Featured We don't WANT "Free-Will"

As I suspected. You define 'good' as that which is meritorious and there in lies your problem. You presume faith is 'good' thus 'meritorious,' and thus dismiss our view as salvation by merit, but that is an inaccurate representation of our view. Faith doesn't merit grace in our view. The God of GRACE counts faiths as righteousness. Faith doesn't merit his grace. If it did then it wouldn't be grace, now would it?

Again, if faith is 'good' (meritorious) as you have repeatedly claimed, then how do you not also believe that you are saved by grace through works (merit)? Even works effectually produced in us by God are still works, so you are left ONLY to believe that we are saved by Grace through meritorious works. Is that your view? If not, then stop giving your one line pithy little remarks and expound on your view. You keep saying "faith is good" and now you have affirmed that good = meritorious, so answer the question!!!

 

Oh, I am sure you have studied theology all your life and never heard this interpretation. But that is because almost all theologians of note have accepted and believed Original Sin and tried to interpret Luke chapter 15 with this presupposition. Someone who holds to OS cannot even conceive of 99 just persons who need no repentance. Such a thing does not exist in the mind of someone who believes OS. So, they must explain this away.

No one who believes in OS can conceive of the prodigal son being alive AGAIN, because they naturally believe everyone is born dead in sin separated from God.

No one who believes in OS can understand who this elder son is who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time and was EVER with the father.

So, you get all sorts of convoluted interpretations. The prodigal son has to be explained as a backslider who repents, the elder son is explained as a Pharisee (a total no-go) and so on...

This chapter completely refutes Original Sin to anyone who reads without bias. The shepherd had 100 sheep, one went out and became lost, the shepherd searched and recovered this lost sheep. Jesus clearly explains this is a lost sinner, not a backslidden believer.

The story of the 10 silver coins is the same, the lost coin was not originally lost, but in the possession of the woman. After it was lost and recovered, Jesus again explains this is a lost sinner who repented, not a backslidden believer.

That Jesus is not speaking of a backslidden believer is made abundantly clear when the prodigal son returns to his father, as his father said this young man was both "dead" and "lost", terms NEVER used to describe any believer, unless you believe a believer can lose their salvation and then regain it, which contradicts Hebrews chapter 6.

And the father did not correct the elder son when he claimed never to have transgressed his father's commandments at any time, but called him "Son" and said he was EVER with him.

Just because you have never heard this interpretation does not mean I am in error. You simply cannot understand this interpretation because you assume Original Sin is true. Take that blinder off and it will become crystal clear.

 

we are born under the condemnation of Adam, as the SAME curse god laid on Him is upon all of us in humanity...

We are born physically 'dead', which means that we will all experience the taste of physical death barring the return of Jeus, and we ALl are spiritually dead, in the sense that unless the Lord saves us by His divine Will and grace, we will not be saved!

 

Pure baloney, you do not have one verse of scripture that says men are born dead in sin. Such scripture does not exist, I challenge you to show any verse that says this.

 

Who seeks after God in his own will?

Who are those that receive the mesiah, those whose hearts/minds are openned up by God or not?

can a natural man in himself discern and know spiritual things of the Lord?

 

Pure deflection, show any verse in all of scripture that says men are born dead in sin.

 

You mean that said that all have died with Adam?

Do you hold that man is born today with innocent nature, that when we chose to sin it gets fallen?

 

There is no such verse that says we have died (past tense) with Adam.

1 Cor 5:22 says "in Adam all die", but that is FUTURE TENSE. It is saying that all men in Adam will or shall die. This verse actually refutes your view, because you must be alive to die. A stone cannot die, because it was never alive.

We often say children are born dead, but a stillborn child was once alive. You must be alive to "die".

Now, show me any scripture that says we are born dead in sin.

 

Winman, considering the audience listening to Jesus while He was giving these stories, who do you think they thought the pharisees were? Based on your view then it would not be the case that they saw the 99 as being the pharisees. However, Jesus tells this story after the Pharisees and religious leaders accuse him of welcoming and eating with "sinners". So, it seems perfectly reasonable that non-pharisees in the crowd had identified the pharisees as being the 99, and the elder brother.

It seems that you are trying to apply all parts of a parable as making multiple truths when a parable is actually a story given to make a single point. I'm not saying that it is the case that no other points could be substantiated but that we should not feel obligated to draw hard and fast conclusions on what was meant by the parable except for the one point that the parable was about.

When Jesus told the crowd, "Those who are well have no need of a physician" and "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." don't you think that they thought Jesus was referring to the Pharisees or Jews as those that were well or righteous? Don't you yourself think that Jesus was actually referring to the Pharisees? His point was that everyone needs a physician, including the Pharisees, that All were sinful, that everyone is a sinner to be called to righteousness, that everyone individually is a sinner with whom Jesus would eat, that everyone individually is a prodigal son, that everyone individually is that one lamb gone astray, that everyone individually is a lost coin.

I'm sure there are other reasons and scriptures that you base your denial of OS but I don't think interpreting these parables to support such is accurate.

 

Me and about anyone who has published a lexicon or dictionary.

Yes, I understand concepts and can identify false dichotomies.

I presume nothing. I fashion my reasoning according to the Scriptures, and that is why we cannot have a meaningful discussion. To make your points you must wrest not only the Words of Christ, but the common and universally accepted meanings of words.

 

No, as far as the intrinsic value of the soul. Have you not read that Jacob is a worm?

If the heart is corrupt, anything that springs from it is corrupt, whether it's the carnal forms of faith, hope and love or despair and hatred.

If the tree is evil, its fruit is evil. That's what Christ said, and Paul and I agree.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
It seems to make sense to me... if faith is meritorious then based on Eph 2:8, it would be the case that we are saved by a response of God through our own merit, yet the scripture would then contradict itself by saying "not of works".

 

The Pharisees and the crowd may well have believed that the 99 just persons who needed no repentance were the Pharisees, but we know that cannot be true. So, you would have to interpret this as sarcasm, which I do not believe Jesus was using here.

I propose that Jesus was directly answering the Pharisees criticism that he "receiveth sinners and eateth with them". Jesus was telling these Pharisees (though they probably did not understand), that these horrible sinners they despised were once the children of God who have become lost in sin, and showing that God does not despise these persons, but like a good shepherd goes out and seeks and searches for these lost persons until they are recovered.

It is the same with the 10 silver coins. Jesus is showing these persons are of great value to the woman, they were not despised by God. Again, the woman sweeps and searches her whole house till she recovers this lost coin and then rejoices.

Jesus is pointing out their hypocrisy, just as he did with the parable of the Pharisee and publican. As you know, the publicans were considered some of the "worst" of sinners and despised by almost everyone.

Now, whether the Pharisees understood who the 99 just persons who needed no repentance is, I do not know. Jesus often spoke to the Pharisees in parables for the intention they would not understand. But those who believe and seek for the answer shall receive it.

But all the parables in this chapter show the same thing. The prodigal son was not lost at first, he was at home with his father. He went out in sin and joined himself to a citizen of that far country (Satan). When he repented, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN.

The Jews had no notion of Original Sin as we do, so this probably made perfect sense to them. They did not consider infants and little children sinners.

The reason folks can't understand these parables is because almost everyone accepts Original Sin as truth. Therefore they cannot conceive of any person being just and having no need to repent.

But this is not what the scriptures show these persons believed.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul did not consider Esau and Jacob sinners when they were in their mother's womb.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Those who hold to Original Sin have great difficulty with this passage. In their mind it would be impossible for Paul to say he was alive once. So, they come up with all kinds of convoluted explanations for this passage, many say Paul is saying he mistakenly "thought" he was alive once. Absurd, if that is what Paul meant to say, he could have easily done so.

No, I believe Paul was directly saying he was spiritually alive once, but when the commandment came, that is, when he understood the law, he was convicted by it and spiritually died.

This belief in OS has caused more confusion than any doctrine in the history of the church. Take it away and see how the confusion immediately disappears and all scripture becomes amazingly consistent.

If we were at first alive, and not separated from the father as the lost sheep was in Luke 15, or the silver coin, or the prodigal son, then 1 Pet 2:25 makes perfect sense.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

See how this verse makes perfect sense if you take OS out of the way? You will find that true with all scripture, try and see.

 

Compelling.... would you address this part of my previous post:

When Jesus told the crowd, "Those who are well have no need of a physician" and "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." do you think the Jesus was referring to the Pharisees or Jews as those that were well or righteous?​

It seems, based on your view of OS, that the ONLY people who He could possibly be talking about were those who had not yet personally sinned. But surely that kind of reading is not to be found in the text, no?

 

Well, Jesus is stating a truth here, those who are well have no need of a physician, but I do not believe that is the point he is making here. These Pharisees had again criticized Jesus because he kept company with sinners. Jesus was showing himself as a physician who by necessity must have contact with those who are diseased in order to heal them.

There is much more to this, Jesus was pointing out that these "sinners" knew they were "sick" in sin, and so sought his company. Any man who truly confesses he is a sinner will seek Jesus. The Pharisees of course believed themselves righteous and in no need of healing.

If your view is correct, and also in Luke 15, then Jesus is telling the Pharisees they are just and need no repentance. Of course this is impossible. The only other explanation (if your view is correct) is that Jesus was being sarcastic and mocking these Pharisees. I find this difficult to believe, Jesus never had a problem with directly telling the Pharisees they were sinners and hypocrites. I do not see Jesus as given to sarcasm.

 

That deserves an answer. Before I do, it seems that you may be poisoning the well or at least maybe the well is already poisoned and so it is the case that you see it this way but, I don't think it would be fair to say that Jesus would have to be employing sarcasm to have meant what I have proposed. It could have been irony instead or something else not so villifying... of course, no one believes in a deceitful Jesus and it does seem that you are employing a bit a sarcasm yourself in the false dilemma you attempt to force on those who would agree with what I have proposed.

Maybe our discussion should be moved to a new thread though... I do think Skan has Aaron in a Jiu Jitsu hold... I don't want to distract him from tapping-out! ;-)

 

Are you arguing that every lexicon teaches the only use of the word 'good' in scripture is meaning 'meritorious' (as in deserving grace or salvation?) Please provide the link or quote that provided support for such a claim. And can you tell us how that fits in with all the many texts quoted throughout this thread which speak of the 'good' things sinners do which clearly are not 'meritorious.'

Are you seriously arguing there is no distinction between the understanding of 'good' as within the confines of the law and 'good' as in that which merits salvation? Seriously? I just want to be very clear...if that is possible in the midst of your attempts to be a vague as humanly possible.

Can you? Prove it by going beyond a one line vague comment once and while; and we'll see.

Translation: I'd rather not define the terms of our discussion but remain as vague and unclear as possible so that my views can't be discredited.

Any objective and honest observer can see right through your diversions Aaron. Defining the terms of the debate is the first step in any profitable discussion, but you refuse to draw a simple distinction, that "anyone who has published a lexicon or dictionary" could tell you:

kalos: Good
Root Word (Etymology)
"Of uncertain affinity"
1) beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable
a) beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent
b) good, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well adapted to its ends
1) genuine, approved
2) precious
3) joined to names of men designated by their office, competent, able, such as one ought to be
4) praiseworthy, noble
c) beautiful by reason of purity of heart and life, and hence praiseworthy
1) morally good, noble
d) honourable, conferring honour
e) affecting the mind agreeably, comforting and confirming

agathos: Good
1) of good constitution or nature
2) useful, salutary
3) good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy
4) excellent, distinguished
5) upright, honourable
​

Yeah, you're probably right, there is no possible distinction in the meaning of the word 'good' that needs to be defined.

BTW, I notice that once again you avoided answering the question regarding if you believe we are saved by Grace through meritorious works? Works, even produced by an effectual work of Grace are still works and if you're going to insist that faith is meritoriously good work, they you too have to affirm you are saved by Grace through a work. I wonder why you continually avoid addressing that point? Hmmmmm