A Different Salvation?

. Here is proof your view is wrong and lets see who makes deflections and utters talking points like a parrot.

"salvation" is a translation of a Greek noun found in the accusative case which serves as the direct object of the verb "chosen." Every beginning Greek student knows the accusative case is the case of termination of action and is commonly used as the direct object and is the direct object of "chosen" in this verse. In direct contrast "through sanctification and belief of the truth" is a second prepositional phrase which modifies "salvation". Hence, they were chosen to salvation "FROM THE BEGINNING" but "sanctification and belief of the truth" occurred with the action of sanctification by the Spirit IN TIME, and IN TIME it is this salvation that is "through sanctification of the Spirit" FIRST "and" SECOND "belief of the truth." There is a contrast of what God did in eternnity past and what the Holy Spirit does in time - God in eternity past chose us unto salvation. The Holy Spirit in time made that salvation occur by "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This action in time is the effectual call "whereunto he called us by our gospel to the obtaining of glory."

IN TIME "Sanctification" or "setting apart by the Holy Spirit PRECEDES "belief of the truth" as faith is a fruit of the Spirit and produced in regeneration as regeneration CHANGES THE HEARTS INCLINATION FROM "enmity against God" (Rom. 8:7). Thus verse 14 defines "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" as the effectual call - "Whereunto ("belief of the truth") he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Likewise, Van is perverting Ephesians2:8. "saved by grace" is "through faith" as one inseparable action because "saved" translates a PERFECT TENSE verb. Do you know the implications of a perfect tense verb with regard to ACTION? I suspect not! A perfect tense verb demands the action has been fully completed in past time and stands completed right up to the time Paul wrote this verse. Since, that completed action is "through faith" this means that "through faith" was part of that completed action or else there is no "saved" completed action at all since that action was completed "through faith." This means that "not of yourselves for it is a gift of God" must necessarily incude the whole phrase "saved by grace through faith" as that is a singular completed action.

Don't give me this nonsense that "not of yoursevles for it is a gift of God" is neuter ("it") and can't modify "faith" because faith is feminine!! That is complete and utter nonsense BECAUSE THERE IS NO FEMININE found in any of the words "saved by grace through faith" and so if that argument were true "it" could not refer to "saved" or "faith" because neither is feminine. "It" refers to the whole phrase and MUST because the whole phrase is grammatically ONE COMPLETED ACTION MAKING "SAVED" INSEPARABLE FROM "THROUGH FAITH" WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION.

Moreover, Paul had already told them they were "saved by grace" in verse 5 and the only thing he has added is the prepositional phrase "through faith" and that is what Paul is denying is of works as "saved by grace" obviously is not of works but "by grace" and so the whole point is that Paul is saying "saved by grace through faith" as a completed action IS NOT OF YOURSELVES BUT IS A GIFT OF GOD.

By the way Dr. Daniel B. Wallace agrees with my interpretation of Ephesians 2:8 and I quote:

"More plausible is the third view, vi., that touto refers to the conept of a grace-by-faith salvation" - Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996 - p. 335

Wallace completely ignores the perfect tense completed action of "saved" and its impact upon "through faith" as inseparable in action, as well as the contextual flow from verse 5 to verse 8. Why? Because that would force him to come to my conclusion


Now, to the rest of our readers, We have taken out everything that can be used as an excuse not to deal with the grammatical evidences above. Let's see if those who oppose me can provide any substantive proofs that I am wrong!

 

You said it was proof the OT knew Jesus name

 

Let me reiterate, the Law does not condemn but shows us a standard . We are condemned without the Law or a knowledge of the Law or your Divine Law You require a standard for your conduct.[/QUOTE]

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. - Rom. 3:20

So, the law does not merely provide a standard but provides the knowledge OF SIN! Agree or Disagree?

but sin is not imputed when there is no law. - Rom. 5:13

So, the Law does not merely provide a standard but without law there is NO SIN - Agree or Disagree?

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. - 1 John 3:4

So, the law does not merely provide a standard but without the Law there is no sin as sin is the TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW - Agree or Disagree?

So, there is no sin where there is no law and there is no knowledge of sin where there is no law and whosever committeth sin TRANSGRESSETH THE LAW - Agree or Disagree?

How much do you want to bet that Lodebar won't even agree or disagree with each question above but rather will ignore the scriptures, ignore the questions and just repeat his talking points?

 

We are still condemned without a knowledge of the Law, The Law, or any Law show shortcomings.

To complete your position it is better NOT to tell others of their Sin , so they cant be condemned.

The Law of Moses is does not apply to you

 

What did I predict? You can't even answer agree or disagree to a Biblical text. Your system of thinking is so astranged from the actual wording of Scripture you can't even agree or disagree with the Biblical text.

 

You have quoted the text correctly, You just apply it wrong. We know looking back who is the Messiah.
Looking forward they did not.

His disciples did not fully understand

Luk 24:27

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

Wrong! Even your conscience operates as law (Rom. 3:14-15). Sin has no existence without law. The law saves no one, justify no one but it does condemn people as sinners and to deny that is to fundementally repudiate essential Biblical orthodoxy and fit precisely what it means to be a "heretic" and to embrace "heresy." (NOTE: I called no member a "heretic" or said that any member holds "heresy" I simply stated a principle and if it fits then wear it).

You simply don't understand simply Biblical A,B,C's. It is not our job or responsibility to tell anyone they are sinners. That is the function of God's law whether it is written on paper, written on conscience or verbally quoted or taught or preached.

The moral law is derived from God's moral character and is eternal. It is still sin TODAY to murder another human being then it was BEFORE Moses (Gen. 9:6) DURING Moses from Christ until this day. The same can be said of lying, stealing, coveting, cursing, adultery, etc. as all of these are quoted numerous times in the New Testament where believers are told NOT to do such.

 

no, sin still exists, even without any law.

Did Satan and the others break a law?

You thoughts and application are ..... wait for it.... Humanism.... placing undue importance on the human condition

 

I am not looking at the text from a HUMAN perspective, but from the DIVINE perspective as Peter is giving us the DIVINE perspective. It does not matter if the Jews or "his disciples" or even you or I understand it fully, it does not rest upon HUMAN acceptance or understanding but on the DIVINE INTENT expressly stated.

Peter is referring to "all the prophets" that lived prior to "his disciples" but you are attempting to conflate these two different texts and their context.

Whether, MEN understood it or not makes no difference - the truth of it is based upon God's revelation and intent regardless whether any human reading the scriptures understands it.

The Divine revelation is that "Jesus" was the preincarnate Yahweh our Savior, the Messiah preached by all the prophets. It does not matter if they knew or even could know that he would later given the name "Jesus" as a man. But that man was "God with us" the Savior, the same God and Savior preached by all the prophets and that is the truth found "in his name."

 

The prophets that spoke of Messiah spoke spoke of Jesus. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of he Messiah.
Peter did not say all people knew the Messiahs name.

Abraham did not know of the Law, or a "messiah" but that He trusted God . They trusted God. Read Hebrews 11,12

none of them knew Jesus name. of the Messiah's name.

 

The moral law is merely a revelation (imperfect) of the moral character of God and is thus the law/principle that characterizes God as a moral being. That is why the law can be reduced to one principle "love" for God IS LOVE.

You thoughts and application are ..... wait for it.... Humanism.... placing undue importance on the human condition[/QUOTE]

That is humerous!

 

Yes, the did know the Messiah's name because it is God's name - Yahweh! Yes, they trusted in Yahweh as Savior.

Yes he did know the Messiah. Jesus said that Abraham saw him and knew him because the gospel was preached to him (Jn. 10; Gal.3:6-9). Remember, in Galatians chapter one Paul curses any other gospel and so the gospel preached to Abraham in Galatians 2 is not some other gospel.

 

I cant find Abraham in John 10. but Gal 3 shows Abraham believed God, period. He did not have a full disclosure of Jesus as Messiah same as Hebrews.

His disciples did not know. the OT people did not know Jesus was Messiah,.

You seem to think all people know as you know now.

The OT were saved by faith but their knowledge was not complete , their entrance into Heaven was not complete without the knowledge that Jesus was Messiah and the sacrifices had been made. This happened after the Crucifixion before the Resurrection.
Their righteousness brought them to salvation. like us , Jesus saved us all.

 

That is humerous![/QUOTE]
You place the human condition over the spiritual. This law complied from the characteristics of God is man made

 

1Jo 4:19
We love him, because he first loved us.
1Jo 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jo 4:21
And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

God is love, we must respond in love by love , not a man checklist of" Moral or Divine Law" . It is a trick of the devil for us to concentrate on keeping a list of our do's and don't as a obligation that God has to us because we did something. We must respond to Him in love or not wanting to disappoint Him. Just as we would a spouse or loved one , not because there is a law or list.

 

You need to correct Paul, James and John then, as they defy the very point you are making. The New Testament is full of exhortation not to lie, steal, kill, etc. Need to Correct Jesus then as he is the one that said that the whole law is summed up in love your neigbor as yourself.

"Moral" refers to a proper or improper behavior and the New Testament has lots to say about it.

It seems that you don't quite grasp that God's law, which Paul describes as "holy" and "good" and "just" (Rom. 5:12) are characteristic of God's own nature because the principles behind every commandment are revelations of God's own character and he proved it by becoming a man whereby those principles characterized his earthly life.

However, to make the incredible claim that I believe in keeping the law in order to be justified, sanctified, and/or saved is false. The law plays absolutely no role in obtaining or maintaining or sustaining our salvation. However, its violation is the reason we need saving in the first place as only SINNERS need saving and there is no such thing as sin without the law and there is no such thing as condemnation apart from violoting God's law.

 

You place the human condition over the spiritual. This law complied from the characteristics of God is man made[/QUOTE]
No, I just accept the plain and explicit teaching of scripture. The law originates with God and that is why Paul says the law is "holy" and "good" and "just" as nothing can originate from a good, just and holy God that is not good, just and holy. The law is a revelation of the Divine character with regard to all of its underlying principles. You forget that salvation is described by Paul as the law written on the heart (Rom. 7:21; 2 Cor. 3:3; Ezek. 36:26-27; Jer. 31:32 with Heb. 8:10-13).

 

it is the focus, of our desire to serve God. Do you support you family,? do you do it for love or because there are laws against not supporting them? The law is not your motivation. Neither is any law our motivation why we serve God..

Do not fall to this trap. Because keeping law, doing right , doing good is excellent. But you should be motivated to please God, not a list

 

I have never argued otherwise and I have no idea why you would even think I believe any different than that? I have never believed/stated or taught that we are to keep the law for justification or sanctification or any aspect of salvation. However, neither do I repudiate the divine purpose for the law and it is far more than what you claim. It not only reveals the knowledge of righteousnes and sin (standard) but it's violation is violation of what it is by principle the very revelation of God's own moral character which is "holy" and "good" and "just" yet fails to manifest it perfectly by the "letter" as it can only be truly manifested by its "spirit" or principle which is written in the hearts by new birth so that we respond by attitude and actions that are "holy" "good" and "just.

Never have been in that trap. But you have fallen in the opposite trap by denying God's intent for HIS law (any of his commandments). According to your view, if consistent with your view, there is no need for salvation because there is no such thing as sin according to the definition by God's word - sin is the transgression of the law.

 

Once more a copy and paste argument, of great length has been posted to hide the obvious.

1) Does "salvation + en" indicate the preposition modifies the noun salvation or the verb chosen? The verb!

2) What is the direct object of the verb chosen? "You" as the person affected, and "salvation" as the thing effected. But how were we chosen? By being set apart in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit. And on what basis were we chosen? God crediting our faith as righteousness.

3) Your time travel theology, where we were chosen through faith before creation is without merit.

4) The "effectual call" is one of your fictions, and is no where found in scripture.

5) Being saved by grace through faith means our faith existed before we were chosen for salvation. Otherwise faith does not provide the access, which it does.

6) Ephesians 2:8 indicates salvation is the gift through faith, not salvation and faith are the gift. Pay no attention to this bogus interpretation

7) Wallace agrees the gift is not faith but salvation by grace.

Please do not waste more electrons regurgitating the same debunked arguments over and over. And please do not sprinkle more magic grammar dust over verse after verse to make them say what they do not say.