dadof10
Member
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Tired of all the political strife and infighting?
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
The Work of Repentance Versus Faith Only
- Thread starter Ernest T. Bass
- Start date
heymikey80
Member
Once more, with feeling: Paul excludes works, not simply works of law, in Romans 4:4. To be coherent Paul simply has to exclude law -- because Abraham was pre-law. Paul didn't miss this. Abraham is not justified by works. At all. "to one who does not work" is clearly not in the context of law. It's solely in the context of work.
Turning back to Romans 2, take a good hard look at this passage. Yes, it's full of references to the law, but only by way of skewering people who claim to follow the law. Romans 2 runs very far afield of lawkeeping:
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of 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 He will render to each one 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 self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, 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 everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law Rom 2:1-12
Y'catch that? eleven verses without a reference to law. And 12a, Paul states it flat-out: "outside law".
And you're saying everything here's about the law?
heymikey80
Member
No, Paul does not define what he means over 13 verses into explaining what he means. See above for Paul explaining what he means in the verses preceding, and not in the verses you're citing.
As part of "works", certainly. But clearly, Paul subsumes works of law under all works. It's pretty doggone easy to demonstrate that Paul does not mean ceremonial law, either: "21 While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law." Mkay. So it's good works Paul preaches against as salvific: fidelity in marriage, respecting property of others, proper worship of God.
He's flat-out said it. Exclude these from "good works".
What's left when all these "good works" are gone?
What's more, Romans 3 shows the Scriptures accusing everyone of sinning -- not simply breaking the law, but sinning. Now ... if you're willing to say lawbreaking and sinning are equivalent, that would mean the Law defined sinning in entirety. And so we're back to the whole issue of, "What works would be good, that are against the law?" But I don't need to go there. There's no such distinction. "Works of law" are at best a subset of "good works" -- but in Paul's mind the only difference between the works are their intent. "Works of law" implies salvation by these works. But to Paul, "good works" are the result of salvation, not the cause. See Eph 2:10: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
He sure is. Good -- not saving. Let's not confuse one with the other.
Last edited by a moderator:
Butch5
Member
Chapter 4 is hte conclusion he draws from his argument in chapter 3 which is that no flesh is justifed by the works of the Law.
Abraham is justified by works.
1 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? {Seest...: or, Thou seest}
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (Jam 2:21-24 KJV)22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? {Seest...: or, Thou seest}
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
No, I didn't say chapter 2 was about the Law I said chapter 3 is about the Law. In chapter 2 Paul refutes your interpretation of chapter 4, those who do good are seeking eternal life.
Jethro Bodine
Member
Do you think James is saying that Abraham literally MADE HIMSELF RIGHTEOUS and approved for salvation by his obedience?
Jethro Bodine
Member
And I didn't say it did. That's not my argument. You're showing me you still do not understand the argument you are resisting.
What do you say Paul means that the Law is not of faith? How does it support your argument that a man is made righteous by what he does?
The argument Paul is making is work is contrary to faith, not the same as work. They are two distinct 'ways' that a man is MADE righteous (justified) before God. But you say there is no distinction...because both are 'work'.
Butch5
Member
I don't believe Abraham made himself righteous. I believe that God declared Abraham righteous based on his obedience. You see, this incident that James speaks of required both belief and obedience. God had made a fourfold promise to Abraham and told him that that promise would be realized through Isaac. One element of that promise was that Abraham would receive the Promised Land himself as an everlasting possession. So, here's Abraham, he's been promised this fourfold promise by God which he is told will come through Isaac. Now, he's faced with the command to offer up Isaac. If Isaac dies how will the promise be fulfilled? Abraham can mouth some word, I believe you God, but now, he's been put in a place where he has to put up or shut up. Does he really believe God? His actions will now reveal his heart, is his faith genuine? We know what happened and God's response.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.(Gen 22:12 KJV)
Paul said,
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. {in faith: Gr. according to faith}
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: {of: or, to}
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Heb 11:8-19 KJV)
Because of Abraham's obedience God swore an oath to him.
15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; {shore: Heb. lip}
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.(Gen 22:15-18 KJV)
The oath was sworn and the promise ratified because Abraham Obeyed. Because of his obedience all the world would be blessed through his seed, which Paul says is Christ. As I said, the promise was fourfold, it was, that he would be the father of a great nation, the father of many nations, he would receive the land, and all nations would be blessed through him. It was based on both his belief in God and specifically his obedience to God.
farouk
Member
Justification is a judicial reckoning, an imputation.
It's not an infusion of righteousness so that the person can supposedly then try to achieve a higher, acceptable standard before God.
The believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is reckoned to be on a just standing before God, because of faith in Him and in the perfect sacrifice of His sinless Self at the Cross.
Scripture does indeed speak of 'the obedience of faith' (see Romans 1, Romans 16).
Jethro Bodine
Member
But that would mean Abraham made himself righteous before God by doing the right thing. IOW, he was declared righteous on the merit of his obedient effort, which is the very definition of the 'works' gospel.
It's impossible for anyone to earn a declaration of righteousness by doing right. That's why righteousness has to come by faith in God's forgiveness. God gave the law, a codified list of doing right, to prove that to us. A standard of 'right' reveals unrighteousness. It does not, and can not make one righteous by keeping it (for no one can). But it will show one to have faith in God's promise.
And in regard to Abraham, you're confusing the rewards of his faith with the fact that he was declared (made) righteous before God by his faith, apart from what he did. His 'doing' showed him to have the faith that makes a person righteous before God. That is what James' sermon is all about. It's not a sermon on how to make yourself righteous by doing things. It's a sermon about how true faith--the faith that can save--must be able to be seen in what it does...or else it's not true saving faith.
Last edited by a moderator:
dadof10
Member
Where does he define the word "works" as ANYTHING DONE?
First of all, he doesn't define the word "works" 13 verses later. He defines it by the words "work what the law requires" and "work of the law" Secondly, as I said, IMMEDIATELY after the verses you posted, he goes on the mention circumcision. Paul does not live in a vacuum. All this "faith vs works" theology is in the direct context of the "Judiazers" and the council of Acts 15. This was the first real doctrinal issue for them.
You are reading this into the text. Nowhere does he "exclude" these things from good works, nor does he preach against these things as salvific. He is using these things as a teaching example. You need to read it in context.
First he says: "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.
"But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth -- 21 you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." 25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God."
He is not making the case here that keeping the commandments do not effect salvation, but using commandment breaking as a hammer on the self-righteous attitudes of the "Judiazers". And again, the topic goes back to circumcision, because that was the point.
He's not preaching against "good works", but against works of the law.
What's more, Romans 3 shows the Scriptures accusing everyone of sinning -- not simply breaking the law, but sinning. Now ... if you're willing to say lawbreaking and sinning are equivalent, that would mean the Law defined sinning in entirety. And so we're back to the whole issue of, "What works would be good, that are against the law?" But I don't need to go there. There's no such distinction. "Works of law" are at best a subset of "good works" -- but in Paul's mind the only difference between the works are their intent. "Works of law" implies salvation by these works. But to Paul, "good works" are the result of salvation, not the cause. See Eph 2:10: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."[/QUOTE]
Nowhere are "works of the law" called a subset or part of the broader "good works".
The point is, he is not calling works of the law part of good works, like you seemed to imply. He is not comparing "works" to keeping the commandments.
I sure wish I could explain my explanations. Hopefully I just repeat what God has intended.
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Sure seems there is a concept of the flesh part of us and the mind part of us. Dividing the Word finds things that refer to the flesh and apply them to the flesh. Look for things that refer to the mind part of us and apply them to the mind.
There is a carnal mind and the mind of Christ. There is an un-regenerate heart and evidently a new heart. Of course I tend to believe that the new heart is the mind (the new heart flows spirit rather than blood). Our original state of living in our Adamic nature needs the crucified Jesus. Our new birth requires the raised from the dead Jesus.
While I am sure there is overlap between repentance and faith, there are some aspects of us that have repentance in one place and faith in another. John the Baptist preached repentance (so did Jesus). John said believe in the one who comes after me. Two areas are mentioned; repentance and faith. If you throw two beans in a pot and cook them together it is hard to seperate the two. Digestion might even be confused. Repentance and faith might be looked at as two spiritual foods that need to be seperated and looked at as individual thoughts, and applied to the correct part of the whole situation. Protein is broken down into amino acids and then built back into needed structures.
eddif
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Sure seems there is a concept of the flesh part of us and the mind part of us. Dividing the Word finds things that refer to the flesh and apply them to the flesh. Look for things that refer to the mind part of us and apply them to the mind.
There is a carnal mind and the mind of Christ. There is an un-regenerate heart and evidently a new heart. Of course I tend to believe that the new heart is the mind (the new heart flows spirit rather than blood). Our original state of living in our Adamic nature needs the crucified Jesus. Our new birth requires the raised from the dead Jesus.
While I am sure there is overlap between repentance and faith, there are some aspects of us that have repentance in one place and faith in another. John the Baptist preached repentance (so did Jesus). John said believe in the one who comes after me. Two areas are mentioned; repentance and faith. If you throw two beans in a pot and cook them together it is hard to seperate the two. Digestion might even be confused. Repentance and faith might be looked at as two spiritual foods that need to be seperated and looked at as individual thoughts, and applied to the correct part of the whole situation. Protein is broken down into amino acids and then built back into needed structures.
eddif
Jethro Bodine
Member
"...God, 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 granted us in Christ Jesus..." (2 Timothy 1:8-9 NASB)
"5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit..." (Titus 3:5 NASB)
Here Paul makes the clear distinction between works and grace/mercy. The mercy and grace of God is accessed through faith in Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins, not what we do--works.
We are saved because we have been given God's mercy. The conduit of that mercy is our faith in the forgiveness of God given to us in Christ Jesus. The conduit is not our works and what we do. That would instantly contradict the difference between grace/mercy and works for salvation that Paul is making here in these two passages.
We are saved because God has forgiven us our sins, not because of what we do.
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB)
Here again Paul is saying we are saved by grace--a grace given us through the conduit of faith, not works. If faith were a work the statement would be contradictory ('saved through works..not a result of works???). And if 'works' meant just the ceremonial works of the law how is other work somehow dismissed from the potential for boasting? ANY work, not just ceremonial works of the law, would constitute grounds for boasting. The only thing that one can not boast in is faith, because it is a God given gift and not the payment for self effort. A God given gift through which we receive the forgiveness of sins--the one and only thing that does save.
"5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit..." (Titus 3:5 NASB)
Here Paul makes the clear distinction between works and grace/mercy. The mercy and grace of God is accessed through faith in Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins, not what we do--works.
We are saved because we have been given God's mercy. The conduit of that mercy is our faith in the forgiveness of God given to us in Christ Jesus. The conduit is not our works and what we do. That would instantly contradict the difference between grace/mercy and works for salvation that Paul is making here in these two passages.
We are saved because God has forgiven us our sins, not because of what we do.
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB)
Here again Paul is saying we are saved by grace--a grace given us through the conduit of faith, not works. If faith were a work the statement would be contradictory ('saved through works..not a result of works???). And if 'works' meant just the ceremonial works of the law how is other work somehow dismissed from the potential for boasting? ANY work, not just ceremonial works of the law, would constitute grounds for boasting. The only thing that one can not boast in is faith, because it is a God given gift and not the payment for self effort. A God given gift through which we receive the forgiveness of sins--the one and only thing that does save.
Jethro Bodine
Member
Genuine repentance is the result of genuine faith.
The faith through which we receive God's mercy (the forgiveness of our sins) is signified by the work it produces and how it changes a person into someone who can now behave righteously (because they have been made a righteous person).
I enjoy your posts, and tend toward the faith viewpoint of salvation.
There is probably some slight difference in our viewpoints, but I hope they are not going to stop our basic agreement.
1...Baptism in John's repentance is the turning from sin. The power to turn into the righteous person would fall flat if we were just depending on repentance.
2...Baptism in Jesus gives us eternal life. He comes into us, and we are in Him.
3...Baptism in the Holy Spirit gives us power to be a wittness.
Repentance (turning from sin against the father), Jesus (eternal forgiveness for sins), Holy Spirit (empowerment for service).
eddif
On another forum, I made the argument that the very idea of repentance requires restitution/reparation. So if you steal your neighbors horse and repent, then true repentance requires you to return the stolen horse else you have not truly repented/changed. If you do not have to return the horse and it is acceptable to keep the stolen horse, then what would you have to repent of?
Those on the other side, mostly of the 'faith only' persuasion argued one does not have to return the horse. They argued essentially that if repentance requires a work, then I would have a "works based salvation". And that if my salvation hinged upon the work of returning the horse, then I would be trying to earn/merit my salvation by returning the stolen horse, therefore I could keep it.
What say you:
I'm aware that I'm "late to the party" and I haven't read the whole thread but here's a thought. If repentance requires that the sin be "undone" then what about sins that can't be undone? Like lust, or adultery, or lying/bearing false witness?
I'm not sure it makes sense to me that repentance would require that the sin be undone only in cases where it's possible. My understanding is that repentance is simply a turning away from the action in question, IOW stopping. The "undoing" of the sin, IMO, is more a response to the Godly sorry or Godly guilt that comes from the repentance. Or a response to God's great grace in forgiving the sin. But I don't necessarily see it as a condition of receiving the forgiveness.
Ernest T. Bass
Member
Some types of sin may not require reparation. I am just speaking of those that do, such as thieft. Can one say he repents of stealing horses yet keep the stolen horses?
dadof10
Member
I understand fine, you just keep moving the goalposts.
Here is the exchange:
You: "But the things you listed ARE works of the law: charity: Deuteronomy 15:7-11,
water baptism (cleansing with water for the forgiveness of sin): Numbers 19
keeping the commandments: The commandments themselves, of course, being the very law of God.
Me: LOL...and faith isn't?
You: "However, the Law is not of faith..." (Galatians 3:12 NASB)
Me: So, Paul means faith does not save either? You have him contradicting James, Jesus, Peter and now himself. Belief in God is the FIRST commandment. Sorry, but this argument falls flat. No matter how hard you try you cannot logically separate faith from other things you MUST DO IN ORDER TO BE SAVED, other "works". "I AM the Lord your God, you shall not have other Gods before me" is faith. We are still in the same boat, nice try."
You: "However, the Law is not of faith..." (Galatians 3:12 NASB)
My claim was CLEARLY that the Law included faith as it did charity and commandment keeping, your rebuttal was CLEARLY that Scripture taught the opposite, otherwise why did you post Gal.3:12? Then you say I don't get it? Why don't you be clear and tell me exactly what you mean. Was faith included in the law like charity and commandment keeping? Yes or No?
What he obviously means is that the law is not PART of faith. Faith operates WITHOUT the law. He is not commenting on whether faith is included in the law. The only reason I brought it up was your insistence that charity, baptism and commandment keeping (all "works" to you) are included in the law. If these "works" are included in the law, then so is faith. Faith is something we must DO to be saved, and is part of the law, just like the three things I mentioned. You can't logically INCLUDE EVERYTHING WE DO IN PAUL'S DEFINITION OF WORKS AND LEAVE OUT FAITH. This is what you keep trying to do and it is nonsense.
It's a good thing I don't like to put others down by saying "you just don't get it". You are projecting, I just can't decide whether it's on purpose or if you are just not bothering to actually read what I write. You complain I don't get it and then in the same post mis-characterize my view, EVEN AFTER BEING TOLD MORE THAN ONCE WHAT IT IS. From my last post:
"You can keep repeating it all you want, but you can't PROVE it. Your contention is that the word "works" includes EVERY BEHAVIOR OR ACTION. That when Paul says "works of the law" or "works" he has in mind keeping the commandments, baptism, charitable works, etc. My contention is that he means something specific (works of the Jewish law or circumcision), and that Scripture and historical fact (Acts 15) backs me up. To make my point, I brought up the FACT that Paul couldn't possibly mean ALL BEHAVIOR because "trusting in Christ" or FAITH IS A BEHAVIOR. Therefore, he must mean something more specific than ALL ACTIONS that attempt to "have yourself declared righteous before God through your righteous behavior".
And:
Is "trusting in that mercy" a "work", then? Again, I agree that the ATTITUDE of OBLIGATION is implicit in Paul's use of the word "works". ANYTHING DONE with that attitude (including having faith) does not justify. However Paul does NOT mean that baptism, keeping the commandments, charity, sacrifice, etc. DONE WITH THE PROPER ATTITUDE AND IN FAITH DOES NOT JUSTIFY. This is what you have to prove and can't.
If this is not enough, This is from my post on 7/15 (#253). Note the frustration:
"After all these posts back and forth you cannot possibly be missing my point by this much. I have been saying for months that IF you believe that the word "works" means "everything done" or "all behavior" this definition MUST INCLUDE FAITH, THEREFORE PAUL MUST MEAN SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC BY THE WORD "WORKS". I am NOT lumping them together, I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position."
And:
"I'm doing the exact opposite. I am saying Paul means ONLY WORKS OF THE LAW when he says "works". He does NOT mean, repeat, DOES NOT MEAN, baptism, keeping the commandments or FAITH. DOES NOT MEAN FAITH. I hope that's clear enough."
I know it's frustrating that you can't logically show that when Paul means "works" he means EVERYTHING DONE and that having faith is not an act of the will. If you could prove it, you would have by now. However, your frustration is manifesting itself in childish distractions and projection which is below you. Please stop.
Butch5
Member
Hi Jethro,
I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Let me first say that the Scripture must be the final authority, no matter what doctrines we have been taught. God himself swore the promise to Abraham saying "because thou hast obeyed my voice." No matter what our doctrines those are the word of God. If can't believe them then we have nothing. Having said that for me to explain this will take some time due to the amount of confusion there is regarding Biblical things.
Let me say right off that the "Works Salvation" argument is a man made doctrine derived from a misunderstanding of the Scriptures. It has it's basis in the teachings of Martin Luther, not Scripture. Martin Luther didn't understand the apostle Paul very well and as such his teachings introduced a completely new understanding of the issue of works. The "Works Salvation" argument of today does not appear in Church history prior to the 1500's.
We have two different issues here at the moment. One is the discussion of James and the other the works issue. I'll try to deal with each as necessary. As I said, the Scriptures mus tbe the final authority, no matter what doctrines come into question.
James says faith without works is dead, then rhetorically asks, can that faith save? The obvious answer is no. Logically one has to ask how can one be saved without works if faith without cannot save. Now, there have been all kinds of Scriptural and grammatical gymnastics done attempting to get around what James said here because it is diametrically opposed to the teaching of Martin Luther. Martin Luther went so far as to try to remove the book of James from his translation of the Scriptures. James says,
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (Jam 2:1 KJV)
Here is a literal translation of the Greek text.
YLT James 2:18 But say may some one, Thou hast faith, and I have works, shew me thy faith out of thy works, and I will shew thee out of my works my faith: (Jam 2:18 YLT)
According to James in this passage, faith comes out of works. Therefore the argument made today by many that James is saying works are proof that faith is real simply cannot stand up against the text.
James also says that works worked with Abraham's faith and by works faith is made complete. Clearly then faith without works is an incomplete faith, and as James says is dead, can such a faith save?
The argument today is that that is a works salvation and contradicts Paul's writings. However, as I said, that teaching comes from Martin Luther and is a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul. James is addressing works such as caring for widows and orphans and such. When Paul speaks of works in passages such as Ephesians 2:8-9, and Romans 4 and others he is addressing the Mosaic Law.
You see, the problem is that today so many churches and Christians are taught to proof text passages of Scripture so as to try to support preconceived doctrines. However, if you'll at those passage within the context of the books in which they are written you'll see that Paul is addressing the issue of the Mosaic Law.
One of the biggest problems Paul faced in his ministry was that of dealing with the Judaizers. The Judaizers were Jews who believed but went behind Paul telling his converted Gentiles that in addition to faith in Christ it was necessary for then to also be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. We can see this in Acts and Galatians.
KJV Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Act 15:1 KJV)
This was such an issue that God revealed to Paul by revelation that he needed to go to Jeruslaem and discuss this with the apostles. There was also a group of believes among the church in Jerusalem that said the Gentiles should keep the Law.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. (Act 15:4-6 KJV)
After concluding that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to keep the Law James sends a letter back with Paul.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (Act 15:1 KJV)
This is the background behind the vast majority of Paul's writings about works and how one is not saved by them. He is addressing this issue of righteousness via the Mosaic Law.
There's a lot more that can be said so I'll let you look at this and see what questions you may have.
Drew
Member
I believe this text is not describing a Christian. Instead, I suggest it is describing an "I" that is a Jew labouring under the Law of Moses.
Drew
Member
One of the most misunderstood texts in Scripture.Jethro Bodine;669922We are saved because God has forgiven us our sins said:
In verse 9, the writer is denying the salvific power of doing the works of Law of Moses, and not the more general category of “good worksâ€.
A point of method: It simply will not do to declare up front that the writer is talking about good works here. That begs the question, since the term “works†is not qualified by the term “good†or anything else that would rule out the possibility that the “works†of the Law of Moses is the subject. The fair-minded reader needs to ask which of the following views makes more sense given both the local context and the broader context of the whole letter:
1. The salvific power of doing good works is being denied;
2. The salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses is being denied.
Explanation 2 is the one that makes sense in light of what the writer goes on to say in verse 11.
Proceeding to an examination of Ephesians 2:11 and following, Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of his denial of salvation by “worksâ€
Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
The writer is clearly now talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, and how the actions of Jesus have brought Jew and Gentile together. Doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, is what demarcates Jew from Gentile in terms of covenant membership and shuts the Gentile out of citizenship in Israel. The writer continues:
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations
How much more clear could the writer be? What has divided the Jew from the Gentile and been the barrier? Good works? Obviously not, both Jew and Gentile are on “the same side†of any good works barrier (first 20 or so verses of Romans 3). It is doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific.