Jesus died for the sins of the world

[1689Dave]

You completely misunderstand Luther.

Luther was not saying that salvation was because we were obedient (as in good little boys and girls). Nothing above is written in those terms. He believed that the Holy Spirit brings us to the knowledge of our sins and by His grace through faith we receive salvation. It comes not from ourselves or our doing at all.

Have you ever read Luther's "Bondage of the will"?

 

[Albion]

= salvation by works.

Another mistaken assumption.

If Christ died for all, then all are made eligible to be saved. HOW they accomplish this is a matter for further discussion.

There are some churches which do say that we are saved, then, by obedience and the performance of good works ALONG WITH FAITH. Others, however, believe that it is Faith Alone that is the means by which the person appropriates the work of Christ on the Cross and so is saved eternally. There are none which teach that we are saved by Works without Faith, although several recent Popes of the RCC have offered their personal opinion that it's possible.

In any case, Martin Luther certainly did not believe or teach that we are saved by our own works.

 

[1689Dave]

Another mistaken assumption.

If Christ died for all, then all are made eligible to be saved. HOW they accomplish this is a matter for further discussion.

There are some churches which do say that we are saved, then, by obedience and the performance of good works ALONG WITH FAITH. Others, however, believe that it is Faith Alone that is the means by which the person appropriates the work of Christ on the Cross and so is saved eternally. There are none which teach that we are saved by Works without Faith, although several recent Popes of the RCC have offered their personal opinion that it's possible.

In any case, Martin Luther certainly did not believe or teach that we are saved by our own works.

This = salvation by works.

 

[Albion]

Luther said that only when you know you are helplessly lost will you look to Christ to save you.

True or not, that isn't a response to what Lamb just explained to you.

Even if we were to agree that it's necessary for the person to "look to Christ," what you are talking about is Faith, but then we would also have to address the question "HOW does that person COME to have that urge or motivation?"

It cannot be something that he puzzled out on his own, and if instead it's because God instilled something in him, we're back to talking about Faith and not Works.

 

[1689Dave]

Even if that were true, it isn't a response to what Lamb just explained to you.

Even if we were to agree that it's necessary for the person to "look to Christ," what you are talking about is Faith, but then we would also have to address the question "HOW does that person COME to have that urge or motivation?"

It cannot be something that he puzzled out on his own, and if instead it's because God instilled something in him, we're back to talking about Faith and not Works.

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit you must have before you can believe. So you don't really believe until after God saves you. In that case, it proves Jesus paid for your sins. Your choosing to believe only proves you don't believe in truth or you would not need to choose.

 

[Albion]

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit you must have before you can believe.

Okay.

So you don't really believe until after God saves you.

Until after the Holy Spirit makes belief possible, you mean.

In that case, it proves Jesus paid for your sins.

I think we all agree there.

Your choosing to believe only proves you don't believe in truth or you would not need to choose.

Leaving your guesswork of what other people believe aside for the moment, isn't all of this what I just explained to you in post #104? Yes it is. And yet you posted that it amounts to "salvation by works."

And Luther did not say that Works play any part in it.

 

[1689Dave]

More Luther:

Sect. 164.—I OMIT to bring forward that truly Achillean Scripture of mine, which the Diatribe proudly passes by untouched—I mean, that which Paul teaches, Rom. vii. and Gal. v.,

that there is in the saints, and in the godly, so powerful a warfare between the spirit and the flesh, that they cannot do what they would. From this warfare I argue thus:—If the nature of man be so evil, even in those who are born again of the Spirit, that it does not only not endeavour after good, but is even averse to, and militates against good, how should it endeavour after good in those who are not born again of the Spirit, and who are still in the "old man," and serve under Satan?

Nor does Paul there speak of the ’grosser affections’ only, (by means of which, as a common scape-gap, the Diatribe is accustomed to get out of the way of all the Scriptures,) but he enumerates among the works of the flesh heresy, idolatry, contentions, divisions, &c.; which he describes as reigning in those most exalted faculties; that is, in the reason and the will.

If therefore, flesh with these affections war against the Spirit in the saints, much more will it war against God in the ungodly, and in "Free-will." Hence, Rom. viii. 7, he calls it "enmity against God."—I should like, I say, to see this argument of mine overturned, and "Free-will" defended against it.



Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will.

 

[Lamb]

Have you ever read Luther's "Bondage of the will"?

I HAVE!! That's why I insist you misunderstand Luther.

The bondage of the will shows that our will is bound to sin. We can't do anything to save ourselves.

 

[1689Dave]

I HAVE!! That's why I insist you misunderstand Luther.

The bondage of the will shows that our will is bound to sin. We can't do anything to save ourselves.

I HAVE!! That's why I insist you misunderstand Luther.

The bondage of the will shows that our will is bound to sin. We can't do anything to save ourselves.

I don't think you can refute him, the Catholics could not. Let's put it this way. Do you believe in free will salvation?

 

[Lamb]

More Luther:

Sect. 164.—I OMIT to bring forward that truly Achillean Scripture of mine, which the Diatribe proudly passes by untouched—I mean, that which Paul teaches, Rom. vii. and Gal. v.,

that there is in the saints, and in the godly, so powerful a warfare between the spirit and the flesh, that they cannot do what they would. From this warfare I argue thus:—If the nature of man be so evil, even in those who are born again of the Spirit, that it does not only not endeavour after good, but is even averse to, and militates against good, how should it endeavour after good in those who are not born again of the Spirit, and who are still in the "old man," and serve under Satan?

Nor does Paul there speak of the ’grosser affections’ only, (by means of which, as a common scape-gap, the Diatribe is accustomed to get out of the way of all the Scriptures,) but he enumerates among the works of the flesh heresy, idolatry, contentions, divisions, &c.; which he describes as reigning in those most exalted faculties; that is, in the reason and the will.

If therefore, flesh with these affections war against the Spirit in the saints, much more will it war against God in the ungodly, and in "Free-will." Hence, Rom. viii. 7, he calls it "enmity against God."—I should like, I say, to see this argument of mine overturned, and "Free-will" defended against it.



Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will.

The sentence immediately following this is as thus:

As to myself, I openly confess, that I should not wish "Free-will" to be granted me, even if it could be so, nor anything else to be left in my own hands, whereby I might endeavour something towards my own salvation.

 

[Lamb]

I don't think you can refute him, the Catholics could not. Let's put it this way. Do you believe in free will salvation?

We do not have free will in regards to salvation and that's the point of Bondage of the Will!

 

[1689Dave]

The sentence immediately following this is as thus:

As to myself, I openly confess, that I should not wish "Free-will" to be granted me, even if it could be so, nor anything else to be left in my own hands, whereby I might endeavour something towards my own salvation.

So? Do you think you saved yourself using your free will?

 

[1689Dave]

We do not have free will in regards to salvation and that's the point of Bondage of the Will!

So what saves you when most perish?

 

[1689Dave]

God promised Abraham salvation of the whole world. That is Jews and Gentiles. So in this case the whole world is not each and every person, but the elect who live in the whole world. Just as most of Isreal was not saved, except a small remnant of elect. Also, consider the New World where all believers are saved in the second coming.

 

[Albion]

So? Do you think you saved yourself using your free will?

How many times does Lamb have to answer that question in the negative for you to accept her answer??

 

[Josiah]

Universal atonement = salvation by works. Limited atonement = salvation by grace. This is how it pans out.

Absurd.

Universal atonement simply means that Jesus died for all (thus you know He died for you). I believe this is well supported by Scripture, whereas the opinion of a tiny number of radical Calvinists that Jesus died ONLY for a few ("Limited Atonement") is not found anywhere in Scripture (and means no one can know if Jesus died for them).

Salvation by works means that our justification is the result of what each unregenerate person does for themselves, either wholly or partly. I believe this is not biblical.



.

 

[1689Dave]

How many times does Lamb have to answer that question in the negative for you to accept her answer??

I'm proving that universal atonement = salvation by works. Prove that it is not.

 

[Albion]

God promised Abraham salvation of the whole world.

We've covered that. It's the opportunity to be saved that has been made available to mankind, not a promise that every human WILL BE saved.

 

[1689Dave]

Absurd.

Universal atonement simply means that Jesus died for all (thus you know He died for you). I believe this is well supported by Scripture, whereas the opinion of a tiny number of radical Calvinists that Jesus died ONLY for a few is not found anywhere in Scripture (and means no one can know if Jesus died for them).

Salvation by works means that our justification is the result of what each unregenerate person does for themselves, either wholly or partly. I believe this is not biblical.



.

This ends in salvation by works. Try to prove it does not.

 

[1689Dave]

We've covered that. It's the opportunity to be saved that has been made available to mankind, not a promise that every human WILL BE saved.

Opportunity to save yourself by works.