, through your own will. And hence, you believe you save yourself in part by your own will. Not only is this completely antithetical to the true gospel, it is completely untenable as a soteriology. Because you WILL FAIL at times. Everyone will. And that means you can NEVER achieve righteousness this way, because perfection is God's standard, and you will always fall short. If salvation is even a tiny bit dependent on OUR own free will righteousness, then no one can be saved. The only solution, then, is to have Jesus' perfect, 100% righteousness given (imputed) to us, freely by grace, which we receive through faith alone and not by our works/merits. This is the gospel. The belief that our salvation is in part dependent on our own free will accomplishment is a rejection of the gospel.

---

You said you will fail, therefore you can never achieve righteousness this way, so the whole system collapses. That objection only lands against a system where failure is fatal and un-recoverable. We've been given the gift of repentance for this very reason. 'A righteous man falls seven times and rises again' (Prov 24:16). The point was never sinless performance; its continual return.

The root of every objection you've raised and your whole framework runs on binaries that don't exist in reality: either God does 100% or you do, either performance is perfect or it's worthless, either it's monergism or it's works-righteousness, either the will is free or grace is real.

When a doctor heals a patient and the patient does physical therapy to recover, did the patient contribute to their own healing, taking credit away from the doctor? Or is the patient cooperating with treatment just…what healing looks like? I'm not asking you to agree with Orthodox soteriology. I'm asking whether you think cooperation with a gift is even a coherent category, or whether you think it always collapses into merit. That's the actual disagreement, not whether fruit is required.

---

In your framework, it seems like the gift of "repentance" is all you really need. There is no need to "cooperate" or "deny oneself" at all - just repent at the end for all your failures at cooperating and denying yourself.

God doing 100% of the righteousness, performance being perfect or it's worthless (with regard to saving ability) - this isn't just my framework, this is literally the framework of the gospel in Scripture. With regard to monergism vs works-righteousness, free will vs grace, you're just presenting more false dilemmas. This is your MO.

The doctor-patient analogy does not apply to salvation. God does not write us a prescription for salvation that we have to go get filled on our own. A more apt analogy is a water rescuer and a completely spent drowning person. The water rescuer has to hold the drowning person and do all the swimming to safety; the drowning person has absolutely nothing within themselves to help, they are completely dependent on the rescuer. The rescuer doesn't tell the drowning person "hold onto me, and swim with me". That person has absolutely nothing left, they are completely spent, helpless, and can't do anything to help his own cause.

Your free will "cooperation" framework always collapses to salvation being contingent upon one's merit, by definition. It compromises the whole concept of grace, by definition. That was precisely the apostle Paul's point. And thus, ultimately, as Paul strongly argues, it compromises the whole gospel itself.

---

You're not tracking what repentance actually is. Repentance isn't feeling bad about doing something sinful, or shame/gulit and it's not a verbal apology tacked on after failure.

Repentance is the turning of the will. It's not separate from 'cooperating' and 'denying oneself': it's the name for the will doing exactly that, every time it fails and turns back. You're treating repentance as a cheap escape hatch that makes the rest of the effort optional. It's the opposite…repentance is effort. It's the will's continual re-orientation toward God. There's no 'just repent at the end' in this framework, there's 'repent constantly, as the ongoing behavior of the Christian life', which is denying oneself, over and over.

Show me the verse that says performance must be perfect or worthless with respect to saving ability, not a verse about grace being a gift (I affirm that), but one that states or proves its binary.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says salvation isn't 'of works, lest any man should boast. In context that means "Hey guys, you can't keep following the old covenant (Torah law keeping) to be right with God…the only way is through Jesus now". Paul's whole point in Ephesians 2 is Jew/Gentile unification in Christ apart from Torah observance (circumcision, food laws, Sabbath which were the badges that marked out covenant membership), not a general statement that any human response whatsoever nullifies grace. Thats why in the very next verse he says "you're called the uncircumcision by those who are circumcised by hands". The context there is the works of Jewish law.

In Galatians it says the only faith that counts is faith working through love. Paul already saw this coming and torched it: 'Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!' (Rom 6:1-2).

No amount of apparent faith, professed faith, felt assurance, ever counts as proof for you because if the fruit doesn't show up later, you'll just say it was never real. You've got a system where you can never actually know in the present whether you have 'true faith', only anxiously infer it from behavior you're simultaneously telling me doesn't matter for salvation. Which is it, does the behavior matter, or doesn't it? You keep needing it both ways depending on which objection you're dodging.

---

Ok then, just repent daily for all your failures at "cooperating" and denying yourself.

You: "Show me the verse that says performance must be perfect or [it's] worthless with respect to saving ability" - are you serious? Do you really not understand that we have to be sinless in order to be saved by our own merit? And that's the whole reason we needed a Savior, to be the perfect righteousness that meets God's standard, in our stead?

Paul isn't just talking about the Law, he's talking about the broader concept of man justifying himself by his own performance, apart from faith. He specifically cited the example of Abraham, who was justified by his faith, not by any of his actions. And the Law did not exist in Abraham's time. Clearly, Paul was not referring to "works" as only works of the Law. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" - Romans 4:4-5

"Faith working through love" is not saying that works are required for salvation Paul isn't going to directly contradict himself like this.

You: "No amount of apparent faith, professed faith, felt assurance, ever counts as proof for you" - of course it doesn't "prove" it for me, and it shouldn't for you as well. Only God knows the true heart. Humans can deceive themselves. What you're arguing is that no one can have ABSOLUTE knowledge of their own inner state, much less the inner state of others, like God does. I've never disagreed. I don't see how this is even relevant to anything discussed.

You: "You've got a system where you can never actually know in the present whether you have 'true faith', only anxiously infer it from behavior you're simultaneously telling me doesn't matter for salvation. Which is it, does the behavior matter, or doesn't it? You keep needing it both ways depending on which objection you're dodging." - Inferring that a true faith exists based on one's behavior, and believing that behavior is not what earns salvation, are not mutually exclusive things. This is yet another one in your growing list of false dilemmas. True faith is what saves, not good works; good works is the fruit and outward evidence of that saving faith. I really don't see why this concept is so hard for you to understand.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just FYI guys, Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:6 ("Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness") as his proof text for justification by faith. But Genesis 15 is not Abraham's first act of faith.

By the time we get to Genesis 15:6, Abraham has already: responded to God's call in Ur (Acts 7:2-4), left everything on that word, journeyed to Canaan, and built altars worshiping God (Gen 12:7-8)… that's not a man having his first flicker of faith in Genesis 15.

---

In those passages, we are only told that Abraham obeyed what God commanded, not that he believed in a promise. It wasn't until Genesis 15 when we are told that Abraham "believed" God, and thus when he had actual faith.

EVEN IF Abraham had earlier faith that we weren't told about, still, that doesn't change the point of that passage in Genesis, or even Paul's point - that it was Abraham's mere faith that was accounted for righteousness, not his actions.

"And he believed the Lord, and it counted to him as righteousness." Genesis 15:6

Abraham obeyed out of faith.

historian said:

---

"And he believed the Lord, and it counted to him as righteousness." Genesis 15:6

Abraham obeyed out of faith.

---

We only know he did after chapter 15 in Genesis, because that's the only time we're told Abraham had faith. That's why the apostle Paul cited chapter 15 as the moment Abraham was justified to righteousness by his faith rather than by his actions, even though Abraham had already been obeying God's commandments up until that time.

If one looks at Abraham's relationship with God from the start it's very clear that he was acting on faith: abandoning his home and family to go live in a distant land he knew nothing about, believing God's promise he would have a son even long after Sarah had passed child bearing age, his willingness to sacrifice his only son (and maybe on a hill later called Cavalry). That first act of obedience was also a huge act of faith. Travel in ancient times was far more difficult and dangerous than it is now in the US.

The main themes of the Bible, both Old & New Testaments, are all about man's need for God, our inability to keep His commandments, and the need for salvation that can only come from the grace of God, and the role of faith in all of this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just FYI guys, Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:6 ("Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness") as his proof text for justification by faith. But Genesis 15 is not Abraham's first act of faith.

By the time we get to Genesis 15:6, Abraham has already: responded to God's call in Ur (Acts 7:2-4), left everything on that word, journeyed to Canaan, and built altars worshiping God (Gen 12:7-8)… that's not a man having his first flicker of faith in Genesis 15.

---

In those passages, we are only told that Abraham obeyed what God commanded, not that he believed in a promise. It wasn't until Genesis 15 when we are told that Abraham "believed" God, and thus when he had actual faith.

EVEN IF Abraham had earlier faith that we weren't told about, still, that doesn't change the point of that passage in Genesis, or even Paul's point - that it was Abraham's mere faith that was accounted for righteousness, not his actions.

---

Faith isn't an opinion. It's an activity.

You can't seriously think your ticket to heaven is punched just because you think the gospel is true. Your heart has to be in it for real, which means your free will and effort has to be in it.

You can't be a degenerate, unrepentant sinner with no desire to change and you can't just think the gospel is true and that somehow changes the former.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Just FYI guys, Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:6 ("Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness") as his proof text for justification by faith. But Genesis 15 is not Abraham's first act of faith.

By the time we get to Genesis 15:6, Abraham has already: responded to God's call in Ur (Acts 7:2-4), left everything on that word, journeyed to Canaan, and built altars worshiping God (Gen 12:7-8)… that's not a man having his first flicker of faith in Genesis 15.

---

In those passages, we are only told that Abraham obeyed what God commanded, not that he believed in a promise. It wasn't until Genesis 15 when we are told that Abraham "believed" God, and thus when he had actual faith.

EVEN IF Abraham had earlier faith that we weren't told about, still, that doesn't change the point of that passage in Genesis, or even Paul's point - that it was Abraham's mere faith that was accounted for righteousness, not his actions.

---

Faith isn't an opinion. It's an activity.

You can't seriously think your ticket to heaven is punched just because you think the gospel is true. Your heart has to be in it for real, which means your free will and effort has to be in it.

You can't be a degenerate, unrepentant sinner with no desire to change and you can't just think the gospel is true and that somehow changes the former.

---

Faith is neither a mere "opinion" nor an "activity". And no one is saying that merely believing the gospel is factually true is what saves. Why do you persist in your straw men and false dilemmas?

Scripture defines faith for us, and it says faith is an "assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." There is no activity there. It's a disposition in the heart towards Jesus. There is nothing for a person to "do" in order to have faith. Also note that faith means assurance. This means that any belief system which doesn't allow for assurance is a system NOT based on biblical faith. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox belief systems do not allow for assurance, because in their view salvation is contingent upon the successful efforts of the individual as well. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox "gospel" therefore is NOT the biblical gospel.

The biblical definition also says faith is a "hope". It's not just believing something is factually true, there's an investment of one's heart, a placement of one's trust in it. Degenerate people are exactly who the gospel is for - and if they have an invested faith in the gospel, it means they have agreed to the truth of being a sinner in need of saving (which is repentance) and have trusted in the assurance of Jesus' promise that by their faith, they are saved, no matter how degenerate they were. There is literally nothing procedural that they have to accomplish, no "good works" they must do in order to be saved, outside of their having faith. It is freely given to them out of pure grace, because they had faith and nothing more - just like the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius. This is the simple gospel.

Salvation happens directly between the heart of an individual, and Jesus himself. Don't let man with his institutions and "authority" act as the go-between, the "middle man" that must broker the deal between you and Jesus, and complicate the matter with all of his man-made rules and procedures.