The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[heymikey80]

I ran out of time when responding to the last post and would like to address your contention that this is a "tempest in teapot".

A person "accepts Jesus" in faith. At this moment you would say he is saved.

Your contention is that he is saved by faith alone, so he has ALREADY given an "answer in good conscience" to God. This is Peter's meaning when he wrote 1Pt 3:21, that "saving baptism" is simply repackaged sola-fide. When this verse is translated "answer in good conscience", it fits perfectly into your contention that when someone "accepts Jesus" they are at that exact moment (or even before), giving an "answer in good conscience".

It also fits perfectly when it's not translated. The Greek is not that hard, here.

My contention is that "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" CAN NOT POSSIBLY be the same thing as the person "accepting Jesus".

That's not the case, either. Matthew Henry quickly puts that to rest as well.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-peter/3.html

This tempest never gets outside the teapot.

 

[dadof10]

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs..."


This is what the Bible plainly says. I can't make you see it if you truly aren't seeing it, and I certainly can't make you acknowledge what you refuse to acknowledge if you can see it but reject it anyway, if that be the case.

Here, again are the verses that "plainly" tie Paul's "deeds...done in righteousness" in verse 5 to the works of Mosaic LAW. Not all deeds or baptism or charity, only works of the Mosaic Law. Not any "law", not the "royal law", not the natural law, ONLY the Mosaic Law.

"Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, 6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Phil. 3)

What is Paul contrasting "the righteousness of God that depends on faith" to? Is it EVERY deed "done in righteousness", as you are claiming, or is it "righteousness of my own based on law"? In verse 6, as he is going through his JEWISH credentials, he says he is blameless "as to righteousness under the law", which PROVES beyond any doubt that when he contrasts faith to "righteousness of my own based on law" he means the MOSAIC LAW. Next...

"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame." (Rom. 9)

It is crystal clear that Paul thinks that Israel pursued "righteousness" based on works, and that those works were works of the Mosaic law. Next...

"Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it." (Rom. 10)

Again, "righteous practices" are tied directly to the Mosaic Law.

Now, please stop merely repeating your contention and acting incredulous because I won't accept "what the Bible plainly says". Try to actually give a response to the verses I posted, or post some of your own that tie "deeds...done in righteousness" to baptism or charity or ANYTHING but works of the law.

The very way Paul has worded it--"deeds...done in righteousness"--shows he's talking about anything you do (besides faith of course) done in righteousness (not done in unrighteousness, as 'works of the law' connotates).

Where are "works of the law" called deeds "done in unrighteousness"? This is ridiculous, especially since the verses I posted above totally debunk this claim. Desperation...

It's the WAY he words it, which is EXACTLY THE SAME wording he uses in the verses above, that makes your case??? Is this really your argument? Paul's intention is clear to his readers, "deeds...done in righteousness" are deeds "of the law".

He even goes on to say it is purely by the mercy (not getting what you deserve) and the grace (getting what you don't deserve) of God that people are saved, NOT by the righteousness of what they do. If certain "deeds...done in righteousness" was in fact how a person was saved he would have said so.

Please...HE DID. I posted the verses, which you ignored. In Rom. 2 he contrasts good works with sinful works, saying that the good works lead to eternal life. He clearly says that "woman will be saved through childbearing...", not by faith alone. James, Peter and Jesus Himself tell you that some "deeds" effect salvation, you just refuse to hear it, just like you refuse to hear the CLEAR comparison between "deeds...done in righteousness" and works of the law. You would rather follow the man made traditions of the Reformation rather than the clear teaching of Scripture.

Don't have two or three hours to make long posts, so here is the snippet from a response to a post of yours I have stored about 'faith' being a work of the law:

Originally Posted by dadof10 Because it's IN the Mosaic Law doesn't mean it's considered by ANYONE, including Paul, to be a WORK of the law. You have listed a few things in the "law" that you consider "works". OK, here are a few more. Love of God, "husbands love your wives", and the biggie...FAITH!!!

This is bordering on insincerity. Here is the sentence directly AFTER the one you pasted:

"I'm sure you can see how not everything mentioned in "the law" is a "work of the law", unless you want to make the ridiculous assertion that by "works" Paul is including love of God, filial love and belief in God."

Faith is mentioned in the "Law". This is a fact. You are trying to make the connection that EVERYTHING mentioned in the OT falls under Paul's definition of "WORKS of the Law". As I said REPEATEDLY in the previous thread, and here, I used faith as a EXAMPLE of something within the "law" that you don't consider a "work" to make the case that EVERYTHING MENTIONED IN THE LAW IS NOT A "WORK" OF THE LAW.

I find it almost impossible you could have missed this fact. I guess straw-man argumentation is all you have left. You obviously can't deal with the verses posted or the common sense that follows. Now that you've set up the straw-man, it's time to knock it down...

Faithfulness to the commands of God is itself in the law. Faithfulness to do the commands is a work of the law. Faithfulness in the law MEANS doing all that God has commanded in the law. It is commanded to be faithful to everything commanded. Thinking you are made righteous by what you think is (in your own mind) being faithful to all things commanded is what Paul is saying can not solicit a declaration of righteousness. The very principle shows us that the point is righteous work can not make you righteous before God, not even the righteous work of being faithful to the law. It only makes sense. Faithfulness (not faith) is itself a command, a work, of the law. Even the Pharisees were faithful. What they didn't have is faith.

So, you can see it's crazy to think that 'faith' is a work of the law. Faithfulness (to the commands) is. That work can not MAKE a person righteous. It can only SHOW them to be righteous.

BRAVO!!! He's down. You have managed to totally destroy him.

Now, how about trying to knock down my ACTUAL arguments.

 

[dadof10]

It also fits perfectly when it's not translated. The Greek is not that hard, here.

That's not the case, either. Matthew Henry quickly puts that to rest as well.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-peter/3.html

This tempest never gets outside the teapot.

Soooo....Is this it? Should I expect an answer to the "relevant" points soon? Just in case the answer is "no", let me ignore this whole "baptism is a vowtaking" tack and just post the questions again. See if you'll answer or just keep ignoring them.

You say you want to stick to issues "relevant to the point under discussion". OK, fine. Here are two.

1) You called "saving baptism" a "vowtaking". Please explain how taking a vow is the same thing as faith alone. A person "accepts Jesus", THEN might vow to do such-and-such, but the faith MUST come first. The two acts are not interchangeable. If you disagree, then please explain how a person can be saved by belief alone WITHOUT taking a vow.

2) We both agree that charitable giving without expecting repayment is not a "work for wages" to Paul. This ACT does not fit under his definition. Therefore, Paul is not teaching sola-fide when he contrasts faith and "works". Do you agree or disagree, and WHY?

I would really appreciate an answer to these two points, as they are directly "relevant" to this thread, thanks.

 

[Mitspa]

It's sitting right there.

Like I said, and have maintained throughout this thread -- what follows is what follows. It is no cause of the Spirit indwelling us, and the Spirit's work actually enables us to walk in the Spirit, so it can't cause what the Spirit causes. It certainly doesn't contradict what the Spirit of God has already said through Paul's flat-out statement. And note Paul's timing.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

You may find these very difficult to recognize: but it's so very hard to deny them and maintain any logical understanding of what God is telling us in Scripture.

Again your point seems to be unclear? the truth of what Paul is saying is only lived out as one walks in the Spirit. He does not end the discussion or the truth of the gospel in Rom 7. He continues on and we are to put it all together to see the truth he is showing us. Paul continues to explain that we have been set free from the law of sin and death. He goes on the show us that we must "mind" the things of the Spirit.

Roms 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will DIE; but if BY THE SPIRIT you put to death the deeds of the body you will LIVE.

so again my point is made, that one MUST WALK in the Spirit to have the life of the Spirit.

This point is made in every epistle!

 

[heymikey80]

Again your point seems to be unclear? the truth of what Paul is saying is only lived out as one walks in the Spirit.

Again, walking in the Spirit is not specifically works. Often it's non-works; often it's meditation; prayer; repentance; confession; fellowship.

And it's clearly not exclusive of operating according to the law of sin and death.

 

[heymikey80]

Soooo....Is this it? Should I expect an answer to the "relevant" points soon?

"Soon"? If by "soon" you mean "already", then "yes".

... let me ignore this whole "baptism is a vowtaking" tack ...

Ah, see, in less than five lines you're contradicting yourself. In just a few lines you'll say, 'You called "saving baptism" a "vowtaking".'

Shall I ignore your question, since you claim to be ignoring your own statement?

You say you want to stick to issues "relevant to the point under discussion". OK, fine. Here are two.

Thank you. Now you're saying my point about vowtaking is relevant. So now you're saying three things:

• You're going to ignore the point about vowtaking.
• The point about vowtaking is relevant
• You're going to ask and thus not ignore the point about vowtaking.

The trifold lack of consistency here, in as many sentences, makes it rather clear who's being inconsistent. It's you.

1) You called "saving baptism" a "vowtaking". Please explain how taking a vow is the same thing as faith alone. A person "accepts Jesus", THEN might vow to do such-and-such, but the faith MUST come first. The two acts are not interchangeable. If you disagree, then please explain how a person can be saved by belief alone WITHOUT taking a vow.

They are interchangeable, and pretty readily in Peter's wording. A "good conscience's plea before God" doesn't require a formal ceremony; but it is just as much a vow without the ceremony as with it. Note the definition of "personal commitment" as a vow. See how shallowly we talk about vowtaking? We think that vows are just spoken words. Nothing is further from the truth. A vow is a commitment, not some parroted words.

Peter emphasizes this commitment with two words: "good". Now how can a spoken word be a good thing, when it's not the truth? It can't. Peter excludes false words from his baptism.
Peter also qualifies this commitment with another word: "conscience". How can the inward man deny a commitment that is from his conscience? He can't. Paul excludes formulaic detachment from his baptism.

So there 'tis. Someone who engages in a true commitment -- a good, conscientious vow to God -- that person undergoes the baptism that saves, says Peter. That person is saved through it.

2) We both agree that charitable giving without expecting repayment is not a "work for wages" to Paul. This ACT does not fit under his definition. Therefore, Paul is not teaching sola-fide when he contrasts faith and "works". Do you agree or disagree, and WHY?

I disagree. Because Paul doesn't even allude to such actions saving people. sola-fide is a theology of salvation, not a theology of Christian action.

I would really appreciate an answer to these two points, as they are directly "relevant" to this thread, thanks.

Thanks again for confirming that the point about vowtaking is relevant. Now there's a fourth point of consistency in your post.

 

[Mitspa]

Again, walking in the Spirit is not specifically works. Often it's non-works; often it's meditation; prayer; repentance; confession; fellowship.

And it's clearly not exclusive of operating according to the law of sin and death.

Who made the claim that it was not these Holy and Good things? I say that if we have these things in truth? we are in fact in the Spirit! But talking about fellowship with God is not fellowship. A doctrine about the Holy Spirit is not walking in The truth of the Holy Spirit. Love , joy, peace etc.. Good works "prepared before hand that we should walk in them"

These all come from the Spirit as we walk in the truth of the Spirit. So we are SET FREE from the law of sin and death so that we can walk in higher laws. Life and love IN CHRIST!

i am not sure that we are in conflict? but it may just be that we are expressing these things according to the knowledge that we have and understand?

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not sure we're in conflict, either. But this point is what I'm saying: when Paul talks "faith", what's needed is all in there. "Faith" is "reliance".

 

[dadof10]

"Soon"? If by "soon" you mean "already", then "yes".

Ah, see, in less than five lines you're contradicting yourself. In just a few lines you'll say, 'You called "saving baptism" a "vowtaking".'

Shall I ignore your question, since you claim to be ignoring your own statement?

Thank you. Now you're saying my point about vowtaking is relevant. So now you're saying three things:

• You're going to ignore the point about vowtaking.
• The point about vowtaking is relevant
• You're going to ask and thus not ignore the point about vowtaking.

The trifold lack of consistency here, in as many sentences, makes it rather clear who's being inconsistent. It's you...

...Thanks again for confirming that the point about vowtaking is relevant. Now there's a fourth point of consistency in your post.

Wow. Bullet points and everything. I guess all I have to do to get a response is make a mistake that you can exploit in an attempt to make me look "inconsistent" or foolish. Just asking doesn't work, so I'll have to remember this trick.

This is what I meant to say: "... let me ignore this whole "baptism is an answer" tack ..."

There. "Inconsistency" gone. This is, after-all, what we've been arguing about for the last 10 posts. You keep ignoring "vowtaking", remember? Sorry to take away your ah-ha gotcha! moment, or in this case "Ah, see" gotcha.

Can we move on now?

They are interchangeable, and pretty readily in Peter's wording. A "good conscience's plea before God" doesn't require a formal ceremony; but it is just as much a vow without the ceremony as with it. Note the definition of "personal commitment" as a vow. See how shallowly we talk about vowtaking? We think that vows are just spoken words. Nothing is further from the truth. A vow is a commitment, not some parroted words.

Peter emphasizes this commitment with two words: "good". Now how can a spoken word be a good thing, when it's not the truth? It can't. Peter excludes false words from his baptism.
Peter also qualifies this commitment with another word: "conscience". How can the inward man deny a commitment that is from his conscience? He can't. Paul excludes formulaic detachment from his baptism.

So there 'tis. Someone who engages in a true commitment -- a good, conscientious vow to God -- that person undergoes the baptism that saves, says Peter. That person is saved through it.

This is what I'm moving on from. Your view of "saving baptism" simply has no basis in Peter's reality and twists his words totally out of context. I don't need it to make my point anyway, since you FINALLY responded to the point below, sort of. I only used water baptism as an example of an act that is excluded from "works for wages". There are other deeds that can be discussed that are excluded also, and it only takes one to prove my point.

To my question: We both agree that charitable giving without expecting repayment is not a "work for wages" to Paul. This ACT does not fit under his definition. Therefore, Paul is not teaching sola-fide when he contrasts faith and "works". Do you agree or disagree, and WHY?

You responded:

I disagree. Because Paul doesn't even allude to such actions saving people.

Neither did I, nice try. The question is, what does Paul mean by "works", not what actions "save" according to Paul. You have admitted that giving without expecting repayment IS NOT included in Paul's definition of "works". Obviously, then, you don't think by the word "works", Paul means all deeds done.

How can you possibly think that Paul IS teaching salvation by faith alone IN THESE VERSES, if there is even ONE EXCEPTION? By definition, the word can't possibly mean faith ALONE. This is what logically follows. No wonder you put off answering for so long, a total lack of logic.

Now, since I've got you in a question answering mood, how about if a person performs the EXACT same action (charitable giving) but IS EXPECTING REPAYMENT FROM GOD? Would this act fit under Paul's definition? Why or why not?

sola-fide is a theology of salvation, not a theology of Christian action.

What is the difference? Here comes the spin and hair-splitting. Just keep in mind that sola-fide is king and ALL verses, no matter what they actually say, must fit into it. Ready...Spin...

Sorry, but this is gobbledegook.

Since we agree there are acts that are excluded from "works", let me throw a few more at you, some of the 10 commandments. What about "thou shalt not covet"? "Thou shalt not steal"? "Thou shalt not murder"? "Thou shalt not root for the Seahawks"?

If a person REFRAINS FROM SIN, does this fall under "works for wages"? Is "keeping the commandments" a "work for wages" to Paul?

BTW, that last "thou shalt not" is a "mistake" in an attempt to get you to answer again. I really don't think being a Seahawks fan is a sin, though it should be.

 

[heymikey80]

Okay, now appreciate the inconsistency you'vw introduced. "sola fide" is a theology about salvation, yet you claim you're not talking about salvation, while talking about sola-fide.

With that a nimber of your points evaporate above that you're not talkong about salvation. You're either talking about salvation or you're not talking about sola-fide.

As for your claim that Peter isn't himself when he states pointblank that baptism is this good, conscientious plea before God, it's what he said.

 

[dadof10]

Okay, now appreciate the inconsistency you'vw introduced. "sola fide" is a theology about salvation, yet you claim you're not talking about salvation, while talking about sola-fide.

With that a nimber of your points evaporate above that you're not talkong about salvation. You're either talking about salvation or you're not talking about sola-fide.

When did I ever say I wasn't talking about salvation? Are you referencing this:

"Neither did I, nice try. The question is, what does Paul mean by "works", not what actions "save" according to Paul."

If so, just because I reject your attempts to go off on another tangent, doesn't mean I'm "not talking about salvation".

1) You believe man is justified by faith alone (sola-fide).
2) You believe that Paul teaches this doctrine when he contrasts faith and "works".
3) You believe that by "works" Paul means "works for wages".
4) For you to believe 1, 2 and 3 above, you must hold that by "works" Paul means every action but faith is a "work for wages".
5) You have said that the act of a person giving to the needy without expecting repayment is an EXCEPTION. It is an ACTION that does not fit under Paul's definition of "works".
6) Therefore, Paul does not teach sola-fide in these verses, making #2 above false.

You have said you "disagree" with this. Who is being "inconsistent"? Maybe illogical is a better word.

The only way you can fit the faith vs. works verses into your sola-fide mold is to PROVE that by "works" Paul means everything done, which he doesn't. You have admitted as much by saying that giving without expecting repayment (an action) doesn't fit under Paul's definition.

Now, what about the "thou shalt not"'s? If a person refrains from adultery, for example, is this a "work" to Paul? A "work for wages"?

 

[heymikey80]

When did I ever say I wasn't talking about salvation? Are you referencing this:

"Neither did I, nice try. The question is, what does Paul mean by "works", not what actions "save" according to Paul."

Sure I am. Because (again), Paul says "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" Rom 4:5 NASB By "works" Paul splits it from "faith". And by "faith" Paul means not "works + faith", but "faith alone". That's where the phrase "sola fide" came from.

Now frankly, you're the one who came up with:

How can you possibly think that Paul IS teaching salvation by faith alone IN THESE VERSES, if there is even ONE EXCEPTION? By definition, the word can't possibly mean faith ALONE. This is what logically follows. No wonder you put off answering for so long, a total lack of logic.

It's pretty simple. In the 1500's the Roman Catholic Church asserted that salvation was through "faith + works". Protestants denied that: salvation is through "faith alone". That's where the phrase "sola fide" came from.

If so, just because I reject your attempts to go off on another tangent, doesn't mean I'm "not talking about salvation".

Once more: I'm pointing out when you haul up the Protestant "faith alone" as a theological position you're inherently talking about a theology of salvation.
If you're not then you're not talking about the Protestant position of "faith alone".

Sorry you're trying to go off on another tangent. But that's clearly what the facts present.

1) You believe man is justified by faith alone (sola-fide).

Paul states in no uncertain terms that faith without works leads to God's justification. And technically the word is "through". Justification isn't caused "by" faith, it is caused by Christ Jesus.

2) You believe that Paul teaches this doctrine when he contrasts faith and "works".

Paul actually states this doctrine in Romans 4:5. I shall not change Paul's words from what they actually state, no.

3) You believe that by "works" Paul means "works for wages".

Yes.

4) For you to believe 1, 2 and 3 above, you must hold that by "works" Paul means every action but faith is a "work for wages".

Not so. As I pointed out:
[*]faith is not a work in the first place, as no one places a wage on faith.
[*]works demand a wage; which do not save.
[*]actions, even works which might be done for a wage, may be performed in other capacities, which Paul encourages at other points, but not in order to gain salvation thereby. The wages of work are never salvation: with or without faith.

5) You have said that the act of a person giving to the needy without expecting repayment is an EXCEPTION. It is an ACTION that does not fit under Paul's definition of "works".

No. Cite where I stated it's "an exception".

Works are just fine. But they do not save. Therefore they have no effect under Paul's definition of "works" with respect to salvation.

6) Therefore, Paul does not teach sola-fide in these verses, making #2 above false.

Paul does teach "sola fide" in these verses, as none of them states that the works of men receive a wage of salvation.

You have said you "disagree" with this. Who is being "inconsistent"? Maybe illogical is a better word.

Unless you have some real example of 5), that would be you.

The only way you can fit the faith vs. works verses into your sola-fide mold is to PROVE that by "works" Paul means everything done, which he doesn't.

That's not the case, as I have denied this assertion you demand yet again that I must "PROVE" many times. I don't agree. People have plenty of actions. Those actions don't save anyone, though. As Paul says no works save, this attempt to leap to the opposite fails. Again.

You can (and do) have thousands of works. The aggregate, nor any subset, none saves. "Faith alone saves. The faith that saves is not alone."

You have admitted as much by saying that giving without expecting repayment (an action) doesn't fit under Paul's definition.

Naaah. In point of fact again, giving isn't considered working for a wage either. At some point you'll get to an action that would draw a wage, sure. But by that point, certainly you realize, the wage will not be salvation. That's the point Paul makes. When someone works they expect a wage, but salvation isn't payment of a wage. Instead, salvation is a gift God grants to those with faith.

Now, what about the "thou shalt not"'s? If a person refrains from adultery, for example, is this a "work" to Paul? A "work for wages"?

It wouldn't matter. Jesus already states that adultery in the heart (not even a work) results in condemnation, loss of salvation. So declining to actually commit adultery -- if it were a work for wages -- doesn't save.

 

[dadof10]

Sure I am. Because (again), Paul says "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" Rom 4:5 NASB By "works" Paul splits it from "faith". And by "faith" Paul means not "works + faith", but "faith alone". That's where the phrase "sola fide" came from.

Now frankly, you're the one who came up with:

Once more: I'm pointing out when you haul up the Protestant "faith alone" as a theological position you're inherently talking about a theology of salvation.
If you're not then you're not talking about the Protestant position of "faith alone".

Sorry you're trying to go off on another tangent. But that's clearly what the facts present.

Paul states in no uncertain terms that faith without works leads to God's justification. And technically the word is "through". Justification isn't caused "by" faith, it is caused by Christ Jesus.

Paul actually states this doctrine in Romans 4:5. I shall not change Paul's words from what they actually state, no.

Yes.

Not so. As I pointed out:
[*]faith is not a work in the first place, as no one places a wage on faith.
[*]works demand a wage; which do not save.
[*]actions, even works which might be done for a wage, may be performed in other capacities, which Paul encourages at other points, but not in order to gain salvation thereby. The wages of work are never salvation: with or without faith.

No. Cite where I stated it's "an exception".

Works are just fine. But they do not save. Therefore they have no effect under Paul's definition of "works" with respect to salvation.

Paul does teach "sola fide" in these verses, as none of them states that the works of men receive a wage of salvation.

Unless you have some real example of 5), that would be you.

That's not the case, as I have denied this assertion you demand yet again that I must "PROVE" many times. I don't agree. People have plenty of actions. Those actions don't save anyone, though. As Paul says no works save, this attempt to leap to the opposite fails. Again.

You can (and do) have thousands of works. The aggregate, nor any subset, none saves. "Faith alone saves. The faith that saves is not alone."

Naaah. In point of fact again, giving isn't considered working for a wage either. At some point you'll get to an action that would draw a wage, sure. But by that point, certainly you realize, the wage will not be salvation. That's the point Paul makes. When someone works they expect a wage, but salvation isn't payment of a wage. Instead, salvation is a gift God grants to those with faith.

It wouldn't matter. Jesus already states that adultery in the heart (not even a work) results in condemnation, loss of salvation. So declining to actually commit adultery -- if it were a work for wages -- doesn't save.

You can try to work your way around the plain logic if you want to, but it simply doesn't fly. "Sola-fide" means faith alone. That means ONLY faith saves. You think this is what Paul means by "faith not works". Logically, then, "works" must mean everything but faith. It MUST include ALL ACTIONS or the premise is false. This is just common logic. Sorry. Once you admit that giving without expecting payment is not included in Paul's definition (an exception), the premise is wrong, by definition.

You can attempt to differentiate between works that "earn a wage" and those that don't if you want, but it doesn't change the false premise, that "works" to Paul means ALL ACTIONS but faith. I don't know what else to say here. It's just a fact. While we're on the subject of "fact", this isn't...

It's pretty simple. In the 1500's the Roman Catholic Church asserted that salvation was through "faith + works". Protestants denied that: salvation is through "faith alone". That's where the phrase "sola fide" came from.

I can post many quotes from the Early Church Fathers that teach works effect salvation if you want. There really was no dispute within the Church that obedient faith saves and, therefore no official pronouncement. Because there was no dispute or no pronouncement until 1500, doesn't mean it wasn't BELIEVED until then.

Let me ask again. What if the hypothetical person who gives without expecting repayment is not alone? Suppose another person goes with him and, after giving, EXPECTS that God will repay him for his "righteousness" in feeding the poor. Would the act, which is the same for both people, STILL be exempt from Paul's definition? Does the person's motivation matter to Paul?

I think "yes". Any action done by a person can be either salvific or not, depending on the attitude. I think this is what Paul is getting at when he speaks of "works for wages". Not that NO ACTS BUT FAITH SAVE, but that we are to have a familial relationship with God instead of an employer/employee relationship. WHEN WE DO GOOD WORKS, we are to realize that God gives us the "will" and the work itself. We do the work out of love of the Father, not out to put God in OBLIGATION to us for the work we did, as if somehow God owes US.

 

[heymikey80]

You can try to work your way around the plain logic if you want to, but it simply doesn't fly. "Sola-fide" means faith alone. That means ONLY faith saves. You think this is what Paul means by "faith not works". Logically, then, "works" must mean everything but faith.

Nope.

"sola fide" is not some kind of absolutist slice. It was a response. A response to the assertion that Roman Catholicism presented. It was a response to the assertion that faith plus works brought salvation. The response was, "Not works, but only faith saves." "sola fide".

It MUST include ALL ACTIONS or the premise is false. This is just common logic. Sorry. Once you admit that giving without expecting payment is not included in Paul's definition (an exception), the premise is wrong, by definition.

It's just not tenable. Sorry. Nobody asserted this "common logic" of which you speak.

"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life." -- Martin Luther

"We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. For if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time Christ never is where his Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the apostle teaches (1 Cor 1:30), has been given to us for justification and for sanctification. Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith which we maintain to be gratuitous is, there too Christ is; and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness who regenerates the soul to newness of life. On the contrary, where zeal for integrity and holiness is not in force, there neither the Spirit of Christ nor Christ himself are present. " John Calvin

Yours is an attack without historical truth to it. "sola fide" is not what you assert.

You can attempt to differentiate between works that "earn a wage" and those that don't if you want, but it doesn't change the false premise, that "works" to Paul means ALL ACTIONS but faith. I don't know what else to say here. It's just a fact. While we're on the subject of "fact", this isn't...

I can post many quotes from the Early Church Fathers that teach works effect salvation if you want. There really was no dispute within the Church that obedient faith saves and, therefore no official pronouncement. Because there was no dispute or no pronouncement until 1500, doesn't mean it wasn't BELIEVED until then.

Again, another mistake.

"All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought but through the operation of His will. And we too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men. Amen." 1 Clement 32

Let me ask again. What if the hypothetical person who gives without expecting repayment is not alone? Suppose another person goes with him and, after giving, EXPECTS that God will repay him for his "righteousness" in feeding the poor. Would the act, which is the same for both people, STILL be exempt from Paul's definition? Does the person's motivation matter to Paul?

An EXPECTATION denies the FACT that the person has to know he's not righteousness, by his very motivation. That act, which is the same for both people, is TREATED and REPAID to the one who expects a wage -- the wage is death.

Motivation does matter to Paul. But no wage for a human's work is salvation. If people want their just wages, they'll sadly get it.

I think "yes". Any action done by a person can be either salvific or not, depending on the attitude. I think this is what Paul is getting at when he speaks of "works for wages". Not that NO ACTS BUT FAITH SAVE, but that we are to have a familial relationship with God instead of an employer/employee relationship. WHEN WE DO GOOD WORKS, we are to realize that God gives us the "will" and the work itself. We do the work out of love of the Father, not out to put God in OBLIGATION to us for the work we did, as if somehow God owes US.

No work done by a person will be salvific, unless it's denied as affecting salvation -- and faith is embraced instead.

God IS the will and the work, we die to ourselves, that's not a willingness but a sacrifice against the will.

Our works are not effective for salvation. Rom 4:4-5 , Heb 4:10 , 2 Tim 1:9 .

 

[dadof10]

Nope.

"sola fide" is not some kind of absolutist slice. It was a response. A response to the assertion that Roman Catholicism presented. It was a response to the assertion that faith plus works brought salvation. The response was, "Not works, but only faith saves." "sola fide".

I'm not sure how we disagree on the definition of sola-fide. As I said in my last post: " "Sola-fide" means faith alone. That means ONLY faith saves." Where do we disagree?

OK, then Paul DOESN'T mean "all actions" when he contrasts faith and works? If not, then Paul is NOT asserting faith alone HERE, IN THESE VERSES. Do you agree?

It's just not tenable. Sorry. Nobody asserted this "common logic" of which you speak.

"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life." -- Martin Luther

"We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. For if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time Christ never is where his Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the apostle teaches (1 Cor 1:30), has been given to us for justification and for sanctification. Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith which we maintain to be gratuitous is, there too Christ is; and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness who regenerates the soul to newness of life. On the contrary, where zeal for integrity and holiness is not in force, there neither the Spirit of Christ nor Christ himself are present. " John Calvin

Then the "works" Paul is contrasting with faith, doesn't mean "all actions"? If not, then we agree and Paul is NOT teaching "salvation by faith alone" IN THESE VERSES.

Yours is an attack without historical truth to it. "sola fide" is not what you assert.

Again, another mistake.

Then what is it? If I keep making "mistakes" simply straighten me out. Tell me how Paul can be teaching "salvation by faith alone" IN HIS FAITH vs. WORKS VERSES, yet the "works" can exclude some acts.

"All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought but through the operation of His will. And we too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men. Amen." 1 Clement 32

An EXPECTATION denies the FACT that the person has to know he's not righteousness, by his very motivation.That act, which is the same for both people, is TREATED and REPAID to the one who expects a wage -- the wage is death.

Motivation does matter to Paul. But no wage for a human's work is salvation. If people want their just wages, they'll sadly get it.

Then the motivation MATTERS? I agree.

No work done by a person will be salvific, unless it's denied as affecting salvation -- and faith is embraced instead.

So, the "work" (like giving without expecting payment) "will be salvific" if the person's motivation is purely altruistic and done in faith? Am I reading you right?

God IS the will and the work, we die to ourselves, that's not a willingness but a sacrifice against the will.

This is what you are responding to:

WHEN WE DO GOOD WORKS, we are to realize that God gives us the "will" and the work itself. We do the work out of love of the Father, not out to put God in OBLIGATION to us for the work we did, as if somehow God owes US.

Do you mean that when we cooperate with God's will, it is not done out of love, but a "a sacrifice against the will"? Are you disagreeing with this?

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not sure how we disagree on the definition of sola-fide. As I said in my last post: " "Sola-fide" means faith alone. That means ONLY faith saves." Where do we disagree?

That you believe "faith alone" is faith that is bereft of what it naturally results in. It was never intended as such, and such an attack was considered silly the day Roman Catholics attempted to imply it into the argument.

OK, then Paul DOESN'T mean "all actions" when he contrasts faith and works? If not, then Paul is NOT asserting faith alone HERE, IN THESE VERSES. Do you agree?

Paul is talking about actions which people naturally assume result in payment -- a wage. In context the Greek "work" could mean any action -- but Paul is using "work" as work-for-wages. Why do I say so? Because he says so. Rom 5:4-5 ESV

Then the "works" Paul is contrasting with faith, doesn't mean "all actions"? If not, then we agree and Paul is NOT teaching "salvation by faith alone" IN THESE VERSES.

Again, that's not the case. Paul is saying that anything that you think God might repay with salvation -- He doesn't. Period. Rom 4:4-5 ESV I fail to recognize why this isn't clear from what Paul says. What Paul says is what Paul says.

Then what is it? If I keep making "mistakes" simply straighten me out. Tell me how Paul can be teaching "salvation by faith alone" IN HIS FAITH vs. WORKS VERSES, yet the "works" can exclude some acts.

I've been saying it. I just said it again. I'm repeating what Paul says. What is it that prevents your reading what Paul says?

Then the motivation MATTERS? I agree.

Motivation to work matters, but work isn't repaid with salvation. Motivation causes works. Motivation results from faith. Through Faith we are saved. By grace we have been saved.

 

[Butch5]

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs..."


This is what the Bible plainly says. I can't make you see it if you truly aren't seeing it, and I certainly can't make you acknowledge what you refuse to acknowledge if you can see it but reject it anyway, if that be the case.

The very way Paul has worded it--"deeds...done in righteousness"--shows he's talking about anything you do (besides faith of course) done in righteousness (not done in unrighteousness, as 'works of the law' connotates). These deeds are NOT how a person is justified, and therefore, saved.

He even goes on to say it is purely by the mercy (not getting what you deserve) and the grace (getting what you don't deserve) of God that people are saved, NOT by the righteousness of what they do. If certain "deeds...done in righteousness" was in fact how a person was saved he would have said so.

How do you know that by righteous deeds Paul means anything one does? Paul defines this term in Scripture. Also, in the the original text works has the definite article, it is, the works. the definite article indicates that Paul is speaking of a certain "works"

 

[heymikey80]

How do you know that by righteous deeds Paul means anything one does?

The way this is phrased, Paul is saying we're not saved by righteous deeds, right?

Would deeds of no moral value cause God to respond with salvation?
How about unrighteous -- that is, evil deeds?

The point is, only righteous deeds would even be under consideration by Paul. The others are naturally excluded as being implausible.

Paul's argument at Romans 4:1-5 shows that Paul denies that any works which would be considered worth a wage, are also excluded.

Titus 3:5 actually states how far from works God has based His salvation on -- it's actually through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, something God did for us through Jesus Christ our Savior. So it's not an us doing, but a God doing.

Paul defines this term in Scripture. Also, in the the original text works has the definite article, it is, the works. the definite article indicates that Paul is speaking of a certain "works"

Yes, in a related phrase "good works" (not the same phrase, note) Paul says these are done as a result of salvation -- but not in order to gain salvation. Eph 2:10 says it's a result. And Eph 2:8-9 says no works are a cause.

 

[Butch5]

The way this is phrased, Paul is saying we're not saved by righteous deeds, right?

Would deeds of no moral value cause God to respond with salvation?
How about unrighteous -- that is, evil deeds?

The point is, only righteous deeds would even be under consideration by Paul. The others are naturally excluded as being implausible.

Paul calls the works of the Law works of righteousness.

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Phi 3:9 KJV)

We can see from Paul's own words that he considers deeds of righteousness deeds of the Law. Thus, Titus 3:5 also speaks of the Law.

Paul's argument at Romans 4:1-5 shows that Paul denies that any works which would be considered worth a wage, are also excluded.

Look at the context of the argument, it about the Mosaic Law.

Titus 3:5 actually states how far from works God has based His salvation on -- it's actually through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Spirit, something God did for us through Jesus Christ our Savior. So it's not an
us doing, but a God doing.

It does nothing of the sort as we've seen. Is it safe to assume that you don't consider baptism a work?

The thing is Christians turn to these passages from Paul to argue that works play no role, yet this argument stands in direct contradiction to the words of Christ.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (Joh 5:28-29 KJV)

Then there's the last part of Mathew 25.

When Jesus talks about people being saved it's based on their works.

Yes, in a related phrase "good works" (not the same phrase, note) Paul says these are done as a result of salvation -- but not in order to gain salvation. Eph 2:10 says it's a result. And Eph 2:8-9 says no works are a cause.

No, Philippians 3:9

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Phi 3:9 KJV)

Even if we grant your definition of works, it doesn't change the argument because no one is claiming anyone is saved by works. No one is saved by faith either.

 

[dadof10]

That you believe "faith alone" is faith that is bereft of what it naturally results in.

OK, let's try this. A person goes to church with a friend. This person feels the presence of Christ and heeds the altar call. He goes up and gives his life to Christ, accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior through faith. Is he saved? If the answer is "yes", then my definition of sola-fide stands. What "naturally RESULTS" doesn't do the saving, correct? Salvation is by faith alone and "what it naturally results in" doesn't save, does it?

It was never intended as such, and such an attack was considered silly the day Roman Catholics attempted to imply it into the argument.

Again, there was no "argument" until the 16th century and it wasn't "Roman Catholics" who went against the doctrine established by the apostles and believed for 1500 years.

Paul is talking about actions which people naturally assume result in payment -- a wage. In context the Greek "work" could mean any action -- but Paul is using "work" as work-for-wages. Why do I say so? Because he says so. Rom 5:4-5 ESV

Again, that's not the case. Paul is saying that anything that you think God might repay with salvation -- He doesn't. Period. Rom 4:4-5 ESV I fail to recognize why this isn't clear from what Paul says. What Paul says is what Paul says.

Again, I agree with you. Paul is talking about works of the law and circumcision in his "faith vs. works" passages. Judaism taught that "works of the law" put God in obligation (repayment) to man. ANY ACTION, INCLUDING FAITH, that man does in an attempt to put God in obligation to him, doesn't work. So, as I have said many times in this thread, the ATTITUDE OF THE PERSON, is what Paul is talking about here and elsewhere. If a person gives WITHOUT EXPECTING REPAYMENT, this action is salvific. If the person performs the exact same action and EXPECTS REPAYMENT OR THINKS HE IS PUTTING GOD IN OBLIGATION TO HIM, it is not.

I thought we were on the same page here.

Motivation to work matters, but work isn't repaid with salvation. Motivation causes works. Motivation results from faith. Through Faith we are saved. By grace we have been saved.

You think that "giving without expecting repayment" (a wage) does NOT fall under Paul's definition, therefore the "actions which people naturally assume result in payment -- a wage" is not ALL ACTIONS. There is still logically exceptions, therefore sola-fide is not taught by Paul here. Again, this is common logic, as much as you want it NOT to be.