Paul Taught False Doctrine?

[MB]

I would substitute perseverance for preservation.

Actually that would be biblical.
2Ti_4:18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
MB

 

[Aaron]

When we sometimes find contradictions in his work we should sit back and ponder what influenced the apostle to change.

Rob

Don't stop there. Let's hear your take on one such contradiction.

 

[kyredneck]

When we sometimes find contradictions in his work we should sit back and ponder what influenced the apostle to change.

Don't stop there. Let's hear your take on one such contradiction.

Yeah, like this one:

... the doers of the law shall be justified … Ro 2:13

...by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3:20

 

[Aaron]

Yeah, like this one:

... the doers of the law shall be justified … Ro 2:13

...by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3:20

That is not a contradiction. Seriously?

What is meant by 'doers of the law' and 'works of the law'?

 

[kyredneck]

That is not a contradiction. Seriously?

No, it's not a contradiction. I threw it out there because on the surface it appears to be a contradiction.

What is meant by 'doers of the law' and 'works of the law'?

Let's hear your take.

 

[Aaron]

No, it's not a contradiction. I threw it out there because on the surface it appears to be a contradiction.

Ah. Sorry.

Let's hear your take.

Doers of the law: those who obey the law truly. They would certainly be justified, that is, proven to be wholly good. But there is none who doeth good, but Christ.

Works of the law: those provisions made for sin; washings, sacrifices, restitution, and even the moral tenets that some beguiled souls think they do uphold (but if they really knew the law, they would know they don't). These do not justify, that is, they do not make the guilty whole.

 

[kyredneck]

What is meant by 'doers of the law'

...synonymous with 'fulfillers of the law' Romans 13:8-10. 'Doing the law' comes naturally to the regenerate circumcised heart with the work of the law written upon it Romans 2:13-15, Philippians 2:13, Luke 10:33. 'Doing the law' comes so natural that the 'doers of the law' may not realize they're 'doing the law' Matthew 25:37.

and 'works of the law'?

...the dead works of the 'ministration of death' Hebrews 6:1, Hebrews 9:14, of the letter and not by the Spirit 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Romans 9:16.

@Deacon, comments?

 

[37818]

That is not a contradiction. Seriously?

What is meant by 'doers of the law' and 'works of the law'?

If a person could actually keep the law, one would be justified by it. But none can. (1 Timothy 2:7-11; James 2:10. Galatians 2:21.)

 

[kyredneck]

If a person could actually keep the law, one would be justified by it. But none can.

Are you implying that you're not fulfilling the law? Romans 13:8-10 Something is very wrong if you're not.

If a person could actually keep the law, one would be justified by it. But none can.

Well the scripture definitely describes 'doers of the law' that are justified:

5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
13
for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2

"in the spirit not in the letter"

Say that to yourself a few times over:

"in the spirit not in the letter"

"in the spirit not in the letter"

"in the spirit not in the letter"

'Doing/fulfilling the law' in this context is an attitude, even down to the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

No man can break a seal or promise of God and that is the extreme of OSAS. One thing for sure perseverance is a work and it is impossible to be saved by works.
MB

I believe the perseverance is done by God, not by man. Perhaps a better term could've been used, but it would wreck the TULIP acronym.

 

[MB]

I believe the perseverance is done by God, not by man. Perhaps a better term could've been used, but it would wreck the TULIP acronym.

Sorry I do not believe God has to work at a thing since those who are saved are sealed. Christ already did all the work needed for Salvation. There isn't any work left to do.
MB

 

[kyredneck]

I believe the perseverance is done by God, not by man. Perhaps a better term could've been used, but it would wreck the TULIP acronym.

'Preservation' fits nicely.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yessss, but that’s so trite and shallow. It misses the point.

Paul wrote to people in his time about problems they were facing. When we read the NT we are reading someone else’s mail; his letters are context dependent... I never met Paul or the people he wrote to... I’ve never been to the places he wrote to and am unfamiliar with the culture of the time, ...and I’m 2000 years separate from that context.

Paul isn’t easy to understand. True, his theology appears scattered at times. (Another example: Does Paul consider slavery a legitimate practice or are all Christian’s considered equal?)
Most of us read Paul through the lens of theological systems developed more than a thousand years after he wrote his letters. We need to clean the lens.

Paul’s writings were inspired, but our interpretation of them is not. They require wisdom, discernment and a good measure of humility. When we sometimes find contradictions in his work we should sit back and ponder what influenced the apostle to change.
n some try to get
Rob

The big problem though with many today is that they misapply modern views towards his books, as in the when Wright wrongly uses his NPP on Paul doctrines, or when feminists try to get him to now approve Female leadership, or want to have his view on alternate lifestyles redefined as just applying to back then!

 

[Yeshua1]

Without unconditional election and without irresistible grace, man has the "free will" to choose to leave His hand.

Those being the reasons a true Classical Arminian does not hold to an absolute eternal security. Most non-Calvinists seem to want their cake and eat it too, when it comes to this issue.

The new nature will never want to leave God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Without unconditional election and without irresistible grace, man has the "free will" to choose to leave His hand.

Those being the reasons a true Classical Ar we lose it, we can never get saved again?minian does not hold to an absolute eternal security. Most non-Calvinists seem to want their cake and eat it too, when it comes to this issue.

Do you holkd that once we lose eternal, then we can never get it back again?

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother, if non-Calvinists allow their theology to go it is logical extreme, then yes, losing one's salvation is the outcome. After all, if man has the free will to choose God, he should also have the free will to reject God, no matter whether he is a professed believer or not. But as we know, the vast majority of Baptists on the non-Calvinist side do not go to their logical extreme.

The logical end would seem to be Open Theism for non Calvinist.

 

[Reynolds]

Do you holkd that once we lose eternal, then we can never get it back again?

Yes. I hold that it would be most extreme if not practically impossible for a believer to want to give up his salvation. If, and there is a massive emphasis on that if, he did so, The Spirit would never issue the call to salvation again. That would be crucifying Christ anew.

My view is really that of C.A. security of the believer is most likely true, but there is enough ambiguity in Scriptue that I can't dogmatically say, yes it is.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Sorry I do not believe God has to work at a thing since those who are saved are sealed. Christ already did all the work needed for Salvation. There isn't any work left to do.
MB

I could have been more clear. My comment was aimed at the concept that preservation (the better word) was a work of man, when it was instead a work done by God the Son that seals the believer - as you have stated.

 

[Yeshua1]

I could have been more clear. My comment was aimed at the concept that preservation (the better word) was a work of man, when it was instead a work done by God the Son that seals the believer - as you have stated.

The Holy Spirit Himself seals us into Christ, and NONE can break that seal!

 

[GoodTidings]

Being totally honest, I find it hard to see how ant non-Calvinist can hold to eternal security. You can not make a logical case for it without the other 4 points of Calvinism. (I know. I know. It's "p" in Calvinism)

I am not a Calvinist; I am a Southern Baptist and we hold to Eternal Security just fine. We don't see it as "perseverance of the saints" but as the "preservation of the saints." It is Christ who saves us and keeps us. It is predicated on a genuine salvation experience where one is truly a new creation in Christ with transformed heart complete with a new desire to serve the Lord. We all stumble at times in a sincere desire to live for the Lord, and we repent and continue to serve Him. He keeps us because He is faithful.