Love One Another and the Cross

[shazeep]

well, i allowed as how my answers don't rep the whole picture, but really i was trying to be generous; i think the context is pretty clear by the wording in both of these cases. Are there some hairs to be split, deciphering whose sins are being remitted? PErhaps, but other Scripture seems to indicate the context that you would not prefer, it seems to me (although i would not argue against your good deed covering another's sin, either)

... One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD,
And He will repay him for his good deed. ...

... They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable
and disobedient and worthless for any good deed. ...

[shazeep]

i think if/when good deeds are seen as the product, the fruit, and not the means to the salvational end, although nonetheless vital proof, this becomes clearer as not salvation by works.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Quote:
you-"What makes us righteous?"
me-"Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous."
you-That does not explain WHAT MAKES US righteous.

but this one you just lose me on. I know it is a hard thing to admit; yet there it is, in Scripture, not contextually unclear at all!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

but this one you just lose me on. I know it is a hard thing to admit; yet there it is, in Scripture, not contextually unclear at all!

I see no lack of clarity in the verse.

Explain in detail what it is saying in your mind. You sound like Bro. LeDeay when he says the scripture needs no explanation. Are saying it means doing righteousness makes one righteous as a cause and effect? Please answer directly.

The verse is actually saying one who has been made righteous will commence from that point and commit righteous deeds. It;'s not a cause and effect statement. Doing righteousness does not cause one to be righteous. That's the cart before the horse. One will do righteous things if one is already made righteous. But the issue is what actually makes us righteous by way of being the cause?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

... One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD,
And He will repay him for his good deed. ...

Repay him with righteousness?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i think if/when good deeds are seen as the product, the fruit, and not the means to the salvational end, although nonetheless vital proof, this becomes clearer as not salvation by works.

Amen! But what is the means to the salvational end? Who's work makes us righteous before we can do any righteous deeds as a result?

I agree vital proof is what, "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous," is saying. I've said that all along. You did not catch that?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I see no lack of clarity in the verse.

Explain in detail what it is saying in your mind. You sound like Bro. LeDeay when he says the scripture needs no explanation. Are saying it means doing righteousness makes one righteous as a cause and effect? Please answer directly.

The verse is actually saying one who has been made righteous will commence from that point and commit righteous deeds. It;'s not a cause and effect statement. Doing righteousness does not cause one to be righteous. That's the cart before the horse. One will do righteous things if one is already made righteous. But the issue is what actually makes us righteous by way of being the cause?

well, these are your interpretations, and i admit that i held them for years. Yet the verse could be interpreted as "doing righteousness causes one to be righteous," especially when other Scripture, which has been belabored at this point, is considered.

You might consider that we labor under a filter in reading Scripture, that being the OP interpretation that we were raised with. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with those; but we live in a different world from Azusa St.

So my direct answer would be
"Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous." and you should interpret that as you see fit.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, these are your interpretations, and i admit that i held them for years.

Well, let's discuss them.

Yet the verse could be interpreted as "doing righteousness causes one to be righteous," especially when other Scripture, which has been belabored at this point, is considered.

How is that not salvation by works? How is that not legalism? You just told me earlier today that righteous deeds are vital proofs of righteousness, and are not the means to salvational end. I thought, well, maybe you do believe in salvation by grace. Now you seem to be saying exactly the opposite. Which is it?

You might consider that we labor under a filter in reading Scripture, that being the OP interpretation that we were raised with. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with those; but we live in a different world from Azusa St.

I was a legalist at one point. The bible corrected me. The Bible, please note. Now, again, how is your theology not salvation by works?

So my direct answer would be
"Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous." and you should interpret that as you see fit.

You can't actually interpret a verse here, can you? And here I thought we were actually getting somewhere.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Repay him with righteousness?

i have no idea, really; ostensibly some just recompense from God. If you are asking me if one instance of graciousness to a poor man would constitute "salvation," i would say that that is a good question, and is possibly indicative of our poor comprehension of what salvation even is; but it seems certainly a better direction than some posturing down front from fear of hell.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i have no idea, really; ostensibly some just recompense from God. If you are asking me if one instance of graciousness to a poor man would constitute "salvation," i would say that that is a good question, and is possibly indicative of our poor comprehension of what salvation even is; but it seems certainly a better direction than some posturing down front from fear of hell.

You are missing the point. I am trying to see what you believe is the absolute essential means of making us righteous before we get a chance to perform a righteous deed. If that makes no sense to you, as though deeds must be performed FIRST, then that betrays a salvation by works theology.

This will determine if you propose salvation by works or not.