So if we do absolutely nothing essentially what you're saying is that some of us are saved
What I'm saying is that Jesus is the Savior and not self. So, if one is saved - Jesus supplied that, self didn't. I think Scripture confirms this.
IF justification is a matter of the Law (and not Gospel).... if it is a matter of a stern COMMAND that God gives and our good work in obeying and doing it right.... then justification is a matter of Law, obedience, our good work: it's a reward for having kept a Law. And I thin all that is clearly 100% contrary to Scripture.
I do NOT accept that that the actual Savior... the one actually responsible for our justification... is self, because self obeyed God either by the Arminianist spin (obedent good work in choosing Him, ripping salvation out of His hand, dedication one's life to Jesus) or by the (at times) Catholic spin (obedient good work of love, service, ministry and becoming - eventually if only in Purgatory - Christ like). In both cases, Jesus is not the Savior, self is. Jesus MAY have some OTHER role ( perhaps the possibility maker, perhaps the helper, perhaps the Offerer, perhaps the Teacher/Example) but not the Savior. Self has self to thank for heaven. I reject that. I think Scripture does too.
I beleive that Jesus is the Savior. Jesus - not me. THE - not partial, insufficient, inadequate, failing. SAVIOR - not Offerer, not Helper, not Possibility-Maker, not Inspiration. I believe that God is the Author and GIVER of life, just as Scripture says, just as the Nicene Creed says, just as the Ecumenical Council of Orange declared. No dead person gives self life. God creates and gives life.
and there's nothing we can do to determine whether or not we are saved?
We can easily determine if we are saved: Faith.
Can we save ourselves (rendering Jesus a bad joke? Rendering the Chief Article of the Christian Faith a lie? Meaning Jesus isn't the one who saves at all but rather self saves self by obeying the Law?)? No. If we could save ourselves, then Jesus died in vain as Paul declares.
I don't see how requiring us to accept something in any way diminishes the work of Jesus on the cross.
Well, it means it doesn't save. It means that Jesus isn't the Savior. And it means the Gospel is wrong and has nothing to do with anything because it's all Law - our DOING in active obedience what the Law requires, that justification is the reward for our adequately performing the good work that saves. Jesus MAY have some other role other than Savior, perhaps..... maybe he's the Offerer (from whose hand we are to rip justification - and thus save self) or perhaps the Helper (we need a bit of help from a friend but it's still our obedience to the Law, our good work) or perhaps the Possibility-Maker ("Jesus opens the gate to heaven but you get through it by your own good works in obedience to the Law) or maybe just a Teacher/Inspiration (we just need a good model) but He's not a Savior of anything or anyone ever - certainly not THE Savior.
THEY just NEED to TAKE the active step .... they DID .... they had to do.....
emphasis and editing not original
Then they are absolutely responsible for it. The whole reason why they have no financial problems is because they did something (as you admit). You stressed. Pure Law. Pure works-righteousness. Self says to self, "I solved all my financial problems because I did.... I did.... I did.... I did..... I did..... You state 'someone else did all the work" but in your analogy, the whole entire enchilda is dependent upon what you stress SELF must DO for SELF.
Let me use my analogy. I was born on January 23, 1988 (my birthday was missed at CH, boohoo.... j/k). LIFE was given to me then (well, I'd say 9 months before that but let's move on). I didn't "take" life..... I didn't rip it from the hands of God.... I didn't decide it or will it or choose it. Nor could I because I wasn't alive (EXACTLY as the Bible states are all those who are unregenerate, not born again, not justified). God GAVE it to me - and I was alive. Nothing synergistic about it, God is the Author and Giver of life. That's what the Ecumenical Council of Orange and the Nicene Creed is states about spiritual life. Do I know HOW God does that? No (nor do I need to). Do I know WHY my parents had 3 kids and not 33? No (nor do I need to). Now, does the Bible say that God is the Author and Giver of Non-Life? No. Does God tell us why only some receive this gift? No. Can two 16th Century bloats thus tell God why He didn't save all cuz they are smarter than God and the Correctors of God and the ones to rescue God from being incomplete and not answering all our questions? No.
..... someone ELSE did ALL the work....
Not in your analogy, the active step self does. Five times you stressed what self must DO.... and if self DOES then all is accomplished, if self doesn't DO then nothing is accomplished..... the whole anology hinges on self.
I'm really not sure that make any sense.
Okay with me. My concern is to stand with God's Word and wisdom, not with what might "make sense" to someone. If I went with the "make sense" rubric, I'd be an agnostic. And I'd certainly reject the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, Inspiration of Scripture and on and on and on and on and on. I see nothing in Scripture that says "only accept what makes sense to you."
John 1:12 talks of how those who received (Jesus) received the right to become children of God". They received the right to become, not they became automatically.
.... they received Jesus, not they took Jesus. If my parents transfer money into my bank account, I receive it. If I take money out of their hand, I took it. If I grabbed it from my parents and deposited it in my account - then the reason I have it is what I did. But the verse says nothing about someone taking Jesus, it's about someone receiving Jesus.
If we accept total predestination we may end up with universalism
Perhaps you are confusing the Greek philosophy of Determinism or the concept of some hyper-Calvinists. I'm not. I think Calvins' theory on this is as wrong as Arminius'. Both in the 16th Century (for the first time in Christian history) decided to destroy the mystery.... appoint self to Correct God..... and created a (claimed) LOGICAL construction that appealed to their own puny, fallen, broken, sinful, largely ignorant brain yet clearly contradicted a bunch of Scriptures. I reject, friend, that if I disagree with Arminius I THEREFORE must swallow Greek Determinism and the radical conjectures of some of Calvins' followers. IMO, I'm just accepting Scripture.... not connecting dots that don't exist.....and leaving this were God chose to do so. And I think whether one abandons that in favor or Jakob Arminius OR John Calvin's theories, one may be a more "logical" construction but the Gospel as been destroyed, a LOT of Scriptures are contradicted.
Jesus is the Savior. You didn't not chose him but he choose you. If you are justified, it was GIVEN to you (direct deposit, lol). And you have Jesus to thank.
SOLA Gratia -
SOLUS Christus -
SOLA fide! SOLI
DEO Gloria!!!!! If you are heaven bound, there's ONE to thank because all the "DO" He did. If one is not, he has only self to blame. Can I resolve that and stick with Scripture? No. Can I therefore invent a theory that contradicts Scripture and quite likely destroys Christianity? No.
they were predestined to burn
... just because Arminius is wrong doesn't make the hyper-Calvinists and Greeks correct. What you said clearly contradicts Scripture.
- Josiah
.
