Is belief "works"?

[Jethro Bodine]

James clearly says that a man is justified by works.

If you think James is using 'justified' in the exact same way Paul uses it then you, too, have no choice but to believe that James is saying we are justified by works of the law, for he uses examples of upholding the law to demonstrate the faith that is alive and able to save.

Dead faith cannot produce works.

This is why works are the barometer of justifying faith, and not the actual agent of justification itself. This is one of the truths upon which the 'righteousness (by faith) apart from works' argument is built (Romans 4:6). And it's why James says "I will SHOW you my faith by what I do" (James 2:18) demonstrating for us that he's using the word 'justified' in it's other legitimate Biblical (and secular) meaning which is to 'show one to be righteous'. Paul uses the word in regard to 'making one legally righteous before God'. They are two different arguments, but some people take James' conclusion and apply it to Paul's argument as if they were talking about the same aspect of justification.

Therefore, it is necessary for faith to have works in order to save.

The mistake people make is, since this is true, the works themselves must do the justifying. No, faith does that all by itself. That is Paul's argument. Faith is validated as able to save when it upholds the requirements of God. That is James' argument.

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.

Many of us don't disagree with this. It's just that it's a mistake to come to the conclusion that the works themselves justify (MAKE one righteous) along with the faith.

 

[savedbygrace57]

b5

James clearly says that a man is justified by works.

Not before God ! Rom 4:4

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Also, if one says they are Justified before God by works, ,they have whereof to Glory !

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You're still not listening.

You don't know the difference between being justified and being saved.

I will be back later tonight, hopefully.
I will attempt to show you the error of your logic again. The error in thinking that what saves is also what justifies. If you really understood the meaning of 'justify' you'd realize that Paul is NOT saying that which saves is also which justifies.

In Rom 5:1 Paul says faith jusifies. In Eph 2:8 he said the Ephesians were saved by faith. So we have:

Rom 5:1-----faith--------------->justifies
Eph2:8-------faith-------------->saved

Since there is only one way to be saved that means justified must be equivelant to saved. Again, there is no such thing as saved but unjustified or justified but not saved.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Nicely said Davies

Do you notice how Davies continues to put blame and fault upon God for those that are faithless? Is God perfect, holy and just or does He have fault and blame?

 

[Butch5]

If you think James is using 'justified' in the exact same way Paul uses it then you, too, have no choice but to believe that James is saying we are justified by works of the law, for he uses examples of upholding the law to demonstrate the faith that is alive and able to save.

How so?

This is why works are the barometer of justifying faith, and not the actual
agent of justification itself. This is one of the truths upon which the
'righteousness (by faith) apart from works' argument is built (Romans 4:6). And
it's why James says "I will SHOW you my faith by what I do" (James 2:18)
demonstrating for us that he's using the word 'justified' in it's other
legitimate Biblical (and secular) meaning which is to 'show one to be
righteous'. Paul uses the word in regard to 'making one legally
righteous before God'. They are two different arguments, but some people take
James' conclusion and apply it to Paul's argument as if they were talking about
the same aspect of justification.

Who exactly was Abraham justified before? It was God, Isaac, and Abraham that were there, no one else. Why did God sware the oath to Abraham, was is simply because he believed God?

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
(Gen 22:10-12 KJV)

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.(Gen 22:15-18 KJV)

The mistake people make is, since this is true, the works themselves must do the
justifying. No, faith does that all by itself. That is Paul's argument.
Faith is validated as able to save when it upholds the requirements of God.
That is James' argument.

I disagree, I see no legitimate reason to take Paul's argument outside of the parameters he set. He was specifically addressing the "Mosaic Law," not good deeds, self effort, or anything else. If we apply his argument outside of those parameters we take it out of context.

Additionally, as James said, faith without works is dead. If there are no works faith (belief) can do nothing. Also, Paul didn't say that faith saves, he said it justifies, Justified is not saved but only a step in the process.

of us don't disagree with this. It's just that it's a mistake to come to the conclusion that the works themselves justify (MAKE one righteous) along with the faith.

It's not a mistake, it's a perfectly logical conclusion given the evidence we have. If faith is dead without works, works must be necessary to give life to faith. I'd also like to point out that neither faith nor works "make" one righteous. We are not righteous, we are simply accounted righteous by faith and works.

This wouldn't even be an issue today if Martin Luther had not either misunderstood or deliberately rejected Paul's teaching on works. This debate is based in Christians incorrectly applying Paul's argument about works "outside" of those parameters in which he made the argument.

 

[Butch5]

Of course - Paulis referring to the Mosaic Law. There is no contention there per se. But whatyou 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 manto keep - as used in James 2:10
2) Or it could refer to a part of the Old Testament, which was mostly writtenby Moses - as the usage in Luke 24:44
3) Or it could simply refer to an individual principle mentioned in thewritings 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 3:21verse.

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 amreferring to usage 3), as seen contextually from Rom 10:5and Gal 3:12.

I’m referring to the outward ordinances of the Mosaic Law that Pauladdresses. We can see in Acts that there were Jews who insisted that theGentiles keep the Law.
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the mannerof Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Act 15:1 KJV)
5 But there rose up certain of thesect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them tokeep the law of Moses. (Act 15:5 KJV)
We can find other places where Paul deals with thisissue. It’s my contention that it is this issue that is the background to Paul’steaching that works don’t justify.

I needsome clarification on this - Wasn't Abraham imputed righteousness ie justifiedas soon as he believed (Gen 15:5-6)?

Scripture doesn’tsay that. If Genesis 15 is the first time He is counted righteous then we wouldhave to answer no. I think it’s clear that Abraham believed God when he lefthis father’s house which is was before he was counted righteous in chapter 15.

Andafter this justification, comes his act of obedience in Gen 22. How do you saythat Abraham obeyed long before he was justified?

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

Sure!


KJV Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and fromthy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And Iwill make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy namegreat; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And Iwill bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in theeshall all families of the earth be blessed.
4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lotwent with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departedout of Haran. (Gen 12:1-4 KJV)

14 And the LORD said unto Abram,after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look fromthe place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 Forall the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.
16 AndI will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number thedust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
17 Arise, walk through the land in thelength of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
18 Then Abram removed his tent, andcame and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and builtthere an altar unto the LORD. (Gen 13:14-18 KJV)

Here we see Abraham obeying God.
We do see James quoting Genesis 15.
23 And the scripture wasfulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him forrighteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (Jam 2:23 KJV)
As I’ve pointed out Abraham obeyed before he was ever declared righteous Thereforeone cannot realistically say that belief alone was the means of justification.

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 agrammatical difference and not a semantic one. I'd need more elaboration onyour understanding of this, if indeed you hold "believing in someone"and "having faith" as distinct acts.

It depends onhow you’re going to define believing in someone. Pisteuo carries the idea ofmore than just believing a set of facts

Exactly, there is nothing to creditAbraham for. And yes, Abraham is justified by his works. It is reconciled whenyou 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 forboth 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 physicalailment that requires me to sleep for a given amount of time to recover. Andsay I've been administered an injection that causes me to sleep for that amountof time, and hence I am cured of the ailment. Add to this the fact that thisinjection 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 insaying I was cured by the injection(faith) Or by my sleeping(works) when mysleep was but a natural effect of the injection. And what credit can I take formy getting cured - when it was the physician who cured me.

I disagree withyour conclusion here. Firstly, the sleep was not your work, it was induced.Secondly, I don’t believe God decides to give faith to some and not others.Actually, I believe everyone has the ability to have faith if they choose to.This is the historic position and the one I hold. I have to go back to the sameargument because it’s never sufficiently dealt with. Faith, without works isdead. There is no way that one can logically deduct that dead faith can produceworks, it can’t, the apostle said so. Therefore works cannot be the product offaith.

Applyingmy position of the analogy to this, -

If plants without flowers are dead, they cannot produce any flowers. Beforeplants can be alive and able to produce anything flowers must exist. There'ssimply 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 beforefaith, for faith to exist - but not so with an evidential condition. Considerthese works as evidential conditions of justifying faith - and see if there areany inconsistencies there. To test any theory, the first premises of thattheory alone must be used in testing - not the first premises of acontradicting theory.

I don’t believeyour analogy works. Not all plants without flowers are dead. I think the flawin your argument is that works are the product of faith, they’re not. They areevidence that faith is alive, they are not evidence of faith itself as Jamesuses it. I believe by faith he means belief. He’s comparing his faith to thatof his readers, his faith is alive theirs isn’t. the difference? Works. Accordingto James they both had faith, one was living and one was not.

Applyingmy physical ailment analogy here, I could say - Those who sleep for theprescribed time are seeking to be cured. And yet, such sleep itself is notcaused by me - it is only evidential of me having received the injection fromthe physician. What do you find hard to reconcile here?

But here again,it is not you sleep. Paul said that it was Abraham’s faith that was counted asrighteous, not God’s faith, not anyone else’s faith, but Abraham’s. If it wasGod acting out this faith it was not Abraham thus not his faith. The same thingcan be said about James’ example. If it was God performing the works and notAbraham then they are not his works but God’s

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

I disagree. Ifyou can give some Scriptural support for this statement that would be great.

As Isaid, if what God has ordained in His workmanship is not done, it is evidentthat such are not His

Can you give anexample of just what these works are so that I can address it?

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

No problem at all.

 

[Davies]

I'd also like to point out that neither faith nor works "make" one righteous. We are not righteous, we are simply accounted righteous by faith and works.

Hi Butch5,

You hold that faith and works justifies a person before God. Where does Jesus' righteousness fit in your faith?

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

You hold that faith and works justifies a person before God. Where does Jesus' righteousness fit in your faith?

- Davies

Are you referring to Christ's righteousness being imputed to the believer? If so, I don't believe Scripture teaches that.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Clearly I haven't. I've constantly denied this, and you keep repeating the falsehood as if it's true.

Were I unto lying I might attack your position as trying to work your way into heaven. But that would also be false.

It's a sin to bear false witness about someone else's position. That's why I don't do what you're doing.

No I'm not. I'm saying "not A" and "not B". Please, don't get into black & white thinking. There aren't two answers: certainly not for this.

You have been promoting salvation is by faith only, that is, faith without works. Yet belief, repentance, confessing with the mouth and submitting to baptism are works that the bible has coming BEFORE salvation and not after.

Did I say it was "merely a change of mind"? No, I didn't. But there's more to Man than flesh and mind. There's will, heart, emotions, passion. Repentance definitely does refer to more than just thinking. But it definitely does not demand works.

God began with works, that the wickedness of Nineveh had cried up before Him.

The lapse in those evil works turned God's hand away from punishing Nineveh at that time. Their wickedness subsided.

Oh. you thought Nineveh was actually saved? Tell me where Scripture says that. Nahum 2-3 might be informative. They weren't saved. God's Hand was only stayed for a time.

"Not everything is soteriology."

I showed you plain, clear passages where repentance is a called a "work". So you are still trying to find ways to call things that are works such, as repentance, still trying to find ways to make it a non-work.

The problem here is, logical contradiction is just around the corner: "Poor mute people. They're all cursed so not even God could save them." No, this clearly logical result doesn't wash. So it falls purely on its own inconsistency.

The alternative is much clearer: Paul is simply using a typical example, not some kind of cause/effect textbook.

Another horrible argument trying to get around what Paul said. God does not expect or require what is impossible for a mute person. Just because a mute person is not able to speak does not excuse those of us who can. Rom 10:17 says faith cometh by hearing, does that mean the deaf can never have faith? Hardly.

Paul plainly said confess with the mouth UNTO salvation - a cause and effect that you try to change.

Implying he is me is disingenuous.

I never implied you were him. But you, like him, are grasping for straws in trying to get around obedient works being necesary in order to be saved. Just look what you posted about confessing with the mouth and mute people in your desperation.

Yeah, but it's absurd to think water baptism saves -- especially when Peter declares the action of water baptism doesn't save. 1 Peter 3:21

Peter - baptism doeth also now save us
HeyMickey80 - baptism doesn't save


All we have to do is compare and contrast statements

 

[Davies]

Are you referring to Christ's righteousness being imputed to the believer? If so, I don't believe Scripture teaches that.

Hi Butch5,

If you don't believe that Jesus righteousness justifies you, then you have only your own righteousness to stand on, and I think we both know that's not good enough.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

If you don't believe that Jesus righteousness justifies you, then you have only your own righteousness to stand on, and I think we both know that's not good enough.

- Davies

Correct, that's why God credits one's faith as righteousness. It was Abraham's faith that was credited to him as righteousness, not Christ's

 

[Davies]

Correct, that's why God credits one's faith as righteousness. It was Abraham's faith that was credited to him as righteousness, not Christ's

Butch5,

I think Abraham's righteousness was part of sanctification, not justification. And though we are credited righteousness, and we call it our own, it still isn't good enough to save us.

- Davies

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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 God 100% controls whether I will be saved or lost and I have no control or choice in the matter, then explain how being lost is my fault?

In your example above, did the King cause/force the men to be murderers against their will or did they choose to murderers of their own choice? They chose to be murderers of their own choice and therefore culpable for their own actions.

Yet some here have God causing/forcing men to be sinners against their will where they will be lost having no choice of their own in the matter thereby are not culpable for being the sinners God forced them to be.

There's the difference.

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

If God foces one to obey who may not want to obey, then God is forcing obedience upon him. Yet God neither forces one to be obedient or be a sinner.

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.

Yes, one is condemned because of HIS OWN TRANSGRESSION THAT HE OF HIS OWN WILL CHOSE TO COMMIT. Which is far different from one being a transgressor because God made/forced him to be a transgressor from birth unto death with that person never having any choice in being obedient during his life for God locked him, forced him into disobedience.

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

One either sins or is sinless.

I posted: "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.

So is a man a sinner as a result of his own choosing to disobey by committing sins

or

is man a sinner for God predetermined him before the world began to be a sinner and therefore God causes/forced him into a position where he can never be able to choose to believe/obey?

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?

A Christian is one who cannot live constantly in sin as John said "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" and "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 Jn 3:6,9 In Romans Paul said the Christian is one who is dead to sin but alive unto God, Rom 6:11. So the Christian cannot live a lifestyle in sin. In Eph 2:1-6 Paul contrasted the EPesians life style when they were lost sinners " in time past ye walked according to the course of this world" and "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind". Paul then uses the contrasting word BUT in verse 4 "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved), And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:"

When one is baptized Christ blood washes away/remits all his past sins. Yet that washing action of CHrist's blood does not just happen at the moment one is baptized but is continuous IF that CHristian continues to walk in the like, 1 Jn 1:7. So to have all his future sins remitted the Christian must continue to walk in the light for all his life else Christ's blood no longer washes away all sins if he quits walking inthe light..."be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.", Rev 2:10

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.

John defined sin as transgression of the law. So the law define what sin is and when men break that law they sin. But men do not keep God's law perfectly so men transgress.

So the question is how can John's parent be called and been seen as "blameless" before God when we know they did occasionally break the law? OBEDIENCE the very thing that the faith only theolgy denies that saves. Even though they sinned they kept the law that required animal sacrifices for their sins and by OBEYING that part of the law it kept them blameless before God.

IN Eph 1:4 Paul said the Crisitian is one who is "holy and without blame". Peter said the Christian is "without spot, and blameless" In Eph 5:17 Paul spoke of the church as "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."


Christians do sin, so again, how can Christians who sin ever be spotless, blameless, no wrinkle? Nowhere does the bible say FAITH ONLY makes the Christian spotless and blameless and that faith only keeps the Christian spotless and balmeless. It is O B E D I E N C E to Christ that makes one spotless/blameless and it is continued O B E D I E N C E that keeps one spotless and blameless. THe only way for anyone to ever be spotless and blmaless before God is if he is IN CHRIST where he is then covered by Christ's perfect righteousness and NO VERSE says faith only puts one in Christ but O B E D I E N C E in submitting to water bpatism puts one in Christ, Gal 3:27 NO VERSE say faith only keeps one spotless and blamless before God it takes O B E D I E N C E by continuing to walk in the light whereby Christ's blood continues to wash away all sins and it is that continued washing that keeps the Christian spotless and blameless. And faith only has nothing to so with any of this at all for it's a man made idea in how some men think they should be saved.


God did set forth Christ to be propitiaton for the sins of ALL men, not just some. But ALL men will not be saved for all men will not have the conditional faith Rom 3:25 requires one to have in order for his sins to be forgiven. So it is a matter of choice on the part of each person to have faith or not have faith. THen we are back to the orignal question starting this post of yours: If God alone 100% determines who will and who will not have faith and man has no choice or control over this issue, then those that are faithless and lost is God's culpability. Again, how is it my fault if the only way I can have faith is if God igves it to me yet God doesnot give it to me? HOw is it myfault that God would not give me faith? It would not be my fault at all - it would be 100% God's fault for He was 100% in control of who would and would not have faith.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

I think Abraham's righteousness was part of sanctification, not justification.

Scripture says that Abraham's faith was credited to him for righteousness, so that's how I take it.

And though we are credited righteousness, and we call it our own, it still isn't good enough to save us.

I agree we're not righteous, however, even if it was Christ's righteousness it would still only be imputed. We still would not be righteous. I don't see anything in Scripture that says Christ's righteousness is imputed to men, I do see where man's righteousness is imputed to him.

 

[Davies]

I don't see anything in Scripture that says Christ's righteousness is imputed to men, I do see where man's righteousness is imputed to him.

Hi Butch5,

This is a confusing statement. If righteousness is imputed to man, how can the righteousness that he does be imputed to himself. That man's righteousness is his own. For righteousness to be imputed, it has to be a righteousness from another. The same is true about our sins. Our sins were placed on Jesus or imputed. We wouldn't say that Jesus had committed any sin.

You really don't want to declare your own righteousness before God. Here is an example when God declares your righteousness and not Jesus righteousness on your behalf:

Isaiah 57:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 I will declare your righteousness
And your works,
For they will not profit you.


Your righteousness, outside of Jesus', will not profit you.


- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

This is a confusing statement. If righteousness is imputed to man, how can the righteousness that he does be imputed to himself. That man's righteousness is his own. For righteousness to be imputed, it has to be a righteousness from another. The same is true about our sins. Our sins were placed on Jesus or imputed. We wouldn't say that Jesus had committed any sin.

You really don't want to declare your own righteousness before God. Here is an example when God declares your righteousness and not Jesus righteousness on your behalf:

Isaiah 57:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 I will declare your righteousness
And your works,
For they will not profit you.


Your righteousness, outside of Jesus', will not profit you.


- Davies

That passage will need to be looked at in context. However, no one is righteous, we all sin. So God counts those righteous (even though the aren't) who believe and obey Him. When Paul was arguing that a man is not justified by the works of the Mosaic Law he said,

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. (Rom 4:1 KJV)

It was Abraham's belief that was counted as righteousness. He said, the one who believes his faith is counted as righteousness. He doesn't say it's Christ's righteousness that is counted as the man's righteousness, but rather the man's faith.

I don't see anything in Scripture that say the righteousness of one is imputed to another. God said every man will die for his own sins. Can you give me example from Scripture where I can find translated righteousness?

Additionally, it's my righteousness that I am depending on. Righteousness is a declaration of justice. I am not declaring myself righteous. I am believing and obeying God, looking for Him to declare me righteous based on the criteria He has established.

 

[Davies]

Additionally, it's my righteousness that I am depending on. Righteousness is a declaration of justice. I am not declaring myself righteous. I am believing and obeying God, looking for Him to declare me righteous based on the criteria He has established.

Hi Butch5,

You say, "it's my righteousness that I am depending on," and "I am not declaring myself righteous." If you were righteous, you would be able to declare yourself righteous. You said previously, "I agree we're not righteous."(post #433) So which is it? You're depending on your righteousness, yet, you say you are not righteous.

- Davies

 

[ivdavid]

I have to go back to the same argument because it’s never sufficiently dealt with. Faith, without works is dead. There is no way that one can logically deduct that dead faith can produce works, it can’t, the apostle said so. Therefore works cannot be the product of faith.

I think from what you've written so far, you see it this way -
1) belief = a set of facts, held as true.
2) works = any Act of obedience
3) alive faith = belief + works
4) dead faith = belief only and no works
5) dead faith = existent but not alive faith

6) alive faith is required for justification
and 7) works are required for alive faith [from (3)]
hence 8) works are required for justification as per James 2

And hence you argue against the "faith only, without works" camp as
9) alive faith - works = dead faith [from (3)]
10) dead faith cannot generate works to result in alive faith ie (7)
hence 11) works are independently required for "alive faith"

and 12) dead faith does not justify
thereby 13) faith only without works cannot justify.
14) Implying works are independently necessary for justification. [From (6) and (11)]

Have I gotten any of the above wrong? Actually, my plant-flower analogy was solely to address this argument of yours - but you feel it hasn't been sufficiently dealt with. I shall attempt to present my argument here -

1) belief = a set of facts, held as true.
2) works = any Act of obedience
3) alive faith = belief in the sufficiency of someone/something to fulfill what they've promised or what's expected of them, given their nature/abilities.
4) dead faith = lack of such belief
5) dead faith = non-existent faith [from (4)]

6) alive faith is required for justification
7) alive faith naturally brings forth/produces works and consequentially, where there are no works, there is no existence of alive faith ie faith is dead.
hence 8) works are required for justification as much as the faith that produces such works are required - given (7).

A common cause can be solely attributed, instead of including all that arise subsequently from it.
Therefore, faith alone can be said to be required for justification - instead of including the works too, that anyway necessarily arise from such faith. This is the position of the "faith only" camp - where they too exclude works of the law, not the works that arise out of such faith.

From the above, we seem to mainly differ on points (3),(5) and (7) - and since point (5) is dependent on (3), I'd boil it down to just (3) - what Scripture refers to as faith and (7) - does faith produce works or are they independently done.

I don’t believeyour analogy works. Not all plants without flowers are dead.

2) Plants, if they have no flowers, are dead.
... the second statement denotes flowers as an evidential condition which presupposes that all plants that are alive, will have flowers.

I think the analogy works, given the aforementioned presupposition.

I think the flawin your argument is that works are the product of faith, they’re not.

It's not a flaw in my argument - it is actually a part of my argument, contained as a presupposition. So, I suppose the argument itself is consistent - If I'm able to prove the presupposition. [The earlier point (7)]

They are evidence that faith is alive, they are not evidence of faith itself as James uses it.

Your concept of an existent dead faith arises out of your definition of faith in point (3) - you apply James 2:17 to your point (3), and you still are left with 'belief' as part of what makes up "faith" - hence, the need to uphold faith's existence even when there are no works. But faith according to my points (3) and (7) - is strictly mapped to its corresponding works and one's existence implies the other's existence too, likewise with their non-existence.

Faith is a particular form of believing - it is an act of believing in the sufficiency of a causal agent to fulfill an expected or promised task. To include works in the definition of faith itself, requires some elaboration from your side. Works of faith indeed brings to completion or fulfillment the faith that has borne it - but that doesn't make works a part of faith itself.

As to how faith produces works, could you go through the part on strict mapping between faith and works that I'd written in the first post of our discussion here. I'd also like you to consider the following statements that I want the reader to believe -
a) Any man who is stranded in the midst of the ocean, will struggle to stay afloat.
b) You are stranded in the midst of the ocean now.

One could believe the first statement and not need to Do anything about it. Whereas if one says he believes the second statement, he must necessarily flap about, trying to stay afloat. And if he doesn't Do so, it's evident that he didn't believe the second statement at all - that his claims to believing it are false and effectively dead without the acts that such a belief is supposed to produce. This is the sense in which I state that faith must necessarily result in works of such faith - as also seen in Abraham's works and in Rahab's works.

 

[ivdavid]

I’m referring to the outward ordinances of the Mosaic Law that Paul addresses.

Yes. But did you have a look at the usage 3 (Lev 18:5 law) too - as used contextually in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12? The outward ordinances of the Mosaic Law that you refer to, are contained as a necessary subset of the Lev 18:5 law. So while you are correct in referring to these outward ordinances as the law - limiting only them to be the law(as referred to by Paul) would not reconcile his usage of it in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12.

It's quite understandable that Paul refers mainly to circumcision and other outward ordinances whenever he wants to specifically refer to the works of the law - given the fact that these outward ordinances are the most easy to observe and comment upon - and also the fact that these are indisputably works by the flesh while obedience to the commandments to not steal or murder could be a work by the flesh or by the Spirit. It makes sense that Paul would choose the most unambiguous of works to make his point that works by the flesh can never justify(Gal 3:2-3).

As I’ve pointed out Abraham obeyed before he was ever declared righteous. Therefore one cannot realistically say that belief alone was the means of justification.

I am trying to understand your position here. I hope that we both concur on the fact that in Gen 15:6 - Abraham's believing in God was the "it" that was imputed unto him for righteousness. Where does Gen 15:6 seem to even indirectly include any earlier obedience as part of this believing and consequent justification? I do not insist that every doctrine must be explicitly stated everywhere for it to be true, but where is the implicit connection at least between Abraham's obedience in Gen 12 and Abraham's believing in Gen 15?

Besides, Abraham's works of obedience in Gen 12 are themselves said to be by faith(Heb 11:8-9) - am I to infer from what's given that faith precedes works or am I to infer from what's not given that there were preceding works before Gen 12 that led to Abraham's faith in Gen 12?

I disagree with your conclusion here. Firstly, the sleep was not your work, it was induced.Secondly, I don’t believe God decides to give faith to some and not others.Actually, I believe everyone has the ability to have faith if they choose to.

Yes exactly, just as the injection induces my sleep or my sweat or my alleviation of temperature or whatever else that's required - faith too in like manner "induces" works. I can't quite see why that's a problem in my conclusion.

As to whether God gives faith or not, I derived it primarily from Eph 2:8. Perhaps you have a different understanding on that. And even if I were to concede everyone having the ability to have faith if they chose, I'd argue that not everyone has the ability to Choose to do so(Rom 7:15).

But here again,it is not you sleep. Paul said that it was Abraham’s faith that was counted as righteous, not God’s faith, not anyone else’s faith, but Abraham’s. If it was God acting out this faith it was not Abraham thus not his faith. The same thing can be said about James’ example. If it was God performing the works and not Abraham then they are not his works but God’s

How would you credit man's effectual working according to Php 2:13? I do not exclude man out of God's working - for God works in man and causes him to bring forth good works. While the works are effected out of man alone and in that sense could be called his works - they are caused by God and hence are not credited to man. Consider this as the corresponding flips side of Rom 7:17.

I disagree. If you can give some Scriptural support for this statement that would be great.

Lev 18:5 is the imperative command from God to man - and no created man in the flesh has kept it, neither can he(Gal 3:10,Rom 8:7). Now, we are God's workmanship, regenerated and created in Christ unto good works that He causes us to walk in(Eph 2:10, Eze 36:26-27).

Can you give an example of just what these works are so that I can address it?

Any and every good work. Giving alms to the poor, not committing adultery, giving your coat when sued for your shirt etc.

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

You say, "it's my righteousness that I am depending on," and "I am not declaring myself righteous." If you were righteous, you would be able to declare yourself righteous. You said previously, "I agree we're not righteous."(post #433) So which is it? You're depending on your righteousness, yet, you say you are not righteous.

- Davies

Hi Davies,

What I meant was the things I do are what is going to be declared righteous or unrighteous. I did say we are not righteous, but rather we are counted as righteous based on belief in Christ and our obedience. Sorry for the confusion.