Is belief "works"?

[Butch5]

But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. (Rom. 2)

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1Tim. 2)

James says we are justified by our deeds, Peter says baptism saves. I posted a list of verses that say OBEDIENCE TO GOD (or lack thereof) effects salvation. You just won't accept them.

OK, your turn. Where does Scripture teach that the "works" Paul talks about mean "all deeds"? Where is "works" or "deeds...done in righteousness" compared to "all righteous works"? Still waiting...

I too got tired of repeating the same thing over and over. I'm surprised this thread is still going. Paul makes it clear that his argument is about the works of the Law of Moses and not good deeds.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul makes it clear that his argument is about the works of the Law of Moses and not good deeds.

How do good deeds atone for sin? What's the difference between a good deed and a work of the law (as your doctrine defines those) in regard to the removal of sin guilt and being made righteous before God? How is it that a 'work' of the law can not remove sin guilt, but a 'righteous deed' can?

Paul's point is only the forgiveness of God can remove sin guilt, making us righteous before God. Only faith in God's forgiveness can make us legally righteous and free of sin guilt. That's why faith stands alone on it's side of the 'faith vs. any other work done' argument for justification.

 

[dadof10]

No.

Hebrews is clear that justification--being made legally perfect before God--is a one time event that does not need to be repeated over and over again.

Then what does this mean:

"And as long as I keep believing, I'll remain justified."

This assumes that if you STOP believing you will lose your justification.

Jesus says the same thing:

10 Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean...†(John 13:10 NIV1984)

Whether or not Jesus is speaking figuratively or literally about the 'bath', Jesus is clear that it does NOT have to be repeated, but for your doctrine of 're-justification' to be true it would indeed be necessary to 'take another bath' (whether it's viewed literally, or figuratively, doesn't matter) any time a person's behavior did not correspond to one's claim of faith (since you say faith and works is how a person is justified, in the exact same way Paul means to be 'justified').

You might have a point if Jesus said "...and you never again have to wash..." but He didn't because it's a fact that justification is a process.

Lol, no. Verses 2-4 make the point I was making. I edited the post moments later and added verse 6 so that everyone can see that Abraham's justification is directly connected to what he's being told in verses 2-4--something he did know before this. And now, this side of Christ, we can understand why his justification was based on belief in these details of the promises, even as veiled as they still are as to the specific identity of who the son is.

I honestly don't see how verse 5 proves anything to your argument that Abraham was justified by both his faith and what he did, insofar as to what you say that means.

5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.†Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.†(Genesis 15:5 NIV1984)

Now that we know, this side of the cross, what it means to have faith in Christ we can see why verses 2-4 are key to Abraham's justification and why God makes it a point of declaring him righteous at this point and not back in chapter 12.

Notice what word is missing from your exegesis....The word "SEED".

That's all you could talk about until I pointed out that the same word was used in Gen. 12. You said over and over "Abraham was justified by belief in the 'seed', which was Christ", yet the verse that actually SAYS "so shall your SEED be" you leave OUT??? The verse that actually tells WHAT ABRAHAM BELIEVED THAT JUSTIFIED HIM, YOU LEAVE OUT??? Now you are trying to minimize your entire "seed" argument, even going so far as to exclude it from the "point I was making"??? Please...

C'mon, Jethro. This just keeps getting sadder and sadder.

Do you think Abraham was justified by "the Seed, which is Christ" or not? If so, it naturally follows he was justified in Gen. 12. These are simply the facts.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then what does this mean:

"And as long as I keep believing, I'll remain justified."

This assumes that if you STOP believing you will lose your justification.

Correct. But the real question is "can a person stop believing who has truly believed and been sealed with the Holy Spirit?", not "can I remain justified if I no longer believe", because we all know and agree that you can't be justified apart from faith. That is not what's in debate. Can we stop believing...that is what is in debate among us Christians.

I'm going to bed. I'll be around.

 

[dadof10]

A silly gotcha? Please just pick one of the two, 'work of the law', or 'deed done in righteousness outside of the law', that 'work' means in Hebrews 6 passage I posted. Or are you going to ignore the question?

Have I EVER ignored any of your questions? The word "works" in Heb. 6 means good deeds, just like it does in many verses. I never said any different. I never said what you accuse me of, namely, "always, categorically, a reference to works of the law". I have ALWAYS said that (now, read carefully) in Paul's "faith vs. works" passages, he is ONLY speaking of works of the law, specifically circumcision. I hope that's clear enough.

Based on what you're now saying, I can only assume that you think it's impossible that someone can, say, for example, get baptized (a supposed non-law 'deed of righteousness', not a 'work') but not really have faith in Christ and that not be the same 'work' as you say Paul is describing in Romans? Explain. Do you see the implications of my question?

No good deeds are salvific without faith. Is this what you mean? If an atheist helps the poor, there is no merit here because he is not doing the action in faith.

 

[dadof10]

The faith that justifies, all by itself--because it is faith in the forgiveness of God that makes a person clean before God--is the faith that has work attached. The work is what is used at the judgment as the evidence for the declaration of righteousness that produced it. That is how we are saved by what we do, but justified (MADE righteous and able to do righteous things) by what we believe.

Works and well doing affect salvation, but justification is based solely on having been forgiven through the blood of Christ, by faith (for there is no 'work' outside of believing that can merit forgiveness).

No need to conveniently redefine, or broaden, or narrow the meaning of eternal life, like your doctrine has to do for words like 'work' and, 'justified', and 'grace' to defend itself.

Great, then you are going on record saying that what we do effects our salvation. That's quite a change....for the better.

Paul says in Romans 2:6-7

For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Is there any doubt that people who are given "eternal life" are justified? Are you trying to say that God grants eternal life to the "unjustified"? Or, to put it another way, God saves the unjustified?

I'm not redefining or broadening anything, simply reading what Paul wrote.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No good deeds are salvific without faith. Is this what you mean? If an atheist helps the poor, there is no merit here because he is not doing the action in faith.

Okay, then, just to be clear, answer this question directly:

Then you're saying that it's possible that someone can, for example, get baptized but not really have faith in Christ and that mean the same to salvation as you say 'work' means to salvation in Romans but which you have narrowly defined and applied as being only works of the law?"

Skip right to this question if you don't mind.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Great, then you are going on record saying that what we do effects our salvation. That's quite a change....for the better.

What we do does not affect our salvation, but our heavenly reward. Heaven isn't the reward, it is the place we receive the reward. Heaven is assured to all who have trusted in Christ as Savior and Lord.

 

[dadof10]

Okay, then, just to be clear, answer this question directly:

Then you're saying that it's possible that someone can, for example, get baptized but not really have faith in Christ and that mean the same to salvation as you say 'work' means to salvation in Romans but which you have narrowly defined and applied as being only works of the law?"

Skip right to this question if you don't mind.

You'll have to clarify your question. I don't understand what you're getting at. The "works" which are defined as "works of the Mosaic law" are the works Paul contrasts to faith. Nowhere does Paul contrast faith and charity or baptism or good deeds in general.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What we do does not affect our salvation, but our heavenly reward.

Works do affect salvation in the sense that they signify whether a person has not been justified by faith in Jesus' blood, and is continuing in that justification by faith, or not.

What we have done will testify either for or against us on the Day of Judgment (Matthew 25:34-46). They have no power to justify us in regard to making us righteous. Only the 'work' of believing in Christ can do that (Paul's argument). But they do have the power to justify us in regard to showing us to have the righteousness of Christ through faith in his blood (James' argument).

It is only in that sense that I say works affect salvation. I in no way share what dadof10 means by works affecting our salvation. He says we are justified when we have faith and then do right things, and not before or without those deeds (this is how they say justification is by, both, faith and works, without actually, in their minds, making it the works justification gospel that it surely is).

I say we do right things because we have (already) been justified before God by faith, all by itself, and have been transformed into new creations that now do right things as a direct result of now being new creations. Those works of righteousness now testifying to the justification by faith alone that produced them.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You'll have to clarify your question. I don't understand what you're getting at. The "works" which are defined as "works of the Mosaic law" are the works Paul contrasts to faith. Nowhere does Paul contrast faith and charity or baptism or good deeds in general.

In regard to justification, what is the difference between performing a specific 'work of the law' and not being justified, and, getting baptized but without faith in Christ and not being justified? Of course you will say 'faith' makes the difference. That being true how is it then that 'works' must only be limited to works of the law in Paul's argument? My example demonstrates that 'works' is NOT only limited to specific works of the law as you contend. Circumcision just happens to be the work of the day that people relied upon to be justified/ saved.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Works do affect salvation in the sense that they signify whether a person has not been justified by faith in Jesus' blood, and is continuing in that justification by faith, or not.

Since justification is only from the Lord, not based on merit but on faith, the idea that justification can be removed is incorrect.

 

[Butch5]

How do good deeds atone for sin? What's the difference between a good deed and a work of the law (as your doctrine defines those) in regard to the removal of sin guilt and being made righteous before God? How is it that a 'work' of the law can not remove sin guilt, but a 'righteous deed' can?

Paul's point is only the forgiveness of God can remove sin guilt, making us righteous before God. Only faith in God's forgiveness can make us legally righteous and free of sin guilt. That's why faith stands alone on it's side of the 'faith vs. any other work done' argument for justification.

Works don't atone for sin, but, neither does faith. It is God who forgives an justifies. He sets the conditions upon which He will justify. Paul says faith is one and James says works are one.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Works don't atone for sin, but, neither does faith. It is God who forgives an justifies.

Paul plainly says faith does justify. Plainly. It's impossible to argue the point.

He sets the conditions upon which He will justify. Paul says faith is one...

Paul says it is THE condition for justification. No where does he say what we do, in or out of the law, except for the 'work' of believing, makes us righteous before God.

...and James says works are one.

But not in regard to being made legally perfect before God, but in regard to showing oneself to be a new creation that now does righteous things. It is required that you be changed into a new creation by your faith for that faith to be of a quality that can save you. We know we have that faith, the faith that changes a person into a new creation, by what we do.

If you insist that James means 'justified' in the exact same way that Paul uses it then you set him in direct opposition to Paul, for no where does Paul say the performance of a work, in or out of the law, can justify. He says only faith, the 'work' of believing, can do that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Since justification is only from the Lord, not based on merit but on faith, the idea that justification can be removed is incorrect.

Since a person is justified by faith in the blood, it only makes sense that the only way a person could lose a declaration of righteousness is to stop trusting in the blood. The question is not if that is true or not. The question is, "can a person stop trusting in the blood?" Can a genuinely justified person stop believing in the blood?

Most people subscribe to the belief that anyone who stops believing had a flawed belief to begin with. IOW, the faith they had was insufficient to justify them. They were never really trusting in the blood to begin with. Which is why I think the scriptures exhort us to 'make our calling and election sure' by making it a point to do right things. Not so we can establish our right standing with God through those works, but so we can be sure it's established to begin with and that the hope of salvation we have is really a sure thing or not, our actions testifying as to whether or not we have the faith that can save us on the Day of Wrath (that 'you can tell a tree by it's fruit' thing). And if it becomes evident through the effort to do those works that we don't have that faith we can come to a genuine faith in the forgiveness of God, the conviction of our sin driving us to it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Since a person is justified by faith in the blood, it only makes sense that the only way a person could lose a declaration of righteousness is to stop trusting in the blood.

This is a false premise from which to begin. It assumes the faith by which we are bound to Christ comes from imperfect us. It does not. That faith comes from Christ. Therefore, its sufficiency is beyond question, and one justified by faith can never be shaken from it, because that faith is not man-generated, but God-given.

Ephesians 2 NASB
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.​

 

[YosefHayim]

Nope.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Nope.

Then refute it. Don't just post a negative response.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is a false premise from which to begin. It assumes the faith by which we are bound to Christ comes from imperfect us. It does not.

I agree. The ability to know something is true that you can not know is true through any human faculty--in this case that the gospel is true--is purely a gracious gift of God. Nobody can manufacture the faith to know if something is true that they have no way of knowing on their own if it's true or not. Faith is not deciding something is true--aka, a 'blind' faith. Faith is knowing something is true.

In the case of the gospel this supernatural ability to know the gospel is true comes through the Word of the gospel itself. It's the Holy Spirit that delivers the message of the gospel to the heart accompanied by the ability, through that same Spirit, to know it's for real. From there men and women choose to accept that truth or reject it. Those who reject the truth that they now know without a doubt to be the undeniable truth are calling the Holy Spirit who showed them that truth a liar (1 John 5:10). IOW, they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit--calling that which is utterly good and holy evil and attributing it's work to that of the Devil (lying).

So, the question is, once a person receives the truth about the gospel through the supernatural gracious gift of faith, then believes that truth, accepting it and putting their trust in it, can a person then change their mind about it later and lose the declaration of justification their trust in that truth secured for them?

Many, many people at one time or another in their lives are shown that the gospel is true through the gracious gift of faith convicting them of the truths connected with the gospel, but few actually do the 'work' of believing--placing their trust in the truth delivered to them through faith (the supernatural ability to realize something is true) via the Holy Spirit.

"14 For many are called (are given the faith to know the gospel is true), but few are chosen (actually place their trust in the truth God has shown them to be true).”" (Matthew 22:14 NASB)

It's the difference between just having faith--knowing the facts are true about sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come--many people will say that, and believing and actually putting your trust in those facts and being justified and, therefore, saved on the Day of Wrath. Jesus really does call 'believing' a 'labor'...something you do (John 6:28-29).

That faith comes from Christ. Therefore, its sufficiency is beyond question, and one justified by faith can never be shaken from it, because that faith is not man-generated, but God-given.

True beyond any doubt whatsoever. But what if I do what John says and call the Holy Spirit who showed me the truth in my heart, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a liar by rejecting the faith to know that the gospel is absolutely true? Can a justified person, one who has gone beyond simple acknowledgement of truth and accepted that truth, do that, or are they irretrievably incapable of now being able to reject the voice of faith and stop believing (trusting) in the blood that they originally accepted as able to save them? Can a person stop the 'work' of believing and reject the faith--the power and ability to know the gospel is true--thus removing themselves from the sufficiency of Christ's blood? That, in my mind, is the real question.

 

[gr8grace]

I agree. The ability to know something is true that you can not know is true through any human faculty--in this case that the gospel is true--is purely a gracious gift of God. Nobody can manufacture the faith to know if something is true that they have no way of knowing on their own if it's true or not. Faith is not deciding something is true--aka, a 'blind' faith. Faith is knowing something is true.

In the case of the gospel this supernatural ability to know the gospel is true comes through the Word of the gospel itself. It's the Holy Spirit that delivers the message of the gospel to the heart accompanied by the ability, through that same Spirit, to know it's for real. From there men and women choose to accept that truth or reject it. Those who reject the truth that they now know without a doubt to be the undeniable truth are calling the Holy Spirit who showed them that truth a liar (1 John 5:10). IOW, they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit--calling that which is utterly good and holy evil and attributing it's work to that of the Devil (lying).

So, the question is, once a person receives the truth about the gospel through the supernatural gracious gift of faith, then believes that truth, accepting it and putting their trust in it, can a person then change their mind about it later and lose the declaration of justification their trust in that truth secured for them?

Many, many people at one time or another in their lives are shown that the gospel is true through the gracious gift of faith convicting them of the truths connected with the gospel, but few actually do the 'work' of believing--placing their trust in the truth delivered to them through faith (the supernatural ability to realize something is true) via the Holy Spirit.

"14 For many are called (are given the faith to know the gospel is true), but few are chosen (actually place their trust in the truth God has shown them to be true).”" (Matthew 22:14 NASB)

It's the difference between just having faith--knowing the facts are true about sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come--many people will say that, and believing and actually putting your trust in those facts and being justified and, therefore, saved on the Day of Wrath. Jesus really does call 'believing' a 'labor'...something you do (John 6:28-29).




True beyond any doubt whatsoever. But what if I do what John says and call the Holy Spirit who showed me the truth in my heart, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a liar by rejecting the faith to know that the gospel is absolutely true? Can a justified person, one who has gone beyond simple acknowledgement of truth and accepted that truth, do that, or are they irretrievably incapable of now being able to reject the voice of faith and stop believing (trusting) in the blood that they originally accepted as able to save them? Can a person stop the 'work' of believing and reject the faith--the power and ability to know the gospel is true--thus removing themselves from the sufficiency of Christ's blood? That, in my mind, is the real question.

As to your last Question Jethro, I believe that a person can Stop from believing and completely reject the truth that they once embraced. But salvation and justification is from Him and He cannot deny Himself of His Promise to eternally save at the moment of belief in Christ, no matter what the creature behaves like after salvation. 2 Tim 2:13; Tit 1:2

1 Cor 3:14-15 deals with this behavior and rejection of truth after salvation and Justification.

The perfect integrity of God cannot be canceled by the failure or renunciation of any believer living on earth according to 2 Timothy 2:11-13. God is faithful to His Word. If we died with Him as we have as believers, then we will live with Him forever. If we endure suffering for blessing, we will rule with Him as mature believers. If we deny Him by refusing to grow spiritually, He will not be able to convey rewards and blessings that spiritual growth always brings. Even though we may be unfaithful, disbelieving, or faithless following our salvation, He remains faithful because He cannot deny Himself.

It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself. (2 Timothy 2:11-13)