The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[heymikey80]

I said before, you try to make the word "listen" like it is an acknowledgment and that is all it is

Horse puckey. Now go back and cite where I've asserted it means only an acknowledgement. This is bearing false witness. Cite. Or retract.

Tarring someone with your conclusions about your opposition is downright bigotry.

Do not imply onto my words the implications you assert. That is the essence of false witness.

What I've said, I've said: that hupakouo is not works. It's just as much as saying deciding to act is not acting. You guys are constantly saying this source of a decision is the actual works that result from the decision.

It's not.

They're not the same.

I'm sorry you can't see that, but it's a plain, simple fact.

Now quit calling the children of God heretics. Otherwise I will take further issue with the falseness of your assertions.

 

[heymikey80]

hupakouó does not only mean to listen but also carries the meaning of to attend to, to answer, to be fully compliant (responsive), submit to.

Once more: only in one sense does it point to actually doing works.

Extending the verb to its product meaning in every use; then extending that meaning to demand that the works aspect is what's meant (as if heeding a command "rest" is a work); that is the height of taking a word to mean something far beyond what it denotes.

Yes, hupakouo is more than hearing; it is understanding and submitting to what is being stated.

Why is it we don't recognize that doing, is not submitting? Does everyone in your church stand up and start doing what they hear, immediately, rushing out of the assembly and giving to those who need it? No. They don't. They "hupakouo" the words of God. Works come later. Right now there's "hupakouo".

 

[rrowell]

Horse puckey. Now go back and cite where I've asserted it means only an acknowledgement. This is bearing false witness. Cite. Or retract.

Do you know what the word "obey" means in English? It's to actually comply with an order, for instance. That's different from hearing an order, it's even different from heeding an order.

Listening is not working! Heeding is not working! Look it up! They mean what they mean!

Here you flat out said "hypakoúō" means "hearing" without "submitting" as does "obey" that it only means to "hear" a command and some result insinuates compliance and THAT my friend is as you say "horse puckey".

The word with preposition ( υπ "under" ) + ( ακου "hear" ) means to submit to what is heard or in other words (OBEY) as translated by almost EVERY translator of almost EVERY English speaking version out there, only YOU remove the "submit" from the word... that makes it only "hearing" leaving out the preposition!

And where I quoted you saying "Listening is not working! Heeding is not working! Look it up! They mean what they mean!" guess what! your correct! that's why it was not translated "listening" it was translated "obey"

Here is what the Thesaurus says for the word "obey":

obeyverb1. submit to, surrender (to), give way to, succumb to, bow to, give in to, yield to, be ruled by, serve, defer to, cave in to (informal), take orders from, do what you are told by Cissie obeyed her mother without question.
submit to rebel, disobey

See the "submit to", the "give way to", the "succumb to" etc...

it lines up with ( υπ "under" ) + ( ακου "hear" ) Abraham and Naaman "did what they were told" they "submitted to what they heard", they "obeyed"

 

[heymikey80]

Here you flat out said "hypakoúō" means "hearing" without "submitting"

No, I didn't. Take it back. That's now twice. Read what I said -- "Do you know what the word "obey" means in English? It's to actually comply with an order, for instance. That's different from hearing an order, it's even different from heeding an order.

Listening is not working! Heeding is not working! Look it up! They mean what they mean!"
Unless you believe "heeding" is the same as "hearing" -- once again, refer to a dictionary to demonstrate that they're different -- then you missed what I said.

It's sitting right there: it's hearing, yes, primarily; and it's listening; and it's heeding. I believe that's meant by the term "hearkening".

But it's not working.

Now, please, look up words. Listen to what they say. I'd entreat you to hearken to what the words say, because that's what Scripture tells you to do. But ... let's see if you will obey or not. if not, at least I can point out, hearkening is not obedience. But you, would you require your obedience in this instance as well?

 

[rrowell]

No, I didn't. Take it back. That's now twice. Read what I said -- "Do you know what the word "obey" means in English? It's to actually comply with an order, for instance. That's different from hearing an order, it's even different from heeding an order.

Listening is not working! Heeding is not working! Look it up! They mean what they mean!"

I'm not taking anything back!

Yep, Hearing is not obeying, hear is "ακου" that's why the Greek word is not "ακου"

Obey is "υπακου" the "υπ" makes the "ακου" not just "hear" it makes it "obey"

Squirm as you may, you cannot get rid of the "obey", and "obey" means one must "comply with what they heard" which makes it a "work".

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not taking anything back!

Yep, Hearing is not obeying, hear is "ακου" that's why the Greek word is not "ακου"

Obey is "υπακου" the "υπ" makes the "ακου" not just "hear" it makes it "obey"

Squirm as you may, you cannot get rid of the "obey", and "obey" means one must "comply with what they heard" which makes it a "work".

"hup" makes it "under". That's essentially the verb for an underling receiving a message or command.

Someone who can't see that hearing, hearkening and heeding is not obeying, doesn't recognize the clear fact that there is a distinction. Y'know, heart is not hand, spirit is not flesh flesh, inside the cup, is not outside the cup. Jesus' point.

It's not a hard thing to notice.

 

[heymikey80]

This is copied from a new member user name 'nolonger'

to me it fits here ;
Sometimes we just get stuck at salvation…we never move on…we never wrap our hands around the fact that God has saved us, and now he wants to use us to change the world! In His word there is a word that we can shrug back from: works. We instantly think, “I am saved by faith, not by works.†You are right. But have we considered this: we are not saved by our good works, but we are saved for good works. His word reads that we are created for good works, set apart for zealous good works, and that we should be careful to maintain good works ( Ephesians 2:10, Titus 2:14, Titus 3:8). His word also tells us that through our good works, which the world observes, they will glorify God (1 Peter 2:12).

Very apropos! :nod

Yes. It's very appropriate. And it seems to be neglected in this conversation. I've brought it up a few times.

 

[WIP]

Let's try to be respectful, keep it civil, and stay on topic please.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

What I've said, I've said: that hupakouo is not works.

Your problem here is you have provided nothing, zilch, nada, nil to back this up.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your problem here is you have provided nothing, zilch, nada, nil to back this up.

Just show us where it says it is the works of faith themselves that make us righteous in the sight of God. Then we can close this thread and we can all get busy doing the works that make us righteous before God.

 

[rrowell]

Just show us where it says it is the works of faith themselves that make us righteous in the sight of God. Then we can close this thread and we can all get busy doing the works that make us righteous before God.

John 10:27
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Looks like following is a work?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

John 10:27
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Looks like following is a work?

That's not what is in debate.

There are lots of works. But it is the 'work' of believing that God credits righteousness for.

Justification (being made righteous in the sight of God) is by the work of believing, apart from any (other) righteous work. But even the faith to believe is a gift from God so that no one can boast in it. Righteous work is how we know we have been justified by our faith in the Promised Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[Davies]

Hello all,

If you said of yourself that you were righteous by what you do, would you say that your salvation depended on your righteousness? I would then ask you how many times have you been saved. Or do you suppose when Jesus said, 'It is done,' that all righteousness was not fulfilled? If Jesus did fulfill all righteousness, then do you now think you can add to it? After being saved, obedience is all about becoming like Christ, not being justified. For those who think they can trust themselves and their own righteous deeds, they should consider Luke 18:9-14.
Luke 18:9-14

New King James Version (NKJV)

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.â€


Ephesians 2:8-9

New King James Version (NKJV)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast.(emphasis added)



- Davies

 

[Drew]

Just show us where it says it is the works of faith themselves that make us righteous in the sight of God. Then we can close this thread and we can all get busy doing the works that make us righteous before God.

I confess that I have only skimmed a few posts, but I maintain this text alone forces us to conclude that whatever else Paul believes, he also believes that there will be a final judgement at which eternal life will be awarded "according to" what we have done:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

In english, at least, the meaning is unambiguous: it is the 'good works' that are the criterion, the basis, the metric that will determine the awarding of eternal life.

Wishing with all one's might that this can be read as "eternal life is awarded according to faith" does not make it so!

You and I almost seem to agree, and perhaps we do (but I doubt it). As you may know, my argument is that Paul's position is this: You are saved solely by faith, and not by good works generated by your own moral self-effort. On the basis of faith alone, the believer is given the Spirit, who then is the engine responsible for the good works that will result in eternal life.

This is very close, I think, to what I understand your position to be. But Paul says what he says! It is the good works, not some measure of "faith" that are the criteria used to award eternal life. Perhaps we do agree in that I would assert that the only ones who can demonstrate 'saving' good works are those who, by faith alone, have received the Spirit. So if you want to say the "works are the evidence" of faith, then fine. But Paul still says what he says: It is this 'evidence' that is, at the last the judgement, the criterion by which eternal life is awarded.

I have never seen anything like a sensible explanation for how one take Romans 2:6-7 seriously, and yet maintain that eternal life is not granted according to, yes, good works.

The most common strategy is to say, apparently without embarrassment (which I find strange) that Paul has written something he knows to be false, or to be unattainable, and he then goes on to undermine that statement.

Who does that??!! Who makes an argument like this?:

1. The sky is red;
2. The preceding statement is false, and the sky is actually blue.

 

[Drew]

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast.(emphasis added)

A series of detailed, and I would assert, unrefuted arguments have been presented in another related thread: the "works" of verse 9 are the works of the Law of Moses, not 'good works' in general.

Context shows this: And this is why (to be cynical) no one who believes that 'works' (in verse 9) denotes 'good works' or 'works in general' ever grounds their argument in what Paul writes in verse 11 and following.

Because that material shows that 'works' in verse 9 must be works of the Law of Moses.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I confess that I have only skimmed a few posts, but I maintain this text alone forces us to conclude that whatever else Paul believes, he also believes that there will be a final judgement at which eternal life will be awarded "according to" what we have done:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

In english, at least, the meaning is unambiguous: it is the 'good works' that are the criterion, the basis, the metric that will determine the awarding of eternal life.

How does this show that the works themselves are the actual agent of justification? How is it that since good works must accompany saving faith and trust in the blood of Christ that must mean the works themselves are the actual agent of justification? You've come to a misguided conclusion that the rest of scripture does not support.

Implicit in every suggestion that eternal life (salvation and all it encompasses) is given out as a 'reward', or an 'award', for righteous behavior is the complete Biblical understanding that it is the faith that motivates those works that actually solicits the legal declaration of innocence that qualifies you for entrance into the kingdom...and the quality of that entrance (the aspect of 'reward' you're not acknowledging). Your argument is guilty of not rightly dividing the Word of God. You're isolating one part away from the whole picture.

You're ignoring the more compelling evidence in the Bible that trumps any attempt to understand works as the actual agent of justification. You're using the less compelling evidence and impressing it onto the more direct and plain understanding. IOW, you've got it backwards.

Paul's teaching about justification by faith apart from works is what should be used to interpret and understand another teaching that seems to contradict it...because 'righteousness by faith apart from works' is the argument that is so plainly and logically understood. It's the more compelling evidence for what actually solicits a declaration of righteousness...because it so direct and to the point. Not so with the verses you and others have been bringing up hoping we will somehow see your contention in the not so plain words of those scriptures. Understand?

Wishing with all one's might that this can be read as "eternal life is awarded according to faith" does not make it so!

We don't have to wish. The Bible plainly says it. But some misunderstand the argument to mean faith doesn't have to have works attached. That's not the argument. The argument is the faith does the actual justifying all by itself apart from the righteous work it most certainly must command.


I have to run, but I'm going to use your red sky analogy to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument and the validity of mine. Start thinking about it if you want and we'll talk about it.

 

[smaller]

Paul somewhat differentiated love from both faith and works:

and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

In the final analysis of Paul, all of his sight was that there is only one thing that counts for all of us, and that is faith 'working through' love.

s

 

[Davies]

A series of detailed, and I would assert, unrefuted arguments have been presented in another related thread: the "works" of verse 9 are the works of the Law of Moses, not 'good works' in general.

Context shows this: And this is why (to be cynical) no one who believes that 'works' (in verse 9) denotes 'good works' or 'works in general' ever grounds their argument in what Paul writes in verse 11 and following.

Because that material shows that 'works' in verse 9 must be works of the Law of Moses.

Hi Drew,

I understand what you are referring to when you say Paul is talking about the works of the law, but Paul does say in Ephesians 2:8 what we are saved by and through what. If we aren't justified by the works of the law, then it is the work of believing of which I would refer back to John 6:29.

John 6:28-29

New King James Version (NKJV)

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”


I believe that this persistence in the work of God, believing in Him whom He has sent, is accomplished by the ability that God gives us (Philippians 2:13). So, I don't think we can take credit for the good deeds we do, believing. All the glory has to go to God, lest we be found stealing from God.



Because of my tendency to sin and try to be right with God by the things I do, deeds of the law of Moses, I would not trust in my own ability to just turn on the light switch of belief in Jesus. Of course, Jesus said, 'with man, it is impossible.' It's not that easy. I could deceive myself into thinking I believe in Him, by doing good deeds, thinking I serve God out of faith when really the only thing I'm accomplishing is self-righteous works.





Matthew 19:24-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”(emphasis added)



If you can keep your motivation pure for the things you can do in the flesh, I'd think a person would be kidding themselves.


- Davies

 

[Davies]

Good morning,

Now that this thread seems to have run its course, and the horse has been beaten to death, I'll put out an example of the required 'work' that a man has to do in order to be justified, saved, before God. There is the thief on the cross. What kind of work could the thief 'do' while being nailed to a cross? There is no action he could take unless you include that he opened his mouth, and groaned in agony, or cried out in pain. So we know in this instance that keeping the law of Moses is out of the question. The man was being put to death for stealing. Paul says in Ephesians 2:9 salvation doesn't come by works, lest any man should boast, so the work the thief on the cross did must have been the type of work that James was talking about in James 2:24. I'm glad I got that figured out because I've never been so confused on what the meaning of the term 'work' meant. Of course, John 6:29 clears it up too.

- Davies

 

[Drew]

How does this show that the works themselves are the actual agent of justification?

Simple english. Again, there is simply no doubt about how Romans 2:6-7 reads as a statement in the english language.

We are given eternal life according to what we have done.

This is where I have to politely suggest that many simply engage in outright denial.

If X is given according to Y, that is as clear a statement as one could possibly make that the basis, the grounds for getting X is indeed Y.

Not something other than Y, but Y. Deny this, and I believe you simply do not understand, or are not willing to accept, the plain sense of this passage.

Now: I have already told you that I believe that Paul's argument is that faith alone guarantees salvation - and therefore we get all of Paul's statements about justification by faith - but only because faith brings the Spirit, and the Spirit produces the works that save at the end (Romans 2:6-7).

Important: I have argued at great length, in other threads, that Paul's statement "you are not saved by works" is really the statement "you are not saved by the works of the law of Moses. And those arguments have not been refuted. And this line of thinking is not my invention (I wish I were so insightful). They are arguments from respected theologian NT Wright who also argues that the reformed tradition simply will not deal with Romans 2:6-7.

Why do you (and others) deny the obvious meaning of Romans 2:6-7? By all means, argue for a translation error. Or that Paul has prefaced 2:6-7 with some statement like "I am about to tell you about a path to justification that no one can attain".

But, frankly, it insults the intelligence for anyone to suggest that, as a statement in the english language, Romans 2:6-7 does not clearly, assert that it is what we have done that is the basis, the grounds, the "according to" associated with the receipt of eternal life.

Yes, these works are "evidence" of a real faith. And yes, it is only the person with real faith who will produce these works. And yes, it is the Holy Spirit which is the "engine" behind these works.

But does Paul say you will be given eternal life according to faith? No.

He says you will be given eternal life according to, yes, "what you have done".

I am still open to the possibility that we are agreeing (although I doubt this is teh case).