JD wrote:
....They have lauughed at me for comparing words in the passage that instructs me to do it in order to understand and they sugessted that I have a novel approach to study.....

JD wrote:
What an argument! The "gifts" of the Spirit are gifts that are given to saved people and the Scriptures say so.
Faith to believe the gospel is given to no one! The very idea is preposterous.

The principle you denied was that if it is a human action then it cannot also be a gift. This is what I was attempting to disprove.

JD wrote:
...I do not think you would want me to require you to prove your silly tulip doctrines from the context where you say you find them. So I think I would abandon that request!

JD wrote:
I did not say I possesed it alone, I said that the wisdom was hidden and that is also what the text says.

JD wrote:
You say it is the hidden gospel but you cannot show a passage stating the gospel was ever hidden.

JD wrote:
Your problem is that you are protecting your false tulip doctrine that says faith is imputed to people or that it is a gift. The Scriptures nowhere says faith is the gift of God and if it did you and others would be trotting out the verses and proving me wrong. I have made the challenge for 5 years for any of you to do it and it ain't done yet.
Justification is by faith, Believing is an act of the will. It is a verb, for crying out loud.
Come to think of it, faith can not be a gift if it cannot be refused. You might say it is infused to the elect but you could no way call it a gift.

Tell me JD, when the apostles spoke in tongues did they do the speaking? When the prophets spoke did they do the talking?

Can you tell me now that since they did these things they were not also gifts, or that the contents of what they spoke was their own?

Face it you are tied to your vain philosophy and that is why you must make every verse of scripture bend to your thoughts rather than let the word speak to you!

JD wrote:
.... I weary in dealing with you people who take the reformed writers word and elevate it over clear and precise language in the bible so you will not compromise this devilish doctrine that you are so fond of...

And what about 2 Tim 2. 25 which informs us that it is God who grants repentance. Or was the language not precise enough there?

Discerning Believer wrote:
Thanks Lurker.
I pulled it since you clarified his last post.
What JD fails to realize is that Jesus IS God. So when we say the righteousness of Christ, we are in fact affirming his deity as the Son of God and God the Son.
It was not clear if JD believed that we are declared righteous based on the merits of Christ or based on our own meritorious acts.

JD clearly believes that the exercise of faith is what God counts as righteousness. In which case it would be our righteousness. But the scriptures clearly say Christ is our righteousness.

And you are spot on about his comments on 2 Cor 5.21- a most obvious point, but missed by JD.

JD wrote:
It was no mystery that God would save men through the Christ of God. ...blah, blah blah

Stop the evasion. Show me from 1 Cor 2 where Paul says that the mystery he is referring to is the Church?

If you cannot demonstrate the connection from the passage, then you are using smoke and mirrors to get to where you want!

JD wrote:
Why don't you tell me and give me a bible verse saying it?

"But of him (GOD) are ye in Christ Jesus, who (i.e. Jesus)of God is made unto us ...righteousness ...."

2 Cor 5.21

"For he hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

JD wrote:
Well, I have given you what the Scriptures says is the wisdom of God already.
....

I ask you again, where is 1 Cor is there any mention of the fact that this so called mystery is the church?

I know in an ealier post you stated that it could not be revealed to the Corinthians because they were carnal .. and in case you try to revert to that plain silly argument, why does Paul then say what he does in 1 Cor 1.5 that they were enriched by him (Christ) in all knowledge?

kevin wrote:
Bible verse, what is the New Testament of the Bible consisted of? Letters! Pure and simple.
Every one of the so-called books of the New Testament are letters. Letters in which, for most of the part, were wrote for instruction or correction.
...

Don't have the time now to answer your points about the autographs and manuscripts, but will quickly deal with your quote cited above.

The Gospels, save that of Luke, were not addressed to an individual/individuals, so they are not stricly letters but a historical accounts of the life and work of the Savior.

The Book of Revelation is written for the whole church and again is not strictly a letter but apocalytic literature.

So the NT is not composed solely of letters pure and simple!

JD wrote:
...This is the grounds of our justification because without it there would be no possibility of anyone ever being justified. ...Your efforts could do nothing more than cloud the issue.
God simply imputes righteousness to the person who believes him and declares him just. ..

Are you now agreeing that faith is not the grounds of our justification, but that it is the righteouness of another?

Actually, you don't even add "of another", so this must be some nebulous righteousness that God imputes to the believer. Do you have any idea what the "righteousness of God apart from the law" is?

Kevin

JD wrote:
What is this Greek study to invalidate the word of God and its meaning? ...Are there any believers participating on this forum anymore?

If as you say "instrumental" and "grounds of" are merely striving about words, why then do you go on later in your post to say:-

JD wrote:
Here is simple statements you should believe.

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Does faith sound like the ground or the means of justification?

kevin wrote:
I apologize Bible Verse, I looked over your comment to me....

Quote:

"...The main expressions are:
tei pistei (dative case), or with the preposition en: instrumental meaning - "by means of".
dia (tes) pisteoos: same instrumental meaning
ek pisteos: again, the same basic meaning, probably with the nuance that justification and righteousness results from faith, i.e. the empty hand stretched out to receive God's gift of righteousness.

Never, however, whether TR or modern texts, do we find dia pistin or dia ten pistin: on the ground/basis of faith."

MurrayA wrote:
Answer: I was not appealing to or using any translation, but noting what the Greek text both says and does not say.
That Greek text never says dia ten pistin, "on the ground/basis of faith" in reference to justification.

Kevin must be a greek scholar with access to the received text underlying the KJV and he has, if we may fairly judge from his post, found many texts where dia with faith in the accusative is to be found. It is just a great shame that he has omitted to mention the verse references, don't you think?

Kevin

Dr. Yamil Luciano wrote:
I am saying that they can be translated both ways. I trust the KJV translators rendering over yours.
..I believe that the KJV translators where (SIC) correct in their translation. But it would not surprise me if you would now throw away the KJV in favor of a modern translation to try to defend your petty doctrine...

MurrayA wrote:
JD, the thrust of the Joel Beeke quote was as follows (I am paraphrasing somewhat):
Justification is never on the ground of faith, which would be expressed in Greek by dia with "faith" in the accusative case (dia ten pistin). But one never finds this in the NT.
Faith is the means, the channel, by which the sinner receives the righteousness of God (i.e. the righteousness of Christ,the Son of God). This is expressed in the Greek by dia with "faith" in the genitive (dia tes pisteoos), which we regularly find.
Now then: what is your response to this? Never mind the reference to faith as a grace, an aside which Beeke placed in brackets. I have yet to see one from you - and I have been reading.

JD wrote:
...See, you will not believe the words I quoted above. They do not fit your template.

JD wrote:
Testing, testing!
For God so loved the world...
For God so loved the elect...
Which is it and is the same hermeneutic going to apply?

".. God peradventure will give them repentance to acknowledging of the truth.."

So what is to be, does God give repentance or not?

JD wrote:
...and God does not just magically grant repentance and faith to anyone. There is a method to his giving repentance among men. It is through his word and in every case in Scripture repentance comes only after preparation of the heart. ...

Of course God grants repentance through the instrumentality of the word of God.. no one is denying that.. so cut out all the rabbit trails .. we all know you are an expert at this..

The issue is simply this, do you believe that it is God who must give repentance? Does the verse as it reads viz. that God gives repentance mean what it says or not? What you are trying to do is redefine "God peradventure will give" to "God providentially may bring to a position of" .. Now JD let me make this very easy for you.. a little like Yamil.. you find me one dictionary in the whole world where "God peradventure will give" = "God providentially may bring to a position of".

A dictionary in any language, which even loosly arrives at this.. or better still, give me any verse in the Bible which defines it in this way!