Featured Calvin & Arminius were both wrong

It does not matter if "it" refers to righteousness, the point he is making is that "it" comes "through faith" rather than by works of the law. The means is "of grace" and that means is "faith."

You obviously have no Greek background at all or you would not say "it doesnot source or origin" because it does. It is the same word used when he says he is "the beginning (arche) and the end" meaning he is the "source' of all things and the same word translated "Beginning" in John 1:1 speaking of the beginning of creation as used in Matthew 24:21 as well. So, you don't know what you are talking about, go learn some Greek or at least get some tools.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about, in fact your explanation is perfect nonsense as it directly contradicts what he says. Suffering for the name of Christ is a God given privilege as is the ability to believe and that is precisely what he is saying. Your explanation denies what it obviously says.

The only thing that is stupid is your explanation and interpretation. Where did you learn grammar? First, "it" is neuter and refers to the whole phrase "by grace are ye saved through faith". There is no neuter term found in the phrase "by grace are ye saved through faith" that is why it refers to the whole phrase because the grammar demands faith is inseparable from the act of being saved. "are ye saved" translates a paraphrastic construct which includes a perfect tense verb along with a present tense verb. The perfect tense verb demands completed action at some point in the past which continues as a completed action up to the present time. Hence, if this perfect state completed action occurred at some point in the past, it had to include "through faith" or else it was not yet a completed action. That is why the whole phrase is "it" and a gift of God because what is of grace is God's gift rather than something earned. In verse five he first introduces the phrase "by grace are ye saved" refering directly to the act of quickening. However, in verse 8 he adds the prepositional phrase "through faith" but reaffirms that salvation by grace through faith is gifted to us, and it is not of works.

Footenote: those who argue that "it" is neuter and therefore cannot refer to "through faith" because that is not neuter are expressing their ignorance because neither "saved by grace" are neuter either and but the grammar makes "through faith" inseparable from the completed perfect tense action of "saved."

Your remaining proof text support my interpretation that the whole phrase is inclusive of salvation which is a gift:

Romans 3:24 (NASB)
being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Romans 5:17 (NASB)
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Romans 6:23 (NASB)
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Faith is not the gift... righteousness & life are the gift of grace.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]



Faith is a gift. 1 Corinthians 12 - 1 Corinthians 13

Wait......You thought faith, righteousness, life and salvation are different things?

If you get one complete you got them all complete.

Sneezing is a gift from God, And if you don't believe me the next time it happens folks all around you will bless you and even you will say thank you.


Every Sin breaks a commandment.

Not having faith in God is a Sin.

If you don't have faith there is a clear mistrusting fear of God.

The Love of God is broken. Its that underlying root of faith can't be broken

Love of God is a commandment.

Love of GOD , Love neighbor is the ONLY GOOD WORK.


So if you can cough up a Faith that doesn't trust God. Your in the clear.

Love is down there by the roots, because GOD IS LOVE.

 

That is not the issue! I don't believe the new covenant is restricted to one race as Paul quotes Jeremiah 31:32-34 and applies it to the New Covenant that is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles. The "seed" of Abraham include "seed" from "many nations" in addition to ethnic Israel.

Here is the fundamental error committed by all Arminians. You fail to comprehend that NATURAL ISRAEL and God's "old" covenant and choice of them is a TYPE of the children of the "everlasting covenant."

For example, the covenant promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a type of the Triune God and the everlasting covenant. Abraham is a type of God the "father." Isaac is a type of the only begotten Son through supernatural birth offered up on Mount Moriah. Jacob is a type of the Holy Spirit or the progenitor/birther of the children of God. Thus, we have Jesus using the phrase that God is the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Why just these three? He is the God of Joseph, Daniel, etc.,etc. He stops with this three because they are types of the one triune God and his everlasting covenant.

The "old covenant' is a type of the "new covenant." Eight days after physical birth one must be circumcised. Eight is the number for new birth. This rite at physical birth is a type of new birth in order to become part of children of God (born again) and brought into the kingdom of God.

The covenant with Abraham preceded both the "old" and "new" covenants as it was a type of the "everlasting covenant" of redemption or the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit before the world began.

So, don't confuse the type with the antitype and that is exactly what you are doing in your thinking and interpreting.

 

This is not Calvin's or Abraham's doctrine but the doctrine spelled out by Paul in Romans 3:24-5:3 and Galatians 3:5-6. Paul argues that JUST LIKE Abraham believed so do we as he is the "father of all who believe" in the sense that he is the first spelled out pattern found in scripture for how all the elect are justified before God by faith without works.

You do realize don't you, that Paul preached the very same gospel that has been preached by "all the prophets" (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2) with the only difference the pre-cross gospel was progressive in revelation and anticipated the coming of Christ whereas the post-cross gospel is fulfilled revelation and looks back at the cross - but the very same gospel. There is no different Savior prior to the cross than after the cross. There is no different way of salvation prior to the cross than after the cross. You do realize that don't you?

No, it does not! You are confusing representative persons with personal application. Justification (Imputation/remission) is not on a group action but a personal individualized action just as Paul clearly spells out in Romans 4.

Deutromony 30 like Romans 10 addresses only human accountability while Romans 9 and 11 addresses their inability. According to your theory Jesus taught false doctrine when he said, "NO MAN CAN come to me" as your doctrine demands he should have said "ALL MEN CAN come to me." Your teaching is completely and utterly false.

No onen disputes unfallen man had free choice in the garden. That is not the issue at all. The issue is what effect had the fall on post-fallen mankind. If a true born again child of God does not have the will power to overcome the law of indwelling Sin (Rom. 7:18) and God needs to work in him "both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Philip. 2:13) by the indwelling Spirit of God in order to overcome the power of indwelling sin, do you really thing unregenerate men have that kind of will power????? That is precisely why Jesus speaking of unregenerate man said "NO MAN CAN come to me" EXCEPT by divine intervention which is an ACTION (not a person) by the Father INSIDE of man (Isa. 64:13; Jer. 31:33-34; Ezek. 36:26-27; Jn. 3:3-6; 2 Cor. 3:3; 4:6; 1Thes. 1:3-4; etc.).

 

You simply don't know the difference between the baptism in the spirit and indwelling of the spirit

 

That refers to the coming new Covenant itself, established by the promised messiah, and refers to the elect in Christ who indeed shall turn to God!

 

Under the new Covenant, there is but individual election unto salvation in Christ, so the Lord indeed has reserved unto Himself a faithful remnant of Jews in each generation, but they are saved by coming to Jesus, not due to birthright!

 

Entire context though was God telling the Jews to believe and do his law, as the means to be blessed by Him and not cursed by Him, so not exactly describing coming to God in a saving sense!

 

Calvin & Arminius were both wrong

Lol, is this your 'home page'? https://www.gup20.com/

 

I got it from your profile.

What denomination is Crossroads Alliance Church? You still go there?

 

That is just nonsense.

“We are saved” is the independent clause whereas “by grace” and “through faith” are dependent clauses that relate to the independent clause “we are saved.” Therefore “it is the gift of God” relates to the independent clause “we are saved”, not to the dependent clauses. Even if you attach the dependent clauses, the word “it” would still relate to the independent part of the phrase, not the dependent part.[/QUOTE]

You are not thinking. Let me say it this way and see if you understand. Let's say I said, "For by wrath You killed a man by using a gun". We have an independent clause "For by anger you killed a man" and then a prepositional phrase that modifies that clause. Now, put on your thinking hat. Could you have killed that man without that gun at the same moment in time the action of killing took place?? No! They are inseparable actions.

Now, "For by grace are ye saved" is a periphrastic construct in the Greek, meaning Paul uses a perfect tense verb with a present tense state of being verb. What does that mean? It means that this action of being saved is an action completed at some point in the past and continues to the present time of speaking as a completed action. Joined with the present tense state of being verb it re-inforces its continuance from the point of speaking. Got it? Now, the prepositional phrase that follows modifies that completed action. What does that mean? It means that completed action at some time in the past is inseparable from "faith" as that action was completed "through" faith. So they are inseparable actions. Just like "by a gun" is inseparable from the action of the verb "killed" as killing could not have occurred without that gun. Got it? So, what does that mean? It means the clause "it is a gift of God not of yourselves" refers to the completed acting of being saved through faith.

But, lets go further. Do you believe you can be saved without faith being inseparably connected with the action of being saved? Do you?

I dare any Greek Grammarian on this forum to overthrow this.

 

.
.
.

 

Ridicule is the admission of ignorance and the weapon of the ignorant.

 

Like this?: