Faith without works........is Faith.

[Jethro Bodine]

My question still stands: Why then do some people try and make themselves the one who "worketh not" when he is the law breaker, the unrighteous man?????

Why? Because, Biblically, the person who 'worketh not' is the person who did not first do a work to qualify to receive God's forgiveness. I pointed out the examples of the servant in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB, and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10:43-46 NASB. They did NOTHING as a requirement that must be first fulfilled in order to qualify for forgiveness.

 

[dadof10]

A few months before I actually got saved I wanted to get saved so I got out of bed one Sunday morning and went to church looking for God. Was I made righteous by the faith to do that? Of course not. Yet, you could easily add my name and the story of my search for God to Hebrews 11:1-40 NASB. My faith did not justify me until later when it got focused and educated in something very specific.

Did you trust in God by faith like Abraham did? He was told by God to go out to some unknown place and that God would care for him, and he did it. This seems like a perfect, Biblical example of "trusting faith", which we both agree justifies.

 

[smaller]

Did you trust in God by faith like Abraham did? He was told by God to go out to some unknown place and that God would care for him, and he did it. This seems like a perfect, Biblical example of "trusting faith", which we both agree justifies.

Abraham and Sarah brought forth their promised son, Isaac, (yes, as an allegory to Jesus) long after their own "bearing" age. The birth of Isaac was not from anything of them, but everything of God in Christ. They could not, for any reason of their own, bring forth that SON.

They were both, essentially dead to bearing, at that point of of BIRTHING the son of PROMISE.

Paul echoes this same principle, and steps directly into their shoes, in Romans 7:9-11

 

[dadof10]

But the point I'm making is Paul did not contrast the failure of circumcision and various other lawful observances (Galatians 4:10 NASB) with other works or deeds that do justify. He contrasted the failure of circumcision and various other lawful observances to justify a person with having faith in Christ's blood to forgive sin. See what I'm saying?

Yes, and you are right. That's what he did in the verses you posted and in the majority of his letters.

Certainly if Paul believed that there were righteous things that we could do besides have faith in God's forgiveness to be made righteous he'd tell us that.

Ahhh...And here is the rub. I don't think he would have, not in his letters, at this time, in this culture. These were letters, not theological treatises. Because of the prevailing heresy (justification through the law, specifically circumcision) Paul was only reacting to that, he wasn't dealing with things that weren't on topic, so to speak.

Instead he tells us that the way to be made righteous is to have your sins removed through the forgiveness of sin and to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us. Subsequent works of righteousness are then the result of being forgiven and having the righteous nature of Christ placed in us now moving us to do righteous things. Those righteous works showing us to be righteous, not making us righteous, only the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness being able to do that.

I would argue with "instead" and "imputation" here, but it's a little off topic. But if you mean "works of the law" by "works of righteousness" and "righteous works", then I agree. I also agree that the attitude of performing deeds (any deeds) that put God in obligation to man, is also being condemned by Paul throughout his letters, which was the attitude of the Jews toward "works". Gotta get to Mass...God bless

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Did you trust in God by faith like Abraham did? He was told by God to go out to some unknown place and that God would care for him, and he did it. This seems like a perfect, Biblical example of "trusting faith", which we both agree justifies.

No, my faith to simply go to church to seek out what little I knew about God did not justify me (make me righteous), because it was not faith in the promise of a son who will inherit the blessing on our behalf. It was just a general faith that God was real and that the little I did know about him was true. For Abraham, like me, the moment of justifying faith did not happen until he got a fuller more specific knowledge of God's promise of a son, in Genesis 15:4 NASB.

4 Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir."

I find it improbable that even you think simply going to church by the unction of the Spirit who gives an inkling of faith that what you've heard about the gospel may be true makes a person righteous. Surely you don't think just seeking out God through the leading of the Spirit makes a person righteous? I'm confident that you believe that the faith that makes a person righteous is the faith that understands and accepts God's specific promise about a Son through whom our sins are forgiven and who inherits the blessing on our behalf. I did not come to that focus of faith until several months later.

 

[turnorburn]

No, all virgins do not burn in eternal hellfire because "the Bible says so"...lol. My interpretation of this verse is that physical sacrificial pain effects our salvation. That's why Paul says "I buffet my body...". (1Cor. 9:27) Accepting sacrifice and "offering it up" is also consistent with Paul's teaching in Colossians "Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." (1:24)

How would you interpret it?

How does "physical sacrificial pain effects our salvation." are you talking about flagellation?

tob

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, and you are right. That's what he did in the verses you posted and in the majority of his letters.


Ahhh...And here is the rub. I don't think he would have, not in his letters, at this time, in this culture. These were letters, not theological treatises. Because of the prevailing heresy (justification through the law, specifically circumcision) Paul was only reacting to that, he wasn't dealing with things that weren't on topic, so to speak.


I would argue with "instead" and "imputation" here, but it's a little off topic. But if you mean "works of the law" by "works of righteousness" and "righteous works", then I agree. I also agree that the attitude of performing deeds (any deeds) that put God in obligation to man, is also being condemned by Paul throughout his letters, which was the attitude of the Jews toward "works". Gotta get to Mass...God bless

You do know that love and works of charity are works of the law, right? Paul even goes so far as to say you are actually fulfilling the law of Moses when you "love your neighbor as yourself" (Romans 13:8-10 NASB). You can not remove the obedience of love and charity through faith in Christ from that of fulfilling the law as if they are different things.

When you "love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18 NASB), whether because you are trying to make yourself righteous by doing that, or doing it because God has made you righteous through the forgiveness of your sins and the giving of the new nature through faith, it's still the law that is being kept. The point being, neither case can make a person righteous. Only the wiping away of unrighteousness through forgiveness can do that.

 

[Seabass]

Partially true. It just needs a little more explanation.

What work of repentance did the servant have to do to receive the forgiveness of his debt in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB? None, of course. But it was required that he produce a work of repentance in keeping with the profound forgiveness of debt he had received, or else have the debt reinstated, which it was. So it is true that the debt of iniquity in the kingdom remains forgiven for the repentant person, not the unrepentant person. But the parable shows us that does not mean that you have to first forgive in order to be forgiven.


Slight correction necessary here: God does not SAVE on the DAY OF WRATH those that will not repent. The parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:23-35 illustrates for us how there will those who receive the forgiveness of the master in the kingdom of God, but who will then show contempt for that forgiveness as evidenced by their behavior. They will lose their justification--the forgiveness of their sins--and as a result, they will not be saved on the Day of Wrath.

The purpose of a parable is to reveal, usually, one particular idea/truth. People have to be careful not to take some thing from the parable that was not intended. Can one take the parable in Luke 15 and conclude that the Lord is a lousy Shepherd that is careless in letting a sheep become lost? No. Can one take from the parable in Lk 16:1ff Jesus approved the dishonesty of the steward? No.

The parable of Mt 18 is about showing compassion for others where in the parable one man had compassion and another did not. One cannot take from this that one does not have to repent to be saved for that would be an idea that is not intended from the parable. Such an idea would be in direct, total contradiction to Lk 13:3,5 where Jesus said to repent or perish or Acts 2:38 where repentance is an imperative, that is, one has no choice in the matter but must obey the imperative, it's not an option to being saved.

 

[Seabass]

What works did the household of Cornelius do to be justified? None (Acts 10:43-46).

What work did they do that can show they are really the children of God and thus be saved on the Day of Wrath? Baptism (Acts 10:47-48 NASB).

In Peter's sermon to the Gentile household Peter said "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." So there must be 'working righteousness" on the part of Cornelius to be aceepted with God.

We also know Cornelius was told to "believe" (not told to believe only) Acts 10:43 and we know they were also water baptized, Acts 10:47,48.
We also know Cornelius would be saved by "words" (gospel message) Peter would preach to him Acts 11:14 Repentance and confession are both part of the gospel, Lk 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; Mt 10:32,33; Rom 10:9,10.

Jn 8:24-----------believing>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
Acts 2:38---------repentance>>>>>>>>>>saves
Rom 10:9,10----confession>>>>>>>>>>saves
1 Pet 3:21-------baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

Since there is just one way to be saved, then believing must include repentance, confession and baptism. Believing is sometimes used as a synecdoche (part stands for the whole) where believing includes repentance, confession and baptism. So even though repentance nor confession are specifically mentioned in Acts 10, "believe" in Acts 10:43 would include them, not exclude them. Just as when Peter said in 1 Pet 3:21 that baptism now saves us. Peter is NOT saying "baptism ALONE" saves us, but baptism is used as a synecdoche were it includes believing, repenting and confession. Just as those who are said to have 'believed' in Acts 2:44 are the ones that were baptized in Acts 2:41 so we have the word "believed" in Acts 2:44 include being baptized.

Lastly in Acts 15 the apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss the issue of circumcision for there were some false teachers saying one cannot be saved unless he was circumcised, Acts 15:1,2. It was during this meeting that Peter rose up and said "But we believe that we (Jews) shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)." verse 11. Both Jews and Gentiles will be saved by God's grace in a "like manner" way. The Jews in Acts 2 had to repent (verse 38) it was an imperative the Jews had to obey to be saved, therefore the Gentiles must repent also to be saved in a "like manner" way.

Acts 20:21 "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."

Acts 26:20 "But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Note one has not turned to God until he first repents)

Paul taught to both Jews and Gentiles the necessity of repentance and Cornelius was not saved by God's grace in any different manner than the Jews or other Gentiles.

 

[JLB]

There's no reason to continue to address me directly with this repeated defense. You haven't been able to explain the evidence of Cornelius' household and how they did NOTHING to be born again except listen and believe:

That's funny.

I showed from the scriptures, where the house of Cornelius was saved through the obedience of repentance. You just ignored the plain truth of the scripture, in favor of your doctrine of "faith all by itself"...

18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

Do you believe a person must repent to be forgiven their sins?



that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10

Did Paul say confession is made unto salvation, or did Paul say believe unto salvation?


JLB

 

[Seabass]

Why? Because, Biblically, the person who 'worketh not' is the person who did not first do a work to qualify to receive God's forgiveness. I pointed out the examples of the servant in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB, and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10:43-46 NASB. They did NOTHING as a requirement that must be first fulfilled in order to qualify for forgiveness.

The problem is some take the phrase "worketh not" of Rom 4:5, remove it from the context and isolate it from all other passages then claim salvation is not of works. Yet when left in the context, one sees that the one who "worketh not" is the law breaker, the unrighteous man that does not keep God's law. In removing "worketh not" from the context, they isolate it from passages as Rom 6;16-18 where Paul said "obedience UNTO righteousness" and put obeying from the heart BEFORE being freed from sin/justified.


From my prior two posts, you can see that I do not agree with your analysis of Mt 18 or Cornelius.

 

[dadof10]

No, my faith to simply go to church to seek out what little I knew about God did not justify me (make me righteous), because it was not faith in the promise of a son who will inherit the blessing on our behalf. It was just a general faith that God was real and that the little I did know about him was true. For Abraham, like me, the moment of justifying faith did not happen until he got a fuller more specific knowledge of God's promise of a son, in Genesis 15:4 NASB.

4 Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir."

I find it improbable that even you think simply going to church by the unction of the Spirit who gives an inkling of faith that what you've heard about the gospel may be true makes a person righteous. Surely you don't think just seeking out God through the leading of the Spirit makes a person righteous? I'm confident that you believe that the faith that makes a person righteous is the faith that understands and accepts God's specific promise about a Son through whom our sins are forgiven and who inherits the blessing on our behalf. I did not come to that focus of faith until several months later.

Do you think, reading through Gen.12, that Abraham trusted God? What you are describing above doesn't include trust, I don't think. Isn't this your main point, that trusting in Jesus' sacrifice is "saving faith"? Now, I know Abraham didn't trust in Christ, but neither did he trust in Christ when he believed and "it was credited to him as righteousness". My point is, that trusting in God is your definition of "saving faith", right?

 

[dadof10]

How does "physical sacrificial pain effects our salvation." are you talking about flagellation?

tob

I saw this before and ignored it once. I've been pretty busy lately and haven't been on the forum for about a year. I made a promise to myself that when I returned, I would be as charitable as possible, no matter what. I have been as guilty as anyone else of drawing and being drawn, into "silly controversies". I will continue to ignore irrelevant posts that can only lead to factious arguments. Peace.

 

[dadof10]

You do know that love and works of charity are works of the law, right? Paul even goes so far as to say you are actually fulfilling the law of Moses when you "love your neighbor as yourself" (Romans 13:8-10 NASB). You can not remove the obedience of love and charity through faith in Christ from that of fulfilling the law as if they are different things.

When you "love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18 NASB), whether because you are trying to make yourself righteous by doing that, or doing it because God has made you righteous through the forgiveness of your sins and the giving of the new nature through faith, it's still the law that is being kept. The point being, neither case can make a person righteous. Only the wiping away of unrighteousness through forgiveness can do that.

I know, we've been down this road before. If my memory were better, I would have seen it coming. As it stands, I didn't remember until you posted this...lol I actually said "Oh, that's right..." out loud sitting here at my computer. My wife asked "What's right?"

Anyway, I just don't think the "Judaizers" were attempting to make the Gentile converts uphold "love your neighbors as yourself", nor do I think anyone was even talking about upholding things in the moral or natural law. Just the Mosaic law, specifically circumcision, which Jews REQUIRED for acceptance into Judaism and, by extension, Heaven. Paul's letters were written in response to specific things that were going on at the time. I don't think many of the "faith alone" adherents take that into consideration when interpreting.

 

[turnorburn]

I saw this before and ignored it once. I've been pretty busy lately and haven't been on the forum for about a year. I made a promise to myself that when I returned, I would be as charitable as possible, no matter what. I have been as guilty as anyone else of drawing and being drawn, into "silly controversies". I will continue to ignore irrelevant posts that can only lead to factious arguments. Peace.

Your the one that made the statement, what did you mean by it?

tob

*edit: forgot the statement "physical sacrificial pain effects our salvation."

 

[JLB]

What works did the household of Cornelius do to be justified? None (Acts 10:43-46).

What work did they do that can show they are really the children of God and thus be saved on the Day of Wrath? Baptism (Acts 10:47-48 NASB).

They repented unto eternal life.

Not repent of a certain sin, but repent in respect to Who was their Lord.

The turned to God.

As the scripture shows...
18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Acts 11:18


JLB

 

[JLB]

You haven't been able to explain the evidence of Cornelius' household and how they did NOTHING to be born again except listen and believe:

Now it's up to you to prove your claim that Cornelius did not repent, from the scriptures.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Now it's up to you to prove your claim that Cornelius did not repent, from the scriptures.


JLB

You seem to have forgotten that you were arguing that one had to repent in a very specific way to be born again, which Cornelius and his household did not do in Acts 10:43-46 NASB.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Anyway, I just don't think the "Judaizers" were attempting to make the Gentile converts uphold "love your neighbors as yourself", nor do I think anyone was even talking about upholding things in the moral or natural law.

The point being you think 'love your neighbor as yourself' is not included in the works of the law that Paul says can not justify (make a person righteous). But how does fulfilling the law of 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18 NASB) make a person righteous the way that having your unrighteousness removed through forgiveness makes a person righteous? I know how it can show a person to have the righteousness of Christ through having their sins forgiven in Christ.

Having your sins forgiven is what changes a person, not the work of doing righteous things like 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18 NASB. The work of 'love your neighbor as yourself' is only required in a person's life because it is the expected and obligatory way that genuine saving faith looks in a person's life. That's why you need to have that on the Day of Wrath to be saved. God measures justifying faith by what justifying faith looks like in a person's life (Matthew 25:31-46 NASB). Paul, too, explains how it is pleasing God by being obedient that proves us to be children of God:

"13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. 14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing; 15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God" (Philippians 2:13-15 NASB)

That's why works are required for salvation, not to make you righteous, but to prove you have the righteousness of Christ by faith apart from works of the law. No proof means no faith. No faith means no salvation.

 

[smaller]

Having your sins forgiven is what changes a person, not the work of doing righteous things like 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18 NASB. The work of 'love your neighbor as yourself' is only required in a person's life because it is the expected and obligatory way that genuine saving faith looks in a person's life. That's why you need to have that on the Day of Wrath to be saved. That's why works are required for salvation, not to make you righteous, but to prove you have the righteousness of Christ by faith apart from works of the law. No proof means no faith. No faith means no salvation.

The bold above is circular reasoning i.e. a logic fallacy. The claim that loving your neighbors follows by condemning believers to potential hell if they don't as a conveyance by the person claiming they love their neighbors.

Does not add up.

Galatians 3:21
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

By Paul's theo-logic, righteousness can NOT arrive via legal (law) obedience in any form. If it could have been so, then there was no need for Christ, as any person could make themselves righteous by following X law(s) with or without Christ.

That never happened with multiple millions of O.T. Jews for example just as it would not happen with any numbers of christians. The proposal of many christians is that, because of Christ, they can now follow the law to obtain righteousness. They turn the law formula, which was before Christ as "law only" to the new circular reasoning formula, Christ PLUS law, which is still LAW in any case.

The law, by any measures applied, is not of "faith." Anything not of "faith" is SIN.

Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Romans 14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

There is no salvation formula of Christ PLUS law.