The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[dadof10]

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?

Because you try and rationalize your snide remark (snark), doesn't mean it's not one. I'm sure you really feel that my remark was WAY out of bounds, while yours was completely justified. Go ahead and keep thinking that if you want.

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.

You know I'm Catholic, right? Where does the Catholic Church teach this cartoonish doctrine? She doesn't, and you probably know that. This is what I expect from someone who's painted himself into a corner with his words, mis-characterization of my beliefs.

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.

Fair enough.

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.

This is the same, old ridiculous "the water destroyed, the ark saved, Jesus is the ark" argument, except without the last part. Do you really think Peter meant this by the simple, straightforward statement "eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,"? Really?

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.

What does "saved through WATER" mean? This makes no sense. If he was "setting up imagery" that the water means "calamity, the death, the deluge of the Judgment", why on earth did he say "saved through water" instead of "saved by the ark" or "saved FROM the water"? You are coming at this with a preconceived bias. This verse (and others like them) are ALWAYS explained in light of the bias of sola-fide. It just makes absolutely no sense.

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

Well, there it is. The bias coming through again. If it saves, it MUST be faith alone, no matter WHAT the actual words are. How does "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" equate to "a confession of faith"? How is "appealing" or "answering" to God FOR A CLEAR CONSCIENCE a confession? Is taking a vow (saving baptism) a "work for wages"?

This is what I mean by painted into a corner. If "vowtaking" is NOT a "work for wages" then something else, ALONG WITH FAITH, saves, and sola-fide fails. If you DO consider it a "work" then at least one "work" saves and you contradict Paul. Your only way out of this debacle is to force "an appeal for a clear conscience" into the round hole of "faith", which is ludicrous.

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.

You make a big deal about "Peter never says part", yet Peter never says "vowtaking" or "it's not the water" and you're perfectly fine with that.

Let's cut to the chase:

"eight persons, were saved through water.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,"

Your claim is that saving baptism is "a vowtaking", so, in effect, Peter is saying:

"eight persons, were saved through water.
vowtaking, which corresponds to this, now saves you,"

Nonsense.

How does eight people being saved THROUGH water correspond to taking a vow? This is the symbolism he is putting forth. This is what you have to reconcile.

 

[dadof10]

*Bump* For Heymikey, in case you missed it.

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"?



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]

Let's cut to the chase:

"eight persons, were saved through water.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,"

Your claim is that saving baptism is "a vowtaking", so, in effect, Peter is saying:

"eight persons, were saved through water.
vowtaking, which corresponds to this, now saves you,"

Nonsense.

How does eight people being saved THROUGH water correspond to taking a vow? This is the symbolism he is putting forth. This is what you have to reconcile.

Since you want to cut to the chase -- Peter says what you're saying is nonsense:

"baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you -- not [what is it not?] not a removal of dirt from the body [must not be that!] but [oh, here's what it must be!] an appeal to God in good conscience" 1 Peter 3:21

So what does Peter say BAPTISM isn't? washywashy. What does Peter say BAPTISM IS? "appeal in good conscience".

Now, look back at Noah. What does Peter say saved Noah's family through the water that would've killed them? Not the water! That'd be crazy, the water killed people! No, the ark was prepared. The way of salvation was prepared to save Noah from the water.

 

[heymikey80]

*Bump* For Heymikey, in case you missed it.

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?"

And I responded.

You didn't ask a direct question. You didn't resolve the question of what meaning of "charity" you intended.

You let it go on for pages of the thread.

You've clearly shown there're MULTIPLE versions of the meaning of the word.

And you missed the point that in the Bible, "charity" doesn't mean a single one of the modern definitions.

Until you clarify your meaning, your question is not direct. There's no reason to answer a question designed to shift in its meaning.

 

[heymikey80]

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?

I wrote to a direct answer: "No".

Are you kidding me?

Your outrage does not reflect well on your argumentation. You responded, merging the definitions again. I pointed out that you couldn't find Paul referring to "almsgiving" with the word "charity".

As you may remember here, http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44354&p=722518&viewfull=1#post722518 , you began to merge my points about agapao versus giving to benefit someone else. That was disingenuous.

If you have outrage dealing with the definitions you "allowed" me to use, and then promptly took back when they didn't fit your story line, please, don't expect me to consider your outrage well-placed.

No work-for-wages will buy your salvation. Paul rejects that outright again & again. So no, almsgiving in Christian experience is not a work for the wages of salvation, either.

When you find a place where Paul says, "Giving to the poor will get you salvation", lemme know. Otherwise your outrage here is not well placed.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

Actually, James didn't say a person is justified by his works. That's a truncation of James' actual sentence: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24

"You see" wouldn't be such a big deal, except that six verses prior, James emphasized it: "I will show you my faith by my works."

James' point is that you see a person is justified by actions -- because you can't see faith, but you can see action.

 

[dadof10]

Since you want to cut to the chase -- Peter says what you're saying is nonsense:

"baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you -- not [what is it not?] not a removal of dirt from the body [must not be that!] but [oh, here's what it must be!] an appeal to God in good conscience" 1 Peter 3:21

Your exegesis doesn't take into consideration the fact that Peter just said baptism CORRESPONDS to people being "saved through WATER". He then goes on, in the next breath, to say "but the water, that I just said saved, doesn't"?

So what does Peter say BAPTISM isn't? washywashy. What does Peter say BAPTISM IS? "appeal in good conscience".

Peter is not describing baptism, but HOW water baptism saves. He's describing the salvation, not defining baptism.

"baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you --[it saves you as]not a removal of dirt from the body but [it saves you as] an appeal to God in good conscience"

This interpretation takes into consideration what he said previously, also is grammatically correct.

Now, look back at Noah. What does Peter say saved Noah's family through the water that would've killed them? Not the water! That'd be crazy, the water killed people! No, the ark was prepared. The way of salvation was prepared to save Noah from the water.

Your argument is not with me, it's with Peter. He's the one who used the analogy comparing the WATER of the flood to baptism. You can try to twist this around and around to make it fit into your sola-fide mold, but it just doesn't.

Again, for your interpretation to be valid, what baptism "is" must be able to be compared to eight being "saved through water". How is "vowtaking" or "appealing" or "pledging" or "answering" symbolized by people being saved through water? Non-sequitur.

I'll give you the last word on the subject, because it's obvious we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

Getting back to the OP, let's assume you are right. "Saving baptism" is a "vowtaking". Does this vowtaking fit under Paul's definition of "works for wages"? Since you say it's "saving", I'm going to assume your answer is "no". Then people are saved by having faith AND taking this vow (i.e. being baptized)?

I'll await your response before I continue in this vein.

 

[dadof10]

And I responded.

I wrote to a direct answer: "No".

I think I misunderstood your "direct answer" to the question of whether a person giving without expectation of repayment, was considered "working".

You said:

"No. In fact "charity" was not "giving things that you value", in Paul's Greek -- or even in English, until quite recently. The word is actually "agapao". CS Lewis does a good job describing this word in "The Four Loves". It is the ultimate in redemptive care for the one loved. And it's a gift from the Spirit of God for people who already believe (1 Cor 13)."

I took this to mean that "agapao" is salvific, but what I was describing WASN'T "agapao", and therfore, wasn't salvific. I apologize. I wasn't trying to be difficult or disingenuous.

You didn't ask a direct question. You didn't resolve the question of what meaning of "charity" you intended.

Actually, I did ask a direct question, to which you gave a direct answer. I just misunderstood your answer. I described an act and asked if you think this act is a "work" to Paul. You answered "no", so the definition of charity is really moot to the topic.

Your outrage does not reflect well on your argumentation.

I'm not outraged any more than you are, just frustrated, probably as are you. I can see how you would be, thinking you answered the question three weeks ago, and I won't let it go. I hope you can see how I would be frustrated, ostensibly asking the same question over and over, just to be "ignored".

No work-for-wages will buy your salvation. Paul rejects that outright again & again.

I agree. I just don't think baptism, charity, keeping the commandments, etc. fit this "works for wages salvation"

So no, almsgiving in Christian experience is not a work for the wages of salvation, either.

I don't want to misunderstand you again. To Paul, almsgiving is NOT a "work"? Is this what you mean?

When you find a place where Paul says, "Giving to the poor will get you salvation", lemme know. Otherwise your outrage here is not well placed.

When you find a place where it says all doctrine must be written in the pages of Scripture, let me know. I am not trying to positively prove good deeds done in faith (or lack thereof) effect salvation, only that Paul doesn't teach "faith alone" when he says "faith not works".

OK, now let's move on.

This is the act that we both agree doesn't fit Paul's definition of "works for wages":

A person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person.

1) You mentioned that the attitude of the person performing the action didn't matter to his salvation (please correct me if have your view wrong). If the above act is done WITH a hope or even an EXPECTATION of repayment from God, would this fit under Paul's definition? Would you consider this act NOW "works for wages"? I would, because I think that the person's attitude is primarily what Paul means when he speaks of "works for wages". The act (any act) can either allow God to move us closer to or further from Heaven. C.S Lewis, who you mentioned previously, agrees. He said (paraphrased) that at every moment of our lives the choices we make either turn us into a saint or a devil.

2) By "works", Paul doesn't mean every action we perform. We agree on this. Therefore, when Paul says "faith vs. works" he is NOT teaching the doctrine of "sola-fide". Do we agree here?

 

[heymikey80]

Your exegesis doesn't take into consideration the fact that Peter just said baptism CORRESPONDS to people being "saved through WATER". He then goes on, in the next breath, to say "but the water, that I just said saved, doesn't"?

Actually, my exegesis definitely does take this into consideration. As you remember, I pointed out that "saved through water" interpreting water as a positive, would point out the people drowned -- not the people saved. Instead the water is what Noah's family endured.

And "through", in Greek, is fine with that understanding.

Peter is not describing baptism, but HOW water baptism saves. He's describing the salvation, not defining baptism.

"baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you --[it saves you as]not a removal of dirt from the body but [it saves you as] an appeal to God in good conscience"

This interpretation takes into consideration what he said previously, also is grammatically correct.

No, it's not accurate. To say this means Peter is speaking nonsense: "[it saves you] not as removing dirt from the body". Nobody has the first thought that bathing is salvation.

It is far more clear when he says "Baptism saves you" -- what baptism? "not cleaning dirt off the body", no, not the water rite. To say someone thinks dirt removal is salvation is pretty silly. But plenty of people think the water is somehow salvific. When it's not.

Your argument is not with me, it's with Peter. He's the one who used the analogy comparing the WATER of the flood to baptism. You can try to twist this around and around to make it fit into your sola-fide mold, but it just doesn't.

Your argument remains with Peter. My mold is a First Century hearing.

Again, for your interpretation to be valid, what baptism "is" must be able to be compared to eight being "saved through water". How is "vowtaking" or "appealing" or "pledging" or "answering" symbolized by people being saved through water? Non-sequitur.

That's really simple. Noah and family were saved through the intervening death spread across the earth. There was widespread death through that water, and they were preserved through it. Peter's point is that Jesus has been resurrected. From what? From death. And in so doing, He has preserved us through death.

"... as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him." 1 Peter 3:21-22 ESV

It's not the water that Peter is requiring. It's what brings us through the water that Peter is requiring.

Getting back to the OP, let's assume you are right. "Saving baptism" is a "vowtaking". Does this vowtaking fit under Paul's definition of "works for wages"? Since you say it's "saving", I'm going to assume your answer is "no". Then people are saved by having faith AND taking this vow (i.e. being baptized)?

I'll await your response before I continue in this vein.

Someone who relies on God has already answered Him in good conscience. We can talk about the vowtaking if you want, but Peter has already moved us on beyond the event of baptism. It's not the baptism. It's Who brings us through death into life.

And frankly, not even a vowtaking could be considered a work. Again, you're thinking I'm approaching this theologically. No. I'm approaching it from a First Century person. He would scoff at anyone making such a claim that talk would incur a wage.

 

[dadof10]

Someone who relies on God has already answered Him in good conscience.

Ooooo, nice try! SURPRISE...your claim is that "answering in good conscience" is the same exact thing as faith, and this is what Peter is trying to get through to us? WOW, I didn't see this interpretation coming...

"...Already answered Him in good conscience"? Which translation is this from, the MSV, Mikey's Standard version?

That "dia" means "through", only through, not "by" is a HUGE deal to you, yet you are perfectly fine interpreting the above verse as "already answered", when the word "already" is not in the verse and the word (eperōtēma) means INQUIRY, not answer. Here is the definition:

1) an enquiry, a question
2) a demand
3) earnestly seeking
a) craving, an intense desire


In other words, AN ACTION THAT'S NOT FAITH ALONE!!


Sorry, this is where I draw the line. When you say "works" means "works for wages" I say, OK, for the sake of argument, I'll agree, because in other places Paul teaches against "works for wages". When you say "dia" only means "through", not "by", I say OK, even though both words are valid translations and both are used in many different interpretations. But the above is flat out damaging the text. NOT ONE interpretation even comes CLOSE to twisting the words of this verse to mean "already answered Him in good conscience". Nowhere does Scripture say that "answering God in good conscience" is a by-product of faith. Again, you are reading sola-fide into the text when it simply isn't there. Peter is not talking about faith at all, only baptism, which you are trying to cram into the round hole of faith. It's not working because it's ridiculous.

BTW, what you are reading is not "outrage". It's really hard to be outraged when laughing uncontrollably.

We can talk about the vowtaking if you want, but Peter has already moved us on beyond the event of baptism.

How so? Spoken like someone who's arguments are falling apart around them. Let's recap, again. You said "saving baptism" is a "vowtaking". Is it or not? If it is, then please explain how taking a vow, or APPEALING "to God for a good conscience" (From the ESV, which you quoted above), saves, yet we are saved by faith alone. Please explain how appealing or pledging or vowtaking is "faith".

It's not the baptism. It's Who brings us through death into life.

That's like saying "it's not the faith, it's about Who brings us..." Does the baptism save? Then it is about the baptism, just like it's about the faith. According to your own words, BOTH SAVE.

And frankly, not even a vowtaking could be considered a work.

Then that's two actions that Paul is excluding from his "faith vs. works" passages, giving without expecting repayment and vowtaking. Tell me again how Paul teaches sola-fide....

Again, you're thinking I'm approaching this theologically. No. I'm approaching it from a First Century person. He would scoff at anyone making such a claim that talk would incur a wage.

Then all "talk" is naturally excluded from "works for wages" because the "first century person" would not even be thinking in this way? So, someone could teach that SAYING certain prayers at certain times will EARN salvation, and this would also be excluded from Paul's definition? Paul would be OK with that? After all, talking can't incur a wage, so therefore can not be a "work". The more you twist, the more convoluted this gets.

 

[Butch5]

Actually, James didn't say a person is justified by his works. That's a truncation of James' actual sentence: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24

"You see" wouldn't be such a big deal, except that six verses prior, James emphasized it: "I will show you my faith by my works."

James' point is that you see a person is justified by actions -- because you can't see faith, but you can see action.

He also said that faith without works is dead. Whether someone can see you or not, faith alone will not justify.

 

[iLOVE]

He also said that faith without works is dead. Whether someone can see you or not, faith alone will not justify.

The scripture means proper Faith will produce proper works. If not, the Holy Spirit says here that it is "dead faith."

 

[Mitspa]

The scripture means proper Faith will produce proper works. If not, the Holy Spirit says here that it is "dead faith."

yes, and I love the fact that James by the Holy Spirit, uses RAHAB THE HARLOT as an example of works! Which to any fair minded person proves that he is not speaking of works of law or religion. She was a sinner and brought them into her house where she practised her sin. She believed, and acted according to faith and was justified by God.

Consider Rahab and the honor bestowed upon her in the scripture? She was one of the few women mentioned in the Lords generational line, she was in Heb 11 "the hall of faith"!

God honored her faith and made her great and to be forever remembered as an example of REAL FAITH!

 

[dadof10]

yes, and I love the fact that James by the Holy Spirit, uses RAHAB THE HARLOT as an example of works! Which to any fair minded person proves that he is not speaking of works of law or religion. She was a sinner and brought them into her house where she practised her sin. She believed, and acted according to faith and was justified by God.

Consider Rahab and the honor bestowed upon her in the scripture? She was one of the few women mentioned in the Lords generational line, she was in Heb 11 "the hall of faith"!

God honored her faith and made her great and to be forever remembered as an example of REAL FAITH!

According to James, what justified Rahab, her faith or her works?

"And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" (James 2:25)

Certainly she had faith, but that ALONE didn't justify her.

 

[Mitspa]

According to James, what justified Rahab, her faith or her works?

"And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" (James 2:25)

Certainly she had faith, but that ALONE didn't justify her.

I agree real faith has a living action! But the scipture shows that it is not a religious work or work of law!

I think when someone attempts to define the work of faith by religious tradition, they are in fact not in faith but in works of flesh!

I think Paul makes this very clear!

So Paul and James are in perfect agreement! Real faith will have real action! But the action is a product of the faith!

Like RAHAB THE HARLOT! who was justified by a SIMPLE ACT of faith!

James later goes on to say that the prayer of faith will heal the sick? Now you say you have faith but do you have works?

You show me your faith by religious works and I will show you my faith by the Power of faith!

 

[Mitspa]

According to James, what justified Rahab, her faith or her works?

"And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" (James 2:25)

Certainly she had faith, but that ALONE didn't justify her.

I believe James is putting all these scriptures in the context of "THE JUST (RIGHTEOUS) SHALL LIVE BY FAITH"

He makes to point that Abraham fulfilled his faith in that he acted by faith. Also James makes the point that just as the body is dead without the spirit? so is faith without works of faith.

The main point Is that a living faith should have real signs of life!
Christ said the "works" that I do. You will do also! These are clearly works of faith and not works of religion or law! For the law is not of faith.

I believe many use these scriptures to do that very thing? To brings folks under bondage to the law and religious yokes of tradition. That James uses a HARLOT as an example of the "works" proves that these works are not based upon any ability to justify oneself by lawkeeping or a moral standard that religion might form from tradition.

Real faith has real "living action" For the just SHALL LIVE by faith! This is the point made by James!

 

[dadof10]

I agree real faith has a living action! But the scipture shows that it is not a religious work or work of law!

Scripture says Rehab was justified by works. The work he says justified her was when she helped the Israelites escape. How is this a "religious work" or a "work of the law"?

 

[Mitspa]

Scripture says Rehab was justified by works. The work he says justified her was when she helped the Israelites escape. How is this a "religious work" or a "work of the law"?

Well that is my point! that it is not a religious work or a work of law!
As some would try to make it seem?

Real faith is alive and has action! This is the point!

Jesus said the WORKS that I do, you will do also, and greater works!
These are the works of faith!
The prayer of FAITH will save the sick!

The just shall LIVE by faith! If you are in real faith, it will be alive with the power of God!
Paul said that our faith is not is words that mans wisdom teaches, but in the POWER of God!

This is clearly what James was speaking of!

 

[dadof10]

Well that is my point! that it is not a religious work or a work of law!
As some would try to make it seem?

Real faith is alive and has action! This is the point!

Jesus said the WORKS that I do, you will do also, and greater works!
These are the works of faith!
The prayer of FAITH will save the sick!

The just shall LIVE by faith! If you are in real faith, it will be alive with the power of God!
Paul said that our faith is not is words that mans wisdom teaches, but in the POWER of God!

This is clearly what James was speaking of!

Then we are justified by DOING works in faith, not by faith alone.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mitspa]

Then we are justified by DOING works in faith, not by faith alone.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

"Works of faith" as decribed in scripture complete ones faith.
For just shall live by faith. If one does not have living faith they are not in faith and will not be justified by faith.

The point again is that one cannot just say they have faith, and think that God is mocked by their words.

Works of faith, come from faith!
Untested faith is not faith.
powerless faith is not faith.
lifeless faith is not faith.
religious faith is not faith.

The law is not of faith.

The point again, being that one can say they are justified by faith, but real faith is real and alive, according to the scriptures.