The Work of Repentance Versus Faith Only

[rrowell]

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.

AMEN!

 

[Webb]

And, AMEN

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

Don't you know James uses the law of Moses as the 'doing' of faith--the faith that is alive, not dead?

Think hard as to the implications that has for your argument.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

Right off I'm not seeing any real difference in your three points and what I believe.

(And thank you for your kind words.)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

My last post before this (#272) addresses your contentions. Did you read it before you posted this?.

Shorter posts, please. I really can't sift through discussions that really do deserve careful consideration, but which I can't give more time to.

Back in that other post (#272), I asked why some works of the law save while others don't (the ceremonial law). Just because (supposedly) Paul says that, are we to just take it as fact and leave it at that, or is there a specific reason ceremonial law obedience doesn't save, while other obediences to the law do?

 

[eddif]

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.

In Philippians 3 Paul pretty much understood his Jewish experience and even goes on to say that he still had not attained to perfecdtion (v 12).

The gentiles also have their flesh baggage to deal with.

For all have sinned ......

eddif

 

[Drew]

In Philippians 3 Paul pretty much understood his Jewish experience and even goes on to say that he still had not attained to perfecdtion (v 12).

The gentiles also have their flesh baggage to deal with.

For all have sinned ......

eddif

All true, but none of this challenges the view that the "I" in Romans 7 is not "Paul thie Christian", but is rather "Paul the unbelieving Jew struggling under the Law of Moses".

 

[eddif]

All true, but none of this challenges the view that the "I" in Romans 7 is not "Paul thie Christian", but is rather "Paul the unbelieving Jew struggling under the Law of Moses".

IMHO Paul would be still taking prisoners to Jerusalem as a Jew alone. Once Paul was, struck down, raised up, filled with the Holy Spirit; Paul became a new person and all writings reflect his new man (inner change). Paul did however, realize he still had a body of death.

Maybe I am the only one to realize that although my mind is changed / being changed, I still have issues with the flesh. At the resurrection that will change.

We just have to see the tabernacle we are, and the Spirit that can dwell in that tabernacle.

Which part of us is the dung, and which part of us is the knowing of Christ?

eddif

 

[Drew]

IMHO Paul would be still taking prisoners to Jerusalem as a Jew alone. Once Paul was, struck down, raised up, filled with the Holy Spirit; Paul became a new person and all writings reflect his new man (inner change). Paul did however, realize he still had a body of death.

I do not think this is what Paul is saying. Yes, Romans 7 speaks of an "I" that has a "body of death". But, for reasons I have yet to get into, I am quite sure that Paul cannot be describing himself as a Christian in Romans 7. I think Romans 7 is one of the most misunderstood texts in the scriptures. It is, I suggest, Paul's reflection on the plight of an unbelieving Jew, struggling under the Law of Moses. I will make the relevant arguments shortly.

But I will begin by warning the readers to not assume the very thing that is at issue here: who is Paul talking about here? An "I" that is in Christ? Or someone else.

I think the arguments are convincing: We cannot see the "I" in Romans 7 as a Christian for a range of reasons.

 

[Drew]

1. The person described in Romans 7 is experiencing a "law" of sin that leads to death:

but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

2. The Christian in Romans 8 is described as having been set free from from this law of sin and death.

2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death

3. If the position that the person in Romans 7 is a Christian is correct, - then we have the following statements:

a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)

b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)

These statements are inconsistent. Therefore, assuming we agree that the statement from Romans 8 is about the Christian, the Romans 7 cannot be descriptive of the experience of the Christian - one cannot be both subject to the effects of a law and yet also released from its effect.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

All true, but none of this challenges the view that the "I" in Romans 7 is not "Paul thie Christian", but is rather "Paul the unbelieving Jew struggling under the Law of Moses".

I would agree for Paul begins chapter 8 by saying "[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,..."

Paul describes how it is NOW for the Christian to how it was back THEN for a Jew.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Repentance, a Change of Mind is the Result of a New Birth ! All those who are begotten again by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead, they are given a New Life, a Change of Mind. 1 Pet 1:3

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The word begotten here is the greek word
anagennaō and means:
to produce again, be born again, born anew

2) metaph. to have one's mind changed so that he lives a new life and one conformed to the will of God

Notice, to have one's mind changed !

Now the greek word for repentance is
metanoia and it means:

a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done
So Christ, the Resurrected Christ gives Repentance to His Elect because of His Resurrection Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Christ gives a change of mind to His Elect or His Israel of God !

Repentance is not a condition man must do to get saved, its a evidence of Having been born again by Christ's Resurrection !

 

[rrowell]

Repentance, a Change of Mind is the Result of a New Birth ! All those who are begotten again by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead, they are given a New Life, a Change of Mind. 1 Pet 1:3

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The word begotten here is the greek word
anagennaō and means:
to produce again, be born again, born anew

2) metaph. to have one's mind changed so that he lives a new life and one conformed to the will of God

Notice, to have one's mind changed !

Again you take this scripture out of context, for every word there is context to define it (verse, sentence, etc...) for every sentence or verse there is context to define it (chapter, book etc...)

1 Peter 1:3 is referring to to those who already have been "begotten", after the death of Christ all the Christians (including Peter) thought all was lost, but by his resurrection they were "begotten again"...

They did have a new second life, with his resurrection their hope was renewed...

Do not take this verse out of context...

 

[Butch5]

Don't you know James uses the law of Moses as the 'doing' of faith--the faith that is alive, not dead?

Think hard as to the implications that has for your argument.

Hi Jethro,

James says, "out of". Faith out of works. I've thought through the implications of my argument. I've looked at it time and time again. It is the oldest and original understanding of hte church. The "not of works" argument today comes from Martin Luther, he's the one who championed "Faith alone" not the Scriptures.

 

[farouk]

Hi Jethro,

James says, "out of". Faith out of works. I've thought through the implications of my argument. I've looked at it time and time again. It is the oldest and original understanding of hte church. The "not of works" argument today comes from Martin Luther, he's the one who championed "Faith alone" not the Scriptures.

..but Luther got it from Scripture, and a straightforward reading of it, whereas church tradition relies more on its supposed authority.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

Actually, Paul is not drawing a conclusion in 3 and applying it to Abraham -- Paul is using Abraham as the challenge. In fact he poses it as the question: "What did Abraham discover in this regard?" Now granted, Paul is isolating the situation to be justification before God. (see Rom 4:2). But let's be clear -- Romans 4 demonstrates that justification can't be from works. Because Abraham is pre-law, works-of-law are also excluded. But Paul's answer is bigger. "one who does not work but believes" 4:5 is justified. Look at it. It says so. It can't be sliced down to "of-law", that doesn't work for Abraham. It must mean all works.

It would've been quite a non sequitur to say, "Okay, works of law don't justify you. And by conclusion, here's a guy who will really muddy up the water: pre-law, post-circumcision, both uncircumcised and circumcised." Paul isn't so scatterbrained in his thinking.

In Romans 4 Paul is inviting the challenge of the acid test of works vs. faith, not law vs. faith. There's no law for Abraham to be "versus". But Paul explicitly points it out, "If Abraham were justified by works he has something to boast about." Law is not present in this case. So Paul must be claiming that Abraham was not justified by any works. Because the law distinction is excluded.

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)

That's James, who doesn't speak for Paul. James 2 is nowhere in the context of Romans 2-4.

Now if you want to object that James conflicts with Paul, I merely point out, James is talking about Abraham being justified in the eyes of other people: "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." James 2:18

No, I didn't say chapter 2 was about the Law I said chapter 3 is about the Law.

Oh, chapter 2 isn't about the Law? Then it's about works. Which was what I said the first time.

Chapter 3 is about the Law's verdict on those who seek to be justified by works. The Law passes a verdict. It doesn't allow us to pass it. It's already passed the verdict, and the verdict is "guilty". Rom 3:9-19 reads exactly this way.

In chapter 2 Paul refutes your interpretation of chapter 4, those who do good are seeking eternal life.

No refutation appears. Those in Romans 2 are seeking to do good; and by it they intend to earn eternal life (2:7). However, Paul's also stated his conclusion quite simply at the start. Nobody does. "For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." 2:1b

 

[heymikey80]

Don't you know James uses the law of Moses as the 'doing' of faith--the faith that is alive, not dead?

Think hard as to the implications that has for your argument.

I think you make a great point here. James' examples are often quotes of ... Mosaic Law.

 

[heymikey80]

I would agree for Paul begins chapter 8 by saying "[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,..."

Paul describes how it is NOW for the Christian to how it was back THEN for a Jew.

Paul says how it is NOW for the Christian: "So then, I myself am serving the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I am serving the law of sin." 7:25 Keeping in mind that chapter divisions don't exist ... "So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

Pretty interesting what Paul is saying.

 

[Butch5]

..but Luther got it from Scripture, and a straightforward reading of it, whereas church tradition relies more on its supposed authority.

No he didn't, He got from what you call church tradition. He got from Augustine.

 

[farouk]

No he didn't, He got from what you call church tradition. He got from Augustine.

B:

Not everything Augustine taught was Biblical.

We are going round and round in circles, friend.