Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Thiscrosshurts]

If we do not define our terms, then when you use the word martyr, I'll be thinking apples but you will mean oranges, and we'll do a lot of talking at each other, but never understand each what the other is saying.

Yes,lets get off the merry go round and find something that actually goes somewhere.
"saved" is a term that is often used but rarely defined.
There have been various threads made trying to do that but they degrade to the usual arguments quickly.
Does saved mean not being thrown in hell or is it not living a defeated life.
Is it a combination of two or more elements or is it referring to something we have not yet considered.

Look at all the ways the term saved is used and see if they fit your version of saved.
Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
Does your version of saved work with this scripture?
Can someone be saved by proxy?
Acts 11:14
He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'
He does not say,may be or can be.

Luke 19:8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much."
Luke 19:9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
This man's doing's showed Jesus he believed the message and the messenger.
Jesus did not add further instructions as far as we know.

Acts 11:14
He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'
This makes it appear that the message itself is what saves.

Can we find a definition that fits all these(and more) examples?

 

[Spockrates]

I believe pretty much in line with what John Wesley believed:

3. "But do you believe we are sanctified by faith We know you believe that we are justified by faith; but do not you believe, and accordingly teach, that we are sanctified by our works" So it has been roundly and vehemently affirmed for these five-and-twenty years: but I have constantly declared just the contrary; and that in all manner of ways. I have continually testified in private and in public, that we are sanctified as well as justified by faith. And indeed the one of those great truths does exceedingly illustrate the other. Exactly as we are justified by faith, so are we sanctified by faith. Faith is the condition, and the only condition, of sanctification, exactly as it is of justification. It is the condition: none is sanctified but he that believes; with out faith no man is sanctified. And it is the only condition: this alone is sufficient for sanctification. Every one that believes is sanctified, whatever else he has or has not. In other words, no man is sanctified till he believes: every man when he believes is sanctified.​

and somewhat related as well, from the conclusion:

But you shall not be disappointed of your hope: it will come, and will not tarry. Look for it then every day, every hour, every moment! Why not this hour, this moment Certainly you may look for it now, if you believe it is by faith. And by this token you may surely know whether you seek it by faith or by works. If by works, you want something to be done first, before you are sanctified. You think, I must first be or do thus or thus. Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. If you seek it by faith, you may expect it as you are; and expect it now. It is of importance to observe, that there is an inseparable connection between these three points, --expect it by faith; expect it as you are; and expect it now! To deny one of them, is to deny them all; to allow one, is to allow them all. Do you believe we are sanctified by faith Be true then to your principle; and look for this blessing just as you are, neither better nor worse; as a poor sinner that has still nothing to pay, nothing to plead, but "Christ died." And if you look for it as you are, then expect it now. Stay for nothing: why should you Christ is ready; and He is all you want. He is waiting for you: He is at the door! Let your inmost soul cry out,​

All from Sermon #43, entitled, "The Scripture Way of Salvation", by John Wesley

This is the Good News which Jesus Christ wrought, and brought, for us.

Blessings,

Travis

Are you sure that faith is the only condition for being saved by grace?

 

[Dovegiven]

Yes,lets get off the merry go round and find something that actually goes somewhere.
"saved" is a term that is often used but rarely defined.
There have been various threads made trying to do that but they degrade to the usual arguments quickly.
Does saved mean not being thrown in hell or is it not living a defeated life.
Is it a combination of two or more elements or is it referring to something we have not yet considered.

Look at all the ways the term saved is used and see if they fit your version of saved.
Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
Does your version of saved work with this scripture?
Can someone be saved by proxy?
Acts 11:14
He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'
He does not say,may be or can be.

Luke 19:8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much."
Luke 19:9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
This man's doing's showed Jesus he believed the message and the messenger.
Jesus did not add further instructions as far as we know.

Acts 11:14
He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'
This makes it appear that the message itself is what saves.

Can we find a definition that fits all these(and more) examples?

 

[Spockrates]

I completed only 4 semester hours in Greek Philosophy, just enough to be able to know when it comes up in Christian ministry, and how to avoid it. Of course Socrates' students, in capturing his lessons on paper, had a huge effect upon Western philosophy, there should be a conscious separation between all philosophies and the gospel of Christ. So yes, we are pleasantly conversing by benefit of Socratic philosophy. That's a little like I would need to have a working knowledge of elements of conversation to minister in Kenya's society, which would involve their philosophy as a starting platform. But no matter where I might go, whatever philosophy I encounter will conflict with the word of God, which is not at all a philosophy of man.

Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing with me that the Socratic method is not a philosophy and so is something a Christian may use to help him discern truth?

In a nutshell, refusing to fear Zeus by inferring the addition of another god not under his control.

Sounds reasonable. I'd add that Socrates also suggested that there is a God wiser than all of the Greek gods, even wiser than Zeus. I'm sure you and I agree with him. He also taught this God was the source of all true wisdom, and any real wisdom men have comes from this God. I think you and I also agree with him. He also said this God did not give him any wisdom at all. It seems you do not doubt this, either, nor do I.

Where we disagree, it seems to me, is over my guess that God used Socrates to prepare the ancient Greeks to accept the idea that there is only one wise God, so that they might abandon polytheism and embrace Jesus Christ. Am I understanding the current state of our dialogue?

Their value of knowledge possessed through their polytheistic lineup of gods, some giving men evil knowledge, some good knowledge.
That conflicts with Father God who teaches men blessings of good, curses of evil, there being no acceptable piety in seeking good out of evil.

Do you mean Socrates believed men should not seek virtue? Or are you thinking some things Socrates thought were virtuous actually were sin?

Keep in mind when he used a word like "god" it wasn't a direct reference to God, else his defense of which god would have been the well known God of the Jews. Athens knew well of Israel in those days by then Israel in Babylonian exile, and the Jews knew of Greece. The Jews resisted their many gods for the one God, while Herodotus didn't mention them or their God. What the Jews believed was non sequitur to them.

Agreed. He believed in a God he knew nothing about. He did not know our God the way we do. He truly was lacking in wisdom. But despite this, his seeking the truth did lead him to some truth:

1. Men are not wise, since they frequently disagree with each other about what is true.

2. The gods are not wise, either since they also disagree about what is true.

3. There is a God who knows all truth.

4. Any truth we possess comes from this God.

Aren't these premises you and I share with him, even though we know he did not know our God?

I believe he did to his accusers.

Man is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Read Romans 3 so we can discuss Romans 3:21-27 (KJV)
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

But do you believe we are saved by grace through faith alone?

 

[Dovegiven]

Acts 11:14

He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'

This makes it appear that the message itself is what saves.

I suggest attending to the word "through" and "will" in light of Jesus' words in. Mark 13:12-13 (KJV)
12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.
13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

There's a significant condition linked to the finishing of salvation.

Consider also Mark 13:1-2 (KJV) 1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

It happened in 70AD, about 40 years later. Some of those stones have been restored, portions of the wall (not the Temple) left intact, but the persecution Jesus addressed is ongoing.

 

[Travis]

Are you sure that faith is the only condition for being saved by grace?

How do you read Wesley's words here? What does it seem to you that he is trying to say?

 

[Travis]

At least you believe it also requires faith But even Wesley did not believe in OSAS.

You are right. Neither Wesley nor I believe in OSAS. OSAS is a doctrine of men. We do both believe(d) in election though. And I do believe in eternal security. The fact that Wesley didn't believe in eternal security does not bother me much, because he at least understood that Justification and Sanctification are about Faith. This is the gospel. If someone doesn't understand that, then they don't really understand the gospel.

Blessings,

Travis

 

[Dovegiven]

I can read and keep up using Iphone, but not type quickly and accurately enough on it, my fingers too large and calloused, and keeping my work stuff separate from chatting for security purposes, so I'm always delayed in replies.

Dovegiven said: ↑
I completed only 4 semester hours in Greek Philosophy, just enough to be able to know when it comes up in Christian ministry, and how to avoid it. Of course Socrates' students, in capturing his lessons on paper, had a huge effect upon Western philosophy, there should be a conscious separation between all philosophies and the gospel of Christ. So yes, we are pleasantly conversing by benefit of Socratic philosophy. That's a little like I would need to have a working knowledge of elements of conversation to minister in Kenya's society, which would involve their philosophy as a starting platform. But no matter where I might go, whatever philosophy I encounter will conflict with the word of God, which is not at all a philosophy of man.

Sockrates said

Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing with me that the Socratic method is not a philosophy and so is something a Christian may use to help him discern truth?

Socrates is the epitome of human philosophy. Truth is not something man can define through philosophy, else Christ would be unnecessary. Jesus IS the truth. Truth is hidden from those seeking to obtain it by finding it through other doors like logic, reason, basically all forms of human philosophy. Submitting to faith allows the Holy Spirit of God to come alongside to reveal the truth amid the scriptures.

I said

In a nutshell, refusing to fear Zeus by inferring the addition of another god not under his control.

Sockrates said

Sounds reasonable. I'd add that Socrates also suggested that there is a God wiser than all of the Greek gods, even wiser than Zeus. I'm sure you and I agree with him. He also taught this God was the source of all true wisdom, and any real wisdom men have comes from this God. I think you and I also agree with him. He also said this God did not give him any wisdom at all. It seems you do not doubt this, either, nor do I.

Our God is the source of wisdom. If he knew Socrates was truly seeking his wisdom, he would have offered it. Also, that voice in him left speace to give credit to mythological gods and goddesses. The voice of God would have told him there are no other gods. God will not tell a man he is greater than the "other gods" since there are none that can speak, so there are none to help anyone.

Spockrates said

Where we disagree, it seems to me, is over my guess that God used Socrates to prepare the ancient Greeks to accept the idea that there is only one wise God, so that they might abandon polytheism and embrace Jesus Christ. Am I understanding the current state of our dialogue?

It took Paul, over 500 years later, to introduce the living God, the only real God, to those scholars of Athens at Mars Hill. Then it took several more centuries for Greece to accept Christ significantly. Socrates receives no credit for announcing Father God or Son Jesus. It was Paul, through the Holy Spirit, that broke through to give Paul some disciples from among their most educated men.

I said

Their value of knowledge possessed through their polytheistic lineup of gods, some giving men evil knowledge, some good knowledge.
That conflicts with Father God who teaches men blessings of good, curses of evil, there being no acceptable piety in seeking good out of evil.

Spockrates said

Do you mean Socrates believed men should not seek virtue? Or are you thinking some things Socrates thought were virtuous actually were sin?

He taught there was a reasonable balance between what men considered to be good and evil, that one must evaluate the benefit of good versus evil case by case. There then might be a benefit of pursuing evil if the benefit outweighed the good choice, thereby fulfilling a "pious'" state. He is not on record as taking the expected religiously "good" pious path all the time, irrespective of what their god Zeus might think.

I said

Keep in mind when he used a word like "god" it wasn't a direct reference to God, else his defense of which god would have been the well known God of the Jews. Athens knew well of Israel in those days by then Israel in Babylonian exile, and the Jews knew of Greece. The Jews resisted their many gods for the one God, while Herodotus didn't mention them or their God. What the Jews believed was non sequitur to them.

Socrates said

Agreed. He believed in a God he knew nothing about. He did not know our God the way we do. He truly was lacking in wisdom. But despite this, his seeking the truth did lead him to some truth:
1. Men are not wise, since they frequently disagree with each other about what is true.
2. The gods are not wise, either since they also disagree about what is true.
3. There is a God who knows all truth.
4. Any truth we possess comes from this God.
Aren't these premises you and I share with him, even though we know he did not know our God?

To 1. None are wise without the wisdom of God.
To 2. There are no other gods.
To 3. The one living God knows all, wants men to know.
To 4. Truth only comes from the living God, the Father God, spoken by God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
To the last sentence I must say "No". You admitted "He also said this God did not give him any wisdom at all."
Proverbs alone proves Socrates totally missed the point concerning wisdom from God. Beginning with that wisdom he would
have had access to safe knowledge, and understanding that would have confounded his enemies.

I said

Man is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Read Romans 3 so we can discuss Romans 3:21-27 (KJV)
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
But do you believe we are saved by grace through faith alone?

 

[Dovegiven]

You are right. Neither Wesley nor I believe in OSAS. OSAS is a doctrine of men. We do both believe(d) in election though. And I do believe in eternal security. The fact that Wesley didn't believe in eternal security does not bother me much, because he at least understood that Justification and Sanctification are about Faith. This is the gospel. If someone doesn't understand that, then they don't really understand the gospel.

Blessings,

Travis

To stir the waters....James 2:23-25 (KJV)
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

 

[Spockrates]

How do you read Wesley's words here? What does it seem to you that he is trying to say?

Wesley does appear to say it is through faith alone. You said you pretty much agreed with what he wrote, which might mean some of what he wrote you don't agree with. Just wondering if faith alone is one of those things.

 

[B-A-C]

You are right. Neither Wesley nor I believe in OSAS. OSAS is a doctrine of men. We do both believe(d) in election though. And I do believe in eternal security. The fact that Wesley didn't believe in eternal security does not bother me much, because he at least understood that Justification and Sanctification are about Faith. This is the gospel. If someone doesn't understand that, then they don't really understand the gospel.

Blessings,

Travis

Just curious.. what do you consider to be different between OSAS and "eternal security"?

 

[Travis]

Wesley does appear to say it is through faith alone. You said you pretty much agreed with what he wrote, which might mean some of what he wrote you don't agree with. Just wondering if faith alone is one of those things.

In the sense and direction that Wesley was talking about the subject, yes I believe it is all about faith. I agree with him on that.

 

[Travis]

Just curious.. what do you consider to be different between OSAS and "eternal security"?

People who believe in OSAS almost exclusively believe that if at one time in your life you prayed a prayer and asked Jesus to come into your heart, that you were automatically saved at that instance, and no matter whatever happens the rest of your life, you are going to heaven when you die.

Eternal Security, to me, is that if Jesus truly began a good work in you, that you were truly born again, born from above, born of the Spirit of God, that he will as a loving Father keep you sealed unto the day of redemption. If needs be, that means cutting your life short so that you won't end up condemning yourself. In the doctrine of eternal security there is room for someone who looks just like wheat to one day prove to have been a tare the whole while. Judas comes to mind. Eternal security never gives unbelievers hope of salvation, whereas OSAS can and does do so.

OSAS does not have room for tares that look like wheat, and would allow unregenerate persons to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, if it were in fact a correct doctrine.

There are a number of other differences, this is but one small facet of the difference between the two.

Blessings,

Travis

 

[Dovegiven]

People who believe in OSAS almost exclusively believe that if at one time in your life you prayed a prayer and asked Jesus to come into your heart, that you were automatically saved at that instance, and no matter whatever happens the rest of your life, you are going to heaven when you die.

Eternal Security, to me, is that if Jesus truly began a good work in you, that you were truly born again, born from above, born of the Spirit of God, that he will as a loving Father keep you sealed unto the day of redemption. If needs be, that means cutting your life short so that you won't end up condemning yourself. In the doctrine of eternal security there is room for someone who looks just like wheat to one day prove to have been a tare the whole while. Judas comes to mind. Eternal security never gives unbelievers hope of salvation, whereas OSAS can and does do so.

OSAS does not have room for tares that look like wheat, and would allow unregenerate persons to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, if it were in fact a correct doctrine.

There are a number of other differences, this is but one small facet of the difference between the two.

Blessings,

Travis

Back to the type of Noah a moment. With Jesus not yet the way manifested to access the grace of God unto salvation, that ark represented
the grace of God manifested to Noah through faith in that ark and its ability to save from perishing. The existence of the completed ark would not alone save Noah. He had to board it and stay there until God approved disembarking. Putting all his trust in it did save him from the flood, transporting him safely to new life. Likewise, putting a lifetime of trust in Christ. saves if one remains on that Ark of God (Jesus) "to the end". Had Noah boarded, then disembarked a while on vacation (no longer kept in its safety through faith in what God told him to do), he would have run the risk of missing the boat in the flood. So it is a believer must remain actively obeying in faith all through life, that though faith the grace of God saves from the wrath of God.

 

[DHC]

I would be willing to conceded that we are saved by grace "alone" (even though those two word don't appears together in the Bible).
But before I do, I would ask, what is the difference between this and antimonianism?
I do agree there is nothing we can do to get saved. I agree that works does not save us at all.
However, I disagree from the standpoint.. that our deeds have nothing to do with our salvation.
If I return back to sinning... return to fornication, adultery, alcohol, child-molesting, do I remain saved?
If the answer is no, then obviously it depends on something else besides grace alone.

Hello B-A-C.

If I return back to sinning... return to fornication, adultery, alcohol, do I remain saved?
If the answer is no, then obviously it depends on something else besides grace alone.

Your question B-A-C is muddled and confused.

You said, 'If I return back to sinning', which logically implies, that there was a time when you
were free from sin. You cannot return to a state from which you were never removed from in
the first place. A person is never free of their own fleshly desires, never is a person incapable
of committing sin. Blessed is the man who's sin the Lord will not take into account.

God does not save you because you are sinless B-A-C, God saves you because of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. If you were ever sinless B-A-C, then God could not stop you from entering heaven.
If you were perfectly sinless, then you would not need the atonement of the Christ would you now.

You made need to rewrite your question.

 

[Spockrates]

In the sense and direction that Wesley was talking about the subject, yes I believe it is all about faith. I agree with him on that.

What about repentance? Is it also a condition through which we are saved by grace?

"I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus."

(Acts 20:21)

​

 

[Travis]

Back to the type of Noah a moment. With Jesus not yet the way manifested to access the grace of God unto salvation, that ark represented
the grace of God manifested to Noah through faith in that ark and its ability to save from perishing. The existence of the completed ark would not alone save Noah. He had to board it and stay there until God approved disembarking. Putting all his trust in it did save him from the flood, transporting him safely to new life. Likewise, putting a lifetime of trust in Christ. saves if one remains on that Ark of God (Jesus) "to the end". Had Noah boarded, then disembarked a while on vacation (no longer kept in its safety through faith in what God told him to do), he would have run the risk of missing the boat in the flood. So it is a believer must remain actively obeying in faith all through life, that though faith the grace of God saves from the wrath of God.

Lol,

Noah could have jumped out of the ark at any time and drowned himself in the waters. Why didn't he?

Noah's trust was not in the ark. Or another way of putting it, Noah's faith was not in the ark. Noah's faith was in Christ.

"With Jesus not yet the way manifested to access the grace of God unto salvation,"​

Jesus has always been the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.​

Noah didn't decide when it was time to get on the Ark, the Lord told him when to get in:

Genesis 7
1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. ... 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.​

Noah didn't even shut the door to the ark, to secure himself and his family:

Genesis 7
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.​

Noah obeyed God because he believed God, and what God had said to him. It's as simple as saying this, Noah had faith.

Heb 11
7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.​

Noah was not commended for his obedience. He certainly was obedient. But his obedience flowed forth only because of his faith. Faith comes first, and true living faith from God is unwavering, because it is a gift. Faith is what is important here.

Blessings,

Travis

 

[Travis]

What about repentance? Is it also a condition through which we are saved by grace?

"I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus."

(Acts 20:21)

​

From the same sermon #43 by John Wesley, part III:

2. "But does not God command us to repent also Yea, and to `bring forth fruits meet for repentance'--to cease, for instance, from doing evil, and learn to do well. And is not both the one and the other of the utmost necessity, insomuch that if we willingly neglect either, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all. But if this be so, how can it be said that faith is the only condition of justification? God does undoubtedly command us both to repent, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance; which if we willingly neglect, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all: therefore both repentance, and fruits meet for repentance, are, in some sense, necessary to justification. But they are not necessary in the same sense with faith, nor in the same degree. Not in the same degree; for those fruits are only necessary conditionally; if there be time and opportunity for them. Otherwise a man may be justified without them, as was the thief upon the cross (if we may call him so; for a late writer has discovered that he was no thief, but a very honest and respectable person!); but he cannot be justified without faith; this is impossible. Likewise, let a man have ever so much repentance, or ever so many of the fruits meet for repentance, yet all this does not at all avail; he is not justified till he believes. But the moment he believes, with or without those fruits, yea, with more or less repentance, he is justified. --Not in the same sense; for repentance and its fruits are only remotely necessary; necessary in order to faith; whereas faith is immediately necessary to justification. It remains, that faith is the only condition, which is immediately and proximately necessary to justification.​

So, I still hold to my previous statement, which I would therein agree with Mr. Wesley:

"It remains, that faith is the only condition, which is immediately and proximately necessary to justification."​

Blessings,

Travis

 

[Spockrates]

I can read and keep up using Iphone, but not type quickly and accurately enough on it, my fingers too large and calloused, and keeping my work stuff separate from chatting for security purposes, so I'm always delayed in replies.

Sockrates said
Socrates is the epitome of human philosophy. Truth is not something man can define through philosophy, else Christ would be unnecessary. Jesus IS the truth. Truth is hidden from those seeking to obtain it by finding it through other doors like logic, reason, basically all forms of human philosophy. Submitting to faith allows the Holy Spirit of God to come alongside to reveal the truth amid the scriptures.

I said

Sockrates said

Our God is the source of wisdom. If he knew Socrates was truly seeking his wisdom, he would have offered it. Also, that voice in him left speace to give credit to mythological gods and goddesses. The voice of God would have told him there are no other gods. God will not tell a man he is greater than the "other gods" since there are none that can speak, so there are none to help anyone.

Spockrates said

It took Paul, over 500 years later, to introduce the living God, the only real God, to those scholars of Athens at Mars Hill. Then it took several more centuries for Greece to accept Christ significantly. Socrates receives no credit for announcing Father God or Son Jesus. It was Paul, through the Holy Spirit, that broke through to give Paul some disciples from among their most educated men.

I said

Spockrates said

He taught there was a reasonable balance between what men considered to be good and evil, that one must evaluate the benefit of good versus evil case by case. There then might be a benefit of pursuing evil if the benefit outweighed the good choice, thereby fulfilling a "pious'" state. He is not on record as taking the expected religiously "good" pious path all the time, irrespective of what their god Zeus might think.

I said

Socrates said

1. None are wise without the wisdom of God.
2. There are no other gods.
3. The one living God knows all, wants men to know.
4. Truth only comes from the living God, the Father God, spoken by God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
To the last sentence I must say "No". You admitted "He also said this God did not give him any wisdom at all."
Proverbs alone proves Socrates totally missed the point concerning wisdom from God. Beginning with that wisdom he would
have had access to safe knowledge, and understanding that would have confounded his enemies.

I said

I'm confused. What is it about the Socratic method that is unwise or even sinful? Please tell me plainly which of these things I should not do.

1. Seek the truth that others know
2. Ask them questions
3. Have them define their terms
4. Understand why they believe
5. Try to discern whether their reasons for believing are sound
6. If they do not appear to be sound, then ask them to explain
7. If they are sound, then seriously consider adopting them yourself

Should I not practice all seven steps of the Socratic method? Or should I not practice some but practice others? If I should practice some, then which ones?

 

[Spockrates]

From the same sermon #43 by John Wesley, part III:

2. "But does not God command us to repent also Yea, and to `bring forth fruits meet for repentance'--to cease, for instance, from doing evil, and learn to do well. And is not both the one and the other of the utmost necessity, insomuch that if we willingly neglect either, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all. But if this be so, how can it be said that faith is the only condition of justification? God does undoubtedly command us both to repent, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance; which if we willingly neglect, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all: therefore both repentance, and fruits meet for repentance, are, in some sense, necessary to justification. But they are not necessary in the same sense with faith, nor in the same degree. Not in the same degree; for those fruits are only necessary conditionally; if there be time and opportunity for them. Otherwise a man may be justified without them, as was the thief upon the cross (if we may call him so; for a late writer has discovered that he was no thief, but a very honest and respectable person!); but he cannot be justified without faith; this is impossible. Likewise, let a man have ever so much repentance, or ever so many of the fruits meet for repentance, yet all this does not at all avail; he is not justified till he believes. But the moment he believes, with or without those fruits, yea, with more or less repentance, he is justified. --Not in the same sense; for repentance and its fruits are only remotely necessary; necessary in order to faith; whereas faith is immediately necessary to justification. It remains, that faith is the only condition, which is immediately and proximately necessary to justification.​

So, I still hold to my previous statement, which I would therein agree with Mr. Wesley:

"It remains, that faith is the only condition, which is immediately and proximately necessary to justification."​

Blessings,

Travis

It seems that the previous statement contradicts the most recent. But as Socrates said, "A wiseman is not likely to talk nonsense! Therefore we ought to try our best to understand him."

So if you don't mind, I'd like your help in trying tobunderstand the respected preacher.

Would you say that Wesley meant to convey that faith is the only condition one must meet prior to the initial receiving of salvation? Should you also say that this faith, as well as God's grace are causes of such salvation?