Faith Only Versus Doing

[heymikey80]

If you do not have the required tools to do the work then the work cannot be accomplished. Just as faith, if does not have works (but faith which worketh by love, Gal 5:6) it cannot accomplish anything either. AS Paul said a "faith which worketh by love" and love is keeping God's commands, Jn 14:15 so a faith that saves is a faith that worketh that works to keeps God's commands. Faith only being dead does not 'worketh love', it is in disobedience for it does not keep God's commands.

You don't get compensated for not working. If salvation is compensation for your works, then you won't get compensated for not working.

You see the point, now.

You have consistently mispplied it wrongly by thinking that Paul was including ALL works

And you have consistently made this accusation without supporting it. I pointed out in my first post of this thread, that isn't the case. It still isn't the case.

Mine is a different interpretation than yours. Don't demand my viewpoint be the viewpoint you keep declaring it to be. Doing so shows prejudice in your opposition, and an inability to address a view that you haven't analyzed.

... when he said "not of works" when he was only referring to works of merit, the type of work in verse 4 the "worker" does to try and earn salvation.

Paul has never said "works of merit". This view is simply an inference, simply an injection of a viewpoint into Scripture.

But of course Paul does say, "when a man works, his wages aren't counted as a gift but as what he's due." What's owed a man is his wages.

And of course Paul does say salvation is "not of works ... for the purpose of good works" Eph 2:8-10, meaning clearly, works are not a prerequisite, they're a goal. Works are our gratefulness for salvation; salvation is not God's wage for works.

You keep wanting to limit it to "merit". But frankly, works merit a wage. Paul says so: wages are obligated "when a man works". The wage is not salvation. That's Paul's point. It never is.

Now, you've claimed that faith is a work. It's not lifting a finger, but you've claimed it to be a work. Never mind that Paul directly denies that it's a work (Rom 4:5). Let's start with what wage this "work" deserves. What's it deserve? Even one cent worth of wage? Nope. Faith isn't a work, because work deserves a wage. And faith deserves no wage. That's Paul's argument. No wage? Not work. In Paul's day your claim that faith is a work would bring sneers from everyone, because nobody paid for faith. Call it whatever you want, it's not a work that draws a wage. Therefore it's no work.

Now, admittedly there are works that draw wages. But there is no work that deserves the wage of salvation. Perfection would (Rom 2:7-8); but none of us does perfectly good (Rom 3:9). So for us salvation must be a gift (Rom 3:24).

In another thread I started "The Prize" Paul said run to obtain.

So? Who said Paul was talking about his own salvation? Look it up. It's not his salvation he's talking about.

There is no obtaining the prize of an incorruptible crown/eternal life without the required work of running.

He doesn't say it's eternal life he's talking about. This is more injection of a theology into Scripture.

No, Paul is not so covetous of gifts he already has, as to make this projection. Paul knows we are already saved. 2 Tim 1:9. So it's not Paul talking about trying to get saved. In fact the context of 1 Corinthians 9 would make this whole thing absurd -- Paul would have to be saying that converting other people is required for us to be saved! So no, there's no way that's what Paul meant.

In fact it's disarmingly simple to see what Paul is talking about. He spends 1 Cor 9:19-23 telling us what he wants to win, and then tells us to run in such a way as to receive this prize, 1 Cor 9:24-25. He wants to win people: incorruptible lives to the eternal gospel.

The work of running does not earn the free prize but is a conditional work that is required in order to receive the free prize.

The prize not being my eternity -- but theirs.

Apples to oranges comparizon. Fish are not chips but faith is a work and Jesus even calls faith a work in Mark 2:1-5

Mk 2:1-5 has no declaration from Jesus that faith is a work. It simply says Jesus saw their faith based on actions that resulted. Once again the injection of one theology into Scripture does not fare well. Such is the result of eisegesis.

James said there is a dead faith that has no works which is faith alone and faith alone is void of works. If argue faith alone is not void of works then you areguing that faith must include works. You cannot have it both ways.

No. James is clearly stating that the faith that saves results in works on practical terms. But James is not saying works are included in faith. Otherwise James contradicts Paul, who has stated, "he who does not work but believes, his faith is counted as righteousness" Rom 4:5 . This is a direct, incontrovertible statement of Scripture. When compared with the inferences attempted, based on a faulty theology, Scripture returns the verdict.

Th other faith is a saving faith that has works.

Once again shy of the reality of Scripture. Saving faith will result in grateful works given practical limits. But good works done in faith are indeed subject to those practical limits. It's the faith through which we're saved, "not of works" Eph 2:9

Here is your problem that you have not and will not be able to resolve.

Your process of savlation is


(1) faith only>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(2) saves>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) then one does works


As I pointed out in my last post and what you cannot explain is that your initial faith alone (1) is DEAD, it's DEAD, it's DEAD as James said faith being alone is dead for it is void of works.

I did explain it two posts ago. Here's another argument. It would be a shallow theology to propose that faithless works would impress God. Thus faith must precede works. James 2:18 points out James is interested in showing saving faith by its results -- in works. And that "showiness" is repeated in James 2:20,22,24, So far James is not confirming your view.

Meanwhile, Paul points out that "he who doesn't work, but believes" is justified.

But you have the impossible task to try and make us believe that a dead faith only (1) can not only produce salvation but can also produce works. A dead faith, like a dead body in a grave, cannot do anything. You are stuck at (1) in your process of salvation and cannot move from there.

Not only possible, it's pretty easy. I've done it. Twice.

Nobody's said there isn't a dead faith: it is precisely this, a belief that some fact is true (James 2:19). That's not saving faith! The question is whether a saving faith must precede all good works. It must. Therefore, at that point in time, saving faith is sans works. I'm not stuck at (1), I move on to (2) the point that saving faith results in works just as James has stated (James 2:18c), that (3) one of God's intended purposes in saving us is that we would do good works (Eph 2:10).

On the other hand, it seems to me you're stuck on (1). How many threads have you begun trying to prove this point (1) of your view? I know of a half dozen I've contributed to. How many have you posted? I'm baffled why you'd assert that I'm stuck -- unless it's being stuck on these threads dragging me back to attend to them. I'm not stuck. But why is it you'd periodically come back, and try to assert this view again? It doesn't comport with Scripture. It's time to find a view that does comport with Scripture; all of it.

 

[elijah23]

Mt 7:21 "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. "


Mt 7:24 "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:"



Jn 3:21 " But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. "


Jn 9:31 "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth."

1 Jn 2:17 " And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. "

1 Jn 3:7 "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. "

Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? "

Acts 9:6 "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. "

Acts 10:6 "He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. "

Acts 16:30 "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? "

Being saved is a matter of doing and not just a simple mental acknowledgement of Christ and Who He is...."And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?", Lk 6:46.

We need to repent of our sin, of course. Beginning Christians sometimes grab hold of this Bible verse, or that Bible verse, and ignore the rest of the Bible, and common sense, for that matter. We have to behave ourselves. We can't get "saved" and then go off and do whatever we want to do, no matter how evil.

 

[joep222]

Faith is the root of salvation, works are the fruit. The fruit is not the root. The tree sustains the fruit, while the fruit does not sustain the tree.

Works are evidence of faith, but works do not justify.

Works follow after faith, faith is the pre-requisite. Faith is a gift from God.

 

[rrowell]

We need to repent of our sin, of course. Beginning Christians sometimes grab hold of this Bible verse, or that Bible verse, and ignore the rest of the Bible, and common sense, for that matter. We have to behave ourselves. We can't get "saved" and then go off and do whatever we want to do, no matter how evil.

Faith is the root of salvation, works are the fruit. The fruit is not the root. The tree sustains the fruit, while the fruit does not sustain the tree.

Works are evidence of faith, but works do not justify.

Works follow after faith, faith is the pre-requisite. Faith is a gift from God.

So we we redefine this scripture, make it say something it does not, or just ignore it right?:


James 2:24 (KJV)
24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You don't get compensated for not working. If salvation is compensation for your works, then you won't get compensated for not working.

You see the point, now.

And you have consistently made this accusation without supporting it. I pointed out in my first post of this thread, that isn't the case. It still isn't the case.

Mine is a different interpretation than yours. Don't demand my viewpoint be the viewpoint you keep declaring it to be. Doing so shows prejudice in your opposition, and an inability to address a view that you haven't analyzed.

Paul has never said "works of merit". This view is simply an inference, simply an injection of a viewpoint into Scripture.

But of course Paul does say, "when a man works, his wages aren't counted as a gift but as what he's due." What's owed a man is his wages.

And of course Paul does say salvation is "not of works ... for the purpose of good works" Eph 2:8-10, meaning clearly, works are not a prerequisite, they're a goal. Works are our gratefulness for salvation; salvation is not God's wage for works.

You keep wanting to limit it to "merit". But frankly, works merit a wage. Paul says so: wages are obligated "when a man works". The wage is not salvation. That's Paul's point. It never is.

Now, you've claimed that faith is a work. It's not lifting a finger, but you've claimed it to be a work. Never mind that Paul directly denies that it's a work (Rom 4:5). Let's start with what wage this "work" deserves. What's it deserve? Even one cent worth of wage? Nope. Faith isn't a work, because work deserves a wage. And faith deserves no wage. That's Paul's argument. No wage? Not work. In Paul's day your claim that faith is a work would bring sneers from everyone, because nobody paid for faith. Call it whatever you want, it's not a work that draws a wage. Therefore it's no work.

Now, admittedly there are works that draw wages. But there is no work that deserves the wage of salvation. Perfection would (Rom 2:7-8); but none of us does perfectly good (Rom 3:9). So for us salvation must be a gift (Rom 3:24).

So? Who said Paul was talking about his own salvation? Look it up. It's not his salvation he's talking about.

He doesn't say it's eternal life he's talking about. This is more injection of a theology into Scripture.

No, Paul is not so covetous of gifts he already has, as to make this projection. Paul knows we are already saved. 2 Tim 1:9. So it's not Paul talking about trying to get saved. In fact the context of 1 Corinthians 9 would make this whole thing absurd -- Paul would have to be saying that converting other people is required for us to be saved! So no, there's no way that's what Paul meant.

In fact it's disarmingly simple to see what Paul is talking about. He spends 1 Cor 9:19-23 telling us what he wants to win, and then tells us to run in such a way as to receive this prize, 1 Cor 9:24-25. He wants to win people: incorruptible lives to the eternal gospel.

The prize not being my eternity -- but theirs.

Mk 2:1-5 has no declaration from Jesus that faith is a work. It simply says Jesus saw their faith based on actions that resulted. Once again the injection of one theology into Scripture does not fare well. Such is the result of eisegesis.

No. James is clearly stating that the faith that saves results in works on practical terms. But James is not saying works are included in faith. Otherwise James contradicts Paul, who has stated, "he who does not work but believes, his faith is counted as righteousness" Rom 4:5 . This is a direct, incontrovertible statement of Scripture. When compared with the inferences attempted, based on a faulty theology, Scripture returns the verdict.

Once again shy of the reality of Scripture. Saving faith will result in grateful works given practical limits. But good works done in faith are indeed subject to those practical limits. It's the faith through which we're saved, "not of works" Eph 2:9

I did explain it two posts ago. Here's another argument. It would be a shallow theology to propose that faithless works would impress God. Thus faith must precede works. James 2:18 points out James is interested in showing saving faith by its results -- in works. And that "showiness" is repeated in James 2:20,22,24, So far James is not confirming your view.

Meanwhile, Paul points out that "he who doesn't work, but believes" is justified.

Not only possible, it's pretty easy. I've done it. Twice.

Nobody's said there isn't a dead faith: it is precisely this, a belief that some fact is true (James 2:19). That's not saving faith! The question is whether a saving faith must precede all good works. It must. Therefore, at that point in time, saving faith is sans works. I'm not stuck at (1), I move on to (2) the point that saving faith results in works just as James has stated (James 2:18c), that (3) one of God's intended purposes in saving us is that we would do good works (Eph 2:10).

On the other hand, it seems to me you're stuck on (1). How many threads have you begun trying to prove this point (1) of your view? I know of a half dozen I've contributed to. How many have you posted? I'm baffled why you'd assert that I'm stuck -- unless it's being stuck on these threads dragging me back to attend to them. I'm not stuck. But why is it you'd periodically come back, and try to assert this view again? It doesn't comport with Scripture. It's time to find a view that does comport with Scripture; all of it.

You still have failed to prove a dead faith can produce salvation and works.


Again your process of salvation is:

faith only(1)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saved(2)>>>>>>>>>>>>then works(3)


The initial faith only (1) has no works for you separated the works (3) from it and thereby killed the faith at (1). Just as "the life of the flesh [is] in the blood" Lev 17:11 the life of faith is in the works. And the initial faith only(1) has had its life removed from it making it dead. Just as the flesh is dead without blood, faith is dead without works, James 2:20.

If you can explain how a dead faith can produce works you should be able to explain how a dead, lifeless body buried in a grave can do works.

You posted "I did explain it two posts ago. Here's another argument. It would be a shallow theology to propose that faithless works would impress God. Thus faith must precede works. James 2:18 points out James is interested in showing saving faith by its results -- in works. And that "showiness" is repeated in James 2:20,22,24, So far James is not confirming your view."

When James said 'show', the word show carries the idea of giving evidence or proof of something. So James' point is that works show or prove the faith so James is not simply talking about something that can been seen by God or other men. Therefore if one did not have works they could not even show or prove that they have faith. So in your process of salvation, the initial faith only (1) has no works to show/prove the faith. That initial faith only(1) cannot clothe or feed anyone for it has no works. It cannot justify for work justify..."Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"...."Ye see then how that by works a man is justified". Where are the works in the initial faith only (1) that justify? They are not there.


You also posted "But James is not saying works are included in faith" which is the very opposite of what James said. James said "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" and " faith without works is dead".


Lastly you posted "It's the faith through which we're saved, "not of works" Eph 2:9"

Here in Eph 2:9 as you do in Rom 4:4,5 you assume when works are spoken of it means and includes ALL TYPES of works, but you have not proven this. I can show you many passages just in the book of Romans where Paul said one must have obedience unto salvation/justification. This would be a contradiction if Paul were including all types of works in Eph 2:9 or rom 4:4,5. It is very apparent then that Paul is not excluding all type sof works in Eph 2:9 or Rom 4:4,5 but an examiniation of the tects shows he is excluding works of merit one does to try and earn salvation and not obedient works. As I pointed out in another thread that obedident works cannot earn salvation...."So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." Lk 17:10 The servant has a duty to obey the commands but obeying those commands still leaves him an unprofitable servant who has earned nothing by his obedience.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Faith is the root of salvation, works are the fruit. The fruit is not the root. The tree sustains the fruit, while the fruit does not sustain the tree.

Works are evidence of faith, but works do not justify.

Works follow after faith, faith is the pre-requisite. Faith is a gift from God.

Faith only then would be a root with no fruit. Can one be saved by a root with no fruit?

 

[heymikey80]

You still have failed to prove a dead faith can produce salvation and works.

Because I have no need to. I agree there is a dead faith. I agree that a dead faith can't produce salvation.

I disagree with your definition of what makes faith dead. A dead faith is incapable of producing works. Ever. A living faith is capable of producing works, given practical circumstances. You seem to want your cake and eat it, too. You agree faith is necessary, you agree that faith has to cause works in your view, but your response to "saving faith before works" is inconsistent. Is any "faith before it works" saving, to you? Because you proceeded to say someone with no opportunity to do the work, they wouldn't be saved, not having works.

Again your process of salvation is:

faith only(1)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saved(2)>>>>>>>>>>>>then works(3)

The initial faith only (1) has no works for you separated the works (3) from it and thereby killed the faith at (1).

This is silly. So let's say I ignore your works. Then you're dead. That's the logic presented at (3). Therefore your argument is vacated. You can't be dead based on someone's neglecting your works.

Just as "the life of the flesh [is] in the blood" Lev 17:11 the life of faith is in the works.

Quotes of Scripture with no backing for your interpretation doesn't really commend any argument.

And the initial faith only(1) has had its life removed from it making it dead. Just as the flesh is dead without blood, faith is dead without works, James 2:20.

If you can explain how a dead faith can produce works you should be able to explain how a dead, lifeless body buried in a grave can do works.

Of course. Faith doesn't empower a corpse any more than anything else. Faith is simply an instrument, through which the power of God's Spirit works.

When James said 'show', the word show carries the idea of giving evidence or proof of something. So James' point is that works show or prove the faith so James is not simply talking about something that can been seen by God or other men. Therefore if one did not have works they could not even show or prove that they have faith.

As you know, people do things, often good things. So you appear to be saying someone who does the works, must 100% have the faith. That's not what James is saying, either.

Forcing association to merge the two, faith and works, that's injecting into the text. It's not there. Faith is associated with works. It isn't works. Never was. For Paul, "one who does not work" is the same one "who believes". So "not work" is a characteristic of "believes".

So in your process of salvation, the initial faith only (1) has no works to show/prove the faith. That initial faith only(1) cannot clothe or feed anyone for it has no works.

So you're saying Paul is flat-out wrong saying we're justified by faith (Rom 5:1 and numerous elsewhere: Rom 4:4-5, Ep 2:8-10).

It cannot justify for work justify..."Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"...."Ye see then how that by works a man is justified". Where are the works in the initial faith only (1) that justify? They are not there.

You notice how Romans 4:4-5 states flat-out, "does not work, but believes" and then the conclusion, "his faith is counted for justification" Rom 4:5 So no, your snippet of one verse of James out of the context of "works show faith justified us" doesn't override both what James says in the larger context, and what Paul says in a number of places.

You also posted "But James is not saying works are included in faith" which is the very opposite of what James said. James said "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" and " faith without works is dead".

"has works" is never "is works". Works come alongside the one with faith. That's all James has said. You're saying faith is works. James never says that, and only says faith and works come alongside one another, and then people -- people -- who see these works associate works with faith as well.

Lastly you posted "It's the faith through which we're saved, "not of works" Eph 2:9"

Here in Eph 2:9 as you do in Rom 4:4,5 you assume when works are spoken of it means and includes ALL TYPES of works, but you have not proven this.

I've said it before. It hasn't changed. I'm not talking about all types of works. I'm talking about "works for wages", a system where a person believes certain works actually gaining a wage of salvation from God. So: not "ALL TYPES of works". But instead, any system of receiving salvation through working for a wage.

Now, I say it again, but your persistence in false claims about my position does not go unnoticed. Do evil works like bearing false witness indicate a lack of faith? Because I would clearly be skeptical of someone who can't even follow his own theology.

 

[heymikey80]

Faith only then would be a root with no fruit. Can one be saved by a root with no fruit?

You keep saying this, but it's not true.

Your tree has no root. Have you ever seen a tree with no root?

And how a tree grows, is from the root.

The root of faith precedes the tree. There can be no tree without a root.

 

[rrowell]

Because I have no need to. I agree there is a dead faith. I agree that a dead faith can't produce salvation.

I disagree with your definition of what makes faith dead. A dead faith is incapable of producing works. Ever. A living faith is capable of producing works

And "faith" cannot be without "works"


James 2:24 (KJV)
24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.



The ONLY place in scripture where "faith only" is spoken completely opposes the "faith only" position.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Because I have no need to. I agree there is a dead faith. I agree that a dead faith can't produce salvation.

And you lose your arguemnt when you say "I agree that a dead faith can't produce salvation" for that is exactly what you are arguing when you aregu faith alone saves.

Again:

(1)faith alone>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2(2)saved>>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) works

Your initial faith alone (1) is dead for you have separated works (3) from it.

I disagree with your definition of what makes faith dead. A dead faith is incapable of producing works. Ever. A living faith is capable of producing works, given practical circumstances. You seem to want your cake and eat it, too. You agree faith is necessary, you agree that faith has to cause works in your view, but your response to "saving faith before works" is inconsistent. Is any "faith before it works" saving, to you? Because you proceeded to say someone with no opportunity to do the work, they wouldn't be saved, not having works.

.


James, not me, said faith without works is dead, James 2:17,20
Again, your initial (1) faith only is dead for it is without works for you separated the works from it all the way at (3).

A dead faith has no works such as faith alone. It would not be faith alone if it had works for then it would be faith AND works and not faith alone. Alone is an exclusionary word so faith alone excludes everything else inlcuding works making that faith void of works, making it dead.

A living faith has works for it is the works that is the life of faith as blood is life of the flesh.

This is silly. So let's say I ignore your works. Then you're dead. That's the logic presented at (3). Therefore your argument is vacated. You can't be dead based on someone's neglecting your works.

The works are not done just for you to see or to ignore for the works have nothing to do with you. The works are necessary to have a living, viable faith that can save.

Quotes of Scripture with no backing for your interpretation doesn't really commend any argument.

Of course. Faith doesn't empower a corpse any more than anything else. Faith is simply an instrument, through which the power of God's Spirit works.

I simply made a comparison "Just as "the life of the flesh [is] in the blood" Lev 17:11 the life of faith is in the works" that you have not been able to refute.


A dead body has no works for it is dead just as faith alone has no works so it is dead also.

You will not be able to get through this argument without explaining how a dead faith can produce works without explaining how a dead body can also produce works. For they both are dead and not caple of producing any works.

James said "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." james 2:26.

The body has to have the spirit to have life just as faith must have works to be alive. Again, your initial faith alone (1) is dead for it is without works.

As you know, people do things, often good things. So you appear to be saying someone who does the works, must 100% have the faith. That's not what James is saying, either.

NOt good works but obedient works....."Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" The works James said Abraham did here that justified him was an obedient work in offereing Issac as God told him. An atheist can do all kinds of good works but it takes obedient works in obeying God that will save them.

Forcing association to merge the two, faith and works, that's injecting into the text. It's not there. Faith is associated with works. It isn't works. Never was. For Paul, "one who does not work" is the same one "who believes". So "not work" is a characteristic of "believes".

The bible ties faith to works so greatly that faith a work for a faith cannot save if it does not have works. Mark 2:1-5 Jesus saw their faith. What Jesus saw here was the work the men did and that work in verse 5 is called faith. SO verse 5 shows us that FAITH = WORK

So you're saying Paul is flat-out wrong saying we're justified by faith (Rom 5:1 and numerous elsewhere: Rom 4:4-5, Ep 2:8-10).

Paul did say we are justifed by faith. Paul NEVER said we are jsutifed by faith only. There is a nite and day difference between faith and faith only with faith having works and faith only being void of works.

You notice how Romans 4:4-5 states flat-out, "does not work, but believes" and then the conclusion, "his faith is counted for justification" Rom 4:5 So no, your snippet of one verse of James out of the context of "works show faith justified us" doesn't override both what James says in the larger context, and what Paul says in a number of places.

Rom 4:4 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."

Rom 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Where do you get fromthis context that "worketh not" excludes ALL TYPES of works?

Verse 4 tells us what type of work Paul has under consideration in this context. It is the type of work where one's reward is "not reckoned of grace but of debt". THe only type of work one can do to where his reward is not of grace but of debt is works of merit where he tries to keep God's law perfectly. If one could keep God's law perfectly then he would not need grace for his reward would then something owed him. So the type of "work" Paul has under consideration is works of merit one does in trying to keep God's law perfectly to make his reward of debt and not grace. So when Paul, referring to Abraham, said "worketh not but believeth" Paul was saying Abraham was not one who did works of merit but did the work of believing. So "worketh not"of Rom 4:5 is excluding works of meirt and not all works. Again many places in Romans Paul said one had to obey unto salvation, Rom 6:16-18 and Rom 10:9,10 So if you try and exclude ALL TYPES of works in Rom 4:5 then you are creating a contradiction in what Paul has said.

"has works" is never "is works". Works come alongside the one with faith. That's all James has said. You're saying faith is works. James never says that, and only says faith and works come alongside one another, and then people -- people -- who see these works associate works with faith as well.

You say works come alongside one faith. Yet:

(1) faith alone>>>>>>>>>>(2)saved>>>>>>>>>>>(3) then works

You do not have works along side faith, you separated the two. (1) is distinct from (3) a big separation.

I've said it before. It hasn't changed. I'm not talking about all types of works. I'm talking about "works for wages", a system where a person believes certain works actually gaining a wage of salvation from God. So: not "ALL TYPES of works". But instead, any system of receiving salvation through working for a wage.

Now, I say it again, but your persistence in false claims about my position does not go unnoticed. Do evil works like bearing false witness indicate a lack of faith? Because I would clearly be skeptical of someone who can't even follow his own theology.

Rom 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

So you say "not of works" does not exclude all types of works but works of wages or merit.

SO you would then be admitting from Rom 4:5 that works are necessary to be justified by God, that is, you are admitting that believing is a form of work and that work of belief is counted for righteousness.

Again you admitted clearly above that "worketh not" only excludes works for wages therefore you are admitting that some other type(s) of work is involved in being justified. If you deny that some other type(s) of work is needed to be justified then you are back to saying "worketh not" excludes ALL TYPES of works.

 

[heymikey80]

And "faith" cannot be without "works"

Then which came first? Chicken? Egg?

Clearly one has to be without the other before one results in the other.

 

[heymikey80]

And you lose your arguemnt when you say "I agree that a dead faith can't produce salvation" for that is exactly what you are arguing when you aregu faith alone saves.

You lose your argument based purely on the point that you can't represent mine.

Let's try yours: are you saying that a faith without works, at any point, is a dead faith? That is, whatever we call "faith" is "faith", but it's dead all the while it is not producing works?

I'm saying "A living faith is something else entirely from a living faith. A living faith produces good works; a dead faith by its very nature, never would."

Dead faith doesn't become alive by doing a good work.

Living faith is alive, and at certain practical (theologically, "experimental") points produces good works.

 

[rrowell]

Originally Posted by rrowell
And "faith" cannot be without "works"

Then which came first? Chicken? Egg?

Clearly one has to be without the other before one results in the other.

That depends on what you call faith? the egg or the chicken?

If faith cometh by hearing Rom 10:17, and "hearing" is a "sense by which sound is perceived" and "perceived" is a process, act, or faculty of perceiving, then "hearing" is a "work" therefore "work" must be the chicken that produces the egg "faith".

 

[heymikey80]

Then which came first? Chicken? Egg?

Clearly one has to be without the other before one results in the other.

That depends on what you call faith? the egg or the chicken?

If faith cometh by hearing Rom 10:17, and "hearing" is a "sense by which sound is perceived" and "perceived" is a process, act, or faculty of perceiving, then "hearing" is a "work" therefore "work" must be the chicken that produces the egg "faith".

I've already covered that extensively. A work is something that you intentionally do to receive the wage.

In ancient times you paid to hear someone speak, not the other way around. Announcements were either free, or you paid to receive the counsel of the teacher.

So we're back to the same problem: there is no logical way to assert that (1) two are essentially distinct, (2) one causes the other, and (3) the other is necessary to the one. When they're not ontologically connected, then faith must precede works. And so "one who does not work, but believes" is concluded. By Paul.

 

[rrowell]

I've already covered that extensively. A work is something that you intentionally do to receive the wage.

In ancient times you paid to hear someone speak, not the other way around. Announcements were either free, or you paid to receive the counsel of the teacher.

So we're back to the same problem: there is no logical way to assert that (1) two are essentially distinct, (2) one causes the other, and (3) the other is necessary to the one. When they're not ontologically connected, then faith must precede works. And so "one who does not work, but believes" is concluded. By Paul.

first off, you have never addressed anything except a hard stance with nothing to support it, if you are standing there in front of me, and I offer you a gift for free you cannot possibly accept my free gift without doing something, you have to do something, receiving is "doing" something, you have to reach out and take the free gift this does not make it a wage, by grace I give it, by grace you accept it, but you cannot accept it without doing something, you cannot get past even the simple logic using scripture or not...

 

[heymikey80]

first off, you have never addressed anything except a hard stance with nothing to support it, if you are standing there in front of me, and I offer you a gift for free you cannot possibly accept my free gift without doing something, you have to do something, receiving is "doing" something, you have to reach out and take the free gift this does not make it a wage, by grace I give it, by grace you accept it, but you cannot accept it without doing something, you cannot get past even the simple logic using scripture or not...

Burning a straw man doesn't mean the problem is addressed.

You may be "doing" something, but that doesn't make it "work" what you're doing. Paul is talking about work that gains a wage. A wage, mind you, not simply something that in our science-oriented time moves a mass across a distance.

The definition is the common definition of the day.

Paul says reception of a free gift is not "work" as defined in Romans 4:4-5. Therefore Paul objects to your definition. Another is thus needed, to continue on with Scripture being inerrant.

And Paul also denies that by "work" he means the actions the Law applauds or says are legal. Romans 13 points out that Christians perform according to the Law, too.

Paul's point is that they don't earn a wage of righteousness, and thus don't gain salvation as a wage.

 

[rrowell]

Burning a straw man doesn't mean the problem is addressed.

You may be "doing" something, but that doesn't make it "work" what you're doing. Paul is talking about work that gains a wage. A wage, mind you, not simply something that in our science-oriented time moves a mass across a distance.

The definition is the common definition of the day.

Paul says reception of a free gift is not "work" as defined in Romans 4:4-5. Therefore Paul objects to your definition. Another is thus needed, to continue on with Scripture being inerrant.

And Paul also denies that by "work" he means the actions the Law applauds or says are legal. Romans 13 points out that Christians perform according to the Law, too.

Paul's point is that they don't earn a wage of righteousness, and thus don't gain salvation as a wage.

You cannot have faith without good works:

Titus 3:8 (KJV)

8. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

"be careful to maintain" you cannot "maintain" something you do not have, one must have "good works" if one believes... You put the cart before the horse.

 

[heymikey80]

You cannot have faith without good works:

Titus 3:8 (KJV)

8. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

"be careful to maintain" you cannot "maintain" something you do not have, one must have "good works" if one believes... You put the cart before the horse.

Unfortunately, it's not. Paul wrote Greek. The word would have to include this implication that it's something you already have ... and it doesn't.

The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. Titus 3:8 (ESV)

The connotation of English "maintain" as being something you already have is not present in Greek. The word translated "maintain" in the 1600's is "devote themselves", proistasthai.

Now from a theological view I don't have a problem with works resulting from faith, because behavior changes due to someone's reliance on another person. So works do result (cf. Ep 2:10). It's just, this verse doesn't say so. In fact it's actually telling people to dedicate themselves to good works. Now why would someone encourage those who already are dedicated to good works, to do what they're already doing? Especially given the cost of parchment, this would be something of a futile encouragement.

Instead Paul is pointing out something which is good and should be done. But it's not in order to gain salvation.