This is the question you posed:
Let's say, for the sake of argument that we have an ability to keep the Law. But, even if we DID keep the Law perfectly, it STILL would not be salvific, because we ARE NOT SAVED BY WORKS, so I am unsure as to what your larger point would be.
Are you, once again, headed toward a Pelagian understanding of our own efforts to come to Christ?
Note:
No, the use of the term "Pelagian" is not intended to be a pejorative term to shut down the conversation -- if one goes in the direction of a human-centered salvation experience, then one gets to own the fact that he or she is indeed headed in a Pelagian direction; for neither Arminianism, nor Calvinism, nor the Baptist "no-name" theology stipulates that WE are able to come to Christ apart from the initial work of God.
Part of the entire issue here lies within this: Winman uses this incident, and the incident of Cornelius, underlining in the passages emphatically how that when Cornelius practiced his religion, that he found favor with God/acceptance, or what have you. It's an "aha, see!" moment for him. What is odd is that Peter stated emphatically himself, "that God is no respecter of persons."
Winman has been on this MAN! MAN! MAN! and an over-exalted capability of man kick for a long while now. One thread he argued against Dr. Bob saying concerning salvation we can do no good. Winman rebutts that with saying Dr, Bob is incorrect, using Cornelius as an example to prove one can. What does that tell us?
He has used these things, as also in this thread, as fighting against "unconditionally accepted, elected," &c, something he with indignation does not accept, as he has plainly been at warfare with "unconditional election," this being a well know fact. He also vehemenently fights against the Romans 3 indictment upon mankind, Colossians and Ephesians indictments upon lost mankind, and the true Biblical judgment upon lost man, and uses proof-texts such as have been noted to bolster this error he affirms and holds to; that man is/does good, against inability, and unconditional acceptance/election.
One thing I notice and get out of all of this is that there are two theological views and divisions here: 1) Some fighting for man and mans ability, relentlessly, and; 2) Some defending Gods glory and Sovereignty, His Purpose in election, and His choosing, and all of the "Omnis" related to Him, relentlessly.
I'm of the latter in my apologetics, because it is Scriptural and holds the correct view of mankind and of the Person of God. Jesus Christ knew what was in man. It wasn't good.
- Peace
