Faith AND Works-James 2...Again

[francisdesales]

I didn't mean to imply God provided a choice to love or not. Those in Christ are working there everyday because His Love requires we feel their pain and suffer with them. Yes there is fear of what it will cost, but also the knowledge of what it will cost to lose compassion. As you say it is a gift, so it is not a punishment. He aint heavy he's my brother.

True...

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

I find myself agreeing with you on most points presented here - and where we seem to differ isn't exactly a disagreement - I only wish to go further than the point we both agree upon.

I think you are trying overly hard to "package" faith into one all-encompassing definition that includes a multitude of distinctive meanings.

No, by no means. If that's what's been conveyed, it was not my intent. I am dealing specifically with the relation between faith and good works. And please note, I have never implied that they're the same - nor that they are interchangeable or optional.

In this sense, can faith and (its evidencing)works really be separable?

They are not the same thing. Clearly, one can have either without the other.

As I've always maintained - no, they're not the same thing. But can they exist without each other? Can you give me some easy-to-grasp illustrations(if you have the time) to help my understanding.

I'm genuinely trying to find out what the difference between such works and the works under the law is - as a discussion and not a debate. I know that the law is not of faith - but how exactly so? Did the jews not believe? What didn't they believe? I recollect you saying something to the effect that the jews were made righteous by the law - if so, check an earlier post of mine where I stated my conflict with that.

In that context, can we really have faith or works without each other? I'm not so sure - so I'd like to hear different people's beliefs on that and their basis for it. I'd appreciate you sharing yours. Thank you.

 

[ivdavid]

dadof10,

we believe in justification by Grace alone. We must cooperate with Grace in order to be saved.

I see here that we each have a different understanding of 'grace'. Could you tell me what you mean by grace and then, if time permits, furnish a simple illustration to help me understand.

Well, in my case, I hold the grace of God to be any free and unmerited act of God towards one to whom it is not due. By this definition, grace is totally dependent on the person giving grace and not based ever so slightly on the person receiving it.

So I could never club the above 2 statements of yours together. If we are justified by grace alone - we are justified by grace alone. If we are to cooperate and our salvation is based(even a bit) on our cooperation - then that moment that we enter the picture, it is no longer justification by grace alone.

So I assume you don't mean 'grace' the same way I mean it - could you clarify. Especially what you mean by cooperating(a small illustration like the one you gave would help).

God gives the will and the means to do the good deeds that he wants us to do "so that no one may boast".

What exactly is man's cooperating role here?

The emphasis is on OBLIGATION, not obedience.

Okay, this is what I've got out of what you've written. If it's not what you meant, please correct my misunderstanding -
1. If you are under the law, you work to EARN your salvation.
2. If you are under grace, you work to PLEASE your Father.

3. At the end of times, God has an OBLIGATION to PAY you what He promised.
4. At the end of times, God is PLEASED to GIVE you what He promised.

5. Unrepentant disobedience will lead to condemnation.
6. Unrepentant disobedience will lead to condemnation.

I have an issue with this statement of yours - "As you can see, there is NO NEED for love, faith or a Savior [under the law]."
The law expressly has as its chief commandment, to love God. I don't see a valid case to claim that there was no need for love under the law. And considering this - the mindset and attitudinal differences are in the people and not in the law as such - why did we then have to be redeemed from the law, stating that it was the law that led to obligatory works with no need for love?

Also, tell me how faith plays a role today under grace - for me to check how this was absent under the law. What exactly is this faith? I am familiar with the commonly used phrases - I want to know its simple meaning.

Again, my intent is to know how exactly our beliefs differ from the jews'. I started seeing too many similarities that made me want to find out what the differences were.

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,

I find myself agreeing with you on most points presented here - and where we seem to differ isn't exactly a disagreement - I only wish to go further than the point we both agree upon.

I am glad we agree on these points.

As I've always maintained - no, they're not the same thing. But can they exist without each other? Can you give me some easy-to-grasp illustrations(if you have the time) to help my understanding.

Sure they can. I have given you several biblical examples. Here is one again. I will provide some modern examples, as well...

James chastises his audience for their faith without works. Consider reading James 2:1-6, which precedes the famous section on the necessity of works by James. Clearly, James is addressing Christians who believe in God. They have faith, as James notes. "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." James 2:19

Can faith ALONE save? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? James 2:15-16

It doesn't profit, when considering salvation. They have faith, but if they do nothing when they OUGHT, that faith is not profitable. It does not save. James point tells us that Christians WERE INDEED separating faith from works. They believed in God, but did not mirror the image of the self-giving Jesus, whom these people claimed to believe and trust in... Just James conversation here states that faith and works can be (and are being) separated when we do not do what we know we should do.

Paul says much the same thing in 1 Cor 13.

And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 1 Cor 13:2-3

Paul sees that one can have "all faith" and "no love". It is nothing. Thus, the two can be separated. If not, how can Paul discuss "all faith" and "no charity"?

And finally, Jesus...

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Mat 7:21-23

Only those led by the Holy Spirit, those with faith in God, can say "Lord Lord". Note they even perform great miracles in the name of Jesus. And yet, they did not do the will of the Father in heaven - they did not love. (Immediately before, Jesus speaks about knowing someone by their "fruits", their works of love). Again, Jesus notes that a person can have faith, but not works of love.

As for modern examples,

We can talk the talk about loving Jesus. We trust that He is our Lord and Savior, that He died for our sins. But how many such people live the "health and wealth" gospel? How many pick up their crosses daily to follow Him? How many are truly disciples of Christ, as shown by loving even their enemies? There are many Christians who are still in need of great sanctification and knowledge of Jesus, since they believe in Christ, but we see no fruit...

On the other hand, we no doubt know about self-righteous religious people, those who appear quite pious and congratulate themselves on how holy they are and all the wonderful works that they do in the community. But as Jesus notes, sometimes, these people have lesser motives in mind, rather than one of a pure heart. "They have already received their reward". Their works are done to gain human respect and attention towards themselves. In this case, you could mark it up to lacking in good works of love - OR a lack of faith in God. But again, a Christian has improperly separated faith from works, having one but not the other.

I'm genuinely trying to find out what the difference between such works and the works under the law is - as a discussion and not a debate. I know that the law is not of faith - but how exactly so?

"Works of the Law" more properly applies the necessity of doing the Mosaic Law - either to be justified by doing them, or by demanding that others (Gentiles) who are grafted into the root also live by the same "lifeblood", the Law. Paul stresses that national, ethnical consideration is nothing to God (anymore). With the universal (catholic) Gospel, all men have access to God. One does not have to be born a Jew or become a Jew via following the practices of the Mosaic Law. If one subjects themselves to the Mosaic Law, they must fulfill its dictates. Jesus says "my yoke is light". The Pharisees could not help their co-religionists fulfill these duties, gradually giving them more and more to the yoke.

Thus, "works of the Law" certainly CAN be "of faith". The OT has numerous examples of righteous men - men who followed God's Law as Jews. Paul is not saying that the Mosaic Law is wrong. He says it doesn't have the power to save in of itself. It was a teacher before the Christ came, pointing to something greater - loving others without being bound by a set of rules. St. Augustine sums this attitude up with "Love others and do what you will" There is no law for one who loves.

Did the jews not believe? What didn't they believe? I recollect you saying something to the effect that the jews were made righteous by the law - if so, check an earlier post of mine where I stated my conflict with that.

Of course the Jews believed in God. There are a number of problems with the old covenant, the first being that the Jews AS A PEOPLE were not able to keep it. Even as Moses was bringing the commandments down the mountain... The OT is full of this cycle of national failure. And thus, the New Covenant, in which God writes His law upon mankind and Jesus, who becomes man, ensures that mankind cannot (as an entity) break that Law. In both cases, we are speaking at the community level, which is at the heart of Paul's content here, not the individual keeping or failing to keep the Law.

A Jew was not made righteous BY the Law, but by obedience to God. Just as we, in Christ, are obedient and made righteous. Obedience, for the Jew, was obedience to the Covenant. But we have something better. We have the Holy Spirit and the work of Christ as Man.

In that context, can we really have faith or works without each other? I'm not so sure - so I'd like to hear different people's beliefs on that and their basis for it. I'd appreciate you sharing yours. Thank you.

If you ask "Can I go to heaven with only faith or only works", the answer is "no". If you ask "Is it possible to have one without the other", the answer is "yes". It is called "sin". (According to James)

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

dadof10,



I see here that we each have a different understanding of 'grace'. Could you tell me what you mean by grace and then, if time permits, furnish a simple illustration to help me understand.

Well, in my case, I hold the grace of God to be any free and unmerited act of God towards one to whom it is not due. By this definition, grace is totally dependent on the person giving grace and not based ever so slightly on the person receiving it.

So I could never club the above 2 statements of yours together. If we are justified by grace alone - we are justified by grace alone. If we are to cooperate and our salvation is based(even a bit) on our cooperation - then that moment that we enter the picture, it is no longer justification by grace alone.

So I assume you don't mean 'grace' the same way I mean it - could you clarify. Especially what you mean by cooperating(a small illustration like the one you gave would help).


What exactly is man's cooperating role here?

A quick note...

Man's "cooperation" is also a grace from God. God is the sole "first cause" of our salvation. We, as free creatures, provide the "secondary" or "remote" cause. See Phil 2:12-13... Note BOTH aspects, God's moving our will and we working out our salvation (utilizing these movements of the will). Without the first cause, there cannot be a secondary cause. But without that secondary cause, who is being saved? No one - for it is man (as a secondary cause) who must repent and convert...

Regards

 

[childeye]

A quick note...

Man's "cooperation" is also a grace from God. God is the sole "first cause" of our salvation. We, as free creatures, provide the "secondary" or "remote" cause. See Phil 2:12-13... Note BOTH aspects, God's moving our will and we working out our salvation (utilizing these movements of the will). Without the first cause, there cannot be a secondary cause. But without that secondary cause, who is being saved? No one - for it is man (as a secondary cause) who must repent and convert...

Regards

When you say free creatures are you refering to the free ability to choose either way or to a sifting of God dividing the carnal minded from the spiritual?

 

[ivdavid]

francisdesales,

Thank you for all the examples, - you've given me lots to think about.

I'll reflect on just a few points here -

Thus, "works of the Law" certainly CAN be "of faith".

I made that statement based on Gal 3:11-12. Share with us how you understand it.

In both cases, we are speaking at the community level, which is at the heart of Paul's content here, not the individual keeping or failing to keep the Law.

I can relate this with Christ. But with respect to individuals not being able to keep the law, i was referring to Gal 3:10-11 - I cannot see how your interpretation of national failure can be applied to this. Help me out here.

A Jew was not made righteous BY the Law, but by obedience to God....Obedience, for the Jew, was obedience to the Covenant.

A jew was made righteous by obedience to God - and that obedience consisted of keeping the law that God commanded him to keep as part of His covenant - implies that the jew was made righteous by the law, isn't it? What am i missing here?

Man's "cooperation" is also a grace from God.

Well, I still maintain that your definition of grace is different from mine - so could you share what you mean by grace. According to mine, grace has to be free - and hence cannot be dependent on the receiver at all but solely on the giver of grace. Your including God as a primary cause does not negate the fact that it still is dependent on man as a secondary cause - and hence my impossibility to describe such a situation as grace alone while holding my definition of grace. Since I see that you have reconciled it, I'd like to see how you define grace.

for it is man (as a secondary cause) who must repent and convert...

I thought conversion was a work of God and that repentance was granted By Him through His compassion and mercy. I mean, if we had a pure heart, wouldn't we want to repent when we see our sinfulness before purity - would that be called making a choice to repent? If we had a renewed spirit, wouldn't we be converted? And I don't see man in any causative role in Eze 36:26-27.

 

[francisdesales]

When you say free creatures are you refering to the free ability to choose either way or to a sifting of God dividing the carnal minded from the spiritual?

The former.

 

[childeye]

The former.

How do you reconclie this with scriptures such as the carnal mind cannot be subject to God, My sheep know my voice, the reason why Jesus spoke in parables, hearing you shall not hear and seeing you shall not see, the conversion of Saul into Paul, God has chosen the lowly things, We preach the hidden wisdom , Bless you father for you reveal to mere children that which you hid from the scholarly, to make the seeing blind and the blind seeing, the blind following the blind will all fall into a ditch, the eyes are the lamps of the soul, I shall have mercy on whom I will have mercy, the parable of the sower, i shall harden whom I will harden, the Older shall serve the younger, that born from the bonswoman will persecute those born from the freewoman, etc, etc, etc.....?

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales,

Thank you for all the examples, - you've given me lots to think about.

Thanks, that is why we discuss such issues - to think about God.

I made that statement based on Gal 3:11-12. Share with us how you understand it.

That the Law doesn't justify us. I said that. In addition, Paul does not say that "no one can individually keep the dictates of the Law." Paul himself said that he did...

The Law does not justify. Faith in God is the motive that led the Jews to obey the Law, and thus, it can said that even the faithful Jew "lived by faith", as displayed by following the Law. But God has broken down the wall that separates Jews from Gentiles. That wall is the Law, since by it, the Jew and the Jew alone was given to obey this Mosaic Law. The Covenant was made with Jews and obedience to that Law was man's upholding the Law. With Christ, a newer and better Covenant comes into play, one benefit being that one did not have to become Jewish. Thus, the wall was broken down - one could be pleasing to God by a life of faith, expressed by love, rather than following dietary and specific liturgical practices.

The fact that we find righteous people in the Bible BEFORE Jesus death tells us that one could walk in faith, as Abram did, before the giving of the Law (as Paul mentions in Romans). Paul goes to great lengths to tell us that being a Jew is not a requirement for being pleasing to God. It was the life of faith, not the washing of cups and dishes, that God finds pleasing, God considers just. And yes, at a personal level, it is possible to obey the Law and be considered righteous. But mankind as a whole cannot obey the Law without God or without the acts of Christ at the Incarnation.

A jew was made righteous by obedience to God - and that obedience consisted of keeping the law that God commanded him to keep as part of His covenant - implies that the jew was made righteous by the law, isn't it? What am i missing here?

The Law is not a living and breathing thing that can give man any ability. It actually makes known sin, since disobedience to it makes sin known and manifest. We know the Law, but it gives no power to us to obey it. We of our own ability cannot hope to obey it, only those who gives themselves over to the gift of faith. Walking in faith is empowered by God. Not the Law.

Well, I still maintain that your definition of grace is different from mine - so could you share what you mean by grace. According to mine, grace has to be free - and hence cannot be dependent on the receiver at all but solely on the giver of grace.

Grace falls on the evil as well as the good. The parable of the sower and the seed is a good analogy of grace. Any seed that falls on good ground becomes "fruit". But the ground itself must be prepared. It must be open to reception from the Divine Lover's gift of Self. Grace is a gift of the Life of God. Man can and does reject that, grieving the Holy Spirit. Grace is not "power" that forces men to do things. It is an invitation to love in return, a return that DEPENDS upon the gift in of itself. Without the seed, there can be no fruit. Without the good ground, there can be no lasting fruit.

Your including God as a primary cause does not negate the fact that it still is dependent on man as a secondary cause - and hence my impossibility to describe such a situation as grace alone while holding my definition of grace. Since I see that you have reconciled it, I'd like to see how you define grace.

This is a common issue with Protestantism - the inability to accept secondary causes, which philosphers and theologians have always noted when looking at the mystery of grace and nature. Grace does not overpower nature, it adds to it, fulfills it. That is how a Lover works. It doesn't "push us out of the way", it aids us, helps us. This is called "synergy", words found in the Scriptures to describe our relationship between man and God. "God is my helper", for example. This also explains how God can rain down graces and note that they can be rejected.

I thought conversion was a work of God and that repentance was granted By Him through His compassion and mercy.

Doesn't Christ call on MEN to repent? Doesn't this imply the ABILITY to repent? There is no need to downplay the wonderful gift of freedom given to man to somehow "protect" the Sovereignty of God. The very act of giving us freedom is indeed a Sovereign act of choice given to us by God. God has definitively shown that He is not a God who needs to "show power" to man. He reduced Himself, putting aside His divinity so that we could SEE God, Jesus Christ. When we see Christ, we see the Father. And thus, taking our cue from Jesus, God is not a God Who is not threatened by the freedom of men.

I mean, if we had a pure heart, wouldn't we want to repent when we see our sinfulness before purity - would that be called making a choice to repent? If we had a renewed spirit, wouldn't we be converted? And I don't see man in any causative role in Eze 36:26-27.

We don't have pure hearts. We only are "pure" in as much as we are in communion with our adopted Brother, Jesus Christ. True God AND true man. As we "mimic" (put on) Christ, we manifest Christ in the world today. This act of "putting on Christ" is a movement of BOTH God and man. Phil 2:12-13 is the clearest and most succinct discussion on this synergy.

Ez 36 is not the only word on the subject. This is a complex issue, and the Bible is not a theological textbook. You will find numerous citations on this subject spread all over the place. We must take the totality of Scriptures when analyzing theologically the relationship between grace and nature. Proof texting singular verses is pointless, since I could provide verses that make men operative.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Thanks, that is why we discuss such issues - to think about God.



That the Law doesn't justify us. I said that. In addition, Paul does not say that "no one can individually keep the dictates of the Law." Paul himself said that he did...

The Law does not justify. Faith in God is the motive that led the Jews to obey the Law, and thus, it can said that even the faithful Jew "lived by faith", as displayed by following the Law. But God has broken down the wall that separates Jews from Gentiles. That wall is the Law, since by it, the Jew and the Jew alone was given to obey this Mosaic Law. The Covenant was made with Jews and obedience to that Law was man's upholding the Law. With Christ, a newer and better Covenant comes into play, one benefit being that one did not have to become Jewish. Thus, the wall was broken down - one could be pleasing to God by a life of faith, expressed by love, rather than following dietary and specific liturgical practices.

The fact that we find righteous people in the Bible BEFORE Jesus death tells us that one could walk in faith, as Abram did, before the giving of the Law (as Paul mentions in Romans). Paul goes to great lengths to tell us that being a Jew is not a requirement for being pleasing to God. It was the life of faith, not the washing of cups and dishes, that God finds pleasing, God considers just. And yes, at a personal level, it is possible to obey the Law and be considered righteous. But mankind as a whole cannot obey the Law without God or without the acts of Christ at the Incarnation.



The Law is not a living and breathing thing that can give man any ability. It actually makes known sin, since disobedience to it makes sin known and manifest. We know the Law, but it gives no power to us to obey it. We of our own ability cannot hope to obey it, only those who gives themselves over to the gift of faith. Walking in faith is empowered by God. Not the Law.



Grace falls on the evil as well as the good. The parable of the sower and the seed is a good analogy of grace. Any seed that falls on good ground becomes "fruit". But the ground itself must be prepared. It must be open to reception from the Divine Lover's gift of Self. Grace is a gift of the Life of God. Man can and does reject that, grieving the Holy Spirit. Grace is not "power" that forces men to do things. It is an invitation to love in return, a return that DEPENDS upon the gift in of itself. Without the seed, there can be no fruit. Without the good ground, there can be no lasting fruit.




This is a common issue with Protestantism - the inability to accept secondary causes, which philosphers and theologians have always noted when looking at the mystery of grace and nature. Grace does not overpower nature, it adds to it, fulfills it. That is how a Lover works. It doesn't "push us out of the way", it aids us, helps us. This is called "synergy", words found in the Scriptures to describe our relationship between man and God. "God is my helper", for example. This also explains how God can rain down graces and note that they can be rejected.



Doesn't Christ call on MEN to repent? Doesn't this imply the ABILITY to repent? There is no need to downplay the wonderful gift of freedom given to man to somehow "protect" the Sovereignty of God. The very act of giving us freedom is indeed a Sovereign act of choice given to us by God. God has definitively shown that He is not a God who needs to "show power" to man. He reduced Himself, putting aside His divinity so that we could SEE God, Jesus Christ. When we see Christ, we see the Father. And thus, taking our cue from Jesus, God is not a God Who is not threatened by the freedom of men.



We don't have pure hearts. We only are "pure" in as much as we are in communion with our adopted Brother, Jesus Christ. True God AND true man. As we "mimic" (put on) Christ, we manifest Christ in the world today. This act of "putting on Christ" is a movement of BOTH God and man. Phil 2:12-13 is the clearest and most succinct discussion on this synergy.

Ez 36 is not the only word on the subject. This is a complex issue, and the Bible is not a theological textbook. You will find numerous citations on this subject spread all over the place. We must take the totality of Scriptures when analyzing theologically the relationship between grace and nature. Proof texting singular verses is pointless, since I could provide verses that make men operative.

Regards

My issue with freewill is not after we recieve of Love but before. I've said in many other posts, the will is not free till it sees the Truth. The common understanding is a secular view of freewill meant to assign culpability. This culpability for the seeing must be different than the culpability of the blind. But the secular view doesn't even take this into account since it does not apply the terms blind or lame to the will.

Then there is the flesh which is like an old personality we must shed. The custom of old habits must be conquered not without will but with light that reveals the wicked parts of a man. This revelation moves the will with an objective set before it that is Godly and virtuous. The carnal mind cannot recognize this since it's goals are worldly and wills accordingly. Notice I don't say freewills for there is no evidence one exists as defined as being free to deny and submit to God, there is a will which is on it's way to being set free from slavery. Some will say that men will wantonly deny the Truth and this is freewill. I don't agree with saying it is freewill since God will cause this one to believe a lie and only God can then grant repentance again if He is so moved. That person is always doomed to do what is inconvenient he is not free to choose.

The fact is the New Testament is a recorded history of men thinking they are serving God persecuting those who are serving God, for serving God. How can I honestly say with any conviction men have the ability to submit to and deny God with this self evident Truth placed before me? It seems there is nothing God can't do to mold a man according to His will for men cannot always see the impetus that is eternal since the darkness cannot comprehend the light. This has many implications freewill not being one of them and categorizing works and faith according to differing absolutes that must preclude reasoning. I do believe what we are seeing is a sifting and dividing of wheat and tares that exist as the children of entities and made manifest in mankind defining their character and wills. I believe I am off topic here on this thread and I would invite you to PM me. Thank you Joe if you read this.

 

[francisdesales]

My issue with freewill is not after we recieve of Love but before. I've said in many other posts, the will is not free till it sees the Truth. The common understanding is a secular view of freewill meant to assign culpability. This culpability for the seeing must be different than the culpability of the blind. But the secular view doesn't even take this into account since it does not apply the terms blind or lame to the will.

Then there is the flesh which is like an old personality we must shed. The custom of old habits must be conquered not without will but with light that reveals the wicked parts of a man. This revelation moves the will with an objective set before it that is Godly and virtuous. The carnal mind cannot recognize this since it's goals are worldly and wills accordingly. Notice I don't say freewills for there is no evidence one exists as defined as being free to deny and submit to God, there is a will which is on it's way to being set free from slavery. Some will say that men will wantonly deny the Truth and this is freewill. I don't agree with saying it is freewill since God will cause this one to believe a lie and only God can then grant repentance again if He is so moved. That person is always doomed to do what is inconvenient he is not free to choose.

The fact is the New Testament is a recorded history of men thinking they are serving God persecuting those who are serving God, for serving God. How can I honestly say with any conviction men have the ability to submit to and deny God with this self evident Truth placed before me? It seems there is nothing God can't do to mold a man according to His will for men cannot always see the impetus that is eternal since the darkness cannot comprehend the light. This has many implications freewill not being one of them and categorizing works and faith according to differing absolutes that must preclude reasoning. I do believe what we are seeing is a sifting and dividing of wheat and tares that exist as the children of entities and made manifest in mankind defining their character and wills. I believe I am off topic here on this thread and I would invite you to PM me. Thank you Joe if you read this.

Larry,

The discussion of free will is never going to be completely settled, in my opinion. It is a mystery of the faith - one where the Bible expressly teaches two truths; man's total dependence upon God for good works and that man can really decide whether and when he will sin or not sin... For every verse that appears to preach total dependence is counter-balanced by other verses that grant man's capability to make decisions:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you" Zac 1:3. Similar words are found in Mal 3:7. Jesus hints at this when He states "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem... how often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not" Mat 23:37... The words "repent and believe" presumes that capability, presuming God is not merely mocking man.

I am presenting verses from only one side, but there are clearly other verses that state that we can do nothing good without God. 2 Cor 3:5, although refering to apostolic ministry, is taken up by the Council of Orange to mean any good work in general. We need God to even manufacture a good thought! Phil 2:12-13 says the same thing, as does Jesus. Thus, if one is to discuss such issues, one must take into account the fullness of the Biblical and Sacred Tradition that has gone before us on this matter.

Now, to present a possible solution, the best one I have read so far...

It appears that we can do nothing positive, unaided by God. Whether in thought or deed, everything we do is affected in some way by God. Nothing is left but negative or evil things (unaided by God). Such things can exist without grace. Scripture does state that when grace is offered, we can at LEAST do nothing - or not reject that grace. God acts upon us and our lack of resistance, our neutral act of doing nothing, is probably the closest thing that unaided man can do in regards to salvation. God molds us - and we can allow God to work or reject His work. If we were unable to omit resistance to grace, then the exhortions by the prophets and the apostles are in vain.

The gist of this comes from a book I read called "Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God" by Ft. William Most. He comes closest, in my opinion, in providing a solution to the paradox presented above.

To do nothing is in our power. This is not a "good act", it is no act at all. Yet, as Ft. Most says, even this doing nothing is SUSTAINED by grace in as much as grace attracts us. The conclusion is confirmed by the words of Christ in Matt 23 above. He assigned a reason why Jerusalem was not gathered under His wings "you would not". Naturally, Jerusalem could not gather itself under God's wings, and He plainly presumes that Jerusalem had at least the power to not reject grace by which God gathers His children - OTHERWISE, there is no reason to weep or lament. If the decision was entirely God's, He would have pre-arranged it all Himself. Nor would God be considered Just while condemning men who have no ability whatsoever to even "do nothing" while allowing God to work within the will of man. This turns God into a super-powerful man. To "be perfect as the Father" is to love one's enemies, which rules out, in my mind, predestination to reprobation.

I don't really want to turn this into another free will thread. My point is that it is important to take in all that the Bible says on the subject and to be wary on these points, since it effects how we view our idea of God.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

I see here that we each have a different understanding of 'grace'. Could you tell me what you mean by grace and then, if time permits, furnish a simple illustration to help me understand.

Well, in my case, I hold the grace of God to be any free and unmerited act of God towards one to whom it is not due. By this definition, grace is totally dependent on the person giving grace and not based ever so slightly on the person receiving it.

My definition would include yours within it, but I think Grace encompasses everything. Every breath, every thought, every second of my existence is Grace from God, what I would call "good" things and "bad" things alike. I don't think it stops with "unmerited acts", although it includes them. God created me (and everything else) out of nothing, so the moment He stops thinking of me, I cease to exist. That He is thinking of me at all, is Grace.

So I could never club the above 2 statements of yours together. If we are justified by grace alone - we are justified by grace alone. If we are to cooperate and our salvation is based(even a bit) on our cooperation - then that moment that we enter the picture, it is no longer justification by grace alone.

So I assume you don't mean 'grace' the same way I mean it - could you clarify. Especially what you mean by cooperating(a small illustration like the one you gave would help).

What exactly is man's cooperating role here?

If my father gives me a gift that is totally unmerited, can I reject it? Of course I can. The gift is still unmerited, the gift is still offered. If I accept the gift am I "meriting" this gift somehow? Of course not, I'm merely using my free will to decide whether I want it or not and to either accept or reject it. The gift is still pure Grace.

God is always trying to turn me into the kind of creature that can live in Heaven. Sometimes I accept His gifts, sometimes I reject them. That is the extent of my free will, the ability to reject God's Grace.

So, if I walk by someone in need and I feel the Grace of God say "help him" and ignore this prompting of the Holy Spirit (Grace) and I have faith to move mountains, "can faith save me?" This is the opening question of James 14-29.

You must realize, David, these illustrations aren't perfect and all-encompassing. They don't take into consideration infant baptism, for instance, which the recipient can't reject. They might help, though.

Okay, this is what I've got out of what you've written. If it's not what you meant, please correct my misunderstanding -
1. If you are under the law, you work to EARN your salvation.
2. If you are under grace, you work to PLEASE your Father.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Under the Law you are under a contract, "under grace", as you put it, you are in a relationship. You don't "work to please" anyone, you obey out of love.

3. At the end of times, God has an OBLIGATION to PAY you what He promised.
4. At the end of times, God is PLEASED to GIVE you what He promised.

5. Unrepentant disobedience will lead to condemnation.
6. Unrepentant disobedience will lead to condemnation.

Salvation for the Catholic, starts at baptism and is an ongoing process. It has less to do with "the end times" and more to do with the here and now. Throughout this process, God is changing us into the kind of creatures that can enjoy Heaven. If we reject His "changing" we reject Heaven.

I have an issue with this statement of yours - "As you can see, there is NO NEED for love, faith or a Savior [under the law]."
The law expressly has as its chief commandment, to love God. I don't see a valid case to claim that there was no need for love under the law. And considering this - the mindset and attitudinal differences are in the people and not in the law as such - why did we then have to be redeemed from the law, stating that it was the law that led to obligatory works with no need for love?

Certainly God created the Law, so it was perfect. But what had it become in the time of Jesus? Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is constantly deriding the leaders for not living up to the "Spirit of the Law". THIS MINDSET (not the true Law as given by God) is what Paul is reacting to in his letters. This was the first, big controversy within the early Church and led to the first ecumenical Council.

"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. (Acts (RSV) 15)

Paul's letters were a direct reaction to this kind of thinking, James was teaching on something TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

Also, tell me how faith plays a role today under grace - for me to check how this was absent under the law. What exactly is this faith? I am familiar with the commonly used phrases - I want to know its simple meaning.

I can only give you the definition of faith from Hebrews, I really don't know what you're asking for. Faith in a savior is not needed for the first century Jew to be justified. The Law covered justification. The "Judaizers" that Paul was reacting to were trying bring this attitude into the Church.

"Under grace", faith is like breathing. We can only live if we continue to breathe, but we cannot live by breathing alone. All our "not rejecting Grace" (works) must be done in Faith or they are not efficacious. Faith also must be HAD, so it takes an act of the will, or a "non-rejection" of Grace.

So, if feeding the poor and keeping the commandments are "works" which take an act if the will, and faith takes an act of the will also, is faith a "work" in your opinion?

Again, my intent is to know how exactly our beliefs differ from the jews'. I started seeing too many similarities that made me want to find out what the differences were.

You'll have to go to someone more knowledgeable than I am for all the differences and nuances. I'm just a truck driver.

 

[Elijah674]

One post had this in it...
'I can only give you the definition of faith from Hebrews, I really don't know what you're asking for. Faith in a savior is not needed for the first century Jew to be justified. The Law covered justification. The "Judaizers" that Paul was reacting to were trying bring this attitude into the Church.'

In Heb. chapter 11 we find these [ALL] O.T. dead ones saved by FAITH. Ibid. 13
There is NO WAY to be saved any other way! Gen. 3:15 finds Obedience because of Loving Faith in Christ the promised [BY FAITH] Sacrifice.

In fact, NO one from Adam on will be saved without yielding the 'will' to Christ. Acts 5:32 confirms that the Holy Spirit is given ONLY to these ones. Then Phil. 4:13 + 2 Cor. 12:9 is the Conditional Promise.

--Elijah

 

[dadof10]

One post had this in it...
'I can only give you the definition of faith from Hebrews, I really don't know what you're asking for. Faith in a savior is not needed for the first century Jew to be justified. The Law covered justification. The "Judaizers" that Paul was reacting to were trying bring this attitude into the Church.'

In Heb. chapter 11 we find these [ALL] O.T. dead ones saved by FAITH. Ibid. 13
There is NO WAY to be saved any other way! Gen. 3:15 finds Obedience because of Loving Faith in Christ the promised [BY FAITH] Sacrifice.

In fact, NO one from Adam on will be saved without yielding the 'will' to Christ. Acts 5:32 confirms that the Holy Spirit is given ONLY to these ones. Then Phil. 4:13 + 2 Cor. 12:9 is the Conditional Promise.

--Elijah

Faith in a Savior, not faith in God. Judaism did not teach that having faith in the Messiah was necessary for justification. They thought the Messiah would be a military leader, not a Suffering Servant. If they were Trinitarian Jews, you might have a point.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[MarkT]

This is a discussion of James 2:14-25. I will give a brief exegesis of the verses and I look forward to many comments.

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? (James (RSV) 2)

You will immediately notice that what James is talking about is FAITH. Not a lack of faith, not a "said faith", in which the hypothetical "man" merely says he has faith but really doesn't. "Can his faith save him?" is the question, not "Can the man merely SAYING he has faith, save him?"

James is talking about FAITH. He goes on with an example of how having faith without works doesn't "profit".

If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James (RSV) 2)

Again, "faith". Not a man saying he has faith, but really not having it. What can this mean, but what the words actually say, that "FAITH, if it has no works, is dead"? Twisting the words with an adjective to mean "a person who merely SAYS he has faith, but really doesn't" is damaging the plain words of Scripture.

But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." (James (RSV) 2)

This verse ALWAYS gets glossed over by the "faith alone" crowd, yet is important to show the context of what he is actually arguing. Using an antonym is a good teaching tool.

Notice this is the OPPOSITE of what was argued in verses 14-17, which presented the scenario that "I have faith, you have works". James asks what profit is there if a man has faith and no works, verse 15 argues that the OTHER EXTREME IS ALSO MISGUIDED.

In verse 14; a man says he has faith and has no works. In verse 18; a "someone" says he has works, but has no faith. If you think that James is talking about a "said faith" in verse 14, then it stands to reason he is talking about "said works" in verse 18. Does this really make sense?

Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. (James (RSV) 2)

Faith AND works, not faith alone (14-17), not works alone (v. 18), but faith and works together. This is what "profits".

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder. (James (RSV) 2)

Even demons have rudimentary faith, yet it can't save them. This is an extreme example to prove his point, that faith without works, even though it's still faith, does not profit. As he goes on...

Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? (James (RSV) 2)

Now an example...

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; (James (RSV) 2)

So, after reading the above, I have a question. Was Abraham "justified by works"? It's a simple yes or no question. Let's read it again:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

Yes or no. No twisting of the words of Scripture to suit a "faith alone" heresy. I believe the plain words of Scripture that say: "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works..." How about you?

Faith is active along WITH his works and faith completed BY his works. So, according to James, "completed faith" justifies, incomplete faith, even though it's still faith, does not. As in the example in verses 15-16, if you refuse to show charity to others, even though you have faith, it does not profit, does NOT JUSTIFY. If the "man" in verse 14 refuses to act charitably to his "ill-clad" neighbor, will he still be justified, even though he has faith? The obvious answer is NO.

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James (RSV) 2)

"YOU SEE..." What was James getting at with the example of Abraham? "That a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".

Another question: Is man justified by faith alone or by works? Reading the plain words of Scripture, the answer is obvious to anyone over the age of seven.

And James is not done...

And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? (James (RSV) 2)

"AND IN THE SAME WAY..." The same way as Abraham, by faith and works.

Another question. How was Rahab the harlot justified? Another no-brainer.

And finally, the conclusion...

For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. (James (RSV) 2)

Again, not "said faith", not "a faith that claims to be real, but isn't". FAITH, if it has no works, does NOT justify. Pretty simple and straight forward.

I didn't go into too much detail on purpose. I hope for many differing views, and a lively debate.

If you know the Word of God, then you know what faith is - for faith is in Jesus Christ and in the promises of God. And if you believe Jesus was sent by God, then your hope will be justified. Anyone who believes in Jesus also believes in the one who sent him. If you believe in God and the man he sent, then you will do the work God gives you to do. But each according to his ability.

Jesus said the servant who knew his master's will but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a sereve beating. But he who didn't know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much is given, of him will much be required.

So the question is, do you know God's will? I hope you do. If you know what Jesus taught, then you know God's will. Don't judge, for example. If you keep his words in your heart, and treasure up his commandments, then his words will preserve you - 'for they are life to him who finds them', as the Proverb says Pr. 4:20-22.

Does God give us work to do? Yes. But it makes no sense to confuse the idea that works (of the law) justify. Works didn't justify us before we read the Bible. We were not following the law. We were sinners before Jesus found us. However, even though we are justified by faith, let us not say God doesn't give us work. Let us not fail to do the work God gives us. Remember, Noah built the ark as God commanded him to do.

What? Were you put on this earth simply to feed the poor? Even the godless feed the poor. So what separates you from the godless? Build your house my friends. Build your house. By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established Proverbs 24:3

 

[Elijah674]

Faith in a Savior, not faith in God. Judaism did not teach that having faith in the Messiah was necessary for justification. They thought the Messiah would be a military leader, not a Suffering Servant. If they were Trinitarian Jews, you might have a point.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Find in the Word of God (not these of Jer. 17:5!) your above post.
Then tell the Godhead that these Gen. 26:1-5 DIRECT words in (the Lord APPEARED to him) conversation to Isaac in verse 5 and which were [DOCUMENTED] long before the N.T. or any pedigree Jew came to view, and even before God was asked by the Jewish nation to NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY with them anymore. (which God obliged!)

If you BELIEVE God (Christ IS THE WORD) then you will see that the verse has the Bible with ALL THE SAME TRUTH from the start of the Bible on! That is what Eternal Gospel of Rev. 14:6 Means!

OK: Here is what the verse says in my Douay Bible: 'Because Abraham [OBEYED MY VOICE], and [KEPT MY PRECEPTS AND COMMANDMENTS], [[MY]] Ceremonies and Laws.'

Surely God from the beginning had the warning seen in Gen. 3 by Adam, huh! And after sin is found the ceremonies of Gen. 3:15 Promise are there! See Gen. 4:7 again Christ/God in person telling an MATURE Cain who had been faithful up ro this time (at least there is not any record to the otherwise) of offering a 'Lamb Sacrifice in Faith' pointing to the Sacrifice of Christ in the FUTURE. And the outcome is also seen there! Yet, Christ even gave him another opportunity to OBEY, huh!

No, make NO mistake, Christ has Eternally been the CENTER/PIECE of the Eternal GOSPEL! Acts 4:12

Try a K.J. for a couple verses? Note that Stephen was FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST in Acts 7:55 & here is what INSPIRATION told us in verse 38.

'THIS IS HE THAT WAS IN THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS..' And Paul in 1 Cor. 10 talks about our 'ignorance'. notice verses 1-3!

'And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that SPIRITUAL ROCK THAT FOLLOWED THEM: AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST.' (verses 2-3) see Matt. 4:4!

And sure, from the beginning after sin on, there was always only a 'REMNANT' who were Obedient to the end of their life and saved by FAITH [[IN CHRIST]]. Heb. 1:13 has it NO OTHER WAY!

--Elijan

 

[Elijah674]

Find in the Word of God (not these of Jer. 17:5!) your above post.
Then tell the Godhead that these Gen. 26:1-5 DIRECT words in (the Lord APPEARED to him) conversation to Isaac in verse 5 and which were [DOCUMENTED] long before the N.T. or any pedigree Jew came to view, and even before God was asked by the Jewish nation to NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY with them anymore. (which God obliged!)

If you BELIEVE God (Christ IS THE WORD) then you will see that the verse has the Bible with ALL THE SAME TRUTH from the start of the Bible on! That is what Eternal Gospel of Rev. 14:6 Means!

OK: Here is what the verse says in my Douay Bible: 'Because Abraham [OBEYED MY VOICE], and [KEPT MY PRECEPTS AND COMMANDMENTS], [[MY]] Ceremonies and Laws.'

Surely God from the beginning had the warning seen in Gen. 3 by Adam, huh! And after sin is found the ceremonies of Gen. 3:15 Promise are there! See Gen. 4:7 again Christ/God in person telling an MATURE Cain who had been faithful up ro this time (at least there is not any record to the otherwise) of offering a 'Lamb Sacrifice in Faith' pointing to the Sacrifice of Christ in the FUTURE. And the outcome is also seen there! Yet, Christ even gave him another opportunity to OBEY, huh!

No, make NO mistake, Christ has Eternally been the CENTER/PIECE of the Eternal GOSPEL! Acts 4:12

Try a K.J. for a couple verses? Note that Stephen was FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST in Acts 7:55 & here is what INSPIRATION told us in verse 38.

'THIS IS HE THAT WAS IN THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS..' And Paul in 1 Cor. 10 talks about our 'ignorance'. notice verses 1-3!

'And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that SPIRITUAL ROCK THAT FOLLOWED THEM: AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST.' (verses 2-3) see Matt. 4:4!

And sure, from the beginning after sin on, there was always only a 'REMNANT' who were Obedient to the end of their life and saved by FAITH [[IN CHRIST]]. Heb. 1:13 has it NO OTHER WAY!

--Elijan

PS: It seems that I missed a couple Words from the Douay verses!;) It says.. 'and observed My ceremonies' also!

 

[dadof10]

Find in the Word of God (not these of Jer. 17:5!) your above post.
Then tell the Godhead that these Gen. 26:1-5 DIRECT words in (the Lord APPEARED to him) conversation to Isaac in verse 5 and which were [DOCUMENTED] long before the N.T. or any pedigree Jew came to view, and even before God was asked by the Jewish nation to NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY with them anymore. (which God obliged!)

If you BELIEVE God (Christ IS THE WORD) then you will see that the verse has the Bible with ALL THE SAME TRUTH from the start of the Bible on! That is what Eternal Gospel of Rev. 14:6 Means!

OK: Here is what the verse says in my Douay Bible: 'Because Abraham [OBEYED MY VOICE], and [KEPT MY PRECEPTS AND COMMANDMENTS], [[MY]] Ceremonies and Laws.'

Surely God from the beginning had the warning seen in Gen. 3 by Adam, huh! And after sin is found the ceremonies of Gen. 3:15 Promise are there! See Gen. 4:7 again Christ/God in person telling an MATURE Cain who had been faithful up ro this time (at least there is not any record to the otherwise) of offering a 'Lamb Sacrifice in Faith' pointing to the Sacrifice of Christ in the FUTURE. And the outcome is also seen there! Yet, Christ even gave him another opportunity to OBEY, huh!

No, make NO mistake, Christ has Eternally been the CENTER/PIECE of the Eternal GOSPEL! Acts 4:12

Try a K.J. for a couple verses? Note that Stephen was FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST in Acts 7:55 & here is what INSPIRATION told us in verse 38.

'THIS IS HE THAT WAS IN THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS..' And Paul in 1 Cor. 10 talks about our 'ignorance'. notice verses 1-3!

'And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that SPIRITUAL ROCK THAT FOLLOWED THEM: AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST.' (verses 2-3) see Matt. 4:4!

And sure, from the beginning after sin on, there was always only a 'REMNANT' who were Obedient to the end of their life and saved by FAITH [[IN CHRIST]]. Heb. 1:13 has it NO OTHER WAY!

--Elijan

Elijah, might I make two suggestions? First, it would make your posts easier to read if you did less color changing, and second could you please give me a summary of your point?

My point to you is that "faith in the Messiah" was (I think) unknown to Judaism. The Messiah was thought to be a military leader, not a meek, humble Servant who would be put to death and rise from the dead. The Jews were (and still are) waiting for a temporal leader. Faith IN GOD is necessary within Jewish Law, but not faith in the Messiah.

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah, might I make two suggestions? First, it would make your posts easier to read if you did less color changing, and second could you please give me a summary of your point?

My point to you is that "faith in the Messiah" was (I think) unknown to Judaism. The Messiah was thought to be a military leader, not a meek, humble Servant who would be put to death and rise from the dead. The Jews were (and still are) waiting for a temporal leader. Faith IN GOD is necessary within Jewish Law, but not faith in the Messiah.

I don't agree with that posting. There were many then as there are of today that are just Christian in name. Always just a Remnant. (but a Remnant there was! from Adam on to Rev. 12:17)

And these were ALL saved only one way, by an obedient faith in the Rev. 14:6 Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Acts 4:12. No other name! 1 Co. 10:4 & that Rock was Christ!) God/Christ in OT & God/Christ/Son in the NT. But STILL BY OBEDIENT FAITH! Phil. 4:13

--Elijah