Is belief "works"?

[Jethro Bodine]

"And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

The ruler asked Jesus what should he do to be justified.

We all know obedience accompanies the genuinely saved person. And that saving faith is suspect if it's not accompanied by obedience. That's not the issue. The issue is, what does the actual justifying, the works that faith produces, or the faith that produced them, alone, apart from that work? Where does it say in this passage, or any other passage that the works faith in Christ produces does the actual justifying along with the faith that produced them? It surely doesn't say it here.

"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: `Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'"

Jesus tells him what he needs to do to be justified. He needs to not commit adultery, not kill, not steal, etc. in order to be justified.

Hmmm...you got a problem here, dadof10. You're telling us that Jesus is saying keeping the law is what justifies a person. But Paul plainly said keeping the law does not justify a person. Simple logic tells us it's impossible that Jesus is telling us keeping the law is what we need to do to be justified. Impossible. What we do know is the faith that justifies, all by itself, is the faith that works, and it is in that way that fulfilling the requirements of the law 'save' us, testifying to the validity of the justifying faith that produced them.

"For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;"

God will give eternal life (justification) to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality.

Where does it say that what the person does is what justifies him? What we do know is you have to persevere in the faith that justifies to the end, and that the good works faith in Christ produces will be used as the evidence that proves the validity of that faith, both, in this age and at the Judgment. But these in no way must mean that the work that persevering faith performs does the actual justifying. That is a conclusion you think can be drawn from the passage. But there is no passage of scripture that supports that conclusion. What the scriptures do say is the righteousness of faith "apart from works", and faith, "not...deeds which we have done in righteousness", does the justifying.

There. For the third time, there is my explanation of these verses. Now it's your turn. How would you explain these verses? And PLEASE, use the words of the verses themselves, not any other words that don't appear in the text...

You mean like the word 'justified'?

...like "faith" or "alone" or "all by itself" or "whole council of Scripture".

Jesus does not speak of faith in these passages, so if we use your rule to disregard the whole counsel of scripture, and not use words that don't appear in the passage, then we must conclude that inheriting eternal life is entirely on the merit of 'well doing' and no argument for faith is to be made in regard to that.

So, if we use your narrow, restrictive guidelines to make the passage ignore Paul's teaching about "righteousness (by faith) apart from works" (Romans 4:6) then it's only fair that we also exclude the rest of the Bible's teaching about the role of faith altogether in the matter of salvation and agree the passage is teaching us that eternal life is on the merit of obedience to the commandments alone. But I'm confident you do not want to ignore, through your rules of interpretation, the other Biblical teaching about the role of faith in salvation that Jesus does not mention, but which you insist I must submit to in regard to the passage and how a person is justified.

You need to explain how these verses don't say what the words actually say.

But what about the word that it DOESN'T actually say--the word 'justified'? I don't think it right that you insist we ignore the plain fact that topic is not even being addressed in the passage--just as faith is not being addressed in the passage, but which you would easily argue can not be ignored or discarded in determining how one inherits eternal life.

Even you agree that you don't inherit eternal life by works alone, as Christ seems to be suggesting, and that faith in Christ is implicit in Jesus' counsel to keep the commandments to inherit eternal life, but I'm guessing you don't restrict your beliefs the way you're insisting I restrict mine because that issue is not being addressed in the passage. I'm guessing the 'whole counsel of scripture' is fine for you, but not for me.

It is crystal clear to anyone with a fifth grade education what Paul and Jesus are trying to say. You have to do some pretty creative distorting to NOT come to the obvious conclusion that both verses teach justification by something other than faith alone.

I think even a fifth grader knows 'eternal life' and 'justification' are two different things. Justification is indeed a requirement to inherit eternal life. The thing you can't show us--because the scriptures don't teach it--is that the work we do by our faith is what does the actual justifying along with our faith.

No you haven't. You have shown me where Scripture says faith justifies, but not where it, ALONE (or "all by itself", which means the exact same thing), justifies. That is taught NOWHERE in Scripture.

"5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds (works) which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7 NASB)

The commandments that Jesus said to do to inherit eternal life would surely qualify as 'deeds done in righteousness', yet Paul says we are not saved on the basis of those works themselves but rather on the grace of God justifying us and making us heirs--grace that Paul says elsewhere is accessed through faith, not by works done in righteousness.

 

[veryberry]

Luke 18: 18-20. Jesus was not saying that following the 10 commandments was the way to eternal life. If you continue reading, Jesus was pointing out that you must give up all worldly, fleshly things and follow Jesus, which indicates faith.

Luke 18 : 22 - Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

But when it came down to it, the Ruler chose money and worldy things over putting faith and following Jesus. He could not serve 2 masters.

When it comes to following the commandments, it should be done out of love and through faith, not to inheret eternal life. Without love, then it becomes an obligation, something that your doing in order to gain enternal life instead of something that your doing out of love for God.

Even though the Ruler said he was following the commandments, he still fell short without faith.

In Luke 7: 36-50 - A womans sins were forgiven and because of her faith, she was saved. No where did Jesus state that she must follow the commandments, because Jesus knew her faith was true, and because of that true faith, she would desire to follow the commandments out of love. Luke 7-: 50 Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”

 

[dadof10]

We all know obedience accompanies the genuinely saved person. And that saving faith is suspect if it's not accompanied by obedience. That's not the issue. The issue is, what does the actual justifying, the works that faith produces, or the faith that produced them, alone, apart from that work? Where does it say in this passage, or any other passage that the works faith in Christ produces does the actual justifying along with the faith that produced them? It surely doesn't say it here.

Then WHAT DOES IT SAY? You have managed to tell me what it DOESN'T say, how about a little exegesis for a change?

Hmmm...you got a problem here, dadof10. You're telling us that Jesus is saying keeping the law is what justifies a person. But Paul plainly said keeping the law does not justify a person. Simple logic tells us it's impossible that Jesus is telling us keeping the law is what we need to do to be justified. Impossible.

Again, just because something is in the OT doesn't mean it's "the law". Case in point...

What we do know is the faith that justifies, all by itself, is the faith that works, and it is in that way that fulfilling the requirements of the law 'save' us, testifying to the validity of the justifying faith that produced them.

I'm not the only one with the problem, FAITH IS PART OF "THE LAW" TOO. Is Paul contradicting himself within the same sentence, over and over again because it's "obvious" that EVERYTHING mentioned in the OT is what Paul means by "the law"? Why do you think that faith is EXCLUDED from this definition of "law" when it's mentioned as a necessary component of it? Possibly because it's specifically excluded by Jesus and Paul? Possibly because when Paul says "the law" he doesn't mean everything written in it, but only things that put God in obligation to man?

If you disagree, simply explain how faith, which is part of the law, is logically excluded, yet keeping the commandments, which are also part of the law, are not? They are both mentioned as able to justify.

Where does it say that what the person does is what justifies him?

What does "to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;" mean if not, God will justify (give eternal life to) the person "who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality"? How can it mean anything else? Is "patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality" faith alone to you?

Again, if this verse said ""to those who have faith in Christ, he will give eternal life;" you would say, without a doubt, that this teaches JUSTIFICATION by faith alone. Why can't it simply mean what the words say?

What we do know is you have to persevere in the faith that justifies to the end, and that the good works faith in Christ produces will be used as the evidence that proves the validity of that faith, both, in this age and at the Judgment. But these in no way must mean that the work that persevering faith performs does the actual justifying.

This is what you think the verse says??? Is this supposed to be an exegesis or just another lecture?

That is a conclusion you think can be drawn from the passage. But there is no passage of scripture that supports that conclusion. What the scriptures do say is the righteousness of faith "apart from works", and faith, "not...deeds which we have done in righteousness", does the justifying.

Both of these phrases mean works of the law. This has been pointed out to you and not refuted. If you want to keep posting "deeds...done in righteousness", I will continue to post Paul's biblical meaning of the phrase. See below.

You mean like the word 'justified'?

Jesus does not speak of faith in these passages, so if we use your rule to disregard the whole counsel of scripture, and not use words that don't appear in the passage, then we must conclude that inheriting eternal life is entirely on the merit of 'well doing' and no argument for faith is to be made in regard to that.

So, if we use your narrow, restrictive guidelines to make the passage ignore Paul's teaching about "righteousness (by faith) apart from works" (Romans 4:6) then it's only fair that we also exclude the rest of the Bible's teaching about the role of faith altogether in the matter of salvation and agree the passage is teaching us that eternal life is on the merit of obedience to the commandments alone. But I'm confident you do not want to ignore, through your rules of interpretation, the other Biblical teaching about the role of faith in salvation that Jesus does not mention, but which you insist I must submit to in regard to the passage and how a person is justified.

I don't think it's too much to ask for an exegesis of a passage of Scripture using the actual words of the passage. That's all I'm doing here. I'm only putting "narrow, restrictive guidelines" on your exegesis of THESE passages only. You have a tendency to launch about "faith, all by itself", even though these verses say NOTHING about faith.

But what about the word that it DOESN'T actually say--the word 'justified'? I don't think it right that you insist we ignore the plain fact that topic is not even being addressed in the passage--just as faith is not being addressed in the passage, but which you would easily argue can not be ignored or discarded in determining how one inherits eternal life.

You are the one who who made the connection between "justification" and heaven, which is what "eternal life" means. Need I remind you that I asked what makes you think Jacob and Isaac are JUSTIFIED? In response you posted:

"I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"

What does this mean, but that people who are in the "kingdom of heaven" are justified? Doesn't it logically follow that what Scripture says gets us into heaven (e.g. grants eternal life) justifies?

I'll repost the questions again. Maybe you will seem less evasive if you will answer these simple yes-or-no questions.

1) When a person inherits eternal life, is he saved? Yes or no?
2) When a person inherits eternal life, is he justified? Yes or no?
3) If an action (which includes faith) leads to eternal life, is it a "justifying" action? Yes or no?
4) If an action (which includes faith) leads to eternal life, is it a salvific action? Yes or no?
5) If we do not perform the action, are we justified/saved anyway? Yes or no?

Even you agree that you don't inherit eternal life by works alone, as Christ seems to be suggesting, and that faith in Christ is implicit in Jesus' counsel to keep the commandments to inherit eternal life, but I'm guessing you don't restrict your beliefs the way you're insisting I restrict mine because that issue is not being addressed in the passage. I'm guessing the 'whole counsel of scripture' is fine for you, but not for me.

I'm not asking for a doctrinal thesis on justification. That would just be another distraction, which you are known for. All I'm asking for is for you to interpret ONLY the above verses using the words of the verses. That's it. Just explain them. Here, let me give you a start:

"For he will render to every man according to his works:" means....

"to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life" means...

"And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: `Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'"
" Means...

Just stop trying to tell me what they DON'T mean and give a simple exegesis of the words themselves WITHOUT bringing anything else into your exegesis. It's a pretty simple exercise. I've seen you do it many times....but not here. I wonder why?

I think even a fifth grader knows 'eternal life' and 'justification' are two different things.

Really? Are Isaac and Jacob justified? How do you know? The questions are above waiting to be twisted. Have at it.

Justification is indeed a requirement to inherit eternal life.

"A" requirement? Interesting. Are there other requirements besides justification? So, a person has to be justified and what else? Are there people, then, who are justified, yet in hell, because they didn't meet the other requirements?

The thing you can't show us--because the scriptures don't teach it--is that the work we do by our faith is what does the actual justifying along with our faith.

Ok, so now the qualifier "along with our faith" has been added to your criteria? If I prove that too, will the criteria change to "in Luke's Gospel between the 5th and 7th chapters"? Please...

"5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds (works) which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7 NASB)

Here it is again, the total refutation of your contention that "deeds...done in righteousness" means "all righteous works". I'll just keep posting it until you respond:

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.

"Deeds...done in righteousness" means deeds of the Mosaic Law to Paul.

The commandments that Jesus said to do to inherit eternal life would surely qualify as 'deeds done in righteousness', yet Paul says we are not saved on the basis of those works themselves but rather on the grace of God justifying us and making us heirs--grace that Paul says elsewhere is accessed through faith, not by works done in righteousness.

Again, faith is part of the law, also. "Grace through faith" does not mean "grace through faith alone". That's what is NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE.

 

[dadof10]

Luke 18: 18-20. Jesus was not saying that following the 10 commandments was the way to eternal life.

Then what do those words mean?

If you continue reading, Jesus was pointing out that you must give up all worldly, fleshly things and follow Jesus, which indicates faith.

That the man came to Jesus and asked Him the question indicates faith, don't you think? So, if the man already has faith, why didn't Jesus simply say "you already possess eternal life"? I agree he had faith, why then does Jesus "add" keeping the commandments to his faith? Isn't faith enough?

Luke 18 : 22 - Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

But when it came down to it, the Ruler chose money and worldy things over putting faith and following Jesus. He could not serve 2 masters.

True, but this doesn't speak to the subject. The man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus didn't say "faith alone", in fact, He didn't say "have faith" at all. He said "keep the commandments". I don't see how this is so hard. Obviously faith is necessary for eternal life. Just not faith alone.

When it comes to following the commandments, it should be done out of love and through faith, not to inheret eternal life.

True.

Without love, then it becomes an obligation, something that your doing in order to gain enternal life instead of something that your doing out of love for God.

Ahhh... And that's the point. If a person keeps the commandments "out of love" it is salvific. If it is done to put God in obligation to man, it is not. That's what Paul means by "works for wages".

Even though the Ruler said he was following the commandments, he still fell short without faith.

How do you get this from the text? I agree with your statement, but I don't see it in the text itself.

 

[veryberry]

Then what do those words mean?

True, but this doesn't speak to the subject. The man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus didn't say "faith alone",in fact, He didn't say "have faith" at all. He said "keep the commandments". I don't see how this is so hard. Obviously faith is necessary for eternal life. Just not faith alone.

That the man came to Jesus and asked Him the question indicates faith, don't you think? So, if the man already has faith, why didn't Jesus simply say "you already possess eternal life"? I agree he had faith, why then does Jesus "add" keeping the commandments to his faith? Isn't faith enough?

Yes, the man asked him what he must do to inherit eternal life, but Jesus did not say “keep the commandmentsâ€. Jesus said, “you know the commandmentsâ€. Jesus used this man as a prime example of dead faith which is also explained in James. The man kept the commandments not out of love and faith, but out of obligation to a law. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son because of his faith in God, yet this man was not willing to give up everything for him. Abraham had true faith, this man had dead faith.



If you have True Saving Faith, you will want to follow the commandments naturally out of love and not because they are a set of rules. You will produce fruit out of love and not because you are trying tomake yourself righteous. You cannot make yourself righteous through your works. Your works come as a result of True Saving Faith. If the man had True Saving Faith, he would have given up everything and followed Jesus. Giving up everything would not have saved him, just like following the commandments did not save him.

Ahhh...And that's the point. If a person keeps the commandments "out of love" it is salvific. If it is done to put God in obligation to man, it is not. That's what Paul means by "works for wages".

Doing works (whether out of love or not) IS putting God in obligation to man IF you believe those works save you.

It’s NOT:FAITH + WORKS = SALVATION-------It’s: FAITH = SALVATION + WORKS

How do you get this from the text? I agree with your statement, but I don't see it in the text itself.

When he wouldn’t give everything up and follow Jesus that showed that he had dead faith and by reading James 2 we can see that dead faith does not save us. If the man had True faith he would have given everything to follow Jesus. Also, if you read on, Jesus goes on to say:

(Luke 18:24-25) 24 And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.â€

So yes, The man had “faithâ€(dead faith) and says he followed the commandments, but he did not have love, trust, commitment(true faith), Therefore he fell short.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then WHAT DOES IT SAY? You have managed to tell me what it DOESN'T say, how about a little exegesis for a change?

Just show us where it defends your argument, that keeping the law--even with real love--is what justifies a person. Don't tell us what we already know, that good works accompany genuine justification through faith in the blood of Christ and in that way we are saved by what we do. Show us where it says the work that justifying faith does is what does the justifying along with that faith. That's all you have to do.

Again, just because something is in the OT doesn't mean it's "the law". Case in point...

I'm not the only one with the problem, FAITH IS PART OF "THE LAW" TOO. Is Paul contradicting himself within the same sentence, over and over again because it's "obvious" that EVERYTHING mentioned in the OT is what Paul means by "the law"? Why do you think that faith is EXCLUDED from this definition of "law" when it's mentioned as a necessary component of it? Possibly because it's specifically excluded by Jesus and Paul? Possibly because when Paul says "the law" he doesn't mean everything written in it, but only things that put God in obligation to man?

If you disagree, simply explain how faith, which is part of the law, is logically excluded, yet keeping the commandments, which are also part of the law, are not? They are both mentioned as able to justify.

Paul contrasts faith in the blood of Christ with the law and says faith is the one that can justify, not the law. But you say he's really contrasting some of the law with another part of the law? Show me where faith in the blood of Christ is found in the law so that we can know that faith in the blood of Christ is keeping the law and, therefore, it is in that way that we are justified (made righteous) by keeping the law.

This is what Paul says about faith in regard to the law:

"11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith..." (Galatians 3:11 NIV1984)

What does "to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;" mean if not, God will justify (give eternal life to) the person "who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality"? How can it mean anything else? Is "patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality" faith alone to you?

Stop misunderstanding Paul's argument. Faith does the justifying all by itself, alone, apart from the merit of (other) work. What you're doing is using what we already know--that works accompany genuine justification in Christ--to try to make an argument, in complete contradiction to Paul's teaching, that the work that justifying faith does is what justifies (MAKES righteous) along with that faith.

Again, if this verse said ""to those who have faith in Christ, he will give eternal life;" you would say, without a doubt, that this teaches JUSTIFICATION by faith alone. Why can't it simply mean what the words say?

I'm not saying it says that! I plainly said it's NOT a passage about justification. YOU are the one that is adding 'justification' to the passage. YOU are the one making it a passage about justification.

This is what you think the verse says??? Is this supposed to be an exegesis or just another lecture?

Just show me where Jesus says those works of the law justify us. That's all you have to do. You would do well to agree with me that it is NOT a passage about what justifies.

Both of these phrases mean works of the law. This has been pointed out to you and not refuted. If you want to keep posting "deeds...done in righteousness", I will continue to post Paul's biblical meaning of the phrase.

So, you are simply not going to address what I said that the things Jesus said to do to inherit eternal life are certainly "deeds (works)...done in righteousness"?

I don't think it's too much to ask for an exegesis of a passage of Scripture using the actual words of the passage. That's all I'm doing here.

Actual words of the passage? Really? That's all you're doing? Where is this word 'justified' in the passage? You're the one claiming it's a passage about how to be justified. I told you it is NOT a passage about justification. I'm actually the one staying in the boundaries of the actual words of the passage.

I'm only putting "narrow, restrictive guidelines" on your exegesis of THESE passages only. You have a tendency to launch about "faith, all by itself", even though these verses say NOTHING about faith.

The passage is not about "faith, all by itself". That is Paul's teaching about salvation. Jesus is not even addressing justification here. But since you are going by what is actually written there, and I'm not, surely you can show me where Jesus says some form of the word 'justification'.

You are the one who who made the connection between "justification" and heaven, which is what "eternal life" means. Need I remind you that I asked what makes you think Jacob and Isaac are JUSTIFIED? In response you posted:

"I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"

What does this mean, but that people who are in the "kingdom of heaven" are justified? Doesn't it logically follow that what Scripture says gets us into heaven (e.g. grants eternal life) justifies?

You're grasping.

Justification qualifies you for the kingdom. Only righteous people can be in the kingdom. Salvation is actually entering into the promise of that kingdom, and entering into the reality of it on the Day of Judgment.

I'll repost the questions again. Maybe you will seem less evasive if you will answer these simple yes-or-no questions.

1) When a person inherits eternal life, is he saved? Yes or no?

Yes. That's what inherit eternal life means. That is what we are saved to.

2) When a person inherits eternal life, is he justified? Yes or no?

Yes. Only justified people can inherit eternal life. Justification is what qualifies you to be saved (given eternal life).

3) If an action (which includes faith) leads to eternal life, is it a "justifying" action? Yes or no?

No. Paul PLAINLY says only faith in the blood of Christ can justify (MAKE a person righteous). If you disagree, just show me the verse that says other work makes a person righteous.

4) If an action (which includes faith) leads to eternal life, is it a salvific action? Yes or no?

Yes, because the works faith does is the evidence of having been justified by faith in Christ's blood. Just as God knew that Abraham believed Him in regard to the promises by what he did (Genesis 22:12), which is the argument James makes in his teaching. That is how our works 'save' us (James' argument), while our faith in the blood is what 'justifies' us (Paul's argument).

5) If we do not perform the action, are we justified/saved anyway? Yes or no?

Yes, IF we are really justified. If we can't show our justification by what we do, we don't have the justification that we think we have. That's why we are exhorted to show our faith in works, not to MAKE us righteous, but to prove the validity of our claim to faith and justification in the blood of Christ, the proof that will testify on our behalf on the Day of Judgment and in that sense save us from the Wrath being doled out at that time.

All I'm asking for is for you to interpret ONLY the above verses using the words of the verses. That's it. Just explain them. Here, let me give you a start:

"For he will render to every man according to his works:" means....

"to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life" means...

"And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: `Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'"
" Means...

Just stop trying to tell me what they DON'T mean and give a simple exegesis of the words themselves WITHOUT bringing anything else into your exegesis. It's a pretty simple exercise. I've seen you do it many times....but not here. I wonder why?

Why are you so stubborn? Who is arguing that we are not saved by what we do?????

The issue you don't seem to be able to grasp is justification is by faith, all by itself, apart from works. Jesus isn't even talking about justification! (Remember, you're the one making it a passage about justification--the word that isn't even in the passage). This in no way means works do not have to accompany faith. It means faith does the justifying all by itself. Reread this part of my responses so you can clearly understand the argument.

Jesus is saying what is said elsewhere in the Bible, that we are saved by what we do. But we know from Paul's teaching that it is actually our faith in Christ's blood that does the justifying--only the blood of Christ can make a person righteous. Reread this a few times so you can properly understand the argument and stop hammering me for an argument I'm not even making from Jesus' words! YOU are the one making it a passage about justification, NOT ME.

"A" requirement? Interesting. Are there other requirements besides justification?

For salvation? Yes. Justifying faith works. A claim of faith (that justifies all by itself) that can't be seen outwardly is not the faith that justifies all by itself. Just as a claim of swimming in the pool is not real if it can't be seen outwardly. It is in that way that works are a requirement for salvation (assuming you live long enough to do that), NOT JUSTIFICATION.

Are there people, then, who are justified, yet in hell, because they didn't meet the other requirements?

No. In the same way that there are no people who are dry who have been swimming in the water.

Ok, so now the qualifier "along with our faith" has been added to your criteria?

For justification? No.

Have you really not been understanding the argument all this time? Don't answer that, lol. I know the answer to that. You are not the only one to misunderstand what the argument for "righteousness (by faith) apart from works" actually is. Bad teaching has a way of enduring in the church.

If I prove that too, will the criteria change to "in Luke's Gospel between the 5th and 7th chapters"? Please...

Just show me the verse that says what we do (besides trust in the blood) makes us righteous (justifies us). That's all you have to do. And I'll say it again--don't show me that our works 'save' us on the Day of Wrath. Show me where those works do the actual justifying. That's all you have to do.

Here it is again, the total refutation of your contention that "deeds...done in righteousness" means "all righteous works". I'll just keep posting it until you respond:

You'll have to make up your mind if the law justifies, or it doesn't justify, in order to have a rational discussion with me. So, which is it? You keep changing your argument. You're noted for doing this.

"Deeds...done in righteousness" means deeds of the Mosaic Law to Paul.

It certainly includes that. But you say we ARE justified by works of the law when done in love, aka 'done in righteousness'. Or do we need to redefine 'done in righteousness' now?

Again, faith is part of the law, also. "Grace through faith" does not mean "grace through faith alone". That's what is NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE.

What is it about 'faith in the blood of Christ' that somehow isn't only what it says? It's dishonest to expand it to somehow mean other than just faith and trust in the blood of Christ.

And I will remind you again that faith in the blood of Christ is NOT a matter of law...unless you can show me where it is in the law.

And, again, just show me where it says my works are how I am MADE righteous (justified) before God. That's all you have to do. And follow the rule you laid down and use a passage that has the word 'justified' in it, and don't use the 'whole counsel of scripture' either, your other rule, okay?

 

[dadof10]

Yes, the man asked him what he must do to inherit eternal life, but Jesus did not say “keep the commandmentsâ€. Jesus said, “you know the commandmentsâ€. Jesus used this man as a prime example of dead faith which is also explained in James.

This is the point on which your whole argument hinges. I'm a little confused here. Do you think that when Jesus says "you know the commandments" to the direct question "what must I do to inherit eternal life", He was not answering the question? Do you think Jesus simply used this man as a teaching tool, and didn't answer his direct question?

The man kept the commandments not out of love and faith, but out of obligation to a law.

The text doesn't bear out this interpretation.

 

[dadof10]

Just show us where it defends your argument, that keeping the law--even with real love--is what justifies a person. Don't tell us what we already know, that good works accompany genuine justification through faith in the blood of Christ and in that way we are saved by what we do. Show us where it says the work that justifying faith does is what does the justifying along with that faith. That's all you have to do.

Again, no exegesis. I have explained the passage three times now. If you don't agree, fine, but at least I've used the actual words of the verses to explain them. Something you CAN'T do.

Paul contrasts faith in the blood of Christ with the law and says faith is the one that can justify, not the law. But you say he's really contrasting some of the law with another part of the law? Show me where faith in the blood of Christ is found in the law so that we can know that faith in the blood of Christ is keeping the law and, therefore, it is in that way that we are justified (made righteous) by keeping the law.

Great, so what's IN the law has to be "faith IN THE BLOOD IF CHRIST", specifically, for you to admit that faith is part of the law? Let's continue in this vein and see if you're consistent.

You have made the claim that "baptism is part of the law!!!" complete with exclamation points. Is water baptism, "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" mentioned in the "law"? If not, then I guess baptism is NOT in the law, is it?

In Hebrews 11, the author points out the faith of all the heroes of the OT, then tells US to PERSEVERE IN THAT FAITH. How can you say that the faith they have is somehow inadequate, especially since you tie Abraham's "faith in the Seed, which is Christ" (which is in the LAW) directly to justification?

Was Abraham's faith a "saving faith"? Your argument breaks down fast.

Sorry, faith is part of the law. It was TRUE, "saving" faith ("in the Seed") that was taught in the law and prophets, and this proves my point that when Paul says "works of the law" he does not mean everything written in the OT.

This is what Paul says about faith in regard to the law:

"11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.†12 The law is not based on faith..." (Galatians 3:11 NIV1984)

So, Paul is contrasting faith with the law, which includes faith? This proves, beyond and logical doubt, that when he says "works of the law", he does not mean everything in "the law", but certain "works" that his audience would surely know.

Stop misunderstanding Paul's argument. Faith does the justifying all by itself, alone, apart from the merit of (other) work. What you're doing is using what we already know--that works accompany genuine justification in Christ--to try to make an argument, in complete contradiction to Paul's teaching, that the work that justifying faith does is what justifies (MAKES righteous) along with that faith.

Again, no exegesis of these verses, just more lecturing. Here are the verses in context again, please show me where Paul says "Faith does the justifying all by itself, alone, apart from the merit of (other) work."

"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. 12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

I'm not saying it says that! I plainly said it's NOT a passage about justification. YOU are the one that is adding 'justification' to the passage. YOU are the one making it a passage about justification.

What does this mean then, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified."

Just show me where Jesus says those works of the law justify us. That's all you have to do. You would do well to agree with me that it is NOT a passage about what justifies.

Sorry, I can't totally ignore Paul's context for my own personal "theology".

So, you are simply not going to address what I said that the things Jesus said to do to inherit eternal life are certainly "deeds (works)...done in righteousness"?

You must be joking. Here it is one more time. When Paul says "deeds...done in righteousness", he means "righteousness under the law" and "righteousness of my own, based on law," and "righteousness under the law" and "Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law" and "Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it."

Your attempt to tie Paul's "deeds...done in righteousness" to all deeds that YOU SUBJECTIVELY CONSIDER "RIGHTEOUS" is a false argument. You must see this, because you are the one who refuses to even acknowledge the verses I posted, let alone, even respond to them.

Again, Paul is talking about deeds that are part of the Mosaic law, not "all righteous works". You have to PROVE that he means baptism, charity, etc. by "deeds...", and you CAN'T, so your argument, again, falls flat.

Actual words of the passage? Really? That's all you're doing? Where is this word 'justified' in the passage? You're the one claiming it's a passage about how to be justified. I told you it is NOT a passage about justification. I'm actually the one staying in the boundaries of the actual words of the passage.

You have rightly made the connection between justification and "eternal life", yet there is not one mention of justification by faith in Rom. 2:1-16.

The passage is not about "faith, all by itself". That is Paul's teaching about salvation. Jesus is not even addressing justification here. But since you are going by what is actually written there, and I'm not, surely you can show me where Jesus says some form of the word 'justification'.

You're grasping.

Justification qualifies you for the kingdom. Only righteous people can be in the kingdom. Salvation is actually entering into the promise of that kingdom, and entering into the reality of it on the Day of Judgment.

I'm grasping??? Prove it. Simply do an exegesis on the actual verses and quit with the "Faith does the justifying all by itself, alone, apart from the merit of (other) work." stuff. The verses don't even mention faith.

Yes. That's what inherit eternal life means. That is what we are saved to.

Yes. Only justified people can inherit eternal life. Justification is what qualifies you to be saved (given eternal life).

Great. So, let's keep moving forward and not get distracted. Can a person inherit or be given eternal life WITHOUT being justified?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Again, no exegesis. I have explained the passage three times now. If you don't agree, fine, but at least I've used the actual words of the verses to explain them. Something you CAN'T do.

Stop kidding yourself. Just show me the word 'justification', or 'justified', or 'justify' in the passage. That's all you have to do. I'm not the one using words that aren't in the passage. YOU ARE.

Great. So, let's keep moving forward and not get distracted. Can a person inherit or be given eternal life WITHOUT being justified?

Of course not. What you're reading into the passage is that the works do the justifying. SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT. That's all you have to do.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Great, so what's IN the law has to be "faith IN THE BLOOD IF CHRIST", specifically, for you to admit that faith is part of the law? Let's continue in this vein and see if you're consistent.

You have made the claim that "baptism is part of the law!!!" complete with exclamation points. Is water baptism, "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" mentioned in the "law"? If not, then I guess baptism is NOT in the law, is it?

Baptism with water for the forgiveness of sin is the law (Numbers 19). Now, just show me where faith in the promises made to Abraham as the way to be declared righteous is commanded in the law. That's all you have to do. And let me remind you of this:

"12 The law is not based on faith..." (Galatians 3:12 NIV)

In Hebrews 11, the author points out the faith of all the heroes of the OT, then tells US to PERSEVERE IN THAT FAITH. How can you say that the faith they have is somehow inadequate, especially since you tie Abraham's "faith in the Seed, which is Christ" (which is in the LAW) directly to justification?

Was Abraham's faith a "saving faith"? Your argument breaks down fast.

(I'll ignore how you have twisted the argument about Abraham's faith.)

Just show me where it says he was made righteous by what he did. That's all you have to do and the argument will be over.

Sorry, faith is part of the law. It was TRUE, "saving" faith ("in the Seed") that was taught in the law and prophets, and this proves my point that when Paul says "works of the law" he does not mean everything written in the OT.

Show me where faith in the promised son for a declaration of righteousness is a command of the law. That's all you have to do.

So, Paul is contrasting faith with the law, which includes faith?

Show me where faith in the promises made to Abraham is a command of the law.

This proves, beyond and logical doubt, that when he says "works of the law", he does not mean everything in "the law", but certain "works" that his audience would surely know.

But you have yet to show me that faith in the promises for righteousness, and law are one and the same thing. Paul says they are not.

Again, no exegesis of these verses, just more lecturing. Here are the verses in context again, please show me where Paul says "Faith does the justifying all by itself, alone, apart from the merit of (other) work."

What is it about 'faith in the blood of Christ to be made righteous' that somehow means not just faith in the blood of Christ for righteousness? Please end this and show me the passage that says we are also justified (made righteous) by what we do. That's all you have to do.

For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

[...]

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Is it the man who does all, or part of the law that is justified by that law? Of course, it's the man who does all of the law (Deuteronomy 6:25). That being true, who is this person who does all the law and is justified?

Maybe now you can see the point that Paul is making here in order to say this in the next chapter (remember, you said yourself, context is king):

"19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. (Romans 3:19-20 NIV)

If he's using the word 'justified' in the sense of making one righteous in Romans 2, he's not saying it's possible for a man to be justified by the law. He's making the case that it is wrong to think keeping the law is how you will be justified, but it is definitely true that you would be justified if you kept the law (Deuteronomy 6:25), but as he shows no one can do that. Therefore, justification can ONLY come by faith in the blood of Christ, not by what you do, because what you do is incomplete obedience. Remember, 'context is king'. You said it yourself. Don't stop Paul's argument short of the conclusion he's bringing his audience to.

You're as deceived as the people he's speaking to if you think a person is justified by successful law keeping. There is no such thing as successful law keeping. The only thing the law is successful at doing is proving you to be a sinner that needs another source of righteousness apart from works to be saved--the gift of righteousness given on the basis of faith and trust in the blood to make one righteous, not given in return for the successful performance of commanded work.

How will a person stand in the judgment if they reject this truth and rely on the merit of their own righteousness (along with God's righteousness if that's what they believe) to be saved on the Day of Wrath? Your righteousness, and mine, is not good enough to somehow contribute to what Jesus' righteousness does all by itself. His is a righteousness that the law can't give, not because the law isn't a legitimate source of righteousness (Moses said it is that), but because no one can keep the law and secure that declaration of righteousness!

What does this mean then, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified."

You're ignoring the point of his teaching: Who is this mere mortal that keeps the whole law and is therefore justified by his obedience to the law that Jesus says to do? Surely you don't think YOU are that person.

Sorry, I can't totally ignore Paul's context for my own personal "theology".

Come on, I asked you to show me where Jesus says in the passage that we are justified by keeping the commands of the law he says to keep to inherit eternal life and that we need to understand that's somehow implied in what Paul teaches, but which he does not say.

Funny how 'the whole counsel of scripture' (as if you were doing that properly), and using words not mentioned in the passage is okay for the defense of your belief, but not allowed for mine. That's horribly hypocritical. It's a terrible way to defend a doctrine.

You must be joking. Here it is one more time. When Paul says "deeds...done in righteousness", he means "righteousness under the law" and "righteousness of my own, based on law," and "righteousness under the law" and "Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law" and "Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it."

Your attempt to tie Paul's "deeds...done in righteousness" to all deeds that YOU SUBJECTIVELY CONSIDER "RIGHTEOUS" is a false argument. You must see this, because you are the one who refuses to even acknowledge the verses I posted, let alone, even respond to them.

Again, Paul is talking about deeds that are part of the Mosaic law, not "all righteous works". You have to PROVE that he means baptism, charity, etc. by "deeds...", and you CAN'T, so your argument, again, falls flat.

This is funny. So baptism, charity, etc. are not works of the law and so can not be Paul's "deeds done in righteousness" because you say that phrase does mean works of the law. I already proved to you the things you list are works of the law, and it's impossible to say Jesus' list of righteous work is not of the law, but you're just going to ignore that and insist these works of the law you list, and the ones Jesus speaks about, are not '(lawful--you said it, not me) deeds done in righteousness '? Really? You are the one who must be joking here.

You have rightly made the connection between justification and "eternal life", yet there is not one mention of justification by faith in Rom. 2:1-16.

It's in the very next chapter. Don't remove chapter 2 from the context of chapters 3 and 4. You are not rightly dividing the Word of God.

There is no mention of 'justification' (being made righteous) in the passage where Jesus says to do the law to inherit eternal life, yet you are sure he is saying we are justified (made righteous) by the keeping of the lawful commands he says to keep. Just show me where it says that in there. That's all you have to do.

I'm grasping??? Prove it. Simply do an exegesis on the actual verses and quit with the "Faith does the justifying all by itself, alone, apart from the merit of (other) work." stuff. The verses don't even mention faith.

Quit? Quit what? I've made it clear to you I'm not saying it is about justification, let alone justification by faith apart from works.

Why aren't you paying attention to what I'm pointing out to you? I'm plainly saying it's NOT a passage about justification. YOU are the one making it about justification, not me. But somehow you're sure I am saying it is, yet you are the one saying Jesus is saying we are justified by our obedience to the lawful commands he mentions. It's amazing to me that you insist the lawful obedience he says to do is what justifies us, even though it doesn't have a word about that, and that the commands of the law he mentions are not works of the law, nor the lawful deeds done in righteousness Paul talks about. Amazing.

 

[veryberry]

Do you think that when Jesus says "you know the commandments"to the direct question "what must I do to inherit eternal life", He was not answering the question? Do you think Jesus simply used this man as a teaching tool, and didn't answer his direct question?

He did both. He was answering the ruler and at the same time, he was teaching the ruler, and the disciples.

Luke 18:18 A Ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?â€

This is a clear indication that the ruler is asking Jesus what can HE do to inherit eternal life.



Luke 18:19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

Jesus then points out the rulers error in his ways. No one is good but God and if no one is good, then how could we possibly make ourselves righteous before God? We can’t. The only one that can make us righteous is the only one that is good, GOD.



Luke 18: 20-21 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’â€

21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.â€

When Jesus goes into the commandments. Jesus did not say “keep the commandments†or “are you keeping the commandmentsâ€. Notice though. Jesus did not list all the commandments. Is it possible that Jesus listed the commandments that the ruler CHOSE to obey or at least believed that he obeyed? Remember, Jesus knew peoples thoughts and their hearts. Here is a list of the missing commandments.

- “You shall have no other gods before meâ€

- “You shall not make for yourself an idolâ€

- “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your Godâ€

- “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holyâ€

- “You shall not covetâ€

Matthew 22: 37-39 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[d]38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Notice, Matthew 22: 37-38 corresponds with the first 4 commandments while Matthew 22: 39 corresponds with the last 6 commandments.

So here is Jesus’ answer to the rulers’ question:

Luke 18: 22 22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.â€

This verse is a clear example of the 2 great commandments listed above. So, Jesus answered his question but the man obviously did not like his answer, because:

Luke 18: 23 23 But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.

The ruler was not willing to “love his neighbor†by selling all that he had and giving it to the poor and he was not “loving God†because,he would not deny himself and follow Jesus. The ruler was putting his money and possessions before God. This shows dead faith. If he had True Faith, he would have trusted Jesus, denied himself (out of love for God), by giving up what he had by selling all he had and distributing it to the poor (loving his neighbor). And doing these things would have been following the 2 great commandments, and would SHOW his true saving faith.

If you have true faith you will love God with all your heart, mind and Soul, You will naturally want to follow all of the commandments because you have all your love, trust, commitment (True Faith) in God. You will love what God loves and hate what God hates.

The text doesn't bear out this interpretation.

The text does bear out this interpretation.

If he was following the commandments out of faith and love then, in order to do so he would in fact need to have faith and love...when Jesus points out what the man lacks, this shows that the man was lacking true faith and love…if the man was lacking this, then he could not be following the commandments out of something that he was lacking.

Also, when Jesus asks the man “Why do you call me good? And then Jesus says “No one is good but one, that is, God.†This shows the man that he is not good. Why would Jesus need to tell the man that No one is good but God? (Remember that Jesus knew people’s hearts…so he knew this mans heart.)

We cannot make ourselves righteous by following the commandments or any other works. Rather we follow the commandments out of obedience because of our faith. Following these commandments do not save us.

Galations 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Galations 2: 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.â€

Romans 3: 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Romans 3: 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 4: 5 But to him who does not work but believes onHim who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Romans 11: 6 And if by grace, then it is no longerof works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Ephesians 2: 8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

2 Timothy 1: 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Ezekial 33: 13 When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity,none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die.

 

[dadof10]

Stop kidding yourself. Just show me the word 'justification', or 'justified', or 'justify' in the passage. That's all you have to do. I'm not the one using words that aren't in the passage. YOU ARE.

"But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." (Rom. 2:5)

Isn't justification all about being declared (judged) righteous on the "day of wrath? isn't this what you've been saying now for about two weeks? But, of course, this doesn't refer to justification either, right?

The verses that DIRECTLY FOLLOW this are the verses that we've been discussing. It's obvious to ANYONE this refers to justification. How will you attempt to worm out this time?

Of course not. What you're reading into the passage is that the works do the justifying. SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT. That's all you have to do.

So, only justified people can inherit eternal life and it's impossible for a person to inherit or be given eternal life WITHOUT being justified, yet when Jesus and Paul say that X grants eternal life, they don't mean X grants justification? Explain how this works.

 

[dadof10]

Baptism with water for the forgiveness of sin is the law (Numbers 19). Now, just show me where faith in the promises made to Abraham as the way to be declared righteous is commanded in the law. That's all you have to do. And let me remind you of this:

"12 The law is not based on faith..." (Galatians 3:12 NIV)




(I'll ignore how you have twisted the argument about Abraham's faith.)

Just show me where it says he was made righteous by what he did. That's all you have to do and the argument will be over.




Show me where faith in the promised son for a declaration of righteousness is a command of the law. That's all you have to do.



Show me where faith in the promises made to Abraham is a command of the law.



But you have yet to show me that faith in the promises for righteousness, and law are one and the same thing. Paul says they are not.



What is it about 'faith in the blood of Christ to be made righteous' that somehow means not just faith in the blood of Christ for righteousness? Please end this and show me the passage that says we are also justified (made righteous) by what we do. That's all you have to do.



Is it the man who does all, or part of the law that is justified by that law? Of course, it's the man who does all of the law (Deuteronomy 6:25). That being true, who is this person who does all the law and is justified?

Maybe now you can see the point that Paul is making here in order to say this in the next chapter (remember, you said yourself, context is king):

"19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. (Romans 3:19-20 NIV)

If he's using the word 'justified' in the sense of making one righteous in Romans 2, he's not saying it's possible for a man to be justified by the law. He's making the case that it is wrong to think keeping the law is how you will be justified, but it is definitely true that you would be justified if you kept the law (Deuteronomy 6:25), but as he shows no one can do that. Therefore, justification can ONLY come by faith in the blood of Christ, not by what you do, because what you do is incomplete obedience. Remember, 'context is king'. You said it yourself. Don't stop Paul's argument short of the conclusion he's bringing his audience to.

You're as deceived as the people he's speaking to if you think a person is justified by successful law keeping. There is no such thing as successful law keeping. The only thing the law is successful at doing is proving you to be a sinner that needs another source of righteousness apart from works to be saved--the gift of righteousness given on the basis of faith and trust in the blood to make one righteous, not given in return for the successful performance of commanded work.

How will a person stand in the judgment if they reject this truth and rely on the merit of their own righteousness (along with God's righteousness if that's what they believe) to be saved on the Day of Wrath? Your righteousness, and mine, is not good enough to somehow contribute to what Jesus' righteousness does all by itself. His is a righteousness that the law can't give, not because the law isn't a legitimate source of righteousness (Moses said it is that), but because no one can keep the law and secure that declaration of righteousness!




You're ignoring the point of his teaching: Who is this mere mortal that keeps the whole law and is therefore justified by his obedience to the law that Jesus says to do? Surely you don't think YOU are that person.




Come on, I asked you to show me where Jesus says in the passage that we are justified by keeping the commands of the law he says to keep to inherit eternal life and that we need to understand that's somehow implied in what Paul teaches, but which he does not say.

Funny how 'the whole counsel of scripture' (as if you were doing that properly), and using words not mentioned in the passage is okay for the defense of your belief, but not allowed for mine. That's horribly hypocritical. It's a terrible way to defend a doctrine.



This is funny. So baptism, charity, etc. are not works of the law and so can not be Paul's "deeds done in righteousness" because you say that phrase does mean works of the law. I already proved to you the things you list are works of the law, and it's impossible to say Jesus' list of righteous work is not of the law, but you're just going to ignore that and insist these works of the law you list, and the ones Jesus speaks about, are not '(lawful--you said it, not me) deeds done in righteousness '? Really? You are the one who must be joking here.




It's in the very next chapter. Don't remove chapter 2 from the context of chapters 3 and 4. You are not rightly dividing the Word of God.

There is no mention of 'justification' (being made righteous) in the passage where Jesus says to do the law to inherit eternal life, yet you are sure he is saying we are justified (made righteous) by the keeping of the lawful commands he says to keep. Just show me where it says that in there. That's all you have to do.



Quit? Quit what? I've made it clear to you I'm not saying it is about justification, let alone justification by faith apart from works.

Why aren't you paying attention to what I'm pointing out to you? I'm plainly saying it's NOT a passage about justification. YOU are the one making it about justification, not me. But somehow you're sure I am saying it is, yet you are the one saying Jesus is saying we are justified by our obedience to the lawful commands he mentions. It's amazing to me that you insist the lawful obedience he says to do is what justifies us, even though it doesn't have a word about that, and that the commands of the law he mentions are not works of the law, nor the lawful deeds done in righteousness Paul talks about. Amazing.

This is getting old, and I'm in the middle of a career change and don't have time to refute every point above. Let's cut to the chase, here.

Was the Thief on the cross justified?

Did Jesus' teaching to Nicodemus refer to justification?

Were Isaac and Jacob justified?

Was Cornelius justified?

You have made the case YOURSELF that Cornelius, Isaac and Jacob were justified. Please show me where the text SPECIFICALLY SAYS they were justified or "declared righteous". Unless you can do THAT, it is a fact you are putting a standard on ME you don't hold yourself to. It is also a fact that Scripture can say things like "are in the kingdom of God" or "received the Holy Spirit" and this means justification, especially since you admit that it's impossible for anyone to have "eternal life" and NOT be justified or vice-versa.

Let's take a look at a few verses of Scripture.

"For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, `I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.'"
48 And when theGentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Were these Gentiles justified?

"For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Does this refer to justification?

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."

Does this?

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;
and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."

Does this?

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Does this?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Does this?

And, finally:

...he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life."

Does this verse refer to justification, Jethro?

Isn't it a FACT that you have USED these examples and these verses to prove justification by faith alone? Hummm????

There is not a Christian alive, in ANY denomination, who would disagree that these verses refer directly to justification, yet, outside of the last one, NONE ACTUALLY SAY THE WORD "JUSTIFICATION" OR "DECLARED RIGHTEOUS". The verse from Titus DOES DIRECTLY tie justification to eternal life, though, so helps prove my point. As if I needed it.

If you actually think that, for example, Scripture "doesn't say" the Thief was justified, yet DOES say Isaac, Jacob and Cornelius were, you are completely inconsistent and it's obvious you have one standard of proof for yourself and another for anyone who disagrees with you. This also proves you are not interested in honest discussion, but only in argument for argument's sake.

"Eternal life" refers to justification, that's a fact. Paul says that God will grant eternal life to the person who "by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality". Therefore, Scripture says justification is granted on the basis of something other than faith alone.

Time to turn out the lights and "go home".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is getting old, and I'm in the middle of a career change and don't have time to refute every point above.

FYI, I heard a position has opened up in the papacy.

 

[dadof10]

FYI, I heard a position has opened up in the papacy.

:D

Sent from my Motorola Galaxy s3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." (Rom. 2:5)

Isn't justification all about being declared (judged) righteous on the "day of wrath? isn't this what you've been saying now for about two weeks? But, of course, this doesn't refer to justification either, right?

Justification in regard to showing one to be righteous:

"19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed." (Romans 8:19 NIV)

We see this in Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus puts the righteous on his right side and the unrighteous on his left, thus revealing and showing who is righteous, and who is not, their (lawful) work being the evidence of their righteousness or unrighteousness.

The verses that DIRECTLY FOLLOW this are the verses that we've been discussing. It's obvious to ANYONE this refers to justification. How will you attempt to worm out this time?

We know this because, unlike in the passage where Jesus was speaking, Paul plainly says the word 'justified'. But as I say, if you remove it from the conclusion in the next chapter that nobody is justified (made righteous) by the law you will indeed come to your short sided conclusion that obedience to the law is how a person is made righteous. But Paul is making the case that no one can do that. Therefore, justification must come as a free gift from God...by faith, all by itself, apart from work.

So, only justified people can inherit eternal life and it's impossible for a person to inherit or be given eternal life WITHOUT being justified, yet when Jesus and Paul say that X grants eternal life, they don't mean X grants justification? Explain how this works.

Paul explained it plainly. Faith in the promise made to Abraham is what justifies a person. Faith does the justifying, not the righteous work that faith upholds.

The works faith produces is what validates that faith as the faith that justifies. That's how and why works must be a part of a genuine salvation, but not be the actual agent that makes a person righteous. Faith does that all by itself.

The error is thinking just because justifying faith changes a person into someone who does work, the work itself must do the justifying. It's just plain bad logic. Especially since Paul PLAINLY says faith in the promise is what justifies, contrasting it with trying to be justified by doing righteous work. Contrasted because believing in the promises made to Abraham to be justified is simply not a work of the law. The way of lawful work to be made righteous and the way of faith in the promises to be made righteous are two distinctly different things. Justification is by believing, not working. No one can be justified by working. It's impossible. That's Paul's point.

 

[veryberry]

Justification in regard to showing one to be righteous:

"19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed." (Romans 8:19 NIV)

We see this in Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus puts the righteous on his right side and the unrighteous on his left, thus revealing and showing who is righteous, and who is not, their (lawful) work being the evidence of their righteousness or unrighteousness.




We know this because, unlike in the passage where Jesus was speaking, Paul plainly says the word 'justified'. But as I say, if you remove it from the conclusion in the next chapter that nobody is justified (made righteous) by the law you will indeed come to your short sided conclusion that obedience to the law is how a person is made righteous. But Paul is making the case that no one can do that. Therefore, justification must come as a free gift from God...by faith, all by itself, apart from work.




Paul explained it plainly. Faith in the promise made to Abraham is what justifies a person. Faith does the justifying, not the righteous work that faith upholds.

The works faith produces is what validates that faith as the faith that justifies. That's how and why works must be a part of a genuine salvation, but not be the actual agent that makes a person righteous. Faith does that all by itself.

The error is thinking just because justifying faith changes a person into someone who does work, the work itself must do the justifying. It's just plain bad logic. Especially since Paul PLAINLY says faith in the promise is what justifies, contrasting it with trying to be justified by doing righteous work. Contrasted because believing in the promises made to Abraham to be justified is simply not a work of the law. The way of lawful work to be made righteous and the way of faith in the promises to be made righteous are two distinctly different things. Justification is by believing, not working. No one can be justified by working. It's impossible. That's Paul's point.

I agree with much of what you have said, but I have a problem with "works must be a part of genuine salvation". To me, this seems to contradict what you are trying to explain. This seems that it is making "works" legalistic again. It seems you are saying that "Faith + Works = Genuine Salvation" when it shoud be "Genuine Faith = Salvation + Works"

What is Genuine Salvation? You are either saved or you are not saved. There is only genuine salvation...there is no dead salvation...like there is dead faith. If it is dead salvation...then it is not salvation at all...so there would be no need to put the word 'genuine' before the word 'salvation'. You may not be implying that there is anything other than genuine salvation but it makes it a little confusing in that it seems to imply that there is a salvation other than genuine salvation.

Works are not a part of salvation...but are a result of genuine faith...the faith that saves...so both works and salvation are a result of genuine faith...you are saved by grace through faith apart from works.

Our works do not validate our faith to God...Would you agree that God knows if our faith is genuine aside from works? Our works validate our faith to others...in hope that it builds up the church (body of Christ) and his kingdom.
Remember in Romans 4: 2-3---2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

It's not: "Works must be a part of genuine salvation" but rather "Genuine faith will produce good works."--and salvation comes through genuine faith...just don't want to get confused and start thinking that your works are a part of salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What is Genuine Salvation? You are either saved or you are not saved.

What is genuine salvation? It's a salvation that is for real, not presumed to be real but which really isn't real. Works are the outward manifestation of a legitimate hope for salvation. Lack of works indicate a presumed hope of salvation. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities.

There is only genuine salvation...there is no dead salvation...like there is dead faith. If it is dead salvation...then it is not salvation at all...so there would be no need to put the word 'genuine' before the word 'salvation'. You may not be implying that there is anything other than genuine salvation but it makes it a little confusing in that it seems to imply that there is a salvation other than genuine salvation.

The James passage is what I was keying off of. James says a dead faith--a faith that has no works attached--is a faith that can not save ("Can such faith save them?" James 2:14).

Works are not a part of salvation...

I only mean that they are a part of salvation in the way James says they are. He says the faith that can save has works attached. A faith that doesn't have works attached is the faith that can't save. People with that kind of faith have a presumed hope of salvation, not the sure hope of salvation.

Our works do not validate our faith to God...Would you agree that God knows if our faith is genuine aside from works?

Yes. But as we see in Genesis 22, when Abraham raises his knife to slay Isaac, God exclaims, "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son" (Genesis 22:12 NIV).

We know he said this for our benefit, not because he suddenly knew Abraham truly feared and believed him. God knows the end from the beginning about all things. Validation of faith is for us, but God is just and he will use the deeds of men as the evidence for the judgment, good or bad, he pronounces on them. Not for his benefit, but for the sake of all of creation.

Our works validate our faith to others...in hope that it builds up the church (body of Christ) and his kingdom.

There's more to it than that. We are exhorted to 'make our calling and election sure' by doing works of faith. The Bible teaches that we can find comfort in knowing we are at peace with God and have the sure hope of salvation by if we obey his commands, specifically, his command to 'love your neighbor as yourself'. When we do that we know we have passed from death to life.

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other." (1 John 3:14 NIV)

It's not: "Works must be a part of genuine salvation" but rather "Genuine faith will produce good works."--and salvation comes through genuine faith...just don't want to get confused and start thinking that your works are a part of salvation.

Just so we understand. Works are only a part of salvation in that only the faith that produces works can save a person. A faith that does not work is the faith that can not save.

 

[dadof10]

He did both. He was answering the ruler and at the same time, he was teaching the ruler, and the disciples.

If faith alone leads to eternal life, why didn't Jesus mention this when answering him? He didn't mention faith at all. I'm sure you would agree that Jesus gave the ruler a truthful answer, right? So, why no mention of faith?

 

[veryberry]

If faith alone leads to eternal life, why didn't Jesus mention this when answering him? He didn't mention faith at all. I'm sure you would agree that Jesus gave the ruler a truthful answer, right? So, why no mention of faith?

“You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

This is Jesus telling him that he needs True Faith. If the ruler had True Faith, he would have understood what Jesus was saying and would have gladly done it out of love. But if he would have done these acts, these acts would not have saved him but would have shown his True Faith, but instead he showed Dead Faith.