A different gospel?

[Dave_Regenerated]

Precisely, a subjective reliance is the good news for works-righteousness tendencies. Looking at the mirror and taking self-inventory on whether your actions, thinking, showing is worthy enough of your salvation. Wright negates personal salvation of sinners, and insists it's a Covenant community. Well, it beg the questions then, how do they become Covenant members? When push comes to shove it's in by Grace and stay in by works. Wasn't this the design in the OT? Mosaic Covenant?

But God made a new Covenant where he swore that He will do for his people. He promises to delivered his people from their sins by sending a Promised Seed. Who would do what the Law could not do. It's Christ who fulfilled the broken Covenant of works by his obedience. He took our place on the Cross and received our penalty for sin. Christ and himself alone is the surety of sinners. He reconciled us through his blood by becoming a propitiation. Our redemption is "Extra Nos" outside of us, meaning there is nothing worthy in us, our redemption lies outside of us in the person of Christ and his merits alone.​

It is by GRACE we are saved and not by works.

The question of perseverance may be a different subject. It seems to me now that Paul talked of warnings and promises to Christians in the NT Epistles, not that we can actually lose salvation, but that we can walk away into sin, and there is at least one indication in the scriptures that there is a sin you can commit that actually breaks fully away from grace. Not that it cannot be reinstated later, as that would be the choice of the person.

I went over Romans 8 and 9 just now and it occurred to me that there is no discussion in there about hell. There is much language about falling from grace and zero language about God reprobating people to eternal hell. Read those passages again https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=NIV

and while you are reading them, try to see eternal hell as reprobation in them.

 

[Arial]

@TB2 Cont of post #373 in response to your post #362

Title and author of article being disucces. N.T. Wright's Long Farewell---Ron Henzel.
Subject of article: The ways in which Wright has said farewell to all evangelicalism. That is how Wright is pulling away from traditional protestant doctrine of the Reformation.

"According to Wright…1. The Gospel is not about “getting saved.”

Well of course that sounds heretical when one puts it that way. And it would be if only it were true. But that is a complete misrepresentation of Wright’s position.

The article then quotes Wright as saying:

"I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved.”

To which the author responds and you "chopped off":
"The problem is, that Paul tells us what he means by “the gospel,” and it seems to have quite a bit to do with how people get saved:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

(1Cor. 15:1-5, ESV. Emphasis added.)"

And with that chops off the next sentence:

"But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ."

Wright is redefining what the gospel is according to Wright not according to Paul who says "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." This he says is "by which your are being saved."

After three or so paragraphs of riffing on how "heretical" Wright’s statement is, the article then asks so what is Wright’s definition of the gospel, and then quotes Wright as follows:

It is one paragraph (let's omit the propaganda and the deceit) and it it does not even mention Wright. This is the paragraph:

"It also has quite a bit to do with faith: “so we preach and so you believed,” (v. 11), and it is quite clear that Paul’s gospel message of Christ’s death is inseparably connected to the question of how we are justified (declared righteous) before God: “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” (Rom 5:9 ESV)"

and then quotes Wright as follows:

“The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world.”

And then proceeds to lambast Wright again for not including salvation alongside the gospel. But if only the article gave the very next sentence!

This is what you call lambasting Wright by the author:

"Of course, this truth is a necessary prerequisite to the gospel. It is certainly good news (the basic meaning of “gospel”) that Jesus reigns as Lord of all, but how exactly is that good news to me, unless it somehow answers the question of where I will spend eternity?"

But if only the article gave the very next sentence!

“The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world. When this gospel is preached, God calls people to salvation, out of sheer grace, leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord.”

That does not answer the question Henzel asked, "How exactly is that good news to me, unless it somehow answers the question of where I will spend eternity?" Wright is still changing the biblical definition of the gospel and one has to ask "Why? Why does he find that necessary?"

Not only does the article chop off Wright’s full statements again, but it doesn't have the decency to explain what Wright means when he says this: Wright is referring to the gospel as in "good news" as the term was understood in ancient times as an imperial proclamation to herald, for example, the "good news" that 'Tiberius Caesar has become emperor!" That's what a "good news" pronouncement was most associated with, only here with the "good news" proclamation that "JESUS IS LORD!" That is what a "good news" proclamation was. And guess what??? By believing in that proclamation announcement a person is SAVED!!!

It was not a matter of not having the decency to explain what Wright meant---which you have done for Wright---it is a matter of what Wright said further was not the least bit helpful in explaining why announcing "The crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world!" and simply believing that would save anyone. Save them from what? Why do they need to be saved from whatever that is?

And to say as Wright does, that when people hear this "God calls them out of sheer grace leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord" is to completely remove many other doctrines of Reformed protestant doctrine and the scriptures they come from. It is faith in Jesus as Lord without knowledge of what that even means. Therefore it cannot be faith.

I'm sorry. That is despicable misrepresentation of NT Wright by the article and tells me all I need to know about its so-called "objectivity" and "accuracy."

Most concerning to me is the fact that this article is presented as a compelling source. More concerning still is now the realization that this type of atrocious "reporting" is the type of propaganda, misinformation, and rhetoric that is fueling the heresy-hate-on-Wright camp of "theologically serious evangelicals" vs the spineless, whiny, "evanjellyfish" compromisers.

I have just shown that what was despicable was the complete misrepresentation of the article referenced that contained no accuracy or objectivity. I showed it by what you left out but called riffing against Wright for several paragraphs when what actually followed was one paragraph that did not mention Wright. And by quoting the article something you called "lambasting Wright" but that you did not quote and also did not mention Wright.

As to being concerned that the article was presented as a compelling source----you are the only one who presented it at all.

More concerning still is now the realization that this type of atrocious "reporting" is the type of propaganda, misinformation, and rhetoric that is fueling the heresy-hate-on-Wright camp of "theologically serious evangelicals" vs the spineless, whiny, "evanjellyfish" compromisers.

There is no need to address all this. I simply highlighted in red all the words and statements that qualify as propagandizing and in blue the words you added that were never used, so as to propagandize against something that you are biased against.

 

[Arial]

Great reply sister, well said. I am still waiting for @TB2 to reply to my post. @Carbon

Thanks. I just finished replying to that post. I am exhausted!

 

[Eleanor]

Well, God gave Adam two commandments; 1)not to eat of the tree of knowledge, 2) Multiply and fill the earth. Now, in Romans 5, Paul explicitly states that by One Man's disobedience sin, death and condemnation came upon all. There's no way around that, because death fell upon everyone by this One Man. He was the representative of the whole human race in the garden. Just as Christ is the head of the body. So, I disagree with N.T. Wright.​

Scratching my head, because sounds convoluted. Let me understand this correctly, Wright, doesn't believe in an imputation of Christ's "active" obedience (Torah), but affirms an imputation of righteousness by which he means acquittal in court of Law? Whose imputed righteousness are we talking about then? And how was this righteousness merited? Makes no sense at all.​

Seems he is distinguishing between an imputed forensic righteousness and the actual righteousness of sanctification.
If he would speak in Scriptural terms, it sure would be easier to understand him.
I wonder why he doesn't. . .hmmmm.

Him who believes in God who justifies the "UNGODLY", his faith is counted righteousness apart from works of the Law (Romans 4:5). This is the pure Gospel, that God has done in Christ for his people through a promise. There's so much to unpack here. [B
Only through the Law can a person be counted righteous through their obedience to the (Torah).

But was the law given to make righteous, or given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20-22), and lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24)?

Same as in Civil Law, either you are a Law abiding citizen who adheres to all Laws as a righteous man, or a Law breaker found guilty and punished. But how could a Law Breaker be found righteous? This is the question we must ask ourselves.

And it starts in the OT where God made a Covenant of Grace with Adam and Eve, and Abraham. That he will send a Promised Seed, that will save them from their sins! This entails Christ being born under the Law (Gal. 4), becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3), and not abolishing the Law but came to fulfill it (Matt. 5:48). God's curse came upon us all through One Man's Act of Disobedience, but the Free Gift of Righteousness came through One Man's Act of Obedience (Rom. 5:17). So, Paul is preaching about the active obedience of Christ's that is imputed to the ungodly!

But it is only imputed, it is not actual to us.
Actual righteousness is through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to that righteousness, leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19).

Well, God gave Adam two commandments; 1)not to eat of the tree of knowledge, 2) Multiply and fill the earth. Now, in Romans 5, Paul explicitly states that by One Man's disobedience sin, death and condemnation came upon all. There's no way around that, because death fell upon everyone by this One Man. He was the representative of the whole human race in the garden. Just as Christ is the head of the body. So, I disagree with N.T. Wright.​

Scratching my head, because sounds convoluted. Let me understand this correctly, Wright, doesn't believe in an imputation of Christ's "active" obedience (Torah), but affirms an imputation of righteousness by which he means acquittal in court of Law? Whose imputed righteousness are we talking about then? And how was this righteousness merited? Makes no sense at all.

Him who believes in God who justifies the "UNGODLY", his faith is counted righteousness apart from works of the Law (Romans 4:5). This is the pure Gospel, that God has done in Christ for his people through a promise. There's so much to unpack here. Only through the Law can a person be counted righteous through their obedience to the (Torah). Same as in Civil Law, either you are a Law abiding citizen who adheres to all Laws as a righteous man, or a Law breaker found guilty and punished. But how could a Law Breaker be found righteous? This is the question we must ask ourselves.

And it starts in the OT where God made a Covenant of Grace with Adam and Eve, and Abraham. That he will send a Promised Seed, that will save them from their sins! This entails Christ being born under the Law (Gal. 4), becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3), and not abolishing the Law but came to fulfill it (Matt. 5:48). God's curse came upon us all through One Man's Act of Disobedience, but the Free Gift of Righteousness came through One Man's Act of Obedience (Rom. 5:17). So, Paul is preaching about the active obedience of Christ's that is imputed to the ungodly!
​

Death in Adam, Life in Christ​

Ro 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift[/U][/I][/B] is not like the trespass.​

Keeping in mind:
1) Paul has been demonstrating an imputed guilt of Adam to all mankind in Ro 5:12-14, which caused the death of all mankind between Adam and Moses when there was no sin/guilt to charge agai.nst them because there was no law to sin against.
2) In v. 15, Paul moves to an imputed righteousness of Christ corresponding to the imputed guilt of Adam.
Neither Adam's guilt nor Christ's righteousness are actual, both are imputed.
3) However, we are held responsible of both, the imputed guilt of Adam's sin, the punishment of which is our physical death,
as well as the imputed righteousness of Christ, the reward of which is our spiritual life in Christ.

For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So, here you go, the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ and is imputed, credited, given to those who believe in him who justifies the "UNGODLY" apart from works.

1 Cor. 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption

Righteousness imputed through faith alone, sanctification actual through obedience of faith, redemption the source of both.

[So, as you can see, Wright is incorrect, we are made righteous by the One Man's Act of Obedience; Christ Jesus.

That being an imputed righteousness by faith, not the actual righteousness through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19).

In summary:
1) We are accounted responsible for Adam's sin/guilt imputed to us, which is the cause of our physical death.
2) We are likewise accounted responsible for Christ's righteousness imputed[/U] to us, which is the cause of our eternal life in Christ.
3) Actual righteousness is by obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousess, leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19).[/url]​

 

[Arial]

1) Paul has been demonstrating an imputed guilt of Adam to all mankind in Ro 5:12-14, which caused the death of all mankind between Adam and Moses when there was no sin/guilt to charge agai.nst them because there was no law to sin against.

There was sin guilt to charge against them and it was charged against them. Death came to all. Death is the penalty. God is a law unto Himself. That law in a nutshell is perfect righteousness. With or without the Sinai covenant law, we are all lawbreakers of the Law Giver.

 

[Eleanor]

It is by GRACE we are saved and not by works.

The question of perseverance may be a different subject. It seems to me now that Paul talked of warnings and promises to Christians in the NT Epistles, not that we can actually lose salvation, but that we can walk away into sin, and there is at least one indication in the scriptures that there is a sin you can commit that actually breaks fully away from grace. Not that it cannot be reinstated later, as that would be the choice of the person.
I went over Romans 8 and 9 just now and it occurred to me that there is no discussion in there about hell.There is much language about falling from grace and zero language about God reprobating people to eternal hell. Read those passages again. and while you are reading them, try to see eternal hell as reprobation in them.

Jesus is the only one who teaches of hell.

Why does it matter that hell is not mentioned in Ro 8-9?

 

[Ladodgers6]

It is by GRACE we are saved and not by works.

The question of perseverance may be a different subject. It seems to me now that Paul talked of warnings and promises to Christians in the NT Epistles, not that we can actually lose salvation, but that we can walk away into sin, and there is at least one indication in the scriptures that there is a sin you can commit that actually breaks fully away from grace. Not that it cannot be reinstated later, as that would be the choice of the person.

I went over Romans 8 and 9 just now and it occurred to me that there is no discussion in there about hell. There is much language about falling from grace and zero language about God reprobating people to eternal hell. Read those passages again https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=NIV

and while you are reading them, try to see eternal hell as reprobation in them.

Thanks Dave for sharing. In God's Plan of Redemption, he loses none of whom he elects unto Salvation. And he gives those whom he chose to his Son.

I and the Father Are One​

22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

There's so much to unpack here. Volumes of books have been written just on these passages. First of all, notice how the Jews were trying to trap Christ and him charged with Blasphemy. They ask Jesus, tell us plainly, if you are the Christ. Jesus replies by saying, I told you and you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep. This is a heavy statement, because these Jews were talking with God face to face, hearing his voice, having an interaction with God in the flesh, and still could not believe. Oddly enough, people who are Free-Willers tend to excuse these passages. Anyways, only his Sheep will hear his voice and follow him. And those whom the Father gave to him he will not lose any of them.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Thanks. I just finished replying to that post. I am exhausted!

Keep fighting the good fight, for the very Gospel is being attacked.

 

[Ladodgers6]

But was the law given to make righteous, or given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20-22), and lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24)?​

Yes, great question.

All three, that's why Paul says it's the doers of the Law. Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Exactly right, it is the doers of the Law. So, when you are preaching the Law, this point must be present, to demonstrate that no will can fulfill the requirements of the Law. This means that the Law has to be fulfilled with flawless obedience, without a single shred of lawlessness. Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

Those who have a position of "a life lived" (works-righteousness/legalism) or synergistic tendencies, fall into Cain perspective on Paul that I could offer a better offering. Like Paul's countrymen who thought to seek to established their own righteousness, than to submit to God's Righteousness.

1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

They have a zeal for God BUT NOT ACCORDING TO KNOWLEDGE (Gospel Promise). They rather trust in themselves and what they think they can provide instead of what God has provided. Sounds like the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, the Pharisee thought his zeal for God was greater than all these filthy sinners. And boast about his works before God as he prayed. Just like the Rich Young Ruler, who also boast about keeping the commandments from his youth, until Jesus exposed his lies by telling him, great, then all you have to do is, selling everything you have and give it to the poor and pick your cross and follow me. You guys know the rest.

Over and over everyone failed God. Adam and Eve, Noah, King David, King Solomon, the list goes on and on. Peter denied Christ 3 times. The only worthy servant was Christ, the Last Adam. But people want to insist that our works is the final justification upon which we will be justified, not Christ and his merits, but ours. That is just ridiculous to even think such a thing.​

 

[Eleanor]

Thanks. I just finished replying to that post. I am exhausted!

Well done! Gold star right in the middle of your forehead for you!

 

[Eleanor]

There was sin guilt to charge against them and it was charged against them. Death came to all. Death is the penalty. God is a law unto Himself. That law in a nutshell is perfect righteousness. With or without the Sinai covenant law, we are all lawbreakers of the Law Giver,

Agreed, one's own sin due to their fallen nature inherited (not imputed) from Adam is charged against them.
But what sin is charged against the infant?
The infant is not exempt. The sin/guilt of Adam is imputed/charged against him.

All mankind is condemned by the imputed sin/guilt of Adam (Ro 5:18), no exceptions, absolutely none.
We are all "by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3), no exceptions, absolutely none.

But in Ro 5:12-19, Paul is treating both of imputed sin and imputed righteousness, not our actual sin (from our fallen nature) nor our actual righteousness (from sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 5:16,19).

We own the imputed sin of Adam and its consequences, human death.

We own the imputed righteousness of Christ and its consequences, eternal life in Christ.

Just as we own our sin committed by our sinful nature.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Well done! Gold star right in the middle of your forehead for you!

This is why is important for Christians to not only read their Bibles, but study God's word. Especially Classical Covenant Theology, Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology. Because if one doesn't understands the Gospel is Free, given by God in Christ for the ungodly. Then nothing else matters. What really boggles my mind, is how people either can't believe it's free or would want to add anything to it, and be placed back under the yoke of the Law.

What could I do to add anything to what Christ accomplished? Just perplexed.​

 

[Binyawmene]

But in Ro 5:12-19, Paul is treating both of imputed sin and imputed righteousness, not our actual sin (from our fallen nature) nor our actual righteousness (from sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 5:16,19).

This is interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In sanctification you are describing active sense. For instance,

2 Corinthians 7:1 Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. ​

Do you also believe there is a passive sense?

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our LORD Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it. (Philippians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 3:13)​

Work of God alone, by the Spirit?

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the LORD, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. (Romans 15:16, 1 Peter 1:2, Galatians 3:3)​

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, great question.

All three,

Two outa' three ain't bad.

He didn't give the law to make righteous because righteousness has always been by faith (Gal 3:11), since Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-3).
They already had righteousness by faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed; Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).
He gave the law ony to reveal sin (Ro 3:20) and to lead them to Christ (Gal 3:24).

that's why Paul says it's the doers of the Law. Romans 2:

Okay, but Paul is treating of another subject in Ro 2.
He is establishing the righteousness of the Jews (2:1-3:8), having already established the unrighteousness of the Gentiles (1:18-32)
on his way to establishing the unrighteousness of all mankind without exception (3:9-10).
In Ro 2 he is stating the principle by which all Jews are unrighteous; i.e., only the doers of the law are righteous, and they were not perfect doers, therefore, they are likewise unrighteous with the Gentiles.

13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Exactly right, it is the doers of the Law. So, when you are preaching the Law, this point must be present, to demonstrate that no will can fulfill the requirements of the Law. This means that the Law has to be fulfilled with flawless obedience, without a single shred of lawlessness. Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

Those who have a position of "a life lived" (works-righteousness/legalism) or synergistic tendencies, fall into Cain perspective on Paul that I could offer a better offering. Like Paul's countrymen who thought to seek to established their own righteousness, than to submit to God's Righteousness.

1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
They have a zeal for God BUT NOT ACCORDING TO KNOWLEDGE (Gospel Promise). They rather trust in themselves and what they think they can provide instead of what God has provided. Sounds like the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, the Pharisee thought his zeal for God was greater than all these filthy sinners. And boast about his works before God as he prayed. Just like the Rich Young Ruler, who also boast about keeping the commandments from his youth, until Jesus exposed his lies by telling him, great, then all you have to do is, selling everything you have and give it to the poor and pick your cross and follow me. You guys know the rest.
Over and over everyone failed God. Adam and Eve, Noah, King David, King Solomon, the list goes on and on. Peter denied Christ 3 times. The only worthy servant was Christ, the Last Adam. But people want to insist that our works is the final justification upon which we will be justified, not Christ and his merits, but ours. That is just ridiculous to even think such a thing.​

 

[Arial]

Well done! Gold star right in the middle of your forehead for you!

Thank you.

 

[Eleanor]

This is interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In sanctification you are describing active sense. For instance,

2 Corinthians 7:1 Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. ​

Do you also believe there is a passive sense?

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our LORD Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it. (Philippians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 3:13)​

Work of God alone, by the Spirit?

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the LORD, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. (Romans 15:16, 1 Peter 1:2, Galatians 3:3)​

God works in us both to will and to do. (Php 2:13)
It's dualistic.

We don't do anything on our own, that we should boast, it is all through the grace of God that we obey and are thereby sanctified.

 

[Eleanor]

@Ladodgers6

Correction of post #394, above.

That should be "unrighteousness of the Jews (2:1-3:8),". . .

< sigh >

 

[Binyawmene]

God works in us both to will and to do. (Php 2:13)
It's dualistic.

So, you believe that Sanctification is synergic in nature or monergistic in nature? (2 Timothy 2:21-22)

2 Timothy 2:21-22 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the LORD out of a pure heart.​

We don't do anything on our own, that we should boast, it is all through the grace of God that we obey and are thereby sanctified.

This sounds a better role to play in your sanctification. You don't need to add a cooperation, but rather, a submissive will (Philippians 2:13) since we are God's workmanship (Ephesians 2:10). Being a vessel of honor, useful for the Holy Spirit, and pepared for good works, etc. (Example: 2 Timothy 2:21-22, 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6) your body is the temple and its not your own its been bought with a price, therefore you need to honor and reverence God.

 

[Eleanor]

So, you believe that Sanctification is synergic in nature or monergistic in nature? (2 Timothy 2:21-22)

2 Timothy 2:21-22 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the LORD out of a pure heart.​

Cleanses himself in the sense of Ro 6:16-19; i.e., a synergistic endeavor.

This sounds a better role to play in your sanctification. You don't need to add a cooperation, but rather, a submissive will (Philippians 2:13)

The "God works in you to do his good purpose" of Php 2:13 requires our active engagement in the synergistic work of the actual righteousness of sanctification.

since we are God's workmanship (Ephesians 2:10). Being a vessel of honor, useful for the Holy Spirit, and pepared for good works, etc. (Example: 2 Timothy 2:21-22, 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6) your body is the temple and its not your own its been bought with a price, therefore you need to honor and reverence God.

 

[Binyawmene]

The "God works in you to do his good purpose" of Php 2:13 requires our active engagement in the synergistic work of the actual righteousness of sanctification.

Thanks for your answer. Is that applied to the whole package of salvation or just in our sanctification? And I do appreciate you taking the time to give me answers.