What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Does James 2 Teach Works for Salvation?

Mungo said:
You are just prevaricating
Click to expand...
No, you are the one doing that.
I gave you the courtesy of reading Akin's teaching that you posted. And it sounds very 'Lutharian' and so I must ask what it is exactly in what he wrote that Luther opposed. Did the Catholic church change it's official doctrine to accommodate Luther's revelation of 'the righteousness that comes from God?'
Mungo said:
I quote from James Akin's article on the topic.

This is sometimes a difficult concept for Protestants to grasp since they have heard so many sermons about righteousness being an all or nothing thing that they have trouble understanding the concept of how righteousness can grow. This is one of the things that keeps them boxed into a two-fold understanding of righteousness. However, the problem is solved when one grasps the concept of actual righteousness, which is not a one-dimensional but a two-dimensional concept.

The first dimension of actual righteousness is its level of purity, which we might refer to as the quality of the righteousness. When one becomes a Christian and is justified, one receives totally pure actual righteousness. There is no admixture of sin or unrighteousness in the righteousness God gives one. Thus in this sense one is made just as righteous as Christ, because the level of purity in Christ's righteousness and ours is the same.

However, from this point of initial justification one's righteousness begins to grow during the course of the Christian life. This is the hard part for Protestants to understand since they will ask, "But if we are already made totally pure, how can our righteousness grow from there?" The answer is where the second dimension of actual righteousness comes in. Righteousness does not continue to grow in the first dimension; once total purity has been received, it is not possible for righteousness to grow in that dimension. One cannot go beyond total purity in the quality of righteousness, so righteousness grows in its second dimension—its quantity.

Even though when we first came to God we were made totally righteous in the sense that we became totally pure, we have not yet done any good works, for these are made possible only by God's grace after justification. The righteousness God have given us may be totally perfect in quality but it is not yet totally perfect in quantity. We may be just as righteous as Christ in the sense that the righteousness God has given us is just as pure as Christ's, but it is not as extensive as Christ's because we have not done as many good works as Christ. The tiny little good works we do in our lives—works wrought only by the grace God himself gives us—in no way compare to the huge, overwhelming, infinite good works of Christ, such as his death on the cross. So while we may have just as much righteousness as Christ in terms of its quality (total purity, by God's grace), we do not have just as much righteousness as Christ in terms of its quantity.

It is in terms of the quantity of righteousness that rewards are given in heaven, and thus because Christ has a greater quantity of righteousness than we do, he also has a correspondingly greater reward.

You don't have to do a diddly-do-da thing after being justified by God in baptism in order to go to heaven. There is no magic level of works one needs to achieve in order to go to heaven. One is saved the moment one is initially justified. The only things one then does is good works because one loves God (the only kind which receive rewards) and not choose to cast out God's grace by mortal sin. And even if one does cast it out by mortal sin, the only thing needed to get it back was the same thing needed to get it in the first place—repentance, faith, and sacrament, except the sacrament in this case is confession rather than baptism.

People try to make the Catholic message sound complex, but it's really simple: "Repent, believe and be baptized; then if you commit mortal sin, repent, believe, and confess. Period."—even a five year old child can understand that. All the exegesis and infrastructure of catholic soteriology I am giving in this work is strictly not necessary, any more than the exegesis and infrastructure found in Protestant soteriology books is either. From a Catholic perspective, repentance, faith, and baptism are just as easy to get across in an evangelistic appeal as they are for Protestants; in fact, they are easier since one doesn't have to explain, "Okay, repentance and faith are necessary, but baptism isn't, but it's still really important, and so you need to do it, okay?" On the Catholic view, the message of the elements we have to preach is much simpler: Repent, believe, and in the saving waters, receive the righteousness of God.
Click to expand...
 
Hopeful said:
Pick one path, and keep on it.
Click to expand...
Well, that's actually the point, lol.
Both paths are available to the believer, flesh and Spirit:

17For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want.
Galatians 5:17

Obviously, he's not talking to unbelievers, but believers, because unbelievers do not have the Spirit in them for there to be the opposing forces of flesh and Spirit to contend with that Paul speaks of in the verse.
 
Hopeful said:
So some day, somehow, you will be given the grace and power to do what Christians do at the start of their walk in Christ?
Click to expand...
All Christians have that power the moment they believe.
The Christian learns to walk in that power more and more (2 Peter 1:8 NIV).

Hopeful said:
Isn't that like the catholic ways you write against?
Click to expand...
No, because Catholics say the righteousness infused into the believer and which he grows up into is the very righteousness by which one is then justified (becomes righteous in God's sight). That is the theology that Luther resisted and rebelled against. But it seems the Catholic church has since come around to some extent to the same revelation he received about the matter.
 
Hopeful said:
They all teach it, but then just brush it aside.
What do you become when you turn from sin? "...Repent..."
Don't you become an ex-sinner?
What happens to you when your old sins are washed away? "...and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."
Are you not perfectly sinless?
The ex-sinners who have had their "temple" cleansed by the blood of Christ can, and should, ask the God of everything to give them His Holy Spirit. ..."and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)
Click to expand...
Do you think the Only sign of the reception or indwelling of the Holy Spirit is perfect sinlessness?

Could there be other signs?
 
Hopeful said:
No, they are not different.
Jesus said..."Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (John 8:34)

I hope you are not trying to say that fig seeds will occasionally bring forth grapes.
One's actions show of whose seed one is born, or reborn of.
Click to expand...
Servant of sin.
Please look up what servant means..
Cannot do right now.
Please post it.

You may not want to.
 
wondering said:
LOL
I meant to use the CCC and other catholic sources to learn about catholicism!
Instead of listening to posters and reading stuff from 500 years ago!
Click to expand...
Why would I not consult Luther, a Catholic priest, about what he rebelled against in the Catholic church 500 years ago? If anybody's testimony about what the Catholic church believes would be honest and accurate it would be his. I'm noticing Catholics seem to twist the Catholic narrative to suit the argument. This is why I told you I consider it a very deceptive theology. I don't think Luther lied or attempted to deceive anybody about what the Catholic church believes, do you?
 
Jethro Bodine said:
Why would I not consult Luther, a Catholic priest, about what he rebelled against in the Catholic church 500 years ago? If anybody's testimony about what the Catholic church believes would be honest and accurate it would be his. I'm noticing Catholics seem to twist the Catholic narrative to suit the argument. This is why I told you I consider it a very deceptive theology. I don't think Luther lied or attempted to deceive anybody about what the Catholic church believes, do you?
Click to expand...
You know what I think J.
What can I say.
Can't do more than I've done.
Keep reading Luther.
Keep arguing with Catholics about semantics.
I don't know what it gets you,,,

The CC is Not Doing what it was back then.
I taught kids Catholic doctrine.
You think they made me teach incorrect doctrine to the new generation?
 
wondering said:
You know what I think J.
What can I say.
Can't do more than I've done.
Keep reading Luther.
Keep arguing with Catholics about semantics.
I don't know what it gets you,,,

The CC is Not Doing what it was back then.
I taught kids Catholic doctrine.
You think they made me teach incorrect doctrine to the new generation?
Click to expand...
Well, it's apparent to me that the infallible, can't be wrong, one and only true church, the Catholic church, has changed it's doctrine to receive Luther's revelation of the righteousness that comes from God...at the same time that it retains it's 'infused grace' righteousness justification. Surely, you have to see this, too!
 
Jethro Bodine said:
Well, it's apparent to me that the infallible, can't be wrong, one and only true church, the Catholic church, has changed it's doctrine to receive Luther's revelation of the righteousness that comes from God...at the same time that it retains it's 'infused grace' righteousness justification. Surely, you have to see this, too!
Click to expand...
I don't see infused grace as being a problem.
It's not one of the types of grace.
It's HOW we get that grace.
Luther was right to want reformation.
The church is different even from the 60s, Vatican II.

I've posted stuff from the CCC which is the official teaching of the CC.
It's what they teach from.

So, where's the deception?
WHO is the church deceiving?
YOU could but the CCC yourself.
Do you think there are 2 versions...
One for catholics,
And one for those pesky Protestants?
 
wondering said:
I don't see infused grace as being a problem.
Click to expand...
It's a problem FOR JUSTIFICATION.

Your faithful, righteous deeds are not what gets you through the pearly gates. Only the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through our faith in him is the perfect righteousness that God will recognize. But, surely, our deeds will be used as the evidence of his righteousness having been imputed to us.
 
Jethro Bodine said:
It's a problem FOR JUSTIFICATION.

Your faithful, righteous deeds are not what gets you through the pearly gates. Only the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through our faith in him is the perfect righteousness that God will recognize. But, surely, our deeds will be used as the evidence of his righteousness having been imputed to us.
Click to expand...
You're so intelligent.
What, being a brain surgeon and all.

Why can't you see this.
Let me ask you:

What justifies in the Catholic teaching?
 
wondering said:
So, where's the deception?
Click to expand...
They give lip service to being declared righteous by receiving the finished work of Christ on your behalf while they actually believe and practice the erroneous teaching that if the obedience of your righteous deeds is sufficient you will be declared righteous at the return of Christ.

wondering said:
WHO is the church deceiving?
Click to expand...
It's own members, and whoever it proselytizes.
 
Jethro Bodine said:
Well, that's actually the point, lol.
Both paths are available to the believer, flesh and Spirit:
Click to expand...
Flesh is not "available to the believer", as it has been destroyed, circumcised, crucified. (Rom 6:6, Col 2:11, Gal 5:24)
Jethro Bodine said:
17For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want.
Galatians 5:17
Click to expand...
Gal 5:16..."This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."
Obey and live forever.
Jethro Bodine said:
Obviously, he's not talking to unbelievers, but believers, because unbelievers do not have the Spirit in them for there to be the opposing forces of flesh and Spirit to contend with that Paul speaks of in the verse.
Click to expand...
That is not what the verse says.
It said they both have an opposing force.
Thank God we can walk in the Spirit instead of in the flesh since Jesus' resurrection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top