The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[Mitspa]

Hi Jethro:

(New photo, BTW. Is that you? or do I need new glasses...)

|For me, the 'not of works' of Ephesians 2.9 settles a lot of argument.

The truth is very clear as regards to the works of law! But the problem seems to be that some just change the terms a little and use words like "moral law" and this part and that part, and this part has past away but that part we are still under etc...

The thing that satan knows? is that if he can get us into any attempt to justify ourselves by works of law, any part of the law! He has defeated the grace of God in our lives! Now why James seems to come so close to this line of grace and works, should be evident from some of the doctrines we see on this forum? this "i am elect" faith is a work nonsense! and this universal salvation doctrines all attempt to justify the carnal flesh and the old adamic nature. So this is why James wrote, to keep thses people from being deceived! but they will not hear the truth! nor do the lawkeepers (breakers) seem to want to hear anything but what their religious and itching ears want to hear.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro, I have read your post and agree with much your are saying and am a bit confused by your back and forth upon the term justified?

There are two ways to use the word 'justified'. Did you read the Strong's link I provided? Did you click on and read the Vine's link in Strong's?

I'm being patient because I know the church is extremely indoctrinated about this matter of justification--that is insofar as the one use of the word--Paul's use of the word, and pretty much oblivious to how James is using the word. That's not a put down. That's just the way it is. But I think you have a sincere heart for God and can sort this out. I'm willing to go piece by piece until you understand it. You don't have to agree with it, but I hope you can at least come to understand it.

Is it your belief that When Paul says the word that he is speaking of a justfication that is not complete in Christ?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'complete', but I'm saying when God legally declares you as having right standing with God because you believe what he says about the Promised Son who inherits the blessing for us you are totally 100% righteous before him. This is the justification that one must have to be saved on the Day of Wrath.

That his word in regards to Abraham is different than James when He speaks of Abraham?

Yes! Paul is using a different meaning of 'justify'. Paul is speaking about Abraham being declared (made) righteous by his faith in the promised seed made to him (the same way we are declared legally justified--through faith in the promise of the Seed who would inherit the blessings on our behalf, namely Jesus Christ). While James is speaking about Abraham being declared (shown to be) righteous by the actions%

 

[Jethro Bodine]

WOW! Suddenly large portions of my post disappeared. But here it is before I did some editing to it:

Jethro, I have read your post and agree with much your are saying and am a bit confused by your back and forth upon the term justified?

There are two ways to use the word 'justified'. Did you read the Strong's link I provided? Did you click on and read the Vine's link in Strong's?

I'm being patient because I know the church is extremely indoctrinated about this matter of justification--that is insofar as the one use of the word--Paul's use of the word, and pretty much oblivious to how James is using the word. That's not a put down. That's just the way it is. But I think you have a sincere heart for God and can sort this out. I'm willing to go piece by piece until you understand it. You don't have to agree with it, but I hope you can at least come to understand it.

Is it your belief that When Paul says the word that he is speaking of a justfication that is not complete in Christ?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'complete', but I'm saying when God legally declares you as having right standing with God because you believe what he says about the Promised Son who inherits the blessing for us you are totally 100% righteous before him. This is the justification that one must have to be saved on the Day of Wrath.

That his word in regards to Abraham is different than James when He speaks of Abraham?

Yes! Paul is using a different meaning of 'justify'. Paul is speaking about Abraham being declared (made) righteous by his faith in the promised seed made to him (the same way we are declared legally justified--through faith in the promise of the Seed who would inherit the blessings on our behalf, namely Jesus Christ). While James is speaking about Abraham being declared (shown to be) righteous by the actions that SHOW him to truly trust and believe in the promises made to him.

Paul refers to the part of Abraham's story when he is made righteous by his faith in the promises made to him. James refers to a later part of Abraham's story when his faith in the promised son is seen in what he does. Both, being declared righteous as in 'I pronounce you legally righteous', and being declared righteous as in 'your actions show you to be a righteous man' are two ways that a believer is justified. Can you see the difference?

Also you say rahab was justified apart from the law? as was Abraham?

Yes. Unless someone can show us otherwise.

But that a believer must be justifed by keeping a moral section of the law?

Not to be MADE righteous before God, but to validate that he really has been MADE righteous before God through faith in Christ.

That you seem to see and Paul and I do not seem to see?

But Paul does see what I just said. He speaks of it also. It's just as apparant to a church that has been narrowly indoctrinated about justification and the role of law in the New Covenant believers life. I've been sharing the scriptures. But I know it may take a little work to get them to sink in.

I know that it has been a couple of days for you to respond to my post? Now you throw out so much info that seems to want things both ways?

It's frustrating that this overwhelms most believers. But, like I said, I'll be patient and walk you and everyone else that is lurking through it. You have given me no reason to think you are not a sincere seeker and lover of truth. At this point I'm confident that you will come to understand and accept it.

I like to get to one truth at a time and then move forward! That cuts down on a lot of double talk!

Now my first question is what is the difference between justified as used by Paul thoughtout scripture in regards to Abraham and the termed used by James?

The basic difference is Paul's justification is in regard to being MADE righteous before God. James' justification is in regard to SHOWING yourself to be a righteous person by the righteous things you do. Both, being made righteous and being shown to be righteous are referred to as being justified. It's like this:

"You believe what I say. I declare you to now be righteous in my (God's) sight."

"I see by what you do that you believe what I (God) say. I declare that you are indeed a righteous person, for you have demonstrated the faith through which a person is made righteous before me."

also rahab? you say it was an example? of course it was! a real living example of one justified apart from any works or deed or moral element of the law! Thats why James and the Holy Spirit used her!

Almost. While it's true that Rahab was made righteous in God's sight by her faith in the promises made to Abraham (just as Abraham himself was made righteous by faith in those promises) James uses her story to illustrate that faith in the promises must be seen in what a person does in order to validate that faith as genuine and able to save. That is why action must accompany confession. Not because action MAKES you righteous, but action appropriate to the thing being trusted and believed in is the expected and obligatory response to really believing what you say you believe.

To keep false teachers from attempting to bring the justfication of faith back into the "moral" requirement of the law!

Let me repeat: NO ONE is made righteous by doing righteous things, in or out of the law. Only having your sins removed through faith in the blood of the Promised Son can make a person guilt free and righteous before God. Keeping moral requirements does NOT make a person righteous. That is impossible. Completely and utterly impossible. But we do SHOW ourselves to have been made righteous by our faith in Christ's blood when we fulfill the moral requirements found in the law. Understand?

By the way? Do you submit to Pauls gospel? that all men will be judged by HIS gospel? That If any man preach another gospel? even an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN! they are cursed?

I'm completely on board with Paul's gospel. It is impossible to be justified by doing righteous things. Doing righteous things has no power to remove sin guilt. Only the blood of Christ can remove sin guilt. Period. But it is expected that the person who has had their sin guilt removed and been transformed into a new creation is expected to act like the new creation they have become. If they can't or won't do that, they probably do not have the faith in God that saves. That is James' argument.

I have found that many talk in circles? Your post seems to be one big circle of double talk to me! parts of the truth mixed with false doctrine, in such a way as to make it almost impossible to get at the truth of what you are trying to affirm.
So if you would, lets go point by point? and we will see if your doctrines can hold up under the light of His Truth?

It will hold up. Let's continue.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi Jethro:

(New photo, BTW. Is that you? or do I need new glasses...)

|For me, the 'not of works' of Ephesians 2.9 settles a lot of argument.

No, that's not me, lol.

My kids tell me that when I was a younger man (and still had my hair) I looked like Ashton Kutcher (spell?). And I was probably as goofy, too!

 

[Mitspa]

WOW! Suddenly large portions of my post disappeared. But here it is before I did some editing to it:



There are two ways to use the word 'justified'. Did you read the Strong's link I provided? Did you click on and read the Vine's link in Strong's?

I'm being patient because I know the church is extremely indoctrinated about this matter of justification--that is insofar as the one use of the word--Paul's use of the word, and pretty much oblivious to how James is using the word. That's not a put down. That's just the way it is. But I think you have a sincere heart for God and can sort this out. I'm willing to go piece by piece until you understand it. You don't have to agree with it, but I hope you can at least come to understand it.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'complete', but I'm saying when God legally declares you as having right standing with God because you believe what he says about the Promised Son who inherits the blessing for us you are totally 100% righteous before him. This is the justification that one must have to be saved on the Day of Wrath.




Yes! Paul is using a different meaning of 'justify'. Paul is speaking about Abraham being declared (made) righteous by his faith in the promised seed made to him (the same way we are declared legally justified--through faith in the promise of the Seed who would inherit the blessings on our behalf, namely Jesus Christ). While James is speaking about Abraham being declared (shown to be) righteous by the actions that SHOW him to truly trust and believe in the promises made to him.

Paul refers to the part of Abraham's story when he is made righteous by his faith in the promises made to him. James refers to a later part of Abraham's story when his faith in the promised son is seen in what he does. Both, being declared righteous as in 'I pronounce you legally righteous', and being declared righteous as in 'your actions show you to be a righteous man' are two ways that a believer is justified. Can you see the difference?



Yes. Unless someone can show us otherwise.


Not to be MADE righteous before God, but to validate that he really has been MADE righteous before God through faith in Christ.


But Paul does see what I just said. He speaks of it also. It's just as apparant to a church that has been narrowly indoctrinated about justification and the role of law in the New Covenant believers life. I've been sharing the scriptures. But I know it may take a little work to get them to sink in.


It's frustrating that this overwhelms most believers. But, like I said, I'll be patient and walk you and everyone else that is lurking through it. You have given me no reason to think you are not a sincere seeker and lover of truth. At this point I'm confident that you will come to understand and accept it.



The basic difference is Paul's justification is in regard to being MADE righteous before God. James' justification is in regard to SHOWING yourself to be a righteous person by the righteous things you do. Both, being made righteous and being shown to be righteous are referred to as being justified. It's like this:

"You believe what I say. I declare you to now be righteous in my (God's) sight."

"I see by what you do that you believe what I (God) say. I declare that you are indeed a righteous person, for you have demonstrated the faith through which a person is made righteous before me."


Almost. While it's true that Rahab was made righteous in God's sight by her faith in the promises made to Abraham (just as Abraham himself was made righteous by faith in those promises) James uses her story to illustrate that faith in the promises must be seen in what a person does in order to validate that faith as genuine and able to save. That is why action must accompany confession. Not because action MAKES you righteous, but action appropriate to the thing being trusted and believed in is the expected and obligatory response to really believing what you say you believe.


Let me repeat: NO ONE is made righteous by doing righteous things, in or out of the law. Only having your sins removed through faith in the blood of the Promised Son can make a person guilt free and righteous before God. Keeping moral requirements does NOT make a person righteous. That is impossible. Completely and utterly impossible. But we do SHOW ourselves to have been made righteous by our faith in Christ's blood when we fulfill the moral requirements found in the law. Understand?




I'm completely on board with Paul's gospel. It is impossible to be justified by doing righteous things. Doing righteous things has no power to remove sin guilt. Only the blood of Christ can remove sin guilt. Period. But it is expected that the person who has had their sin guilt removed and been transformed into a new creation is expected to act like the new creation they have become. If they can't or won't do that, they probably do not have the faith in God that saves. That is James' argument.



It will hold up. Let's continue.

So your point about "justified" is not about the "word" but in the context of the point its making!
This is the point, that Abraham was not justified by a faith that stood alone but by a working faith. Faith was made complete by his works. A living faith is the point!

In no way can the law be brought in as a having any part of his or rahabs works, so again, I find that you are going in a circle and you are making no point! I do not accept that the term "Justfied" here means anything other than what it clearly means through out the scriptures.

And again you seem to agree with truth until you attempt to bring in the law of moses as a work? All these other points are not in debate. It seems again that you try to say a whole lot of truth to cover a very false doctrine.

So please be clear are the works mentioned here by James works of law, as you have stated in an earlier post?

Now If you believe that? Please just be open about it? Because I have some real good questions about how that works?

I do not see the need to remind me of the righteousness of faith and justification etc... I am very aware of the truth, It seems you only use these things to cloud the real issue, which is the works of law. Which a first year bible student could defeat with about three scriptures.

You have tried to establish the works of law in other post! have you now changed that position? Because you seem to say two different things at different times?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So your point about "justified" is not about the "word" but in the context of the point its making!

That's what I've been saying. The context shows us which of the two Biblical meanings any one author is using when they refer to being 'justified'.

This is the point, that Abraham was not justified by a faith that stood alone but by a working faith. Faith was made complete by his works. A living faith is the point!

Yes, the point is your confession of faith must be seen in what it does. And for us it must be seen in the royal law of scripture 'love your neighbor as yourself' (IOW, the fruit of the Spirit). Paul and James both say this. But somehow the church is so improperly indoctrinated about the role of law in the life of NT believers that they instantly think that can't possibly mean a command from the law of Moses. But Paul makes it very clear that is EXACTLY what it is--the law of Moses:

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10 NIV1984)

How can any alert, honest person not see Paul is PLAINLY talking about fulfilling the law of Moses?!?! Love is a lawful command. Not some invention of Christ's in the New Covenant. We fulfill the old command of love through the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of mere written words (Romans 7:6 NIV1984). It's not a new law. It's a new way of fulfilling the law. But I know to not expect NT believers to get this very easily. But it's easy to show from scripture that the law we uphold in this New Covenant is the law of Moses--not the ceremonial worship laws. Those got fulfilled once and for all through faith in Christ. There's no need to do those anymore. What stands as the ongoing obligation of law, now fulfilled through the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of mere written words, is 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Read it for yourself again in the Romans 13 quote above.

In no way can the law be brought in as a having any part of his or rahabs works, so again, I find that you are going in a circle and you are making no point!

Again, the point of Abraham and Rahab is their confession of faith (the faith that justified them) could be seen in what they did. That's the point. And that is to be true for us also. For us, this far down the pike in the appearing of Christ and God's revelation, the expected duty and obligation of one who says they have faith in Christ's blood is 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Read James 1 and 2 and tell me what James says we are to 'keep' and what is the doing and not just hearing that we are to be doing. He even uses another portion of the law (Deuteronomy 15:7-11 NIV1984 ) to illustrate that faith that acts and doesn't just talk reaches out according to the law to help those in need--exactly what the law of Moses commands. I challenge you to read the Deuteronomy 15 reference for yourself and see that the very example that James says to follow in order to have a living, active faith is in fact very much the law of Moses.

Now don't misunderstand. James is NOT saying we are MADE righteous by doing that. NO! He is saying we are SHOWN to be righteous when we fulfill the commands he references in chapters 1 and 2. Remember, we are also justified, as in SHOWN to be righteous, when we do righteous things. This is NOT the same justification that Paul is talking about. Paul teaches us that we are MADE righteous (also called being declared righteous) by faith in Christ's blood, all by itself, APART from the merit of lawful works (Romans 4:6 NIV1984)

I do not accept that the term "Justfied" here means anything other than what it clearly means through out the scriptures.

I don't either. It's just that 'justify' has two meanings in scripture. If you want we will look at the context of other places where it is used and see it is true. Luke 10:29 NIV1984 is a good place to see an example of how someone else is using the word 'justify' as James does. Do you think the expert in the law is seeking to MAKE himself righteous by asking Jesus his question (that's ridiculous), or is he trying to SHOW himself righteous and close to God by asking his question? See? It's an example of how justify doesn't just mean to MAKE righteous, but rather to SHOW one as being righteous.

And again you seem to agree with truth until you attempt to bring in the law of moses as a work?

I'm being patient. I really am. But have you not been reading what I'm posting? We are MADE righteous in God's sight by our faith and trust in the blood. We are SHOWN to have that righteousness when we do righteous things found in the law--not the ceremonial righteousness of the law--but the moral righteousness of the law summed up in the law 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

All these other points are not in debate. It seems again that you try to say a whole lot of truth to cover a very false doctrine.

So please be clear are the works mentioned here by James works of law, as you have stated in an earlier post?

I simply challenge you to tell me right from James 1 and 2 what work James says shows our faith to be alive and active and able to save. Is it works of the law, or is it non-works of the law (whatever those might be anyway).

I do not see the need to remind me of the righteousness of faith and justification etc... I am very aware of the truth,

Yes, as I said the church is well versed on Paul's argument for justification apart from works, but on the basis of faith in Christ's blood. What the church does not understand, because it is not taught, is that the faith that justifies, all by itself apart from works, is the faith that does works of the law! Not the ceremonial worship works of the law but the moral works of the law summed up in the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself', just as Paul says.

It seems you only use these things to cloud the real issue, which is the works of law. Which a first year bible student could defeat with about three scriptures.

Bring three scriptures and let's see if they defeat what I'm saying, okay?

You have tried to establish the works of law in other post! have you now changed that position? Because you seem to say two different things at different times?

No, it's that you don't understand what I'm saying the role of lawful works is in regard to justification. I'm being patient though and will help you understand it. Then you can decide for yourself if it's truth you want to accept and seek to fulfill in your own life, thus doing what James and Paul and John and Peter say we must do to have confidence and surety that we have the faith that saves, or not doing that.

 

[Mitspa]

To use the law as an example of how love and royal law of Christ, THIS IS MY COMMANDMENT, THAT YOU LOVE AS i have loved you. Fulfills all that the law demanded, is NOT to put one back under the law, but to make the law a witness of Christ and His love. To think that Paul spends so much time explaining how we have been delivered from the LAW OF SIN AND DEATH, MINISTRY OF DEATH AND CONDEMNATION, WRITTEN IN STONES! the ten commandments! and then ignore all that and think that he is putting one back under the works of law is just not true nor does it make any sense! What Paul is doing is pointing to LOVE! AND THE SPIRIT BY WHICH ONE LOVES. that no man is justified in any way by any part of the law is EVIDENT!

the law can not make a charge of sin against one who is in Christ, nor can it justify in any way! It stands as a witness to Christ and his righteousness and mans unrighteousness. The law was a shadow of the law written on the heart THE SPIRIT! this is the love and law we are to walk in. the use of a the law is for the purpose to show us how this love fulfills all that the law required. Love was Gods nature before the law, the law was to bring us to the Love of God. No man knows love apart from the Spirit of God. We do not know love by the law but by Christ and His Love. We do not look to the law to justify us nor can it condemn us. When we allow it to judge us we are made a slave to sin. Thus the strength of sin is the law!

For sin will not have dominion over you because you are not under law but under grace.

So then when we look to the law to justify us, it always makes us a sinner and holds us in bondage to our flesh. But the law is spiritual and we are carnal. The purpose of these scripture is to take us from the carnal mind into the spirit and into love.

So just because Paul uses the law as a witness to the royal law does not make all that he wrote concerning the law untrue!

One must take the whole counsel of the scriptures, put line upon line and precept upon precept, you cannot make part of the sriptures true and other parts untrue! For in the appearance of conflict is the spirit and soul cut assunder and the heart of every man is judged. The flesh profits nothing! The only thing that profits is FAITH WORKING BY LOVE!

the mystery of godliness is great! Go to the Cross and become a fool and God will make you wise! Your doctrines are clearly false and you are teaching law and "do not know what you are saying or trying to affirm"

 

[Jethro Bodine]

To use the law as an example of how love and royal law of Christ, THIS IS MY COMMANDMENT, THAT YOU LOVE AS i have loved you. Fulfills all that the law demanded, is NOT to put one back under the law...

Right. I'm not saying it does.

To think that Paul spends so much time explaining how we have been delivered from the LAW OF SIN AND DEATH, MINISTRY OF DEATH AND CONDEMNATION, WRITTEN IN STONES! the ten commandments! and then ignore all that and think that he is putting one back under the works of law is just not true nor does it make any sense!

So being 'back under the works of the law' means satisfying the requirements of the the Ten commandments--do not murder, do not covet, do not steal, etc?

that no man is justified in any way by any part of the law is EVIDENT!

In regard to the definition of 'justified' that Paul is using, yes, this is evident. But in regard to the definition of 'justified' James uses we are indeed justified (SHOWN to be righteous) when we satisfy the "continuing debt to love one another" (Romans 13:8 NIV1984) thus satisfying the requirements of the law.

the law can not make a charge of sin against one who is in Christ

Right. That's why the law is for unredeemed murders and adulterers and perjurers, etc, not for those completely and forever made perfect before God through their trust in the blood of Christ to remove sin guilt.

...nor can it justify in any way!

Any way? Then why does James say that when we give aid and comfort to a brother or sister in need (in accordance with Deuteronomy 15, and the royal law of scripture 'love your neighbor as yourself') we are justified by that obedience?

It stands as a witness to Christ and his righteousness and mans unrighteousness.

But James is saying it stands as a witness to OUR righteousness (the righteousness Paul says we get by faith apart from works) when we obey it and not just hear it.

We do not look to the law to justify us nor can it condemn us.

The law can not condemn the person who has been completely and forever made righteous by the blood of Christ. But James says we are in fact justified by the law 'love your neighbor as yourself', but only if we fulfill that lawful requirement. And I'll say it again...not justified as in MADE righteous by that obedience but SHOWN to be righteous by that obedience.

So then when we look to the law to justify us, it always makes us a sinner and holds us in bondage to our flesh.

Only if you look to the law to MAKE you righteous. But if you use the requirements of the law to validate the presence of the new nature in you that does righteous things you are justified (shown to be righteous) by the law you keep.

So just because Paul uses the law as a witness to the royal law does not make all that he wrote concerning the law untrue!

You simply do not grasp what I'm saying if you think what I'm saying makes Paul wrong about the law. You're simply not getting it yet.

One must take the whole counsel of the scriptures, put line upon line and precept upon precept...

That is exactly how to understand what I've been sharing. You have to know all that the scriptures say about law to get this.

...you cannot make part of the sriptures true and other parts untrue!

What I have put forth here reconciles Paul and James' teachings about justification. What the church believes and teaches about it creates a contradiction between the two. A contradiction that unbelievers and atheists love to exploit.

The flesh profits nothing! The only thing that profits is FAITH WORKING BY LOVE!

You're quoting Galatians 5:6. It is there that Paul says the only thing that counts toward justification (being MADE righteous) is faith. What kind of faith? The faith that finds it's expression in love, "the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10 NIV1984). How is love somehow not fulfilling (keeping) the law of Moses?

Paul is basically echoing James' teaching--the faith that justifies is the faith that fulfills the law of Moses 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

the mystery of godliness is great! Go to the Cross and become a fool and God will make you wise! Your doctrines are clearly false and you are teaching law and "do not know what you are saying or trying to affirm"

Okay, maybe I'm wrong...you may not be able to get this after all. But it was fun trying. And perhaps some lurkers gleaned a thing or two.

 

[Mitspa]

I knew you had a good reason to twist the meaning of the word" justified". Justified is justified! God really did say!

So again you admit part of truth, but by changing the meaning of the term justified you attempt to overthrow the gospel.

I nor anyones else is going to change the clear meaning of the term justified to match your false doctrine of works of law.

here is satans lie? you can find it in every cult and every false teacher? "DID GOD REALLY SAY"
so "justified" really dont mean what it clearly means? It now has some secret meaning that only a very few can seem to understand? This very few are those who teach works of law, and cannot defend their doctrines by clear and evident scripture.

The truth of the word justified is shown throughout the epistles of Paul. YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM. this is justified!

 

[Mitspa]

Some would come in and desire to be teachers of the law, not knowing what they are saying or trying to affirm.

So one can see that in the recent post that, the law and its works has attempted to laid upon the believer. Why?

Because is satan can get us under any part of the law and attempt to justify ourselves by any part of the law? He has defeated the Cross and grace of God, in that believers life.
It always comes down to your really not under the law, but you need to keep the law to be justified in some way. They always mix enough truth in with the lie to make it sound like the truth.
No we can look at the law, as a witness to Christ! It can never make a charge of sin, nor can it ever justifiy a believer.
The reason that Paul uses it as an example is to show that LOVE IS ALL OF THE LAW. this Love is only found in Christ so then we set our hearts to love and look to Christ.

Faith working by love!
1 John sums it up this way? This is the Fathers commandment that we believe upon His Son, and love as He gave us commandment.

Our love walk will never grow beyond our sense of being justified, For being freely justified by His Grace empowers us by His unbroken love for us, by which we love others.

Again I say, satan is the ACCUSER. if he can get one under the law in any part of any sense of being justified by the law. He will be able to destroy those he has deceived. He has many false teachers, and they are very well trained! But we have the Holy Spirit to teach us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I knew you had a good reason to twist the meaning of the word" justified".

Me, Strong's, and Vine's I guess. (You did read the Strong's link, and the Vine's link in it, right?)

Justified is justified! God really did say!

I agree. It's just that 'justified' has two meanings.

The problem with what you believe is if James is using 'justified' the way Paul is using it (because to you it only has one meaning--to be MADE righteous) then you believe James is telling us we are made righteous by keeping the law of Moses.

So again you admit part of truth, but by changing the meaning of the term justified you attempt to overthrow the gospel.

Show me in my posts where you are sure I'm saying people are MADE righteous by living up to the requirements of the law. Can you do that for me?

I nor anyones else is going to change the clear meaning of the term justified to match your false doctrine of works of law.

Like I say, if 'justified' to you only has one meaning then you have no choice but to believe that James is telling us to MAKE ourselves righteous by fulfilling the law of love in COMPLETE contradiction to Paul.

so "justified" really dont mean what it clearly means? It now has some secret meaning that only a very few can seem to understand?

Secret? Only because the church is so thoroughly indoctrinated by the early church's misunderstanding of the role of law in the believer's life, and few because only a few can bring themselves to read and acknowledge what Strong's and Vine's says, I guess.

This very few are those who teach works of law, and cannot defend their doctrines by clear and evident scripture.

Your indoctrination is showing. 'Works of the law' to you and many in the church always carries with it the connotation of trying to become righteous by keeping the law. Hardly what I've been saying here.

Indoctrinations are stubborn. It's very, very difficult to unseat an indoctrination in another person. I'm learning not to get too excited about it anymore. A man believes what a man wants to believe.

The truth of the word justified is shown throughout the epistles of Paul. YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM. this is justified!

Right...IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. We know that, but that hardly means it only has one definition and usage. Especially when you can plainly see from the context of ALL the places 'justified' is used in scripture that it obviously has more than one definition...unless you're prepared to acknowledge that James is complete opposition to what Paul teaches about justification.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Some would come in and desire to be teachers of the law, not knowing what they are saying or trying to affirm.

You are bearing false witness. You are accusing me of something I did not say, nor can you prove I said. Does your faith in Christ require you to not bear false witness? Doing that would show me you have the righteousness of Christ and seek to do what is righteous. It will not MAKE you righteous, but it will certainly SHOW you to be righteous.

So one can see that in the recent post that, the law and its works has attempted to laid upon the believer. Why?

Because is satan can get us under any part of the law and attempt to justify ourselves by any part of the law? He has defeated the Cross and grace of God, in that believers life.

SHOWING yourself to have been made righteous by faith in Christ (all by itself apart from works) is not defeating the grace of God. In fact, Peter, John, and Paul also say we are to do this. Did you know that?

It always comes down to your really not under the law, but you need to keep the law to be justified in some way.

Stop and take the time to repeat back to me what I say this 'some way' is. Okay? It will help me know how much you really understand about what I've been saying.

They always mix enough truth in with the lie to make it sound like the truth.

And there are those who leave out parts of the truth to make what they believe the truth. That's what you're doing. The Bible exhorts us to show our faith by what we do to make our calling and election sure (evident). Do you not know this? The person who can't do that (make their calling and election evident by what they do) probably doesn't have the faith that justifies all by itself apart from works.

No we can look at the law, as a witness to Christ! It can never make a charge of sin...

Right, not a charge of damnation. It no longer has the authority to condemn. That is what it means to be 'under the law'. Like a marriage license that keeps us 'married' to sinful flesh (Romans 7:1-6 NIV) and, thus, condemned by that flesh. But the law certainly continues to show us what sin is...the sin we are to avoid. Not the ceremonial law, but the moral law. The ceremonial worship laws are no longer required for a people already brought near to God through faith in Christ. That law is no longer needed...no longer applicable to a transformed people completely and forever made legally perfect before God and eligible for fellowship with God. IOW, it is obsolete, just as the author of Hebrews says.

...nor can it ever justifiy a believer.

It is able to justify a person has having laid hold of the righteousness of God. But it is not able to justify a person in regard to gaining righteousness.

The reason that Paul uses it as an example is to show that LOVE IS ALL OF THE LAW. this Love is only found in Christ so then we set our hearts to love and look to Christ.

That's what he means when he speaks of the NEW way through which we serve God. We're not serving new laws. We're fulfilling the same moral law found in the Law of Moses, but in the NEW way of the Spirit (Romans 7:6 NIV). Even Paul points out that it's still the law of Moses being served (Romans 13:9-10 NIV).

Faith working by love!
1 John sums it up this way? This is the Fathers commandment that we believe upon His Son, and love as He gave us commandment.

And so somehow this is not the law of Moses? Really?

Our love walk will never grow beyond our sense of being justified, For being freely justified by His Grace empowers us by His unbroken love for us, by which we love others.

...love others in keeping with the law of Moses thus satisfying the requirements of the law (Romans 13:8-10 NIV). Paul said it, not me.

Again I say, satan is the ACCUSER. if he can get one under the law in any part of any sense of being justified by the law.

Only if that 'sense' is trying to be MADE righteous by keeping the law. Are you listening, or will you continue to falsely accuse me of teaching people to try to MAKE themselves righteous by keeping the law?

He will be able to destroy those he has deceived. He has many false teachers, and they are very well trained!

<evil mad scientist laugh>Yes...we are well trained.</evil mad scientist laugh>

But we have the Holy Spirit to teach us.

"...and I think that I too have the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 7:40 NIV1984).

 

[Mitspa]

Again you seem to miss the point james was making? James used the law of moses to show that when you fail to keep one part of the law, you fail at all the law! The law is a whole! Every jot and tittle! its all or nothing! Thats the point and the same point is made through out all scripture! You cannot seperate the law into parts and then keep what part you like! Which all who preach the law do!

So again, james uses the law as a witness to the royal law! Given by the King of Glory! That if one loves the rich man and despises the poor man, he cannot claim to keep the Royal law.
Love is of the Spirit and the spirit is life. If one shuts off the spirit they are shutting off the life that is in true faith in Christ.

You cannot take James and forget the truth of the other epistles. They are all given by the Holy Spirit and work together to reveal the truth of life in the spirit.

You cannot take words and make them mean what your carnal mind would have them to mean. To "justify" false doctrine!

The overiding purpose of ALL scripture is to bring all men to death in Christ and to live in the Divine Nature of God by the Spirit. The law is used as a witness to this purpose. To make all who have received His Spirit walk according to His Spirit. Now love is not a product of the flesh and cannot come by looking to the letter of the law. It comes when we see ourselves complete and justified in Christ. The law only stands as a witness to what is true IN HIM.

 

[heymikey80]

That is NOT what I am defending at all. I am not saying justification is a process at all.

That's good to hear, so we need not argue over this aspect.

Justification is being declared righteous one time, forever. For us that means the sinner who is guilty of sin is declared by God to now not be legally guilty of sin.

Frankly, I agree with you. I think the follow-on to our justification is a clear relational change that to me the word "legal" doesn't cover. That is, a process begins, a relational process, whereby the Spirit raises us and then turns as our Helper and indeed, Parent of our new spiritual lives.

This happens through the gracious act of wiping away sin guilt. This forgiveness is not conditional on satisfactory performance of righteous work as some insist. It is conditioned on the 'work' of faith--believing that God forgives your sin for the asking. It happens in a moment when a person lays hold of the grace of God's forgiveness through faith and confidence in the promise of the Seed through which that forgiveness comes.

I think Paul's rejection of the "work-for-wages" model would agree with that. I think we have a couple of models that make sense than this. The most attractive to me is an as an instrument, or as a tool -- that is, something about the way faith operates, not simply its presence, brings God's grace in salvation. The other model is a recognition of the relational model being applied back to the term "faith" -- that "faith in" someone is dramatically different than simple learning about any given fact. A two-year-old being rescued in a helicopter is completely unlikely to know the facts of flight, but that matters nothing as long as the child relies on the rescuer. I haven't seen anything that specifically denies either view; they may both apply; some Scriptures seem to allude to one or the other, too. If you took the words "faith" and "believe" and substitute "reliance" and "rely", interesting implications result from Scriptures.

The Holy Spirit is the sign that one has received a legal declaration of righteousness through the forgiveness of sin. Hebrews teaches us how a person is forever and perfectly forgiven through the one sacrifice, made one time, for all people. The 'work' of the one who has placed their faith in Christ for the one-time, eternal removal of sin guilt is to continue in that faith in order to remain in that one time declaration of right standing with God. The evidence of an abiding faith is righteous work. Righteous work is not how you secure the righteous nature of God that does righteous work. Work is how we KNOW we have received that righteous nature by faith apart from the merit of righteous work.

I think there's some merit in examining this view. I can get partway there: John tells us that "we know that we have come to know Christ when we do what He commands" (1 Jn 2:3 paraphrased). So works definitely have a role. It would interest me if there's more to it than that. It might be deduced because we know Christ, therefore we know we have received a new birth by the Spirit in righteousness (John 3:1-8).

I couldn't agree more. Justification is NOT a process of becoming righteous. It is a one time forgiveness of sin, secured by faith in that forgiveness, that makes us legally righteous and guilt free before God one time, forever. (Which is why we no longer need a system of worship--the first covenant of worship--to deal with a sin guilt we no longer have and will never have again...provided we continue in our faith in Christ.)

I think it makes sense. I guess the issue, the question I'd have is whether this is meant relationally, or if it is legal and has relational implications.

I think we agree that it's legal. It's not directly transformational (or process-oriented). It clearly has effects when it comes to direct real, transformations "down the field" (cf Rom 8:28-30 ... glorification). When I refocus on the relational, I really haven't examined it well enough. I'd probably be looking for places where Paul talks about union with Christ or other allusions to our relationship with God, in the same breath as justification. Romans 5:1 would seem to say justification brings us to peace with God, for instance.

I can't say for sure whether justification is cause or is contained inside the concept of justification.

There's a second reason why I'm at odds over which one it is. There're two courts where this kind of power is wielded in ancient times. One is a judicial court, true. But another is in Caesar's court. There the relationship with Caesar could be the cause of justification.

 

[Mitspa]

So now we go away from the truth of scripture as shown in who we are in Christ, justified in spirit not in flesh. And attempt with carnal minds to make sense of spiritual truth?

Do you think the scripture speak in vain, to become fools to be made wise? To become weak to be made strong?

No man knows the things of God but by the Spirit of God.
The law can only be fulfilled as one walks in the spirit. Only when one admits that beyond all doubt they cannot justify themselves by the law, will they trust in that which God has put within them. I know this is not attractive to ears of flesh that itch for carnal reasoning and mans wisdom that can puff up their ego and sense of religious knowledge. This word and that word and all that religious nonsense, will earn no man nothing before the God who is a Spirit, because those who worship Him MUST worship Him in Spirit and truth.

So some of you have words that mans wisdom teaches, Those who Know God have the power of God and that power is demonstrated and is a sign to dying world of a LIVING GOD!

words are nothing, mans wisdom is nothing! nothing profits anything but FAITH WORKING BY LOVE.

satan hates the simplicty of this truth, for as he deceived eve, so has he deceived the bride of Christ. "did God really say" is at the heart of all false doctrine!

 

[dadof10]

No. I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. I pointed out that the person who already relied on God had already given a conscientious answer. Exactly how else could it be?

The old "bait and switch", eh?

It could be like Scripture says it is. Again, Peter never says "conscientious answer" or "answer Him conscientiously about Christ" or "answered Him in good conscience" or "answers God in good conscience for salvation". Most versions interpret these words as some variation of "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" (ESV, which YOU use as your preferred version). The ones that use the word "answer" (erroneously, in my opinion) use some variation of "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (KJV). Either way, NO ONE interprets this as "a conscientious answer".

An appeal FOR a clear conscience, not that IF a person has faith he will "give a conscientious answer" to God.

You are changing Peter's words to advance your non-Biblical position. Sorry, not falling for it.

Does someone come to rely on God without answering Him in good conscience? You tell me.

It seems quite shallow to consider otherwise. How can someone rely on God for salvation and yet ... not answer Him conscientiously about Christ (check the rest of Peter's sentence)? How is it that would be saving faith?

It wouldn't.

Are we talking about our "reliance" on God or about whether baptism is a "work"?

Another distraction.

It's a great argument, dadof10. All it takes is a clear hearing without attempts to tear it down. The believer is the one who answers God in good conscience for salvation. No one else does.

It's only a good argument if the words of Scripture are twisted out of their meaning. What you call "saving baptism", this appeal or pledge, is something other than faith, that saves. There is no logical connection between an "appeal to God for a clear conscience" and accepting Jesus. If you think so, riddle me this:

A Christian preaches to a non-believer and that person sees the Light and repents. He believes and "accepts Jesus in his heart", yet doesn't "appeal to God for a clear conscience", just believes. Is this person saved? If he is, where did the "saving baptism" come in? Is the "appeal" NECESSARY for salvation or just something an already saved person does, kinda like your view of good deeds? If so, how is this "SAVING baptism"?

I really appreciate your sticking with this thread for so long, most bail long before this when discussing this subject. I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions I posed previously.

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?

 

[dadof10]

Its clear that as he related that Abrahams faith was made complete when he acted in faith Verses 23 through 24
verse 25 LIKEWISE Rahab! Likewise means IN THE SAME MANNER! you cannot seperate what is said of Abraham and truth of his LIVING faith from the NEXT VERSE!

one must ignore ALL OF THE NEW TESTMENT and the clear intention and context of theses scriptures, to bring in works as some would do?

And again I would ask, if one allowed your position? That somehow this scripture showed works? All the works rahab needed was to allow the spies into her HARLOT house, and then send them out the window.

So to attempt to bring works (of law or religion) by this scripture, is not a very moral set of works!

Either way your doctrines are defeated by the very scripture you would attempt to use to establish them.

God is wise above all wisdom! do really think He has not defeated all false teaching by His Word!

The use of Rahab in this scripture, takes away ALL MORAL ABILITY OF MAN, to justify himself in any way, other than by a LIVING FAITH!

So, to the challenge of "post the verses that show Rahab was justified by faith alone", your answer is basically, there aren't any. Thanks for playing, we have a nice consolation prize for you.

 

[dadof10]

Um, but that use of the term is certainly not what Paul was referring to.

In First Century common usage "justification" meant "being declared not guilty", as in a court of law today.

My point in posting this definition is that we DON'T believe that we make OURSELVES righteous by our works. That is what Jethro is mistaken about.

 

[dadof10]

Cooperation is not really a good way to describe it but, surely, no one would argue we are not to be in opposition to the grace of God at work in our lives moving us to do righteous things.

A better way to look at it is we have an implicit obligation to act in accordance to that which we say we have placed our trust in. That means if we truly believe that our sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ all by itself (for what righteous work, outside of trusting in the blood, can atone for and remove sin guilt?) then it HAS to follow, if that trust is genuine, that a person act like a forgiven person who does not work to secure that forgiveness but trusts in the blood all by itself to do that. (Invariably, some people will erroneously hear this as meaning you don't have to do any works.)

If we refuse to "act in accordance to that which we say we have placed our trust in", will this affect our salvation? As in James, the hypothetical person, walks by a person in need ONE TIME, and James asks "can faith save you?" It's obvious that if someone makes a lifelong habit of disobedience, this person would not be saved no matter how much faith he has, in both our opinions. my question (and where we part ways) is does one act of disobedience negatively affect salvation? James says "yes".

That is why we are also justified by what we do, not just by what we believe. The person who says they trust in God's forgiveness through the blood of Christ but acts as if they don't by trusting in righteous work they have performed (Paul's angle), or by doing no work at all (James' angle) doesn't really trust in God's forgiveness.

Agreed. Again, I believe that this will affect the SAVED PERSON'S salvation. Someone can lose his salvation.

If you're following my discussion with Mitspa you can probably see that I am indeed applying this concept of justification to both faith and 'every action I do'.

Trust (faith) in Christ's blood to remove sin guilt is how we access the grace (the unmerited favor) of that forgiveness and are made righteous before him ("Grace...through faith"--Eph. 2:8 NIV1984 "apart from (the merit of righteous) works"--Romans 4:6).

The obedient work produced by that trust (faith) in Christ's blood (Romans 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 1:3) is how we are shown to have laid hold of God's grace of forgiveness through faith in Christ's blood ("I will show you my faith by what I do"--James 2:18 NIV1984)

We have already gone through James in a previous thread and I don't have time to rehash the arguments. Where we left off was basically the subject of this thread, namely, what constitutes a "work". Do you think that if a person gives from his want with no expectation of repayment from God or anyone else, does this constitute a "work" or a "work for wages"?

 

[Mitspa]

So, to the challenge of "post the verses that show Rahab was justified by faith alone", your answer is basically, there aren't any. Thanks for playing, we have a nice consolation prize for you.

See the problem is you think that I am like you? That the Word of God is just a debating game! No I have a living faith, which is the point james is making!

That faith in a living God will produce life! If you say you have faith in Him and you do have a faith that lives? you are deceived. the law is not of faith! Why do you think that is?
Because law and religion are about men and what they can do, Faith is about Christ and the Fact that He has done all that is required is is very much alive!

I dont think a man of woman, following a set of rules as best they can, has any sign of faith or the divine life of Christ.
just dead people in dead works.

My prize is that which comes from heaven. Those who seek a pat on their religious back, already have their reward.