Grace Alone Heresy

[cksalmon]

We don't seem to be moving forward, here. I'm not sure how much more can be accomplished, but I would respond to a couple of things here before bowing out.

You wrote:

When in doubt about the Greek, go with Luther, who, along with Melanchthon, was one of the greatest Greek scholars of his or any other time: "wozu sie auch bestimmt sind."

I can think of no good reason whatsoever to go to Luther's German translation in order to understand what was intended in the Greek. That's backwards. Since the Greek is extant, one should interrogate the Greek as to intent.

The KJV plainly doesn't require the harsh deterministic Calvinist TULIP reading . . . and neither does the German of Luther . . . or the Greek, for which I'll take Luther's word every time . . . no offense intended.

Since you consider Luther to be "one of the greatest Greek scholars of his or any other time," and, as you state, you'll "take Luther's word every time" (apparently you think Luther's translation militates against "the harsh deterministic Calvinist TULIP reading"), I wonder if you've yet digested Luther's incredibly powerful De Servo Arbitrio.

Your reference to Luther strikes me as quite ironic. In that monumental work--the English title: "On the Enslaved Will" (or, "The Bondage of the Will")--(by one you, professedly, consider to be one of the greatest Greek scholars of his or any time), Luther makes a devastating, relentless, scripturally-drenched case against the very shibboleth of "human agency" you're so keen to defend.

De Servo Arbitrio is a foundational Reformation document. If you truly admire Luther to the degree you've indicated above, you may want to give it a read.

For example, in that work, Luther utterly destroys the supposition that "whether [God] knows how we'll choose is quite irrelevant as far as our moral choices go."

Sounds like you and he have a lot to talk about.

[Bernard Gui]

Your reference to Luther strikes me as quite ironic. In that monumental work--the English title: "On the Enslaved Will" (or, "The Bondage of the Will")--(by one you, professedly, consider to be one of the greatest Greek scholars of his or any time), Luther makes a devastating, relentless, scripturally-drenched case against the very shibboleth of "human agency" you're so keen to defend.

De Servo Arbitrio is a foundational Reformation document. If you truly admire Luther to the degree you've indicated above, you may want to give it a read.

For example, in that work, Luther utterly destroys the supposition that "whether [God] knows how we'll choose is quite irrelevant as far as our moral choices go."

Just read an abridged version. One can admire Luther without agreeing with him.

Bernard

[cksalmon]

Just read an abridged version. One can admire Luther without agreeing with him.

Bernard

As books go, it's not a long one. I didn't know there was "an abridged version," but perhaps there indeed is.

In light of this

...Luther, who, along with Melanchthon, was one of the greatest Greek scholars of his or any other time...

Melanchthon's work "On Theological Questions" may be of interest to USU.

In typically hyperbolic fashion, Luther gushed (in Bondage): "t seems even superfluous to reply to these your arguments, which have been indeed often refuted by me; but trodden down, and trampled under foot, by the incontrovertible Book of Philip Melancthon 'Concerning Theological Questions:' a book, in my judgment, worthy not only of being immortalized, but of being included in the ecclesiastical canon: in comparison of which, your Book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile, that I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash...."

Of course, Melanchthon begins his work on theological controversies, the answers to which separated the burgeoning Reformation movement from Roman Catholicism, by refuting the notion of an autonomous "free will" in man, or "human agency," as some have it. That's what Luther's referring to in the above.

So, it strikes me as odd that one would refer to Luther and Melanchthon as masterful Greek scholars of whatever period one might be inclined to consider, cite Luther's translation of 1 Pet 2.8 as somehow militating against so-called Calvinism, but not mention the fact that both Luther and Melanchthon took pains to write and publish refutations of the very notion of "human agency" that the citation of Luther's translation is, apparently, meant to commend (said refutations being based, in part, of course, on their careful study of the New Testament itself).

For me, doesn't compute. Perhaps USU is just not aware of the theological conclusions to which Luther and Melanchthon's superior scholarship led them.

Edit: correct changed to commend.

[Bernard Gui]

In typically hyperbolic fashion, Luther gushed (in Bondage): "t seems even superfluous to reply to these your arguments, which have been indeed often refuted by me; but trodden down, and trampled under foot, by the incontrovertible Book of Philip Melancthon 'Concerning Theological Questions:' a book, in my judgment, worthy not only of being immortalized, but of being included in the ecclesiastical canon: in comparison of which, your Book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile, that I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash...."

I might have to rethink that admiration bit...

Bernard

[coolrok7]

Define "we."

We here see all the time Evies coming here, telling us our works d@mn us, and saying that only the faithful declaration of belief in G-d and His Messiah are necessary for salvation . . . going so far as to say that baptism, being a work, is antithetical to solafid salvation.

Bottom line? I don't think it's useful for cr7 to claim anything for so virulently anti-vertical a crew as Protestants. He can only make claims for his particular flavor . . . and probably not even those.

Unless, of course, he can demonstrate differently.

USU "Delighted to be proven mistaken" 78

I personally don

[Zakuska]

These things I have, written to you who believe in the, name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.

[Flyonthewall]

It sounds like "a response to faith" or "an act of obedience" is not done of our own free will, but is a gift from God, and therefore, an individual cannot be held responsible for any act of obdience. In this way, the things we do can only condemn us, and never, ever, ever be accounted to us for righteousness, as we did not do them.

This sounds like "the devil made me do it" in reverse.

[coolrok7]

It seems to me that you missed out on something very important that John taught just a few pages earlier...

I didn't miss anything as I can't address every issue that relates to the point under discussion ("Grace Alone Heresy"). Faith is a gift (our hearts are purified when we respond to the Gospel just as the early Christians did both Jews and Gentiles) as well so it is not a work but brings about

[Zakuska]

I didn't miss anything as I can't address every issue that relates to the point under discussion ("Grace Alone Heresy"). Faith is a gift (our hearts are purified when we respond to the Gospel just as the early Christians did both Jews and Gentiles) as well so it is not a work but brings about