Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
Yes. But not for the purpose of being imputed the righteousness of God.
Yes, you could say that you believe, but not obey. But that would show your faith to be fake. And so you would be condemned as an unbeliever, not condemned because you failed to the works by which a person is imputed the righteousness of God (righteousness is not imputed that way).
No, you didn't. You've simply shown you don't understand how words have different definitions.
Which is irrelevant to the definition that is being used.
Ah, here we are. You're teaching the false gospel of being justified by works. Paul says to consider you as one who is accursed.
Which, again, is irrelevant to the definition that is being used and shows that you're failing to understand something very basic.
You haven't shown that to be the case, as you cannot even show that words have different meanings, which is essential to understanding the Scriptures, indeed anything, properly.
It isn't derogatory at all. You're completely changing the meaning of a passage so that it contradicts other passages by teaching justification by works, and all because you either don't want to or can't acknowledge that words have different definitions that are contextually dependent.
You gave an answer, albeit a very poor one.
Already answered. Please stop asking.
Of course it is, but that misses the point entirely. You're relying on a single definition of justified that contradicts the context and other passages of Scripture, when there is another definition that fits and makes sense of everything.
He was justified in that his works were evidence of the faith he already had (James 2:23). I've given all the context previously, if you care to actually address that point by point, since you didn't the first time, in POST #322.
We are discussing the verb justified. The action of being justified can mean one of two things, either being made righteous, or being shown to be righteous. Paul talks about being justified in regard to being made righteous. James talks about being justified in regard to being shown to be righteous.
The context of the word 'justified' determines whether they mean 'shown to be righteous' or 'made righteous'. James is clearly using the word 'justified' in regard to showing one to be righteous:
Justified, as we are referring to it in the Bible is a verb. So saying 'justified' means 'righteous' does not clarify the action associated with the verb 'justified' and whether or not you are referring to the action of being made righteous, or being shown to be righteous.
No, Abraham would not be justified if he did not obey God. And not because he failed to do the deeds necessary to become righteous, but because he failed to produce the obedience that would show him to have faith in the promise.
Amen!
An answer that doesn’t address the point.
That’s not relevant to anything.
Yes.
Right, but both meanings are different and you’re constantly conflating them. Well, you’re actually completely ignoring the one that is used in James 2.
So, now, learn how to properly use Strong’s to get the correct understanding in James 2.
What you don’t seem to understand, and which I’ve explained, is that context determines the specific meaning. That is one of the most fundamental rules of biblical interpretation. So, in James 2, meaning 2 is used. In Romans 4, Paul mainly or exclusively uses meaning 3.
And he’s right. That is exactly the meaning as I’ve stated numerous times.
No, it absolutely is not. That is not how proper interpretation is done. How is it that you’ve been here so long and haven’t learned how to do proper biblical interpretation and use the tools correctly? I honestly don’t understand.
Which is not relevant. What is relevant is that only meaning 2 is meant. Using meaning 3 would not only be to ignore the context, but it would put James in direct contradiction with Paul.
Of course I disagree, because you’re not using proper biblical interpretation and it leads to contradiction and a false gospel.
I should clarify. There are times when one must choose a definition, but that is where the context is difficult and not clear and more than one definition can work without creating contradiction in the wider context of Scripture. But in James 2, we have a clear, simple context and we have the larger context of Paul.
