The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[WIP]

Let's keep the personal innuendos under control please. It is not healthy dialog.

 

[dadof10]

ooo, snarky. Mind if I do that too?

You say this like you haven't been snarky yourself. Remember "santa god"? Please...

Did you notice what "it is and is not" --? What does "it" refer to?

Oh, right ... baptism.

Y'catch that? Do I need to repeat it? it's grammar.

So again, what did I say saving baptism really is? It's part of a baptismal rite, yes. However the rite isn't the baptism that saves, and its pieces aren't all baptism either. Per Peter, baptism is the conscientious answer.

Attempting to twist this statement into something I didn't say, doesn't change what I said. So please, in future, if you don't twist what I say, you'll discover I'm constantly saying the same thing.

The rite is not what you claim it is, and it doesn't save. Peter has said as much. The baptism Peter is referring to is the answer in conscience. It's part of a rite.

Now, do other people call the water rite, "baptism"? Oh, sure they do, even in Peter's time! But Peter, for his purposes, says neglect the water when it comes to salvation, because it doesn't save. The "baptism which saves us" Peter is referring to is "the answer in good conscience". He says this out loud. I don't see the point of trying to say Peter doesn't mean what he explicitly, openly says. That can only come from an agenda, not the Apostle.

No. I don't get how you can assert that "water baptism" is "vowtaking". Water is not a vowtaking. Conscience is not water. If you want to talk about the whole rite, once again, you've got another watershed issue: that the saving aspect of the whole rite, is not necessarily present in the water. So then two questions emerge:
(1) Is it baptism in the first place without a necessary aspect of baptism?
(2) Where is salvation when necessary saving aspects of the rite are missing?

See your quote of my statement.

I've called the answer in good conscience "saving baptism" because of what Peter said -- the answer in conscience is baptism according to Peter. I've denied water baptism is something done to an ALREADY SAVED PERSON, because frankly -- it's a rite. And Peter isn't referring to the rite. He's referring to the answer in good conscience. He's said it is not washing dirt off people.



What it says. A person's attitude is not a work.

Yepper. Nothing there about how we think being a work.

Not a peep. Meaning, how we think, matters, and because it matters, any work based on how we think is corrupted. We're sunk by our corrupted thoughts.

Oh, it matters, and in judging it, God condemns it all. If you want it to matter: there 'tis. Curtains, all.

I don't know. What will you post next?

I started to responding to your last post point by point, but after writing three paragraphs in response to the first sentence, I gave up. The post would be far too long. You have two errors concerning baptism, which I will respond to here. First, I will give a proper exegesis to the verses in question and ask you to do the same.

1Pt. 3:18-22

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah,"

I'll start here:

during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

Peter says "out loud" that the people were saved THROUGH water. Why? Why would he even bring this up? Because he's making a point, namely:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,

Baptism, which corresponds to the eight being saved through water, not through (or by) taking a vow. There is no other logical way to interpret this. No mention of "vowtaking", only water, which corresponds to the eight being saved through water. So, how could baptism BE a vowtaking to Peter? It couldn't be any more clear.

You have accused me of "ignoring" the following verses, but you have yet to address the preceding ones. It's like they aren't even there to you. You start your exegesis from...

not as a removal of dirt from the body,

What you are missing is the FACT that this is a direct reference to WATER. "not as a removal of dirt" ASSUMES water, especially because Peter has just mentioned it. So, tell me again how the water is irrelevant to Peter....

Peter is saying that baptism goes deeper than the mere externals of water washing the body. He is NOT saying that the water doesn't matter, otherwise he would be contradicting what he just said, that the flood waters symbolized BAPTISM, which saves.

but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

This obviously means that the newly baptized person must continue in holiness, not merely get baptized and continue to live as he lived before conversion. What else could "clear conscience" mean?

The "conscience part" is not describing the baptism, but the salvation, which comes by WATER BAPTISM. Of course adult water baptism INCLUDES many other things besides pouring of water, like the PLEDGE to change your life and refrain from sin, which is what Peter means by "clear conscience". He is saying that a person must make a life changing decision to live for Christ, because salvation CAN BE LOST THROUGH SIN.

Now it's your turn. Please interpret these verses starting from verse 20. And please....PLEASE don't waste my time with the ridiculous "the water destroyed, the ark saved and the ark is Christ" argument. It even makes less sense than the sola-fide interpretation of James 2:14ff.

One more point concerning your claim that to Peter, baptism="vowtaking" and that the water doesn't matter:

"While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days." (Acts 10:44-48)

Why was water needed if baptism was a "vowtaking"? According to Peter, even though these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit by a singular act of Grace, he STILL baptized them with water!! No, Baptism needed WATER to be baptism, even after these people received the Holy Spirit. That is what it means to Peter and everyone else....but you.

But, all that being said, suppose you are right? Baptism is "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" and this "appeal" saves. I'll grant the point, for the sake of argument, no matter how ludicrous it is, that "saving baptism" IS a "vowtaking". "The pledge of a clear conscience toward God" is what saves. So, how does this help your case?

You are admitting that taking a vow or making a pledge for a clear conscience saves, which means faith ALONE doesn't. Is "vowtaking" a "work"? Does "a pledge of a clear conscience toward God" mean "faith alone"? Does this "pledge" fit into Paul's definition of "works for wages"? If not, why not?

 

[dadof10]

Not the case:

Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness (AV)did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. Rom 9:32

By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. Rom 3:27

When people start with the conclusion, many things seem to be going their way. It prejudices a reading of a dissenting view by assuming the dissent is wrong, without a review.

ooo, more snark.

But there again, we don't agree on this view. almsgiving indeed does fit Paul's definition of "works".


I point out and reiterate, when you refused to resolve the ambiguity, you went down this road. Don't try to twist your introduced ambiguity into fact-checking my posts. That is disingenuous.

The distinction is quite clear. Greek "charity", "agapae", is not a work, no. However, it does not mean "almsgiving" by any stretch at all.

Let's recap the whole "charity/agape/almsgiving" tack. I asked you a direct question which was:

"Since you seem to agree that infant baptism doesn't fit Paul's "works for wages" definition, let's move on to Christian Charity? If a person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person, does this act fit under Paul's definition?"

All I did here was give you an example of common Christian Charity and ask if it fell under Paul's definition. That's it. All you have given in return is distraction.

First, you attempted to draw me into a Greek interpretation argument by saying, in effect, that I used the wrong term (charity) to describe the act, that the ACT of a person helping another didn't fall under YOUR definition of "charity". And I'm being disingenuous? I wasn't talking about "agapae", but about common Christian Charity toward another person. Here is the definition of charity;

1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.

2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.

3. a charitable act or work.

4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.

5. benevolent feeling, especially toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.

"A person giving freely from his want..." fits well under this definition, and you know it. You can't answer, so you are attempting to divert.

Instead of "biting" on your attempt at distraction, I let you define the action. If you didn't like "charity", I asked you to pick another word. You called it "almsgiving". OK, fine. I asked you AGAIN to answer the question. Does this action fit under Paul's definition of "works for wages"? And NOW where do you go?

"The distinction is quite clear. Greek "charity", "agapae", is not a work, no. However, it does not mean "almsgiving" by any stretch at all."

Are you kidding me? Now you are going to argue with yourself about which term is and is not a "work"?

Again, I don't care what you call the act of a person giving to another person without expecting repayment, just answer the question, does this ACT fir under Paul's definition of "works"?

"almsgiving" is so obviously a work, I have trouble seeing what your problem is with it. Of course it is doing something, and often it is done with an expectation of blessing on the giver.

What you are describing here is a person's ATTITUDE and that the hypothetical person gives with an expectation of blessing!!! So, if it is NOT done with an "expectation of blessing", is it still a "work FOR WAGES"? Tell me again how a person's attitude doesn't matter...

 

[heymikey80]

You say this like you haven't been snarky yourself. Remember "santa god"? Please...

Hm, I don't remember calling you "santa god". But on the other hand I'm not sure I'd call that sarcasm either. "You better watch out" God is indeed what you end up with, is it not? If it's not, then great, expound upon how God is not ultimately keeping tabs on whether your actions are right or wrong, and assigning you to left or right of the salvation line at every step of your life. I'm interested in that.

I started to responding to your last post point by point, but after writing three paragraphs in response to the first sentence, I gave up. The post would be far too long. You have two errors concerning baptism, which I will respond to here. First, I will give a proper exegesis to the verses in question and ask you to do the same.

1Pt. 3:18-22

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah,"

I'll start here:

during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

Peter says "out loud" that the people were saved THROUGH water. Why? Why would he even bring this up? Because he's making a point, namely:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,

Baptism, which corresponds to the eight being saved through water, not through (or by) taking a vow. There is no other logical way to interpret this. No mention of "vowtaking", only water, which corresponds to the eight being saved through water. So, how could baptism BE a vowtaking to Peter? It couldn't be any more clear.

You have accused me of "ignoring" the following verses, but you have yet to address the preceding ones. It's like they aren't even there to you. You start your exegesis from...

You ask why I didn't: I was waiting for a response expanding the reference. I've no reason to expand a reference 'til you're well aware of the more immediate context. In fact, how can I respond to silence on your part? Indeed, I've permitted you to have the first word at this because I want to understand what you're saying, even if I disagree.

But I didn't interpret your silence as suppression; I don't think you have cause to interpret mine as such.

Of course these verses exist. But there's an interesting preposition here. It is not "saved by water". It is in fact, "saved through water". Noah and his family went through water. But they didn't get baptized. Seriously, unless you're demanding something not in Peter's text, these guys weren't covered in water. In flat-out fact, everyone except Noah's family is technically speaking, baptized. In fact, they're baptized both concretely and metaphorically in Greek. They were covered with water. They died in a catastrophe. So they're "twice baptized". And they're dead.

Absent God's rescue, Noah's family would've experienced the same. Look back at the Greek: "saved through water". They were rescued through water. The words in Greek support that assertion better actually, than "saved by water". The context actually solidifies it. Without this interpretation the predecessor verse is nonsense. Noah wasn't helped by water, he risked death at its hands. So he wasn't saved by water. He was saved through water.

You're quite right that Peter is applying this imagery in correspondence -- that is, figuratively -- to baptism. But it doesn't set up as if the element of water actually saves! It actually sets up water as the deadly element.

So what is the imagery Peter is setting up? The imagery and typology is much different than first appears. Yes, it involves water; but the water doesn't represent what you're claiming. The water represents the calamity, the death, the deluge of the Judgment, just as it did in Noah's day.

The rescue is that in going through the water, like Noah we arrive alive.

Peter then points out how far rejected is the idea of cleansing here. That's not even the imagery Peter alludes to. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't a part of baptismal imagery, but certainly not a part of Peter's baptismal imagery here. No, the answer in conscience is what also saves us.

So again the imagery appears -- answering, a confession of faith; then going through the imagery of death, signified by water, and arriving alive.

The "conscience part" is not describing the baptism, but the salvation, which comes by WATER BAPTISM. Of course adult water baptism INCLUDES many other things besides pouring of water, like the PLEDGE to change your life and refrain from sin, which is what Peter means by "clear conscience". He is saying that a person must make a life changing decision to live for Christ, because salvation CAN BE LOST THROUGH SIN.

Uh, no. Peter explicitly says what baptism IS and what it IS NOT. You're claiming that the presence of water in Peter's denial means water has to be present for salvation. That's tautologically not the case! Peter's saying, "it's not the water", so you can't override his denial and conclude that it is the water. Mere mention doesn't mean acceptance. I don't assert that Peter rejects the use of water -- but Peter's imagery forces us to cast the water in a different light and a different role.

And there you claim that the pledge, the "answer in good conscience before God", is not baptism but simply a part of baptism. But Peter never says "part" in this sentence. What he says is, "Baptism also saves saves us -- NOT ... [a bath] ... BUT ... the answer" Now you tell me, where does Peter say "part of baptism is the answer"?

Ultimately that's a challenge for your view, but not mine. I'm happy to subdivide baptism into what works and what doesn't, but you're still left with water not being what works. If Peter had said "Part of baptism saves: the answer" it would as equally destroy the water argument. But Peter didn't happen to say that. Instead Peter identified baptism with "the answer". That also destroys the water argument. Water isn't necessary to the answer in good conscience. So water isn't necessary to the baptism that also saves us.

Baptism is the answer in good conscience toward God, an answer that brings us through death, alive. Baptism is this answer -- Peter's said it. It preserves us through death. We signify this answer, marking it out specially by performing a rite with water.

So you were telling me we could create an answer that would kill us. I'm sure we could. Someone who does not rely from the heart on Jesus would produce an answer that kills him. But I can't possibly object to Peter's actual words, that a particular answer in good conscience, that the answer to God ... saves.

It's what Peter said. It would not be historic Christianity to assert otherwise than the Apostle Jesus chose to lead.

 

[Butch5]

The Non-Worker:

And so when a man becomes a believer, he has come of age, and the schoolmaster's rule is over, he is no longer under his former tutors and governors, for his time of liberty appointed by the Father is come. He is not under the pedagogy of the Law any longer, for Christ's work has set Him entirely free therefrom. Certainly, a man sees the office of the Law as pedagogue ended when he ascertains that Christ has fulfilled it. I read the Ten Commandments and say, "These thundered at me and I trembled at them, but Christ has kept them for me. He was my representative in every act of His obedient life and death, and before God, it is as if I had kept the Law, and I stand accepted in the Beloved. When Jesus Christ is seen of God, God sees His people in Him, and they are justified through His righteousness, because they have faith in Him. "He that believeth in Him is not condemned." Oh, is it not a thousand mercies in one that the grand old cannons of the Law are no longer turned against us? Christ has either spiked them or else turned them on our enemies by fulfilling the Law so that they are on our side instead of against us. - Charles Spurgeon

John 3:18

New King James Version (NKJV)

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


The excerpt from Spurgeon brought this Scripture to my attention. Here we see the difference of the justified and the unjust. The one who works will find his work contaminated with his inability to obey, even though the heart desires to obey. Considering the rebellious nature of the heart of man, it's a miracle that we even have faith at all. When a man has faith in Jesus Christ, you know a miracle has happened.



Romans 3:24-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Say that three times fast,


- Davies

There's just one problem with what Spurgeon said, it disagrees with Paul. Paul said the Jews were under the Law and the Gentiles weren't. So I would have to ask, what does what Spurgeon said have ot do with anyone in his day?

 

[Butch5]

Good morning all,

If there were any drum to beat over and over again, it's the Gospel drum. I often focus on the death of Jesus when I think of what God has done for us, but what about His life. Jesus always did what pleased the Father, but though I think the primary aim of Jesus was to glorify God, I believe Jesus had us in mine as well when He obeyed the Father. Consider Romans 5:10-11
Romans 5:9-11

New King James Version (NKJV)

9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.


This is the imputed righteousness we receive when we repent and put our faith in Jesus. Justified/Reconciled by the blood of Jesus, and saved by His life. Can a person boast even by what he does with the help of the Spirit. Sure. He can boast of the Spirit. Verse 11 points out that we rejoice, not only in the gifts, but in the Giver.



- Davies

The boasting argument isn't applicable today.

 

[Davies]

The boasting argument isn't applicable today.

Hi Butch5,

I'd like to hear something from your heart that is constructive, but I haven't heard it yet. The intellect doesn't satisfy me.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

I'd like to hear something from your heart that is constructive, but I haven't heard it yet. The intellect doesn't satisfy me.

- Davies

That is constructive. I was pointing out that the works argument is not one that we have to deal with. The Law came to a conclusion about 2000 years ago

 

[Davies]

That is constructive. I was pointing out that the works argument is not one that we have to deal with. The Law came to a conclusion about 2000 years ago

Butch5,

I don't find what you say to be constructive.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

I don't find what you say to be constructive.

- Davies

Why is that?

 

[Davies]

Why is that?

Good morning Butch5,

Because, from what I can recall, out of all my interaction with you, I haven't found anything we can agree on. Perhaps we haven't talked enough yet. I'm sure we could agree on something, but it's difficult to be edified when you disagree with so much with what's being shared. So, in this respect, I'm just as guilty for not being edifying. Christians should agree on the fundamentals of the faith, and I think there is a wide birth for disagreement on what's considered secondary issues.

So, when you reply to a post that says, "The boasting argument isn't applicable today," without explanation to explain what you mean, I interpret this as, 'I'm shooting you down, and because I don't care about you, I won't explain what I mean.'

1 Corinthians 8:1

New King James Version (NKJV)

Be Sensitive to Conscience

8 ... Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.



- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Good morning Butch5,

Because, from what I can recall, out of all my interaction with you, I haven't found anything we can agree on. Perhaps we haven't talked enough yet. I'm sure we could agree on something, but it's difficult to be edified when you disagree with so much with what's being shared. So, in this respect, I'm just as guilty for not being edifying. Christians should agree on the fundamentals of the faith, and I think there is a wide birth for disagreement on what's considered secondary issues.

So, when you reply to a post that says, "The boasting argument isn't applicable today," without explanation to explain what you mean, I interpret this as, 'I'm shooting you down, and because I don't care about you, I won't explain what I mean.'

1 Corinthians 8:1

New King James Version (NKJV)

Be Sensitive to Conscience

8 ... Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.



- Davies

I'm sorry if that is how it seemed, it was not my intent. The reason for the short statement is to see how the other person wants to pursue the question/statement. Then I can address the questions/thoughts that are provoked in the other person.

Regarding the statement about boasting, the argument Paul was making was against the Jews who boasted of their keeping the Law. The Law was fulfilled 2000 years ago, No one today that I'm aware of boasts in keeping the Mosaic Law as a means of righteousness today. I mean, I guess there could be someone somewhere today who does, however, this argument is brought up in Christian circles today among Gentiles. Paul said that the Gentiles were not under the Law but that the Law was given to the Jews. As I said, I hear this argument among Christians today but the Law was fulfilled long ago. I hope this explains my statement.

Butch

 

[Davies]

I'm sorry if that is how it seemed, it was not my intent. The reason for the short statement is to see how the other person wants to pursue the question/statement. Then I can address the questions/thoughts that are provoked in the other person.

Regarding the statement about boasting, the argument Paul was making was against the Jews who boasted of their keeping the Law. The Law was fulfilled 2000 years ago, No one today that I'm aware of boasts in keeping the Mosaic Law as a means of righteousness today. I mean, I guess there could be someone somewhere today who does, however, this argument is brought up in Christian circles today among Gentiles. Paul said that the Gentiles were not under the Law but that the Law was given to the Jews. As I said, I hear this argument among Christians today but the Law was fulfilled long ago. I hope this explains my statement.

Butch

Thanks Butch,

Your right. The boasting argument doesn't work, but you should listen to people boast today of how they should do and how they work for the Lord to be justified, and whether they are Jews or Gentiles is a mute point, because they both stand condemned before they put their faith in Jesus.

"The reason for the short statement is to see how the other person wants to pursue the question/statement. Then I can address the questions/thoughts that are provoked in the other person," I don't find constructive. In the written media we are communicating in, it leaves too much misunderstanding. I mean, who likes to be provoked? I understand some people get a real kick out of it. It's hard work to write what you think and be clear, and without clarity, a person is just being lazy with his words. I find that it takes a lot of my time, and often I don't respond because of time constraints, and I get lazy. There's enough trouble as people disagree over the fundamentals of the faith. I don't want to start any unnecessary trouble.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Thanks Butch,

Your right. The boasting argument doesn't work, but you should listen to people boast today of how they should do and how they work for the Lord to be justified, and whether they are Jews or Gentiles is a mute point, because they both stand condemned before they put their faith in Jesus.

I don't think you're getting my point. The Jew/Gentile issue isn't moot, it's the focus of Paul's argument. The Jews weren't claiming they were righteous because they were doing good things, i.e. taking care of widows and the poor. They were claiming they were righteous because they were circumcise and kept the Mosaic Law, (Acts 15) i.e. ritual washings, eating on kosher foods, etc. These are the works that Paul is addressing that do not save. Paul is not arguing that doing works for God do not save, actually, he says that those who do good deeds are seeking eternal life.

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
(Rom 2:5-10 KJV)

My point is that his argument is specific to the Mosaic Law and not to doing good deeds. Good deeds are a means of justification as James tells us.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 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? (Jam 2:20-22 KJV)

"The reason for the short statement is to see how the other person wants to pursue the question/statement. Then I can address the questions/thoughts that are provoked in the other person," I don't find constructive. In the written media we are communicating in, it leaves too much misunderstanding. I mean, who likes to be provoked? I understand some people get a real kick out of it. It's hard work to write what you think and be clear, and without clarity, a person is just being lazy with his words. I find that it takes a lot of my time, and often I don't respond because of time constraints, and I get lazy. There's enough trouble as people disagree over the fundamentals of the faith. I don't want to start any unnecessary trouble.

It's not about being lazy, it's as you say, time consuming. I've spent hours writing posts only to have them dismissed or hear that's not what I said. So, by letting the other person direct the direction of the conversation I spend less time wasting time.

- Davies[/QUOTE]

 

[Davies]

I don't think you're getting my point. The Jew/Gentile issue isn't moot, it's the focus of Paul's argument. The Jews weren't claiming they were righteous because they were doing good things, i.e. taking care of widows and the poor. They were claiming they were righteous because they were circumcise and kept the Mosaic Law, (Acts 15) i.e. ritual washings, eating on kosher foods, etc. These are the works that Paul is addressing that do not save. Paul is not arguing that doing works for God do not save, actually, he says that those who do good deeds are seeking eternal life.

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
(Rom 2:5-10 KJV)

My point is that his argument is specific to the Mosaic Law and not to doing good deeds. Good deeds are a means of justification as James tells us.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 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? (Jam 2:20-22 KJV)




It's not about being lazy, it's as you say, time consuming. I've spent hours writing posts only to have them dismissed or hear that's not what I said. So, by letting the other person direct the direction of the conversation I spend less time wasting time.

- Davies

[/QUOTE]

Hi Butch,

Yet another fundamental disagreement with you over the whole works doctrine. No one is justified by what they do. I think we've already hashed this out in another thread. I get you loud and clear.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch,

Yet another fundamental disagreement with you over the whole works doctrine. No one is justified by what they do. I think we've already hashed this out in another thread. I get you loud and clear.

- Davies

Just a question because this is something that truly puzzles me. James said Abraham was justified by his works and says a man is not justified by faith alone. How then do you conclude works play no role? This is a serious question because I see Christians say things like this and I wonder how they reason that this can be.

 

[Grazer]

I heard a talk that touched on this and the basic conclusion is our works are not a pre-requisite of getting into heaven however, the "treasures" we have once were they is determined by our works

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Butch5]

I heard a talk that touched on this and the basic conclusion is our works are not a pre-requisite of getting into heaven however, the "treasures" we have once were they is determined by our works

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Hi Grazer,

That's not what I'm getting at with Davies. Although works do play a big role in entering the Kingdom of God, the Scriptures are abundantly clear on that. In Mathew 25 Jesus gave works as the basis on which he will divide the sheep and the goats. Paul told the Romans that God will judge everyone on their works, those who do good will receive eternal life. John said, the books were opened and every man was judged on the works that were found in them. Jesus said, the time is coming when all who are in the grave will hear His voice and rise, those who did good to the resurrection of life, thoseh wo did evil to the resurrection of damnation. James said, a man is not justified by faith alone. Look at what Jesus said to the seven churches, He opens His words to each with, "I know your works." God

 

[Davies]

Just a question because this is something that truly puzzles me. James said Abraham was justified by his works and says a man is not justified by faith alone. How then do you conclude works play no role? This is a serious question because I see Christians say things like this and I wonder how they reason that this can be.

Butch,

You can keep wondering because I don't wish to talk to you about it. If you'd like a review, I'm sure there are a couple of threads that are lengthy, that will give you plenty of food for thought (like this thread), if indeed you're interested because you seem pretty settled from what I've read. I'd rather not react to your provocation.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Butch,

You can keep wondering because I don't wish to talk to you about it. If you'd like a review, I'm sure there are a couple of threads that are lengthy, that will give you plenty of food for thought (like this thread), if indeed you're interested because you seem pretty settled from what I've read. I'd rather not react to your provocation.

- Davies

Ok, if you don't want to answer it. It was not a provocation, I was seriously wondering how you look at what James said and hold a position that opposes it.
Thanks for the discussion.