The Work of Repentance Versus Faith Only

[Butch5]

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.

That's imposing on the text. Where does Paul say anything in there about any works other than the Law? He doesn't, he only addresses the Law. So, if one applies this beyond the Law they take Paul words out of context.

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.

His argument is clear. Abraham proves the point he's been arguing in chapter 3. He uses a guy who was justified before the Law existed to show that the Law could not justify.

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.

There's the "assumption," "Paul must be claiming". That conclusion comes from not seeing that he is addressing the works of the Mosaic Law. If you want to see the issue Paul is dealing with Look at what some of the believing Jews were telling Paul's converts.

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. (Act 15:1 KJV)

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 15:5-6 KJV)

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 15:23-24 KJV)

So, you see, Jews were telling the Gentiles that in order to be saved they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. This is background to Paul's teaching that one isn't justified by works.

The way you're interpreting the passage contradicts the teaching of Jesus, Paul, James and Peter. If you understand that Paul is speaking of the works of the Law you have no contradictions.

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

James contradicts your interpretation of Paul he doesn't contradict my interpretation of Paul.

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

There is no conflict between James and Paul and James is not speaking of being justified before men. He said faith without works is dead, he too , turn to Abraham. However, look at the passage he quotes. In this quote we see Abraham's belief and his works.

5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? {lamb: or, kid}
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
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.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. {Jehovahjireh: that is, The Lord will see, or, provide}
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 22:5-18 KJV)

There was no one there but Abraham, Isaac, and God. Abraham wasn't justified before men.

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

In chapter 2 verse 17 Paul begins his argument in chapter 3 when he says, thou are called a Jew.

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.

Chapter 3 is explaining to the Jews that no one is justified by the Law.

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

He clealry says those who continue to in well doing are seeking eternal life, those who don't are seek wrath.

 

[Butch5]

B:

Not everything Augustine taught was Biblical.

We are going round and round in circles, friend.

I know, that's where Luther got his teaching of faith alone. It's not Biblical.

 

[savedbygrace57]

rr

Again you take this scripture out of context

Thats what you say, however the Truth of it remains !

 

[savedbygrace57]

Faith is also the result of the New Birth. All for whom Christ died, by His Resurrection have been begotten again unto a Lively Hope ! 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,

This word hope is defined as :

expectation of evil, fear

2) expectation of good, hope

a) in the Christian sense

1) joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation

3) on hope, in hope, having hope

a) the author of hope, or he who is its foundation

b) the thing hoped for

Its also used as Faith here Heb 10:23

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith or hope without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised )

So Hope and Faith go hand and hand, and the Elect receive it as well as repentance in the New Birth !

 

[dadof10]

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

No. Not till just now. I don't really have time to read all the posts in any thread, only the ones addressed to me.

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?

It's not just the "ceremonial law" Paul is talking about, it's also "works of the law" that put God in obligation to man. This is the attitude of the first century Jewish mind and what Paul is reacting to. I can't list each point of the law and comment on whether it falls under Paul's definition of "works" or not, what I can comment on is whether Paul taught salvation by faith alone (which he did not) and whether baptism, keeping the commandments and charity are included in his definition. These three things (among others) are taught in Scripture as being salvific, which rules them out of the definition and also rules out the doctrine of "faith alone".

You are right when you say Paul is INCLUDING "works done in righteousness" within the word "works". ANYTHING done with the attitude that puts God in obligation to man (including charity, commandment keeping, baptism and faith) cannot save, but we know that these things done in humble submission and obedience to God does, Scripture says so. The attitude of the Judiazers was that of obligation and circumcision was their "sacrament". Their mindset was that Gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep the law because this led to salvation. Paul is railing more against an attitude or mindset than against which parts of the law fall under "works" and which parts fall under "natural law", circumcision being the exception.

You made the comment in post #272 that faith was a gift from God so doesn't fall in to the category of "works". My contention is, and has always been, that charitable works, keeping the commandments and baptism are ALL Graces just like faith, and so, don't either. This is the sole reason I have been making the point that faith takes an act of the will, just like other "works" (note the quotation marks). You can't make the logical case that the ACTION of "trusting Christ" or "having a saving faith" is NOT a work, yet the ACTION of baptism or charity is, unless you can, on a case-by-case basis, prove the person is performing the act with the attitude of self-righteousness.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's not just the "ceremonial law" Paul is talking about, it's also "works of the law" that put God in obligation to man. This is the attitude of the first century Jewish mind and what Paul is reacting to. I can't list each point of the law and comment on whether it falls under Paul's definition of "works" or not, what I can comment on is whether Paul taught salvation by faith alone (which he did not) and whether baptism, keeping the commandments and charity are included in his definition. These three things (among others) are taught in Scripture as being salvific....

...Salvific as in they are expected expressions of the faith that saves all by itself. And just because these things accompany a genuine trusting in Christ's blood for the removal of sin guilt (so you can be saved) doesn't make those things duties upon which God gives salvation in payment for doing.

This seems to be the mountain that people who think we are saved on the basis of righteous things we did can't get over. Just because faith in the blood of Christ--the faith that forgives all by itself without the help of added works--will produce works of righteousness doesn't make those works the actual saving element of salvation. Faith is that all by itself. The works are the expected outcome of a genuine saving faith, just as getting wet is the expected and obligatory outcome of being put in a pool of water and not the thing that put you in there in the first place.

...which rules them out of the definition and also rules out the doctrine of "faith alone".

Works no more put you into Christ than getting wet puts you in a pool of water.

ANYTHING done with the attitude that puts God in obligation to man (including charity, commandment keeping, baptism and faith) cannot save....

We are to place our faith in Christ's blood with the clear intent of being forgiven through that blood. That's what faith is all about! That is the very gospel, yet you are saying that to have the attitude that 'if I just believe that Christ's blood is satisfactory payment for my sin guilt' it is the wrong attitude???? That is absurd. There is no other way to lay hold of God's forgiveness except to, by faith, purposely want it with the clear intent of being saved from the penalty of sin.

...but we know that these things done in humble submission and obedience to God does, Scripture says so. The attitude of the Judiazers was that of obligation and circumcision was their "sacrament".

You don't understand at all. The Jews thought simply doing something, as if it were a magic wand that you waved and you'd be in the kingdom, was how one was MADE righteous and qualified for the kingdom. Circumcision was the epitome of how you did that. Do THAT with ANY work and you will do exactly what Paul says you must not do--think salvation is granted in return for satisfactory performance of righteous things. No! Salvation is a free gift received by simply placing your trust in the blood of Christ to forgiven sin apart from the effort of righteous duties and behaviors. And we show our continued trust in that blood by giving that same grace of forgiveness and love to others, not a work through which God rewards us with salvation.

Their mindset was that Gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep the law because this led to salvation. Paul is railing more against an attitude or mindset than against which parts of the law fall under "works" and which parts fall under "natural law", circumcision being the exception.

Circumcision was clearly taught as a condition for being in the covenant (Genesis 17 or 18). The error they made was not realizing that it was the faith it signified that qualified them to be in covenant with God, not the act itself. And this is the exact same error people are making in the church today in regard to various other works commanded by God. The faith is what qualifies a person for covenant, not the act that signifies the faith. Learn from circumcision!

You made the comment in post #272 that faith was a gift from God so doesn't fall in to the category of "works". My contention is, and has always been, that charitable works, keeping the commandments and baptism are ALL Graces just like faith...

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I already showed you where Paul CONTRASTS grace and righteous work, not compares them as if they are one and the same!

This is the sole reason I have been making the point that faith takes an act of the will, just like other "works" (note the quotation marks). You can't make the logical case that the ACTION of "trusting Christ" or "having a saving faith" is NOT a work, yet the ACTION of baptism or charity is, unless you can, on a case-by-case basis, prove the person is performing the act with the attitude of self-righteousness.

Faith is not behavior!!!!!

But faith can be seen in behavior.

Probably one of the biggest errors works belief makes--thinking faith is the exact same thing as works as if those are two words for the exact same thing and are therefore interchangeable.

Paul speaks so clearly of being saved by faith in the blood of Christ, and the attempt to be saved by doing things that it's impossible to think they are one and the same thing.

 

[dadof10]

...Salvific as in they are expected expressions of the faith that saves all by itself.

Again, yes. Good works are the "expressions" of Christian people. You are partially right. But this doesn't speak to the subject of whether doing them or refusing to do them effects our salvation. All this says is that Christians will change their behavior and are expected to do so. I agree.

And just because these things accompany a genuine trusting in Christ's blood for the removal of sin guilt (so you can be saved) doesn't make those things duties upon which God gives salvation in payment for doing.

Please show me where I said this. I don't think anyone on this thread has said this, either. Will you please stop with the straw-man argumentation and respond to what I actually say?

This seems to be the mountain that people who think we are saved on the basis of righteous things we did can't get over. Just because faith in the blood of Christ--the faith that forgives all by itself without the help of added works--will produce works of righteousness doesn't make those works the actual saving element of salvation.

And, just because faith will necessarily produce some good deeds in the Christian, doesn't meant that refusal to COOPERATE with God's Grace will have no effect on salvation.

Faith is that all by itself. The works are the expected outcome of a genuine saving faith, just as getting wet is the expected and obligatory outcome of being put in a pool of water and not the thing that put you in there in the first place.

But that's not ALL they are, otherwise Scripture wouldn't put such an emphasis on DOING them, it would simply be assumed they will be done. There are CONSTANT exhortations for BELIEVERS to continue doing good throughout Scripture. If your "getting wet" analogy were accurate, there would be no need to urge BELIEVERS to continue their good deeds.

We are to place our faith in Christ's blood with the clear intent of being forgiven through that blood. That's what faith is all about! That is the very gospel, yet you are saying that to have the attitude that 'if I just believe that Christ's blood is satisfactory payment for my sin guilt' it is the wrong attitude????

Where did you get this tripe from "ANYTHING done with the attitude that puts God in obligation to man (including charity, commandment keeping, baptism and faith) cannot save...."? Where do you see in that sentence that "to have the attitude that 'if I just believe that Christ's blood is satisfactory payment for my sin guilt' it is the wrong attitude"? Are you serious? Again, straw-man.

Is your attitude that God is obligated to save you because you have faith? I doubt it, and I would NEVER accuse you of such a belief, even though a case could be made by what you just said above. Why are you trying to characterize my view as absurd instead of dealing with it head on? You should AGREE with the above statement unless you really think that having a "saving faith" obligates God in some way.

That is absurd. There is no other way to lay hold of God's forgiveness except to, by faith, purposely want it with the clear intent of being saved from the penalty of sin.

So, the only way to "lay hold of God's forgiveness" is to "purposely want it"? Is "purposely wanting" a behavior? Does this count as an act of the will in your mind?

You don't understand at all.

Oh, goodie. More condescension.

The Jews thought simply doing something, as if it were a magic wand that you waved and you'd be in the kingdom, was how one was MADE righteous and qualified for the kingdom. Circumcision was the epitome of how you did that. Do THAT with ANY work and you will do exactly what Paul says you must not do--think salvation is granted in return for satisfactory performance of righteous things.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not advocating your straw-man, then.

No! Salvation is a free gift received by simply placing your trust in the blood of Christ to forgiven sin apart from the effort of righteous duties and behaviors.

Salvation is NOT a "free gift" if you MUST "trust" or, as you said above "purposely want it", is it? You still must earn it by "accepting" or "trusting". How can it be "free" if a person must do something (trust, accept, want)?

Please don't misunderstand AGAIN. I am not calling faith a work. As I have said countless times directly to you, IF YOU BELIEVE that by the word "works" Paul means "anything done" or "all behavior", this definition MUST include "trusting" or "accepting" because having faith takes an act of the will and it is NECESSARY for salvation. All I'm trying to point out is the inconsistency in your position. Faith and other good deeds are gifts from God, both "the will and the work" and they are also ALL salvific..

And we show our continued trust in that blood by giving that same grace of forgiveness and love to others, not a work through which God rewards us with salvation.

There he is again. Maybe we should give your straw-man a name if he is going to keep showing up five times in every post.

I said "You made the comment in post #272 that faith was a gift from God so doesn't fall in to the category of "works". My contention is, and has always been, that charitable works, keeping the commandments and baptism are ALL Graces just like faith"

To which you responded:

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I already showed you where Paul CONTRASTS grace and righteous work, not compares them as if they are one and the same!

You must not have heard your explanation of "water and spirit", then.

Paul contrasts Grace and "works of the law" not charitable works or good deeds or baptism or... This is what we are debating and you have yet to even come close to making the case that when Paul uses the word "works" he means EVERYTHING ANYONE DOES EXCEPT "TRUSTING IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST". On top of your constant use of the straw-man, now you are begging the question by assuming the conclusion. Sheesh...

Faith is not behavior!!!!!

Is it an act of the will? Yes or no...

Is "trusting in the Blood of Christ for forgiveness" something that MUST be done in order to enter into the kingdom? Yes or no...

Is "purposely wanting" the gift of faith a behavior? Yes or no...

Is sitting in a room NOT stealing, NOT coveting and NOT bearing false witness, "works"? Yes or no...

Where do you get the idea that when Paul says "works" he is talking about "behaviors" and not thoughts or acts of the will? First you broaden his meaning to include EVERYTHING (for no reason at all), then narrow it to mean "behaviors" (again, for no reason).

But faith can be seen in behavior.

Agree.

Probably one of the biggest errors works belief makes--thinking faith is the exact same thing as works as if those are two words for the exact same thing and are therefore interchangeable. Paul speaks so clearly of being saved by faith in the blood of Christ, and the attempt to be saved by doing things that it's impossible to think they are one and the same thing.

Wow...Again? Even after I've explained it over and over you STILL are mis-characterizing my view and kicking the straw-man? It's getting hard to believe you are just misunderstanding me. This seems to be purposeful because you CAN'T deal with what I actually believe.

Faith is not the "exact same thing" as anything, and I have never said it was, but it CAN be compared to other GRACES that are given to us by God. Faith, baptism, the WILL to do charitable works and keep the commandments...these things are ALL GRACES...I hope you got that this time. NONE OF THE THINGS MENTIONED ARE "WORKS" INCLUDING FAITH, THEY ARE GRACES. WHEN PAUL SPEAKS OF "WORKS", HE IS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY OF WORKS OF THE LAW OR CIRCUMCISION, NOT FAITH AND, NOT "ALL BEHAVIOR", AS YOU BELIEVE.

Does this sound even vaguely familiar? It should, I have been saying the same thing to you for months. Please stop mis-characterizing my beliefs, and at least attempt to speak to what I believe instead of kicking the straw-man in an attempt to skirt the issues.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Again, yes. Good works are the "expressions" of Christian people. You are partially right. But this doesn't speak to the subject of whether doing them or refusing to do them effects our salvation.

Refusing to do them effects your salvation if that refusal is the result of a turning away and rejection of the forgiveness of God. When sin represents an abandonment of the blood of Christ as the payment for sin guilt, that is when sin condemns.

But that's not ALL they are, otherwise Scripture wouldn't put such an emphasis on DOING them, it would simply be assumed they will be done. There are CONSTANT exhortations for BELIEVERS to continue doing good throughout Scripture. If your "getting wet" analogy were accurate, there would be no need to urge BELIEVERS to continue their good deeds.

What we must do is continue in our faith in the blood of Christ. But instead many people seem to switch from faith in Christ's blood to a trust and dependence on their righteous works as if that is what's going to save them.

Where did you get this tripe from "ANYTHING done with the attitude that puts God in obligation to man (including charity, commandment keeping, baptism and faith) cannot save...."? Where do you see in that sentence that "to have the attitude that 'if I just believe that Christ's blood is satisfactory payment for my sin guilt' it is the wrong attitude"? Are you serious? Again, straw-man.

Pleeeez, stop with this stupid straw man stuff.

You said this:

Originally Posted by dadof10
"ANYTHING done with the attitude that puts God in obligation to man (including charity, commandment keeping, baptism and faith) cannot save...."

So if I receive the faith of God thinking it obligates God to save me I have the wrong attitude???? That's crazy. Faith is being sure of what you can't see. But you are saying that is not true--that faith is no surety at all of God's promise to forgive.

Faith is from God. If you keep in your heart that which God has shown you is true by faith you can count on God keeping his promise. That's what faith is all about--knowing with surety that what God has promised will come to pass. But you're saying faith in God's promise to forgive through Christ is not a sure promise.

Next you're probably going to say you have to do something to get it. And I will say 'doing something' is a part of it in that a genuine faith in God's promise produces good works! Those works don't earn that salvation. They show your faith in the promise of salvation for those who will receive the promise, keeping it in their hearts (1 John 5). No works = no faith. No faith in the blood of Christ to forgive = no salvation. It's very, very simple.

 

[dadof10]

So if I receive the faith of God thinking it obligates God to save me I have the wrong attitude???? That's crazy. Faith is being sure of what you can't see. But you are saying that is not true--that faith is no surety at all of God's promise to forgive.

This just keeps getting more and more convoluted. Is faith a Grace, a "free gift from God"? So, when we accept this gift, that OBLIGATES God to save us? How can it be a "free gift" on one hand and OBLIGATE God on the other? There is a HUGE difference between assurance of a promise and putting God in obligation to us BECAUSE OF SOMETHING WE DO, LIKE "TRUST" OR "ACCEPT". This can't be your view because Scripture certainly doesn't teach it and in fact teaches the exact opposite.

Faith is from God.

So is baptism, the "will and the work" to keep the commandments and do charitable works. This is my contention and if you disagree, you have to show how faith is something we MUST accept OR WE WILL BE DAMNED, yet this is NOT a "work".

If you keep in your heart that which God has shown you is true by faith you can count on God keeping his promise.

IF YOU DO SOMETHING then God is OBLIGATED to keep His promise? What you are describing is the Jewish attitude that Paul was railing against. You are just substituting "keeping in your heart" or "trusting" for "works of the law". Now THAT'S crazy!!

That's what faith is all about--knowing with surety that what God has promised will come to pass. But you're saying faith in God's promise to forgive through Christ is not a sure promise.

How can I stop with the straw-man stuff when you keep setting it up? I have said many times to you that WE, WITH OUR OWN FREE WILL, REJECT GOD, HE DOES NOT EVER REJECT US. AGAIN, THE PROMISE IS SURE, OUR ACCEPTANCE OF IT IS NOT. The onus is on us to either accept or reject ALL His promises, INCLUDING BAPTISM, THE WILL TO PERFORM CHARITABLE WORKS, ETC.

I take it you'll be responding to the rest of my points in a future post?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This just keeps getting more and more convoluted. Is faith a Grace, a "free gift from God"?

Faith is unconditionally given by God, and is the conduit through which we receive the grace--the unmerited favor--of God in salvation. We do not receive that grace through our righteous behavior. That would actually nullify 'grace'. It would no longer be grace (unmerited favor). It would now be merited. But the ability to believe (faith) goes out to everyone who he calls. Some reject it. Some keep it in their hearts and are saved by that faith.

So, when we accept this gift, that OBLIGATES God to save us? How can it be a "free gift" on one hand and OBLIGATE God on the other? There is a HUGE difference between assurance of a promise and putting God in obligation to us BECAUSE OF SOMETHING WE DO, LIKE "TRUST" OR "ACCEPT". This can't be your view because Scripture certainly doesn't teach it and in fact teaches the exact opposite.

You're right in that Paul uses 'obligation' in regard to work accomplished and payment for that work being an obligation owed to the one who did the work. But I'm talking about faith and the 'obligation', or commitment, God has to faith in regard to this:

11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” (Romans 10:11 NIV1984)

If you have faith in God's promise to forgive through the blood of Christ, God will honor that faith with salvation. You will not be disappointed. He is obligated to faith. He is NOT obligated to the performance of righteous duties and behaviors in regard to salvation.

Just the fact that Paul makes this distinction of what God is 'obligated' to and what he is not obligated to in regard to salvation should be making it clear to you that there really is this very clear difference between 'work' and faith in salvation. They surely are not the same thing in regard to salvation. God is not moved to obligation by our righteous behavior. But he is committed to respond to faith in his promise to forgive through Christ. Big, big difference between the two. But a difference taught you scripture that you are not acknowledging.

So is baptism, the "will and the work" to keep the commandments and do charitable works. This is my contention and if you disagree, you have to show how faith is something we MUST accept OR WE WILL BE DAMNED, yet this is NOT a "work".

"God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son." (1 John 5:9-10 NIV1984)

See it? Faith is the supernatural ability given by God to a person to know that the gospel is true. The person who keeps that testimony in his heart, accepting it, and does not reject it, is declared righteous and saved through that faith. The person who rejects what God has shown them to be true about Jesus does not keep it in his heart and is condemned.

IF YOU DO SOMETHING then God is OBLIGATED to keep His promise?

In regard to the forgiveness of sins and being declared righteous, God is obligated to respond to faith. He is NOT obligated to respond to the work of righteous behavior to solicit a declaration of righteousness.

What you are describing is the Jewish attitude that Paul was railing against. You are just substituting "keeping in your heart" or "trusting" for "works of the law". Now THAT'S crazy!!

I think I've explained it adequately. Not crazy at all. Faith is contrasted with righteous duties and behavior, not compared as if they are the same.

How can I stop with the straw-man stuff when you keep setting it up? I have said many times to you that WE, WITH OUR OWN FREE WILL, REJECT GOD, HE DOES NOT EVER REJECT US. AGAIN, THE PROMISE IS SURE, OUR ACCEPTANCE OF IT IS NOT. The onus is on us to either accept or reject ALL His promises, INCLUDING BAPTISM, THE WILL TO PERFORM CHARITABLE WORKS, ETC.

These are righteous works of the law. No one is declared righteous for doing works of the law. The promise is God will give a declaration of righteousness to the one who believes and trusts in the blood of Christ to remove sin guilt. To be declared righteous by works of the law (washings, charitable acts, worship stipulations, etc.) a person has to keep them ALL. If you're trying to be declared righteous by works of the law you can't break it up and decide you can be made righteous by just doing some of them.

I take it you'll be responding to the rest of my points in a future post?

As I have time.

 

[dadof10]

Faith is unconditionally given by God, and is the conduit through which we receive the grace--the unmerited favor--of God in salvation. We do not receive that grace through our righteous behavior. That would actually nullify 'grace'. It would no longer be grace (unmerited favor). It would now be merited.

OK. Let's stop right here. I have been saying this very thing from the beginning, not only about faith, but about baptism, charity, etc. I then go on to say that WE MUST COOPERATE WITH THIS GRACE TO BE SAVED. You have rejected this assertion over and over again, calling it "works salvation", however you keep applying this exact same concept to faith.

Some reject it. Some keep it in their hearts and are saved by that faith.

So we MUST "accept it". An act of the will.

If you have faith in God's promise to forgive through the blood of Christ, God will honor that faith with salvation.

We MUST "have faith in God's promise". An act of the will.

The person who keeps that testimony in his heart, accepting it, and does not reject it, is declared righteous and saved through that faith. The person who rejects what God has shown them to be true about Jesus does not keep it in his heart and is condemned.

We MUST "accept that testimony" and not reject it. Act of the will.

The promise is God will give a declaration of righteousness to the one who believes and trusts in the blood of Christ to remove sin guilt.

We MUST "believe and trust". Acts of the will.

You then say that these ACTS OF THE WILL put God in obligation to US. You have been trying to skirt the issue of "accepting" and "trusting" being acts that MERIT salvation, yet no other acts are. You will deny it, then say that we must believe and trust in order to be saved. I don't see the difference logically between saying "you must believe and trust to be saved" and "you must be baptized to be saved". They are both Graces and both require a response to be salvific, yet one is a "work" the other is not.

Could you please explain this?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

OK. Let's stop right here. I have been saying this very thing from the beginning, not only about faith, but about baptism, charity, etc. I then go on to say that WE MUST COOPERATE WITH THIS GRACE TO BE SAVED. You have rejected this assertion over and over again, calling it "works salvation", however you keep applying this exact same concept to faith.

That cooperation is your ongoing faith. That is what saves you, not the merit of the work that faith accomplishes.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So we MUST "accept it". An act of the will.

You must retain it in your heart, like the seed in the soil. An act of your faith.

We MUST "have faith in God's promise". An act of the will.

Trust in God's promise is an act of your faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't see the difference logically between saying "you must believe and trust to be saved" and "you must be baptized to be saved".

Trust--believing what you heard--is the essence of the faith itself...that faith being the very thing that justifies a person and qualifies them for salvation apart from, and without consideration of their own righteousness (works).

They are both Graces and both require a response to be salvific, yet one is a "work" the other is not.

Baptism is not a grace (unmerited favor). That doesn't even make sense!

The faith to believe the message of salvation IS the grace (unmerited favor) of God.

(I'm at work. Just doing drive by posting as I can.)

 

[heymikey80]

That's imposing on the text. Where does Paul say anything in there about any works other than the Law? He doesn't, he only addresses the Law. So, if one applies this beyond the Law they take Paul words out of context.

No, what you're saying is imposing on the text.

Abraham is the obvious pre-law example. He lived hundreds of years before the Law! And Paul was intensely aware of this: "This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void." Gal 3:17. It formed the linchpin of Paul's argument that Gentiles are included under Abraham. There's no missing that. And so Paul didn't miss it in Romans 4. His argument is coherent. He's not picking examples out of a vacuum.

"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. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 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?" Rom 2:1-3 Here Paul didn't say, "every one of you who follows the Law." He said "every one of you who judges." This is about doing things. Paul is asserting everyone who judges against those who are sinning, is doing sin.

So Paul finds, that those who defy God, are sinning. Those judging those who defy God, are also sinning. No one is outside the judgment of God for their works. No one.

And it's not a far leap to find where Paul gets this teaching. It's in Psalms, it's in Deuteronomy, it's in Jeremiah, Proverbs, Isaiah ... to name just a few. Rom 3:9-19 he cites enough to make his point. Nobody gets righteousness by works. No, not works of Law, certainly. But works at all, definitely.

 

[heymikey80]

His argument is clear. Abraham proves the point he's been arguing in chapter 3. He uses a guy who was justified before the Law existed to show that the Law could not justify.

Well, that would be a really poor argument, along the lines of, "A horse could get me from Philadelphia to NYC in 1850. Therefore an automobile could not get me there in 1950."

No, Paul explicitly states what he is denying: "For if Abraham were justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" Rom 4:2b-5a You realize how silly Paul would sound if he were saying, "If Abraham were justified by the law ...". The law wasn't 'til 430 years later. So that can't be what Paul is saying.

There's the "assumption," "Paul must be claiming". That conclusion comes from not seeing that he is addressing the works of the Mosaic Law. If you want to see the issue Paul is dealing with Look at what some of the believing Jews were telling Paul's converts.

You have quotes from them as to what they were telling Paul's converts?

It's pretty reasonable to project what was happening within Jewish Christian theology at this time. There were three really big thoughts on righteousness in the community at the time: They all agreed that by God's grace He separated out a community for Himself. But they confused and mixed the basis on which the community remained under the grace of God. Some thought it was adherence to ritual Judaism: this was the biggest compromise with Gentile religion, which was reduced to only this ritual action. The general Jewish (Pharisaical & Essene) reaction was that something more significant was at stake: devotion to Law on the Pharisaical side, and separation from the world's corruption on the Essene side.

Judaizers were interesting in that they took Jesus' emphasis on the heart-devotion for God and assumed it was for the Jewish people, in Jewish context.

Paul knew better.

You can see these various ideas appearing in the Acts passages. This is not one, unified view.

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. (Act 15:1 KJV)

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 15:5-6 KJV)

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 15:23-24 KJV)

So, you see, Jews were telling the Gentiles that in order to be saved they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. This is background to Paul's teaching that one isn't justified by works.

The simple way to answer that is no, Paul isn't counteracting one doctrine by simply removing one slice: "works of law". Romans 4:4-5 points out this isn't an issue of omitting law -- it's omitting an entire "works for wages" system.

The reason for this is that Paul sees no way to mix works, which gather wages, and grace, unmerited favor.

Paul explains this in Galatians 3. There're two kinds of stipulations in a covenant: a law (work for wages), and a promise (a gift). In Paul these don't mix. You can either receive something by working for it, or receive it as a gift. You can't receive something by both work and gift, because the work overrides and excludes the gift: it's by works if it requires works to receive it. It's a promise if it does not require works. Law is not promise; works are not grace.

The way you're interpreting the passage contradicts the teaching of Jesus, Paul, James and Peter. If you understand that Paul is speaking of the works of the Law you have no contradictions.

That's cute, but it's not the case.

James contradicts your interpretation of Paul he doesn't contradict my interpretation of Paul.

James doesn't contradict my interpretation of Paul. Your interpretation of James contradicts my interpretation of Paul.

There is no conflict between James and Paul and James is not speaking of being justified before men. He said faith without works is dead, he too , turn to Abraham. However, look at the passage he quotes. In this quote we see Abraham's belief and his works.

5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? {lamb: or, kid}
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
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.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. {Jehovahjireh: that is, The Lord will see, or, provide}
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 22:5-18 KJV)

There was no one there but Abraham, Isaac, and God. Abraham wasn't justified before men.

How did you learn this happened? That's right, someone there recorded it for all ... to ... see. Clearly Abraham is being justified in your eyes.

Take a closer look. Was Abraham unjustified before God, before he rose to take this journey? No, he was already justified. Genesis 15 is before Genesis 22.

In chapter 2 verse 17 Paul begins his argument in chapter 3 when he says, thou are called a Jew.

So Romans 2:1-11 isn't solely about Jewish people, which proves my point. Clearly Paul is including Gentiles, and the works involved are not strictly regarding the Law.

Was Romans 3:9 just a massive mistake on Paul's part? Look at what Paul says about Romans 1-3 all on his own:

"What then? Are we any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin"

He clealry says those who continue to in well doing are seeking eternal life, those who don't are seek wrath.

But just Jews? Because again, if this "works" is only Law, then it shouldn't be about Gentiles. Yet Paul demands otherwise: "There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who works evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who works good, the Jew first and also the Greek." Rom 2:9-10

So let's be really, really clear. Romans 2:1-11 makes for clarity: both Jews and Greeks are in view, and it isn't simply about law, it's about law and more. It's about works: good and evil works.

 

[dadof10]

That cooperation is your ongoing faith. That is what saves you, not the merit of the work that faith accomplishes.

So we MUST cooperate with God's Grace, using our will, to be saved? How is this concept or attitude any different from cooperating with the Grace of baptism, for instance?

God "freely gives" the gift of faith.

God "freely gives" the gift of baptism.

We MUST cooperate with faith IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.

We MUST cooperate with baptism IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.

Where is the difference?

 

[heymikey80]

So we MUST cooperate with God's Grace, using our will, to be saved?

I'll say it without the equivocation of this phrase.

So we THEN cooperate with God's Grace, willingly. We are saved, because faith is the response of the will.

How is this concept or attitude any different from cooperating with the Grace of baptism, for instance?

I think it's quite clear once the equivocation is removed.

Infant baptism is not something accepted willingly by an infant, for instance.

Oh, and just for the record: I'm an infant-baptist.

 

[heymikey80]

He clealry says those who continue to in well doing are seeking eternal life, those who don't are seek wrath.

... and in Romans 3:9,21 declares that no one continues in doing good, but all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.

So Romans 2 contains an earnest offer that no one actually fulfills.

 

[eddif]

"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. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O manâ€â€you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourselfâ€â€that you will escape the judgment of God?" Rom 2:1-3 Here Paul didn't say, "every one of you who follows the Law." He said "every one of you who judges."

I am just using the quote and this is not especiallly for heymikey.

We be done reads the same thangs but we shore do gits a lot of differing things out of what we read.

As a person from Mississippi maybe I am just ignorant.

Romans 1 says, IMHO, that God from heaven outlines the sins he is against. The list in Romans one is from severe to not so severe (open to discussion). Right at the end of Romans 1 some folks understand the sins list, but in opposition to that list choose to judge ok those that sin and themselves (in His face) sin. Romans 2 says those who judge are in trouble.

So the whole thing in my Mississippi mind is to figure who is being a judge. If I agree with the sin list of Romans 1 (that God reveals); then I am in agreement and not a judge of sin. If however, I judge the revealed sin is ok to practice, then I become a judge deciding what is right (and that God does not know what sin is). The person who judges sin to be ok is the judge who is in trouble (without excuse).

Of course I am just unlearned from Mississippi and what do I know. I realize what church tradition says, but church tradition is not necessarily what the bible says.

Help a feller out here. LOL.

eddif