Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[The Biblicist]

HP: Let the listener be exceedingly careful in understanding what Biblicist is claiming. We would all agree that the Holy Spirit is indeed infallible. Biblicist is once again taking the position that the King James version, the translation from Greek manuscripts, NOT ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, nor even in consideration of many other manuscripts, is in fact the infallible witness of the Holy Spirit alone.

Again, you are failing to understand my argument! THERE ARE NRIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS! There are NO COPIES of the original autographs that dispute the readings given in Mark and Luke - NONE! ZILCH! NADA.

Hence, the Holy Spirit has provided TWO indisputable witnesses both in the TR and in the Critical text that say the SAME THING in Mark and Luke.

Why would anyone who was objective repudiate these two indisputable INSPIRED witnesses when there are NO CONTRARY WITNESSES of any other reading in any other manuscript evidence for Mark and Matthew??????????

The contrary readings are found in number of manuscripts ONLY IN REGARD TO MATTHEW.

The question is ONLY which reading in Matthew should we accept as the authentic reading. The one that disagrees with Mark and Luke in ALL TEXTUAL MANUSCRIPTS or the one that agrees with Mark and Luke?????? Only theological bias would reject the reading in Matthew that agrees with both Luke and Mark in ALL TEXTS of Mark and Luke!!!!!

 

[DHK]

DHK, although I believe your advice to be careful of others is indeed wise, I cannot help but see a double standard at work in your comments. I know how you feel about Calvin and the Catholics, so why would not yourself be concerned as to the influences upon the GK translations heavily influenced by some of the men responsible for compiling the GK texts used in the TR itself, as well as many other GK and Latin manuscripts also? What about the ones directly involved in the KJV itself? Are they all white as the driven snow, and not in any manner influenced by the King that appointed them or any doctrinal notions clearly held in their day? What would have been their fate if they crossed the King or the Church hierarchy in their interpretations presented? Are you following your own good advice?

Yes I am. But you are the one that is hypocritical in this discussion. In the past you have railed against Augustine and his "invention" of Original Sin and associated doctrines. And yet Augustine was also one of the ones mentioned by Clarke. Where is your credibility now?

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, you are failing to understand my argument! THERE ARE NRIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS! There are NO COPIES of the original autographs that dispute the readings given in Mark and Luke - NONE! ZILCH! NADA.

Hence, the Holy Spirit has provided TWO indisputable witnesses both in the TR and in the Critical text that say the SAME THING in Mark and Luke.

Why would anyone who was objective repudiate these two indisputable INSPIRED witnesses when there are NO CONTRARY WITNESSES of any other reading in any other manuscript evidence for Mark and Matthew??????????

The contrary readings are found in number of manuscripts ONLY IN REGARD TO MATTHEW.

The question is ONLY which reading in Matthew should we accept as the authentic reading. The one that disagrees with Mark and Luke in ALL TEXTUAL MANUSCRIPTS or the one that agrees with Mark and Luke?????? Only theological bias would reject the reading in Matthew that agrees with both Luke and Mark in ALL TEXTS of Mark and Luke!!!!!

No scholar disputes the reading in Mark and Luke simply because all manuscript evidence reads the same. There are no alternative readings for Mark and Luke in regard to that passage regardless if you look at the Majority of manuscripts or the minority of manuscripts (Critical text). There is no disagreement about what both Mark and Luke say. They say the same thing in all available texts whether or not these texts agree with the TR concerning Matthew or don't agree with the TR concerning Matthew.

The only dispute is Matthew's account. The various texts disagree about the reading. The issue is which reading is right in regard to Matthew (Not Mark or Luke). The choice is between a reading that agrees with Mark and Luke where there is no disagreement about those texts or choosing a reading that disagrees with both Mark and Luke. Go figure! Only pure bias resulting from theology OR denial of the inspiration of the scriptures would lead any scholar to choose the reading that opposes both Mark and Luke.

I will say this again! There are no manuscipts in existence that read something different in the books of Luke and Mark. The TR does not read diffently nor does the Critical text read differently. They all agree there are no variant readings of what Mark and Luke say in all the copies of Mark and Luke existent.

The issue is choosing between the two variant readings in regard to the Matthew account. The manuscripts used to compose the TR agree with the reading in Mark and Luke. The manuscripts used to compose the Critical Text have a number that disagree with the reading found in the TR. So which do you choose? Which is right? Common sense would dictate that the one which is right is the one that agrees with Mark and Luke rather than disagree with Mark and Luke about the same story found in the same context.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist seems to believe that the best way to debate is simply to disparage another wins views, such as he has done in the case of the translation of Scripture into different versions, and cast stones at well-qualified men who have looked at the Greek texts used in differing manuscripts. Rather than try to understand why one may take the word of Matthew and use it to interpret Mark and Luke, as opposed to taking Mark and Luke to interpret Matthew, Biblicist falsely accuses anyone that would disagree with his suggested approach as denying the truth of the Holy Spirit. Again this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on anyone that would disagree with the interpretation the authors of the King James version placed upon the passages in Mark and Luke.

The truth of the matter is that there may be good reason why Matthew is the first gospel listed in the New Testament. The gospel of Matthew is thought to be written well Christianity was still focused and centered in Jerusalem. Subsequent to the writing of Matthew the church expanded beyond Jerusalem and the gospel of Luke was written and disseminated shortly thereafter . While the gospel of Matthew was clearly written to the Jews, the gospel of Luke was the gospel to the Gentiles. Many believe that Matthew was written in approximately 40 A.D., and as such it was the first of the Gospels to be written, by an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

The gospels of Mark and Luke are clearly very similar to each other. The gospel of Mark is thought to be copies of speeches Peter gave. It appears that the gospel of Luke was made subsequent to the gospel of Mark. Matthew was apparently the primary source for the gospel of Luke and evidently was not published until after the transcriptions by Mark of Peter's public discourses and begun to be circulated.

With these issues in mind, of not only the times something was written, but by the source of who was in fact an eyewitness to the accounts of Jesus, Matthew's eyewitness account is given credence above the accounts of Mark and Luke. Obviously man like Griesbach, and subsequently Adam Clarke when writing his commentary, place more weight on the eyewitness testimony of Matthew than the secondary accounts of Mark and Luke. To accuse these man of denying the Holy Spirit's testimony, or anyone else for that matter of denying the Holy Spirit's testimony in the gospel of Mark and Luke, is completely unfounded, unwarranted, and nothing more than a personal attack on their characters.

What Biblicist would call Matthew a questionable reading, the truth is that not only Matthew was the first one to write a gospel, but was the eyewitness to the very life and ministry of Jesus Christ. I would believe that one might need to exercise caution in throwing stones at such an eyewitness as Matthew obviously was. One might find themselves in the end kicking against the pricks of gospel truth.

 

[DHK]

Biblicist seems to believe that the best way to debate is simply to disparage another wins views, such as he has done in the case of the translation of Scripture into different versions, and cast stones at well-qualified men who have looked at the Greek texts used in differing manuscripts. Rather than try to understand why one may take the word of Matthew and use it to interpret Mark and Luke, as opposed to taking Mark and Luke to interpret Matthew, Biblicist falsely accuses anyone that would disagree with his suggested approach as denying the truth of the Holy Spirit. Again this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on anyone that would disagree with the interpretation the authors of the King James version placed upon the passages in Mark and Luke.

That is not true. The Bible does not contradict itself. Mark and Luke add details that that particular text omits. And note it is only in the Critical Text that you are using that it is left out. IOW, it is in my Bible but not in yours. What shall I conclude about that? Get yourself a good Bible!

The truth of the matter is that there may be good reason why Matthew is the first gospel listed in the New Testament. The gospel of Matthew is thought to be written well Christianity was still focused and centered in Jerusalem. Subsequent to the writing of Matthew the church expanded beyond Jerusalem and the gospel of Luke was written and disseminated shortly thereafter . While the gospel of Matthew was clearly written to the Jews, the gospel of Luke was the gospel to the Gentiles. Many believe that Matthew was written in approximately 40 A.D., and as such it was the first of the Gospels to be written, by an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Not totally accurate. Though it was an early gospel; not that early. It probably was written between 50-55 A.D. To disparage the three gospels is what liberals and modernists, and those that deny that the Bible is the Word of God do. I didn't know you were of that group?? Mark and Luke were written of the same author as Matthew--the Holy Spirit. He authored all the books of the Bible. One is no more accurate than the other. Why are you questioning reliability. I only question reliability when the person uses a different text. Then the reliability of the text falls into question--not the preservation of the entire Bible.

The gospels of Mark and Luke are clearly very similar to each other. The gospel of Mark is thought to be copies of speeches Peter gave.

No, not copies of speeches. Mark worked with Peter. He gained information from Peter. From the information he gained from Peter he was able to write a book of the life of Christ, which is basically what a gospel is.
If you remember Luke was a "physician." He traveled with Paul, and likely gained much information from Paul. Paul spent 3 years alone in Arabia with the Lord, and gained direct revelation from Him. From whatever source Luke gained his information from, he says with great authority:

Luke 1:1-2 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
--The information he had was from first hand eyewitnesses, as it is stated in his own introduction.

It appears that the gospel of Luke was made subsequent to the gospel of Mark. Matthew was apparently the primary source for the gospel of Luke and evidently was not published until after the transcriptions by Mark of Peter's public discourses and begun to be circulated.

It is doubtful, rather highly unlikely that Luke ever came in contact with Matthew or used his material. These three gospels are called the synoptics for good reason. Perhaps you should study that out.

With these issues in mind, of not only the times something was written, but by the source of who was in fact an eyewitness to the accounts of Jesus, Matthew's eyewitness account is given credence above the accounts of Mark and Luke.

Your wild speculation has no basis in fact.

Obviously man like Griesbach, and subsequently Adam Clarke when writing his commentary, place more weight on the eyewitness testimony of Matthew than the secondary accounts of Mark and Luke. To accuse these man of denying the Holy Spirit's testimony, or anyone else for that matter of denying the Holy Spirit's testimony in the gospel of Mark and Luke, is completely unfounded, unwarranted, and nothing more than a personal attack on their characters.

Griesbach was an unbeliever who considered Scriptures of no more value than any other book. It was not inspired. It was just another book on the shelf. And yet he is someone that you are going to trust! Amazing!
The Holy Spirit inspired Mark and Luke, as well as Matthew. That is why they are in our Bible today. Did you want to play the part of God and rip them out??

What Biblicist would call Matthew a questionable reading, the truth is that not only Matthew was the first one to write a gospel, but was the eyewitness to the very life and ministry of Jesus Christ. I would believe that one might need to exercise caution in throwing stones at such an eyewitness as Matthew obviously was. One might find themselves in the end kicking against the pricks of gospel truth.

It is obvious you don't believe the intro to Luke where he specifically says that his entire gospel came from eyewitnesses.
Peter was an eyewitness. That is where Mark got his material from. Almost all of Paul's epistles were written by an amanuensis. They were dictated and someone else wrote them. Mark got his information from Peter and wrote it down.
John wrote much later. He was an eye-witness.
We conclude that you question the integrity of Scripture and doubt its very inspiration?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist seems to believe that the best way to debate is simply to disparage another wins views, such as he has done in the case of the translation of Scripture into different versions, and cast stones at well-qualified men who have looked at the Greek texts used in differing manuscripts. Rather than try to understand why one may take the word of Matthew and use it to interpret Mark and Luke, as opposed to taking Mark and Luke to interpret Matthew, Biblicist falsely accuses anyone that would disagree with his suggested approach as denying the truth of the Holy Spirit. Again this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on anyone that would disagree with the interpretation the authors of the King James version placed upon the passages in Mark and Luke.

Amazing! You still do not understand the argument I have made and I have tried to explain it several ways. One more time.

No version, no manscript challenges or questions the readings found in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:18. No scholar questions their reading. In every version and in every Greek manuscript Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:18 say the same thing. Hence, there are not two different readings for scholars to determine which is right in regard to Mark and Luke. There is no argument here. Do you understand this? It is not the KJV versus some other version as ALL version are based upon the very same Greek reading in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:18. Do you understand this? It is not KJV versus some other version - the version makes no difference because there is no different readings in any Greek texts. Do you get this?

The only scholars who doubt the readings in Mark and Luke are those who deny the inspiration of the scriptures. Are you among those? Is that your position in regard to the scriptures? Do you deny that Mark and Luke were written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit????


However, when ALL Greek scholars come to Matthew 19:17 they are faced with two different readings found in all the Greek texts and that forces them to make a choice between which reading is correct and which one is not.

The Greek manuscripts that form the Majority Text from which the manuscripts that made up the TR come from, and upon which the KJV is derived have the reading that agrees with Mark and Luke, while the Greek text you chose has a different reading from Mark and Luke.

How do Greek Scholars make a decision when they are facee with two or more conflicting readings?

The first major factor is whether or not those scholars believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. If they do not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures then it makes no difference what other gospel accounts say because they work from the assumption that no writer is inspired and so they expect incompatible and contradictions betweeen Bible writers. Do you side with these scholars?

On the other hand if you are a Greek scholar who believes in the inspiration of the scriptures then the premier guiding principle you follow is that God is not the Author of Confusion and if there are other Biblical writers who provide evidence for one reading over the other reading than that is the reading you select, especially when other Biblical writers are dealing with the very same event and same conversation. Since the immediate context is the same then it would be absurd to beleive that Matthew would contradict Mark and Luke UNLESS you repudiated the inspiration of the scriptures.

The reading in the TR and thus the reading in the KJV has the weight of evidence behind it for several reasons:

1. Two inspired witnesses that confirm the same reading.

2. It is the same story and the same conversation between the same two persons in all three gospel accounts.

3. There is no such evidence or witness for the reading that contradicts Mark and Luke while you do have available the reading that agrees with Mark and Luke.

4. If you chose the contrary reading to Mark and Luke for any other reason (theological, denial of inspiration, more ancient manuscripts, etc.) you would still have the same issues confronting your theology in Mark and Luke that you are trying to avoid in Matthew by accepting the contradictory reading.

CONCLUSION: Only denial of inspiration and/or a theological bias would reject a reading that is consistent with two other inspired Witnesses over one reading that contradicts those inspired witnesses. The scholars you have listed are well known to have rejected the inspiration of the Scriptures and/or have strong theological bias against the readings in both Mark and Luke and would wish to use one questionable reading to reinterpret two inspired writers.

It is obvious that you reject the inspiration of the scriptures and/or share the same strong theological bias that would attempt to select a questionable reading in order to overthrow and reinterpret two inspired writers where there is no question about what words they are using and what they are saying. You simply don't like what Mark and Luke are saying and so you reject the reading that would make Matthew agree with Mark and Luke and select the reading that would contradict both Mark and Luke.

 

[gb93433]

Looking at verse 16 helps a lot. Compare Mark 10:17.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: gb93433, as I look at those two verses, I see a man coming in earnest asking a specific thing. He addressed Christ with a simple respectful greeting, and inferred nothing in it about God Himself or the Deity of Christ. He was simply desiring to see, "what 'good' thing he must do to inherit eternal life.

In Mark, the 'good' is shown to modify the word "Master" and not the word 'thing' as in Matt. I am not certain what you might be seeing between these two verses that would help you. Can you expound on your post?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What if? What if God inspired both accounts just as they are read, for a specific purpose none of us has addressed so far? Looking down into the eons of time God saw that by two differing accounts given that it might serve as a test, not only of ones love towards Him and his Word, but as a test of love one to another? Knowing full well that without any original autographs, no one could claim true understanding of the seeming discrepancies, and no one could prove that in fact it might well be completely different accounts mentioned although indeed strange similarities occurred in the manner in which the meeting between Christ and this man (or these men) took place.

What is the most important thing? Is it understanding flawlessly that which we cannot with our limited knowledge in reality accomplish, or showing respect and love towards each other when we disagree? What is the 'good' thing we might do to please God in this discussion?

 

[DHK]

What if? What if God inspired both accounts just as they are read, for a specific purpose none of us has addressed so far? Looking down into the eons of time God saw that by two differing accounts given that it might serve as a test, not only of ones love towards Him and his Word, but as a test of love one to another?

1. Because he didn't.
2. Because in that way you would have your wish that you could preach heresy out of one account where the Bible does not teach such heresy--works-based salvation.
3. Because the three gospels harmonize not contradict each other.

Knowing full well that without any original autographs, no one could claim true understanding of the seeming discrepancies, and no one could prove that in fact it might well be completely different accounts mentioned although indeed strange similarities occurred in the manner in which the meeting between Christ and this man (or these men) took place.

Discrepancies only take place because you deliberately cause them to take place by using a text that varies from what the original says. The internal proof of the original is what the other two gospels say. We have over 5,000 MSS in existence today and you want to rely on a defective one--one that is advocated by those who do not believe in the inspiration of the Word of God. How telling!
We don't have the originals today because folks like the Catholics would use them as relics and worship them. God in his infinite wisdom hid them from us, and yet at the same time preserved His Word for us. Instead of accepting the Word of God as preserved you line up with your unsaved critics who don't believe the Bible and fight against what is told in Mark and Luke, so that you are able to teach "the damnable heresies" that Peter speaks of, that lead people astray.

What is the most important thing? Is it understanding flawlessly that which we cannot with our limited knowledge in reality accomplish, or showing respect and love towards each other when we disagree? What is the 'good' thing we might do to please God in this discussion?

The most important thing is "What saith the Lord?"
To this question, you don't seem to care. You only want your own way.
You really aren't interested in the truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hello! Did this question come through on everyones computer screen, or is it just on mine?:smilewinkgrin:

What is the 'good' thing we might do to please God in this discussion?

 

[DHK]

Hello! Did this question come through on everyones computer screen, or is it just on mine?:smilewinkgrin:

What is the 'good' thing we might do to please God in this discussion?

John 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The only work that is pleasing to God that man can do is to believe on Christ. That is the only work (so-called) that man can do. He accepts no other. Of course this was a play on words for we know that faith is not a work. Jesus was teaching that there is nothing that a man can DO to earn eternal life, absolutely nothing.

 

[gb93433]

HP: gb93433, as I look at those two verses, I see a man coming in earnest asking a specific thing. He addressed Christ with a simple respectful greeting, and inferred nothing in it about God Himself or the Deity of Christ. He was simply desiring to see, "what 'good' thing he must do to inherit eternal life.

In Mark, the 'good' is shown to modify the word "Master" and not the word 'thing' as in Matt. I am not certain what you might be seeing between these two verses that would help you. Can you expound on your post?

My point was that the parallel passage to Matthew 19:16-22 is Mark 10:17-22. I should have added Luke 18:18-23.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The only work that is pleasing to God that man can do is to believe on Christ.

HP: Hogwash. Even a cup of cold water given in the name of Christ pleases Him.

DHK: That is the only work (so-called) that man can do. He accepts no other.

HP: Nothing can be further from the truth. A simple prayer in Christ's name pleases the Father, and he accepts the prayers of His children. Praise pleases the father, and God accepts the praises of His children. Witnessing pleases the Father, and he not only accepts our efforts but will also reward them. Helping the poor pleases the Father, and again He accepts it as if we are doing it unto Him.

When you make plain blanket statements as you are here, you are not using wisdom or Scripture for your source. Such notions are merely driven by a false philosophy/theology, not supported in reason or Scripture.

DHK: Of course this was a play on words for we know that faith is not a work.

HP: Faith is indeed a work in the sense of requiring an act of the will. Faith cannot be accomplished by us apart from the formation of an intent of the will, the precise action of the will necessary to do any work.

DHK: Jesus was teaching that there is nothing that a man can DO to earn eternal life, absolutely nothing.

HP: That is a flat out misrepresentation of Scripture. There are some things man must do in order to obtain eternal life, without which no man shall be saved. God calls on man to first repent and then to engage their will in active faith in the atoning work of Christ. God will not repent for anyone neither does He simply 'cause' one to exercise faith. God demands man both repent and exercise their will in faith to enter into the hope of eternal life.

These requirements of God are NOT meritorious in nature, neither does are actions force the will of God, but just the same, neither will salvation be accomplished apart from our willing obedience to His demands of repentance and faith in Him. We are not save on the account of anything we do, and nothing we can or will do in any way merits a pardon from sin, but neither will any man be saved apart from the fulfilling of the conditions God calls on man to accomplish.

 

[DHK]

HP: Hogwash. Even a cup of cold water given in the name of Christ pleases Him.

No it doesn't. If it is done to gain salvation, there is nothing you can do to please God, not as an unsaved person.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

HP: Nothing can be further from the truth. A simple prayer in Christ's name pleases the Father, and he accepts the prayers of His children. Praise pleases the father, and God accepts the praises of His children. Witnessing pleases the Father, and he not only accepts our efforts but will also reward them. Helping the poor pleases the Father, and again He accepts it as if we are doing it unto Him.

--Not prayer.
--Not the prayers of children.
--Not witnessing (the unsaved can do that also).
--Not helping the poor.
There is absolutely nothing that man can do to please God except to believe on Him whom God has sent. All other work before that time is vain, or as Isaiah said as "filthy rags,"--good for nothing.

When you make plain blanket statements as you are here, you are not using wisdom or Scripture for your source. Such notions are merely driven by a false philosophy/theology, not supported in reason or Scripture.

Isaiah 64:6; Rom.3:9-12; Eph.2:1-3; Jer.13:23; etc.
I have used much Scripture and can use much more. It is you that use philosophy and do not support your philosophy by Scripture. Look to your own self first.

HP: Faith is indeed a work in the sense of requiring an act of the will. Faith cannot be accomplished by us apart from the formation of an intent of the will, the precise action of the will necessary to do any work.

Demonstrate to me how faith is a work.
Will you pay me for having faith? How much calories do I use up for working my faith? How do I DO faith? I have never heard of hiring a person for the "work" of faith. Your theory is nonsense.

HP: That is a flat out misrepresentation of Scripture. There are some things man must do in order to obtain eternal life, without which no man shall be saved.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
"Being justified by faith we have peace with God."
--We are saved by faith alone. That is what these Scriptures teach, and many more like them. It is the same doctrine that the reformers taught called sola fide.

God calls on man to first repent and then to engage their will in active faith in the atoning work of Christ. God will not repent for anyone neither does He simply 'cause' one to exercise faith. God demands man both repent and exercise their will in faith to enter into the hope of eternal life.

You don't know what repentance is. Repentance is simply the flip side of faith. If one has believing faith then repentance comes with it. For a good example of that note the conversion of the Apostle Paul. The minute he believed, he called Christ "Lord," an example of repentance. No Jew could ever call Christ Lord except he had repented. Repentance is the flip side of faith. They go hand in hand.

These requirements of God are NOT meritorious in nature, neither does are actions force the will of God, but just the same, neither will salvation be accomplished apart from our willing obedience to His demands of repentance and faith in Him. We are not save on the account of anything we do, and nothing we can or will do in any way merits a pardon from sin, but neither will any man be saved apart from the fulfilling of the conditions God calls on man to accomplish.

Salvation is never accomplished by "willing obedience to his demands." That is an unbiblical view of salvation that is not taught in Scripture. It is works-based just like Hinduism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and all the false religions of the world. Salvation is not based on the works that we do, but faith and faith alone in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I will simply let the reader and God judge between our posts.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Either man is involved in the process of salvation or he is not. If he is not, you have landed smack dab in the middle of fatalism. If it is all of God and none of man, all is necessitated. If it is all of God and none of man, predestination of both the saved as well as the damned is inescapable. If predestination rules, all was determined by God from the beginning, allowing only one conclusion. God is the Author of everything, including all evil.

If one desires to distance themselves from those necessitated ends, they are going to have to say something different than salvation is all of God.

Man is not the author of his salvation. Nothing man can do can in any way merit or force God to pardon him. Still, there are some things a sovereign God chose for man to be the first cause of, and that is the choice to direct ones will in making a choice to fulfill the stated conditions of salvation which are repentance, faith, and continued obedience, without which no man shall see the Lord. That is NOT salvation by works.

 

[gb93433]

Either man is involved in the process of salvation or he is not. If he is not, you have landed smack dab in the middle of fatalism. If it is all of God and none of man, all is necessitated. If it is all of God and none of man, predestination of both the saved as well as the damned is inescapable. If predestination rules, all was determined by God from the beginning, allowing only one conclusion. God is the Author of everything, including all evil.

If one desires to distance themselves from those necessitated ends, they are going to have to say something different than salvation is all of God.

Man is not the author of his salvation. Nothing man can do can in any way merit or force God to pardon him. Still, there are some things a sovereign God chose for man to be the first cause of, and that is the choice to direct ones will in making a choice to fulfill the stated conditions of salvation which are repentance, faith, and continued obedience, without which no man shall see the Lord. That is NOT salvation by works.

If I choose to give you a gift (it is not from you and you nothing to do with my choice) you have the choice to accept or reject my gift yo you.

 

[DHK]

Either man is involved in the process of salvation or he is not.

Salvation is all of God; nothing of man. Jesus said on the cross: "It is finished." Man had no part in the sacrificial work of Christ. Salvation is all of him. Salvation "is the gift of God." "It is not of works, lest any man should boast." It is a gift that can only be received by faith. In the act of reception there is no work involved. There is no process involved. It is an act of faith, which is not work or a work.

If he is not, you have landed smack dab in the middle of fatalism.

Faith in God has nothing to do with fatalism. You are confused.

If it is all of God and none of man, all is necessitated. If it is all of God and none of man, predestination of both the saved as well as the damned is inescapable. If predestination rules, all was determined by God from the beginning, allowing only one conclusion. God is the Author of everything, including all evil.

I never brought predestination into this conversation; why did you? It is a red herring. And God is not the author of evil. Man has the opportunity to receive the gift of God by faith. It is his choice. Will he accept it or not? That is the question. It is not a matter of faith.

If one desires to distance themselves from those necessitated ends, they are going to have to say something different than salvation is all of God.

You are confused and don't understand salvation or else reject it outright.
It is a gift to receive. Have you rejected it instead thinking you have to work your way to heaven. If you are determined to work your way to heaven you will be lost forever.

Man is not the author of his salvation. Nothing man can do can in any way merit or force God to pardon him. Still, there are some things a sovereign God chose for man to be the first cause of, and that is the choice to direct ones will in making a choice to fulfill the stated conditions of salvation which are repentance, faith, and continued obedience, without which no man shall see the Lord. That is NOT salvation by works.

Continued obedience is salvation by works. What else would you call it?

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. He began it; He finishes it: and He keeps it all between the beginning and the end. Salvation is all of God. If the salvation you believe in is not all of God then perhaps you don't have the salvation that the Bible speaks of?

 

[gb93433]

And God is not the author of evil.

Did God create the color red?