Is believing/faith a work ?

[journeymanisnothing]

No.

Read the verses again. Do you not see the "cannot hear", and the "because ye are not of God" parts?
It was not within their spiritual ability to spiritually hear. One must be able to hear, to hear. The
unsaved are unable to.

[Jhn 8:43, 47 KJV]
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. ...
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

[Mat 13:14 KJV]
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

The problem is, you're ignoring how the Jews believed their teachers were holy men, some of whom opposed our Lord at every turn. Jesus was basically telling them that anyone who opposed him was opposing God. Add to this they were so afraid of being excomunicated, some kept their faith private.
That's all there really is to your misunderstanding.

 

[brightfame52]

roger

Thanks, brightfame52, sorry - my misunderstanding - no offense intended!
In rereading your reply, I think my impression was that you inadvertently, without intending to, seemed to say that it is up to the individual to place themselves under the law of Christ, rather than of God doing so, which I know to be contrary to your true belief - and just wanted to confirm that my understanding is correct.
My reply, without thinking, came across more abruptly than I had intended it to.
Sorry about that.

Understood friend

however, the curse for the unsaved is to be under the authority of The Law at all.

Yes the non elect are permanently under the curse of the law, they have no redeemer like the elect Gal 3:13, Christ redeemed the elect from the curse of the law

Through Christ, those saved have been taken out from under its authority for salvation. For those no longer under it, there can be no judgement made against them because judgement comes from transgression of The Law - so, no Law, no judgement

Yes the elect technically have never been under the curse of the Law, because for them, it was charged to Christ even[ pre creation], so God will not charge Christ with it and them also. Now that said, the elect are still spiritually dead when born into the world, before they are quickened.

[Rom 6:14-15 KJV]
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Yes again technically the elect are born under grace. Grace was given them in Christ before the world began 2 Tim 1:9

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

I didn't mean to imply that it doesn't pertain, just that I haven't looked at all pertinent verses for that topic for a while and didn't want to make my reply appear focused only upon those. That's why I said in both OT and NT.
The reason I used the verses I did was that they were the first and most direct ones to come to mind - at least that's what I thought.

Understood, thats fine. But thats the first passage that comes to my mind when I hear such things. Its a pretty familiar passage.

The topic at hand as I understood it was the release of the saved from hell (those of the elect who were held there from the beginning of time) at the completion of the offering of Christ

okay

It seemed to me that those verses demonstrate to us in almost a visual sense, the realization of, and satisfying of at least one of the spiritual promises made by God regarding what Christ's offering would bring forth. How do you understand those verses?

You mean Matt 27:53-54 ?

 

[brightfame52]

Our Savior said, "ye would not." Calvamism says, "ye could not."

They are one and the same really. They would not because they cant come unless the Father draws them.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

They are one and the same really. They would not because they cant come unless the Father draws them.

They can't come "unless the Father draws them".....because Christ is One with his Father. It's no different from saying, If you love my dad, you'll love me, because I'm just like my dad. Same thing here,

If God were your Father, you would love me Jn.8:42

If people say they love God, but hate his Son, they're lying.

He that hateth me hateth my Father also. Jn.15:23

 

[brightfame52]

They can't come "unless the Father draws them".....because Christ is One with his Father. It's no different from saying, If you love my dad, you'll love me, because I'm just like my dad. Same thing here,

If God were your Father, you would love me Jn.8:42

If people say they love God, but hate his Son, they're lying.

He that hateth me hateth my Father also. Jn.15:23

Men wont come to Christ because they cant come !

 

[rogerg]

The problem is, you're ignoring how the Jews believed their teachers were holy men, some of whom opposed our Lord at every turn. Jesus was basically telling them that anyone who opposed him was opposing God. Add to this they were so afraid of being excomunicated, some kept their faith private.
That's all there really is to your misunderstanding.

You shouldn't infer or read into the Bible anything that isn't explicitly stated in the Bible. Using the Bible alone, we are to compare the spiritual with the spiritual and verses with verses - knowing that none are of any private interpretation, and to draw our conclusions and interpretations based upon that -- however, not okay to factor into the Bible one's assumptions, the cultural norms and/or religious variables of the times in which it was written in. To do so colors or alters the purity of the message. God had the Bible written in a precise way - saying precisely what He wanted it to say, precisely the way He wanted it said, solely with the words He alone chose and that He moved the scribes to use - no more, no less. The Bible is totally sufficient in and of itself.

 

[rogerg]

You mean Matt 27:53-54 ?

Yes, and other verses too

 

[journeymanisnothing]

You shouldn't infer or read into the Bible anything that isn't explicitly stated in the Bible. Using the Bible alone, we are to compare the spiritual with the spiritual and verses with verses - knowing that none are of any private interpretation, and to draw our conclusions and interpretations based upon that -- however, not okay to factor into the Bible one's assumptions, the cultural norms and/or religious variables of the times in which it was written in. To do so colors or alters the purity of the message. God had the Bible written in a precise way - saying precisely what He wanted it to say, precisely the way He wanted it said, solely with the words He alone chose and that He moved the scribes to use - no more, no less. The Bible is totally sufficient in and of itself.

Please see my response to brightflame52 in post 645. It's easy to understand, makes perfect sense and received no response from brightflame52 concerning what the passages I cited say. I'm certain there will be no credible answer from you for why the Apostles put both Paul and gentile believers under the law.

 

[Hopeful]

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
All of the Bible was written under inspiration of God and no one else. Its teachings: eternal. It transcends all generations, nor does its truth change.

Amen to that.
Though new versions of the KJV of the bible appear from time to time, the KJV persists.

All are fools

Was Jesus a fool?
Paul?
Cornelius?
No, besides Jesus who needed no repentance from sin, many have repented of sin and started to walk in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.
Fools don't have to remain fools.

[Rom 3:9-12 KJV]
9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

"Are we better than they?"
Paul points out that both Jew and Gentile have fallen short and both need the same Redeemer.
To answer those claiming none can be righteous using the mid Rom 3 verses you used, I answer with the ones you didn't use..."But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:" (Rom 3:21-22)

 

[Hopeful]

Please see my response to brightflame52 in post 645. It's easy to understand, makes perfect sense and received no response from brightflame52 concerning what the passages I cited say. I'm certain there will be no credible answer from you for why the Apostles put both Paul and gentile believers under the law.

You will have to elaborate on what you mean by "under the Law".
Do you mean that like as Paul made it 'appear' as though he was under the Law in order to attract those still trying to live the Law of Moses, or weak to attract the weak, or free of the Law to attract those not under the Law, we too can be perceived in ways in order to bring the message to wider groups.
Here in Arizona, I have seemed to be a Mexican, white. black, a city kid, a cowboy, a French-Haitian, a baptist, a COG, a methodist, and a bunch of other personifications in order to speak the word more widely.
To the glory of God.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

You will have to elaborate on what you mean by "under the Law".
Do you mean that like as Paul made it 'appear' as though he was under the Law in order to attract those still trying to live the Law of Moses, or weak to attract the weak, or free of the Law to attract those not under the Law, we too can be perceived in ways in order to bring the message to wider groups.
Here in Arizona, I have seemed to be a Mexican, white. black, a city kid, a cowboy, a French-Haitian, a baptist, a COG, a methodist, and a bunch of other personifications in order to speak the word more widely.
To the glory of God.

When we examine Acts, we can see there were different circumstances, which church elders handled in a Godly manner.
I mentioned the one where Paul took a vow to show Jewish believers in Jesus that he (Paul) wasn't anti-law. Any believer in Jesus whether Jew or gentile isn't harmed by ritual honoring God.
Slightly different for Jews who believed eating "unclean" foods, or food offered to idols could contaminate them. Pauls' instruction is to bear the weak (not the spiritually dead)
Then there were unbelieving Jews in mixed congregations of Jew/gentile. Even when Peter was eating with gentiles and then Jews showed up, Peter distanced himself from the gentile believers. Peter did this? Yes and Paul reamed him out. So it's easy to see why Paul said what he did about the law. Paul wasn't against the law. Paul was against pride in himself in any way.

 

[brightfame52]

Yes, and other verses too

Hi Roger, Well I believe that advent occurred in Matt 27:52-53, it was unique to say the least, but Im not sure I would build any type of doctrine from it. It signified Christs Victory over Death, perhaps foreshadowed the coming resurrection of the just/justified spoken of here Acts 24 15

And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Lk 14:14

And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

Sure they could have been in a paradise side of hell before they arose. So what's your point in referring to this advent a lot ?

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Men wont come to Christ because they cant come !

Then there's no reason to condemn anyone.
Anyone can see the truth of this, as no parent would condemn an innocent child.
And as I told you, the heresy of God pouring out his wrath on the innocent, stems from the hellish belief that he did it to his own Son. That's what the mockers thought,

All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads. "He trusts in the LORD", they say, “let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.” Psa.22:7-8, Mt.27:43

Be ashamed of it.

 

[brightfame52]

journey

Then there's no reason to condemn anyone.

Wrong, men are condemned for sin !

 

[rogerg]

Please see my response to brightflame52 in post 645. It's easy to understand, makes perfect sense and received no response from brightflame52 concerning what the passages I cited say. I'm certain there will be no credible answer from you for why the Apostles put both Paul and gentile believers under the law.

I read that post and it didn't really make sense to me, but I neither did I follow the complete discussion chain you had with brightfame52.
What I could I gather from your post is that you were trying to make a case for the following of law. My reply to you would be that it all depends. There are but two, and only two, laws by which one becomes saved or not: one law that gives eternal salvation and life; one law that brings judgment and eternal death. Any other of the laws, for the most part, and as were intended by God, some of them provide a standard of behavior and conduct for us between each other, and some others were a reflection of the laws in the heavenly, but of themselves not having eternal consequences. Since you mentioned Paul, I'll use the verses that God wrote through Paul, in which He encapsulates the salvation equation into its most fundamental form:

[Rom 8:1-3 KJV]
1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

So, the title of the only law with authority for salvation is the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus"; the title of the only law with authority for judgment and death is the "law of sin and death". Notice that the law of the Spirit life in Christ Jesus, of ITSELF, freed Paul from the law of sin and death and placed him under itself, to which, Paul had contributed absolutely nothing - neither of which could Paul invoke or override - it was solely in, by, and of, that one law. Also notice, that the number of each of those laws is singular, meaning there are no other laws for consideration outside of those alone; that is, there are no other laws germane to salvation.
One last thing, since there are but two laws and no third law, everyone must fall under the one or the other.

Does this answer your question?

 

[brightfame52]

journey

Anyone can see the truth of this, as no parent would condemn an innocent child.

Those who are condemned are not the children of God, but the children of the devil Jn 8:44 Jesus in so many words told them God isnt your Father Jn 8 42

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

No man or women has God for their Father if they dont have, or will have Faith in Christ, thats what Identifies who the Children of God are. gal 3:26

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

And as I told you, the heresy of God pouring out his wrath on the innocent, stems from the hellish belief that he did it to his own Son. That's what the mockers thought,

I dont know anything about that. Gods wrath is upon the wicked for their sins, nothing innocent about it Eph 5:6

Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

 

[brightfame52]

Hi Roger, not trying to trap you or nothing, but how do you understand walk after the Spirit here Rom 8:1

[Rom 8:1-3 KJV]
1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[rogerg]

Hi Roger, not trying to trap you or nothing, but how do you understand walk after the Spirit here Rom 8:1

[Rom 8:1-3 KJV]
1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

No problem brightfam52 - don't see it as a trap at all more than happy to discuss it.
Well, based upon what I understand you to have asked, I think it means
to be led/to live by/through the Spirit, not Satan. I think the "for" of Rom 8:2 tells us that 8:1 is as a result of 8:2,
not the reverse.
How do you see it? Did I miss something?


P.S working on a reply to your prior text.

 

[brightfame52]

No problem brightfam52 - don't see it as a trap at all more than happy to discuss it.
Well, based upon what I understand you to have asked, I think it means
to be led/to live by/through the Spirit, not Satan. I think the "for" of Rom 8:2 tells us that 8:1 is as a result of 8:2,
not the reverse.
How do you see it? Did I miss something?


P.S working on a reply to your prior text.

Thanks for your reply. I believe it means to walk by Faith, which of course is a fruit of the Spirit. I believe what Christ did, by fulfilling the Law for His People, and condemned sin in the flesh for them, all such will be given life by the Spirit, along with Faith, and by Faith they walk understanding that Christ has deliver them from sin and death. They no more live by the flesh trying to find acceptance with God by their works, religious deeds etc

 

[Hopeful]

When we examine Acts, we can see there were different circumstances, which church elders handled in a Godly manner.
I mentioned the one where Paul took a vow to show Jewish believers in Jesus that he (Paul) wasn't anti-law. Any believer in Jesus whether Jew or gentile isn't harmed by ritual honoring God.
Slightly different for Jews who believed eating "unclean" foods, or food offered to idols could contaminate them. Pauls' instruction is to bear the weak (not the spiritually dead)
Then there were unbelieving Jews in mixed congregations of Jew/gentile. Even when Peter was eating with gentiles and then Jews showed up, Peter distanced himself from the gentile believers. Peter did this? Yes and Paul reamed him out. So it's easy to see why Paul said what he did about the law. Paul wasn't against the law. Paul was against pride in himself in any way.

Paul knew the Law profited nobody.
If one wants to re-enact an old, dead, manner of religion, it won't hurt you...but it won't help you either.
It is written..."Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8)
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" (Col 2:14)
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Col 2:16-17)
"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (Col 2:20-22)