Salvation by faith alone/only?

[childeye]

2 joe pm i wish to talk in private on the things i am seeing on the sacrificial system and what the blood requirement is about.

to all. what does the words of paul that connonate us to be a living sacrifice allude to?

To sacrifice ourselves for one another in the cause of Godly Love. To forgive one amother. Return good for evil so to speak.

and where was the sacrifices done?

In Jerusalem.

and what did jesus say we are to do? he that followeth me must himself be crucified?

Yes.

what does that mean now when you take the pauline reference to the torah way of animal sacrifices?

Afraid to answer this. Not sure what you're getting at. Just say it. Why does this feel so cryptic?

 

[jasoncran]

the ancient temple sacrifices werent done at jerusalem. that was for feasts and the high priest and since jerusalem had many jews there they did things there daily but read the torah and you will find levites to be in each city teaching and offering up sacrifices that were raised by the sinner.

now then taking that to the level of pauls exposition. we are that living sacrifce being offered up to the lord by the son himself as we die our"blood" is consumed by the fire(aka the holy spirit) and is sweet incense to the lord.

the sinners seing this then come to us who then act as priests and minister to them and offer up them. who then repeats the cycle. that is what christ came to do.

 

[childeye]

the ancient temple sacrifices werent done at jerusalem. that was for feasts and the high priest and since jerusalem had many jews there they did things there daily but read the torah and you will find levites to be in each city teaching and offering up sacrifices that were raised by the sinner.

now then taking that to the level of pauls exposition. we are that living sacrifce being offered up to the lord by the son himself as we die our"blood" is consumed by the fire(aka the holy spirit) and is sweet incense to the lord.

the sinners seing this then come to us who then act as priests and minister to them and offer up them. who then repeats the cycle. that is what christ came to do.

He has made us all priests, thanks Jason.

 

[Drew]

This is a good clarification that discounts any "contradiction" of the two. They are indeed answering two different questions before them.

No. Here is the James text as it reads in the NASB:

14What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,†and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.†19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,†and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Verse 14 is clearly not about being seen as saved "before men". It is about being saved in the absolute sense.

So, right at the outset, we have James implying that a person cannot be saved without works.

In verse 15-17 we have the further assertion that a lack of good works - in this case caring for the needy - means that any faith that is claimed is dead.

Again, this is clearly a statement about the objective status of the person who claims faith, yet has no works. So far, we have not even a shred of textual evidence to support this idea that James is speaking about a justification before men.

Now comes the part where James uses language that, no doubt, is the basis for this "justified before men" vs "justified before God" distinction that you need to appeal to.

James imagines an opponent in this debate and an hypothetical interaction takes place between the two. Here is the key point: This is a literary device James uses to make his point, and you guys ignore all the other material here that makes it otherwise clear that James is speaking about the relation of works to the objective matter of justification -whether a man is justified before God.

Consider this analogy. Two men are arguing about the nature of love. Man A holds the view that you can love someone without being self-sacrificial. Man B disagrees. So man A says this:

You (man B) have love and I have self-sacrifice; show me your love without self-sacrifice, and I will show you my love by my self-sacrifice.â€

Clearly, the issue remains the objective nature of love even though the issue has been transposed into a setting the true nature of love is observed. But the fact that observation is involved - that man A is implying that the true nature of love is observed by others through the self-sacrifice of the lover toward the beloved in no wise means that suddenly man A has ceased talking about what is objectively the case in respect to the nature of true love, and is now talking about love purely in terms of "appearances" to others.

Yet this is what this common argument you advance is basically saying. Yes, James invokes a scenario where faith and works are "observed by men". But, this certainly does not mean that he is talking about people being seen as justified as others.

This is really so obvious that I am astonished that this "justified before men" line of argument has such currency.

An analogy should help. Suppose I go to the doctor and show him a rash that I believe suggests I have disease X. In order to express my concern that I have, say, german measles, I say this to the doctor:

I demonstrate to you, Mr. Doctor, that I have German measles through the presence of this rash.

Is my intent to be judged as having Germam measles by the doctor, with no concern about is actually the case in respect to my health?

Of course not! I am concerned that I factually have german measles and the way this is determined is by observation by a competent physician. The issue is not whether this doctor thinks I am sick, it is whether I am indeed sick. So even though there is a "man's judgement" of the state of my health, my goal is not to "convince the doctor" that I am sick, as if what he thinks about my health has any connection to what is factually the case about my health.

Likewise, James is still talking about what he talked about in verses 14-17, and continues to talk about in later verses - the matter of the basis of our justification before God. The fact that there is an hypothetical conversation between two men does not, of course, that all of a sudden James is really concerned about being justified in the sight of other men.

Do you really believe that, as per verses 21-22, that James is concerned with whether Abraham was seen as justified "by men"?

Do you really believe that, as per verses 25, that James is concerned with whether Rahab was seen as justified "by men?

 

[francisdesales]

You totally missed the idea Sir...The "Simplicity" lies in the message...

So if I demand that you believe that 1 + 1 = 3, I must badger you until you cave in and say "OK", because it is such a simple message? Come on... Are you serious?

Can anyone deny that the "shedding" of blood was "necessary" for the salvation of those who would place their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior???

Can anyone PROVE IT??? No. They cannot, apparently. It's been over a week now, and you nor glorydaz can provide a shred of evidence.

Where does the Bible state this "simple" mesage? Where does the Bible state that the Son of God must shed His blood because God has no choice in forgiving sins unless a human sacrifice, a PERFECT Human sacrifice is tortured and killed by crucifixion???

If Christ had not shed His blood you and I and everybody else would be headed for "eternal damnation" Some whom don't place their faith are still going there...

Did God forgive sins in the Old Testament era or not? Simple question.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

God doesn't forgive all our iniquities without the cross. That's how it works.

So apparently, the Word of God is lying, when it states in Psalm 103 that God forgives sins...

You still have chosen not to respond to WHY God cannot forgive sins without a human sacrifice of blood...

I guess I am stuck on God's Law, for they are His Commands, His decrees, His Will.

They have nothing to do with binding GOD HIMSELF. Why are you being so obstinate? God is not bound by the Mosaic Law. What part of that aren't you getting?

I do understand that God's mercy is punishment withheld.

Not according to Scriptures. According to you.

The cross is what took care of man's sins.

Not out of necessity. More repetitive posts. You gotta to do better than this to prove your point...

You claim to know God's way and yet you discount all of the OT except a few select verses that you hope will support what you're saying.

Where does the Bible say this? I am discounting Sciptures? Got a screw loose or something? I have been citing Scriptures over and over, you have not provided a single one that states God MUST sacrifice a perfect human to forgive sins. Nor do you explain why God needs blood from this perfect human. Nor do you address anything that Jesus states about forgiveness.

Is your evil twin posting for you or something???

You say we should just do away with the word "require",

Yep. When we are speaking of God.

and yet God did require a sin offering

From man... Cheese louise...

God never changes and He has many requirements.

And nowhere does God state that HE must have a perfect human sacrifice before He forgives sins! He states He desires mercy and repentance.

HE doesn't NEED blood!!!!

He requires us to love and serve Him...if we don't, we experience God's wrath. Something else you don't like to address.

And what is God's wrath, according to Romans 1?

Christ's atonement for our sins is not the only blood God has required. So, let's not get all carried away with God's love and forget that HE is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, AND JUST.

Fortunately, He is more just than you can imagine, with your nonsense about a Transcendant Creator of the Universe bound for thousands of years until He finds perfect blood...

:

 

[francisdesales]

Exactly, Romans shows how man is justified before God, and James shows how man is justified in the eyes of other men.

Really? Which man witnessed Abraham's abortive sacrifice of Isaac??? Where does the Bible state that Abraham was justified by men as a result of this???

More twisting of Sacred Writ. You need to read Scriptures and take them for what they say, instead of inserting your own meanings to fit your preconceived notions.

 

[francisdesales]

2 joe pm i wish to talk in private on the things i am seeing on the sacrificial system and what the blood requirement is about.

to all. what does the words of paul that connonate us to be a living sacrifice allude to?

and where was the sacrifices done? and what did jesus say we are to do? he that followeth me must himself be crucified? what does that mean now when you take the pauline reference to the torah way of animal sacrifices?

Jason,

Go ahead and PM me...

Of course, the OT sacrificial system was a shadow of the good things to come, sacrifice through spiritual means, rather than killing and shedding blood.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

Really? Which man witnessed Abraham's abortive sacrifice of Isaac??? Where does the Bible state that Abraham was justified by men as a result of this???

More twisting of Sacred Writ. You need to read Scriptures and take them for what they say, instead of inserting your own meanings to fit your preconceived notions.

Let me spell this out for you, Joe.....



Actually...forget it. You're too rude and pig-headed for me to even put forth the effort.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

So apparently, the Word of God is lying, when it states in Psalm 103 that God forgives sins...

You still have chosen not to respond to WHY God cannot forgive sins without a human sacrifice of blood...



They have nothing to do with binding GOD HIMSELF. Why are you being so obstinate? God is not bound by the Mosaic Law. What part of that aren't you getting?



Not according to Scriptures. According to you.



Not out of necessity. More repetitive posts. You gotta to do better than this to prove your point...




Where does the Bible say this? I am discounting Sciptures? Got a screw loose or something? I have been citing Scriptures over and over, you have not provided a single one that states God MUST sacrifice a perfect human to forgive sins. Nor do you explain why God needs blood from this perfect human. Nor do you address anything that Jesus states about forgiveness.

Is your evil twin posting for you or something???




Yep. When we are speaking of God.




From man... Cheese louise...



And nowhere does God state that HE must have a perfect human sacrifice before He forgives sins! He states He desires mercy and repentance.

HE doesn't NEED blood!!!!



And what is God's wrath, according to Romans 1?




Fortunately, He is more just than you can imagine, with your nonsense about a Transcendant Creator of the Universe bound for thousands of years until He finds perfect blood...

:

Fran, I didn't say any of those things, you wrote my name but there not my thoughts...Please try and not quote someone else's thoughts and put my name on them...Thanks...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

God doesn't forgive all our iniquities without the cross. That's how it works.

I guess I am stuck on God's Law, for they are His Commands, His decrees, His Will.

I do understand that God's mercy is punishment withheld. The cross is what took care of man's sins. All of them from the beginning of time. Christ died for the sins of the world...before the cross and after the cross. Their sins are not taken away by man's repentance but by Jesus's shed blood.

You claim to know God's way and yet you discount all of the OT except a few select verses that you hope will support what you're saying. You say we should just do away with the word "require", and yet God did require a sin offering that was perfect and without blemish. That is God's plan...not yours or mine.

God never changes and He has many requirements. Here's one you may not like. Our death penalty comes from one of God's requirements.

He requires us to love and serve Him...if we don't, we experience God's wrath. Something else you don't like to address.

If we make a vow to the Lord, He requires us to keep it or we sin. What will take care of our sin? The cross, not our being sorry we didn't keep it.


Christ's atonement for our sins is not the only blood God has required. So, let's not get all carried away with God's love and forget that HE is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, AND JUST.

Double AMEN!!!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

So apparently, the Word of God is lying, when it states in Psalm 103 that God forgives sins...

You still have chosen not to respond to WHY God cannot forgive sins without a human sacrifice of blood...



They have nothing to do with binding GOD HIMSELF. Why are you being so obstinate? God is not bound by the Mosaic Law. What part of that aren't you getting?



Not according to Scriptures. According to you.



Not out of necessity. More repetitive posts. You gotta to do better than this to prove your point...




Where does the Bible say this? I am discounting Sciptures? Got a screw loose or something? I have been citing Scriptures over and over, you have not provided a single one that states God MUST sacrifice a perfect human to forgive sins. Nor do you explain why God needs blood from this perfect human. Nor do you address anything that Jesus states about forgiveness.

Is your evil twin posting for you or something???




Yep. When we are speaking of God.




From man... Cheese louise...



And nowhere does God state that HE must have a perfect human sacrifice before He forgives sins! He states He desires mercy and repentance.

HE doesn't NEED blood!!!!



And what is God's wrath, according to Romans 1?




Fortunately, He is more just than you can imagine, with your nonsense about a Transcendant Creator of the Universe bound for thousands of years until He finds perfect blood...

:

You sir, are not making sense...No offence intended of course...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

So if I demand that you believe that 1 + 1 = 3, I must badger you until you cave in and say "OK", because it is such a simple message? Come on... Are you serious?



Can anyone PROVE IT??? No. They cannot, apparently. It's been over a week now, and you nor glorydaz can provide a shred of evidence.

Where does the Bible state this "simple" mesage? Where does the Bible state that the Son of God must shed His blood because God has no choice in forgiving sins unless a human sacrifice, a PERFECT Human sacrifice is tortured and killed by crucifixion???



Did God forgive sins in the Old Testament era or not? Simple question.

Regards

Fran----So if I demand that you believe that 1 + 1 = 3, I must badger you until you cave in and say "OK", because it is such a simple message? Come on... Are you serious?

Grubal---Ridiculous example, try again...

Fran----Can anyone PROVE IT??? No. They cannot, apparently. It's been over a week now, and you nor glorydaz can provide a shred of evidence.


Grubal---Your not looking for evidence, your only desire is to be "right" even if your "wrong."

Fran----Where does the Bible state this "simple" mesage? Where does the Bible state that the Son of God must shed His blood because God has no choice in forgiving sins unless a human sacrifice, a PERFECT Human sacrifice is tortured and killed by crucifixion???

Grubal---You don't see them because there "Spiritually discerned." The Gospel is there, but you can't see it...

Fran---Did God forgive sins in the Old Testament era or not? Simple question.

Grubal---Temporal animal sacrifices were used to cover sin, until the, "ultimate Lamb of God" could come and make the "ultimate" sacrifice for our sins...Remember, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. It's God's way not mine or Glory's and "certainly not yours..."

 

[reba]

Been telling you all to play nice.. Step back take a deep breath I will reopen the thread soon......