[arcura]

Akoue,
I rest my case!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Howdy, Joe. (I just like the way that sounds!)

"Akoue" is the imperative form of the Gk. word for to hear or to listen. There's no real significance other than that, though. When I registered and needed to come up with a username I had the Shepherd of Hermas sitting open next to me. I glanced over the and first sentence of Mand.6.2.1 caught my eye: "Akoue nun peri tes pisteos" or "Hear now concerning faith". So, what the hell, I went with the first word.

I’m one who believes that everything fits into God’s plan. Nothing happens by chance. The name fits. Thanks for taking the time to be here.

Semper Fi

Akoue,
I rest my case!!!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Does this mean you're done with us? You've got the answers you needed?

JoeT

[Akoue]

Tj,

No effort to deceive here. That's why I provided the citation. It's possible you've confused "dikaioo", which I've explained above, with "deloo" (if you'd like to look it up, the "e" is an eta not an epsilon). "Deloo" does, in fact, mean to show or reveal or make manifest. Hope this helps.

I'm not sure which "known Greek experts" have taken exception with the very modest corrections I've offered on these boards. I did on one occasion point out that another person's transliterations were in error. In any case, I'm not interested in having anyone accept what I say because I am, or they take me to be, an expert (again, I offered the citation above).

As for the rest: I've made a case regarding James 2. I've used, and supplied for others, the Greek of James 2. I've shown that you misunderstood the Greek word "dikaioo"--not to mention the rest of the text I cited. I don't think it's extraordinarily tendentious of me to say that, barring further evidence to the contrary, I've shown that the Catholic-Orthodox reading of James 2 is right and yours is mistaken. Given that, it looks like, on this issue at least, they are the "Biblical" Christians and you are not.

Oh, and asking a question like the one I posed at the end of #55 and which you quote above isn't setting up a strawman. (You used the locution "strawman arguments", but there's no such thing: One can use an argument against a strawman though.) And how could their interpretation of James to be "private", as you say? What could be more public than 2,000 years of tone of scholars and theologians and bishops saying exactly the same thing: There is no salvation without faith and works.

I certainly don't wish to misrepresent what you are saying. To do that would be to attack a strawman. I want to show, using the Scriptural evidence that you yourself provide, that you haven't come close to demonstrating the falsity of the Catholic-Orthodox view. It only serves my purposes to knock down the *strongest* version of your view. Except for our failure to communicate efficiently regarding the faith/faithfulness distinction, I think the content of my posts has put your view in a pretty bad way. Now you feel that I've misunderstood your point about faith/faithfulness. Maybe I have and maybe that's my fault. You are welcome to explain it to me again. If you'd rather not, then we can let it drop. I'm happy either way.

[arcura]

JoeT777 ,
No,
I said that in reference to my earlier post which said that an argument was very well both faith and good works which prove that faith are exceptionally well made, but that most others who believe in the faith only heresy will reject or ignore that biblical fack.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

No effort to deceive here. That's why I provided the citation. It's possible you've confused "dikaioo", which I've explained above, with "deloo" (if you'd like to look it up, the "e" is an eta not an epsilon). "Deloo" does, in fact, mean to show or reveal or make manifest. Hope this helps.

No confusion, I can read nicely.

I'm not sure which "known Greek experts" have taken exception with the very modest corrections I've offered on these boards. I did on one occasion point out that another person's transliterations were in error. In any case, I'm not interested in having anyone accept what I say because I am, or they take me to be, an expert (again, I offered the citation above).

That is why I have to go with known experts who can be validated.

As for the rest: I've made a case regarding James 2.

Which has been refuted.

I've used, and supplied for others, the Greek of James 2. I've shown that you misunderstood the Greek word "dikaioo"--not to mention the rest of the text I cited.

Not true. Once again, your claims were refuted.

I don't think it's extraordinarily tendentious of me to say that, barring further evidence to the contrary, I've shown that the Catholic-Orthodox reading of James 2 is right and yours is mistaken.

I'm glad that you are so impressed with your presentation that you have convinced yourself that you are right. I need something more solid to convince me.

Given that, it looks like, on this issue at least, they are the "Biblical" Christians and you are not.

Ah, so now you are into judging the salvation of others. Interesting - are you planning to take God's role in other areas also?

Oh, and asking a question like the one I posed at the end of #55 and which you quote above isn't setting up a strawman. (You used the locution "strawman arguments", but there's no such thing: One can use an argument against a strawman though.)

It does not appear that you have a background in logic either. But in any case, it was a strawman because you set up a situation where you were arguing against something that I not only did not say, and which I specifically told you was not true. Then you continued to make the same claim.

And how could their interpretation of James to be "private", as you say? What could be more public than 2,000 years of tone of scholars and theologians and bishops saying exactly the same thing: There is no salvation without faith and works.

First, even if there were scholars and theologians making errors like that for 2,000 years, the context of that passage is not saying that it is okay to make errors publicly - it is contrasting the interpretation of the Holy Spirit to that of men.

I want to show, using the Scriptural evidence that you yourself provide, that you haven't come close to demonstrating the falsity of the Catholic-Orthodox view. It only serves my purposes to knock down the *strongest* version of your view.

Then you need to deal honestly with what I have said and not make it up on the fly.

Except for our failure to communicate efficiently regarding the faith/faithfulness distinction, I think the content of my posts has put your view in a pretty bad way.

Again, you have your cheering section from your denomination who agreed with you before you started, and you seem pretty impressed with yourself, but from my perspective, your arguments seem quite run of the mill and weak. You seem to have tried your best to argument using the strawman arguments and avoiding other or deflecting other points without dealing with them, or just claiming victory, by telling us how good you've done.

Now you feel that I've misunderstood your point about faith/faithfulness. Maybe I have and maybe that's my fault. You are welcome to explain it to me again. If you'd rather not, then we can let it drop. I'm happy either way.

I am quite willing to continue, but each time that the issue has arisen I have explained it. I have said it in a number of different ways, so how you have managed to "mis-understand" it is beyond me. You can go back to what I said in my last response or look back to post #6 or any of the others. I have been very clear, and no one before has ever had the trouble that you claim to have in understanding such a basic point.

[arcura]

Akoue,
I expect the argument about faith and works are need to continue till everyone realizes that the faith only idea is very wrong and a biblical heresy.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[De Maria]

If you wish to debate Reformed theology, you may wish to seek a discussion with someone to holds to Reformed theology. I do not.

You do in this instance. Because it is from the Reformed tradition that you have taken your beliefs.

Really? Faith is a work that we do?

That is correct.

You seem to be mixing belief and faith. There is a relationship, but they are not the same. Nonetheless, this does not say that faith or belief is a work of man but of God.

Read the verse carefully and don't read into it your predispositions. Lets see it again.


The disciples asked Jesus:
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

They understand that God ordains works from the beginning that we walk in them.

Jesus didn't say, "You can't do God's works." He said this:
29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Therefore, faith in Christ is the work of God which we must do.

And it is clear, without faith we can't please God. Therefore, faith is necessary for entrance to heaven. In other words, without faith, we don't merit heaven. If salvation were totally free, we there would be no requirements. But there are a few.

1. You must have faith.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

2. You must obey His Word:

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

3. You must show your faith in your works:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Once again, our works are left out of the equation for salvation.

Faith AND WORKS are BOTH required for salvation.

I note that those who quote this in support of the erroneous works gospel fail to deal with either the Greek or the context. Keep in mind that in the original Greek of the NT, the word use for faith is the same as faithfulness, so if one has faith, then the natural consequence is that one will act on that faith. For example, if you have a child and you love that child, you will provide for that child and do what you can to make the child healthy and happy - but it is not to prove to others that you love the child, but it is a natural consequence of the love that you have for the child. It is the evidence of that love.

Thank you. Works are evidence of your faith in God. If you have no works you have no faith and you are not saved.

The same is true with faith and faithfulness. Thus if you were a person who was reading this in Koine Greek, it would read to you like:

"Faithfulness without works is dead"

I see no difference. It means exactly the same thing.

This means that having been saved, having faith, having received grace, the expectation is that your faithfulness is evidenced by works.

No, it means that having faithfulness will not merit salvation if it is not accompanied by good works.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Akoue]

Tj,

You're more than welcome to attack me. It's really no skin off my nose. It does puzzle me that it bothers you so much when other people say nice things to or about each other. But it's really none of my business.

Now which of my claims have you *refuted*? You've disagreed with a bunch of them. But refutation requires reasoned argument, and your posts are becoming increasingly choppy. You certainly didn't *refute* anything I said about James 2. You got the Greek wrong. It's not the end of the world, you just don't read Greek very well. Few people do read ancient Greek well. No reason to let your temper flare. You think I'm a lousy philologist; you think I'm a lousy logician (all those years studying under all those prominent logicians wasted, apparently. I feel so ashamed. But, then again, you do have trouble with the terminology, don't you? And you seem to need a lot of help with Greek. So... Naw, I'll just feel really badly about myself. All better now?)

[arcura]

De Maria,
Once again you make excellent points to show biblically that faith AND works are necessary for salvation and that the faith only theology is a heresy and has been since the reformation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Fred,

I suspect this thread will end the way many others do when Tj is losing the argument. It will end up getting closed. But, until then, I agree that this is important stuff worth hashing out.

[Tj3]

You do in this instance. Because it is from the Reformed tradition that you have taken your beliefs.

Then either you don't know understand my views or Reformed theology or both.

That is correct.

Scripture disagrees.

Read the verse carefully and don't read into it your predispositions. Lets see it again.

I have.

John 6:27-31
28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." 30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?
NKJV

We are to believe in God, and the fact that we believe is a work of God.

The disciples asked Jesus:
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

They understand that God ordains works from the beginning that we walk in them.

Works? This passage speaks solely of one work and that is the work of God that we believe.

Jesus didn't say, "You can't do God's works." He said this:
29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Therefore, faith in Christ is the work of God which we must do.

Really. If faith is required for us to believe, then where does faith come from?

John 6:44-45
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV

God draws those who have faith first. You cannot come to Jesus unless God draws you, therefore in the drawing you are given faith to believe. Now before you accuse me of being Calvinist, you should check out my website. I am simply quoting scripture here, but I am not supporting nor a believer in TULIP. So don't make assumptions regarding my beliefs.I believe what the Bible teaches.

1. You must have faith.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

And He provides that.

2. You must obey His Word:

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hmmm... But I know for a fact that you have not done so so, using your out of context interpretation, you must not be saved. You know how I know that you have not obeyed Him? Because Romans 3:23 tells me that.

3. You must show your faith in your works:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

No, you must have faith in God. You show your faithfulness through your works.

Faith AND WORKS are BOTH required for salvation.

Nope.

Thank you. Works are evidence of your faith in God.

Now you got it! And if works are the evidence, then the faith came first.

If you have no works you have no faith and you are not saved.

Actually, now you have gone beyond what scripture says. For example, a person who accepted Christ 5 seconds ago has no works as evidence, and yet is, nonetheless saved. Also, works are only one evidence, though an important evidence. There are others (though oddly you don't claim that you must have the others evidences).

I see no difference. It means exactly the same thing.

That is my point - a Greek would say the same thing. Yet in English, the meaning of these words vary so we lose the proper understanding what scripture says in Greek, and thus end up with erroneous understandings such as the belief that works is necessary for salvation when that is in fact not found in the text.

No, it means that having faithfulness will not merit salvation if it is not accompanied by good works.

Okay, since you insist on holding to your interpretation regardless of whatever is said or shown from scripture, let's test your position with an example.

A person who is paralyzed and is an invalid and unable to do works of any type accepts Jesus as Saviour. Is that person going to hell?

[arcura]

Akoue,
Again I agree with you.
The truth MUST be told until all understand that "faith only" and "Scripture only" are heresies.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Then either you don't know understand my views or Reformed theology or both.


A person who is paralyzed and is an invalid and unable to do works of any type accepts Jesus as Saviour. Is that person going to hell?

Wow! Offensive. People who are paralyzed can do all sorts of things. Here's one thing they can do: They can PRAY. (FYI, prayer is a work, and ergon.)

[Tj3]

You're more than welcome to attack me. It's really no skin off my nose.

I have not attacked you.

It does puzzle me that it bothers you so much when other people say nice things to or about each other.

What have you been reading?? I haven't the faintest idea what you are even thinking about here.

Now which of my claims have you *refuted*? You've disagreed with a bunch of them. But refutation requires reasoned argument, and your posts are becoming increasingly choppy.

Whether you are a Greek expert is up in the air, but you are definitely a politician! I would expect you to say nothing less. But it is following a pattern.

- Strawman arguments
- ignoring questions asked of you
- Using your opinions as the standard of right and wrong
- Declaring the glories of yourself assessed victory
- Not providing a response to the rebuttals
- Sometimes addressing points.

Personally, I think that the last item is the most important but why you increasingly use the first 4 is something known only to yourself. If you are unable or unwilling to carry on the discussion, that is fine. It does not bother me one way or the other.

You certainly didn't *refute* anything I said about James 2. You got the Greek wrong.

So far that is just your claim. And it appears that you have no rebuttal to anything other than to simply claim you are right and those who disagree are wrong.

'nuff said.

[Tj3]

Wow! Offensive. People who are paralyzed can do all sorts of things. Here's one thing they can do: They can PRAY. (FYI, prayer is a work, and ergon.)

Prayer is a work, eh? So tell me, how much prayer is necessary in addition to receiving Christ in order to be saved.

And, it appears that you are saying that the prayers of the unsaved are as effective as the prayers of the saved because if prayer (work) is essential for salvation, then it must be done before the person is saved.

But then we have that scripture that says:

Rom 8:8-9
8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
NKJV

So how do you conclude that works before we are saved are pleasing to God?

[Tj3]

Akoue,
Again I agree with you.
The truth MUST be told until all understand that "faith only" and "Scripture only" are heresies.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wow. It amazes me the people that you just declared heretics. Including the Apostle Paul, and at least doctor of your denomination.

[Akoue]

Then either you don't know understand my views or Reformed theology or both.


John 6:27-31
28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." 30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?
NKJV

We are to believe in God, and the fact that we believe is a work of God.

You've gone and misunderstood the Gospel again. The question they asked was how "can we accomplish the works of God" (ta arga tou theou). What can we do in order to perform the works that God would have us perform?

Now the answer: Believe in the one he sent and you are doing "the work of God" (ton ergon tou theou). This is a work, an ergon. But of whom?

Your reading has "the works of God" (ta erga tou theou) referring in v.28 to something *we* do and referring v.29 to something *God* does. In other words, you've got the meaning of the same phrase being switched from one verse to the next. This simply isn't plausible.

[Tj3]

You've gone and misunderstood the Gospel again. The question they asked was how "can we accomplish the works of God" (ta arga tou theou). What can we do in order to perform the works that God would have us perform?

Now the answer: Believe in the one he sent and you are doing "the work of God" (ton ergon tou theou). This is a work, an ergon. But of whom?

Your reading has "the works of God" (ta erga tou theou) referring in v.28 to something *we* do and referring v.29 to something *God* does. In other words, you've got the meaning of the same phrase being switched from one verse to the next. This simply isn't plausible.

Really? I am still waiting for someone to show me where "works" is in the gospel (did Paul miss it when he gave the gospel in Corinthians?).

I missed nothing. The fact that we believe IS a work of God.

John 6:44-45
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV

[Akoue]

Wait, so do you mean to sugges that nowhere in the Gospel do we find talk of ta erga? Isn't right there, in Jn.6?

Oh, and on Jn.6;44-5: yeah, grace is required. Having I been saying that all along?

[arcura]

Akoue,
Have you noticed that when some are obviously losing an discussion they accuse the opponent of attacking them.
Also notice that I was just falsely accused of calling the apostle Pauj a heretic.
That is an out and out false statement but another tactic used by those who have no other avenue when losing a discussion.
It is hilarious the tactics they use in trying to gain the ground they lost.
It just digs a deeper hole for them to fall into.
Peace and kindness,
Ftred