Is belief "works"?

[dadof10]

Hi P31Woman,

What I've been trying to explain to the others here is that only the righteousness of Jesus is what justifies a person before God, and it is only by God's grace and power that a person believes or has faith. So, we have to give credit to God for even our faith.

I agree. Would you say, then, that in order for a person to be saved he must cooperate with this Grace?

I love your signature, BTW.

 

[dadof10]

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

Excellent!!!

 

[dadof10]

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?

He does in verse 9 "...not because of works, lest any man should boast."

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.

There is good reason to "imply" law in Paul's letters, he says "works of the law" in many places. It's you who are erroneously implying "all deeds" to Paul's use of the word "works". Where does he EVER tie good deeds to "works" ANYWHERE?

That's demonstrable from Romans 4:1-5, which is pre-law.

It's not "pre-law" to Paul, especially since his main point is circumcision.

"For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?...

Paul is tying 4:1 and what follows directly to circumcision and "the law".

 

[dadof10]

I agree that Abraham believed God and obeyed Him in Gen 12 - well before Gen 15.

What might help is to realize that in Gen. 12 Abraham didn't just obey, he was also JUSTIFIED, due to his saving faith.

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. (Heb. 11:8)

The question is, why did Abraham need to be re-justified in Gen 15?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The question is, why did Abraham need to be re-justified in Gen 15?

Where does it say he was justified by his faith in Genesis 12?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The verse says "we become conscious of sin", not "we are still held accountable to and are convicted by as sinners"...

Well, actually he does say that:

"9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin." (Romans 3:9 NIV1984)

"19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." (Romans 3:19 NIV1984)

...nor does it "qualify" which law.

So, somehow 'the law', and 'the law', separated by a mere two words in the context of a single thought and breath suddenly do not mean the same law????

"20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20 NIV1984)

You're unreasonable. Completely and totally unreasonable.

I think you are erroneously stretching this verse to make a point. If the "law" he's talking about is qualified by it's ability to make us conscious of sin, many actions would not fit here, like honoring father and mother, prayer or charity.

Using your example, when you do not honor your father and mother you sin and are convicted by the law as a law breaker. Anything the law says to do, but don't do (or do what the law says not to do), makes you a law breaker and guilty of sin. This is so fundamental to the Christian faith I wonder why anyone would dare try to challenge it.

Even Paul uses the requirements of the law to show that not keeping the law convicts a person of sin and keeps them out of the kingdom:

"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV1984)

And John comes right out and says sinning is breaking the law:

"4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4 NIV1984)

The (moral) law is in fact the measure of sin. I've never, ever heard that to be in dispute in the church. Never.

What is NOT the measure of sin in the law anymore are the worship stipulations like circumcision. Which brings me back to my point. The law Paul is talking about is the law that shows us to be sinners. Circumcision is no longer one of those laws that does that (Romans 2:27). Your contention that Paul is talking about the ceremonial law only when he refers to 'works of the law' is ungrounded because the law he is talking about is the measure of sin in his post resurrection teaching.

 

[Carolyn]

Bingo. The Spirit is strong within you.
I read these last two pages and think it is only a mis-communication going on, and that for the most part all are saying the same thing.
Let me try. How I see it, is that obedience comes first. Not obedience to Moses law, Jesus fulfilled that. Obedience of the heart to choose to accept the gift of faith that was given to us. In this way, faith is an act and a work because a choice is made within the man. Faith is dead withoutworks because true faith seeks only God, and any good deeds or works one performs is not an act of man (except choosing to believe and trust/put their faith in God in the first place), but rather God working his works through the man. Man can do no good on his own without God.
In the same way, works without faith is dead because it would not be God working through the man. Man need only have faith in his heart to allow God to work through him. His Grace is sufficient for me. When one denies faith within his heart, this quenches the Spirit of God, and God can not perform his works through the man. When one does have faith within his heart, the Spirit will come and do his works through the man, and produce much fruit. Fruit is demonstrable of ones faith in God, and Gods work through the man. i.e., the light that will shine for all others to see in the man.
So Faith without works is dead because it is NOT the works of man, or anything to do with Moses's Law. It is the Holy Spirits works that is being done through us. Do not be confused that one should obey Moses Law, we are released from the Law. Obedience of the heart is the key here. Obedience to our faith in God. Seek God with all your heart. If you love me you will keep my commandments, of which the greatest is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. When the heart is in this state, ask and it shall be given, knock and it shall be opened.
Just like what happened to me last night, which increased my faith and my love for God. Praise the Lord!
I hope this makes sense to you all.
This also explains how/why a child can understand the scriptures, and we are to come as a child seeking God. Even a child can have faith, and the Holy Spirit takes care of the rest. ;)

I can completely agree with most of this. The only place that I differ is in that instead of my choosing to believe, I simply do not resist the grace that God has given me to believe. He gives everyone that grace to beliève but most people out of stubborn pridè resist His grace and gift of faith and choose to do it their way. We can çall it independance. God wants us to be totally dependant on Him.
So He gives us the grace to surrender, to stop resisting His grace and His help., Corrie tenBoom called it Don' wrestle, just nestle. Fenelon called it a simple sinking into the will of God. It is so quieting and relaxing when we stop resisting. God asked Saul, "doesn't it hurt to kick against the goads?" and renamed him Paul. Saul had been resisting God. All it takes is to stop resisting God's grace to surrender our wills. His grace then takes us by His Spirit to faith, repentance, receiving Christ into our lives and being born again; then we procede to allowing Him to work through us. None of this çan be done without ceasing to resist His grace. And all of it is His work, ñot our own.

 

[Butch5]

Well, I still believe I have addressed this sufficiently - and so, your feeling otherwise only implies I need to better communicate what I've already stated so far.


Dead faith cannot produce works - I agree. Only alive faith produces works.


Template :
Causative condition : If causative act occurs, then its effect will occur.
Evidential condition : If effect does not occur, then causative act has not occurred.

Example:
Causative condition : If I eat fish, then I will have a rash.
Evidential condition : If I do not have a rash, then I have not eaten fish.

Position 1:
Causative condition : If faith is alive, then it will have works that it produces.
Evidential condition : If faith does not have works that it produces, then it is dead.

Position 2:
Causative condition : If faith does not have preceding works, then it is dead.
Evidential condition : If faith is alive, then it does have preceding works.

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Interpretation 1: If "works" here in James 2:17 refers to "works that faith produces" - then it is found in the Evidential condition of Position 1.
OR
Interpretation 2: if "works" here refers to "preceding works" - then it is found in the Causative condition of Position 2.

Butch5 - "According to James it must have works in order to be alive".
Your above statement is the Evidential condition of Position 2 - thereby forming a consistent system of premises if you interpret James 2:17 to be a Causative condition, given the presupposition that "works precede and result in alive faith". Obviously, when I state my presupposition that "alive faith precedes and results in works", you ask me to reconcile the contradiction that arises against the Position 2 that you hold.

But I do not need to reconcile my presuppositions against your position - they only need to be reconciled with the position I hold, in order to form a consistent system of premises. My presupposition is consistent with Position 1 and so is James 2:17. Position 1 is an alternate interpretation to James.

And I've already stated this and you've already acknowledged it as an alternate interpretation to James 2 and you've declared that it simply doesn't work - and the reason you've given is that - preceding works are necessary to result in faith - which is the presupposition of the interpretation you hold. But the alternate interpretation does not include this presupposition at all - James 2 does not unambiguously give rise to your presupposition alone, it could just as well hold true to the alternate interpretation - while being consistent too.

As to which of the presuppositions are actually true, we could discuss that in future posts. But the intent of this post is to acknowledge 2 interpretations with their own presuppositions that are consistent with Scripture and logic. If you would disagree with this, could you point out the inconsistency in Interpretation 1 and Position 1 as measured on their own merit and not against Interpretation 2 and Position 2.

Hi ivdavid,

I don't agree that your 1st proposition is a correct interpretation. I don't know why you think I'm coming to the text with presuppositions when I am only saying what the text says. Where does the Scripture say that works are the product of faith?

 

[Butch5]

I agree that Abraham believed God and obeyed Him in Gen 12 - well before Gen 15. What I want to know is - what's the connection between the Gen 12 faith and obedience with respect to Abraham's faith that was imputed unto him for righteousness in Gen 15:6? Is it borne out of your position where works necessarily form a preceding part of justifying faith - hence the connection between the Gen 12 works having to form a preceding part of the Gen 15:6 justifying faith?

I find these equations quite technical, and am unable to see any meaning behind them. What is the relation in practical terms between an act of obedience borne out of a corresponding preceding faith(Gen 12) - and an independent later faith(Gen 15) that has its own corresponding works(Gen 22) borne out?


Yes. But does Gen 15:6 refer to all that prior obedience when Abraham's faith is imputed unto him for righteousness? How do you make that connection and infer that? I am unable to read that in - except perhaps if I were to begin with the presupposition that works necessarily precede and result in alive justifying faith. But what is the basis for this presupposition? This same presupposition formed the basis for your James 2:17 interpretation too. What is the basis? I should think that the evidence for faith preceding and resulting in works is more apparent in James and other parts of Scripture - especially Heb 11.


Of course James saw obedience in the Gen 15:6 justification of Abraham's faith - but what obedience is he referring to - acts of obedience that preceded his Gen 15:6 faith or acts of obedience that were borne later, out of such faith? I should think James 2:21 makes it quite clear that it's the latter, complemented by Heb 11:17 which states that such obedience was by faith.


I too would say the same thing - only referring to works as those that proceed from faith - not those that precede and result in faith.


This seems unfair on your part. Did I not write -
ivdavid - "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."


I didn't understand this point of yours. My contention from Heb 11 was that every act of obedience was preceded by faith - and hence I felt it lent support to my presupposition that faith precedes and results in works. And I asked if we were supposed to read into Scripture some preceding works to the Gen 12/Heb 11:8-9 faith - in order to uphold your presupposition that works precede and result in faith.

And your response is on how "faith" is used in Heb 11. Is it your contention that "faith" used in Heb 11 is not the same used in Gen 12 or Gen 15 or James 2 - if so, why? I know this is not a valid point in itself, but doesn't a simple practical reading of Heb 11, without the technicalities and inferences, tell you it's the very same faith referred to in all the other verses we've referred to here? Anyway, Heb 11:1 is not a definition of faith - it is a description of faith. Scripture has maintained consistently, what it refers to as faith - I have never come across any discrepancy. Point out the ambiguities that you find in the usage of faith in Scripture - especially the differences between its usage in Heb 11 and say, James 2.


Yes.


Yes, I got that.


Yes, I do believe that faith initiates apart from works - but requires the works that it will necessarily and naturally produce for it to be fulfilled or completed. These works are the evidence of an existent alive faith from which they have proceeded forth - and the absence of such works are the evidence of a faith that is dead ie non-existent. And I know given your position, you do not believe so. Is it that you believe works initiate apart from faith?


This might require a lengthy explanation and some discussion on it alone. Could we take this up after we clear the current points of discussion?


In the absolute degree. No created man in the flesh has ever kept the Lev 18:5 imperative - for if he had kept it, he wouldn't be under the curse of the law - but we know every single created man in the flesh is under the curse of the law, and can be redeemed only by dependence upon Christ's sacrifice.


There is no indication in Luke 1 that John's parents were walking blameless in the flesh. It is my contention that they were regenerated and were worked upon by God to walk in His ways by the Spirit and not by the flesh.


Most passages quoted in the New Testament would be addressed to Israel in the Old Testament from where they are quoted. And are we not the Spiritual Israel(Rom 2:29)?

Also, Eze 36:28 is not of a future promise that is yet to happen - it is the New Covenant that has replaced the Old Covenant(Jer 31:33) which has already come into force with Christ(Heb 8:10). I'd clarify further reservations, if any, to applying the Ezekiel passage.

Hi ivdavid,

It seems to me that you're entire argument is based on the idea that faith produces works. Can we prove this first since it seems to be opposed to what James says.

 

[Butch5]

What might help is to realize that in Gen. 12 Abraham didn't just obey, he was also JUSTIFIED, due to his saving faith.

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. (Heb. 11:8)

The question is, why did Abraham need to be re-justified in Gen 15?

That's a good point. Another thing I think that is an issue is that being justified isn't a once and done event.

 

[Butch5]

We know Paul is not talking about just the ceremonial law, like circumcision, when he says works of the law can not justify. Right in Romans 3 he qualifies the law he's talking about as that which convicts of sin.

"20 ...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20 NIV1984)

The very law he says can not declare a person righteous (justify them) is also the very standard of righteousness upon which mankind is convicted as sinners. But it is Paul himself who teaches us the laying aside of the first covenant of worship, and how it's requirements for Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice are no longer needed to draw near to God, and are no longer the basis for condemnation for not keeping them.

So, how can Paul only be talking about the worship stipulations of the law that have been laid aside in favor of this New Covenant and the new way of drawing near to God when he says it is that very law--the law that can't justify a person--that we are still held accountable to and are convicted by as sinners?

I'm not following you here, can you clarify?

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

Here is the question asked a bit better: If you claim you are not righteous, and that "we are counted as righteous based on our belief in Christ and our obedience," then how can you be justified?

By God declaring me righteous, even though I'm not actually righteous. It is imputed.

Our obedience can never be sufficient to account for justification.

On this I would ask for Scripture. This is one of those things I've not found in Scripture.

It was Jesus' righteousness that was found acceptable to the Father,
not ours.

His righteousness was found acceptable for what?

If we have sin, then there is nothing we can do to merit forgiveness,
salvation, or eternal life.

Again, I would ask for Scripture here

Even though we put our faith in Jesus, that doesn't mean that God has to
forgive us.

I agree 100%

Our 'work' of faith merits nothing just as works of the law merit nothing
because we have sinned.

Again, I'd ask for Scripture. The works may merit anything but that doesn't mean that God doesn't require them.

But we do have the promises of God to forgive us if our faith is in Jesus,
because Jesus' righteousness is worthy of justification.

I agree Jesus' righteousness is worthy of justification, however, I don't see anything in Scripture that says it's applied to Christians.

Anything we do that God says is righteous is only part of the sanctification process, not justification.

It's usually the same word in Scripture.

Jesus' righteousness is given to us, Romans 5:17. You could argue that the gift
of righteousness in Romans 5:17 is the ability God gives you to do right things,
or Jesus' righteousness, but either way... righteousness remains a gift.

I agree it's a gift, however, the passage doesn't say it's Jesus' righteousness. What I would say it is is God declaring one righteous, as He did Abraham.

I'm not sure how you can separate actions whether it be the Temple laws or doing kind things for others, or even thinking because Jesus said the whole law is wrapped up in loving your neighbor as yourself, Galatians 5:14. So, I think feeding the poor and caring for widows can be included in trying to be righteous by the law. Even James said that was perfect religion. It's stated properly in James 1:27. Violating the 10th Commandment is not a physical act, yet it is still law. The law was explained by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount that it not only included the physical but was spiritual as well. Righteousness includes both aspects. We are told to do the works of God, we should believe on Jesus, yet our faith is authored by Jesus and He perfects our faith, Hebrews 12:2.

Paul doesn't apply his argument to good deeds ,as a matter of fact he says those who continue in good deeds are seeking eternal life. He does, however, argue that circumcision does not justify. If we look at what was happening at the time we can see that Jesus rebuked the Jewish leadership for their abuses of God's Law. He called them hypocrites because outwardly they appeared to be keeping the Law but their hearts were not in it. They were trying to appear righteous through outwards actions. I suggest that this is what Paul is addressing when he argues against works. It's not like the Jews were coming behind Paul teaching his converts to love their neighbor and to care for widows and orphans. They were teaching that it was necessary to perform the Law, it is this that Paul argues against.

 

[ivdavid]

I don't agree that your 1st proposition is a correct interpretation.

You are referring to my Position 1 Causative condition : "If faith is alive, then it will have works that it produces" - right?

I know you disagree with this premise. But why do you disagree - is it only because it contradicts the premise that you are holding now OR also because you think it isn't consistent with Scripture? If it's the former reason, then you should also consider the possibility that the premise you are holding now may be wrong, hence the contradiction.

But if your concern is that my premise isn't consistent with Scripture - this Causative condition was derived logically from the Position 1 Evidential Condition : "If faith does not have works that it produces, then it is dead" - which is Interpretation 1 of James 2:17 : "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone".

What does "works" refer to in James 2:17 - works that are produced by faith OR works that precede and result in faith? Looking at just James 2:17 - can't it be either?

Where does the Scripture say that works are the product of faith?

Well, cannot James 2:17 refer to "works" that are a product of faith? If not, Why? What part of Scripture does not lend itself to my interpretation - as long as it isn't imposed upon by your position? If you were to begin with the belief that works precede faith and then read Scripture according to this interpretation, you would obviously find my premise to be contradictory. That's how inverses(mutually exclusive statements) behave.

And I added to this in my other post - with Scriptural basis - which you've not taken into account. So I'll quote only the relevant parts.

Of course James saw obedience in the Gen 15:6 justification of Abraham's faith - but what obedience is he referring to - acts of obedience that preceded his Gen 15:6 faith or acts of obedience that were borne later, out of such faith? I should think James 2:21 makes it quite clear that it's the latter, complemented by Heb 11:17 which states that such obedience was by faith.

You could respond to the reconciling of James 2:21 and Heb 11:17 according to your position - since this seems to determine if James 2:17 was referring to works produced by faith[Interpretation 1] Or works that precede and result in faith[Interpretation 2].

I didn't understand this point of yours. My contention from Heb 11 was that every act of obedience was preceded by faith - and hence I felt it lent support to my presupposition that faith precedes and results in works. And I asked if we were supposed to read into Scripture some preceding works to the Gen 12/Heb 11:8-9 faith - in order to uphold your presupposition that works precede and result in faith.

I have presented Heb 11 as support for my premise - that works are preceded by faith. Your response seemed to negate this by upholding a different definition for "faith" here - could you clarify/justify that?

I don't know why you think I'm coming to the text with presuppositions when I am only saying what the text says.

Which text? James 2:17? Where exactly did you derive your premise from - your premise that works precede faith? If it were from James 2:17, the question is not whether you are saying what the text says - it is whether the text is saying only what you're saying. The text could also be read to say what I'm saying, can't it? That's what Interpretations do - give different semantic relations to the same text. Or is there an unambiguous resolution to upholding only your interpretation against mine - if so, it hasn't been presented yet here.

 

[Deborah13]

I can completely agree with most of this. The only place that I differ is in that instead of my choosing to believe, I simply do not resist the grace that God has given me to believe. He gives everyone that grace to beliève but most people out of stubborn pridè resist His grace and gift of faith and choose to do it their way. We can çall it independance. God wants us to be totally dependant on Him.
So He gives us the grace to surrender, to stop resisting His grace and His help., Corrie tenBoom called it Don' wrestle, just nestle. Fenelon called it a simple sinking into the will of God. It is so quieting and relaxing when we stop resisting. God asked Saul, "doesn't it hurt to kick against the goads?" and renamed him Paul. Saul had been resisting God. All it takes is to stop resisting God's grace to surrender our wills. His grace then takes us by His Spirit to faith, repentance, receiving Christ into our lives and being born again; then we procede to allowing Him to work through us. None of this çan be done without ceasing to resist His grace. And all of it is His work, ñot our own.

Both Edward and Carolyn, you have expressed it so well. Thank you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm not following you here, can you clarify?

The argument is that Paul is only talking about the ceremonial law when he says a man can not be justified by works of the law, while James is talking about works of the moral part of the law when he says what you do according to the law does justify. That's impossible since the very law Paul talks about (that he says can't justify) is the law that he says convicts us as sinners, and which we uphold by faith. We know he's not talking about laws of circumcision and Sabbaths, etc because he is the very one who teaches us that those things do NOT have to be literally fulfilled anymore. So he HAS to be talking about the moral law. James said the very same thing about the law he's talking about--that to not do it is to be convicted as a lawbreaker. They're talking about the very same law. And it is not the ceremonial law--the first covenant--that got laid aside.

We need to take you verse by verse through a portion of Romans 3. Your contention that we are justified by doing the works of the moral law is defeated in just a few lines of scripture. Hopefully tonight I'll have time to show you what I'm talking about. Your belief that the righteousness that we get, that saves us, comes from obedience to the requirements of the law is plainly defeated by Paul in Romans 3. Plainly.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul doesn't apply his argument to good deeds ,as a matter of fact he says those who continue in good deeds are seeking eternal life.

The mistake you make is thinking seeking eternal life HAS to equate to the effort of being justified by those good things.

He does, however, argue that circumcision does not justify.

But he also says that about the things we are still required to do according to the law--the things that still convict us as law breakers. So we KNOW he's not just talking about the law of circumcision.

 

[Butch5]

The mistake you make is thinking seeking eternal life HAS to equate to the effort of being justified by those good things.

There's no mistake. If works played no role then doing them would not be seeking eternal life. That's simple logic.

But he also says that about the things we are still required to do according to the law--the things that still convict us as law breakers. So we KNOW he's not just talking about the law of circumcision.

I don't believe you'll be able to show that. Acts 15:1 clearly shows what he was dealing with.

NKJ Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Act 15:1 NKJ)

 

[Davies]

By God declaring me righteous, even though I'm not actually righteous. It is imputed.

Hi Butch5,

If we are not righteous, then by whose righteousness are we justified? If righteousness is imputed, then it would follow that our obedience wasn't righteous to begin with. What does the Bible say about our righteousness?

Romans 3:10-12

New King James Version (NKJV)

10 As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”[a]

His righteousness was found acceptable for what?

Romans 3:21-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

God’s Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[a] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


The righteousness apart from the law is being demonstrated by God so that He might be be just and the justifier. What was Jesus' righteousness found acceptable for? Propitiation. Redemption. Why was Jesus death necessary for those two things? They were necessary because all have sinned.

Again, I would ask for Scripture here

Isaiah 64:6

New King James Version (NKJV)

6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.


Notice the emphasis at the end of this verse. "Our iniquities...have taken us away." The reason why our righteousness has no effect for justification, not to be confused with sanctification, is because of our sins. Our sins contaminate our righteousness so that the Father does not accept our payment for sin, and the reason why eternal condemnation is eternal. Our sins, committed against an eternal God, requires an eternal sacrifice. Only God, Himself, could provide such a sacrifice in the second Person of the Trinity decided upon before the foundation of the world.

I agree Jesus' righteousness is worthy of justification, however, I don't see anything in Scripture that says it's applied to Christians.

Our sins were placed on Jesus the same way His righteousness is placed on us when our faith is in Him.

Isaiah 53:6

New King James Version (NKJV)

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


"...The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Those are glorious words, because in them, we know our sins have been paid for, and justice is upheld by the Holy God.

Isaiah 53:11

New King James Version (NKJV)

11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[a] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.


Again, who does the justifying?; not our obedience. It is Jesus who does the justifying, and it is done by His righteousness because "He shall bear their iniquities." When we are in Him, our sins are accounted to Him. On the cross Jesus paid for our sins satisfying the righteous requirements of the law, and now the righteousness apart from the law has been revealed, "even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[a] who believe." Without Jesus' righteousness, the wrath of the Father would not be satisfied because of our sins. It is not our righteousness that propitiation is accomplished. We don't pay for our sins, and we are not accounted righteous by what we do, but by what Jesus has done. Faith is a work of God, lest any man should boast. Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith, Hebrews 12:2. If we our found in Jesus, we have peace with God.

Jesus didn't die for the righteous, but He died for the ungodly, Romans 5:6.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

The argument is that Paul is only talking about the ceremonial law when he says a man can not be justified by works of the law, while James is talking about works of the moral part of the law when he says what you do according to the law does justify. That's impossible since the very law Paul talks about (that he says can't justify) is the law that he says convicts us as sinners, and which we uphold by faith. We know he's not talking about laws of circumcision and Sabbaths, etc because he is the very one who teaches us that those things do NOT have to be literally fulfilled anymore. So he HAS to be talking about the moral law. James said the very same thing about the law he's talking about--that to not do it is to be convicted as a lawbreaker. They're talking about the very same law. And it is not the ceremonial law--the first covenant--that got laid aside.

We need to take you verse by verse through a portion of Romans 3. Your contention that we are justified by doing the works of the moral law is defeated in just a few lines of scripture. Hopefully tonight I'll have time to show you what I'm talking about. Your belief that the righteousness that we get, that saves us, comes from obedience to the requirements of the law is plainly defeated by Paul in Romans 3. Plainly.

I look forward to you breakdown.

 

[Butch5]

You are referring to my Position 1 Causative condition : "If faith is alive, then it will have works that it produces" - right?

I know you disagree with this premise. But why do you disagree - is it only because it contradicts the premise that you are holding now OR also because you think it isn't consistent with Scripture? If it's the former reason, then you should also consider the possibility that the premise you are holding now may be wrong, hence the contradiction.

But if your concern is that my premise isn't consistent with Scripture - this Causative condition was derived logically from the Position 1 Evidential Condition : "If faith does not have works that it produces, then it is dead" - which is Interpretation 1 of James 2:17 : "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone".

What does "works" refer to in James 2:17 - works that are produced by faith OR works that precede and result in faith? Looking at just James 2:17 - can't it be either?


Well, cannot James 2:17 refer to "works" that are a product of faith? If not, Why? What part of Scripture does not lend itself to my interpretation - as long as it isn't imposed upon by your position? If you were to begin with the belief that works precede faith and then read Scripture according to this interpretation, you would obviously find my premise to be contradictory. That's how inverses(mutually exclusive statements) behave.

And I added to this in my other post - with Scriptural basis - which you've not taken into account. So I'll quote only the relevant parts.

You could respond to the reconciling of James 2:21 and Heb 11:17 according to your position - since this seems to determine if James 2:17 was referring to works produced by faith[Interpretation 1] Or works that precede and result in faith[Interpretation 2].

I have presented Heb 11 as support for my premise - that works are preceded by faith. Your response seemed to negate this by upholding a different definition for "faith" here - could you clarify/justify that?

Which text? James 2:17? Where exactly did you derive your premise from - your premise that works precede faith? If it were from James 2:17, the question is not whether you are saying what the text says - it is whether the text is saying only what you're saying. The text could also be read to say what I'm saying, can't it? That's what Interpretations do - give different semantic relations to the same text. Or is there an unambiguous resolution to upholding only your interpretation against mine - if so, it hasn't been presented yet here.

Hi ivdavid,

With all due respect I think this turning into a game. James says,

17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (Jam 2:17 NKJ)

If faith does not have works, it is dead. There is no presupposition here, it is a clear statement from James. You've agreed that dead faith can produce nothing, correct? James also said,

22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? (Jam 2:22 NKJ)

He said, faith was made complete by works, again, no presuppositions. Logic dictates that if dead faith cannot produce anything it must be made alive or complete "BEOFRE" it can produce. According to James it is works that make faith alive or complete. Therefore logic dictates that works "cannot" be a product of themselves. It is impossible for me to be the offspring/product of me. It is impossible for my parents to give birth to/produce my parents.

If there are no works faith is dead and nothing is produced. Therefore works "Must" precede a living faith. Logic dictates that.

As I said in the other post, it appears to me that your argument is based solely on the idea that works are the product of faith. Can you please show where this is taught in the Scriptures?