Search results

Again, how is that not a fair assessment of your position?

Why would it worry me? I'm no longer under law, but under grace. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Those judged by the law are those who choose to remain under its yoke. "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. "Take My yoke...

That quote above about being a possible "hypothetical" was directly from John Gill's commentaries. Can we be objective about this? None of our SYSTEMS support the concept that men are justified by works, regardless of what KIND OF WORKS you suppose they are. You have missed the point Paul is...

Revealing. So, do you think your own view is heretical? I don't get why you just don't admit what you have attempted to defend. You must believe that men are justified by some type of works because you quoted a text which says, "the doers of the law shall be justified," and you go on to say...

I just read through several commentaries, from both sides of this debate, on this verse. They appear to agree with my assessment of this passage, which is: Paul was answering the objection about Gentiles being condemned for breaking a law that they were never given. He does this by...

Its a simple yes or no question Kyredneck and the fact that you refuse to answer reveals the err of your interpretation. YES OR NO? Do you believe men are justified by works of any kind?

Just answer my question. Do you believe men are justified by works? You can qualify that by adding the word 'natural' if that makes you feel better, but as your argument stands you have man being justified by his 'natural works.' That may be a direct result of God's irresistible grace that...

I believe your take of Paul's teaching in Romans 2 is in err: 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law ; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law...

Huh? So you affirm justification by works? I'm not following?

Both of them are saying the same thing, don't you agree?

I agree with most of what you said, but you must remember that those who sinned "apart from the law" where still born fallen too. In other words, their condition was still one of need, just like Adam's condition after the fall...they were born needing a savior.

Actually, I think it is referring to those who were not aware of the law of God, but instead who sinned against their conscience (as Romans 1-3 explain). It appears Van is making that same argument...

I can't remember where I saw this mentioned, but I came across this and thought it may be helpful to the discussion: Shakespeare's complex sentence structures and use of now obsolete words lead many students to think they are reading Old or Middle English. In fact, Shakespeare's works are...

You guys caught me. I'm busted. Next time I won't copy and paste directly from Strongs and ask for clarification prior to engaging a discussion. I don't know what I was thinking! I'll ban myself from this thread as punishment. You two have fun.

My plan was to reference both words in each text, first from Gen. 1:3 and then Romans 10:17, in order to better understand your argument. To do this I simply pulled up those two words on Strongs and copied/pasted them followed by a question asking you to confirm your argument...and this was...

No, but apparently you did because you reacted so defensively against nothing more than a copy and pasted quote. I was simply asking for clarification on your argument.

Actually it does..."Faith comes by hearing..." but you have chosen to explain that away with an argument about the original language which you won't engage me on because apparently quoting directly from Strongs is all it takes to put you on the defensive and completely shut down the debate...

If you think quoting directly from Strongs and asking if that is the original word to which you were referring is a silly game, so be it. I was just seeking confirmation of what argument you were attempting to make, but apparently you have such a 'debate mode' mentality on this forum you can't...

Actually it says its necessary for 'believing' to occur, something YOU ASSUME is impossible apart from an additional irresistible working of grace...one above and beyond the work of grace in the gospel message itself...something the text doesn't even come close to suggesting. That is because no...

And again, that was a verbatim copy and paste quote from Strongs... I didn't even make an argument yet. I simply asked if this was the word you were speaking of and you responded like this???? "me thinks thou dost protest too much..."