Inherint contradictions teaching Faith Alone

[Hopeful 2]

Yet, as I stated, your sentence was ambiguous, and gave the reasons why. It could mean either of two things.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Then you haven't heard of social constructionism, in which, essentially, words have no meaning until they are used in a specific context. Also known as "meaning-making."

I am not into man's philosophies.

I don't. I have never said that.

If, as you said, we have to wait till we are in heaven to be totally holy, you have written it.

Being justified, that is, being declared righteous, happens when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us at the time when we put our faith in Christ. To be "converted" is to be saved, lest you make God out to be a liar:
Php 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (ESV)

If the conversion is true, salvation will be its result.
But anything can happen between one's conversion and the day of judgement.
Many will turn from the Lord in the last days.

Notice first that it is a "good work" that God began (justification), and second that he "will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ," which would be eventual glorification.

Agreed, but again, based on a true conversion.

In between "began" and bringing "it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ," is sanctification, that work of the Spirit that causes us to grow in holiness through our obedience to God.

I don't agree with that.
I was sanctified at the application of Christ's sanctifying, cleansing, justifying, blood; when I was baptized into Christ and into His death.
Growing in grace and knowledge are just expectations for those made new by God.

 

[Free]

This is a blatantly false statement.

I gave you the meaning of justified as well as justification.

No, it's true. It doesn't matter that you gave Strong's definitions; you are using the wrong definition in regards to James 2:21, as I showed. You said that there it means "Righteous; right with God," but that isn't what it means there. The context makes it clear that James is talking about "proved" or "vindicated." If you prefer, use the second definition under "Outline of Biblical Usage" from the Strong's screenshot you gave--"to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous"--which is also exactly what Thayer's and NASEC say.

When James says that Abraham was justified by works--being willing to offer up Isaac on the altar--he is not meaning that he was declared righteous by his works. Rather James is saying that Abraham's works showed, exhibited, and evinced the righteousness that he already had by faith some twenty years earlier, as I've explained in my posts.

Again, if James meant that Abraham was made righteous by his deeds, he would be in direct contradiction to Paul.

 

[RBDERRICK]

There is no justification, sanctification, or washing by the blood of Christ, without water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.

Those words must be repeated exactly, in order to be 'porperly' water baptized?

What about saying baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Or in the name of the Lord? Or, even in the name of the Lord Jesus?

Are any of these words acceptable to the Son, for His commanded water baptism to be obeyed and 'take effect'?

The only "works" ever spoken against in the NT are of the Law...ie., circumcision, dietary rules, tithing, sabbath keeping and feast keeping.

And of course unrighteous works of the flesh against the law of Christ:

Gal 5:19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Including having respect of persons in the faith of our Lord:
Jas 2:1My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

Jas 2:8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Do you mean justification OF water baptism ?
Or the justification BY baptism ?
Jesus did command it, and so did Peter and Paul.

Justification of water baptism, as a commanded work of the churches of God. We can preach water baptism in the church as commanded by Jesus Christ.

Even as we can preach congregating into one place as a rule, and not just suggest it as good idea.

Heb 10:25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

With water baptism it's a one time command. With congregating for preaching of the gospel, it's an ongoing rule not to be forsaken entirely. The same as the commandment of communion.

1Co 11:24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Where else but at our "immersion" into Christ death will the sanctifying, justifying blood of Christ be applied to us ?

By the baptism and circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of Christ, as well as crucifixion the old man, which is immediately upon repentance from dead works by the faith of Jesus.

Isn't it ?
Faith is dead, without the manifestation of that faith.The promise of faith is nullified and made of none effect, by 'waiting' to do a work to be justified by.

Gal 3:17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The promise of faith is nullified and made of none effect, by 'waiting' to do a work to be justified by. It applies to the law of Christ the same as that of Moses.

Gal 3:22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

The promise of imputed righteousness by faith without works, is nullified by Christ 'waiting' until a comandment of His is kept, such as water baptism.

Gal 3:22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

I know you don't argue points, and so sometimes don't acknowledge them. So I'll only repeat myself once, unless you want to argue the point and show any error in it.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Again, you're conflating two different meanings of justification, so your understanding of what James says is in direct contradiction to what Paul says in numerous places. The contradiction should be a red flag to you that indicates something in what you believe isn't quite right.

The only biblically correct meaning of justification is Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross, anything else is secondary.

 

[Free]

If, as you said, we have to wait till we are in heaven to be totally holy, you have written it.

No, what I said is absolutely not what you said I said, which was: "I can only wonder why you think the off-spring of God are unholy." We are both sanctified and being sanctified. We are not unholy and then holy; we grow in holiness until we are made perfectly holy.

If the conversion is true, salvation will be its result.
But anything can happen between one's conversion and the day of judgement.
Many will turn from the Lord in the last days.

Agreed, but again, based on a true conversion.

If conversion is true, a person is saved at the moment of justification. It cannot be otherwise.

I don't agree with that.
I was sanctified at the application of Christ's sanctifying, cleansing, justifying, blood; when I was baptized into Christ and into His death.
Growing in grace and knowledge are just expectations for those made new by God.

Yet, apparently you’re not saved. You don’t have to agree that sanctification is also a process, but that is what the Bible teaches.

 

[Free]

The only biblically correct meaning of justification is Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross, anything else is secondary.

No, that is not the meaning of justification, that is the basis. It’s almost like you didn’t read anything else I posted, or even what others have posted. Justification is an English translation of a Greek word, the meanings of which have been posted by two of us, on the previous page. And none of the meanings are “Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross.”

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, that is not the meaning of justification, that is the basis. It’s almost like you didn’t read anything else I posted, or even what others have posted. Justification is an English translation of a Greek word, the meanings of which have been posted by two of us, on the previous page. And none of the meanings are “Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross.”

A word is just a word, that "basis" is the essence. Without this basis the word means nothing. It's like the foundation of a house, you can't build anything floating in the air.

 

[JLB]

No, it's true. It doesn't matter that you gave Strong's definitions; you are using the wrong definition in regards to James 2:21, as I showed.

You haven't showed anything but denial.

I gave the definition of justified, in James 2:21, James 2:24 which means declared to be righteous.

At the end of the day is means righteous; right with God

If you want to argue with that then go argue with someone else.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Those words must be repeated exactly, in order to be 'porperly' water baptized?

No, as "the name of Jesus Christ" is the same as "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

What about saying baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Or in the name of the Lord? Or, even in the name of the Lord Jesus?
Are any of these words acceptable to the Son, for His commanded water baptism to be obeyed and 'take effect'?

They are all the same.
The only thing that can hinder baptism's effect is either a false repentance from sin or lack of faith.

And of course unrighteous works of the flesh against the law of Christ:

Those were not the point of Paul's writings opposing works.
That topic precluded circumcision, dietary rules, sabbath keeping, etc. for salvation.

Justification of water baptism, as a commanded work of the churches of God. We can preach water baptism in the church as commanded by Jesus Christ.

I don't think I have ever had to justify getting baptized.
Those I have baptized already believed it was necessary for the remission of past sins.

Even as we can preach congregating into one place as a rule, and not just suggest it as good idea.

If it became necessary, yes.

With water baptism it's a one time command. With congregating for preaching of the gospel, it's an ongoing rule not to be forsaken entirely. The same as the commandment of communion.

Yes.

By the baptism and circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of Christ, as well as crucifixion the old man, which is immediately upon repentance from dead works by the faith of Jesus.

I disagree.
But it is off topic.

The promise of faith is nullified and made of none effect, by 'waiting' to do a work to be justified by. It applies to the law of Christ the same as that of Moses.

If faith genders no action, it is a dead faith.

The promise of imputed righteousness by faith without works, is nullified by Christ 'waiting' until a comandment of His is kept, such as water baptism.

Those "works" are "of the Law".
Circumcision...etc.

I know you don't argue points, and so sometimes don't acknowledge them. So I'll only repeat myself once, unless you want to argue the point and show any error in it.

Show faith without action, and I will show faith by action.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You haven't showed anything but denial.

I gave the definition of justified, in James 2:21, James 2:24 which means declared to be righteous.

At the end of the day is means righteous; right with God

If you want to argue with that then go argue with someone else.


View attachment 16378



View attachment 16379

A word of advice, buddy. If you wanna win a debate in a polite manner, don't just passively react to your opponent's every argument, especially don't play any word games by hitting them with a dictionary like this. You gotta take control of the conversation and bend it towards a new direction that favors you. If you just instictively follow their lead, you'd adopt their definitions, acknowledge their premise and accept their logic, you'd be dragged by their train of thoughts. The best defense is a good offense. Oftentimes there's a false or questionable premise in their argument, they may have taken things out of context or made up a misconception, you need to be able to detect it and expose it, by which you undercut their argument, then you swoop in from an advantageous position with your ideas, you launch a counterattack with the ammos from your intellectual armory.

 

[JLB]

A word of advice, buddy. If you wanna win a debate in a polite manner, don't just passively react to your opponent's every argument, especially don't play any word games by hitting them with a dictionary like this. You gotta take control of the conversation and bend it towards a new direction that favors you. If you just instictively follow their lead, you'd adopt their definitions, acknowledge their premise and accept their logic, you'd be dragged by their train of thoughts. The best defense is a good offense. Oftentimes there's a false or questionable premise in their argument, they may have taken things out of context or made up a misconception, you need to be able to detect it and expose it, by which you undercut their argument, then you swoop in from an advantageous position with your ideas, you launch a counterattack with the ammos from your intellectual armory.

I'm not interested in winning a debate.

I'm here to speak and teach the truth of God's word.


People that follow teachings of man, such as this case, Calvinism and "reformed theology have a "mindset" or stronghold that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

In this case, he has chosen to blatantly deny the common meaning of justified, which at it's core means righteous, right with God.


It's time for me to disconnect from my discussion with him.



Thanks, JLB

 

[Free]

A word is just a word, that "basis" is the essence. Without this basis the word means nothing. It's like the foundation of a house, you can't build anything floating in the air.

No. Words have meanings for a reason. "Christ" is a word that has a meaning; "substitutionary" is a word that has a meaning; "atonement" is a word that has a meaning; "on" is a word that has a meaning; "the" is a word that has a meaning, or at least a specific function; "cross" is a word that has a meaning. What are the essences of those words? It seems like you might be building something floating in the air.

Justification has specific meanings, none of which is "Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross." It's important you realize this since it likely comes from classical Greek writings outside the NT and was used in the NT because of its specific meanings. Again, Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is the basis for justification, which, in regards to Christ's redemptive work, means that we are declared righteous.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No. Words have meanings for a reason. "Christ" is a word that has a meaning; "substitutionary" is a word that has a meaning; "atonement" is a word that has a meaning; "on" is a word that has a meaning; "the" is a word that has a meaning, or at least a specific function; "cross" is a word that has a meaning. What are the essences of those words? It seems like you might be building something floating in the air.

Justification has specific meanings, none of which is "Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross." It's important you realize this since it likely comes from classical Greek writings outside the NT and was used in the NT because of its specific meanings. Again, Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is the basis for justification, which, in regards to Christ's redemptive work, means that we are declared righteous.

Do you believe in the basic principle of Solo Scriptura - intepret the bible with the bible - instead of any "classical Greek writings"? "Justification" is not a standalone term, you gotta specify "who" or "what" is justified by "who" or "what", without this context it's meaningless, no amount of dictionary is gonna fix that.

 

[Free]

You haven't showed anything but denial.

I'm not the one denying things. You keep sharing screenshots of the multiple meanings of dikaioō, but then acting like there is only one.

I gave the definition of justified, in James 2:21, James 2:24 which means declared to be righteous.

No, that is not the correct definition. You are picking just one of several definitions which fits what you want James to be saying. As I pointed out previously, the definition for James 2:21 and 24, is the second one under Outline of Biblical Usage in your Strong's screenshot: "to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous." It is evidence of one who already is righteous, which is the very point that James sets out to make, based on verses 17 and 18:

Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jas 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (ESV)

At the end of the day is means righteous; right with God

That what Paul's usage is in Romans 4 when he's talking about the same OT verse as James (Gen 15:6), but that isn't the meaning James is referring to.

If you want to argue with that then go argue with someone else.

I'm not the one arguing. You're the one saying things such as "You haven't showed anything but denial" and stating that I've been indoctrinated to the point that I am "basically denying what the scriptures so plainly say." That's being argumentative.

I'm just pointing out that there are different definitions for justification, which you are implicitly denying. I have given on clear biblical teaching as to what both Paul and James are meaning. Your position has them contradicting, but that's because you are using the same definition of justification for both, without any basis for doing so.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I'm not interested in winning a debate.

I'm here to speak and teach the truth of God's word.

Doesn't seem like it when you guys began to accuse each other of made up charges. You do you, man, I don't worship the bible or any dictionary, and I certainly don't wanna take God's name in vain.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No, what I said is absolutely not what you said I said, which was: "I can only wonder why you think the off-spring of God are unholy." We are both sanctified and being sanctified. We are not unholy and then holy; we grow in holiness until we are made perfectly holy.

You did say we have to wait to get to heaven to be entirely holy.

If conversion is true, a person is saved at the moment of justification. It cannot be otherwise.

I will wait for the last day's final judgement before I claim "I am saved".

Yet, apparently you’re not saved. You don’t have to agree that sanctification is also a process, but that is what the Bible teaches.

I won't usurp the Lord's final day judgement.
My being saved depends on me remaining faithful till the end.

 

[JLB]

Justified -

knowing that a man is not justified (G1344) by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified (G1344) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (G1344) Galatians 2:16


Strong's G1344 - Justified dikaioō

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

Was not Abraham our father justified (G1344) by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (G1343) ” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified (G1344) by works, and not by faith only. James 2:21-24


Strong's G1443 righteousness dikaiosynē



Righteousness and Justified come from the same Greek root word which is G1342

Strongs G1342 dikaios

1. righteous, observing divine laws
   1. in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God
      1. of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined
      2. innocent, faultless, guiltless
      3. used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life
         1. only Christ truly
      4. approved of or acceptable of God
   2. in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them

 

[Free]

Do you believe in the basic principle of Solo Scriptura - intepret the bible with the bible - instead of any "classical Greek writings"? "Justification" is not a standalone term, you gotta specify "who" or "what" is justified by "who" or "what", without this context it's meaningless, no amount of dictionary is gonna fix that.

You try too hard in some ways, but not trying hard enough in other ways. Of course justification isn't a standalone term. You really need to slow down and try and read what people are writing and have written.

Context determines the meaning of a word--its links to the other words. The Greek word for "justification" is dikaioō and was around prior to the writing of the Greek NT. It's meanings doesn't change just because it was used in the NT. God didn't inspire the meanings of the words--apart from those that the writers actually did make up--just the words used. That means that God inspired the use of many words, like justification, precisely because they already had specific meanings that fit the contexts in which the NT writers used them.

 

[Free]

Justified -

knowing that a man is not justified (G1344) by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified (G1344) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (G1344) Galatians 2:16


Strong's G1344 - Justified dikaioō

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

Was not Abraham our father justified (G1344) by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (G1343) ” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified (G1344) by works, and not by faith only. James 2:21-24


Strong's G1443 righteousness dikaiosynē



Righteousness and Justified come from the same Greek root word which is G1342

Strongs G1342 dikaios

1. righteous, observing divine laws
   1. in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God
      1. of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined
      2. innocent, faultless, guiltless
      3. used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life
         1. only Christ truly
      4. approved of or acceptable of God
   2. in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them

You've just proven my case.

"knowing that a man is not justified (G1344) by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified (G1344) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (G1344) Galatians 2:16


Strong's G1344 - Justified dikaioō

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be"

Paul is using definitions 1 and 3.

'Was not Abraham our father justified (G1344) by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (G1343) ” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified (G1344) by works, and not by faith only. James 2:21-24'

James is using definition 2.

And, again, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (G1343)," is referring to Gen 15:6, when Abraham believed in God's promise for numerous offspring. There was no work there. And that is entirely Paul's point in Romans 4 where he also discusses Gen 15:6.

 

[Free]

You did say we have to wait to get to heaven to be entirely holy.

To made perfectly holy, yes, but that doesn't mean we are unholy now.

I will wait for the last day's final judgement before I claim "I am saved".

I won't usurp the Lord's final day judgement.
My being saved depends on me remaining faithful till the end.

Suit yourself. That's really not any different than Muslims and many other religions that don't have good news. It must be nerve-wracking not having any assurance.