Lukewarm believers and faith

[Free]

Certainly to you, but entirely true to me.

James{2:22}Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

I just quote Scripture to teach Scripture, as well as to reject anti-scripture, such as a man is not justified by works.

Now, it is certainly true that many bad men are not justified by works, being done without Christ. However, it is not at all true that no man is unjustified by works, being done with Christ.

That goes for anyone naming Christ alongside bad doing. That's where having our faith alone in Christ, is not independent of works, so as to exempt us from being righteously judged by our own sinful works, that pierce the Lord.

I have addressed that passage several times and shown how you misunderstand the meaning of “justified,” making it contradict Paul’s use of that passage, and so misuse it to teach the false gospel of justification by works. I have asked you many times, even recently, to provide the biblical meanings of justification, but you have yet to do so. You also have continually rejected what others say about their positions and so continually misrepresent those positions. All of that strongly suggests you’re not interested in truth, but only your opinion.

Unless you’re going to start discussing with integrity, I’m not going to respond further.

 

[RBDERRICK]

I haven’t misrepresented you. I provided relevant quotes that show you teach justification by works, twice.

Uh. Not the misreprentations I speak of. I preach jsutificion by works all the time. I never don't preach it, by saying no man is justified by works at any time.

I have clearly and consistently stated that justification (being declared righteous) is by grace alone through faith alone, completely apart from works, which are only evidence of a person having already been justified.

Let's try once more with the "completely apart from works" part.

Are you saying being completely apart from something, is not being independent of something? Or, being independent of something is not being completely apart from something?

What is it that you don’t understand about that?

What I don't understand is how anyone can say one thing, that apparently is taken back right after.

How can we have something completely apart from something else, and yet that something else is evidence of having something, that it is comepletely apart from?

Are you saying that what is completely apart from something at the first, does not then necessarily remain completely apart from it?

Does the time come, when justification by faith alone in Christ, that is completely apart from works, does not remain comepletely alone apart from works, that become the evidence of that justification?

 

[RBDERRICK]

I have addressed that passage several times and shown how you misunderstand the meaning of “justified,” making it contradict Paul’s use of that passage, and so misuse it to teach the false gospel of justification by works.Unless you’re going to start discussing with integrity, I’m not going to respond further.

True. I ceased responding to this dead horse with you for a while now.

I'm only now currently interested in just how justification completely apart from works, is not justification independent from works.

I'm being patient, and it may actually lead to new insights into the thinking that goes behind being at once justified by faith alone in Christ, completely apart from works, but apparantly not always apart from works that verify said justification.

"Verry intesting..." (Siegfried) And, I'm not yet ready to say "But stupid..."

 

[RandyK]

Well now. I don't know if every faith aloner agrees it's just another outer-Bible tradition like Mariology, but it does explain why you've been mostly quoting your own views about it.

I'm starting to think you're just a trouble-maker. You should know I wasn't speaking of extra-biblical as in "unbiblical." As I said, "Faith Alone" is very biblical. The biblical terminology is addressed in its then-current environment. The Protestant Reformation was born into a very different environment, but maintains the same truths.

If all you want to do is look for reasons to demean my arguments, then I'm not interested in pursuing this any further.

There are certain traditions not specifically written in Scripture, that are called private interpretations of Scripture. And they can be personally believed no harm-no foul, so long as they're not put forth as confirmed Scriptural truth.

Listen to what I actually said, and you don't have to wonder. I said:
"You are using a term that is the product of Christian discussions in history, using their own terms in conjunction with biblical truths. "Faith Alone" is not a theology spelled out in Scriptures, though it is very much in the Bible in principle."

I did *not* say it was "extra-biblical," or outside of biblical truth. I said the terminology was designed to explain biblical truth in a different historical context, though saying the same thing as what the Bible had said.

It is not called "Faith Alone" in the Bible. And yet, Paul argues for Faith Alone in the context of Justification. But you conflate "Justification" in the biblical sense to mean it must include "Works." And Paul denied this. I need not go on.

 

[RandyK]

And so all faith aloners preach the same thing: Faith alone in Christ justifies the soul, independent of works. The soul is justified by faith alone, when doing good or evil.

Faith alone is greater than works. Faith aloners reject the judgment of God by their works, but only by their faith alone.

Liberalized Christianity: What one believes is more important than what one is doing.

Nobody said that what one believes is more important than works. We were saved by Jesus alone so that we can do good works, and be good. We were not saved so that Jesus alone can be and do good.

People are saved by their deeds precisely because by faith they can be and do good, not so that they can rely on the fact Jesus alone is and does good.

Yes, Jesus justified us alone, apart from our works. But it was precisely so that we could do good works. If you think people can please God and enter into Eternity apart from Christ, you have bad theology.

Since Christ alone could justify us, we must put our faith in him for Justification, as well as for enabling us to do good works that please him for all Eternity.

 

[RBDERRICK]

"Faith Alone" has never been used to exclude Christian Works of righteousness!

False. While most faith aloners do preach the lukewarm righteousness of less sinning than before, there are a minority that preach no need to do more or less works than before.

The former preach faith alone accompanied with half-hearted repentance, while the latter hold no repentance is necessary, for the eternally secured justificaiton of their faith alone in Christ.

To use "justification" has a general sense of validating your faith by adding to that faith good works. We are speaking of Redemptive Justification--not validating our faith with good works.

I understand the unbiblical tradition of 'two' justificaitons: Redemptive vs Validative.

The redemptive justificaiton is by faith alone in Christ, whereby justification is eternally secured apart from any doing of works.

Validative justification is proof of justification with God by works seen of men. They are not seeking redemptive justification with God by their works, but only validating among men, that their faith is 'genuine' and 'salvific'.

Neither of thse two justifications are Scripture's one justificaiton of God with works first seen by Him, and also seen by men.

The former redemptive tradition of justificaiton is the old contradiction of Scripture, that men are not justified with God by works, that rejects Christ's example of Abraham and Rahab. (Which also includes Phinehas' righteous execution of the law in Ps 106)

The latter validative justification with works among men, leads to the error of preaching works solely to be seen and justified with men alone, and not by God.

Matthew{23:5} But all their works they do for to be seen of men:

It's an interesting dichotmoy of two gross errors in the anti-biblical Christian religious tradition of "faith alone": On the one hand, it strips any need to do righteousness in being justified with God, so that faith aloner Christianity is less righteous than works of law Judaism. And then, it turns on it's head to promote the Pharisitical tradition of only doing good deeds to be seen by men.

Jhn 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

In Scripture, works of justification can only come from God, whether men see and aprove them or not. But if our works are justified with God, then men will begin to honor our righteousness in the Lord, and will glorify God on our behalf.

1Pe 2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

1Co 6:20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

In Scripture, there is only one justification for men: The Lord's. It begins through His faith in well-doing, and continues faithful in sight of men.

And if the Lord does not aprove our works, then no amount of man's validation of acceptable spotty righteousness has any justification nor honor with God.

Conclusion: No man doing unrighteousness is justified with God by Jesus Christ, irregardless of any man's personally aproved spotty righteousness among their congregations.

Only God justifies the soul unto ressurrection of life, which is only by works of His faith. Man cannot justify anyone beyond the grave by their own faith alone theology of 'redemptive-validative' justifications.

I.e. just because one less spotty believer says another more spotty believer can go to heaven, it doesn't make it so in the righteous judgment of God by works. In fact, God laughs at such haughty pride of sinful man's religious traditions and judgements, by their own faith alone.

Pro 1:24Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

P.s. From the grave, there is no repentance to be born all new of God unto His salvation and justification of works. No appeals to long aproved traditions of men, that are easily rebuked by Scripture as openly false.

 

[RandyK]

False. While most faith aloners do preach the lukewarm righteousness of less sinning than before, there are a minority that preach no need to do more or less works than before.

Since you don't appear to understand what "Faith Only" is, there's no sense in arguing with you over a false definition. In my view, "Faith Only" does not diminish Works of Righteousness.

1 John is plain that if we have the theology of Christ, we must have the Works of Christ. "Faith Only" does not negate that. It only stipulates who it is that exclusively provided for our Redemption, and who must therefore be the inspiration behind our Works. Obviously, it is Christ.

The former preach faith alone accompanied with half-hearted repentance, while the latter hold no repentance is necessary, for the eternally secured justificaiton of their faith alone in Christ.

I understand the unbiblical tradition of 'two' justificaitons: Redemptive vs Validative.

Those aren't "two justifications." There is only one Redemptive Justification, as opposed to validating the fact we were Justified by doing Works of Righteousness.

There is no sense in arguing "two justifications" if when speaking of "Faith Only" we are only speaking of Redemptive Justification, followed by validating the fact we were Justified by showing Christ is in us through our Works.

You try to separate Redemptive Justification from Works Validation, but they cannot be separated. One leads to the other.

Works Validation is not "unrighteous Works" because they are produced from our Redemptive Justificaiton, which was by Christ's Works alone, and received by our Faith. Our Faith is the only "Work" that we do, which is an operation of our will, and not something we do independent of God's Word.

It is actually a choice to respond to God's Word, to become a partner with God and His Word--not a choice to do a Work independent of God's Word. The thing we participate in is His Divine nature, but not His Work of Redemption.

I don't think you make this clear at all. Our "Work of Faith" does not make us partners with Christ in his Work of Redemption.

 

[RBDERRICK]

You also have a problem with defining "sinner." One meaning of "sinner" would refer to one who is committed to living a sinful lifestyle.

I completely understand the psychological and practical definitions of anti-Bible Christian traditions, that are solely used for doctrinally justifying one's own sins and trespasses. I just reject them all by Scripture.

Man's moral relativism of frequency is not God's righteous judgment of the deed done.

The problem with theroetical relativists, is they would never suggest someone burglarizing their home is not a thief.

Nor would they question the one committing burglary how often they do so, in order to theologically judge them committed to thieving.

1Co 1:19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

To self-justifyihg philosophic doctinarians, it's foolish to call a thief, a thief, that is committed to the act of thieving in the commission of the act.

And to the unrepentant thief, it's equally foolish to repent of thieving, and commit the act no more.

Eph 4:28Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

As well as equally foolish for the profane speaker, to stop the profanity.

You conflate these two contexts, making it difficult for you to describe Christians as "sinners."

I have no difficulty at all in calling Christians sinners, when they call themselves sinners.

And it's easy enough to describe it: they commit sin.

Nor is it any difficulty in dismissing their self-justifying rhetoric to do so. I just quote Scripture against it.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

You shouldn't have a problem with this if you separate these diverse meanings of "sinner."

Parsing your Christian relativism and diversity theology is your problem, not mine. I can understand the jig-sawed distopian puzzle, rebuke it piecemeal by Scripture, and even put it back together again the way it was.

And then dismiss it out of hand as just more Christianized sophistry.

Dan 2:34Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Another different meaning of "sinner" would be one who has a Sin Nature, which includes all men, including Christians.

Jas 1:14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

All sinners have their own lust of a corrupt heart, unto repenting of the deeds, for the Lord to circumcise

All angels and men a created pure of heart by Christ, until lust is concieved in one's own heart to do their own will against God.

Lust is the beginning and nature of any committed act of evil. (Including theft)

Angels and men create their own lust to rebel against God and His righteousness.

God is not the Author of lust nor rebellion not any committed work of unrighteousness.

There be many philosophic and self-decieving doctrines of unrepentant sinners, to justify their own transgressions against the Law of the Lord. Blaming it on the body, or even seeking to share their guilt with natural flesh and blood, is the most childishly worst. (Even more so, than saying that the commission of an act of transgression is not committed to transgressing.)

 

[RandyK]

Jas 1:14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

All sinners have their own lust of a corrupt heart, unto repenting of the deeds, for the Lord to circumcise

All angels and men a created pure of heart by Christ, until lust is concieved in one's own heart to do their own will against God.

Lust is the beginning and nature of any committed act of evil. (Including theft)

Angels and men create their own lust to rebel against God and His righteousness.

God is not the Author of lust nor rebellion not any committed work of unrighteousness.

There be many philosophic and self-decieving doctrines of unrepentant sinners, to justify their own transgressions against the Law of the Lord. Blaming it on the body, or even seeking to share their guilt with natural flesh and blood, is the most childishly worst. (Even more so, than saying that the commission of an act of transgression is not committed to transgressing.)

In order to accommodate free choice, God gave men an alternative. It is the spirit that has been poisoned with the wish to pursue an alternative. And since the spirit pursues its choices through the body, the body is described as being the home of sin.

Lust is the option that God has given to men so that they can choose to desire an alternative to God's will. They "lust" for what God has not given them to want. Men *want* things for themselves that is opposed to God's word and will.

We do carry the inheritance of Adam's Sin Nature. We are born with poisoned spirits. We can add to this poisonous nature our own lustful choices, enhancing our Sin Nature with greater sin.

The good news is that God is willing to insert into men a New Nature that is like His own. That way, we can opt for things that God wants us to want, without carrying around a constant negation of anything we do.

We can have the record of our evils removed through the sacrifice of Christ, so that we can use Christ's own flawless record as a banner of our vindication whenever we overcome our sinful tendencies and choose to live by this proper Nature.

 

[RandyK]

I completely understand the psychological and practical definitions of anti-Bible Christian traditions, that are solely used for doctrinally justifying one's own sins and trespasses. I just reject them all by Scripture.

That is not, however, what I said. I described the difference between defining "sinner" as an embraced lifestyle and defining "sinner" as having a Sin Nature, which all men have.

I have no difficulty at all in calling Christians sinners, when they call themselves sinners.

What kind of "sinners" are you saying Christians are?

And it's easy enough to describe it: they commit sin.

But we are talking about the difference between committing sin in a "human" way and choosing to embrace sin as a lifestyle.

Nor is it any difficulty in dismissing their self-justifying rhetoric to do so. I just quote Scripture against it.

My definition of "sin" was not "self-justifying." It is not "self-justifying" to define "sinner" as a universal human nature we are infected with from birth. It is only "self-justifying" if one chooses to capitulate to that nature or embrace it as an acceptable lifestyle.

Parsing your Christian relativism and diversity theology is your problem, not mine.

As I said, you failed to address the point, which is that there are 2 distinctly different definitions of "sinner." If you conflate them, the conversation gets muddled. But you don't even address the point!

 

[RBDERRICK]

And this is your whole problem, that you don't know how to translate OT figures into NT realities.

OT figures are of the NT realities: Shedding and sprinkling blood of bulls and goats, foreshadows shedding and sprinkling blood of the risen Lamb of God.

The blood of bulls and goats could only be sprinkled by hands on the flesh. The blood of the resurrected Lamb can be sprinkled by the Spirit on the conscience of them that repent.

Hebrews 8 makes it very clear. The OT rituals were actually designed to speak of spiritual realities that were quite different from their earthly counterparts. You conflate the "heavenly" with the "earhtly," and get them confused.

You negate the NT sprinkling of the Lamb today, in order to justify your faith in being atoned for by the death of Jesus alone.

Which of course does not command repentance from all your sins and trespasses, in order to foollishly believe in it.

I didn't at all say that *all Scripture* is symbolic.

Once any Scripture of truth is made symbolic, all Scripture is open for symbolizing myths of men.

In reality, I was saying that *Scripture itself* defines NT fulfillment as havinag been symbolized previously by OT images, rituals, and Temple worship.

A better definition.

However, not true in all things. Many prophesies of old have yet to be fulfilled after the NT resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are not symbolic prophecies.

A favorite playground of Christianized mythogrophers, is of symbolizing away the sure truth of all God's prophecies.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

You have not proven that at all!

The OT is dead and passed, and the Lord Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, and it is now His NT.

Sufficient proof for non-agenda oriented philosophers and theologians.

That is your proof that the New Covenant was not yet in effect?

No. That is prooof that no one on earth believed God and His Son.

His resurrection from the dead is proof of His NT brought into the world.

After all, where there is no testator to declare a testament, nor any to declare with, there is no testament. And where no mediation is made between anyone, there is no mediator of any testament.

Jesus Christ in the heart of the earth before His resurrection from the dead, was not testating nor mediating to anyone on earth.

Neh 8:8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Scripture must be read with common sense, because God is not a senseless theologican, nor a myth-makiing symnbolizer.

You're actually trying to prove that when Jesus said "It is finished" he was lying?

Scripture proves your lie about what Jesus said. When you quote what Jesus says, then we know what Jesus says. Otherwise, most all you do is insert your own personal views alongside and into the Bible, in order to corrupt what Jesus says.

The record we have from you, is consistently about your own views and outer-biblical tradition speak, not about what Jesus says in Scripture.

Are you saying his blood was worthless to forgive,

No man's natural flesh and blood can forgive sins, nor justify anyone. Natural flesh and blood is just natural stuff like grass and dew.

And, drinking any natural blood shed is unlawful in the OT and NT. And eating any natural dead flesh of man is cannibalism.

Only the sprinkled blood of the resurrected Lamb of God can wash away sins, and be drank in obedience to the Lord's word to do so.

So long as you're going to place your trust in natural blood to atone for your sins, that's fine by me, but then you only have blood of beasts, or human sacrifice to do so.

that it couldn't immediately take effect?

The innocent shed blood of Jesus did have immediate effect. He died bodily, and all men that sin are now guilty of shedding His blood at the cross.

But all you're doing is committing heresy!

Aargh!!! help! Help! Ooooh I'm in trouble now!

Heresy to you is Scriptures of God for me.

Yes, Jesus' Disciples were discouraged after he died.

None believed He was Son on the cross, nor in the grave. They didn't come to the grave to watch Him rise again, but to anoint His dead body.

And some wouldn't believe it, until He came with the prints in His hands to prove it.

But the command to believe in him still existed,

This is nonsense. There is no commandment to believe in the Bible.

The commandment is to love God and our neighbors. The only way to do so with a clean heart is through the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ.

You reject having His faith for your own faith alone, and by your own faith alone, you make up your own natural blood atonement for yourself alone.

When did you last drink any blood to obey the Lord? I know it wasn't Jesus' blood dried up in the dust of the earth long ago.

Jhn 6:54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

If you're not drinking the blood of Jesus' atonement, then you have none of His life's blood in you.

The *veil had been torn!* You completely ignore this, and that's heresy.

Haven't said anything about the torn veil. It was torn in two by the finger of God.

There is no more veil covering the holiest in heaven, except the uncircumcised foreskin of men's corrupt hearts, who repent not of their sinful deeds for Jesus' faith and sprinkling of His blood.

 

[RBDERRICK]

then their justification is incomplete and relies on their works.

The only incomplete justification is of lukewarm repenters with incomplete sanctification.

God's sanctification and justification is complete all at once, by repentance frm dead works with the faith of Jesus toward God and His righteousness.

The saints in Christ Jesus maintain His complete sanctification and justification, by whole heartedly maintaining good works through His faith.

The only thing incomplete hearts maintain, is their own personal frequency of sinning by their own faith alone. They learn to warmly manage their decline to the grave.

{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Same difference. If works are needed to continue to ensure our justification is complete, then that is adding works to justification.

Scripture calls it adding God's works to our faith in Him.

Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (ESV)

The Bible is talking about adding and maining the good works of Jesus Christ. Not our own old works of our own faith and righteousness alone.

Only those unrepented of their own dead works, don't know the difference.

Of course not, no one is justified by their works.

Just because you aren't, doesn't mean no one is.

Yes, you are teaching a false gospel. Works do not justify. Period.

You are teaching a false gospel. Works do justify. Period.

Works are done out of obedience and love for Christ

Not any unrighteous works. No one doing an unrighteous deed has any lave, faith, nor obedience in Jesus Christ.

If they have any faith in any Christ, it's not Christ Jesus.

and so are evidence that a person is justified.

Double speak. Without the proof of the works, there is no justification.

1 Tim 6:3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

In so doing, they play a part in our sanctification.

All works we do play their part, in God justifying or condemning us by His righteous judgement.

That is the true gospel, given throughout the NT, and posted to you ad nauseam and which you have ignored just as many times. Why have you yet to actually directly address the passages given to you?

Have. Ad nauseum. My answers will never satisfy you and your gospel, because our gospels oppose one another.

Your gospel is your faith alone in Christ unto lukewarm repentance, and my gospel is whole repentance unto the faith of Jesus Christ.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Faith Alone denies Works because it is

Dead.

Faith Alone denies Works because it is speaking of Justification,

Which is not justified with God.

By claiming that Faith Alone denies Works

You're the one claiming faith alone denies works.

you actually give the impression that your anti-Faith Alone system adds Works to Justification.

Scripture's anti-faith alone doctrine adds works to faith, to remain wholly sanctified and justified in Christ Jesus.

And that's because Faith Alone is talking about Justification.

Which does not justify with God.

By attacking it, you attack Justification.

Yes. Your faith alone and your justification.

Actually, I defend the Scriptures faith of Jesus Christ and His justification.

Phl 1:7Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Personally, I don't care about your faith nor your justification. You're more than welcome to it unto the grave.

And when you attack Faith Alone because you think it should've added Works to it,

Works can't be added to faith alone, else the faith is not alone.

So, when you abandon your faith alone by doing works, how does your faith alone continue to justify you, not being alone, but with works?

Or, is your Lady of "Faith ALone" some great shining goddess in sky, that is forever standing alone apart from any works you do at all? Do you gaze upon her with bright eyes of faith, for justification in times of transgression?

But all Christians Works, though not part of our Justification,

Shiboleth.

But all Christians Works, though not part of our Justification, rely upon Christ's Word.

No works of unrighteousness have any word of Jesus Christ. Whether Christian, Buddhist, atheist, satantist...

As such, we not only cannot add Works to our Justification, but neither can we add Works that operate independent of Christ.

Anyone doing an unrighteous work of the flesh is doing it independent of Jesus Christ every time.

Not independent of another Christ of the world.

This is why we're Justified only by Christ

Not Jesus Christ, if any work is unrighteous.

The only Christs that justify someone by their faith alone, while doing unrighteousness, is a false Christ.

because only in recognition of him do we acknowledge that *all of our Works* must originate with his Word.

Good acknowledgement. Doing it is justified with God.

James{1:22} But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Walking around thinking about how we ought to do His will, is not doing His word.

No man serves the law of the Lord in their mind alone. And no man spiritually multi-tasks to keep His law in mind, while transgressing Him in the flesh.

What Works then would you add to Faith Alone--Works apart from Christ?

I wouldn't. Not if I want to trust in being justified by my faith alone. Sort of defeats the doctrinal purpose, doesn't it.

Saints must add the virtuous, godly, and good works of Jesus Christ, to ensure His santcification and justification remains whole and complete unto the end.

Col 2:6As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

Those who don't add His justified works to their faith, are blinded by their own doctrinal justification of faith alone.

"Faith Alone" is a blinding goddess to God's righteous judgment by works.

But if all of our Works must be generated through and with Christ, then we acknowledge that nothing we do on our own can Justify us.

True. No works any man does by his own faith alone, and apart from Jesus Christ, is justified with God.

Only those doing His works of faith justify the faithful follower of the Lord.

And it is *our Faith* that operates in conjunction with God's Word that enables us to participate not just in his righteousness but also in his Redemption.

The only participation anyone committing iniquity has, is with the children of disobedience and the devil.

You have said that we only operate "his Faith"--whatever that means?

Exactly. No sinner understands having the righteous faith of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The only faith they have is to continue sinning, not to do God's righteousness at all times.

But it is *our Faith* that saves

Man's faith of himself is for himself alone. God's faith is that of Jesus Christ, that is freely given to any man that repents of his own deeds, to recieve Jesus Christ and His righteous faith toward God.

and he alone provides us with a righteousness that is free of condemnation.

No man is free of condemnation, while doing unrighteousness.

You condemn those who disagree with you,

You do. I only condemn your doctrine. Which makes you personally touchy and pouty.

and quote lots of BIble verses.

Thank you. The main difference between us. I quote Bible. You quote views and traditions.

But they do not cover up your belief that we cannot legitimately have Faith of our own,

Because you don't quote Bible and teach that, you also don't quote teaching of Bible and respond to that.

All people have their own faith for themselves. No one's faith of their own can alone justify anyone with God.

Gen 3:4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: {3:5} For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Disobedient children being gods unto themselves on earth, by their own faith alone, only lasts until the grave.

and that you constantly confuse what Faith Alone really teaches.

I know all about what your faith alone teaches. You are a full instructor in your own faith alone. I reject it the more I hear it.

 

[RandyK]

Personally, I don't care about your faith nor your justification. You're more than welcome to it unto the grave.

Then why are we even discussing this? You don't use terms properly. I try to explain that, but you will have none of it. Therefore, we'll be wasting time going on.

I know all about what your faith alone teaches. You are a full instructor in your own faith alone. I reject it the more I hear it.

No, I've given you the standard beliefs of "Faith Alone," but you're not interested. If we cannot agree on what we mean by the terms we use, we cannot discuss it.

You can form your own definition for "Faith Alone," but nobody from "Faith Alone" will be able to discuss it with you because you can't agree on the the conventional meaning of the term and what it means by those who use it. Goodbye.

 

[RandyK]

OT figures are of the NT realities: Shedding and sprinkling blood of bulls and goats, foreshadows shedding and sprinkling blood of the risen Lamb of God.

Foreshadowing is not reproducing the exact same thing. I've nothing more to add.

 

[RBDERRICK]

So, you state in the quote above: "I have never taught adding 'works to justification'."

But, you just stated this in post #420, 45 minutes ago: "Justification by faith alone apart from our works, is no different than any other hypocrite religion on earth."

When you learn to quote someone saying, what you say they have said, then you will learn to prove what they have said. Until then, you only learn to misrepresent what others say for your own purposes.

But, when people do that with God's words, it's no surprise they do that with teachings of God's words.

But, you just stated this in post #420, 45 minutes ago: "Justification by faith alone apart from our works, is no different than any other hypocrite religion on earth."

Justification by faith with works, is not adding works to incomplete justification, but is the Scriptures adding works to faith completely justified of God.

Without doing the will of God, neither faith nor justification are complete toward God.

Lukewarm faith for a lukewarm repentance unto the lukewarm sanctification and justification of one's own faith alone, in a lukewarm Christ.

And, you have also taught justification by works elsewhere:

Duh. Just not adding works to incomplete justification.

The lukewarm must add repentance from all dead works, to make their repentance complete and of God.

"Scripture is all about keeping the law of God, including being justified by works of faith" and "By James 2, I was refuting justification by faith alone, apart from any works we do." HERE

"We are justified by good works sprinkled with His blood." HERE

"Only by doing His works of faith are we justified with Him.

Seeking to be justified by faith alone, apart from doing good, is only in the imagination of man." HERE

Sounds better everytime I hear it. Thanks.

How about this topic you started which was dedicated to teaching justification by works: The problem with not being justified by our works

That is a problem indeed. If we can't justify our own works with God, then He certainly doesn't.
https://christianforums.net/threads/the-problem-with-not-being-justified-by-our-works.107390/

And that is just another example of "adding works to an incomplete justification."

Your quotes. Not mine. Quoting yourself misrepresenting me, does not help you stop misrepresenting me.

I've found it becomes a common practice for people that misrepresent the Bible, to also misrepresent teaching of the Bible.

They no longer know the difference.

If anything has to be done "to ensure our election and justification with God," then that can only mean that our justification is incomplete and works are necessary to complete it.

Case in point. Scripture does not teach adding works to any incomplete justification, but only adding works to faith ensuring His whole and complete election, sanctification, and justification remains pure and undefiled in us.

Jas 1:27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

1 John 5:18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

No. Justification is a once and for all act of God.

True.

There is nothing we can do to "ensure we remain wholly . . . justified."

Your rejection of Scriptural promise in this life is your problem.

It's not surprising that the lukewarm who do not seek to never fall, do not add works to ensure they never fall.

Sanctification is both an act of God and a process that we go through and are involved in with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Neither God nor the Holy Spirit is involved in any relative process of sinful man, that seeks to gradually sanctify himself, and only sin less than before.

Any sinner in any religion or nonreligiion on earth can do that. It's just not the pure and complete sanctification of Jesus Christ from all sins and trespasses of the world.

Some Buddhists have better versions of earthly sanctification, than many Christian sinners.

Doing good works out of obedience and love for God are a part of sanctification, never justification.

No one doing bad works is ever justified with God.

I don't know what your point is here or how it addresses my point, which was:

Anyone saying works are not judged, reject the judgment of God by works.

Anyone believing a person is justified alone, and not the works, is preaching illusion and confusion.

but what are the biblical meanings of "justification"?

There is only one Bible justification of man with God.

A teaching of two different justifications, one redemptive with God, and the other evidentiary with man, is false on both accounts.

Not man is justified with God by faith alone. And, God does not justify any man's works done only to be seen and justified by man, and not by God.

here you also don't seem to understand that some things left unsaid doesn't mean they aren't also true.

This is true. The great left unsaid lie of justification by faith alone in Christ, is justification with Christ while doing unrighteousness.

But, if someone is going to say an incomplete justification must add works, then it must be quoted.

You really need to learn how people generally communicate and stop reading so much into things.

You might want to understand what you're talking about. First you talk about being able to infer things unsaid, and then don't want to read into things?

Accurately reading into things is not wrong. Reading into things that are not there, is misrepresenting them.

We know the difference by things quoted and understand, vs something never said nor understood.

I had no clue how you got 'adding works to justification", until you added your own word 'incomplete' justification, which I never said nor understood.

Whether I call myself a saint or not is utterly irrelevant

Not if you're going to be offended for being called a sinner, when you call yourself a sinner, and not being called a saint, when you don't call yourself a saint.

to the fact that all true believers are saints,

True. All those walking as Jesus walked by His faith, are saints of God in Christ Jesus.

No one doing a work of darkness is a saint nor son of God, nor has the faith of Jesus Christ.

which would include myself. It goes without saying.

Then do so. Call yourself a saint. Confession of the mouth is unto salvation.

What's the matter, some sin got your toungue? You have no problem whatsoever calling yourself a sinner. That comes natural to all Christian sinners.

Being a sinner is not confessed at all by Christian saints.

So go ahead. Call yourself a saint if you can. I'll call you a saint too. But I won't also call you a sinner, because God says there is no such person on earth.

Unless of course it's a sinner and saint of another Christ, than Jesus Christ.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Jesus' sacrifice provided an atonement for those guilty of his death.

True. He first began to sprinkle His blood at His resurrection from the dead, upon them that repent and confess Him resurrected Lord. He still does the same today as on the third day He rose again from the dead.

Mary Magdeline is the first recorded born again sprinkled saint in Christ Jesus, after He rose from the dead.

The will provided, in advance, an instant inheritance for those who in the future will become Christian.

The will was spoken from the foundation of the world. The doing was first done by the Lamb rising from the dead.

But that's what you do in trying to define the shedding and sprinkling of blood by OT standards!

You are trying to be atoned for by shedding and sprinkling of natural blood under OT standards.

The problem is your version given in the name of Jesus, is human sacrifice, which is not OT standard.

Jhn 6:54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Who drank His blood at the cross? Do you drink any substitute blood to symbolize it? How about any dead man's flesh to eat instead of Jesus' dead flesh?

Preaching an atonement made by the death of the man Jesus alone on a cross, is cannibalism of human sacrifice.

Or, you can just go ahead and believe the Bible record of Jesus' natural body's death on a cross, and the blood of His eternal Spirit now sprinkled for atonement of sins past.

But of course, only for those that do repent of all their transgressions, to receive His righteous faith and confess Him resurrected Son and Lord of glory.

 

[Free]

The only incomplete justification is of lukewarm repenters with incomplete sanctification.

And yet you believe that our justification isn't complete, as I will, once again, show below.

God's sanctification and justification is complete all at once, by repentance frm dead works with the faith of Jesus toward God and His righteousness.

Not sanctification. As for justification, you don't believe it "is complete all at once."

The saints in Christ Jesus maintain His complete sanctification and justification, by whole heartedly maintaining good works through His faith.

If we have to work to maintain our justification, then by definition, it cannot be complete.

Scripture calls it adding God's works to our faith in Him.

No, it doesn't. That's sanctification, not justification.

The Bible is talking about adding and maining the good works of Jesus Christ. Not our own old works of our own faith and righteousness alone.

No, it isn't. This is a very plain, clear text:

Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (ESV)

A person cannot do works of righteousness unless they are a believer. Paul is saying here that "works done by us in righteousness" do not justify us and are only "justified by his grace." Full stop. Works do not justify and they do not keep us justified.

Only those unrepented of their own dead works, don't know the difference.

You're the one who doesn't even know what "justification" means.

Just because you aren't, doesn't mean no one is.

I'm not because no one is, as the Bible unequivocally states.

Works do justify. Period.

That is completely false. Paul says you are to be considered accursed. But, let it be noted that you are clearly and unquestionably saying that we are justified by works, which you also repeatedly deny teaching, and that despite numerous quotes I've given showing that you do.

Not any unrighteous works. No one doing an unrighteous deed has any lave, faith, nor obedience in Jesus Christ.

If they have any faith in any Christ, it's not Christ Jesus.

I don't even know why you would make such a response. Unrighteous works obviously have no bearing on the matter. Keep things in context.

Double speak. Without the proof of the works, there is no justification.

That is teaching justification by works. You would have been correct if you said, "Without the proof of the works, there has been no justification."

All works we do play their part, in God justifying or condemning us by His righteous judgement.

Once again, you're teaching the false gospel of justification by works.

Your gospel is your faith alone in Christ unto lukewarm repentance, and my gospel is whole repentance unto the faith of Jesus Christ.

That is once again misrepresenting what I have said.

When you learn to quote someone saying, what you say they have said, then you will learn to prove what they have said. Until then, you only learn to misrepresent what others say for your own purposes.

I have quoted directly from your posts and you literally just stated the very things I said you stated. In this my response, just above, this is what you said:

"Works do justify. Period."

"All works we do play their part, in God justifying or condemning us by His righteous judgement."

You teach the false gospel of justification by works. It's plain to all that I have not misrepresented you.

Justification by faith with works, is not adding works to incomplete justification,

Yes, it is.

but is the Scriptures adding works to faith completely justified of God.

This doesn't make sense.

Without doing the will of God, neither faith nor justification are complete toward God.

Again, justification by works. False gospel.

Duh. Just not adding works to incomplete justification.

A clear admission that you teach justification by works, which you previously denied and when given proof, said I was misrepresenting you. Are you even aware that you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth, in the same breath even?

Sounds better everytime I hear it. Thanks.

So, let's look at this response. This is to say that I have accurately quoted you, because you like what I quoted. What I quoted was evidence of you saying that we are justified by works. Yet, to begin your post you said: "When you learn to quote someone saying, what you say they have said, then you will learn to prove what they have said."

And that was a response to this quote from you: "I have never taught adding 'works to justification'."

That is a problem indeed. If we can't justify our own works with God, then He certainly doesn't.

This doesn't make sense either. Again, you're using biblical terms in ways the Bible doesn't use them.

Your quotes. Not mine. Quoting yourself misrepresenting me, does not help you stop misrepresenting me.

You still used those words. And, they are an accurate representation of your position.

Case in point. Scripture does not teach adding works to any incomplete justification, but only adding works to faith ensuring His whole and complete election, sanctification, and justification remains pure and undefiled in us.

In the biblical use and understanding of "justification," it is once for all complete as and act of God alone. So, to say that we add works to ensure our justification, can only mean that our justification is incomplete.

True.

That was in response to: "Justification is a once and for all act of God." But, you cannot believe it to be true. You stated that "Works do justify. Period." Those are two mutually exclusive, contradictory beliefs.

The rest of your post is not worth responding to. You keep going in circles based on false assumptions and willful ignorance (by not actually looking up the meanings of "justification;" central to this discussion), which leads to a continual lack of understanding of both Scripture and what others are saying.

There is no reason for this thread to continue.