Is belief "works"?

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

However, there is nothing in text of John 5:24 affirming that the transition from death to life is irrevocable.

On the contrary, the word echo, translated "has" in the passage, connotes something in own's possession that is eternal. That means it cannot be taken back. Not only is he/she in the purpose of God, and in the covenant of His grace, and in the hands of Christ, and in faith and hope, but he/she has a right to salvation by benefit of that faith and hope. He/she has a claim on it, according to the declaration of the gospel of Christ. Additionally, the believer has the principle of it in him/herself, through the grace of God. He/She has also a propriety, or suitability, for salvation because of the finished work of Jesus Christ in him/her, a thing that will be accomplished without fail through the Holy Spirit, Who is the pledge and earnest -- the down payment -- of it.

 

[Webb]

Webb we all are responsible to look into what the message SAYS. YOU keyed in on the Greek, and it is a debaters technique to take the focus off of the message and divert attention to something else. Agian you are responsible as a believer priest to test the message not the messenger. You obviously dont want to look into the message and turn the focus to the messenger.

I said what I said and it is up to you to look into the message.

Jarrod I DID NOT introduce the Greek, you did, stop the cover-up. Your argument was based upon the Greek, now, your sources and credentials please?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Jarrod I DID NOT introduce the Greek, you did, stop the cover-up. Your argument was based upon the Greek, now, your sources and credentials please?

You have a credible source. I gave it to you. Anyone can use a Greek concordance, so the credentials are irrelevant. Why not address the issue rather than attempting to question his scholarship?

 

[gr8grace]

Jarrod I DID NOT introduce the Greek, you did, stop the cover-up. Your argument was based upon the Greek, now, your sources and credentials please?

I am under no obligation to give you any Information webb, and I take offence that you think that I am obligated to give you anything! And you knew it would come to this so you can keep your false doctrine , never look into what I have said and label me with what ever label you see fit. Because you know that eternal security was presented to you with bible doctrine and you do not want to leave your man made theology . and all I want to see is YOU come to the true Knowledge of Grace but you want to discredit me and throw me under the Bus, and I sincerely want the best and the truth presented to you.

And I do Pray that one day you can see Grace for what Grace truly is.

 

[Webb]

Jarrod, I would be perfectly happy to entertain this matter with you on the one-on-one if you will expose your sources.

 

[gr8grace]

webb NO I want to do it out here. You lay out a refutation of what I have said and I will give you my sources. You have NOT addressed ONE thing I have said in the post In Question. I dont even have an Idea of what you want to take to task so why should I be obligated to any of your requests.

 

[Webb]

Jarrod
I agreed with your first paragraph but not your conclusions in the following paragraphs in which you attempted to tell me what the Greek meant. You are responsible for what you write and no part or parts of your posts should be decided by you as being off-limits. Thus, as stated I will meet you on the one-on-one when you divulge your credentials and sources. You, sir, built your entire argument upon the Greek so put them out in your proposition on the one-on-one, otherwise I have better things to attend to.
God bless

 

[gr8grace]

Jarrod
I agreed with your first paragraph but not your conclusions in the following paragraphs in which you attempted to tell me what the Greek meant. You are responsible for what you write and no part or parts of your posts should be decided by you as being off-limits. Thus, as stated I will meet you on the one-on-one when you divulge your credentials and sources. You, sir, built your entire argument upon the Greek so put them out in your proposition on the one-on-one, otherwise I have better things to attend to.
God bless

Webb, I wish you could see that I DID put them out in My post, I could tell you I am professor and Have been teaching Greek for 30 years and still present to you wrong information!!! It does not matter what credentials ANY person has, it is up to us as believer priests to look into the message and see for ourselves if what is being said is true. I wish you would look into it, and if I am wrong then you can show me and I will not ask for ONE of your sources or credentials. I will just give your message a good thorough look and come to a conclusion.

I never made them off limits, you did. You never gave me ONE word that was in Question, you put them off limits until I gave you credentials. Why did you specifically not agree to myconclusions in the following paragraphs? Because you needed credentials first. I never once stopped you from looking into anything in my post.

 

[reba]

A reminder guys :

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

 

[Webb]

Hi Jarrod. You wrote: "Why did you specifically not agree to my conclusions in the following paragraphs? Because your conclusions were based upon the Greek. I simply ask for the sources and credentials. But until then, my time with this is no more.
God bless

 

[gr8grace]

Hi Jarrod. You wrote: "Why did you specifically not agree to my conclusions in the following paragraphs? Because your conclusions were based upon the Greek. I simply ask for the sources and credentials. But until then, my time with this is no more.
God bless

I meant no disrespect. And respect your decision.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Guys, this needs to go off the thread. PM one another. You've completely derailed the thread for everyone else.

 

[dadof10]

Abraham had faith in the promise of a son who would inherit the blessing on his behalf.

You are like a punch-drunk boxer with one eye swollen shut, sucking wind, arms feeling like dead weight, coming out for the 13th round, just throwing hay-makers in an attempt to land ANYTHING, hoping for the knockout. This is sad.

According to Scripture, Abraham had faith that God could give him a son (small "s"), Isaac. This is the faith that justified him, faith in God's promise of a son, not in God's promise of a Messiah. Gal. 3:16 doesn't say what you want it to. If you disagree, simply provide an exegesis of the verse like I did.

It shouldn't be that "hard".

That is the faith that justifies. That is the promise that we, also, put our faith in and are justified by.

Abraham didn't have faith in the promise of a Messiah. If you think he did, simply post the verses. If you think Gal. 3:16 proves your point, break down the verse.

This shouldn't be "hard" for you to do.

Again, Abraham had faith in the promise of a son who would inherit the blessing on his behalf. That is the faith that justifies. That is the promise that we, also, put our faith in and are justified.

You're making this waaaay too hard for yourself.

Let me try...

Ctl+C...Ctl+V

Abraham didn't have faith in the promise of a Messiah. If you think he did, simply post the verses. If you think Gal. 3:16 proves your point, break down the verse.

Wow, you are right. That wasn't hard at all. That's what I'll do from now on, just post irrelevant verses, not worry about what they actually say, then just keep repeating my contention, using the copy-paste commands....Again, sad.

Christ is that seed. Christ is the full and complete fulfillment of that promise. Abraham, Issac, and Jacob all had faith that God would keep his promise...and were justified by that faith. It is the same for us. That is what Paul teaches.

Demonize it, and twist it all you want. This is not hard.

Again, the promise in Gal. 3:16 was NOT the promise of a "Seed", but of the Spirit. The "Seed" or "Offspring" RECEIVED the promise. And PLEASE remember you said that "Isaac and Jacob...were JUSTIFIED by that faith", we'll be returning to this later.

Abraham was justified by his faith in the promises made to him. So are we when we place our faith in the promises made to Abraham. Promises we now know the full details about that he did not. You have read Galatians 3, right?

Yes, have you? Just do a proper exegesis and show me where the the "promise" is the promise of a Messiah...Waiting

Against all hope we also believe that God will do the impossible--provide a Son that will inherit the blessing on our behalf. Because honest and humble people know there is absolutely no way to inherit that blessing through what we do.

No, you are failing plain Biblical teaching. We are justified when we believe that God will surely keep his promise about a son coming from our own bodies that will inherit the blessings of God on our behalf. That is how a person is justified, not by doing other righteous things. That is what the Bible teaches.

"Coming from our own bodies"??? Please explain.

Now you know what it means that Christ inherited the blessing on our behalf. We enjoy that blessing when we are included in the body of Christ, where God's favor rests, by that Holy Spirit.

Abraham had faith in God's promise of a seed. Why are you making this so hard?

The Truth is hard, error is easy. It's easy to make up your own doctrine then ignore any Biblical proof to the contrary. It's hard to actually DEFEND your position using well-thought-out arguments and deal with all counter arguments. It's easy to simply copy and paste your lecture over and over.

Again, Galatians 3:16 doesn't say "Abraham had faith in God's promise of a seed" referring to Christ. If you think it does, just lay it out for me.

I do not subscribe to OSAS doctrine.

Really? This is a switch, then. Can someone who is saved lose that salvation? If so, how does this happen?

Don't broad stroke all the instances of faith in Hebrews 11 as not being saving faith. I'm not. The point is, I don't know the extent of revelation Abraham had about a son in Genesis 12, and neither do you. But that's not important, because the point is the blessing of redemption comes through faith in the promised seed.

Yes it is important to know if justification can be lost.

We learn about Abraham's revelation of a son, the seed of promise, in Genesis 15. And that is where we are told that his faith in that promise is reckoned to him as righteousness. It's impossible to argue the point.

I'm not arguing the point. I'm saying Abraham was JUSTIFIED TWICE, once in Gen. 12 and once in Gen. 15.

Unless you can simply guide me to the passage that tells us he was made righteous at some point before that, okay? Not where he had faith before that, but where it plainly says that his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness before Genesis 15. That's all you have to do.

It's in the same verse that proves that "Issac, and Jacob all had faith that God would keep his promise...and were justified by that faith."

It's also in the same verses that say Cornelius' and his household's "faith was reckoned to him as righteousness", Peter's "faith was reckoned to him as righteousness", Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's "faith was reckoned to them as righteousness".

Do you get my point? YOU think all these people were justified, yet Scripture doesn't specifically SAY their "faith was reckoned to them as righteousness". Why would you expect it to be proved in Abraham's case, yet simply accept the other's? You have no problem saying (in the baptism thread) that Cornelius and his household were "justified" because the Holy Spirit came upon them, even though Luke doesn't specifically SAY they were, yet in this thread you demand proof, that the exact words "was reckoned righteous" be applied to Abraham in Gen. 12 or you won't believe it.

This is a typical example of eisegesis. You bring your heretical, biased viewpoint into Scripture and attempt to make all Scripture fit into IT. This is what is truly sad.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You are like a punch-drunk boxer with one eye swollen shut, sucking wind, arms feeling like dead weight, coming out for the 13th round, just throwing hay-makers in an attempt to land ANYTHING, hoping for the knockout. This is sad.

First, this is a rude comment that is not warranted for any reason.

According to Scripture, Abraham had faith that God could give him a son (small "s"), Isaac. This is the faith that justified him, faith in God's promise of a son, not in God's promise of a Messiah. Gal. 3:16 doesn't say what you want it to. If you disagree, simply provide an exegesis of the verse like I did.

Your exegesis ignores the fact that Jesus and Paul both called Abraham the father of faith. If it were merely faith that God would give him a son, it would not warrant this grand compliment to an otherwise obscure farmer from Ur of the Chaldees, the fact that Abraham's faith reckoned to him as righteousness is not limited to the events of the few minutes prior to that reckoning, but the entire process through which Abraham pulled up his tent stakes and traveled to an unknown land to follow God who was foreign to His people.

It ignores the fact that the Abrahamic Covenant entails the Land (Israel), the Seed (Christ), and the Blessing (salvation). One of the most striking statements Abraham had of the true nature of the blessings promised to him comes, appropriately, at the occurrence of the official inauguration of the covenant, in which God swears by himself that he will give Abraham a seed and a land (Gen. 15). Although God had promised Abraham several specific things falling into the general categories of land, seed, and blessing, when he sums up all those blessings at once, he declares, “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield and your exceeding great reward” (Gen. 15:1).

At the heart of the covenant, then, God himself is the intended fulfillment of the promise. Therefore, every true understanding of the promised blessings must be able to be subsumed under that head. The land promised to Abraham was only included in the promise because it was integral, in some way, to the reality of having God as his portion. This point is vital for understanding the nature of the promises as they relate to Abraham and his seed. Yes, the Lord made Abraham the father of many nations: Israelites, Edomites, and twelve Arab nations all sprang from his loins. But the ultimate fulfillment of his being made a father to a great people, or to many nations, could only come by his being a father to those whose exceeding great reward was Jehovah. Hence, when we find the original promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12 repeated and developed in Genesis 17, we find the very essence of the covenant promise made manifestly clear.

Genesis 17 NASB
4 "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you,
And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
5 "No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.
6 "I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you.
7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.
8 "I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." [Emphasis added]​

At the heart of this reiterated covenant promise is the reality that Abraham’s true seed would be those whose God would be Jehovah. This promise, “I will be their God,” is given twice, once in connection with the seed that Abraham would father, and once in connection with the land that God would give to them. It is readily apparent from these verses that the Immanuel principle — the principle of God being the God of a certain people and dwelling with them alone of all the nations of the earth — is a vital principle for understanding the promise made to Abraham. At the heart of the seed and land promises, and in fact what constitutes the very essence of those promises, is the reality that Jehovah will be their God. This “Immanuel principle” is the substance of all later redemptive history, and the precise content of the Abrahamic covenant.

 

[dadof10]

I have done that. You're entitled to not accept those answers. Rejecting my answers doesn't mean I didn't answer them.

It isn't your answers were inadequate, they are nonexistent. You DIDN'T answer. You could land one of those hay-makers if you could prove me wrong here.

Where is your answer to this?

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.

Or this?

The point of Hebrews is that you must continue in your faith in that one time declaration of perfection (justification) in order to remain in that one time declaration of righteousness. So you can see this has nothing to do with OSAS.

To which, I countered...

OK. Here comes another chance. "Persevere to the end" in what kind of faith, Jethro? This is what we are discussing, whether the "faith" in Hebrews is a "saving faith". Is it your contention that the author of Hebrews is exhorting people to persevere in non-saving faith? This is yet another clue as to the nature of the faith being talked about. First there was the reference to Rahab and the faith she had, which James says "justified", then there is this "TEACHING" (your word) about perseverance. I think it's pretty obvious what "kind" of faith the author is talking about.

That Hebrews 11 is about "saving faith", is not in dispute by anyone but you. Catholic and Protestants agree, it's saving faith here.

Where was your response??? Sadly, silence... You are not really interested in moving the conversation forward, only in lecturing us underlings with your superior intellect.

Now, all you have to do is show me where it says we are justified--made legally righteous before God--on the merit of work done (outside of the 'work' of believing, of course). That's all you have to do...and then we can unplug the coffee pot, put the lights out, and go home.

Good luck!

Where have I EVER made this claim? Where does the Catholic Church teach this? More straw-man argumentation .

If you would care to know what I ACTUALLY believe, instead of the caricature you have been taught, here you go. Because if you know what I actually believe you will stop the straw-ma.....never mind...

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

 

[WIP]

I am going to repeat what Reba has already posted just a few posts back.

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

 

[dadof10]

Your exegesis ignores the fact that Jesus and Paul both called Abraham the father of faith. If it were merely faith that God would give him a son, it would not warrant this grand compliment to an otherwise obscure farmer from Ur of the Chaldees, the fact that Abraham's faith reckoned to him as righteousness is not limited to the events of the few minutes prior to that reckoning, but the entire process through which Abraham pulled up his tent stakes and traveled to an unknown land to follow God who was foreign to His people.

Let's stop right here. The episode in red above was in Gen. 12. I don't see where we disagree. My only contention concerning Abraham in this thread is that Abraham was justified, "reckoned righteous", when he "pulled up tent stakes" in Gen. 12. You seem to agree.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Let's stop right here. The episode in red above was in Gen. 12. I don't see where we disagree. My only contention concerning Abraham in this thread is that Abraham was justified, "reckoned righteous", when he "pulled up tent stakes" in Gen. 12. You seem to agree.

It seemed to me your set-up indicated that the reckoning was based solely on Abraham's belief he would receive a son, not that God would send a Messiah. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

According to Scripture, Abraham had faith that God could give him a son (small "s"), Isaac. This is the faith that justified him, faith in God's promise of a son, not in God's promise of a Messiah.

The point is that son was to inherit the promises on his behalf. He believed that and was declared righteous as a result. There are no details of Christ available at this time. The specifics of the Christ have not been revealed yet at this time. But, nevertheless, his faith is in what he does know about a son that will inherit the blessing.

The point is, Abraham had faith in what details were available at the time as to the son that would inherit the blessings on his behalf. He is establishing the truth for all people of how God grants righteousness based on one's belief in his promise of a son who would inherit the blessing on our behalf (because we can't inherit it ourselves), not granted on the basis of work completed.

The problem is coming to the conclusion that any and all faith in God justifies for the purpose of defending a 'faith + works' gospel. That is in complete and total defiance of what we now know, that one must have faith in the work of Christ to be justified, not have faith to go to church, read a Bible, call yourself a Christian, etc. I had that level of faith once. I'd even tell you I had faith in Christ, but I was not justified, and therefore born again by that faith. My faith was not yet in the sufficiency of Christ's blood alone to make me righteous. It was not until I had I heard about and trusted in God's promise of a Son, and all that implies, that I was justified by my faith...alone, apart from (other) work. To suggest I was justified before that is to completely defy the gospel of Jesus Christ. And worse, to suggest that I was justified by what I did before that.

 

[dadof10]

It seemed to me your set-up indicated that the reckoning was based solely on Abraham's belief he would receive a son, not that God would send a Messiah. Sorry if I misunderstood.

You didn't misunderstand. That's what Gal. 3:16 says, and this is what we are discussing. It says the "promise of the Spirit through faith" was GIVEN to Abraham and his "Seed" or "Offspring", referring to Christ. The "promise" mentioned here is not the promise of a Messiah, but the promise "of the Spirit through faith", and that promise was MADE TO Christ.

I'm curious, though as to your take on Abraham's justification. You seem to agree with me that he was justified when he "pulled up tent stakes" in Gen. 12. That would mean that he was justified twice, once here and again in Gen. 15, indicating that OSAS is false. Gotta get to work...