Faith AND Works-James 2...Again

[francisdesales]

francisdesales,


You do realize that there is a difference between using the word 'flesh' and the word 'wicked' - when we qualify the word 'wicked' to replace 'flesh' here, we tend to focus on 'wicked' as if it were a state we could be in and not be in as we choose. But if we retain the word 'flesh' as used in the Bible - it refers to who we are as we were born of our natural parents. And this lends itself to the meaning that we are naturally unable to keep the law of God until we are regenerated.

The last sentence is true in the general sense. However, it is my opinion that God can and does act within people who are not formally "regenerated". Atheists can perform acts of love. Jesus said "Even the pagans act as such" towards their own. Without Him, we can do nothing good, so it follows that at times, God works within the pre-regenerated man. Why does God do this? I would think to draw men to Himself. However, we note that sometimes, men are not drawn to God.

francisdesales - "It seems that this "wickedness" is not always an eternal state that is unchangeable. "
Our "flesh" in this world is unchangeable.

Sure it is. When we are born from above, it changes. We are transformed, and a new Principle leads us.

francisdesales - "In other words, men can repent and are given the opportunity to repent."
Men are given the opportunity to repent, yes, to show them that the flesh profits them nothing

I disagree that this is the reason why God instills within us the feelings of repentance. Your view of Who God is differs from mine.

It appears that you see God as a powerful human who must show man whose in charge, to say "See, I told you so".

That they need the regenerative work of God in them to be able to repent of their enmity against God.

Yes, I never denied that it is God who takes the initiative in transforming the wicked. But Ezekiel makes it clear that God does NOT desire that men die. Thus, it follows that ALL men are, at some level, worked on by God.

francisdesales - "Paul notes we all are "wicked" at some point, awaiting the grace of God to aid us."
Paul notes all of us are born in the "flesh" and are wicked continuously until the "point" of being regenerated by God, by His grace alone.

Paul never states "by His grace alone" on this idea. It also takes man's "yes" to the call to "repent and believe". Again, you are forgeting that God allows secondary causes.

francisdesales - "This eventually leads to a hardening of the heart and to a permanent lack of communion between God and the individual."
Well, all of us begin with a hardened heart, with no communion with the Spirit until we are regenerated by the working of the Spirit.

No, we don't begin with a hardened heart. That takes many rejections of our conscience inside of us. We eventually tune it out, that voice given to us by God, to do right and not treat others badly. To enter into communion with the Spirit does require a work of that same Spirit. True. But often, God works without our knowledge. Anyone who has converted will tell you of this. Communion with the Spirit requires knowledge and trust in His presence, and that doesn't happen until we become believers. However, God's Spirit is present before this, working within our wills the desire to follow Him.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

dadof10,


I thought this was what I'd answered in my previous post -
that faith too is a 'work' AND that both faith and [good]works are gifts of grace. We don't differ here at all. It's the way we've understood the grace of God that differs.

I don't think that's where we differ, I believe the same as you do, that Grace is the unmerited gift of God. Where we differ is on the subject of free will. I believe we can CHOOSE to reject God's Grace (unmerited gift), you believe we can't.

And regarding faith being placed over works - I don't look at it that way at all. I only say - faith is placed before works - in temporal sequence. You cannot do good works without first having faith

Agreed. No good deeds, no matter how good, can merit without faith.

- and one who has faith will end up doing good works. If one does not continue in good works, then it shows that he never had faith. This way, the works are the evidential result of such faith.

This is the main Protestant line on this topic and is totally un-Biblical. Nowhere does Scripture teach this, not even implicitly.

They just proceed from faith that precedes them.

Again, not taught in Scripture.

Again, if we differ here - it's because we haven't concurred on what we each mean by faith - as I see here -
dadof10 - "We must have faith in Christ, which assumes changing our ways, conforming to the image of Christ. "

In the next sentence I asked the question: "But does this changing and conforming belong strictly in the DEFINITION of faith?" My answer would be "no", and (if I'm reading your view right), yours would be "yes".

James assumes that even people who HAVE FAITH (real, true faith, like that of Abraham) won't always do good deeds when prompted by the Spirit. Paul teaches the same thing in 1 Cor.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1Corinthians (RSV) 13)

So, it's possible to have faith, yet not have love, which leads to good deeds. Love, charity, good deeds, keeping the commandments, etc. are not properly part of the definition of the word "faith". Again, this notion is not taught in Scripture.

Sure. I think you're mixing up "being free" with "being sovereign". No man is sovereign. See, sovereignty is bidirectional - it can go this way or that way. But freedom is unidirectional - it's always headed in the direction opposite to oppression. So, if a person heads towards oppression, I wouldn't be calling that person free. How can a person who rejects God be free - I'd say he's under the oppression of sin to do such a thing.

If God FORCES (I've heard many Calvinists use this word) His will upon man, how can man possibly choose? Once choice is removed, there can be no freedom. I'm not saying man has freedom over EVERYTHING (sovereignty), only freedom to reject God's grace, which He is constantly offering. You can't have it both ways, either your free to reject or your forced to accept. This isn't usually a big deal for Calvinists (if you subscribe to T.U.L.I.P.). They usually concede the point that man is not free and move on. Maybe you have a different view?

Also Rom 6:16-23 show how being free from sin is to be 'slaves' of God and vice versa - there is no middle ground of amorality in all things pertaining to morality. And being a 'slave' of God is not oppressive at all and hence we are free - not sovereign but free. Does this suffice?

Do you think that saved people don't commit actual sin? Being a "slave of God" doesn't mean "free from sin".

Let's start with verse 12:

So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Paul is obviously talking to Christians (slaves of God). The very next sentence...

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13 Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (Romans (RSV) 6)

It is also obvious that it's possible for saved Christians to yield to sin. If they don't have free will, how is it possible? Note also, that there is no mention of "if you are saved you will necessarily refrain from sin".

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! (Romans (RSV) 6)

He goes on to explain this...

Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Romans (RSV) 6)

So, if they are "set free from sin" and "have become obedient from the heart" and "become slaves of righteousness", does that mean they will necessarily never reject the grace of God? This doesn't make sense in light of verses 12 and 13.

How about you - Would you say that one is free to reject God's grace or would you say that he is under the oppression of sin to not accept God's grace?

We are all under the oppression of sin, that doesn't mean we cannot reject SIN and accept God's Grace...or vice versa.

Was there some question on this for me to address? I may have overlooked it. Anyway, I do agree that Paul and James aren't talking about the same "works". Paul talks to those who are under the law and James talks to those who do good works under grace. Is there anything else to be clarified here?

Throughout his letters, Paul makes it crystal clear he is addressing CHRISTIANS. Do you believe there are groups of Christians who are "under the law"?


Continued...

 

[dadof10]

Could you bear with me while I try to understand your beliefs on the OP. For me to understand what you mean by good works, I need to know how you contrast it with the works of the law. I know you have stated many things to explain your beliefs but please do understand that I'm not privy to all your presuppositions and accompanying beliefs that go along with what you've stated. Hence I'm not able to form a complete understanding of what you believe, which is what I'm seeking to get clarified with my every post.

Simply works that put God in obligation to man. When the Jews obeyed the Law, they thought that God (due to His promises) was OBLIGED to deliver on His end of the bargain.

Paul is reacting to this way of thinking, James is not. James is reacting to people who believe that they were justified by faith alone, people who thought good deeds done in faith had nothing to do with justification. In short, he is reacting to Protestants.

Alright, this is something I haven't understood of your beliefs. What is this True Law given by God - is it the Law given through Moses?

Yes.

And what is this Mindset - is it the attitude that one could make God obligated to him by his works of the law?

Yes.

If so, Paul should have been only against the temporal mindset of that time and not against the Law itself which was given by God through Moses, right?

If Paul was still awaiting the Messiah, true enough. The Messiah came and fulfilled the Law. The Grace of God had ALWAYS saved, not strict adherence to the Law. The Spirit of the Law saved, not the temporal duties attached. The Jews ADDED to the Law over time and made upholding their man made traditions equal to the Law given by God.

And so Paul should have continued to uphold the true Law and its intended purpose - my question is regarding this intended purpose(of the true Law and not any law which has been perceived wrongly by some sets of people). The intended purpose of the Law seems to be justification as seen in Lev 18:5. But in the context of Gal 3, Paul clearly refers to the Law given by God through Moses - the True Law that we expect him to uphold - and says that the Law is not intended for justification. Then what is it intended for?

Justification came through the spirit of the TRUE Law, not the "extras" added over time. This is where we are missing each other, I think.

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God. (Romans (RSV) 2)

Is it? Looks more a definition of a property of faith than of faith itself.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
When I say "milk is the substance of ice-cream", it neither defines milk nor ice-cream but expresses a property of milk - in that it is the chief ingredient of ice-cream - ie it conveys that ice-cream is primarily based on milk.
Similarly, faith is being described as the primary foundation on which our hopes rest - signifying the relation between faith and hope - but not defining faith itself.

Now, "hope" is to believe as true, an event that is yet to occur in the future.
If one said "I hope to reach that place on time", and somebody were to ask him how he could believe this future event to be true - he'd state that he believes so because of his faith in the bus services.
If one said "I hope to win this match", and somebody were to ask him how he could believe this future event to be true - he'd state that he believes so because of his faith in himself.
Do you see how hope rests on faith. And how faith itself is not defined in Heb 11:1.

Also, when I say "blood is the evidence of a cut in my hand", I'm not defining blood, but rather its property of application.
Similarly faith is the evidence or that which convinces one of things not seen as if they were - but this does not define what that faith is itself.

Let's cut to the chase. Would you put "works" as a NECESSARY part of the definition of faith? Would your definition include belief and always acting on that belief?

The straightforward definition of faith - is the act of believing. And the working definition of "believe" is to "hold a given premise as true".

O.K.

In that sense, what is this saving faith?

A made up caveat of Protestantism to explain away James 2. You walked right into that one...

Seriously, Scripture doesn't make any distinction between "saving" faith and "said" or "not saving" faith. Certainly there is faithfulness, which is living for Jesus with faith and love, but not with faith alone. There are many verses which allude to the fact we can have faith in Jesus, yet sin and even fall. It's possible to have a real faith (what you call "saving"), yet not do "good deeds". Do you agree?

I said: "As it says in Hebrews, faith is belief in things not seen and hoped for. You need to prove that faith NECESSARILY includes good deeds within the definition." You replied:

When we talk of "believing in Christ", what premise are we exactly to hold as true?

First of all, asking a question is not proof. Secondly, believing in Christ means believing that God became flesh and dwelt among us. Certain things SHOULD flow from this fact (love, charity, etc.), but Scripture and history are painfully obvious to the fact that we "believers" don't always do what we "should". This is the topic of James 2. If we don't DO what our faith is drawing us to do, it WILL affect our salvation.

 

[savedbygrace57]

James 2:17

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Also see James 2:20,26

The reason why James said that Faith without works is dead, and then used as an Illustration of a Brother being in need : James 2:14-17

14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And 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?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Notice, He says if a brother or sister be naked and destitute. He is speaking about a spiritual relationship as brothers and sisters in the Lord. How could we know of one who is in the like family of faith in such dire need, and act complacent about it ?

John makes a similar point 1 Jn 3:14-18

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Its amazing how many of the opponents of James who say He is promoting a works orientated salvation, can read this of John, who basically is saying, if we see a brother in need and don't be moved to aid them, how that is giving evidence of one being void of the Love of God in them, and lacking of evidence of having been passed from death unto life. Basically He is saying, that they are not born again themselves.

So James as well as John knew that certain evidences accompany Salvation or conversion, of which is Love to the Brethren or Sisters, not in word only, but also in deed and in truth. That word deed in I Jn 3:18 is the greek word ergon and means:

work ! It is translated work 152 times !

Loving our Spiritual Brethren is an evidence of having been born Again 1 Jn 5:1

1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1 Jn 3:14

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

Ye see that ? Loving the brethren, not in word only, but in deed or work, John says is an evidence of having passed from death unto life. Just as believing is says Jesus here Jn 5:24

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

And so that is all James is saying, Faith without works is lacking evidence of being that Faith which is Born of God. Which makes it a dead faith, or the Faith of a person who is alienated from the Life of God.

One more crucial point here. This Faith that is born of God will also be Characterized by belief in the Truth, the True Gospel, the True Christ with an accurate knowledge of who He is and what His work accomplished on the Cross and for whom it was for.

2 Jn 1:1

The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

Thus, when we say that the Mosaic Law is abrogated as the means by which men become the People of God, it does not mean that we no longer have to honor our parents, since such law transcends the Mosaic Law.

Don't worry - I'm not trying to imply that we need not obey these commandments now. This is what I'm drawing attention to - that these commandments were part of the Law whose purpose we find is not to justify any man at all. I think our differences are found here - I think you believe that the Law was intended to be a means of justification to the jews - I believe that no man is ever justified by the Law because that was not its purpose[Gal 3].

The point has been raised that the law which was said not to justify referred only to ceremonial laws and not the moral laws which is being referred to now - but we have both seen that there is no such distinction in referring to the law - it encompasses all the commandments, even those of moral nature.

Another point has been that the law referred to a flawed mindset by particular groups of people and that it did not refer to the actual law given by God through Moses - in that case, the mindset should be abrogated and not the Law of Moses itself, but that is what we see referred to directly in Gal 3.

Also,
francisdesales - "In neither case do we or Jews feel that we must keep the Law perfectly. Nor did they expect to do so without God's help."
I agree with this observation of yours - which is where my main concern lies. If we believe the same things as the jews, then we are as they were - under the law - where we shall find no justification. The jews, as you said, were asked to cooperate with God's grace in keeping the law - that was their role in the old covenant - and they would be justified before God. But none attain unto such justification - rather all under the law are under the curse, by the law.

So, when we say that we are no longer under the law - we are not saying we are no longer obligated to keep the commandments stated in a law - rather we are saying that we are not under the governing rule of the Law of works. The law of works is given in Lev 18:5 - if a man shall keep the commandments, he shall live - by his having kept the commandments. The reason for his justification would be his having cooperated in keeping his side of the covenant, namely keeping God's commandments. But this has not resulted in the justification of any man - rather all are under the curse by the law. This is so because the law of works was never meant to be a means of justification - that is taken care of by the law of faith under the new covenant.

What does the old covenant say -
Deu 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
Deu 30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Deu 30:17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
Deu 30:18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
v.15 talks about God's initiative in showing us good and life.
v.16 talks about man's cooperation in keeping God's law, on which depends his blessing - namely to have life and to possess the land [the Kingdom of God].
v.17 talks about the scenario when man fails to keep his side of the covenant -
v.18 continues that the penalty would be that man shall surely perish and die(not have life) and will not be permitted to live in His kingdom.

But what of the new covenant and why did it come into force -
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
v.32 states that the first covenant was broken - by the lack of cooperation of man.
v.33-34 state what God will do in the new covenant - He does everything. He leaves nothing for man to cooperate in, because that's where the old covenant failed to give life. There is no penalty for sin - He says He will not remember the sins anymore - because of Christ. Under the old covenant, man perished and died because God remembered his not keeping the law. Here, man lives because of God's grace and mercy in not imputing his sins to him.

This is continued here -
Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Eze 36:28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
v.25-26 speak of what God does in changing the nature of this rebellious man in the flesh.
v.27 speaks of how God will cause us to walk in His ways. Contrast this with Deut 30:16.
v.28 talks of the blessing - that we will possess His kingdom because of what He does and not what we do. There is no curse when God alone works - for all His works are perfect and good.

What is the difference between the new covenant and the old covenant - man's role in cooperating and contributing to his salvation. The old covenant was dependent also on man's cooperating works to give him life - and instead he died - for all under this law of works are under the curse. The new covenant takes away this and promises life based on God's works from beginning to end and not any of our cooperating works - and all who depend on God's works alone for their salvation shall not be ashamed - such of faith inherit the blessings, having been redeemed from the curse by Christ. Herein is the distinction between being 'under the law' and 'under grace'.

So, when one states something to the effect of cooperation, it seems to be putting us back under the law wherein we frustrate the grace of God.

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

However, it is my opinion that God can and does act within people who are not formally "regenerated". Atheists can perform acts of love. Jesus said "Even the pagans act as such" towards their own. Without Him, we can do nothing good, so it follows that at times, God works within the pre-regenerated man.
Isn't He the First Cause of all??? What you give before, you now take away...

Here, you refer to this unbeliever's act of love as an act of good before God - I don't believe so. If you've been following the recent posts in the FreeWill thread, you'd see that this was being discussed. The first part of this post could help.
There, I have illustrated a)how one may keep a commandment in deed and yet not in intent - and also b)how violating a single commandment in any deed or intent of yours would render that deed of yours as a transgression of the law and we know c)how transgression of the law is sin and not righteous. Add to this d) the inclinations and desires of the flesh are in enmity with God and e) All unregenerate people are in the flesh.â€

God restrains varying sinful desires in all men - but you need a godly desire to do good - and this is worked by the Spirit in the regenerate.

francisdesales - "But often, God works without our knowledge. Anyone who has converted will tell you of this."
If you're referring to the Spirit's work of regenerating us, then I too agree. But this is God's work of converting us - in order to work in us His righteousness henceforth. I can't see how this can be applied to man before God's work of converting him.

It appears that you see God as a powerful human who must show man whose in charge, to say "See, I told you so".

No, I see God as being merciful and compassionate to an arrogant and blind rebel in enmity with God and addicted to sin, who then begins a salvation work in such a man by de-addicting him of his sinful flesh and freeing him to have life in God alone.

I disagree that this is the reason why God instills within us the feelings of repentance.

I attributed the reason not to repentance itself but to the command for us to repent when we are in the flesh. Repentance itself is a genuine turning away from sin towards God which is accompanied with a godly sorrow.

Our "flesh" in this world is unchangeable.

Sure it is. When we are born from above, it changes. We are transformed, and a new Principle leads us.

I look at it this way - when we are born in this world, we are born as a living soul in the flesh, conceived in sinful nature. When God regenerates us, we are born again of God and now we[our soul] are born in the spirit. In this sense, those who are regenerated are not in the flesh but in the spirit - and yet in another sense, we are still open to the influence of the flesh which we must war against. We could perhaps view it concentrically - after regeneration, the soul is enclosed within the spirit and both these are enclosed within the fleshly body while before regeneration, the soul was only enclosed within the fleshly body. We[the soul] have been transformed here, but the flesh remains the same. Why else would there be such sharp warnings against walking by the flesh and over how the flesh lusts against the Spirit etc.

It appears perfectly consistent to state that men can do nothing SALVIFIC without God, not that I can do nothing AT ALL without God.

This is what I'm saying, I-the-soul, by the power of the flesh, can do nothing good - ever. I-the-soul, by the power of the Spirit, can do nothing but good. When you refer to man's own works, you refer to man's-soul-by-the-flesh. When you refer to God's works worked in man by God, you refer to man's-soul-by-the-Spirit.

To say that literally, "Jesus was made sin" is a complete contradiction of Hebrews

I have no clue as to where this came from.
Trace this point of discussion -
francisdesales - "Paul does not say that 'no one can individually keep the dictates of the Law.' Paul himself said that he did..."
ivdavid - "He[Paul] did keep the law as the flesh saw it but when he saw the law as being spiritual after his regeneration, he died by it - because he saw himself condemned(=not considered righteous) by it [Rom 7:10]. How can one keep the law and still be condemned - it goes against Lev 18:5."
Note here, I understand "condemnation" as "an adverse judgement sentence" - so I'm asking, how can one[Paul] who has kept the law be passed an adverse judgement sentence as by his own admission in Rom 7:10.
francisdesales - "He[Paul] is not being condemned because of personal guilt. Jesus never sinned, correct? He is "condemned" because Jesus has taken upon Himself the guilt of mankind, willingly."
Here, I take it that you mean "condemned" as "punished" but I'm talking specifically of how an adverse sentence can be passed on one who has kept the law. I think that's where you refer to Christ, presumably showing that though Christ had kept the law, He had an adverse sentence passed on Him.
ivdavid - "I didn't understand this belief of yours - please could you elaborate. I don't understand the comparison with Christ either - can mere man be compared with Jesus Christ?"
How do you say that Paul did not have an adverse sentence passed on him by the law? And why the comparison of mere man[Paul] with Jesus? Jesus faced condemnation on man's behalf - namely people like Paul. So, the adverse sentence passed on Jesus was taken from man on whom it was actually passed on, by the law - specifically on Paul whom we're discussing here. Which brings us back to the question - why did Paul who had kept the law have an adverse sentence passed on him, which was later to be taken on sacrificially by Christ?
Where exactly did we lose each other?

You stated "God gave us a law that none could keep". Of course, that is false. What sort of God do you have in mind that commands men to do what they cannot hope to do?

I don't quite see the problem here. This is what I'd written initially -
ivdavid - "I mean, Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7 only seem to imply that the unregenerate man can never keep God's Law. Isn't that the very purpose - to reveal God's will through a Law that none can keep in order to show the sinfulness of sin in them that prevents them from doing so - and in turn pointing them to Christ who works in them what they themselves ought to and cannot, only because of His grace and mercy."
And you followed up with -
francisdesales - "Sure men can keep it! Not by themselves, that's all...God didn't give us a Law that no one could hope to keep, even WITH His help!!!"
Aren't you saying what I'm saying - that the unregenerate cannot keep God's law. If the unregenerate cannot keep God's law, then why does God command such also to keep the law - isn't it because He wants them to stop leaning on the arm of their flesh and to rest on Him alone for righteousness. Am I not saying what you're saying - that only with His working in us, one can hope to fulfill the spiritual intent of the law.
Where exactly is the point of difference?

But Ezekiel makes it clear that God does NOT desire that men die. Thus, it follows that ALL men are, at some level, worked on by God.

Assuming you mean this working of God on all men, to be His salvation work - I believe that none of God's works are in vain - so if He counsels to save somebody, He will save that person. There is no such thing as Him coming short of His own plans. So conclusions like your above one are not necessarily true. Yes, God does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked. But it doesn't necessarily follow that God's counsel is to save them. This is what I cautiously dealt with in post#236.

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,

Don't worry - I'm not trying to imply that we need not obey these commandments now. This is what I'm drawing attention to - that these commandments were part of the Law whose purpose we find is not to justify any man at all.

I believe I made the point that the commands of the Decalogue transcend the Mosaic Law. Yes, "honor thy father and mother" are part of the written law given to Jews, but such a law preceded Moses' formal giving of that law to the Jews. Even pagans know that we ought to honor our parents. This stems from the Law written in our hearts. The "Decalogue" is not confined to the Mosaic Law, as their principles were in place before Moses. Thus, when the Mosaic Law is said to be abrogated, it does NOT refer to principles that preceded the Mosaic law but were included. What is abrogated are the codes given to the JEWS ALONE. The dividing wall between jews and gentiles has been broken down. The principles found in the Decalogue were NOT part of that wall broken down, since they did not separate Jews from Gentiles.

Now, does merely following the Law justify? No, God justifies us. When we follow the Law as our Covental response to God. We are not just when we disobey God's Will, nor are we just merely for following the dictates of a written code without INTERNAL dispositions. God justifies us when He sees our response to Him, which DOES include what we know as the Decalogue.

I think our differences are found here - I think you believe that the Law was intended to be a means of justification to the jews - I believe that no man is ever justified by the Law because that was not its purpose[Gal 3].

As i said, we are not justified BY the Law. But our response to God is in part determined by our following the Law. IN PART. If you recall, God "complained" through the prophets about those sacrifices always before His eyes, but no mercy and compassion in the hearts of those offering these sacrifices. The sacrifices and the rest of the Law was SUPPOSED to prepare the heart for proper communion with God. God considers us just when we have such faith and love in our actions. The law ITSELF has no power to do anything. It is the Spirit of God Who enables us to obey that Law - and obedience to it is evidence of His abiding presence (1 John)

The point has been raised that the law which was said not to justify referred only to ceremonial laws and not the moral laws which is being referred to now - but we have both seen that there is no such distinction in referring to the law - it encompasses all the commandments, even those of moral nature.

The Law does not justify in any case, regardless of how you define it. God justifies us by our obedience to Him in faith. For the Jews, this meant obeying the Law. For Christians, this means obeying the "royal Law" (James). We don't justify ourselves by following rules. God justifies us when He sees our response to Him, which includes a particular inner disposition as we obey the Law set forth for us. As we are in Christ, we are justified.

francisdesales - "In neither case do we or Jews feel that we must keep the Law perfectly. Nor did they expect to do so without God's help."

I agree with this observation of yours - which is where my main concern lies. If we believe the same things as the jews, then we are as they were - under the law - where we shall find no justification. The jews, as you said, were asked to cooperate with God's grace in keeping the law - that was their role in the old covenant - and they would be justified before God. But none attain unto such justification - rather all under the law are under the curse, by the law.

I would consider reading the following two verses of Galatians...

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Gal 3:11-12

Note, we are still required to DO them. The issue is whether FAITH is present. Do we trust in God or ourselves? Do we obligate God to "pay us back" for obeying the law, or do we consider our obedience a gift in of itself from Him who moves our will and desires to follow Him? Paul makes this a major theme in Romans 2-3, how some non-Jews were following the Law written in their hearts, while other Jews (refering to the many Psalms citations in chapter 3) were "wicked", despite their offering of flesh to God and so forth...

Yes, it is a fine line, but even here in Galatians, we are still told that we must follow the Law (works of the Law are refering to the Jewishness of the Law, not the Law written in men's hearts, as I detail above.)

So, when we say that we are no longer under the law - we are not saying we are no longer obligated to keep the commandments stated in a law - rather we are saying that we are not under the governing rule of the Law of works. The law of works is given in Lev 18:5 - if a man shall keep the commandments, he shall live - by his having kept the commandments.

I agree - keeping them, of themselves without the proper inner disposition, does not justify us.

The reason for his justification would be his having cooperated in keeping his side of the covenant, namely keeping God's commandments. But this has not resulted in the justification of any man - rather all are under the curse by the law. This is so because the law of works was never meant to be a means of justification - that is taken care of by the law of faith under the new covenant.

When we obey the Law in faith, we are following a different principle. It is a faithful response that God desires. Merely washing our hands and killing a sheep does not justify - BUT, doing these things with proper disposition, a communion of love with God, acts of a faithful response - those are found pleasing to God. As you said above, merely DOING the action is not enough. And of course, doing "Jewish" things is no longer required AT ALL. The Old Covenant is abrogated as a requirement to enter into the community of the People of God. Now, it is the underlying principle ALONE that remains - faithful obedience to God.

What is the difference between the new covenant and the old covenant - man's role in cooperating and contributing to his salvation. The old covenant was dependent also on man's cooperating works to give him life - and instead he died - for all under this law of works are under the curse. The new covenant takes away this and promises life based on God's works from beginning to end and not any of our cooperating works.

Obedience to God is an absolute requirement to enter the Kingdom. Whether old or new Covenant. Jesus' death was to reconcile mankind to God, to undo what Adam did in the Garden. But it doesn't follow that we no longer are required to obey God and cooperate with His grace...

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure. Phil 2:12-13

You would be hard pressed to state that "working out our salvation" is NOT cooperating with God's grace.

- and all who depend on God's works alone for their salvation shall not be ashamed - such of faith inherit the blessings, having been redeemed from the curse by Christ. Herein is the distinction between being 'under the law' and 'under grace'.

Again, this goes to obligating God for one's OWN actions vs realizing that our cooperation is utterly dependent upon God aiding us with His graces of faith. We cannot "work out our salvation" alone. This is why Paul continuously exhorts Christians to remain faithful to obeying God, remembering that the Spirit of God Himself is abiding within them to obey that Law of Love.

So, when one states something to the effect of cooperation, it seems to be putting us back under the law wherein we frustrate the grace of God.

Synergy is a fundamental part of Christianity. Cooperation with God does not frustrate God's graces, it reminds us of our guiding principle, for without Grace, we can do nothing good.

Note my signature from St. Francis...

Regards

 

[warfrog]

James 2:17

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Also see James 2:20,26

The reason why James said that Faith without works is dead, and then used as an Illustration of a Brother being in need : James 2:14-17

14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And 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?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Notice, He says if a brother or sister be naked and destitute. He is speaking about a spiritual relationship as brothers and sisters in the Lord. How could we know of one who is in the like family of faith in such dire need, and act complacent about it ?

John makes a similar point 1 Jn 3:14-18

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Its amazing how many of the opponents of James who say He is promoting a works orientated salvation, can read this of John, who basically is saying, if we see a brother in need and don't be moved to aid them, how that is giving evidence of one being void of the Love of God in them, and lacking of evidence of having been passed from death unto life. Basically He is saying, that they are not born again themselves.

So James as well as John knew that certain evidences accompany Salvation or conversion, of which is Love to the Brethren or Sisters, not in word only, but also in deed and in truth. That word deed in I Jn 3:18 is the greek word ergon and means:

work ! It is translated work 152 times !

Loving our Spiritual Brethren is an evidence of having been born Again 1 Jn 5:1

1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1 Jn 3:14

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

Ye see that ? Loving the brethren, not in word only, but in deed or work, John says is an evidence of having passed from death unto life. Just as believing is says Jesus here Jn 5:24

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

And so that is all James is saying, Faith without works is lacking evidence of being that Faith which is Born of God. Which makes it a dead faith, or the Faith of a person who is alienated from the Life of God.

One more crucial point here. This Faith that is born of God will also be Characterized by belief in the Truth, the True Gospel, the True Christ with an accurate knowledge of who He is and what His work accomplished on the Cross and for whom it was for.

2 Jn 1:1

The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

Glory to the Lord!
Just as Abraham knew God, having faith in His promises looking not to what he saw before him, having full faith in Gods word to him, acting/working on it throughout his life in which he was found righteous before the Lord our God for doing so, not recieving, but knowing in the reception and living his life in the fullness of his faith in God.
Abraham was a worker in faith.

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,

Here, you refer to this unbeliever's act of love as an act of good before God - I don't believe so.

God is pleased by acts done in faith. While the unbeliever's act of "love" may not be an act of faith, it prepares the ground for a future conversion. Even here, God is working, is He not? That was my point, NOT that by doing good things, we can enter heaven.

francisdesales - "But often, God works without our knowledge. Anyone who has converted will tell you of this."
If you're referring to the Spirit's work of regenerating us, then I too agree. But this is God's work of converting us - in order to work in us His righteousness henceforth. I can't see how this can be applied to man before God's work of converting him.

God moves OUR will and desires, but never in an overwhelming manner that we have no choice but to do "x". God desires all men to be saved, so that movement in the wills of men must be in all men. The process of "repenting and believing" depends upon God working in man - and man cooperating at some level - to even get to the point of regeneration.

No, I see God as being merciful and compassionate to an arrogant and blind rebel in enmity with God and addicted to sin, who then begins a salvation work in such a man by de-addicting him of his sinful flesh and freeing him to have life in God alone.

Of course, and man is part of that work, for another man whom God is working in with the same issues may say "no, I prefer slavery to sin..."

I look at it this way - when we are born in this world, we are born as a living soul in the flesh, conceived in sinful nature. When God regenerates us, we are born again of God and now we[our soul] are born in the spirit. In this sense, those who are regenerated are not in the flesh but in the spirit. - and yet in another sense, we are still open to the influence of the flesh which we must war against. We could perhaps view it concentrically - after regeneration, the soul is enclosed within the spirit and both these are enclosed within the fleshly body while before regeneration, the soul was only enclosed within the fleshly body.

I see it more as enlightenment to another guiding principle in our lives, one that promises us eternal life and life to the fullest here - IF ONLY we would follow this Principle, the Spirit. Thus, what was once slavery is now a spiritual battle within us (Ephesians)

This is what I'm saying, I-the-soul, by the power of the flesh, can do nothing good - ever. I-the-soul, by the power of the Spirit, can do nothing but good. When you refer to man's own works, you refer to man's-soul-by-the-flesh. When you refer to God's works worked in man by God, you refer to man's-soul-by-the-Spirit.

I view man as an entire entity, just as Scriptures. When I do bad, it is me doing bad, me subject to judgment. When I do good, it is me (in Christ) doing good, me subject to rewards via judgment. Part of me is not going to hell, the fleshy part, nor is part of me going to heaven.

I have no clue as to where this came from.
Trace this point of discussion -
francisdesales - "Paul does not say that 'no one can individually keep the dictates of the Law.' Paul himself said that he did..."
ivdavid - "He[Paul] did keep the law as the flesh saw it but when he saw the law as being spiritual after his regeneration, he died by it - because he saw himself condemned(=not considered righteous) by it [Rom 7:10]. How can one keep the law and still be condemned - it goes against Lev 18:5."
Note here, I understand "condemnation" as "an adverse judgement sentence" - so I'm asking, how can one[Paul] who has kept the law be passed an adverse judgement sentence as by his own admission in Rom 7:10.
francisdesales - "He[Paul] is not being condemned because of personal guilt. Jesus never sinned, correct? He is "condemned" because Jesus has taken upon Himself the guilt of mankind, willingly."
Here, I take it that you mean "condemned" as "punished" but I'm talking specifically of how an adverse sentence can be passed on one who has kept the law. I think that's where you refer to Christ, presumably showing that though Christ had kept the law, He had an adverse sentence passed on Him.

Jesus was not made literally sin. That's "where it came from"...

ivdavid - "I didn't understand this belief of yours - please could you elaborate. I don't understand the comparison with Christ either - can mere man be compared with Jesus Christ?"
How do you say that Paul did not have an adverse sentence passed on him by the law? And why the comparison of mere man[Paul] with Jesus? Jesus faced condemnation on man's behalf - namely people like Paul. So, the adverse sentence passed on Jesus was taken from man on whom it was actually passed on, by the law - specifically on Paul whom we're discussing here. Which brings us back to the question - why did Paul who had kept the law have an adverse sentence passed on him, which was later to be taken on sacrificially by Christ?
Where exactly did we lose each other?

I suppose from your comment:

How do you reconcile that Paul, while he was under the law, kept the law and still was condemned by it?"

is so because Paul sinned. Paul is condemned under the Law because of sin. Christ is not condemned under the law because of His personal sin.

I don't quite see the problem here. This is what I'd written initially -
ivdavid - "I mean, Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7 only seem to imply that the unregenerate man can never keep God's Law. Isn't that the very purpose - to reveal God's will through a Law that none can keep in order to show the sinfulness of sin in them that prevents them from doing so - and in turn pointing them to Christ who works in them what they themselves ought to and cannot, only because of His grace and mercy."
And you followed up with -
francisdesales - "Sure men can keep it! Not by themselves, that's all...God didn't give us a Law that no one could hope to keep, even WITH His help!!!"

I was not refering to the unregenerate man, of course, since such a man cannot hope to keep the Law without cooperating with God. This does not occur before regeneration, since the POINT of regeneration is to cooperate with God's grace.

Aren't you saying what I'm saying - that the unregenerate cannot keep God's law. If the unregenerate cannot keep God's law, then why does God command such also to keep the law - isn't it because He wants them to stop leaning on the arm of their flesh and to rest on Him alone for righteousness. Am I not saying what you're saying - that only with His working in us, one can hope to fulfill the spiritual intent of the law.
Where exactly is the point of difference?

God's command is given to all. ANYONE can become regenerate - if they follow their heart's desires for happiness and purpose found in God. When a person rejects God, they are rejecting the ability to obey His commandments.

Assuming you mean this working of God on all men, to be His salvation work - I believe that none of God's works are in vain - so if He counsels to save somebody, He will save that person.

God works within other parameters, as well. God desires all men to be saved, but desires that men have free will - since we are in His image. What is "in vain" is probably defined differently, as a result. I believe God desires to give men the ability to turn to Him and be saved. His graces are given to show that He is just and merciful, and at that way, it is not in vain...

There is no such thing as Him coming short of His own plans. So conclusions like your above one are not necessarily true. Yes, God does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked. But it doesn't necessarily follow that God's counsel is to save them. This is what I cautiously dealt with in post#236.

I agree - but it DOES follow that a merciful God would at LEAST provide SOME impetus to the wicked to repent. God's grace rains down on the good and evil. The seed scatters everywhere. Now, we must look at the soil. But I don't recall saying that God MUST save the wicked because He does not desire them to die wicked.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

James 2:17

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Also see James 2:20,26

The reason why James said that Faith without works is dead, and then used as an Illustration of a Brother being in need : James 2:14-17

14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And 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?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Notice, He says if a brother or sister be naked and destitute. He is speaking about a spiritual relationship as brothers and sisters in the Lord. How could we know of one who is in the like family of faith in such dire need, and act complacent about it ?

John makes a similar point 1 Jn 3:14-18

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Its amazing how many of the opponents of James who say He is promoting a works orientated salvation, can read this of John, who basically is saying, if we see a brother in need and don't be moved to aid them, how that is giving evidence of one being void of the Love of God in them, and lacking of evidence of having been passed from death unto life. Basically He is saying, that they are not born again themselves.

Certainly when someone is "born again" he will do good deeds and love more than he did before conversion. This love is also "evidence" of his Christianity. There is no conflict between this view and the view that the works we do affect our salvation.

But the "opponents" of Biblically based soteriology go further than that in their exegesis of James. They say that what James means is that (as ivDavid put it above) "one who has faith will end up doing good works. If one does not continue in good works, then it shows that he never had faith. This way, the works are the evidential result of such faith."

This is the notion that is not in Scripture and therefore must be rejected by anyone who believes in sola-Scriptura.

So James as well as John knew that certain evidences accompany Salvation or conversion, of which is Love to the Brethren or Sisters, not in word only, but also in deed and in truth. That word deed in I Jn 3:18 is the greek word ergon and means:

work ! It is translated work 152 times !

Loving our Spiritual Brethren is an evidence of having been born Again 1 Jn 5:1

Amen.

1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1 Jn 3:14

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

Ye see that ? Loving the brethren, not in word only, but in deed or work, John says is an evidence of having passed from death unto life. Just as believing is says Jesus here Jn 5:24

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Amen...

And so that is all James is saying, Faith without works is lacking evidence of being that Faith which is Born of God. Which makes it a dead faith, or the Faith of a person who is alienated from the Life of God.

Darn...and you went too far...Where is the term "dead faith" found in Scripture? There is only faith...no qualifier. James asks the rhetorical question "can faith save him?" (dynamai mē pistis sōzō autos), not "can this kind of faith save him?" or "can said faith save him?" Did Abraham have a "dead faith"? I'll assume your answer is "no". So why does James use HIM as an example of how works save?

The notion that faith alone saves and works WILL ALWAYS accompany a "saving faith" is alien to Scripture and common sense. What if a saved person ignores the Spirit of God within them telling him to feed a poor man? Suppose he walks by and says "be well..."? Does this one act (or lack thereof) mean the person is "alienated from the Life of God"? See, we are sinners. We CONTINUE TO SIN even though we have what you call a "saving faith". James is saying these actions affect our salvation, unless we repent, of course. Justification is a lifelong process, not a one time event.

One more crucial point here. This Faith that is born of God will also be Characterized by belief in the Truth, the True Gospel, the True Christ with an accurate knowledge of who He is and what His work accomplished on the Cross and for whom it was for.

2 Jn 1:1

The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

:biglol Who's "truth"? There are thousands of denominations all teaching different "truth's". Which one was John talking about here, yours? If so, why?

SBG, I appreciate you actually doing an exegesis of the verses, most here aren't. Please continue from verse 18. I'm curious how you interpret the fact that Abraham is justified by his works.

 

[dadof10]

Glory to the Lord!
Just as Abraham knew God, having faith in His promises looking not to what he saw before him, having full faith in Gods word to him, acting/working on it throughout his life in which he was found righteous before the Lord our God for doing so, not recieving, but knowing in the reception and living his life in the fullness of his faith in God.
Abraham was a worker in faith.

Well put...

 

[warfrog]

Darn...and you went too far...Where is the term "dead faith" found in Scripture? There is only faith...no qualifier. James asks the rhetorical question "can faith save him?" (dynamai mē pistis sōzō autos), not "can this kind of faith save him?" or "can said faith save him?" Did Abraham have a "dead faith"? I'll assume your answer is "no". So why does James use HIM as an example of how works save?

The notion that faith alone saves and works WILL ALWAYS accompany a "saving faith" is alien to Scripture and common sense. What if a saved person ignores the Spirit of God within them telling him to feed a poor man? Suppose he walks by and says "be well..."? Does this one act (or lack thereof) mean the person is "alienated from the Life of God"? See, we are sinners. We CONTINUE TO SIN even though we have what you call a "saving faith". James is saying these actions affect our salvation, unless we repent, of course. Justification is a lifelong process, not a one time event.

Matthew 25:14-30
14“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. 15And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. 16Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. 17And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. 18But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord’s money. 19After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20“So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, ‘Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.’ 21His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’ 22He also who had received two talents came and said, ‘Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them.’ 23His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’ 24“Then he who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.’ 26“But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. 27So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. 28So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents. 29‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Amen.

 

[savedbygrace57]

dad asked:

Darn...and you went too far...Where is the term "dead faith" found in Scripture?

James 2:17

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

 

[dadof10]

dad asked:
Where is the term "dead faith" found in Scripture.


James 2:17

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Sorry, SBG. I wasn't clear. I should only respond when I have the time to proofread.

I meant "said faith". It is a response to your statement that James is talking about faith "without the life of God". Sorry for the confusion.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[ivdavid]

dadof10,

You need to prove that ....
First of all, asking a question is not proof.

I'd like to clarify here that I'm not here to prove my beliefs right nor am I here to prove someone else's wrong. I simply want to know the entire belief frameworks of different people and to find out the fundamental differences between our respective belief systems.

We are all under the oppression of sin, that doesn't mean we cannot reject SIN and accept God's Grace...or vice versa.

Think about it -
Given that sin is what causes one to reject God's grace - for us to reject sin, we need God's grace - and to 'accept' God's grace, we must have rejected sin already. How does that work?
To give a limited illustration w.r.t. the freedom of the hand, - Imagine a person is handcuffed behind his back and another person walks up before him and holds out the key to his handcuffs and asks him to 'accept' the key to his freedom, can this first person's hand actually get free? Shouldn't the second person take the key and unlock the handcuffs himself, thereby setting the first person's hand really free?

You can't have it both ways, either your free to reject or your forced to accept.

God gives grace for grace. So, if God's grace[A+] were to move me to do something good - you're saying that one is either 'free' to reject such grace or he is 'forced' to go ahead and do good. I'd ask, what would make a person reject this grace of God - and the answer would be sin in us, specifically sin's work[B-] in negating this grace[A+] of God. Now, I think both of us hold that we need God's grace to even reject sin - so now we need a separate new grace[C+] of God that would negate this sin's work[B-] of making me reject His initial grace[A+]. This grace[C+] is efficacious in negating sin's work in us, thereby freeing us from sin to receiving the other grace[A+] of God. If anything, I'd say that one is either forced by sin to reject, or he's freed by grace to receive. There are multiple levels of grace - grace for grace. Similar to us receiving the grace of repentance through the grace of regeneration.

Also Rom 6:16-23 show how being free from sin is to be 'slaves' of God and vice versa - there is no middle ground of amorality in all things pertaining to morality.

Do you think that saved people don't commit actual sin?

No, I don't believe so. I think you might have perceived such an implication from what I'd written, out of your beliefs on free will.
I referred to Rom 6 only to show that there is no amoral territory in matters pertaining to morality. Either we are under sin or we are under grace. There is no middle ground of amoral contemplation.

dadof10 - " Being a 'slave of God' doesn't mean 'free from sin'. "
Well, that's what Rom 6:22 is saying - what does being 'free from sin' mean then according to you?
As for me, I don't believe being free from sin means we will never ever commit sin. It means we are free from having sin have the last say in us. Before regeneration, we were dead in our trespasses and sins, blinded by the devil, deceived by sin. We didn't have the righteousness of God wrought in us then. Now, we are set free from the guilt and power of sin. When we commit sin, we are not left therein to die - God's goodness leads us to the repentance that He grants, and through forgiveness because of Christ we are set free from its guilt. Also, by the power of the Spirit, God works in us His righteousness thereby freeing us from the power of sin.

dadof10 - "I'm not saying man has freedom over EVERYTHING (sovereignty)...."
I haven't referred to sovereignty the way you've understood it. To me, sovereignty is - not being under the control of anybody else's influence when choosing to do something. Since free will means just this, it implies man is sovereign in matters of good and evil. I don't believe so - man is either under the control of sin in his flesh or he's under the control of God working by the power of His Spirit.

Continued....

 

[ivdavid]

dadof10,

It is also obvious that it's possible for saved Christians to yield to sin. If they don't have free will, how is it possible?

Yes, it's quite obvious. But the assumption in your question is that a regenerated man can commit sin only if he has free will - which need not be true in itself.
I am quite wary of the topic of free will - because it's not as simple as people make it out to be - and because different people mean it in different ways and various misunderstandings arise very easily. Anyway, let's concur upon what we mean by free will first. As I've understood its common usage, it refers to the self-determining capacity of man to choose to act or not act upon a given desire in him. Is this what you mean by free will? If not, ignore the following on free will.

How exactly does this choosing happen? Man's mind factors in all the given desires and uses its knowledge and understanding of good and evil (including the conscience) to compile a set of counsel w.r.t. each desire - each counsel setting a degree of inclination towards each desire. Finally, the counsel with the highest degree of inclination towards a desire is acted upon - thereby fulfilling that desire.

This arriving at the strongest counsel is called the will of man where he has chosen a counsel to act upon. And how does one arrive at such a counsel - by the work of his mind through understanding. And this understanding could either be of the flesh(fleshly) or could be of the Spirit(Spiritual). The natural man having only the fleshly understanding and a blinded mind, and he being unable to discern the things of the Spirit of God, will act only on a corrupt counsel. The regenerated man, having the mind of Christ by the power of the Spirit, has the eyes of his understanding enlightened in the inward man, and hence will act upon only godly counsel when led by the Spirit. In the absence of such godly counsel in man, he walks by the power of his flesh[fleshly understanding] and hence commits sin.

Then, the difference of good and bad in man's actions is based on whether it is sin working through his flesh or God working through His Spirit. And God's works always trump the works of sin - so, the difference ultimately breaks down to whether God works in man or not. And He promises to work out His righteousness in all who depend completely on Him alone for it.

And when I refer to God's work in man, I refer to both the godly desire and the godly counsel worked out by Him. This is in contrast to His dealing with us when we were unregenerate where He provides dissension to the fleshly desire and fleshly counsel - through circumstances, His prophets, the conscience - but without working in us His godly desire and counsel.

Of course, the inability of the flesh to do any good does not absolve man of his accountability - rather it is reason for him to throw himself wholly upon God to work out His righteousness in him, apart from which man is dead in sins and trespasses. It is by God's grace in working His works in us that we are set free from sin. It is by Christ's sacrifice that we are justified - the sufficiency of which we hold on to through faith. It is by His resurrection that we have hope - and all these, purely out of His mercy and compassion to save us and not destroy us.

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

dadof10,

Anyway, I do agree that Paul and James aren't talking about the same "works". Paul talks to those who are under the law and James talks to those who do good works under grace.

dadof10 - "Throughout his letters, Paul makes it crystal clear he is addressing CHRISTIANS. Do you believe there are groups of Christians who are 'under the law'? "
I'll rephrase what I said to convey my actual intent - When Paul refers to works, he's warning Christians against the works of the law - presumably those who were putting themselves under the law. When James refers to works, he's exhorting Christians for good works - presumably those who were making excuses against its necessity.
As to your question, yes - Christians can very much place themselves under the law of works just as the Galatians did. Paul addresses such people in Gal 4:21. But I don't believe that the regenerate can stay in falsehood continually.

If so, Paul should have been only against the temporal mindset of that time and not against the Law itself which was given by God through Moses, right?

dadof10 - "Paul is reacting to this way of thinking...."
I'm not referring to mindsets here - I'm referring to the actual true law of God given through Moses.

dadof10 - "If Paul was still awaiting the Messiah, true enough. The Messiah came and fulfilled the Law."
I didn't get your point - does this permit Paul to deny any justification ever through the true Law of God given through Moses?
[Please note, when I refer to the law, I'm not referring to the commandments as such - but to the Law of works - specifically seen in lev 18:5. I believe that all the commandments of the law are still in Spiritual force even today. I just don't hold to the law of works - for it frustrates the grace of God.]

dadof10 - "The Grace of God had ALWAYS saved, not strict adherence to the Law."
But you believe that such grace was in at least an infinitesimal part, dependent on man's cooperation in keeping the law, right?

dadof10 - "The Spirit of the Law saved, not the temporal duties attached. The Jews ADDED to the Law over time and made upholding their man made traditions equal to the Law given by God."
I am not referring to some 'temporal duties' or some 'man made traditions'. I am very specifically referring to the law of works that was given by God through Moses at the time of Israel crossing through the wilderness. Was this law a means to justifying man - because Paul is denying precisely this.

Justification came through the spirit of the TRUE Law, not the "extras" added over time.

I am not referring to any 'extras' added over time. I am referring purely to the law of works given by God around 400 years after Abraham - that initial time - was that law of works a means to justification?
Secondly, if you are saying that the law[here referred to as the set of commandments] has to be kept spiritually alone, I agree. But how can man in the flesh do so - are we all not born in the flesh? How is it possible for the natural man to cooperate spiritually? The flesh can never keep God's law. Does that not then conclude that the law of works given by God through Moses was never meant for justification?

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

dadof10,

Let's cut to the chase. Would you put "works" as a NECESSARY part of the definition of faith?

I could always give a short answer - yes. But that would only raise more questions from you - which is why I started explaining my understanding of faith through those illustrations.

Anyway, 'To have faith in somebody' or 'To believe in somebody' is to hold as true, the sufficiency of that somebody to succeed in fulfilling an expected outcome or a given promise based on the ability/nature of that somebody. As a consequent inference, it is to also hold as true the eventual fulfillment of what was expected or promised based on the ability of that somebody.
Believing in somebody requires 2 things - a person to believe in and also something that you believe the person is able to accomplish/fulfill.

So, when I say I believe in Christ, I am saying that I hold as true, His sufficiency to succeed in saving me into eternal life, through the fulfillment of His promises, based on His ability/nature alone.

Whatsoever is demanded of me, I turn to Christ to fulfill in me. If I am expected to do good works, I rest on His ability to work out that good in me. If I am expected to desire to do good, I rest on His ability to work out that desire in me. When I sin, which I will - apart from the efficacious grace of God, and I am expected to confess, I rest on His ability to convict me of such sin. If I am expected to repent, I rest on His ability to lead me to repentance. If I am expected to be holy, I rest on His ability to keep me separated of the world. If I am expected to grow in my knowledge of Him, I rest on His ability to teach me. I will love by His loving me and I shall worship by His revealing His glory to me. Even my faith is by His gifting it to me. If God will not act - and act completely from beginning to end, then I have no hope of accomplishing that act.

I am carnal, conceived and sold under sin. There is nothing good in my flesh. How then can I do any good. Herein my hope is in Christ and Him alone - to free me from being enslaved to sin and to destroy the works of the devil. All I find in my own capacity[flesh] is evil - in both desire and counsel. Hence I rest on the power of God to work in me - to both desire and act according to His good pleasure. I rest on His causing me to walk in His ways. I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. By the grace of God, I am what I am.

dadof10 - " Seriously, Scripture doesn't make any distinction between 'saving' faith and 'said' or 'not saving' faith. "
I realize now that this term 'saving faith' could also mean 'man's faith that causatively saves' - which was not what I intended, for how could I attribute something to man when I have no confidence in the flesh. Anyway, what I meant was "faith that is endorsed by God and that is unto salvation" - namely "faith in Christ" as opposed to "faith in the arm of the flesh, that cannot be unto salvation" etc.

It's possible to have a real faith (what you call "saving"), yet not do "good deeds". Do you agree?

Do you mean it in some sense of missing absolute perfection? To believe in Christ's sufficiency to work out His righteousness in us does not necessarily mean that we will be absolutely sinless - it means as I've explained earlier, we are not left under the guilt and power of sin. You do realize that God can permit sin without being the author of sin, don't you? It could be to show forth His glory to all His people.

dadof10 - "James is reacting to people who believe that they were justified by faith alone, people who thought good deeds done in faith had nothing to do with justification."
No, I don't believe so. James was reacting to people who thought faith, as in a mental assent to truth, was sufficient and that good works were optional. James stresses that faith is completed in works. To say that good works are an evidential basis for justification may not be amiss - but to say it is a causative basis for justification frustrates grace. Saying we are justified by grace alone through faith alone does not imply good works are unnecessary - aren't good works an intended result of grace and faith.
Given that I believe in Christ's ability to work out His righteousness in me - if you see no righteousness being worked in me, wouldn't you say that my faith is in vain - and hence dead. This way, faith is completed in works.

 

[ivdavid]

francisdesales,

I would consider reading the following two verses of Galatians...

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Gal 3:11-12

Note, we are still required to DO them.

Everything I have discussed concerning the law thus far, has revolved around what you've written here - my chief concern being what one is to understand the law to be.

You have underlined and marked in red - what you wanted to indicate as very important and appropriate with regards to our response to God. But the very phrase that you attribute so much importance to is decried in the Gospel.

Let's look at Gal 3:11-12 -
v.11a declares that no man is justified by the law.
v.11b begins the reasoning process to arrive at the conclusion in v.11a - that justification cannot be by the law because (quoted)Scripture says that justification is by faith. [Here is where we need to concur on what we mean by law and faith].
But what is the relation - why must justification by faith result in denial of justification by the law?
v.12a gives the answer - because the law is not of faith.
See the reasoning process -
Premise 1 - Man is justified by faith.
Premise 2 - The law is not of faith.
Conclusion - Therefore man is not justified by the law.

But it is continued on to another chief point made, which expounds on Premise 2 -
v.12b gives the explanation for v.12a - a Premise 3 - the law is not of faith because the law states that man will live, by his doing God's commandments.

v.12b is a quoted Scripture from Lev 18:5 which is referred to as the Law - namely the "Law of works". This v.12b that you attribute importance to is what Paul has been against throughout his epistles - whenever he has railed against the law.
I know there are different usages of the word "law" in the Bible, the chief being these two -
Law(1) - as the set of commandments given to the jews in the OT.[Usage in Matt 5:18]
Law(2) - as a governing rule - like the law of gravitation - specifically, the law of works(Lev 18:5,Gal 3:12b) vs the law of faith. [Usage in Rom 3:27]
Whenever Paul speaks against the Law, he means it in the sense of Law(2) - the Law of works.

Now consider Gal 3:12b - The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Is this a governing rule given by God - yes. For we find it in Lev 18:5. But is this what is being preached under grace - is this part of the new covenant ; or is this part of the old covenant under the law, not to be poured into the new wine bottles.

Consider Rom 10:1-5 and onward...
Rom 10:2 For I bear them[those under the law] record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Here, we find that those under the law may have zeal and yet may be without knowledge - specifically being ignorant of God's righteousness.
We also see a contrast between submitting to the righteousness of God vs establishing one's own righteousness.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
And the previous contrast is again paralleled here - as the contrast between faith in Christ vs the law - for righteousness.

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise....
Again we see the contrast of the two means of righteousness.
Now v.5 is the negative side of the contrast - the righteousness of the law which those under the law, lacking knowledge, go about establishing as their own righteousness, not submitting to the righteousness of God.
v.5 quotes this not-justifying righteousness from Lev 18:5 (the same as Gal 3:12) - "That the man which doeth those things shall live by them."

francisdesales - "Yes, it is a fine line, but even here in Galatians, we are still told that we must follow the Law (works of the Law are refering to the Jewishness of the Law, not the Law written in men's hearts, as I detail above.)"
I hope we'd now concur on this - that Gal 3:12b is referring to the law of works that we are not supposed to follow. Would you agree?

Continued....

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

....Continuing,

Also note the parallelism between Gal 3:11b and Gal 3:12b -
The just shall live by faith.
The man that doeth them shall live in them[doing the commandments].
These are the 2 laws - the law of faith and the law of works - and these are contrasted against each other. And these 2 laws talk about how man is justified - for they talk about the basis on which one "shall live". The basis for one is faith and the other is works - therein forming the law of faith and the law of works. And only one of them - the law of faith - is said to be the actual means of justification. Not only that - the other law, the law of works, is said to be the means of the curse[Gal 3:10,13], resulting in death - far from being a means of justification, even in part - because we are justified by faith and this law of works is not of faith.

francisdesales - "The Law does not justify in any case, regardless of how you define it. God justifies us by our obedience to Him in faith."
I may be wrong here but from what you've written so far, I sense you drawing a parallel between the law justifying us and God justifying us. If this is not what you meant, ignore the following on this. If you did, then you're comparing the law, which is being discussed as a basis for justification - with God, who is the Justifier[Judge who justifies]. The two cannot be compared. The Judge cannot be compared with the basis on which He justifies/acquits a person. In our discussion here, when we are discussing justification, we are merely dealing with the basis of justification and not who the Justifier is. In that sense, we're discussing if the basis for man being justified is by his doing God's commandments(Law of works - Gal 3:12,Lev 18:5) or by faith. Being justified by the law[considered as basis of justification] does not in any way imply that we are not justified by God[either as the Judge who justifies or as the Enabler who enables us unto justification] - the two don't fall under the same category of comparison.


francisdesales - "God justifies us when He sees our response to Him, which includes a particular inner disposition as we obey the Law set forth for us."
I see that you view the law as being separate from the inner disposition of man who obeys it. But isn't the inner disposition also expected by the law - isn't it part of the law? I am not asking what man perceives it as - I'm asking what God intended when He gave us Lev 18:5 - the Law of works.
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
The LORD says that a man shall live if he does the commandments given by God - does this Lev 18:5 include the inner disposition as part of the doing or is it about just an external observance? Matt 5:21-22,27-28 express that the inner disposition is expected by the law itself - the mere external observance was not what the law itself demanded in the first place and could not be considered as 'doing' the commandments. I know man is capable of thinking he has kept the law just by the external observance of it with no internal disposition but that shouldn't change what God intended of man's 'doing' the law, right? Hence, God, when He gave Lev 18:5, must have included man's inner disposition also as part of the doing His commandments - would you agree?

francisdesales - "Do we obligate God to "pay us back" for obeying the law, or do we consider our obedience a gift in of itself from Him who moves our will and desires to follow Him?"
Are you saying that when God gave the Law of works in Lev 18:5, He intended it to be kept all by man himself? Or has He already expected 'man's doing His commandments' to be only what you see as man's capacity to do - namely his cooperating response as secondary cause? Hasn't God already indicated Himself as first cause in Deut 30:10 onward? Again, I'm not asking what man perceives the Law of works to be but what God intended through it - man could very well think that his keeping God's commandments was by himself but did God intend the Law of works to be kept by man himself?

Continued...