Are Arminians "works" salvationists?!

[Soyeong]

1. If you can choose between good and evil, then why did Christ die? You didn't need Christ to die for you if you can choose between good and evil on your own. Please explain why Christ died. Your position doesn't logically need Christ. Which why in my view you didn't mention the choice of Christ in your response.

Before Adam and Eve had eaten from either tree, they were at a crossroads between mortality and eternal life, where choosing to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil caused them to become mortal while choosing to eat from the Tree of Life would have caused then to have eternal life. In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, they were at an identical crossroads where Moses presented before them a choice between life and death, life and a blessing for choosing to obey the Torah or death and a curse for choosing not to obey it, so choose life! So we do have a choice and Jesus gave us that choice. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doin good works. Jesus is the embodiment of God's word, so us choosing to embody God's word through following his example is what it means to choose Christ.

2. What work did Abraham do when he believed God would gift him with Isaac. You still are not answering this. Abraham couldn't help himself.

Also, like James, you misunderstand what Abraham didn't do. Abraham didn't slay his son. He said specifically that God would provide Himself a sacrifice. Which He did in Christ. Abraham foresaw the offering of Christ on Mt Moriah. Abraham literally lives the Gospel in his own life. Abraham was helpless to save his son Isaac. God didn't need Isaac.

Again, Abraham believed the promise by spending the rest of his life doing the work spreading the Gospel. I didn't say that Abraham slayed his son. Christ paid the penalty for our sin in our place.

 

[Soyeong]

It's not a sin to obey the Law, granted.

But if it comes as a gift of grace through Christ's work, and not ours, we must not put demands and obligations, nor consider it as from ourselves.

How can you tell if a good done through you, was done by Christ's grace, or done in your own efforts?

Everything we produce in our self-effort and self-reliance, is imperfect and impure.

In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so God's gift is teaching us to do those works, which requires our participation. God is righteousness, so all righteous actions testify about the nature of who he is and there is not righteousness apart from the nature of who He is. So the point of doing what is righteous in obedience to God's law is to testify about His righteousness, not to establish our own. Obediently relying on what God has instructed is the way to rely on God, not on ourselves. If someone were relying on themselves, then they would be acting completely independently of what God has instructed.

 

[Diserner]

If someone were relying on themselves, then they would be acting completely independently of what God has instructed.

It's not just that.

It's the amount of self-reliance, self-effort and self-goodness that is being attempted in the production of what we do.

External acts alone are not obedience, for the Law requires all things to be done with perfect love.

For example, were we to obey the command to be humble: tell me one external indicator that proves you committed the sin of pride (You can't say "bragging" because it's not pride just to admit you have a good quality or did something well.)

Ah! So, obedience requires invisible attitudes, for external obedience without the right attitudes is worthless.

This is why it says "I desire mercy and not sacrifice."

God commanded sacrifice, so of course he desires it—but not with the wrong attitudes.

And so, by taking off all legalistic controlling demands, obligations and pressures, we enter an obedience of freedom that allows for mistakes.

The righteousness that "comes by faith."

 

[praise_yeshua]

Before Adam and Eve had eaten from either tree, they were at a crossroads between mortality and eternal life, where choosing to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil caused them to become mortal while choosing to eat from the Tree of Life would have caused then to have eternal life. In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, they were at an identical crossroads where Moses presented before them a choice between life and death, life and a blessing for choosing to obey the Torah or death and a curse for choosing not to obey it, so choose life! So we do have a choice and Jesus gave us that choice. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doin good works. Jesus is the embodiment of God's word, so us choosing to embody God's word through following his example is what it means to choose Christ.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why would this require the death of Christ?

What view do you hold of the Atonement? Please make this clear.

In response to your claims above....

1. Why did Christ's offering (thousands of years later) grant choice Adam and Moses? They choose evil without knowledge of the work of Christ.

You are not adequately dealing with the requirement of death in Atonement.

Again, Abraham believed the promise by spending the rest of his life doing the work spreading the Gospel. I didn't say that Abraham slayed his son. Christ paid the penalty for our sin in our place.

Abraham believed God. He didn't work to slay his son. You're the one claiming that Abraham exhibited "work" in "God providing Himself a sacrifice.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so God's gift is teaching us to do those works, which requires our participation. God is righteousness, so all righteous actions testify about the nature of who he is and there is not righteousness apart from the nature of who He is. So the point of doing what is righteous in obedience to God's law is to testify about His righteousness, not to establish our own. Obediently relying on what God has instructed is the way to rely on God, not on ourselves. If someone were relying on themselves, then they would be acting completely independently of what God has instructed.

Christ in me? Is that why you might be enabled to please God?

It is not you but Christ in you.

Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

You're right in what you're claiming concerning choice. Your problem is THE Choice. How you've chosen to express your allegiance and efforts to please God.

 

[Johann]

I like the idea of a light switch.

Now, the real power is in the power plant right—what is the switch going to do without any infrastructure and power behind it?


Yet, you flip that switch, THAT is when the light goes on.


Now I ask you—did you "contribute" to the power?

Or did you merely "allow" it?


And that is why dirty-rag faith still saves, and required actions are not earning salvation.

Really appreciate your biblical reasoning @dizerner

 

[sethproton]

Abraham believed God. He didn't work to slay his son. You're the one claiming that Abraham exhibited "work" in "God providing Himself a sacrifice.

Then why did the angel stop Abraham's arm. Abe was doing a work which had to be stopped

 

[praise_yeshua]

Then why did the angel stop Abraham's arm. Abe was doing a work which had to be stopped

Right. God stopped Abraham from working. God demanded Abraham trust His OWN LAMB....

Why do you see such nonsense as you wrote. Your desperate response is clear but horrible empty.....

 

[sethproton]

Right. God stopped Abraham from working. God demanded Abraham trust His OWN LAMB...

yeah i think i disagree with your other cpmment

 

[praise_yeshua]

yeah i think i disagree with your other cpmment

Why?

 

[sethproton]

Why?

Your post was not clear to me but it could be interpreted to mean that the goat was not a sacrfice substitute for Isaac, which was my idea
Plus abraham's trust was not in the goat

 

[praise_yeshua]

Your post was not clear to me but it could be interpreted to mean that the goat was not a sacrfice substitute for Isaac, which was my idea
Plus abraham's trust was not in the goat

Did God stop Abraham from working or not? You insist Abraham offered Isaac. He didn't.

Notice the words of the "angel". God will provide Himself a sacrifice. You can't even get the narrative right. There was a RAM caught in the thicket that God provided in place of Isaac. Which is allusion to the Spotless lamb of God. Jesus Christ. You're calling it a goat....geesh.

 

[civic]

Did God stop Abraham from working or not? You insist Abraham offered Isaac. He didn't.

Notice the words of the "angel". God will provide Himself a sacrifice. You can't even get the narrative right. There was a RAM caught in the thicket that God provided in place of Isaac. Which is allusion to the Spotless lamb of God. Jesus Christ. You're calling it a goat....geesh.

Yes its why is that scenario Jacob was not a type of Christ as some falsely teach it was the RAM that God provided and was sacrificed that was the type in that story. Pastors and theologians conflate them. Its nothing but a misnomer to associate Jacob and Jesus in that story.

 

[sethproton]

Did God stop Abraham from working or not? You insist Abraham offered Isaac. He didn't.

Notice the words of the "angel". God will provide Himself a sacrifice. You can't even get the narrative right. There was a RAM caught in the thicket that God provided in place of Isaac. Which is allusion to the Spotless lamb of God. Jesus Christ. You're calling it a goat....geesh.

your sarcasm aside, isaac is one of the strongest types of Christ in the Bible. Gen 22:16 the angel says of Abraham he had not withheld his son so in a sense Isaac was considered dead, but also alive. So he typed the death and life of Christ.

 

[civic]

your sarcasm aside, isaac is one of the strongest types of Christ in the Bible. Gen 22:16 the angel says he had not withheld his son so in a sense Isaac was considered dead, but also alive. So he typed the death and life of Christ.

Where does the Bible say that ? If he was a type the Bible would say it like all the other types Jesus is specifically called in scripture. Like a lamb, lion, prophet, king, priest , David, Moses, snake, lamb, feast days, all the types in the tabernacle etc…..

 

[sethproton]

Where does the Bible say that ? If he was a type the Bible would say it like all the other types Jesus is specifically called in scripture. Like a lamb, lion, prophet, king, priest , David, Moses, snake, lamb, feast days, all the types in the tabernacle etc…..

I don't believe in your idea here that God must express His truth in a way that suits you. One that does not is a picture of a banner on a bare hill drawing men to him. Isa 30:17: Eventually it is the ideas the words carry in context.
Concerning Gen 22:16. Your response is typical of you, you read the verse and then ask "Where does it say that?" The answer is Gen 22:16.

 

[civic]

I don't believe in your idea here that God must express His truth in a way that suits you. One is a picture of a banner on a bare hill drawing all men to him. Eventually it is the ideas the words carry in context.
Concerning Gen 22:16. Your response is typical of you, you read the verse and then ask "Where does it say that?" The answer is Gen 22:16.

Yes God means what He says and says what He means. Not one jot or tittle will pass away until all be fulfilled.

If there is no scripture to support it then there is no type. I base my beliefs on what Gods word actually says, not on what it doesn't say.

Its why there are so many misnomers about God in Christendom. Also Jesus was not burnt over a fire as an animal sacrifice. He was nailed to a tree and killed. No type there. Its a giant leap of faith to make it read that way. Its called eisegesis. Reading into the text ones own ideas and presuppositions.

And if if that was a type like you claim the book of Hebrews would of spelled it out like it does with every single type of Christ in the sacrificial system and the tabernacle. But guess what its not their. And for a good reason since Isaac was not the type, the RAM God provided was the TYPE that was provided by God like Jesus and was killed/sacrificed like Jesus.

hope this helps !!!

 

[sethproton]

Yes God means what He says and says what He means. Not one jot or tittle will pass away until all be fulfilled.

If there is no scripture to support it then there is no type. I base my beliefs on what Gods word actually says, not on what it doesn't say.

Its why there are so many misnomers about God in Christendom. Also Jesus was not burnt over a fire as an animal sacrifice. He was nailed to a tree and killed. No type there. Its a giant leap of faith to make it read that way. Its called eisegesis. Reading into the text ones own ideas and presuppositions.

And if if that was a type like you claim the book of Hebrews would of spelled it out like it does with every single type of Christ in the sacrificial system and the tabernacle. But guess what its not their. And for a good reason since Isaac was not the type, the RAM God provided was the TYPE that was provided by God like Jesus and was killed/sacrificed like Jesus.

hope this helps !!!

Maybe you don't know what a type is ?
It is something. a real event, even a part of a prophesy that speaks about one of more attributes or actions of Christ,

 

[sethproton]

Yes God means what He says and says what He means. Not one jot or tittle will pass away until all be fulfilled.

If there is no scripture to support it then there is no type. I base my beliefs on what Gods word actually says, not on what it doesn't say.

Its why there are so many misnomers about God in Christendom. Also Jesus was not burnt over a fire as an animal sacrifice. He was nailed to a tree and killed. No type there. Its a giant leap of faith to make it read that way. Its called eisegesis. Reading into the text ones own ideas and presuppositions.

And if if that was a type like you claim the book of Hebrews would of spelled it out like it does with every single type of Christ in the sacrificial system and the tabernacle. But guess what its not their. And for a good reason since Isaac was not the type, the RAM God provided was the TYPE that was provided by God like Jesus and was killed/sacrificed like Jesus.

hope this helps !!!

Yet you refuse to discuss Gen 22:16

 

[Diserner]

And if if that was a type like you claim the book of Hebrews would of spelled it out like it does with every single type of Christ in the sacrificial system and the tabernacle. But guess what its not their. And for a good reason since Isaac was not the type, the RAM God provided was the TYPE that was provided by God like Jesus and was killed/sacrificed like Jesus.

Actually the English versions fail to bring out the full Greek in Hebrews 11:19:





A better rendering would be:

"from which he also as a type was received back."


You notice this is the same word used for Jesus "parables," used as symbols and types of truths.

παραβολή noun: Parable, comparison, illustration.