"I'd say we find great blessedness in Jesus' Way of Grace, where we
work, share, eat, pull together to build the Realm of God. AS and WHEN
we walk in this Way of Grace, building this Kingdom of God, the poor
literally are fed and blessed and have opportunities for justice"
I could be wrong, but the above sounds like someone who is advocating a works based salvation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
It's a little odd to me. Paul said, "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:2-3) And Jesus said, "I will build My church." (Matt 16:18) So I can't imagine in what sense we "pull together to build the Realm of God." I mean, isn't that His job?
I agree, I suspect that the author would vigorously disagree, but if one looks at the plain text it is completely reasonable to conclude that the author is advocating a faith that is largely shaped by humans doing "good works", and not by the saving grace of God.
Specifically and literally NOT doing good works, but in embracing/accepting Jesus' way of Grace. Unless you call "embracing/accepting Grace" a works-salvation, but then, that's standard orthodox Christianity, there.
Do you agree that salvation is found in accepting and embracing God's grace? If so, then we are in agreement and you apparently just misunderstood my words.
Interesting, this, coming from people (at least Stan) who appear (correct me if I'm mistaken) to embrace a human works salvation. Unless one understands Christianity and atonement in JUST THE RIGHT WAY, at least Stan appears to be say, one can not be saved. If one is sincerely mistaken in how they embrace grace or understands the atonement, one is probably not saved, according to Stan.
Am I mistaken?
So you are clarifying that you specifically belie that salvation is found through something that "we" do, thanks I appreciate you confirming that.
No, I believe that salvation is found through the finished work of Jesus the Christ, not through anything that we do.
So I guess we are not in agreement and I understand both your original words as well as your clarification.
I realize you usually assume that I somehow am able to speak authoritatively for Stan, but in this case I believe that you are in fact mistaken.
As usual, if you can provide proof of your accusation feel free to and I will gladly reevaluate my position.
So, not a salvation by grace, which we accept, but in a blood sacrifice to appease an angry God. Grace has nothing to do with it, nor do we need to accept and embrace that grace, is that what you're saying?
And WHAT accusation?
Actually I never used the words "blood sacrifice ", and of course we are saved through grace. Grace alone, faith alone, through Christmas alone.
Of course the whole sacfice thing is Biblical, just look at the words of Jesus.
The problem you have is your hunch is that grace is something that we do as opposed to something we receive.
The problem you have is that your pisition is that it is reuired that people act (accept, embrace), in order to get salvation. Whereas most would suggest that salvation does not require any act on humanities part, but is the work of God.
"This, coming from people (at least Stan) who appear (correct me if I'm mistaken) to embrace a human works salvation."
Dan, if you're going to blatantly misrepresent me, please stop complaining when you feel others do the same to you. Or is it that you lack reading skills, since my first comment on this thread specifically denied salvation by works?
Nor have I ever argued what you continually attribute to me that one is saved by perfect understanding.
You complain and bellow continuously at every perceived misrepresentation of your view and then blatantly and continuously misrepresent the views of those with whom you disagree. Hypocrisy does not become you.
It's late, I've had a long day, but I am going to nip this in the bud right now.
Dan,
It is incorrect for you to say that anyone involved in this conversation advocates for or would require that anyone exclusively believe or hold to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement exclusively. Nor would (I suspect) anyone even hint that someone who holds to one of the other theories of Atonement is by definition not Orthodox.
I am putting you on notice. If you continue to falsely represent the views of anyone regarding the Atonement, you are done commenting. For you to continue to make the representations about this that you have is simply wrong. If you continue to do so after this warning you will have made it clear that you have absolutely no regard for the truth and are any further misrepresentations will be considered to be willful intentional lies.
I apologize for being so direct, but I have no desire to see you drag things into a situation where we are arguing against your false representation of our position.
If you don't understand my(our to the degree we agree) position, then you may ask politely for an explanation.
But whether you ask or not, one more reference suggesting that anyone believes that agreement with the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory is required for salvation, will be you choosing to falsely represent the position of others, and intentionally lying.
Your next comment needs to be one of two things.
1. An apology for your continued misrepresentation of this position.
2. A polite request for an explanation.
You'd better keep a copy of anything else, because anything but 1 or 2 will be deleted until you understand your error.
Nice apology. "I didn't do it." Got it. Nor would I expect anything different.
On my post at my blog on the subject of Atonement, I claimed to hold all of (at least, almost all) the views on Atonement. You understand that to mean "If you don't agree with Penal Substitutionary Atonement, you're going to hell." And, yet, here you are claiming to have "misunderstood." Again, if I am to be generous, I'll just have to assume reading comprehension problems on your part because otherwise it looks like you are intentionally disregarding what I say. I'm inclined to be less than generous simply because it is a theme with you, not a single event. I've never argued, for instance, that gay people shouldn't marry because gay is evil, and yet you have repeatedly laid that at my feet. Just an example.
For clarification, to "represent" someone's views means to say, "This is what I understand their view to be." If it is incorrect by reason of a failure to comprehend or by intent, it is still a misrepresentation. "I may be wrong, but this is what I understand their view to be" is still a misrepresentation of their views if it is not an accurate representation.
I never wished to comment on whether or not you were saved. You demanded an answer (way back when). I avoided it as long as I could but you wouldn't let it go. A large number of components led me to sincerely question your eternal standing with Christ. You've apparently understand that to mean "If you don't believe in PSA, you're going to hell," something I have never suggested. I cannot at all fathom how you move so easily from my "This is what I see in Scripture" to your "Stan thinks this is necessary for salvation."
On the Atonement, I understand that you don't care whether it's an Orthodox or Historical or even Biblical position. The fact that PSA is all three is irrelevant to you. I get that. But to continually claim that "it's not in there" is not merely a representation of my views; it is a misrepresentation of the facts. If you want to go that way, go with "I don't accept the biblical support you offer" ... you know, like your much beloved "hunches".
Now, look, if you're going to maintain that "misunderstood" is not "misrepresentation", then you'll have to give me the same credit toward you and I'll give you the same non-apology. If you're going to admit that "misrepresentation" is simply representing someone's view in an incorrect manner regardless of the reason, then we have something else to look at (and your non-apology will obviously need to be revised).
1. An apology for your continued misrepresentation of this position.
2. A polite request for an explanation.
Dan,
The above is what I told you was necessary before you could comment further. You chose to make a pro forma apology, then to try to justify the reasons why you did not need to apologize and to demand explanations of both myself and Stan. I'm sorry you were unable to do as I asked, in a way that demonstrates that you are the least bit concerned about portraying my and Stan's positions accurately. I am perfectly willing to extend you the grace to try this as many times as you like. But as long as any comment contains more than either or both of the items above it will be deleted.
Now, back on topic, let's look at what is said about and by Jesus regarding being saved. Obviously I'm not speaking of "save me I'm drowning".
"And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins."
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."
"For the Son of man came to save that which was lost."
"But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."
"And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved; but for the elect's sake, whom he chose, he shortened the days."
"And he said unto the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."
"And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved."
"For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
"For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost."
"For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him."
"For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him."
"For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him."
"And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."
"And hath raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of his servant David."
"To give knowledge of salvation unto his people In the remission of their sins,"
"For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,"
"And all flesh shall see the salvation of God."
"And Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham."
What is the obvious thing that sticks out from this?
The lack of any mention of "Jesus' Way of Grace" nor of "work(ing), share(ing), eat(ing), pull(ing) together to build the Realm of God". What does that say about Jesus' view of salvation as opposed to the author's view of salvation?
So even though Jesup own words don't support your fanciful "way of grace" notion, you'll just continue to pretend otherwise.
I can't explain why my phone keeps auto correcting Jesus into Jesup, but it does.
Actually if we look at Jesus words we don't see a way to earn salvation or even a path to follow or things we have to do. We see God choosing to give salvation completely independent of what we do or not.
It seems that you are now suggesting some sort of universal salvation now, is that the case?
Dan,
I'm sorry, but I will need to delete all of your comments posted after 8:30 today due to your decision not to make an unqualified apology without excuses and blaming others. I apologize for not exercising better control and allowing your continued comments.
Again, I'm sorry but in the interest of consistency and accuracy, I need to stick with my original position.
Once you come up with an unqualified apology you may continue to make on topic comments.
Post a Comment