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.....
If you read my post of 1/3/08 4.24PM carefully you will see that far from saying that comparing scripture with scripture is a novel method, I said "...You have to conjure things up under the pretense of using a valid scripture method". In other words the method is correct but your use of it in this particular instance is illegitimate because you are reading something into the Corinthians passage which is clearly not there!!
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.
Do you even think before responding?
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.
Now you think that God cannot operate the principle on unsaved people - Wow! Do you have a scripture that limits the power of God in this way. What about Balaam and his Ass. Let me put it this way JD, if you were that Ass, God could still make you talk!
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!
Actually that is the strength of the Reformed that we can look at the texts, the reasoning and the logic and arrive at what we proclaim, but we can also look at other scriptures and find the same things. You have to conjure things up under the pretense of using a valid scripture method. So you have given up even attempting to prove in the context that it is the church age that is being spoken of?
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.
But you have been saying that the majority of believers in the church age have not understood it!
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.
More attrocious human philosophy.
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!
As for the ability to be able to refuse something for it to be a gift- you've got to be kidding, right?
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...
Is this guy for real? On one hand he tells us that the underlying greek text construction which tells us of the role of faith in justification can just be ignored and then he trots out this interminable "you don't believe the precise language of the Bible" rubbish.
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.
Tell, me am I the only one who can see the exchange in 2 Cor 5.21? Christ made (accounted) sin for us, and we made (accounted) the righteousness of God in him .. it was our sin that was imputed to him, and therefore it must be his righteousness that is imputed to us!! He is our righteousness, not any exercise of faith on our part. Faith merely rests on that righteousness which belongs to another.
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!
And BTW, none of the reformed would deny that salvation was prophesied for the Gentiles through Christ or that the Church, which is the body of Christ, is composed of Jews and Gentiles.. we just don't see that this is anything to make a song and dance about! This is plainly stated in many places and is not the esoteric knowledge that you seem to think that only you possess!!
JD wrote: Why don't you tell me and give me a bible verse saying it?
1 Cor 1.30
"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."
The real importance of the last verse is that there is an exchange going on because he is our righteousness and we have to determine in what what sense Christ was "made.. sin" and we are "made.. righteous".
JD wrote: Well, I have given you what the Scriptures says is the wisdom of God already. ....
Yes, you have given me your patchwork which may make sense to you, but it does not make any sense to me.
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?
Even the context of 1 Cor 1 and 2 would say to any unbiased reader that what he is discussing is the gospel and why some do not undertand it.. follow the reasoning .. verse 2 speaks of his determination to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucifed, and that when he first preached to the Corinthians he preached in weakness and fear and trembling, but that his speach was in demonstration of the Spirit and power that their faith should rest in the power of God .. this is all about the gospel and its first preaching to the Corinthians. When he mentions the mystery, if this is all to do with the church, why does he say what he does in verse 8?
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!
You cast doubt doubt on the manuscripts and translations then insist that that is where our faith comes in- really?! Faith in what? Since you have pointed out that there are countless differences between the manuscripts and translations, are you saying that whoever believes a certain manuscript/translation to be the word of God, to him it is such?!!
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. ..
I have no idea what you think you are answering, because it appears to me that you are diverting the discussion away from the textual issue raised by Beeke and elaborated on by Murray.
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?
What you have written is all smoke and completely inaccurate. Taken at face value you appear to be saying that all manuscripts are uncertain and corrupt and therefore we cannot be certain that we even have the Word of God- whether in the originals or in the translation, and therefore the formula that Murray is looking for may not appear exactly but does appear faintly!! If I am reading you correctly then all I can say is.. U.. hmmm!
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?
That's real twisted thinking! So you are saying that if the underlying greek (which is the word of God) clashes with the English translation, we must opt for the English translation, because it suits you, right?
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?
Seems like you do care, even if it is just to save your face.
kevin wrote: I apologize Bible Verse, I looked over your comment to me....
Kevin you are missing the point again. Read Murray's post just before your's.
"...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."
Can you find dia pistin or dis ten pistin in connection with Justification anywhere in the NT?
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?
Are you going to present your case? Really looking forward to it.
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...
Does this man even realise that the translators were CofE men and hence attached to the Reformed understanding of Justification by faith?
They would turn in their graves if they realised that errorists like Luciano and JD are trying to overthrow the Reformation doctrine of Justification by faith!!
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.
Don't hold your breath Murray! These errorists insist that no scripture is ever brought to bear on issues by us, and then they just move on when they find that they can present no arguments against our position. JD did exactly that in a recent exchange where I was trying to show him the necessity of an inward spiritual work by God which alone can lead to repentance and faith.
Even Luciano was caught out, because he said he agreed with Beeke's assertion that faith is not the grounds of our justification and now he appears to have changed his
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. ...
Fooey! 2 ways of salvation from the master of deception!
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!
You just cannot have "God giving repentance" because it cuts right across your man made religion and your free willism!