Is belief "works"?

[savedbygrace57]

Is belief "works"?

No

Yes. Its something accomplished or performed with the Mind. The definition of works is :

business, employment, that which any one is occupied

a) that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking

2) any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind

3) an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opp. to that which is less than work

 

[Grazer]

Yes. Its something accomplished or performed with the Mind. The definition of works is :

business, employment, that which any one is occupied

a) that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking

2) any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind

3) an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opp. to that which is less than work

But I'm told to love God with my mind

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

I'm getting old, refresh my memory. Show me again where the Bible says we are justified by righteous deeds.

If you want shorter posts, speak to the actual subject.

I'm doing that.

Actual subject: Show me once again in the Bible where it says righteous deeds justify.

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.

That may be true for you, but for me I can rattle off a long post in just a few minutes if it works out that way. What slows me down is my purposeful effort to carefully articulate what I say to get my post across understandably. If I know I can't do that in the time I have to do that (I presently am working in a 10 minute window of time) I'll wait until I have the time to do that. So, stop making wrong judgments.

Well, "sassy" is a little effeminate, but "lively" would fit...

I was thinking more in the line of childish, like a child who refuses to acknowledge what he knows to be right, yet stomps his feet in protest anyway in the interest of serving the little monster's selfish agenda.

...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.

Conviction is fine. Stubborn refusal of plain facts is NOT.

Despite what some want to say, this is NOT a disputable matter in the church. Purposely making it disputable does NOT make it a legitimate disputable matter. The Catholic Church blew it and some godly men led us out of the darkness imposed on the people of God through their 'justification by works' gospel.

 

[savedbygrace57]

But I'm told to love God with my mind

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Thats a work too !

 

[Grazer]

Thats a work too !

And? It's what were told to do so either its a work and I'm spreading a false gospel by command or it doesn't count as a work in the way you're arguing;

Deuteronomy 6:1-2, 5 NIV

These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Matthew 22:36-38 NIV

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.

Mark 12:28-30 NIV

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'

Luke 10:25-28 NIV

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

So how do we love with our mind if its work which we can't do?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[savedbygrace57]

grazer

And?

And its a work. Salvation is not by our works, Sorry !

 

[Grazer]

grazer



And its a work. Salvation is not by our works, Sorry !

Who said it would save us? I've just pointed out that loving with our minds is what we are supposed to do and shown where Jesus says so. You want to refute those passages? Or accept that loving with our minds doesn't constitute salvation by works?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[savedbygrace57]

grazer

Who said it would save us?

A Lot of people. Have you ever heard of anyone saying they are saved because they believe or had faith ? I have, too many to name !

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

So, are you arguing that they had the 'righteousness of law', or, like David they discovered the forgiveness of God outside of the law and their obedience is the result of that righteousness? Which one do you want to defend?

 

[Grazer]

grazer



A Lot of people. Have you ever heard of anyone saying they are saved because they believe or had faith ? I have, too many to name !

But I'm not one of them so please address the point I've made

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Agape]

grazer



A Lot of people. Have you ever heard of anyone saying they are saved because they believe or had faith ? I have, too many to name !

When you evangelize, do you proclaim the Gospel of Jesus or preach a sermon on the doctrine of election?

 

[dadof10]

"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)

Uhh...No. Again, you are throwing something against the wall to see if it will stick. This doesn't. Let's remember what you are trying to prove:

"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."

Let's look at Gal. 3 IN CONTEXT and see if Paul says Abraham had "faith in the seed promised to Eve".

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree" -- 14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3)

So, was the "promise" Paul is referencing the "seed promised to Eve" (Christ)? Nope! It is the "promise of the Spirit". Let's keep reading...

15 To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ."

The promises "of the Spirit through faith" were made to Abraham and "his offspring". Read that again, the promises were made to Christ. How in the world can you interpret the "promise" as "faith in the seed", or in Christ here? You have Paul saying that Christ was promised TO CHRIST!!! Absurd!!!

So, what does Paul mean?

17 This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

The "promise of the Spirit through faith" was given to Abraham BEFORE THE MOSAIC LAW, so the promised Holy Spirit is not dependent on the LAW. (Oh...there's that word again).

"18 For if the inheritance [the promised "Spirit"] is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it [the promised "Spirit"] to Abraham by a promise."

Again, Paul is contrasting the "promise of the Spirit through faith" with all law....no, wait...the moral law...no, that's not it...uhhh....the Mosaic Law...That's it...

Did the moral law, or whatever you mean by "all law", come 430 years after Abraham? Do you think Paul is talking about "all" law here? This is yet another proof that by "law" Paul means the Mosaic Law, as if you needed any more. The evidence is overwhelming....but I digress...

To claim that the "promise of the Spirit through faith" equates to the promise of a Messiah, that Abraham was saved BY that faith and that the promise of a Messiah was given TO CHRIST, is laughable. Certainly there was a promised "Seed" and it is Christ, but Paul is not speaking to this subject here.


You seem confused as to whether "faith" in Hebrews 11 means "saving faith" let me see if I can help you.

"By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies." (.v. 31)

This verse corresponds to James 2:24:

And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you believe that it's ONLY faith that justifies? Don't you believe that James is talking about "saving faith" here? Don't you believe that Rahab was justified by her "SAVING FAITH", which was demonstrated by her ACTIONS?

So I'm not accused of "twisting" or "distracting", let me lay this out for you, Jethro.

1) According to you, Rahab and Abraham were justified by their faith alone.
2) According to you, James is all about a "saving faith" that is "shown" by "works".
3) According to you, when Rahab "received the messengers...", she was "showing" her "saving faith".
4) The author of Hebrews makes a reference to Rahab's "faith" and this act in Hebrews 11.
5) There is no difference to the author of Hebrews between Rahab's "faith" and all the other "faith"'s mentioned.
6) If the "faith" of Rahab's was "saving", then the other references to "faith" in the chapter are "saving" also.
7) The "faith" being referenced in Heb. 11 is saving faith, and Abraham was justified in Gen. 12.

Since it's a FACT he was justified TWICE, OSAS is a man-made myth.

There is an example of "letting Scripture interpret Scripture". The above is airtight and irrefutable. Can't wait for your response, if there is one.

 

[savedbygrace57]

When you evangelize, do you proclaim the Gospel of Jesus or preach a sermon on the doctrine of election?

Read my other threads. What does that have to do with believing being an work ?

 

[Agape]

What does that have to do with believing being an work ?

simply approaching the problem under a different angle. You said that many people say they are saved because they believe or had faith. Is this wrong?
What did Paul and Silas tell the jailer to do in order to be saved? (Acts 16:31)

 

[dadof10]

I'm getting old, refresh my memory. Show me again where the Bible says we are justified by righteous deeds.

I have, and so have others here. Jesus days keeping the commandments leads to "eternal life". Paul says "woman will be saved through childbearing". James says Abraham was justified by his willingness to sacrifice his son and Rahab was justified by her dealings with the spies. Peter says baptism saves.

You twist these plain words in an attempt to fit them is your sola-fide mold.

That being said...

I'm doing that.

Actual subject: Show me once again in the Bible where it says righteous deeds justify.

Nice try. The "subject", which you keep running from, is the meaning of the word "works" to Paul. Your contention is that it means "all righteous deeds", mine is that it means "works of the Mosaic law". I have given you AMPLE Scripture which debunks your ridiculous claim, and all I get back is "oh, yeah, YOU prove it!!!" Here it is again, for all to see...

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 the righteousness 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.

The burden of proof is on you, Jethro, to either debunk the claim that Paul means "the Mosaic Law" or to PROVE that Paul means "all righteous deeds" by the word "works". I'm confident this will be ignored again. If you had any "proof" it would have been posted by now.

That may be true for you, but for me I can rattle off a long post in just a few minutes if it works out that way. What slows me down is my purposeful effort to carefully articulate what I say to get my post across understandably. If I know I can't do that in the time I have to do that (I presently am working in a 10 minute window of time) I'll wait until I have the time to do that. So, stop making wrong judgments.

Well, go ahead and respond to the above. This is the fourth time I've posted it and I'm still waiting for a response. How does "deeds...done in righteousness" equate to "all righteous works" when Paul clearly ties the "deeds" to "works of the Mosaic law"? Waiting....

I was thinking more in the line of childish, like a child who refuses to acknowledge what he knows to be right, yet stomps his feet in protest anyway in the interest of serving the little monster's selfish agenda.

Ignored...

Conviction is fine. Stubborn refusal of plain facts is NOT.

You mean like the stubborn refusal to answer well thought out points and instead resort to personal attacks? The facts are there for all to see, go ahead and respond.

Despite what some want to say, this is NOT a disputable matter in the church. Purposely making it disputable does NOT make it a legitimate disputable matter.

As long as there is the vile, man-made doctrine of sola-Scriptura, this subject, and practically all others, will be in dispute "in the church". What is sorely needed is submission to proper authority and a lot less pride. Also, a little common sense as to how the Holy Spirit works, but that's another thread...

The Catholic Church blew it and some godly men led us out of the darkness imposed on the people of God through their 'justification by works' gospel.

I thought we put this "justification by works" stuff to bed? I guess you'll go back to any accusation, no matter how ridiculous, when cornered by logic. I posted the truth of the Catholic position to you long ago. You haven't mentioned "justification by works" since, so I assumed you had just accepted the FACT that the Church doesn't teach it. Again, any port in a storm.

 

[dadof10]

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)

Again, excellent point. There were obviously "righteous" people who were made righteous due to their obedience to God's commands.

 

[P31Woman]

Again, excellent point. There were obviously "righteous" people who were made righteous due to their obedience to God's commands.

Reading "the rest of the story" we know he failed.

 

[savedbygrace57]

simply approaching the problem under a different angle. You said that many people say they are saved because they believe or had faith. Is this wrong?
What did Paul and Silas tell the jailer to do in order to be saved? (Acts 16:31)

Believing is a Work. I have no problem with Acts 16:31 ! Paul did not tell him to work to get saved there !

 

[Agape]

Believing is a Work. I have no problem with Acts 16:31 ! Paul did not tell him to work to get saved there !

So let me get this right:

1) You state that belief is a work
2) You agree that the jailer had to believe to be saved
3) You say that work does not save.

Thanks for explaining your explanation.

 

[Davies]

So let me get this right:

1) You state that belief is a work
2) You agree that the jailer had to believe to be saved
3) You say that work does not save.

Thanks for explaining your explanation.

Hi Agape,

I would agree with savedbygrace57. We are justified through God's grace by faith. The only justifying agent is Jesus' righteousness imputed to us just as our sins are imputed to Jesus. We say that Jesus paid for our sins, we must confess that it is His righteousness that justifies us. Faith is the only means of acquiring the gift, and faith in us is a work of God because Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith, Hebrews 12:2.

- Davies