Is belief "works"?

[dadof10]

Prove that to me from anywhere in the Bible. That's all you have to do. I showed you it does mean all righteous work outside of the grace given us to believe in the blood (Titus 3:5, Galatians 5:6, 2 Timothy 1:9).

No, you didn't. You left my posts untouched and came over to this thread. I posted these verses twice, and got no response from you. Here are the verses from the "Worker vs. The Non-worker..." thread, WHICH YOU IGNORED TWICE and still haven't answered. These prove that when Paul uses the term "righteous works" or "deeds...done in righteousness", he is speaking of the Mosaic Law.

Here, again are the verses that "plainly" tie Paul's "deeds...done in righteousness" in verse 5 to the works of Mosaic LAW. Not all deeds or baptism or charity, only works of the Mosaic Law. Not any "law", not the "royal law", not the natural law, ONLY the Mosaic Law.

"Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, 6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Phil. 3)

What is Paul contrasting "the righteousness of God that depends on faith" to? Is it EVERY deed "done in righteousness", as you are claiming, or is it "righteousness of my own based on law"? In verse 6, as he is going through his JEWISH credentials, he says he is blameless "as to righteousness under the law", which PROVES beyond any doubt that when he contrasts faith to "righteousness of my own based on law" he means the MOSAIC LAW. Next...

"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame." (Rom. 9)

It is crystal clear that Paul thinks that Israel pursued "righteousness" based on works, and that those works were works of the Mosaic law. Next...

"Moses writes that the man who practices therighteousness which is based on the law shall live by it." (Rom. 10)

Again, "righteous practices" are tied directly to the Mosaic Law.

Now, please stop merely repeating your contention and acting incredulous because I won't accept "what the Bible plainly says". Try to actually give a response to the verses I posted, or post some of your own that tie "deeds...done in righteousness" to baptism or charity or ANYTHING but works of the law.

If you would like to answer this overwhelming evidence that proves you are wrong, please feel free. Or you can head off to another thread again, and post there, that you "showed me". Sheesh...

You have to redefine 'grace' to make your view true. That's entirely unreasonable and unacceptable.

...You have to twist my words to make me "unreasonable". This is shown above.

Grace is the unmerited favor of God--that's what the ability to believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins is--grace. We may do lots of things BY grace, in and out of the law, but it is only faith in the blood that is the very conduit of that grace into our lives (to then do righteous things)--"8 ...by grace...through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8 NASB).

The Bible plainly says we are not made righteous by any work we do except the 'work' of believing in the blood for the removal of unrighteousness. There is no work besides that that removes sin guilt. All other work SHOWS us to have the trust in the blood of Christ that justifies all by itself.

Thanks again, for rehashing your position.

Various prayers and charity are commanded in the law. What are you ranting about?????

I'll make you a deal, Jethro. I'll stop "ranting" about your position, you stop lying about mine. Sound fair?

 

[dadof10]

Yes.


No. Not categorically.

It's not a 'yes' or 'no' question.

I was obedient to go to church and learn how to be saved when I was still in my sins. I was reaching out in faith, a very real faith, much like Abraham venturing out of his homeland in response to the Word of God, but simply acting in faith in that way did not justify me one iota. It was not until I heard about, and believed in the promise of the Son that I was justified by that faith.

It was Abraham's faith in the promised son, given to him in Genesis 15, that justified him, just as that is true for us, too. A general, all around 'faith' that gets you up in the morning to go to church, or give some money to charity is NOT the faith that justifies. It may SHOW you to have the faith that justifies--faith in the promised Son--but it is not in and of itself the faith that justifies. Only the 'labor' of faith in the promised Son, Jesus, does that.




Yes, that is the very definition of 'saving faith'. But only faith in Christ is the faith that justifies. Not the faith, in and of itself, to go to church, give to the poor, get circumcised, etc....

Then, it's your contention that the "faith" being talked about in Heb. 11 is NOT saving faith? You can't be serious. I think you are alone in this view.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then, it's your contention that the "faith" being talked about in Heb. 11 is NOT saving faith? You can't be serious. I think you are alone in this view.

The faith that justifies/saves is faith in the Promised Son.

If whatever was done in Hebrews 11 was a direct reflection of that person's faith in the seed promised to Eve, and then later to Abraham, that faith is saving faith.

But it seems according to you that the example I gave you of myself reaching out to God and seeking him in a very real faith before I was born again was saving faith. Hardly true. I knew in time I needed to place my faith in the blood of Christ. Which I did and was THEN justified by that faith--my faith in the Promised Son. Just as Abraham was justified.

Probably too many people think they have the faith that justifies/saves because they went to church, or prayed, or read their Bible, or got baptized. No, it's only faith in the blood of Christ, the Promised Son, that justifies/saves.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No, you didn't. You left my posts untouched and came over to this thread. I posted these verses twice, and got no response from you. Here are the verses from the "Worker vs. The Non-worker..." thread, WHICH YOU IGNORED TWICE and still haven't answered.

There are a couple of people's posts I wanted to respond too, but I really don't have the many hours of time it would take to do that. I'm pretty sure I've hit all your points, though. Your long, posts with all their spins and twists are especially difficult to fit into a working man's schedule.

Frankly, I consider you irretrievably sassy and stubborn. I'm not here to change you. You are not teachable as far as this subject goes. Maybe you hold a paid position in the Catholic Church and you can't change what you believe, I don't know. My hope has been that I and others can benefit from using your bad doctrine as a spring board to lead the rest of us searching souls to the real truth about this topic. But it seems there is no one left to benefit from that anymore. So there's really no more reason for me to hang around here much.

 

[gr8grace]

There are a couple of people's posts I wanted to respond too, but I really don't have the many hours of time it would take to do that. I'm pretty sure I've hit all your points, though. Your long, posts with all their spins and twists are especially difficult to fit into a working man's schedule.

Frankly, I consider you irretrievably sassy and stubborn. I'm not here to change you. You are not teachable as far as this subject goes. Maybe you hold a paid position in the Catholic Church and you can't change what you believe, I don't know. My hope has been that I and others can benefit from using your bad doctrine as a spring board to lead the rest of us searching souls to the real truth about this topic. But it seems there is no one left to benefit from that anymore. So there's really no more reason for me to hang around here much.

Hi Jethro,

There are most certainly people here that can and are benefiting from Grace showing up here! I believe that there are a lot of people who don't type in their responses,but are watching.

Grace will always be attacked because Christ is Grace. Religion, legalism and self righteousness Can NOT stand Grace and will become a VIPER to a Grace orientated believer.

Faith alone in Christ alone is in very short order in most of the buildings that call themselves churches.

What we are seeing in our so called churches of today is talked about quite a bit in the Word.
1 Tim 6:3-5
2 Tim 3:5
Gal 1:7
2 Cor 11:15
2 Pet 2:1
We are in the age of Grace and Satan wants no one to Have that Grace because it is the only thing that can save that lost soul. Eph 2:8

God wants ALL to come to Grace and to the knowledge of truth. Religion, Legalism, works and pride keep people from that Grace and religion(Satans ace trump) is doing a great job at veiling the true knowledge of of who He is. 1 Tim 2:4

 

[savedbygrace57]

Is belief "works"?

Yes, it is something man does !

 

[gr8grace]

Yes, it is something man does !

I completely agree.

 

[dadof10]

The faith that justifies/saves is faith in the Promised Son.

If whatever was done in Hebrews 11 was a direct reflection of that person's faith in the seed promised to Eve, and then later to Abraham, that faith is saving faith.

Abraham's faith was reckoned to him a righteousness. His faith was in God's promise to give him a child, not in "the Seed promised Eve", or in Christ. Certainly Abraham had the faith that justifies in Gen. 15, Paul says so. I know you believe this, so how does your view above square with the fact that Abraham was justified by his faith in God's promise of a son, not his faith in the Christ?

But it seems according to you that the example I gave you of myself reaching out to God and seeking him in a very real faith before I was born again was saving faith. Hardly true.

I don't presume to judge your faith. If you say it wasn't "saving faith", it wasn't.

I knew in time I needed to place my faith in the blood of Christ. Which I did and was THEN justified by that faith--my faith in the Promised Son. Just as Abraham was justified.

Again, Paul says Abraham was justified by faith in God's promise of A son (Isaac), not THE Son of God (Jesus).

 

[Butch5]

That's what I'd written in the post you didn't read. I even quoted your "Can you please show where this is taught in the Scriptures?" - and I followed it with a summarizing "I have already presented 3 points thus far :" followed by the 3 Scriptural contexts that I'd based my position on. I really need to be told what more I should have done.

Again, I derived it primarily from Heb 11 and from James 2:21-23. Please refer to Points 2 and 3 of my previous post for elaboration.


All the arguments of my last post were arguing for its existence - I don't quite see why they have to be left unaddressed. It's not some peripheral issue that I've been arguing about.


And I tried to point out to you that you've fed your presuppositions into your system of logic. Refer Point 1 of my previous post for elaboration.

Okay, you've tried not responding to what you strongly feel are only speculative arguments. I truly respect that - And we've gotten nowhere with that. So, how about this - why don't you grit your teeth, and respond to the 5 questions I've asked in my previous post - and I'll apologize now for your time that would get wasted on dealing with these speculations(If I could do anything more, I would). I know this is going to come across as a sarcastic request on the page - but if you were here in person, you'd know that my mood is of a genuine plea to try getting somewhere beyond this deadlock.


Yes - I have already made clear my position on this - dead faith cannot produce anything. And to clarify further - dead faith to me is a false faith, a non-existence of the true justifying faith. You could liken this to the dead righteousness of the Pharisees - they were doing many right things such as praying and giving alms and fasting - but they were not doing it right(Matt 6). Their righteousness was not true 'alive' righteousness by the Spirit - rather it was legalistic dead righteousness ie non-existent true righteousness. That's the way I look at dead faith - as a non-existence of true faith.


Take some time off to only reflect on this quote of yours. This encapsulates the communication gap we're having now. Why do you think that my position is implying that works are being produced by dead faith? Is it not because of what faith is and what the relation between faith and works is - according to you? Please refer to the attached pictures for a visual representation of the communication gap. Point out what Scriptures I need to reconcile with my model. Has your fundamental issue been resolved in my model?

Hi ivdavid,

I debated whether or not to continue in this thread because responding to these posts takes up a lot of my time. That is the reason I have asked for you to show me where Scripture teaches that works are the produce of faith. I looked at you diagram. I don't know how you think that can work. Faith with out works is dead, where then in you diagram does that living faith come from that you begin your diagram with? You an alive faith resulting in works and alive faith. What made this faith alive to begin with?

 

[Butch5]

Beginning in Romans 3:9 Paul tells the church at Rome how he has just made the case that all people, Jew and gentile alike, are unrighteous and under sin. Only those who keep the law--all of it (along with their coveted circumcisions)--will be declared righteous by the law. Partial, inconsistent, or selective law keeping can't justify a person. IOW, you have to keep ALL of the law to be declared righteous by that law (Romans 2:13)...but no one does that...so everyone stands condemned by the law, not declared righteous by it. James echoes this same thought about keeping ALL of the (moral) law in James 2:10-11.

In the James passage I just shared he names very specific commands of the law that if not kept make us law breakers, today, now, after the resurrection of Christ, not just before during the 'time of the law' as some people call it. John also says that to sin is to break the law (1 John 3:19). Again, confirming the law in this New Covenant as the standard by which unrighteousness/ righteousness is determined and people are held accountable to God.

"19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law (condemned by the law, as he just pointed out everyone is), so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God" (Romans 3:19 NASB)

The law that both, Paul and James, are speaking about post-resurrection is not the ceremonial law but the law that continues as that which condemns men as unrighteous. The ceremonial law does not do that anymore. Paul says elsewhere that law has been laid aside and no longer required to be literally fulfilled. So, because the law they are talking about continues as the standard by which men are determined to be sinful and unrighteous we know they're talking about the moral law, not the ceremonial law. And to the point, Paul says this law, the law that presently condemns men, the moral law, can not justify men:

"20 because by the works of the Law (the law that presently condemns--the moral law) no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20 NASB)

Then Paul goes on to say where righteousness does come from, apart from the (moral) law. He calls it God's righteousness, a different source of righteousness than that which comes from keeping the law, but a righteousness that comes through faith in Christ:

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe..." (Romans 3:21-22 NASB)

Then Paul tells the Romans that we don't nullify the (moral) law that can't declare us righteous by this NEW and DIFFERENT source of righteousness (faith in Christ), but rather we uphold it by this new and different source of righteousness, faith in Jesus Christ (not moral works of the law).

"31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." (Romans 3:31 NASB)

Again, this law that Paul has been talking about, that we don't nullify by faith in Christ but rather uphold (keep, satisfy, etc.), can not justify a man.

The problem is that this doesn't address the issue with which Paul was dealing. Regarding, your statement that no one keeps the Law I give you Zacharias and Elizabeth.

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luk 1:5-6 KJV)

 

[dadof10]

There are a couple of people's posts I wanted to respond too, but I really don't have the many hours of time it would take to do that. I'm pretty sure I've hit all your points, though.

You can keep thinking this if you want to, but it's absolutely untrue. Go back and look. This makes three times you have ignored Biblical proof that "deeds...done in righteousness" does NOT mean ALL righteous deeds to Paul, but WORKS OF THE MOSAIC LAW.

Your long, posts with all their spins and twists are especially difficult to fit into a working man's schedule.

The "spins and twists" are put into my posts BY YOU!!! You have no one to blame but yourself. If you will look objectively at my last two posts to you, you will see that the vast majority of the paragraphs were simply straightening out your purposeful straw-man argumentation and mis-characterization of my views. There is very little (if any) new material. If you want shorter posts, speak to the actual subject.

BTW. When you CAN respond to a point, you somehow find the time to write quite long posts. When you CAN'T respond, your time is all of a sudden constrained. Funny how that works.

Frankly, I consider you irretrievably sassy and stubborn.

Well, "sassy" is a little effeminate, but "lively" would fit, as would "stubborn". I get quite stubborn and a little peeved when my view is libeled and arguments are stifled. I work, as you do, so only have so much time to devote to this. When I have to spend the bulk of my time re-hashing my position and re-posting well thought out points in an attempt to get an answer, it bugs me a little. "I don't know, let me think about it and I'll get back to you" is a perfectly acceptable reply if you are stuck and can't answer right away. I've used this answer myself on occasion. What's not acceptable, in my mind at least, is ignoring my points, then saying "I showed you" when, in fact, you didn't.

I'm not here to change you. You are not teachable as far as this subject goes.

How would you know? You won't respond to my arguments, so how can we move onto other points.

I think I have made some valid points, which have been ignored. If your theology can't stand up to the scrutiny of a valid counter-argument, maybe it's YOUR view that's lacking and YOU who are "unteachable".

Maybe you hold a paid position in the Catholic Church and you can't change what you believe, I don't know.

I wish.

My hope has been that I and others can benefit from using your bad doctrine as a spring board to lead the rest of us searching souls to the real truth about this topic.

Bad doctrine is refutable, Catholic doctrine is not, as has been demonstrated.

 

[ivdavid]

That is the reason I have asked for you to show me where Scripture teaches that works are the produce of faith.

And I still see no response from you to what Scripture I've presented. The last 2 points(Jas 2:21-23, Heb 11) of my post#483 are the very basis for my belief on this - And they are from Scripture. Worth comparing/reconciling them with your beliefs?

Faith with out works is dead, where then in you diagram does that living faith come from that you begin your diagram with?

You did see in the diagram, my interpretation of "Faith without works is dead", didn't you? I've marked it quite clearly in the first part of the diagram. Like I've explained earlier, this is more a "Branches without Leaves are dead(evidently)" to me than a "Branches without the root are dead(causatively)" - where the root gives rise to branches and the branches give rise to leaves.

Your question and the connecting "Where then" already has implicitly assumed that works cause faith to be alive and hence alive faith has to be preceded by works for it to be alive - Not so. It could also be alive by the very regenerative work of God. Works don't cause faith to be alive - God, the author of our faith, causes it so[Heb 12:2].

You an alive faith resulting in works and alive faith. What made this faith alive to begin with?

Alive faith does not separately result in alive faith again - it simply continues as it is. After its initiation, it gives rise to Works too - which Faith labors together with[Jas 2:22] - and each have a sustaining effect on the other till the fulfillment of such Faith. And Faith is initiated by the grace of God. Again, why is this even a problem in this context - Am I expected to ask what made your works to be alive in the first place as opposed to them being just dead works?

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac:....
This is the "Work" mentioned by James. And here Scripture says that this Work is "By Faith". Now how am I mistaken in concluding from this that Works proceed from Faith?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Abraham's faith was reckoned to him a righteousness. His faith was in God's promise to give him a child, not in "the Seed promised Eve", or in Christ. Certainly Abraham had the faith that justifies in Gen. 15, Paul says so. I know you believe this, so how does your view above square with the fact that Abraham was justified by his faith in God's promise of a son, not his faith in the Christ?

"16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16 NIV1984)

I don't presume to judge your faith. If you say it wasn't "saving faith", it wasn't.

It wasn't faith in the Promised Seed, Jesus Christ, so it wasn't saving faith. I know I was not saved during that time. I was not saved until my faith was in the Promised Seed, at which time I was born again and given the Holy Spirit as a sign of that salvation. Only the faith of believing/trusting in God's promise of the Promised Seed justifies/saves.

Again, Paul says Abraham was justified by faith in God's promise of A son (Isaac), not THE Son of God (Jesus).

And again I refer you to Galatians 3:16 NIV1984...

"16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ."

 

[Butch5]

And I still see no response from you to what Scripture I've presented. The last 2 points(Jas 2:21-23, Heb 11) of my post#483 are the very basis for my belief on this - And they are from Scripture. Worth comparing/reconciling them with your beliefs?

Neither of these passages makes your argument. If works are a part of faith then we would expect to them in faith.

You did see in the diagram, my interpretation of "Faith without works is
dead", didn't you? I've marked it quite clearly in the first part of the
diagram. Like I've explained earlier, this is more a "Branches without Leaves
are dead(evidently)" to me than a "Branches without the root are
dead(causatively)" - where the root gives rise to branches and the branches give
rise to leaves.

Your question and the connecting "Where then" already has implicitly assumed
that works cause faith to be alive and hence alive faith has to be preceded by
works for it to be alive - Not so. It could also be alive by the very
regenerative work of God. Works don't cause faith to be alive - God, the author
of our faith, causes it so[Heb 12:2].

No, it doesn't. Your starting off with a faith that has no works and you're claiming it's alive. However, the apostle says it's dead. This why I continued to press the point. Let me suggest that Hebrews 12 doesn't say that God perfects one's faith, but rather, Paul is stating that Jesus is the author and finisher of the Faith, the body of Christian doctrine. By our faith, Paul is referring to the Gospel, The gospel of Jesus Christ. The Greek text has the definite article, it is "the faith". The word "our" isn't in the text. As such I don't see where, from Scripture you can justify this living faith prior to works.

Alive faith does not separately result in alive faith again - it simply
continues as it is. After its initiation, it gives rise to Works too - which
Faith labors together with[Jas 2:22] - and each have a sustaining effect on the
other till the fulfillment of such Faith. And Faith is initiated by the grace of
God. Again, why is this even a problem in this context - Am I expected to ask
what made your works to be alive in the first place as opposed to them being
just dead works?

This argument doesn't logically follow. If faith is alive before it has works then faith without works is alive not dead as the apostle said. What sustaining affect? if faith can be alive before works then works have no sustaining effect on faith.

Heb 11:17

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac:....

This is the "Work" mentioned by James. And here Scripture says that this Work is "By Faith". Now how am I mistaken in concluding from this that Works proceed from Faith?

The do proceed from faith, they are not the "product" of faith. According to James faith is dead if it has no works. Thus for anything to proceed from faith that faith must be alive, thus a living faith has works a dead faith does not. There is a "huge" difference between a work out of faith and a work produced by faith. One come from within faith itself the other is simply something made by it.

In James 2:18 he says,

KJV James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (Jam 2:18 KJV)

The Greek literally translates, "I will show you my faith out of my works." It's the Greek word "ek" it means out of. What James is saying is that his faith comes out of his works. Therefore there is no way that faith can be alive if works are not present. He states plainly that his faith come out of his works.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The problem is that this doesn't address the issue with which Paul was dealing. Regarding, your statement that no one keeps the Law I give you Zacharias and Elizabeth.

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luk 1:5-6 KJV)

There's two ways to look at this:

1) Their's was a 'righteousness of law'. Like what Paul had when he says "as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." (Philippians 3:6 NIV1984) They, like Paul, still had to submit to the righteousness of God that came through the Christ.

or

2) This is referring to the righteousness outside of the law that even the Old Covenant saints could have. Like David, who discovered this righteousness when confronted with the fact that there was no provision of law given to atone for his sins but who was declared righteous nevertheless and allowed to live. After which he speaks of NOW being able to serve God rightly (Psalm 51, I think?).

Perhaps it's a mistake to assume that the righteousness that Zach Liz had came from their blameless law keeping and not from the 'righteousness God credits apart from works of the law' such as David had, their obedience being the signature of that righteousness. In regard to Liz and Zach it doesn't say. It just says they were righteous.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Is belief "works"?

No

 

[Butch5]

There's two ways to look at this:

1) Their's was a 'righteousness of law'. Like what Paul had when he says "as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." (Philippians 3:6 NIV1984) They, like Paul, still had to submit to the righteousness of God that came through the Christ.

or

2) This is referring to the righteousness outside of the law that even the Old Covenant saints could have. Like David, who discovered this righteousness when confronted with the fact that there was no provision of law given to atone for his sins but who was declared righteous nevertheless and allowed to live. After which he speaks of NOW being able to serve God rightly (Psalm 51, I think?).

Perhaps it's a mistake to assume that the righteousness that Zach Liz had came from their blameless law keeping and not from the 'righteousness God credits apart from works of the law' such as David had, their obedience being the signature of that righteousness. In regard to Liz and Zach it doesn't say. It just says they were righteous.

Luke said, the were walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Law blameless. Ordinances seems to be those things such as ritual washing, circumcision etc.

 

[ivdavid]

There is a "huge" difference between a work out of faith and a work produced by faith. One come from within faith itself the other is simply something made by it.

I think this is nearly an accurate written representation of the 2 earlier model diagrams, representing each of our positions - only, instead of saying "works produced by faith" is simply something made by it, I'd say it is caused by it - since I hold them to be connected but distinct entities. Right, you have presented your understanding of Heb 11:17 - that "They do proceed from faith, they are not the "product" of faith". Let's apply this general understanding of yours to the specifics of Heb 11:17 -

Point 1. Abraham's WORK of offering up Isaac proceeds from Abraham's FAITH, but it is not the product of his FAITH - implying ->
Point 1a. that this Abraham's WORK of offering Isaac precedes and forms a part of his FAITH.

Do you think I've represented the above statement and inference accurately, in accordance to your position - or am I mistakenly dealing with a straw man here?

Now let's proceed to James 2:21-23 -
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
James is asking us - "Do you see". From where are we to see - from the rhetoric he presented in Jas 2:21 - "how Abraham's FAITH labored together with his WORKS..."?

But what is this Abraham's WORKS that James presents us with in Jas 2:21 - the same as in Heb 11:17 - that of offering up Isaac. So we get,
Point 2. Abraham's FAITH labored together with his WORK of offering up Isaac and by this WORK was his FAITH made complete/fulfilled.

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Jas 2:24 is the conclusion - drawing from the preceding verses. We have determined from Jas 2:21 that the WORKS in Jas 2:24 refers to Abraham offering up Isaac. But what is the FAITH in Jas 2:24 referring to - "Ye see then..."
Point 3. It is Abraham's FAITH presented in Jas 2:23 that is said to be justified by his WORK of offering up Isaac.

And since Jas 2:21-23 are only an illustration to uphold Jas 2:20 - by association, Jas 2:20 then amounts to -
Point 4. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that Abraham's justifying FAITH of Gen 15:6 without his WORK of offering up Isaac in Gen 22 is dead?

But compare Points 1a and 3,4 here -
How do you reconcile the contradiction from these points that Abraham's offering up Isaac in Gen 22 precedes and forms a part of his justifying faith in Gen 15:6 ?

In the rest of this post, I've clarified the issues you've raised against my position. I'd similarly request my above query to be clarified and responded to.

Neither of these passages makes your argument. If works are a part of faith then we would expect to them in faith.

Note the above quoted part in bold - that's the presupposition I've been talking about. Works are a part of faith only in your model - not in mine. According to my presupposition, faith and works are connected but distinct entities. So no, I do not expect them in faith - and hence, the passages I mentioned do not run into an issue in reconciling this presupposition that you hold and that I don't. As to which of our presuppositions is a true doctrine of Scripture - we'll have to continue discussing our points of argument.

Like I've explained earlier, this is more a "Branches without Leaves are dead(evidently)" to me than a "Branches without the root are dead(causatively)" - where the root gives rise to branches and the branches give rise to leaves.

No, it doesn't. Your starting off with a faith that has no works and you're claiming it's alive. However, the apostle says it's dead. This why I continued to press the point.

You have asserted my conclusion to be invalid - and yet my above explanation has not been addressed and factored in into your assertion. In your understanding of what I'm saying - You are starting off with a "branch" that has no "root" and you're asking me how such a "branch" can be alive. If I were to answer this question, I'd agree with you and say it cannot be alive - But I cannot answer this question since this is NOT my position at all.

Instead, I have started off with a "branch" that has no "leaves" and I'm claiming it could be alive by itself initially - and I'd further confirm that it is indeed alive when later, at the time of sprouting, I see the "leaves" out of (Greek - ek) the "branch". On the other hand, I could categorically state that a "branch" without "leaves", at the time of sprouting, is indeed dead.

It is my understanding that James has been implicitly talking about faith and works - at the time of sprouting of works and not at the initial time preceding such sprouting. And though I'd concede there is no explicit text that I've come across yet in Scripture to support this "time of sprouting", and that this is only a natural derivative of the position I hold now - I'd likewise expect you to either point out inconsistencies in the position I hold or concede that my position is also possible to be the truth.

In the above quote of yours, you've only dealt with a straw man - asking how branches(faith) can be alive without the root(works). And I've stated with the whole set of derivative premises that branches(faith) can be alive initially without the leaves(works). If you find inconsistencies in the position that I hold and not some other mistaken position, I'd be willing to clarify.

This argument doesn't logically follow. If faith is alive before it has works then faith without works is alive not dead as the apostle said.

The perceived discrepancy here is due to different points of applying the apostle's statement. When James asks one to show his faith by his works - according to my model - it is naturally after the time of sprouting of works - and during the entire length of such time, his statement that faith without works is dead is indeed true as shown in the first part of my model. The argument is still consistent with my model - though obviously inconsistent with yours.

You'll have to point out internal inconsistencies within my model or external inconsistencies between Scripture and this(not your) model's interpretation of such Scripture - for this discussion to be concluded against my model's position. On the other hand, I believe my case primarily rests on James 2:21-23, Heb 11:17 to show an apparent inconsistency between Scripture and your model's interpretation of it. May the discussion proceed towards a conclusion.

 

[Butch5]

I think this is nearly an accurate written representation of the 2 earlier model diagrams, representing each of our positions - only, instead of saying "works produced by faith" is simply something made by it, I'd say it is caused by it - since I hold them to be connected but distinct entities. Right, you have presented your understanding of Heb 11:17 - that "They do proceed from faith, they are not the "product" of faith". Let's apply this general understanding of yours to the specifics of Heb 11:17 -

Point 1. Abraham's WORK of offering up Isaac proceeds from Abraham's FAITH, but it is not the product of his FAITH - implying ->
Point 1a. that this Abraham's WORK of offering Isaac precedes and forms a part of his FAITH.

Do you think I've represented the above statement and inference accurately, in accordance to your position - or am I mistakenly dealing with a straw man here?

Now let's proceed to James 2:21-23 -
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
James is asking us - "Do you see". From where are we to see - from the rhetoric he presented in Jas 2:21 - "how Abraham's FAITH labored together with his WORKS..."?

But what is this Abraham's WORKS that James presents us with in Jas 2:21 - the same as in Heb 11:17 - that of offering up Isaac. So we get,
Point 2. Abraham's FAITH labored together with his WORK of offering up Isaac and by this WORK was his FAITH made complete/fulfilled.

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Jas 2:24 is the conclusion - drawing from the preceding verses. We have determined from Jas 2:21 that the WORKS in Jas 2:24 refers to Abraham offering up Isaac. But what is the FAITH in Jas 2:24 referring to - "Ye see then..."
Point 3. It is Abraham's FAITH presented in Jas 2:23 that is said to be justified by his WORK of offering up Isaac.

And since Jas 2:21-23 are only an illustration to uphold Jas 2:20 - by association, Jas 2:20 then amounts to -
Point 4. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that Abraham's justifying FAITH of Gen 15:6 without his WORK of offering up Isaac in Gen 22 is dead?

But compare Points 1a and 3,4 here -
How do you reconcile the contradiction from these points that Abraham's offering up Isaac in Gen 22 precedes and forms a part of his justifying faith in Gen 15:6 ?

In the rest of this post, I've clarified the issues you've raised against my position. I'd similarly request my above query to be clarified and responded to.



Note the above quoted part in bold - that's the presupposition I've been talking about. Works are a part of faith only in your model - not in mine. According to my presupposition, faith and works are connected but distinct entities. So no, I do not expect them in faith - and hence, the passages I mentioned do not run into an issue in reconciling this presupposition that you hold and that I don't. As to which of our presuppositions is a true doctrine of Scripture - we'll have to continue discussing our points of argument.


You have asserted my conclusion to be invalid - and yet my above explanation has not been addressed and factored in into your assertion. In your understanding of what I'm saying - You are starting off with a "branch" that has no "root" and you're asking me how such a "branch" can be alive. If I were to answer this question, I'd agree with you and say it cannot be alive - But I cannot answer this question since this is NOT my position at all.

Instead, I have started off with a "branch" that has no "leaves" and I'm claiming it could be alive by itself initially - and I'd further confirm that it is indeed alive when later, at the time of sprouting, I see the "leaves" out of (Greek - ek) the "branch". On the other hand, I could categorically state that a "branch" without "leaves", at the time of sprouting, is indeed dead.

It is my understanding that James has been implicitly talking about faith and works - at the time of sprouting of works and not at the initial time preceding such sprouting. And though I'd concede there is no explicit text that I've come across yet in Scripture to support this "time of sprouting", and that this is only a natural derivative of the position I hold now - I'd likewise expect you to either point out inconsistencies in the position I hold or concede that my position is also possible to be the truth.

In the above quote of yours, you've only dealt with a straw man - asking how branches(faith) can be alive without the root(works). And I've stated with the whole set of derivative premises that branches(faith) can be alive initially without the leaves(works). If you find inconsistencies in the position that I hold and not some other mistaken position, I'd be willing to clarify.


The perceived discrepancy here is due to different points of applying the apostle's statement. When James asks one to show his faith by his works - according to my model - it is naturally after the time of sprouting of works - and during the entire length of such time, his statement that faith without works is dead is indeed true as shown in the first part of my model. The argument is still consistent with my model - though obviously inconsistent with yours.

You'll have to point out internal inconsistencies within my model or external inconsistencies between Scripture and this(not your) model's interpretation of such Scripture - for this discussion to be concluded against my model's position. On the other hand, I believe my case primarily rests on James 2:21-23, Heb 11:17 to show an apparent inconsistency between Scripture and your model's interpretation of it. May the discussion proceed towards a conclusion.

Hi ivdavid,

Again, you've not explained how this faith is alive without works. You said,

Instead, I have started off with a "branch" that has no "leaves" and I'm claiming it could be alive by itself initially

Can you show me where Scripture teaches this and how it is not opposed to what James teaches?

As I said earlier, these posts take a long time to write and I don't see any point in addressing something that has not been proven from Scripture. I'm not really interested in debating ideas, I'm simply looking for what the Scriptures teach.

As I pointed out earlier, James said, 'I'll show you my faith out of my works.' For faith to come out of works the works must first exist.

 

[ivdavid]

As I said earlier, these posts take a long time to write and I don't see any point in addressing something that has not been proven from Scripture. I'm not really interested in debating ideas, I'm simply looking for what the Scriptures teach.

Don't be uncharitable - I have discussed your 'ideas' patiently enough and will continue to do so. I have pointed out again in my last post an apparent contradiction in your position against Scripture which still needs reconciling - and until you've addressed it, you'll have to concede that your statements too are mere ideas to me that are not proven from Scripture.

This is how a discussion works - you present your points and I present mine. You ask me to clarify my points while responding to my queries - and I do the same. That's quite not what's happening here - you ask your queries and I have responded to them - while you pass over many of my critical queries. And this is because you deem my points unscriptural according to what you've understood of my position - while somehow I'm not entitled to the same privilege?

I shall again uphold my end of the discussion and respond to your queries here - but as I'd written in my previous post -

How do you reconcile the contradiction from these points(refer my previous post) that Abraham's offering up Isaac in Gen 22 precedes and forms a part of his justifying faith in Gen 15:6 ?

In the rest of this post, I've clarified the issues you've raised against my position. I'd similarly request my above query to be clarified and responded to.

The Greek literally translates, "I will show you my faith out of my works." It's the Greek word "ek" it means out of. What James is saying is that his faith comes out of his works. Therefore there is no way that faith can be alive if works are not present. He states plainly that his faith come out of his works.

As I pointed out earlier, James said, 'I'll show you my faith out of my works.' For faith to come out of works the works must first exist.

And you've reached this conclusion only based on this usage of the greek word 'ek' ? Letter of the text against the meaning of the text? James does not say "faith comes out of his works" - that's your interpretation derived from your assumptions that this could be the only way it can be understood. James only said "one can see his faith out of his works". This is quite similar to saying "one can judge a tree out of its fruit"[Matt 12:33] - am I to then conclude that the tree comes out of its fruit and that the fruit precedes the tree based on this greek word 'ek' and insist that this is the only interpretation possible from Scripture?

Now, you've raised a query against my position that you deemed conclusive enough to disprove my position and I've responded to it showing how that is not so - if you have further queries arising from this response of mine, ask and I shall clarify, else retract your assertive conclusion that my position is contradicted by Scripture. I too have raised queries and currently hold your position to be unscriptural until you've clarified them - which I should remind you, hasn't been done yet.

Can you show me where Scripture teaches this and how it is not opposed to what James teaches?

I showed you Heb 11 - and you dismissed it. On what grounds? You gave an elaborate reply on how Heb 11:17 implies works come out of faith but are not caused by faith - and hence your position is upheld where works do precede faith. While such technicalities may amount to something in isolation, it still doesn't explain Heb 11:17 - and how does it even disprove my position, when all you've done is only assert your own interpretation here?
Direct question : Do you reckon from Heb 11:17 that Abraham's offering up Isaac(Gen 22) preceded his faith in God's ability/nature to keep His promises(Gen 15:5;17:19) to Abraham?

If I were to adopt your approach to this discussion, I should write nothing more than such questions, insist on a reply while not clarifying your important queries, and deem anything else a detraction of my time. Does that seem fair to you? So, please respond to the contradictions I've raised and do ask me to further clarify any point of mine, where necessary.