Not By Works

[Micaiah-imla]

Do you understand that we have the imputed righteousness of Christ Jesus?

Yes, but that was for the remission of sins past (Romans 3:25).

This imputation is not perpetual as you have asserted.

Hebrews 10:26 makes this crystal clear.

And please spare me the OSAS spin on that scripture.

 

[VCO]

I Hope you all noticed there is not a Seventh Day Adventist on board.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, but that was for the remission of sins past (Romans 3:25).

This imputation is not perpetual as you have asserted.

Hebrews 10:26 makes this crystal clear.

And please spare me the OSAS spin on that scripture.

if remission is ONLY for past sin. The next sin you commit is an eternal death verdict, there is no longer any hope.

You trying to excuse your sin and claiming it is not willfull does not help your case.

Remember, You claim you HAVE (present tense) no sin.. According to the word. you are decieved.

It would help for you to come out from being decieved. THEN you can understand Hebrews

 

[star]

Works:
Ephesians: 2:10 " For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them .

Ecclesiastes 12:14. “For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it is good or whether it is evil.”

Sinlessness:
1 John 2:1 "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One”
1 John:

 

[jaybo]

How convenient that you make void one verse by another.

By correcting your obviously misleading omission?

 

[DorothyMae]

King James I of England (VI Scotland) didn't ask for a paraphrase, or for paraphrasers, but for translation and translators. Here are the men of the AV1611:

A. The first Westminster Company: Genesis - 2nd Kings

1. Lancelot Andrews, 1555 - 1626: Dr. Lancelot Andrews was Master of Pembroke, 1589; prebendary at St. Paul’s; Dean of Westminster, 1601; Bishop of Chichester, 1605; Bishop of Ely, 1609; member of the Privy Council, 1609 and Bishop of Winchester,1618. Dr. Andrews was also the first person named in the “Order agreed upon for this Translation.”

a. “Once a year, at Easter, he used to pass a month with his parents. During this vacation, he would find a master, from whom he learned some language to which he was a stranger. In this way after a few years, he acquired most of the modern languages of Europe.”29

b. “He was not a man of ‘head knowledge’ only. He was a man of great practical preaching ability and an ardent opponent of Rome. His conspicuous talents soon gained him powerful patrons. Henry, Earl of Huntington, took him into the north of England, where he was the means of converting many Papists by his preaching and disputations.”30

c. “As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He was called the ‘star of preachers.’”31

d. “Many hours he spent each day in private and family devotions; and there were some who used to desire that ‘they might end their days in Bishop Andrews’ chapel.’ He was one in whom was proved the truth of Luther’s saying, that ‘to have prayed well, is to have studied well.’”32

e. “This worthy diocesan was much ‘given to hospitality,’ and especially to literary strangers. So bountiful was his cheer, that it used to be said, ‘My Lord of Winchester keeps Christmas all year ‘round.’”33

f. “But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character of a ‘right godly man,’ and a ‘prodigious student.’ One competent judge speaks of him as ‘that great gulf of learning’! It was also said, that ‘the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.’ A brave, old chronicler remarks, that such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as the Interpreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckridge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages.”34

2. John Overall, 1559 - 1619: Dr. Overall was; Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, 1596; Master of Cathrine Hall, 1598; Dean of St. Paul’s, 1601; Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, 1614; Bishop of Norwich, 1618 and a member of the Court of High Commission.

a. Dr. Overall was present at the hanging of the Jesuit Henry Garnet, mastermind of “the Gunpowder Plot” and tried to lead him to Christ.35 Garnet died unrepentant.

b. Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers which helped with the authentication of 1 John 5:7. This verse has a multitude of evidence among church fathers, though its manuscript evidence suffers from the attacks of Alexandria’s philosophers.

3. Hadrian Saravia, 1531 - 1613: Dr. Saravia was; professor of Divinity at Leyden, 1582; prebendary of Glouchester, 1595 and prebendary of Westminster in 1601. Dr. Hadrian Saravia was as evangelistic as he was scholarly.

a. McClure reports: “He was sent by Queen Elizabeth’s council as a sort of missionary to the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, where he was one of the first Protestant ministers; knowing, as he says of himself, in a letter, ‘which were the beginnings, and by what means and occasions the preaching of God’s Word was planted there.’ He labored there in a two-fold capacity, doing the work of an evangelist, and conducting a newly established school, called Elizabeth College.”36

b. In 1611 he published a treatise on Papal primacy against the Jesuit Gretser.

c. He was “educated in all kinds of literature in his younger days, especially several languages.”37

4. Richard Clarke, 15?? - 1634: Dr. Clarke had been fellow of Christ College, Cambridge; and was Vicar of Minster and Monkton, in the Isle of Thanet, at the time of the translation. He was one of the Six Preachers in the Cathedral of Canterbury. A volume of his sermons was published in folio, after his death, in 1637.

5. John Laifield, 15?? - 1617: Dr. John Laifield was; fellow of Trinity. He was the chaplain to the Earl of Cumberland during his voyage to Puerto Rico in 1598 and finally rector of St. Clement Danes’s, London in 1601.

a. Of him it was said: “That being skilled in architecture, his judgment was much relied on for the fabric of the tabernacle and temple.”38

6. Robert Tighe, 15?? - 1620: Dr. Robert Tighe, Archdeacon of Middlesex, and Vicar of All Hallows Barking, was known as “an excellent textuary and profound linguist; and therefore employed in the Translation of the Bible.”39

7. Francis Burleigh, 15?? - 16??: Vicar of Bishop’s Stortford.

8. Geoffry King, 15?? - 16??: Dr. King was fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, and succeeded Mr. Spalding as Regius Professor of Hebrew in that University. Dr. King was an ardent anti-papist.

9. Richard Thompson, 15?? - 1613: He was of Clare Hall, Cambridge.

10. William Bedwell, 1561 - 1632: Dr. William Bedwell was rector of St. Ethelburgh’s, Bishopsgate and later vicar of Tottenham High Cross, near London. Dr. Bedwell was one of the most remarkable scholars on the committee. He was famous as “an eminent Oriental scholar.” His epitaph mentions that he was “for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times.” He was considered the principal Arabic scholar of his time. His intellectual feats were monumental.

a. “He published in quarto an edition of the epistles of St. John in Arabic, with a Latin version, printed at the press of Raphelengius, at Antwerp, in 1612. He also left many Arabic manuscripts to the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes upon them, and a font of types of printing them. His fame for Arabic learning was so great, that when Erpenius, a most renowned Orientalist, resided in England in 1606, he was much indebted to Bedwell for direction in his studies.

To Bedwell, rather than to Erpenius, who commonly enjoys it, belongs the honor of being the first who considerably promoted and revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He was also tutor to another Orientalist of renown, Dr. Pococke.”40

b. “Some modern scholars have fancied, that we have an advantage in our times over the translators of King James’ day, by reason of the greater attention which is supposed to be paid at present to what are called the ‘cognate’ and ‘Shemitic’ languages, and especially the Arabic by which much light is thought to be reflected upon Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident, however, that Mr. Bedwell and others, among his fellow-laborers, were thoroughly conversant in this part of the broad field of sacred criticism.”41

c. “Dr. Bedwell also commenced a Persian dictionary, which is among Archbishop Laid’s manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodelian Library at Oxford. In 1615 he published his book, A Discovery of the Impostures of Mahomet and of the Koran. To this was annexed his Arabian Trudgeman.

d. “Dr. Bedwell had a fondness for mathematical studies. He invented a ruler for geometrical purposes, like that we call Gunther’s Scale, which went by the name ‘Bedwell’s Ruler’.

e. “After Bedwell’s death, the voluminous manuscripts of his lexicon were loaned to the University of Cambridge to aid the compilation of Dr. Castell’s colossal work, the Lexicon Heptaglotton.”42

They likely had such respect for the Word of God that a paraphrased wouldn’t have occurred to them.

Modern translations cannot even boast that the translators were even believers let alone men of such stature.

 

[VCO]

Yes, but that was for the remission of sins past (Romans 3:25).

This imputation is not perpetual as you have asserted.

Hebrews 10:26 makes this crystal clear.

And please spare me the OSAS spin on that scripture.

HOW MANY OF YOUR SINS WERE YET FUTURE, WHEN HE DIED ON THE CROSS FOR THEM.


Romans 5:1-2 (NASB)
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:17-18 (HCSB)
17 Since by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.


In my opinion, YOU ARE TEACHING DECEPTIVE LIES.

Romans 10:4 (HCSB)
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

 

[jaybo]

Enduring to the end for me means.....we are already saved once we become born again....the reason we will endure to the end is...because we have the power of the Holy Spirit in us,keeping us enduring to the end.

One way to enhance your understanding of what biblical passages meant is to ask yourself, "The audience that was listening to those words when Jesus spoke to them, how would they have understood the meaning of those words?"

That is what context means. The Jews that were hearing those words from Jesus, how would they have interpreted the meaning?[/QUOTE]

This is one of the most important posts I have ever read on this forum. People make so many, many errors by not understanding how the ancient peoples, to whom the Scriptures were written, understood them. Unfortunately, it is an undeniable handicap of all translations. Added to this dilemma is the need people have to use a translation that is centuries old, written in a form of their language that has been obsolete for centuries.

 

[DorothyMae]

Amen! Well said. I find it interesting that ALL false religions and cults (who label themselves as Christian) and teach salvation by works strongly oppose OSAS, which has always been a red flag for me.

Most cults have started with a personal revelation and not the Bible which I’ve heard from famous OSAS teachers as they struggled with their doubts. That’s always been a red flag for me. No one comes by OSAS from reading the Bible. A group or person has to tell you. The Bible gives warnings. OSAS smooths all doubts away.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

You trying to excuse your sin and claiming it is not willfull does not help your case.

No I am not.

I trying to refute error with scripture.

Are we to change scriptures into a lie because we in our flesh cannot comprehend the doctrine of ceasing from sin? (Romans 1:25).

We must be in the Spirit to understand the doctrine of sin cessation.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

HOW MANY OF YOUR SINS WERE YET FUTURE, WHEN HE DIED ON THE CROSS FOR THEM.

This is irrelevant.

Unbelievers sins were future as well and their sins will not be forgiven unless they repent and believe the gospel; not because their sins were future when Christ died and rose again.

Why do people repeat such ridiculous things from deceived teachers?

Your past sins are atoned for upon belief on that special event that took place in the past.

 

[DorothyMae]

Amen! Paul clearly stated in Philippians 2:12 that we work OUT our salvation and NOT work FOR our salvation. Salvation by works is not being taught here. The Greek verb rendered "work out" means "to continually work to bring something to completion or fruition." We do this by actively pursuing the process of "ongoing sanctification." It's typical for works-salvationists to confuse justification with ongoing sanctification. In verse 13, Paul goes on to say - "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."

When we "work out" at the gym, we exercise to develop our body that we already have and not in order to get a body. Farmers work out the land, not in order to get the land, but to develop the land they already have.

How do you actively pursue the process of sanctification? What does this look like?

 

[jaybo]

They likely had such respect for the Word of God that a paraphrased wouldn’t have occurred to them.

Modern translations cannot even boast that the translators were even believers let alone men of such stature.

This is nonsense!! The translators centuries ago used prior translations to guide them; they didn't start "from scratch".

I don't know what a "paraphrased" [your past tense word] is. "Paraphrase" [noun] means to express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity. That is EXACTLY what a good translation does!

Your statement that "Modern translations cannot even boast that the translators were even believers let alone men of such stature." shows either your lack of knowledge or your deliberate slander of modern translators -- both men and women.

 

[DorothyMae]

This is irrelevant.

Unbelievers sins were future as well and their sins will not be forgiven unless they repent and believe the gospel; not because their sins were future when Christ died and rose again.

Why do people repeat such ridiculous things from deceived teachers?

The teaching that promises all future sins are forgiven is popular for obvious reasons. One can sin as much as one wants. It’s a “get out of hell” free card that never expires no matter what evil one does. Look at the nasty posts at least sone of those who believe this post! None of their words matters in their theology.

 

[DorothyMae]

This is nonsense!! The translators centuries ago used prior translations to guide them; they didn't start "from scratch".

I don't know what a "paraphrased" [your past tense word] is. "Paraphrase" [noun] means to express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity. That is EXACTLY what a good translation does!

You don’t know what a paraphrase is. That’s not it. I’ve read a few. They change the meaning according to their prejudice.

Your statement that "Modern translations cannot even boast that the translators were even believers let alone men of such stature." shows either your lack of knowledge or your deliberate slander of modern translators -- both men and women.

Untrue. I know of some of them. There’s the famous lesbian who changed words to suit her preferences. I’ve read others too.

But do a detail listed of them and how their understanding in general made such outstanding contributions to the church if you think they had something beside a Hebrew or Greek education,

And translators today don’t use previous translations?? And there was a first English Bible translator who had no previous version, you know. Or didn’t you consider this?

 

[jaybo]

Yes, but that was for the remission of sins past (Romans 3:25).

This imputation is not perpetual as you have asserted.

Hebrews 10:26 makes this crystal clear.

And please spare me the OSAS spin on that scripture.

One of the serious problems made when interpreting Scripture is to take one single verse out of context to prove a predetermined opinion, especially one that is false.

FYI, here is the section of Hebrews you referred to in context... (emphases mine)

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Clearly and obviously this has absolutely nothing with Christians who follow the Holy Spirit who leads them into all truth. Do you actually know any believer that deliberately keeps on sinning after they have received the knowledge of the truth?

 

[jaybo]

You don’t know what a paraphrase is. That’s not it. I’ve read a few. They change the meaning according to their prejudice.

Untrue. I know of some of them. There’s the famous lesbian who changed words to suit her preferences. I’ve read others too.

But do a detail listed of them and how their understanding in general made such outstanding contributions to the church if you think they had something beside a Hebrew or Greek education,

And translators today don’t use previous translations?? And there was a first English Bible translator who had no previous version, you know. Or didn’t you consider this?

I don't consider what you write as worth considering since it is always full of myths and errors, a viewpoint shared by many on this forum.

1) You've actually read "a few" modern translations? Really? Which ones, and why do you consider them a paraphrase? Do you even understand the difference between a formal translation and a functional translation??

2) Do you actually know "the famous lesbian who changed words to suit her preferences"? Who is this one person (if she actually exists) who changed the words, and what translation did she create?

3) What does this actually mean? "But do a detail listed [sic] of them and how their understanding in general made such outstanding contributions to the church if you think they had something beside a Hebrew or Greek education,"

4) And this? "And translators today don’t use previous translations?? And there was a first English Bible translator who had no previous version, you know. Or didn’t you consider this?"

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Clearly and obviously this has absolutely nothing with Christians who follow the Holy Spirit who leads them into all truth.

Then why is it written in our book?

We know that unbelievers will end up in the lake of fire if they do not repent and believe the gospel.

But this scripture clearly states that if WE, WE, WE sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrifice for you. YOU, YOU, YOU have trampled under foot the Son of God and counted the blood of the covenant by which YOU, YOU, YOU were sanctified and unclean thing and YOU have done despite into the spirit of grace.

This scripture is for YOU the believer.

Stop resisting the truth.

It doesn’t say if THEY sin willfully; it says if WE sin willfully. Open your eyes man!

 

[DorothyMae]

One way to enhance your understanding of what biblical passages meant is to ask yourself, "The audience that was listening to those words when Jesus spoke to them, how would they have understood the meaning of those words?"

That is what context means. The Jews that were hearing those words from Jesus, how would they have interpreted the meaning?

The jewish Christians would have known that they had to remain believing and not abandon the faith. If the pleasures of the world or persecution arises where evil ones insist they abandon their commitment to Jesus or face death, they were not to love their lives even unto death. If they were ashamed of Jesus, he’d be ashamed of them. If they deny Him, He will deny them. And many gave their lives rather than assure themselves denying Christ doesn’t matter.

If the early church had known of OSAS, they’d all have escaped violent deaths and simply said whatever preserved their lives believing all future denials were already forgiven. No martyrs. No loving truth. Just say or do whatever so you survive.

But wait!! Isn’t that how OSASers explain that verse?? Just endure so you don’t die and when the end is over, you won’t die then either. Whatever lies it takes, just endure, er, that is, don’t die whatever you do.

 

[DorothyMae]

I don't consider what you write as worth considering since it is always full of myths and errors, a viewpoint shared by many on this forum.

1) You've actually read "a few" modern translations? Really? Which ones, and why do you consider them a paraphrase? Do you even understand the difference between a formal translation and a functional translation??

2) Do you actually know "the famous lesbian who changed words to suit her preferences"? Who is this one person (if she actually exists) who changed the words, and what translation did she create?

3) What does this actually mean? "But do a detail listed [sic] of them and how their understanding in general made such outstanding contributions to the church if you think they had something beside a Hebrew or Greek education,"

4) And this? "And translators today don’t use previous translations?? And there was a first English Bible translator who had no previous version, you know. Or didn’t you consider this?"

Why did you write such a long answer if you don’t consider my facts worth considering??

I notice you seem to know nothing about the translators of modern versions. Maybe that’s the real reason my post isn’t “worth” answering.