Is belief "works"?

[heymikey80]

You pointed it out yourself, it's in verse 15. They are not saved by works because Christ abolished the Law. If you look into the background of Paul's ministry You'll find that one of the biggest problems he faced was that of the Judaizers. These were Jews who were telling Paul's converts that in addition to faith in Christ it was also necessary for them to keep the Law of Moses and be circumcised. This can be seen in Acts 15 and Galatians.

Why would Paul forget to mention "of law" to Gentiles in vv. 8-10, if it were so all-fire obsessive an issue of his?

There is no reason to connect v. 15 with v. 8-10. There's really nothing connecting them. Paul doesn't talk about "works" around v. 15; Paul doesn't talk about "law" around v. 8-10.

Implying "of law" on top of everywhere Paul talks simply about "works" doesn't work, anyway. Paul's argument is about works, not a narrow works of law. That's demonstrable from Romans 4:1-5, which is pre-law.

 

[Butch5]

Why would Paul forget to mention "of law" to Gentiles in vv. 8-10, if it were so all-fire obsessive an issue of his?

There is no reason to connect v. 15 with v. 8-10. There's really nothing connecting them. Paul doesn't talk about "works" around v. 15; Paul doesn't talk about "law" around v. 8-10.

Implying "of law" on top of everywhere Paul talks simply about "works" doesn't work, anyway. Paul's argument is about works, not a narrow works of law. That's demonstrable from Romans 4:1-5, which is pre-law.

Mike, it's a letter. You've got to remember you're reading one side of a conversation. We don't know what questions if any the Ephesians asked Paul. His letter may be in reply to a letter from Them (which I think is likely). The fact that he speaks boasting in verse 9 shows that he has the works of the Mosaic Law in mind. Not to mention that he goes on to explain why it's not of works.

One thing many Christians don't think about with this works issue is this. The Jews were promised an inhabitance in the promised land if they obeyed God word. The Jewish mindset was if I obey I can earn an inhabitance in the promised land. To the Jews, it was obey, obey, obey. By being obedient to the Mosaic they could win favor with God. Now here comes Paul preaching to the Gentiles telling them they don't need to be obedient to the Mosaic Law. This would turn the Jews world upside down. This is one of the reasons Paul was rejected by the Jews.

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. (Act 21:26-28 KJV)

It was well known that Paul taught that the Law was not necessary, as is evident from the passage it was not popular among many Jews. This is the background in Paul is writing. As I pointed out in the last post, there were Jews teaching his converts that faith in Christ alone was not enough. Many Jewish believers kept the Law even after being saved and as was seen in acts some in the church at Jerusalem even believed it was necessary for the Gentiles to keep the Law. Paul probably ran into this problem most places he went.

Even looking at Romans 4 which you posted. Here again the issue is the Mosaic Law. Look at chapter 3, Paul is making the argument that a man is not justified by the works of the Law.

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Rom 3:19-31 KJV)

To prove his point that no man is justified by the works of the Law, he poinst to Abraham (chapter 4) who lived before the Law. What better way to prove that a man is not justified by the Law than to show a man who was justified before the Law existed? He concludes that Abraham was not justified by works (The works he's been talking about, the works of the Law)

KJV Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. (Rom 4:1-9 KJV)

Notice Paul says if it is of works it is reckoned as a reward. Think back to the Jewish understanding. If you obey me and do this, and this, and this, you can stay in the land, but, if you disobey you will be kicked out of the land. Paul is arguing that justification doesn't come through keeping the Mosaic Law, which would be earned because God said if you do this, I will do this. Rather it is by faith, and not the works of the Mosaic Law

 

[ivdavid]

When God is put 100% in control of man's eternal destiny and man has no control or choice in this matter, then God 100% determines who is saved and thereby automatically detemines 100% who is lost making God at fault and culpable for the lost.

Everything except the colored part in bold is my position, yes. When I say God is 100% in control of man's eternal destiny, why must that imply that He is culpable for the lost? Please refer to my earlier analogy - the sovereign king is in control of the two murderers' destinies - whether they'd live or die. And yet is the king culpable for rendering the just judgement that the second murderer deserves for his own crimes?

Note, saying the king has 100% control over the murderers' end result - whether they'd live or die - does not make the king the only causative agent in the system. The murderers too are causative agents - their own acts put them in the state of condemnation. Sequentially after this point, the king has 100% control over their end result. Either he could render the murderer the just judgement he deserves Or he could have mercy upon him. Again, how is the king culpable if the murderer were justly condemned to death?

If my obedience is only a result of God causing me to obey (whether I want to obey or not)...

Please refer to what I'd written on regeneration in my previous post - God causing one to obey is never against his will.

....then God is the cause of other's disobedience (whether they want to disobey or not) for God has put them in a position where they can do nothing but disobey. God has commanded man to believe but then locks some men in unbelief/disobedience making it impossible for them to believe/obey.

As I'd asked in my previous post, what is the Cause of the condemnation of a person - his own transgressions. And what is the Cause of one's transgressions - sinful flesh. Is God the Cause of sin entering the world? Where is God then playing any causal role in the condemnation of a person? Where has God been the causative factor of the flesh being sinful? God has not causatively made it impossible for man to believe - that impossibility is Caused by sin in the flesh.

"If" is a conditional word meaning they had a choice to obey or not obey God, therefore they were not forced by God to either obey or disobey meaning their disobedience was their own fault and culpabilty and not God's. Secondly, God knows that man will not keep His law perfectly and therefore will not be perfectly sinless else if man were perfectly sinless then there was no need for Christ to die for man's sins when man had none.

I agree completely. Though I'd like to know if there's a difference between being "perfectly sinless" and just "sinless".

That's why God built into His laws avenues of atonement for sins when man does occasionally break God's law.

Occasionally? Where did this parameter come from? What is the boundary limit that separates occasional from frequent? And what of the unbeliever who is converted now - hasn't he continually sinned in the flesh[Rom 8:7-9] until his being adopted now in Christ. Are his continual sins of the past atoned him or do they fail the 'occasional' measure? Or is this parameter applied only to those in Christ already - if so, where does this distinction come from in Scripture and why such a variable measure? Isn't Christ's sacrifice sufficient atonement across all measures?

They[John's parents] were seen by God as blameless even though they did occasionally sin because they keep those sacrifices for sins the law required.

I'd require some clarification here. I assume from what you've written so far that you too believe that no created man in the flesh has kept the Lev 18:5 imperative. Could you confirm this? Note the sequence of events - After this failure to keep Lev 18:5, man is placed under the curse of the law for not keeping it.[Gal 3:10-13] And After man finds himself under the curse of the law, he is redeemed from that curse by Christ's sacrifice and His shedding of blood - which were foreshadowed in the animal sacrifices. So, the sacrifices were for the cursed man's atonement - atoning him for his disobedience of the Lev 18:5 imperative. What sense is there in then saying that one who accepts the sacrifical atonement has obeyed the law - when in fact, the sacrificial atonement is required for his very disobedience of the law.

A transgressor is not actually blameless - he is reckoned as blameless. And this is the result of both the atoning sacrifice and also man's acceptance of such an atonement through faith. The atoning sacrifice is wholly a work of God(Rom 3:25) - I should think there is no debate on that. But is man's acceptance of such an atonement through faith a causative work of the flesh or a causative work of the Spirit - therein we could credit this causative act to either man or God. Given Rom 8:7-9 and Eph 2:8, I'm inclined to hold that faith is indeed a work acted out of man but caused by the Spirit and not man himself.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...in Romans he explicitly says that God will judge everyone based on their deeds and that doing good deed is seeking eternal life.

But why does this HAVE to mean that a person is justified by those works?

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: (Rom 2:5-7 KJV)

Anyone who is being intellectually honest must reconcile these two passages.

The deeds of both, the people justified in Christ, and the people still condemned in Adam, will be used as evidence for or against them when both appear before God on the Day of Judgment. It's a mistake to conclude that this means the works themselves must be what justifies the believer (MAKES them righteous). It's an erroneous conclusion.

Our deeds are the evidence brought to court to testify, either against, or on behalf of the person standing before the King. The evidence presented is commensurate to what the person knew or didn't know about righteousness through law or nature or conscience. People who know about, and have knowledge of the law know much more about God's standard of righteousness and will be held to a much higher responsibility to have produced the actual fruit of that superior knowledge than one who does not 'have the law'.

Believers are exhorted to 'make our calling and election sure' by our deeds. That doesn't mean to make ourselves righteous in preparation for the Day of Wrath. It means to 'make sure' we really have the righteous nature of Christ, by faith in his blood, by producing the fruit of that righteousness--the fruit, the deeds, that will testify for us as one that has indeed been justified by faith in the blood of Christ to forgive sin and make one righteous.

God wants us to do this so that if a person realizes they can't do that (validate their faith as genuine through what they do) they can secure that faith and know with surety they are prepared for the Day of Wrath, the Day of Reckoning when all accounts are settled. This is what James' sermon about faith/ works is all about--making sure you know you have the faith that justifies (and thus, saves) by seeing if you do right. Paul's sermon, on the other hand is about having that right standing before God itself in preparation for the Day of Wrath, which James and others say validate you as having that right standing.

 

[Butch5]

But why does this HAVE to mean that a person is justified by those works?



The deeds of both, the people justified in Christ, and the people still condemned in Adam, will be used as evidence for or against them when both appear before God on the Day of Judgment. It's a mistake to conclude that this means the works themselves must be what justifies the believer (MAKES them righteous). It's an erroneous conclusion.

Our deeds are the evidence brought to court to testify, either against, or on behalf of the person standing before the King. The evidence presented is commensurate to what the person knew or didn't know about righteousness through law or nature or conscience. People who know about, and have knowledge of the law know much more about God's standard of righteousness and will be held to a much higher responsibility to have produced the actual fruit of that superior knowledge than one who does not 'have the law'.

Believers are exhorted to 'make our calling and election sure' by our deeds. That doesn't mean to make ourselves righteous in preparation for the Day of Wrath. It means to 'make sure' we really have the righteous nature of Christ, by faith in his blood, by producing the fruit of that righteousness--the fruit, the deeds, that will testify for us as one that has indeed been justified by faith in the blood of Christ to forgive sin and make one righteous.

God wants us to do this so that if a person realizes they can't do that (validate their faith as genuine through what they do) they can secure that faith and know with surety they are prepared for the Day of Wrath, the Day of Reckoning when all accounts are settled. This is what James' sermon about faith/ works is all about--making sure you know you have the faith that justifies (and thus, saves) by seeing if you do right. Paul's sermon, on the other hand is about having that right standing before God itself in preparation for the Day of Wrath, which James and others say validate you as having that right standing.

James clearly says that a man is justified by works. Faith, if it has no work,s is dead. Dead faith cannot produce works. Therefore, it is necessary for faith to have works in order to save. Thus works are necessary for salvation. Additionally, Paul said those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life. If works played no role in salvation then all the well doing in the world wouldn't be seeking salvation.

 

[heymikey80]

Mike, it's a letter. You've got to remember you're reading one side of a conversation. We don't know what questions if any the Ephesians asked Paul. His letter may be in reply to a letter from Them (which I think is likely). The fact that he speaks boasting in verse 9 shows that he has the works of the Mosaic Law in mind. Not to mention that he goes on to explain why it's not of works.

It's a circulating letter as the ending instructs - it's general, not answering questions.

Boasting comes from works, not simply from the law. Even pagans boasted in their mighty religious works - building temples, sacrificing, benevolences. Law is but one source of dead works. Gentiles are more vulnerable to works than simply law and Judaizng.

It was well known that Paul taught that the Law was not necessary, as is evident from the passage it was not popular among many Jews.

not necessary for salvation. But still necessary for Judean Jews: there it's the law of the land.

Even looking at Romans 4 which you posted. Here again the issue is the Mosaic Law.

No. Abraham preceded law by 430 years. And in Rom 3 Paul points out the problem with law is when it's "of works". The problem can't be circular. That is, if the problem with the law is works, the problem with works can't be the law.

 

[ivdavid]

Even looking at Romans 4 which you posted. Here again the issue is the Mosaic Law. Look at chapter 3, Paul is making the argument that a man is not justified by the works of the Law.

To prove his point that no man is justified by the works of the Law, he poinst to Abraham (chapter 4) who lived before the Law. What better way to prove that a man is not justified by the Law than to show a man who was justified before the Law existed? He concludes that Abraham was not justified by works (The works he's been talking about, the works of the Law)

Notice Paul says if it is of works it is reckoned as a reward. Think back to the Jewish understanding. If you obey me and do this, and this, and this, you can stay in the land, but, if you disobey you will be kicked out of the land. Paul is arguing that justification doesn't come through keeping the Mosaic Law, which would be earned because God said if you do this, I will do this. Rather it is by faith, and not the works of the Mosaic Law

I am genuinely confused here. I am in complete agreement with all that you've said here, especially the last line - and yet you seem to be arguing against the justification by grace alone through faith alone theology(which is where I come from).

Have I missed something here? (Please take into account that I've not yet read all the posts, having joined this discussion late.)

 

[Butch5]

I am genuinely confused here. I am in complete agreement with all that you've said here, especially the last line - and yet you seem to be arguing against the justification by grace alone through faith alone theology(which is where I come from).

Have I missed something here? (Please take into account that I've not yet read all the posts, having joined this discussion late.)

Hi ivdavid,

No, you've not missed anything. I don't hold to the faith alone doctrine. I used to but after years of research have rejected it. I've found that it is of recent origin. Additionally, I've reconciled all of the passages that are typically used in the debate of faith alone vs works. As such I see harmony in the Scriptures on this issue.

 

[farouk]

Faith alone isn't new; it's what Ephesians 2.8-9 teaches.

 

[Butch5]

It's a circulating letter as the ending instructs - it's general, not answering questions.

Even though it may be cyclical that doesn't mean it wasn't intended to answer questions. My point was simply this, when we read the epistles we need to approach them slightly differently than the Gospels. The Gospels record what Jesus did, the epistles are letters. Reading them without the letters from the churches means we're only reading one side of the conversation. Think about this, do you suppose Paul just randomly picked churches and wrote to them whatever he felt at the moment? 1 Corinthians specifically states that questions were asked. My point is that we probably shouldn't expect a play by play explanation of things like we would if he was writing to unbelievers. For instance, he told the Thessalonians,

But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. (1Th 5:1 KJV)

They already knew this. We don't know what all these churches knew on the different subjects that Paul addresses.

Boasting comes from works, not simply from the law. Even pagans boasted in their mighty religious works - building temples, sacrificing, benevolences. Law is but one source of dead works. Gentiles are more vulnerable to works than simply law and Judaizng.

OK, but you've got to look at it from a 1 century point of view. Why would Gentiles think doing works would win them favor with the God of the Jews.

Another thing to look at is this. If we say this is simply works, what do we base that on. There is nothing in the text that says, you're not saved by helping widows and children, feeding the hungry, etc. So, what is the basis for saying these are just good works?

not necessary for salvation. But still necessary for Judean Jews: there it's the law of the land.

No, the ritual aspects of the Law were not necessary for salvation, it was for inhabitance in the land.

No. Abraham preceded law by 430 years. And in Rom 3 Paul points out the problem with law is when it's "of works". The problem can't be circular. That is, if the problem with the law is works, the problem with works can't be the law.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Abraham preceded the Law, that is Paul's point. The Mosaic Law cannot be a means of justification since Abraham was justified long before the Law existed. I'm not quite sure what you're getting here but, the problem was circumcision and the ritual aspects of the Law i.e. ritual washings, eating certain foods etc. It is these that the Jews were attempting to force on the Gentile and it is these that Paul says don't save.

Do a computer search of works and look at the context. When you see Paul speaking of works that don't save virtually every time somewhere in the context you see some reference to the Mosaic Law.

 

[Butch5]

Faith alone isn't new; it's what Ephesians 2.8-9 teaches.

That passage says nothing about faith alone. One must infer that.

 

[farouk]

That passage says nothing about faith alone. One must infer that.

In Ephesians 2.8-9, faith is contrasted with works.

It's not a deadly mixture of supposedly meritorious works with a so called faith.

 

[Butch5]

In Ephesians 2.8-9, faith is contrasted with works.

It's not a deadly mixture of supposedly meritorious works with a so called faith.

Faith is contrasted with the works of the Mosaic Law.

 

[farouk]

Faith is contrasted with the works of the Mosaic Law.

...and it's also a contrast with works as offered by a self-righteous attitude of heart: 'not of works, lest any man should boast' (Ephesians 2.9).

 

[ivdavid]

James clearly says that a man is justified by works.

Yes. And we seem to be in agreement that this "works" does not refer to the "works of the law". These are works borne out of faith - but what's the difference?

[On a side note, Paul refers to Lev 18:5 as the law - and by association, this "law of works" is contrasted against the "law of faith". I wouldn't limit the law to only rituals - it's anything that would credit man as the causative agent(the flesh) as opposed to crediting God's working in man(the Spirit).]

James himself provides us with 2 examples. Abraham believed God's promise in Gen 15:5 - much before the specific promises of Gen 17:19, Gen 26:4 etc. - and was imputed righteousness in Gen 15:6. And later in Gen 22, God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac - which he does obey. Is this a work of the law - or a work borne of faith? What is the difference? The difference lies in what we credit the work to? A work of the law must be credited to man himself - since he causatively generates such work - and all such works are done by the flesh. Crediting a work borne of faith is where the debates arise.

Look at Abraham again - what was at stake for him in obeying the commandment to sacrifice Isaac? He would lose his son. So, his was basically a "keep son vs lose son" decision. But he believed God in Gen 17:19;21:12 as he did in Gen 15:5 - and BECAUSE of such belief, he was convinced he wouldn't lose his son(Heb 11:17-19). Now, the decision was straightforward - given that the negative horn of the choice was rendered invalid. The basis of his final work of sacrificing Isaac lay in his belief of God's earlier promise and in His sufficiency to fulfill all that He's promised.

If Abraham had said he had faith till Gen 22 and then in Gen 22, he decided he didn't want to lose his son and hence disobeyed the commandment - this would prove that he never did have faith in the first place. Here, faith is rendered dead without the works that prove such faith. By obeying the commandment, Abraham exhibited his faith - and here we see a strict mapping between one's faith and all its accompanying works borne out of it that have a basis on such faith of God's sufficiency.

To what then do we credit such works of faith - these works that find their causal source in faith. I'd say we credit the source of faith - since we have a common cause for both faith and works that proceed from it. And since I believe God is the source of faith in man - I'd credit all these works of faith to God and God alone. This then is the difference between the works of the law and works of faith - besides the intended purpose, their causal source differs between man and God.

It is this strict mapping that I reckon causes semantic confusion in the faith vs works debate. What do people mean when they mention "works" in this debate - is it any work that has man as its causal source, whereby man is credited for it? Or is it any accompanying work borne of faith, whereby God is credited for it? If it's the former, then I'd take the position of faith alone and not by works(of the law). If it's the latter, then I don't consider it a debate, since it amounts to the same thing - faith and works of faith cannot be separated. Faith is usually stressed upon more, since that necessarily precedes the works of faith - and is sufficient for such works to ensue. The necessity of all works that are borne of such faith is to provide a good litmus test - to discern if faith exists or not.

Faith, if it has no work,s is dead. Dead faith cannot produce works. Therefore, it is necessary for faith to have works in order to save. Thus works are necessary for salvation.

I've written all the above to address this logic of yours. You seem to be treating faith and works as 2 separate entities - whereas 'works of faith' is a subsidiary element to faith itself - and will naturally proceed from faith, wherever faith exists. "Faith, if it hath no works, is dead" indeed - but not because works are a necessary causative condition - but rather a necessary evidential condition.

Consider,
1) Plants, if they have no water, are dead.
2) Plants, if they have no flowers, are dead.

The first statement denotes water as a causative condition - while the second statement denotes flowers as an evidential condition which presupposes that all plants that are alive, will have flowers. You are treating James 2:17 in the sense of the first statement - whereas I look at it as the second statement, where the presupposition is that a live faith will have works - as seen in James' examples.

Additionally, Paul said those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life. If works played no role in salvation then all the well doing in the world wouldn't be seeking salvation.

Good Works do play a role in salvation - just not a causative one. If they have been ordained by God(Eph 2:10) in His workmanship, they become part of God's execution that necessarily will be done - and if they're not done, then it is evident that such are not His workmanship.

 

[Butch5]

...and it's also a contrast with works as offered by a self-righteous attitude of heart: 'not of works, lest any man should boast' (Ephesians 2.9).

Paul doesn't say anything about a self-righteous attitude of the heart. The "no man should boast" comment refers to the Jews boasting in the law. Paul expressly charges the Jews with this in Romans 2.

17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? (Rom 2:17-23 KJV)

If you read on he explains Ephesians 2:8-10 in the rest of the chapter.

 

[Butch5]

Yes. And we seem to be in agreement that this "works" does not refer to the "works of the law". These are works borne out of faith - but what's the difference?

[On a side note, Paul refers to Lev 18:5 as the law - and by association, this "law of works" is contrasted against the "law of faith". I wouldn't limit the law to only rituals - it's anything that would credit man as the causative agent(the flesh) as opposed to crediting God's working in man(the Spirit).]

James himself provides us with 2 examples. Abraham believed God's promise in Gen 15:5 - much before the specific promises of Gen 17:19, Gen 26:4 etc. - and was imputed righteousness in Gen 15:6. And later in Gen 22, God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac - which he does obey. Is this a work of the law - or a work borne of faith? What is the difference? The difference lies in what we credit the work to? A work of the law must be credited to man himself - since he causatively generates such work - and all such works are done by the flesh. Crediting a work borne of faith is where the debates arise.

Look at Abraham again - what was at stake for him in obeying the commandment to sacrifice Isaac? He would lose his son. So, his was basically a "keep son vs lose son" decision. But he believed God in Gen 17:19;21:12 as he did in Gen 15:5 - and BECAUSE of such belief, he was convinced he wouldn't lose his son(Heb 11:17-19). Now, the decision was straightforward - given that the negative horn of the choice was rendered invalid. The basis of his final work of sacrificing Isaac lay in his belief of God's earlier promise and in His sufficiency to fulfill all that He's promised.

If Abraham had said he had faith till Gen 22 and then in Gen 22, he decided he didn't want to lose his son and hence disobeyed the commandment - this would prove that he never did have faith in the first place. Here, faith is rendered dead without the works that prove such faith. By obeying the commandment, Abraham exhibited his faith - and here we see a strict mapping between one's faith and all its accompanying works borne out of it that have a basis on such faith of God's sufficiency.

To what then do we credit such works of faith - these works that find their causal source in faith. I'd say we credit the source of faith - since we have a common cause for both faith and works that proceed from it. And since I believe God is the source of faith in man - I'd credit all these works of faith to God and God alone. This then is the difference between the works of the law and works of faith - besides the intended purpose, their causal source differs between man and God.

It is this strict mapping that I reckon causes semantic confusion in the faith vs works debate. What do people mean when they mention "works" in this debate - is it any work that has man as its causal source, whereby man is credited for it? Or is it any accompanying work borne of faith, whereby God is credited for it? If it's the former, then I'd take the position of faith alone and not by works(of the law). If it's the latter, then I don't consider it a debate, since it amounts to the same thing - faith and works of faith cannot be separated. Faith is usually stressed upon more, since that necessarily precedes the works of faith - and is sufficient for such works to ensue. The necessity of all works that are borne of such faith is to provide a good litmus test - to discern if faith exists or not.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. Firstly, I don't think there is any legitimate reason to apply Paul's definition of works any more broadly than he did. When he speaks of works that don't save we can see from the context that it is the Mosaic Law. Secondly, Abraham obeyed God long before he was ever considered justified. Thirdly, if the works are God's then there is nothing to credit to Abraham, however, Abraham is justified for his obedience. It wasn't God's faith that was counted as righteousness for Abraham. It also wasn't God works that were counted as righteousness for Abraham, at least not according to the Scriptures.

I've written all the above to address this logic of yours. You seem to be treating faith and works as 2 separate entities - whereas 'works of faith' is a subsidiary element to faith itself - and will naturally proceed from faith, wherever faith exists. "Faith, if it hath no works, is dead" indeed - but not because works are a necessary causative condition - but rather a necessary evidential condition.

Consider,
1) Plants, if they have no water, are dead.
2) Plants, if they have no flowers, are dead.

The first statement denotes water as a causative condition - while the second statement denotes flowers as an evidential condition which presupposes that all plants that are alive, will have flowers. You are treating James 2:17 in the sense of the first statement - whereas I look at it as the second statement, where the presupposition is that a live faith will have works - as seen in James' examples.

Yes, that's the typical interpretation of James. However, that simply doesn't work. If faith without works is dead it cannot produce any works. Before faith can be alive and able to produce anything works must exist. There's simply no way around this. I agree with you that works are a part of faith, actually, I believe it's belief and works that equal faith. You don't have faith without either one.

Good Works do play a role in salvation - just not a causative one. If they have been ordained by God(Eph 2:10) in His workmanship, they become part of God's execution that necessarily will be done - and if they're not done, then it is evident that such are not His workmanship.

I disagree here also. As I pointed out Paul said those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life. If they played no causative role then doing them wouldn't be seeking salvation. I disagree also just because God ordained good works that ensures they will be done. We can see that the Jews did not fulfill things that God ordained.

 

[ivdavid]

Firstly, I don't think there is any legitimate reason to apply Paul's definition of works any more broadly than he did. When he speaks of works that don't save we can see from the context that it is the Mosaic Law.

Of course - Paul is referring to the Mosaic Law. There is no contention there per se. But what you refer to as the Mosaic Law is where we differ. The word "law" itself could refer to -
1) the entire set of commandments, statutes, judgments given by Moses for man to keep - as used in James 2:10
2) Or it could refer to a part of the Old Testament, which was mostly written by Moses - as the usage in Luke 24:44
3) Or it could simply refer to an individual principle mentioned in the writings of Moses(Lev 18:5), such as the 'law of gravitation' - as seen in say Rom 3:27.
Note the different usages in "law" in the same Rom 3:21 verse.

Which 'law' usage are you referring to? You seem to be referring to usage 1) and that too, only the ritual part of it. Could you confirm that? I am referring to usage 3), as seen contextually from Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12.

Secondly, Abraham obeyed God long before he was ever considered justified.

I need some clarification on this - Wasn't Abraham imputed righteousness ie justified as soon as he believed (Gen 15:5-6)? And after this justification, comes his act of obedience in Gen 22. How do you say that Abraham obeyed long before he was justified?

There aren't any verses after the Gen 22 work of obedience that could perhaps state "Abraham worked God's commandment, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness" - which James could have more aptly quoted to get across the position that you are holding now. But James could quote Gen 15:6 to explain his justification by works theology - given the fact that such works are a reaffirming completion of the preceding faith that already existed and justified(James 2:22).

...actually, I believe it's belief and works that equal faith. You don't have faith without either one.

Aren't "having faith" and "believing in someone" the same thing? ie isn't Believing in Christ = having faith in Christ? As I see it, it's only a grammatical difference and not a semantic one. I'd need more elaboration on your understanding of this, if indeed you hold "believing in someone" and "having faith" as distinct acts.

Thirdly, if the works are God's then there is nothing to credit to Abraham, however, Abraham is justified for his obedience.

Exactly, there is nothing to credit Abraham for. And yes, Abraham is justified by his works. It is reconciled when you believe that such works are only a completion of the preceding faith(James 2:22) - and that one is justified by faith(Rom 5:1,Gal 3:11). And when you also hold that faith is given by God, you have a common cause for both the faith and the works that proceed forth from such faith - and hence, credit is given to God alone.

An equivalent crude analogy would be - me suffering from a particular physical ailment that requires me to sleep for a given amount of time to recover. And say I've been administered an injection that causes me to sleep for that amount of time, and hence I am cured of the ailment. Add to this the fact that this injection was given by my physician - and you have the position I hold now.

If someone were to ask me how I got cured(justified) - what's the difference in saying I was cured by the injection(faith) Or by my sleeping(works) when my sleep was but a natural effect of the injection. And what credit can I take for my getting cured - when it was the physician who cured me.

If faith without works is dead it cannot produce any works. Before faith can be alive and able to produce anything works must exist. There's simply no way around this.

Applying my position of the analogy to this, -
If plants without flowers are dead, they cannot produce any flowers. Before plants can be alive and able to produce anything flowers must exist. There's simply no way around this.

Is there no logical way around this? In fact, does this actually sound logical? Perhaps a causative condition could be necessarily required before faith, for faith to exist - but not so with an evidential condition. Consider these works as evidential conditions of justifying faith - and see if there are any inconsistencies there. To test any theory, the first premises of that theory alone must be used in testing - not the first premises of a contradicting theory.

I disagree here also. As I pointed out Paul said those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life. If they played no causative role then doing them wouldn't be seeking salvation.

Applying my physical ailment analogy here, I could say - Those who sleep for the prescribed time are seeking to be cured. And yet, such sleep itself is not caused by me - it is only evidential of me having received the injection from the physician. What do you find hard to reconcile here?

I disagree also just because God ordained good works that ensures they will be done. We can see that the Jews did not fulfill things that God ordained.

As I said, if what God has ordained in His workmanship is not done, it is evident that such are not His workmanship - and here specifically, Not all of Israel are the real Israel(God's workmanship). And I hope you are differentiating between the good works God has imperatively commanded man to do from the good works God has absolutely ordained He would do in man. Man constantly fails - God cannot.

(If you find long posts inconvenient, I'll split them up hereafter. Some just prefer to have it all in one place.)

 

[CORE]

I think people spend too much time talking on these forums and not enough living...

Think about it...

We know these forums are prideful - in vain. I've seen it for for 6 years now and nothing comes. It's infertile soil. Seriously, I bet most of us never came to Christ quarreling over the internet.

Imagine, If each of us just concentrated on one person physically in private Christ could double the amount of believers in one day, yet we continue to fight aimlessly on this BS internet...why? Because we think that somehow we're doing God's work....as if we're reaching the masses.

You're all a bunch of fools and I was one too. I speak from experience, but none of you listen.

STOP!

 

[Grazer]

I think people spend too much time talking on these forums and not enough living...

Think about it...

We know these forums are prideful - in vain. I've seen it for for 6 years now and nothing comes. It's infertile soil. Seriously, I bet most of us never came to Christ quarreling over the internet.

Imagine, If each of us just concentrated on one person physically in private Christ could double the amount of believers in one day, yet we continue to fight aimlessly on this BS internet...why? Because we think that somehow we're doing God's work....as if we're reaching the masses.

You're all a bunch of fools and I was one too. I speak from experience, but none of you listen.

STOP!

I am a fool and have been but I've also learned a lot being on these types of forums. I do think we get bogged down in the details too much and lose sight of what really matters (the worship to music thread is a great example)

I'm spending Sunday with a youth group answering their questions. I just want to help

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2