tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post8018615568079307897..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: Justified by Faith Alone, but not a Faith that is AloneRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-34545201065176240542011-09-16T21:32:08.464-04:002011-09-16T21:32:08.464-04:00Nick, I came across this quote by A. W. Pink which...Nick, I came across this quote by A. W. Pink which should hopefully clarify my statements:<br /><br />//At regeneration a “new nature” is imparted by God. But again we need to be closely on our guard lest we carnalize our conception of what is denoted by that expression. Much confusion has been caused through failure to recognize that it is a person, and not merely a “nature,” which is born of the Spirit: “ye must be born again” (John 3:7), not merely something in you must be; “he which is born of God” (I John 3:9). The same person who was spiritually dead—his whole being, alienated from God—is now made spiritually alive: his whole being, reconciled to God. This must be so, or otherwise there would be no preservation of the identity of the individual. It is the person, and not simply a nature which is born of God: “Of his own will begat he us” (James 1:18). It is a new birth of the individual himself, and not of something in him. The nature is never changed, but the person is—relatively, but not absolutely.//Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-66571086079714772162011-09-14T13:12:22.939-04:002011-09-14T13:12:22.939-04:00I appreciate the thoughts, Ken and natamllc.
You ...I appreciate the thoughts, Ken and natamllc.<br /><br />You too, Nick. You and several other RCs I've happened to meet online consistently challenge, and responses to these challenges can only be beneficial to my understanding. In this case, I suppose I would need to see a little more reasoning as to what you think is problematic; after all, Jesus wasn't born in original sin - nor did He ever sin - as we would agree, and yet I don't suppose you would consider this grounds against which the legitimacy of Christ's vicarious (if not penal) sacrifice could be questioned.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-29373235187095756102011-09-14T11:49:13.319-04:002011-09-14T11:49:13.319-04:00Ryan, excellent after thought of the debate! I cam...Ryan, excellent after thought of the debate! I came over here from TurretinFan's blog. <br /><br />I would mention two things. One, what we receive is a new nature. Two, I like it that you discuss backsliding in here with regards to it. The examples were edifying for me because I hadn't thought of it quite that clearly. Thanks.<br /><br />Peter, the Apostle, seemed to have given your after thought to the debate some thought, because he really focuses on it when we read this: 1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, <br />1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, <br />1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. <br /><br />Heading into today, with sufficient evils all around, Peter gives me that assurance that I have His Living Hope because of the Work of Righteousness He has done for me that secured the inheritance all God's Called Elected Saints inherit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-70834290103578085832011-09-14T09:10:09.088-04:002011-09-14T09:10:09.088-04:00Good article, Ryan! We differ slightly on the orde...Good article, Ryan! We differ slightly on the order of salvation, fully agree on the relation of faith to justification and works.<br /><br />Ken HamrickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-13154334259344870602011-09-14T01:59:12.579-04:002011-09-14T01:59:12.579-04:00You are right to point out the phrase "faith ...You are right to point out the phrase "faith alone but faith is never alone" has a valid, non-contradictory meaning. It rightly should be abandoned by Catholics. <br /><br />Simply understood: if one is setting the dinner table, a standard set is a knife, fork, and spoon. You never just set one utensil. But clearly only the spoon is used to eat soup, not the knife or fork. Thus, if soup is on the menu, it can be said "soup is eaten by the spoon alone, but a spoon is never alone - since a fork and knife are set at the table and used for other aspects of the meal (salvation).<br /><br />That said, I noticed many logical but none the less unbiblical claims you made, but I wont go there here. <br /><br />What I would like to bring up is your repeated use of the phrase "new nature," implying it's not the same nature a Christian has always had. Unless there are other ways you're using that, the straightforward reading is that a Christian was born with HumanNature#1 and upon regeneration gets a 'new nature', HumanNature#2. If so, then there's a problem, since there cannot be two human natures, nor did Jesus assume two human natures.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com