Is belief "works"?

[BornAgain]

I don't expect that this will be settled until our Lord returns. But I do have a few questions for the staunch legalists to help me understand their stance.

Rrowell, Ernest, or Webb... Would you affirm this statement? The blood of Christ was insufficient.

Do you believe Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for our sins? If so, is this to say we possess the ability to do what His sacrifice could not?

Ephesians 1:1-14

Mike,

You did not address me in this post but I would like to make a statement on the definition of legalism as I have been reading a lot about it since I have been called that by you and other moderators and members.

There is a distinct difference between a legalist and a Christian that follows the Doctrine of Christ.

Legalism, in Christ usually a term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of the law over the spirit. Legalism is against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace.

Legalism refers to any doctrine which states salvation comes strictly from adherence to the law. It can be thought of as a works-based religion. Groups in the New Testament said to be falling into this category include the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Juaizers, etc.

They are legalists because they emphasized obeying the Law of Moses, in the case of the Pharisees and Scribes, to the letter without understanding the concept of grace. Jesus condemned their legalism in Matt 23. The Pharisees love of the praises of men for their strict adherence is said to be a prime example of legalism.

The members of the church of Christ that you pointed out are not legalistic, we are not a cult or legalists but Christians (A person/persons who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings).

 

[Butch5]

I don't expect that this will be settled until our Lord returns. But I do have a few questions for the staunch legalists to help me understand their stance.

Rrowell, Ernest, or Webb... Would you affirm this statement? The blood of Christ was insufficient.

Do you believe Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for our sins? If so, is this to say we possess the ability to do what His sacrifice could not?

Ephesians 1:1-14

Hi Mike,

Sadly this issue needn't be an issue. If people would do the necessary research and study they would see that there is no issue here. If one's theology cannot reconcile all of Scripture it has error. I know this post wasn't directed to me, however, I hold the same position and thought I address it. The issue is not Christ's sufficiency. If I tell my child to clean her room and I'll give her ice cream and she doesn't do it, it doesn't mean my offer was insufficient. Nowhere in the Scriptures is there an unconditional promise of salvation. That's what would be needed for one to put the onus on God. The issue is whether or not man is going to do as he's been told. If he does he will receive life if not he won't.

To address Ephesians 1 which you posted, goes back to the issue I raised at the beginning. A close study of Ephesians 1 reveals that in verses 3-12 Paul is speaking about the Jews. His use of first person personal plural pronouns in verses 3-12 are contrasted with his change to second person plural pronouns in verses 13-14. Additionally, the context shows that Paul is not talking about his Gentile readers until verse 13.

 

[Webb]

I don't expect that this will be settled until our Lord returns. But I do have a few questions for the staunch legalists to help me understand their stance.

Rrowell, Ernest, or Webb... Would you affirm this statement? The blood of Christ was insufficient.

Do you believe Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for our sins? If so, is this to say we possess the ability to do what His sacrifice could not?

Ephesians 1:1-14

Mike
God bless your precious soul! Of course I will affirm that "the blood of Christ was sufficient." AND, furthermore I will do it on the one-on-one platform of this forum. WHO will meet it??

I agree with what BornAgain wrote regarding the falicious charge of "legalism"

And again,
God bless

 

[Davies]

Mike,

The members of the church of Christ that you pointed out are not legalistic, we are not a cult or legalists but Christians (A person/persons who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings).

Hi BornAgain,

At one point in time, a Christian will be accused of Antinomianism and being a legalist. I know I have. The way I put it, the difference between being legalistic and obeying God is in the why. A sound Christian, who obeys out of love for God or because he understands by faith he is right with God, goes about the business of Christian duties. If a person is doing things to be right with God, this is being legalistic. I wouldn't make a statement on the legal status of a person based on what he does, for one, I'm not the judge, and two, saved Christians are guilty of the same sins. It's very rare that a person can understand the motivation for why people do things. If we do things to be right with God and not because we are right with God, then I think this would define the staunch legalist.

- Davies

 

[BornAgain]

Hi BornAgain,

At one point in time, a Christian will be accused of Antinomianism and being a legalist. I know I have. The way I put it, the difference between being legalistic and obeying God is in the why. A sound Christian, who obeys out of love for God or because he understands by faith he is right with God, goes about the business of Christian duties. If a person is doing things to be right with God, this is being legalistic. I wouldn't make a statement on the legal status of a person based on what he does, for one, I'm not the judge, and two, saved Christians are guilty of the same sins. It's very rare that a person can understand the motivation for why people do things. If we do things to be right with God and not because we are right with God, then I think this would define the staunch legalist.

- Davies

Davies,

You are correct in what you say...I choose to follow the bible but not for my own glory.

Legalism is also confused with discipline, which is often spoken of in a positive light. See 1 Corinthians 9:17; 1 Timothy 4:7; 2 Timothy 1:7 and Hebrews 12:5–11.

 

[Mike]

As I said, we're not going to settle this any time soon, right? Certainly not in this thread. Butch, I agree the heart is at the core. I asked an honest question, because in my studies of scripture, I've not found that we can DO anything except to accept His sacrifice as a price paid in full. It is out of that acceptance that a response flows. So, in my mind, either it was sufficient or it was not.

I hold that it is legalism that leads a person to consciously decide s/he must do certain things to be saved. Doing anything because you are saved is very much different.

I'm not going to get wrapped up in this thread, because I know how it will (not) end.

 

[BornAgain]

As I said, we're not going to settle this any time soon, right? Certainly not in this thread. Butch, I agree the heart is at the core. I asked an honest question, because in my studies of scripture, I've not found that we can DO anything except to accept His sacrifice as a price paid in full. It is out of that acceptance that a response flows. So, in my mind, either it was sufficient or it was not.

I hold that it is legalism that leads a person to consciously decide s/he must do certain things to be saved. Doing anything because you are saved is very much different.

I'm not going to get wrapped up in this thread, because I know how it will (not) end.

It will not end until we understand..

Do you believe you have to go to church, do you believe you have to read the bible, do you believe you have to go to work? Are those works?

 

[rrowell]

I don't expect that this will be settled until our Lord returns. But I do have a few questions for the staunch legalists to help me understand their stance.

Rrowell, Ernest, or Webb... Would you affirm this statement? The blood of Christ was insufficient.

Do you believe Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for our sins? If so, is this to say we possess the ability to do what His sacrifice could not?

Ephesians 1:1-14

Mike,

First off, I have never understood this childish stance people have with this thing they call "legalist"... if you think that the Lord did not make law in the new and old testament then you would have a valid point, but I have found that you and they that call one a legalist usually do so when they cannot prove what they say as biblical, and the one that does is now in your eyes a "legalist"...

You have hid behind your delete button and said things any other site with moderators would have deleted, yet you deliver personal attacks and anyone else dare not only strike back, or go against main stream, or your own belief (you will even modify the ToS to make sure that doesn't happen) gets the delete button...

If you think you know the truth, and you think I don't, on IM or any other subject you seem to differ with me or call me a legalist on, then take me in on a one on one debate in the one on one forum where you don't have your delete button, not to see who wins, because winning does not matter, lets find the truth, because once we find the truth then you and I and anyone reading it will also find the truth and everyone wins...

As for the question you ask of me. "was The blood of Christ was insufficient."

My answer is absolutely sufficient enough to save all men, that's not the real question, the real question is will all men accept his soul cleansing blood...

So far, those that call people legalists, their lips have been moving but your heart is far from him:

Matthew 15:8 (KJV)
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

I believe in modern day that is, they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk...

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I would credit God for their obedience. In their free will they chose to sin(both Naaman and the Jews), just as we do today. This is the lesson we should have learned from Adam and Eve. In their free will, they made a decision without God, and of no fault of our own, we find ourselves in Adam. Live the perfect life, and you(general sense) still won't be justified by what you do, because you are found in Adam.

If you credit God for one's obedience do you credit God for another's disobedience? God does not cause man against his will to either obey or disobey. Again the imperative to beleive or repent implies man has abiblty and responsibility- ability within himself to obey by believing and repenting and the responsibility to believe and repent so if one does not obey it is his own fault and not God's fault. God granted repentance to the Gentiles, Acts 11, but that did not mean the Gentiles had no obligiation and responsibility on their part to repent.

Paul did teach the Jews and Gentiles were disobedient without their contribution.

Romans 11:32

New King James Version (NKJV)

32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.


This was the plan of God at the foundation of the world. This way, God could display His attributes of mercy, and grace, and His glory. I believe God did this knowing that many people would not receive the pardon for their sins, but it was worth the price not to mention the putting to death the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus.

Again, if God made man to be disobedient/sinful then God has fault and blame and man would have excuse contrary to what Paul said in Rom 1:20

Paul's point in Rom 11:30-32 "For as ye (Gentiles) in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (Jews) unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy."

During OT times it was the Jews who were believers and the Gentiles were unbelievers. But now under the NT it is reversed - the Jews were the unbelievers in Christ which benefitted the Gentiles for then the gospel went to the Gentiles (Acts 10) where they did believe.

In Rom 1 the Gentiles had reasons not to sin so they were without excuse. In Rom 3:1-3 the Jews had reasons not to sin for "unto them were committed the oracles of God." Yet Paul concludes all (Gentile and Jew) have sinned Rom 3:9. Both Jew and Gentile chose to sin of their own will and not forced to by God. So both Jew and Gentiles are seen alike as "sinners" by God. All have been granted repentance whereby God may have mercy upon all.


Coffman Commentary puts it:

Shut up all unto disobedience ...
means that with the hardening of Israel, God has thus hardened or "shut up" the whole world unto disobedience, the Gentiles in pre-Christian ages, the Jews now, in order that his mercy might be extended to all, equally, and without partiality, and upon the same terms, namely that of being his "people whom he foreknew," "the children of the promise," the true seed of Abraham.

It is a gross error to interpret this as meaning that God has made sinners out of everybody so he can save the whole human race. "Mercy upon all" has reference to that mercy's being extended impartially, and under the same conditions, to all alike. Moreover, it is "mercy upon all" in that it is truly available to all. Everyone on earth "may" receive it, in the sense that he has permission and is invited to receive it. This aspect of meaning is quite clear in Rom. 11:31, where it is said, "They MAY now obtain mercy," not "WILL obtain mercy." Thus, "mercy upon all" has reference to God's invitation and permission, not to any fiat of arbitrarily saving everybody. The tragic truth, so emphatically stated by the Christ himself that few shall be saved (Matthew 7:13,14) does not compromise the fact that God's mercy is "upon all." Attempts to make this verse teach universal salvation are denials of the entire corpus of Christian truth.

Luke 18:27

New King James Version (NKJV)

27 But He said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”


The command is worthless if man attempts to do anything without God, but with God, even faith and repentance are possible.

Lk 18:27 does not say it is impossible for men to beleive and repent unless God first enables them for again that puts fault and blame on God for those God fails to enable thereby leaving those people unbelieving and unrepentant. God's word has the power to turn the rich from their wealth to salvation.

I would suggest the reason why someone obeys, gets baptized, and works out their salvation, is because God is working in them. Outside of God, there is nothing good in man.

Romans 7:18

New King James Version (NKJV)

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.


The reason why Paul cannot find the how to perform what is good is because it is God's work, not his, righteousness by faith.

Ernest, thank you for the discussion. I know we disagree, but in the spirit of learning from the Scriptures, as rrowell suggested, I hope we can learn from God. Unfortunately, off to work I go.

- Davies

Again:

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

From verse 12 [that goes with verse 13] they were "always obeying" and thereby working out their own salvation. God works in them that are obeying Him. The Philippians were not disobeying God, not working out thier salvation yet God was still working in them. God tells me to believe repent confess and be baptized and I obey what God says, then God is working in me.


According to you if God did not first work in me then I could never obey and my disobedience would all be God's fault and blame for you took being obedient 100% completely out of my control and ability and 100% controlled by God. I am not at fault and blame for what is out of my control and ability.

 

[Butch5]

As I said, we're not going to settle this any time soon, right? Certainly not in this thread. Butch, I agree the heart is at the core. I asked an honest question, because in my studies of scripture, I've not found that we can DO anything except to accept His sacrifice as a price paid in full. It is out of that acceptance that a response flows. So, in my mind, either it was sufficient or it was not.

I hold that it is legalism that leads a person to consciously decide s/he must do certain things to be saved. Doing anything because you are saved is very much different.

I'm not going to get wrapped up in this thread, because I know how it will (not) end.

Hi Mike,

I wasn't necessarily getting at the heart as the issue as much as a lack of proper exegesis. I'm not saying that Christians don't try. However, I believe a lot of what they study is simply leading them astray. Many simply read commentaries and believe they are studying, I used to do the same. However, looking at just a few commentaries one can easily see the futility of it. You can read three different commentaries on a passage and get three different opinions. The things we need to use are those things that aren't subject and that don't change. For instance, the grammar, the rules of grammar don't change from person to person. History, history doesn't change from one person to the next. Logic, it doesn't change. It is these types of things we need to use to understand the Scriptures. When we use these things that don't change and are the same for everyone we all come to the same conclusions. The problem, however, is that many people use subjective means to understand the Scriptures, means that change from one person to the next. Another important point on these methods is that one's opinion doesn't affect the interpretation. My opinion doesn't change the grammar of a sentence or the historicity of an event. They are unchanged by what I feel or think.

Regarding Legalism, it's not a term that the Scriptures use. I've pointed out several times that Paul's arguments against works are directed at the works of the Mosaic Law. You can verify that without getting tied up in this conversation. Just look up all of the passages about works and notice somewhere in the context you will see references to the Law of Moses. There may be one or two that don't have a nearby reference but given the overwhelming evidence it becomes clear what Paul is addressing. I be happy to have the discussion with you off the board if you'd like, or if you'd prefer you can present the passages that you believe teach against works and I'll address them. I understand not wanting to get into the discussion because it usually is nothing more than Scriptural ping pong where people are batting verses back and forth. I too want to avoid that and that is one reason I don't respond to some posts that posted. Some just don't want to look at any evidence against their position (not you).

 

[Mike]

It will not end until we understand..

Do you believe you have to go to church, do you believe you have to read the bible, do you believe you have to go to work? Are those works?

I believe I am Led to read what my Father has to say and take joy in visiting His house. If I were doing those things as a means to salvation, I would be working for it. In that case, I'd call them works.

 

[Mike]

I have to address the elephant in the room. We've been accused of some things as a team; that we have itchy fingers for the "delete button" and that we moderate these boards unfairly. I am not going to claim that we are without error in every case, but we take our roles very seriously and want what our Mission Statement expresses. Anyone who has been paying attention to this thread and a few others have seen literally hundreds and hundreds of posts that challenge the beliefs held by almost every mainstream Christian church doctrine. I believe the record shows that we have not censored their message. A few threads were locked, but only after they became volatile with arguments and accusations.

For these members to claim that their posts are quickly deleted needs to be evidenced on the board. We NEVER completely delete posts. If we do take them from the board, members can see where we have. We have been told we will not be saved because we play instruments in our worship.. We've heard it said that if you don't sprinkle water in your baptism, you won't be saved. We've heard these over and over. If you've been reading, you've read these posts because they haven't been deleted.

This board and the health of the discussion is of great importance to us, and accusations of biased moderation are serious statements. If anyone has questions about this, feel free to PM me, but we cannot have this board overrun by a few members who are attacking our integrity.

I'm sorry I had to say all this, but I do believe it needed to be said.

Thank you, and be blessed.

 

[Davies]

If you credit God for one's obedience do you credit God for another's disobedience? God does not cause man against his will to either obey or disobey.

If that's what you think Ernest, then you must have a difficult time with Romans 9.

Romans 9:14-18

New King James Version (NKJV)

Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[a] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[b] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. He hardened Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh had no say in the matter. Also, Paul tells us it is not of him who wills. Do we put our faith in Jesus because we will to do so? No, we do not. It is not of him who runs, that is the one who would work. We come to faith simply because of the mercy of God.

Again, if God made man to be disobedient/sinful then God has fault and blame and man would have excuse contrary to what Paul said in Rom 1:20

Ernest, you almost quoted Romans 9:19.

Romans 9:19-21

New King James Version (NKJV)

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?


Who are we to reply against God? The Potter does have power over the clay.

Lk 18:27 does not say it is impossible for men to beleive and repent unless God first enables them for again that puts fault and blame on God for those God fails to enable thereby leaving those people unbelieving and unrepentant. God's word has the power to turn the rich from their wealth to salvation.

I agree that God can turn the rich from their wealth, but He let the young, rich ruler walk away without giving him the Gospel.

According to you if God did not first work in me then I could never obey and my disobedience would all be God's fault and blame for you took being obedient 100% completely out of my control and ability and 100% controlled by God. I am not at fault and blame for what is out of my control and ability.

Frankly, God didn't have to send Jesus to pay for our sins. He could have judged us as we are, and having sinned, our condemnation would have been just. Are you saying you wouldn't be at fault for sinning? Yet, we will be struggling to the end of our days with sin. Would you tell me you are 100% in control of yourself, and if so, then why don't you obey perfectly? We don't have the ability to obey, because perfection is the standard. If you had the ability to obey, then why did you sin? What good is found in you that Paul didn't have? We can do nothing without God. You are not 100% in control of yourself, and God is not to blame for your sin or mine.

John 15:5

New King James Version (NKJV)

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.


- Davies

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Who are we to judge who still has, or who doesn't have, opportunity to answer the call of God when the voice of God (faith) comes calling them into the grace of God to be saved?

Until a person changes their mind about their situation with God (repent) they are showing that they have NOT believed the message of faith about the forgiveness of sin through Christ.

I agree, NOT repenting means one has NOT believed which implies belief must include repentance. A person does not have a saving biblical belief if they have not repented or confessed or been baptized.

Jn 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue:"

A belief only without confession is dead.

That's basically what James says, although, he and others teach that 'love your neighbor as yourself' is the real teller of who has the grace of God in their lives by faith in Christ, and who does not. Ceremonial actions really don't prove a thing, and don't give an ounce of confidence that you've been justified by the blood of Christ, but that's the stuff of another thread perhaps.

But, anyway, the error you make is thinking the action of faith is what actually makes you have right standing before God. No, your faith, your trust in the blood of Christ to forgive your sins, did that all by itself. The work that accompanies someone who believes (has faith their sins are forgiven in Christ) shows us and them that their faith is genuine and really did lay hold of the forgiveness of Christ making them legally righteous in God's sight and will therefore be saved on the Day of Wrath. Faithful action is the expected and obligatory expression of the faith that justifies.

Non-action does not save. In Acts 2 and 16 people asked what they must do to be saved. No one was ever told to "do nothing and thou shalt be saved"

Just a mental assent of the mindis not biblcal saving belief for belief is dead without action. Lev 17:11 the life of the flesh is in the blood as the life of belief/faith is in the action...no action = no living belief. This is basically what James is saying what good is a faith if it have no works? It's dead without those works for the works make faith alive, vialble and saving.

You post "your trust in the blood of Christ to forgive your sins, did that all by itself. "

You and I probably define 'trust' differently. Trust is not just a simple assent of the mind but means doing what Jesus said. One that does not do what Jesus said cannot be said to trust Jesus or trust what Jesus said.."And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?", Lk 6:46.


You posted "Faithful action is the expected and obligatory expression of the faith that justifies"


You are implying one is first saved by a dead faith only (which is impossible) then after being saved then he can then repent confess and be baptized. BUt this completely backwards from what the bible says. As I have said before a belief is dead and cannot save unless it contains repentance confession and baptism. Repentance, confession and baptism are an action. something done. And the reason I continue to say this is that no one here (or anywhere else) can show me an example of one who was living under Christ's NT who was saved while still unrepentant, saved while still denying Christ, saved while still lost in his unremitted sins. The fact no one can ever show me an exmaple of this is all the proof I need that a saving belief MUST include repentance confession and baptism.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You're misreading the Romans 6 passage. As I said before, Paul is saying when we obey, more and more, we are being sanctified, not justified:

"For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification." (Romans 6:19 NASB)

When we obey, increasing more and more in that obedience, we are being made holy, that is, more and more set apart in our literal behaviors, not our legal standing before God.

"...by one sacrifice he has made perfect (justified) forever those who are being made holy (sanctified--more and more)." (Hebrews 10:14 NIV1984)

I am reading Rom 6:16-18 perfectly fine. Paul with clear and concise language said we either serve one of two masters, either: 1)sin unto death or 2) obedince unto rightoeusness.

THose that go by the faith only theology have extreme difficulty with this. They obviously will not say they are serving sin unto death but their theology has ruled out obedience unto righteousnss. So what are they to do? Try and change what Paul said or try to create a third master for them to serve or simply try and obfuscate what Paul said.


Rom 6------obedience----------------->justifes
Rom 5------faith---------------------->justifies


My point here still satnds. There is just one way to be saved/justified. One person is not justified/saved by faith only and another person justified/saved by obedience only. Which can only mean faith MUST include obedience.


Rom 6:19 proves my point. In Rom 6:17-18 Paul just said the Romans had obeyed from the heart that form of dcotrine, being then made free from sins/justified. In v19 Paulsaid the Romans used to be servants, they obeyed uncleanliness and iniquity but NOW theyare servants/obey righteousness unto holiness. What does it mean they served righteousness? It means what Paul said in v16 that the Roamns served obedience unto righteousness and had quit serving sin unto death whenthey obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine.

This passage also proves that when Paul said 'not of works' in Rom 4:4-5 that "not of works" cannot be excluding obedience for if it did then Paul was contradicting himself. Paul does not say out of one corner of his mouth obedience does not justify in Rom 4 and them say obedience does justify in Rom 6.

Heb 10:14 "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (present tense)."

Who are the ones presently, ongoingly being santified? The ones that presentlly, ongoingly obey. The disobedient are not being sanctified maing those that have not believed, repented confessed and baptized are not being sanctified.

1 Cor 1:2 "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:"

Sanctification happens only in Christ Jesus and it takes obediecne to get in Christ Gal 3:27 and remain in Christ. No verse say faith only puts one in Christ Jesus.

2 Tim 2:21 "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work."

Only those that purge themselves from sin can be sanctified.

Two things: Faith surely does include obedience, for obedience is the expected and obligatory result of faith, or it isn't genuine faith. (It's like saying 'I went swimming', but the expected and obligatory result of going swimming--being wet--must be present for the 'I went swimming' part to be validated as true). But, this in no way means we are made legally righteous before God (justified) by that expected and obligatory action of genuine faith. It SHOWS that we have the faith that solicits the righteousness of God all by itself apart from what we do.

The faith is dead until it has works. James asked one to shew/prove his faith without works while he shewed/proved his faith by his works. Meaning if one does not have works he cannot even shew/prove that he has faith...works prove the faith. So faith is dead until it has repentance, confesson and baptism for again, you nor anyone else can show me an example of one living under Christ's NT that was saved while still unrepentant of sins, saved while continue to deny Christ, saved while still lost in his unremitted sins. Which you are trying to tell me one is saved by a dead faith only, that is, saved BEFORE he has repented of sins, saved while still denying Christ BEFORE confessing Christ, saved while still lost in unremitted sins. Your position is biblically an impossible one.

I will prove it to you again if you want me to. If you believe that James is saying we MAKE ourselves have right standing with God by what we do instead of SHOW ourselves to have that right standing before God by what we do then we have no choice to conclude, based on the context of James' teaching, that you think justification IS by works of the law.

When James says shew he means prove..."Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me [or prove to me] thy faith without thy works, and I will shew [prove] thee my faith by my works." James 2:18

If you do not have works, then how will you prove you have faith?

Just saying you have faith does not prove it as just saying be "warm and filled" does not warm and fill.

So it is not possible for one to have faith without works.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

If that's what you think Ernest, then you must have a difficult time with Romans 9.

Romans 9:14-18

New King James Version (NKJV)

Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[a] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[b] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. He hardened Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh had no say in the matter. Also, Paul tells us it is not of him who wills. Do we put our faith in Jesus because we will to do so? No, we do not. It is not of him who runs, that is the one who would work. We come to faith simply because of the mercy of God.

Ernest, you almost quoted Romans 9:19.

Romans 9:19-21

New King James Version (NKJV)

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?


Who are we to reply against God? The Potter does have power over the clay.

I agree that God can turn the rich from their wealth, but He let the young, rich ruler walk away without giving him the Gospel.

Frankly, God didn't have to send Jesus to pay for our sins. He could have judged us as we are, and having sinned, our condemnation would have been just. Are you saying you wouldn't be at fault for sinning? Yet, we will be struggling to the end of our days with sin. Would you tell me you are 100% in control of yourself, and if so, then why don't you obey perfectly? We don't have the ability to obey, because perfection is the standard. If you had the ability to obey, then why did you sin? What good is found in you that Paul didn't have? We can do nothing without God. You are not 100% in control of yourself, and God is not to blame for your sin or mine.

John 15:5

New King James Version (NKJV)

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.


- Davies

All Romans 9 is about is that Paul knows that not only has God 1) cut off the Jews, but has 2) has grafted in the Gentiles as he later explains in detail in Rom 11. Paul knows the Jews would reject both points and in Rom 9 all Paul does is raise the objections he knew the Jews would have then answer those objections. The Jews may accuse God of forcing them to be sinners but nowhere did Paul ever say such. If it were the case God forced the Jews to be sinners agaisnt their will then Jews had a firm argument that Paul would nevr refute. For that would put fault and blame on God and Paul could never ague that point away. Rom 9:23 Paul said of the Jews " Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;" God did not make the Jews stumble against their will they stumbled of thier own doings:

1 Thess 2:15-16 "Who (Jews) both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

God did not force the Jews commit any of these sins against their will for they willingly chose to commit thses sins bringing wrath upon themselves. Who could think that God forced the Jews to commit these sins just so God could displease Himself?

Eze 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye."

So God would never force any man to be lost agaisnt his will for God has no pleasure in the lost dying in his sins but that they repent and live.


And moving in to Romans 10 these Jews in Rom 9 that the Calvinists claim God preordained to be lost sinners, Paul said they could still be saved if they would just submit/obey the righteous commandments of God/obey the gospel Rom 10:1-3,16
So much for Calvinistic predestination.

 

[Davies]

Ernest,

You made many good points. I agree with you that we shouldn't blame God for a person's sins. We have to realize though, when a person is not born-again, they do not have the freedom to obey God because they are a slave of sin. Even a Christian struggles with sin proving Paul's statement in Romans 7, 'wretched man that I am.' If you hold that you are 100% in control of your faculties, then tell me why do you sin? What does Paul tell us regarding sin?

Romans 7:24-25

New King James Version (NKJV)

24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.


This statement is not shrouded in ambiguity. This is our struggle until these bodies die. We should progress in sanctification, but what we do in the body is just that, sanctification, not justification. Justification belongs to God alone.


Romans 5:1, 8-9

New King James Version (NKJV)

Faith Triumphs in Trouble

5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have[a] peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.


In verse 5, Paul says we are justified by faith, and this is not the first time Paul has said this. Then there is a bit of elaboration in verses 8 and 9. Paul says Jesus died for us, "while we were still sinners." Christ didn't die for us while we were repenting. Why did God choose to die for sinners? It wasn't for anything they had done, because they're sinners. Then Paul says, "having been justified by His blood." Are we justified by faith, or by the blood of Jesus? I suggest to you, because of the righteousness of Jesus alone, and His death, God the Father found propitiation for our sins. Remember, now, Jesus told us we can do nothing without Him, John 15:5. When we hear the Gospel, we either respond or we don't. It will remain a mystery why people don't, but I would agree with you that God should not be blamed for our sins. We should give credit to God for our righteousness, and we take credit for our sins, and the realization that our sins were placed upon Jesus at the cross. The how of believing, or the receiving the gift of faith from God, I do not know, and I would say it is a miracle. I would say it is a work of the Holy Spirit, but that's about as far as I can go.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

I have a suggestion. Instead of playing Scriptural ping pong, why don't we have a serious discussion of this matter, a discussion that is orderly and where arguments are dealt with is an objective manner. We can look at the Scriptural history, Christian history, the grammar of the NT and English translations. We can also look at where this became an issue in the church and then we can draw a well informed conclusion based on evidence, not commentaries, not the opinions of this guy or that guy, but on a Scriptural and historical basis.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest,

You made many good points. I agree with you that we shouldn't blame God for a person's sins. We have to realize though, when a person is not born-again, they do not have the freedom to obey God because they are a slave of sin. Even a Christian struggles with sin proving Paul's statement in Romans 7, 'wretched man that I am.' If you hold that you are 100% in control of your faculties, then tell me why do you sin? What does Paul tell us regarding sin?

Romans 7:24-25

New King James Version (NKJV)

24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.


This statement is not shrouded in ambiguity. This is our struggle until these bodies die. We should progress in sanctification, but what we do in the body is just that, sanctification, not justification. Justification belongs to God alone.


Romans 5:1, 8-9

New King James Version (NKJV)

Faith Triumphs in Trouble

5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have[a] peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.


In verse 5, Paul says we are justified by faith, and this is not the first time Paul has said this. Then there is a bit of elaboration in verses 8 and 9. Paul says Jesus died for us, "while we were still sinners." Christ didn't die for us while we were repenting. Why did God choose to die for sinners? It wasn't for anything they had done, because they're sinners. Then Paul says, "having been justified by His blood." Are we justified by faith, or by the blood of Jesus? I suggest to you, because of the righteousness of Jesus alone, and His death, God the Father found propitiation for our sins. Remember, now, Jesus told us we can do nothing without Him, John 15:5. When we hear the Gospel, we either respond or we don't. It will remain a mystery why people don't, but I would agree with you that God should not be blamed for our sins. We should give credit to God for our righteousness, and we take credit for our sins, and the realization that our sins were placed upon Jesus at the cross. The how of believing, or the receiving the gift of faith from God, I do not know, and I would say it is a miracle. I would say it is a work of the Holy Spirit, but that's about as far as I can go.

- Davies

People sin for they chose to sin and people are in control of what they choose. I see the context in Rom 7 Paul is describing himself trying to live under the OT law as a Jew. The OT law required perfetoin something Paul could never attain leading to his frustratrion. The contrast in Rom 8:1 "[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. " It is different NOW being in Christ thanit was then under the OT law.


Rom 5:1 faith justifies and we know from Rom 6:17-18 the Roamsn were justified by obeying from theheart that form of doctrine.

Rom 5------faith------------------------>justified
Rom 6-----obeying--------------------->justifies

Since there is just one way to be saved/justified, faith must inlcude obedience.


Christ died for all sinners, yet all sinners will not be saved. Why? For all sinners will not take advantage of what Christ did on the cross for them by obeying Christ, Heb 5:9. Only those sinners that believe, repent, confess withthe mouth and baptized take advantage of wht Christ did for them.

The argument seems to always be made if man has to do works then what Christ did is not sufficent to save. What Christ did is sufficient to save everyone, so why will everyone not be saved? Everyone will not be saved NOT because God preordained some to be lost for that puts fault and blame upon God. But everyone will not be saved due to their own failure in obeying God.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I have a suggestion. Instead of playing Scriptural ping pong, why don't we have a serious discussion of this matter, a discussion that is orderly and where arguments are dealt with is an objective manner. We can look at the Scriptural history, Christian history, the grammar of the NT and English translations. We can also look at where this became an issue in the church and then we can draw a well informed conclusion based on evidence, not commentaries, not the opinions of this guy or that guy, but on a Scriptural and historical basis.

My argument has been faith only cannot save for faith by itself excludes repentance, confesson and baptism. Yet the bible teaches one cannot be saved unless they first repent, confess with the mouth and are water baptized, which imples that faith must include repentance, confession and baptism. As soon as someone can show me an example of a person who was living under Christ's NT and saved while still unrepentant, saved while still continuing to deny Christ (not confess Him) and saved while still lost in his unremitted sins, then I will admit my position to be wrong. If they cannot show me an example of one saved while still unrepentant, saved while continuing to deny Christ, saved while still lost in his unremitted sins they admit their position to be wrong.