The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[Jethro Bodine]

No jethro you are the one who is failing to see, that the letter or the physical action of a man can never judge the Spirit.

You are so wrong:

9...we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. (Hebrews 6:10-11 NIV1984)


5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure." (2 Peter 1:5-10 NIV1984)


4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
7 He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. (IOW, you show you have the righteousness of God when you do right--like not showing favoritism, a command of the law, as James says)
10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
(1 John 3:4,6-7,10 NIV1984)


See? We show the surety of our salvation and the hope of our calling by what we do. What we do does indeed show us if we belong to the truth. And not only that, we are exhorted to make those things visible in our lives in order to "make your calling and election sure", echoing the teaching of James, that we SHOW our faith, the faith that can save, through our obedience and that we are supposed to be making every effort to do that. This is exactly what James teaches.

The music was before, in the heart of the one who wrote it.

Right. And being able to play it shows you are a musician, just as doing the commandments of God (John said not doing them is breaking the law) shows you are a righteous child of God. Playing the music doesn't make you a musician, no more than keeping the law makes you a righteous child of God.

As long as one looks to judge themselves by the letter they will always be subject to the sin that dwells in the flesh. Thats why one must by the law die to the law and live by the Spirit.

ONLY if the examination of one's life makes them determined to try all the harder in the effort of their own power instead of submitting to the power of the Spirit.

As I showed you we are exhorted to look for obedience in our lives, not so we can try all the harder to obey in our flesh, but so we can come under the power of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the requirements of God thus showing ourselves to really have the righteousness of God, not making ourselves righteous.

How do you think I knew you were a musician?

Did I read it? Or did God tell me?

(Gee, how did I know you were gonna go here, lol?)

You read my old posts. It's not a secret.

 

[Mitspa]

You claim to uphold "thou shalt not bear false witness" yet you seem to pick a chose sripture in a way that is not honest? Why is that?

YOU LEAVE OUT PARTS OF 1 JOHN THAT SAY?

that in Him we cannot sin, he who sins has neither seen Him nor know Him. Righteousness is of the Spirit! in faith none who claim to keep the law are righteous, but are in fact breakers of the law. sinners! See the wisdom of God is against you and your false doctrines.

For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own, have NOT SUBMITTED to His Righteousness.

So when you hear the word " righteousness" you think of yourself! When a true Christian hears the word righteousness we think of God.

That I might be found IN HIM! not having my OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS BY THE LAW, BUT THAT RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, BY FAITH.

my friend you are in way over your head! I suggest you humble yourself under the Mighty Hand of God. He gives grace to the humble and He resist the proud!

Who is proud but one who thinks they are righteous and can Keep Gods Holy law by there own efforts and flesh?

Who is humble but the one who has admitted that I know nothing good lives in me!

 

[Davies]

You guys seem to talk in circles? Moses was not justified by the Law!

Hi Mitspa,

When I said that Moses was found in violation of the law of God, I would agree with you that Moses was not justified by the law. Rather, Moses lived by faith, and thus, we have the honorable mention of Moses in Hebrews 3:5.

So again at the end of all your false doctrines, after you have twisted this truth and that? You are saying that a man can be justified by law! Just say it if you believe it? why all the double talk? Because you cannot affirm anything you are trying to say!

All the law is fulfilled in one word! love! so why are you trying to speak of anything but love? If you are really concerned with folks keeping the law? But none of you are really interested in keeping the law? Your hearts are not right!

I have stated my opinion in support of the quoted Scriptures. If you can listen for just a moment and try to understand rather than jumping to conclusions, you wouldn't be so quick to make the false accusations of teaching false doctrines and twisting the truth.

NONE OF YOU KEEP THE LAW! but yet you would lay its burden upon others! Jesus rejected only one group? hypocrites!

Again, I'd be much slower in calling someone a hypocrite, but I have been a hypocrite in the past and continue to struggle with sin today. You've haven't begun to scratch the surface of all my sins, but then again, who are you to be judge. If you would make you judge, don't you know you would be found stealing, usurping the role that is reserved to God alone? We know that Satan accuses us before the Father.

You cannot be justified by faith and the law! The law is established as a witness to Christ. It declares that all men are SINNERS and can only be saved by faith and all flesh is rejected by God. Now! who of you keep the law? How many times can you break it before you lose your justified condition? HAS YOUR FLESH BEEN SAVED AND IS NOW SINLESS? Is your flesh better than say a harlots flesh? Where does your abilty to be "moral" come from?

I have never stated that I could be justified by the law or by the doing of it, but what I have stated is that I am growing in sanctification because God enables me to keep the law. Now I don't keep it perfectly. I'm still growing in God's grace, the sanctification process that won't be complete until this body dies.

So is the law now not making you guilty but is now making you rigteous and holy?

I don't perceive this to be a sincere question.

ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED BY PAULS GOSPEL! IF ANY MAN OR EVEN AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL, THEY ARE CURSED.

I agree. We should all stick to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So! the law the letter! produces evil desires! When one looks to the letter to judge themselves or justify themselves they are in the flesh and will always be shown as a sinner. Because the commanment produces evil desires in the flesh.

I would disagree that the law produces sinful desires.
Romans 7:8

New King James Version (NKJV)

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.


Sin produces evil desires, but we say it produces evil desires by the law. If the law produced evil desire itself, then we would say the law is sin, and that's not true because in the previous verse, verse 7, Paul outright says that the law is not sin.

Christ gave the commandment to love! Love is not in the letter but in the spirit. Love comes from the Holy Spirit.

The commandment to love is law. Let's try to not be confused with justification and sanctification.

Now I am a teacher, ordained by God. you have just heard the truth that will judge you on that day.

John 8:32

New King James Version (NKJV)

32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.â€


- Davies

 

[reba]

We are not all at the same place in Him. We don't all grow at the same pace... When we hunger God will lead us where He wants us to be..... We are part of the body we are not all the hand or foot. Yet each is valuable.

 

[Davies]

Hi Reba,

We are talking about sanctification here? You point out an excellent verse. If I may take the liberty to quote Scripture...

1 Corinthians 12:23-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.


When one member suffers, we all suffer. If one member is not presentable, he/she is bestowed greater honor. So, I think we should build up one another even if we perceive another member is lacking.



- Davies

 

[Mitspa]

Hi Reba,

We are talking about sanctification here? You point out an excellent verse. If I may take the liberty to quote Scripture...

1 Corinthians 12:23-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.


When one member suffers, we all suffer. If one member is not presentable, he/she is bestowed greater honor. So, I think we should build up one another even if we perceive another member is lacking.



- Davies

No my friend Davies, we are not talking about a term some call sanctification! we have been talking for days about justification as is clearly stated and used throughout scriptue.

I doubt some of understand holiness any more than justification. I assure you that holiness does not come from the flesh of men any more that justification.

Now If you have been following along at all with jethro and i?
You should understand that jethro indeed believes that the "works" of the law are needed to be justified by faith. Although he like many others attempts to cloak this in trying to define terms like" justified" really has two meanings, and I he has a list of legal requirements for holiness as well? Holiness is being seperated from the flesh and living in the HOLY SPRIT. its that simple. For Christ has been made unto us holiness from God.

Now whether of not you agree with jethros doctrines? You appeared to take up the false doctrine and deception that one is justified by law. Read your own post and you can see why one might think you are making that point? I might add as you have done in the past.
And again i say that the commandment produces and evil desire in the flesh of all men! read your last post? and pretend to say something different than what i said very clearly? Why is that? Why Davies are you trying to confuse the truth? The law produces sinful desires in all men! those who preach thou shall not bear false witness are always breakers of that commandment. None of you can keep the law! none of you can be justified, because the law is not of faith. The strength of sin is the law!

You who attempt to be justified by the law are cut off from Christ, ye have fallen from grace!

 

[dadof10]

Actually my preferred version is UBS82, I use ESV largely because it's easily accessible in English.

Do you consider the ESV an accurate translation? The verse in question is "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" in the ESV. Would you agree it's accurately translated? I hope so, since you posted it here.

Trying to reject one particular phrase when it's substantially what Peter says is like attacking Nicea because its words aren't in Scripture. Homoousios is not in the Bible, dadof10. The "answer in good conscience toward God" is readily termed "conscientious answer".

You keep doing it. NO versions say "answer in good conscience toward God". NONE. You are purposely mistranslating the verse to suit a sola-fide bias. AGAIN, the versions that use the word "answer" (more on that word later) have some variation of "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (KJV). Most versions use some variation of "as an appeal to God for a good conscience"(ESV). This bolsters my case that the "pledge" or "answer" or "appeal" is an ACT a person does which is not faith alone.

Your mistranslation bolsters your case that "the person who already relied on God had already given a conscientious answer". In other words, "saving baptism" is faith alone.

You need to deal with the fact that what you call "saving baptism" is an ACTION that a person does to be saved. It is not an afterthought to "faith", at least according to Peter.

God isn't obsessed with parroting words back to Him. Get the concept, and you've got the answer.

Who is parroting words? Demanding that you use the actual words of Scripture instead of making them up as you go to change the meaning is now "parroting"? OK, call me "Polly", then.

Just so you know: the Greek preposition for "for" is not in this verse. For the record, the sense covered by your survey of translations is probably best translated "unto", but translators make different choices depending on their consideration of audience: how many people say "unto" in English any more? "for" the way you're using it is actually another preposition.

Huh? So, it should be translated "an appeal to God UNTO a good conscience"?

Best translated by whom? You certainly are not putting yourself above ALL the Biblical translators who interpret "for" are you? Are you saying the ESV, which, I'll remind you again, you posted, is inaccurate?

... when in reality it's you who are changing Peter's words to advance your non-Biblical position. As I happen to know that's true, I'm certainly not going to follow your reading as anything but manufactured.

"βαπτισμα ... συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου"
baptism ... conscientious, good profession toward God through resurrection [of] Jesus Christ

So, where is the word "answer" in this Greek sentence? Here is the definition from Thayer's:

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


Nope. No "answer". So, "saving baptism" is an inquiry or a demand or a seeking or a craving, all acts that are NOT faith alone.

It's central. As you must see, the baptism of a conscientious answer can only be made in good conscience toward God. That means it's got to be honest. And the only saving answer to God that's honest, is the answer of saving faith in God.

Shazam!!! There it is!!! All this rigamaroll from Peter and all he's really doing is agreeing with Martin Luther. It's amazing!!! Please...

Now faith being reliance in Greek, I'm troubled by your refusal to address what the words say, but simply nit-pick over the words used.

LOL...Really. So in the sentence "saved THROUGH water", would it be alright with you to use the word "by" here? Remember, no "nitpicking". Your insistance on the word "through" here is the definition of nitpicking. The word "dia" is translated 241 times by Thayer's as "by", yet it MUST be translated as "through" here, according to you. NO NT VERSIONS translate the verse "answer in good conscience toward God", but you are fine with that. The word "eperōtēma" isn't even defined as "answer", but you are good with that too. Some subjective "nitpicking" going on here...

It seems to me what I've just said is heavily retreading simple, tautological statements. I don't see anything unreasonable with it, in fact its reasoning is now too simple to see. A conscientious answer to God is honest. And honestly, someone not relying on God is not telling the truth, and is not being conscientious.

The entire point is you are not using tautology. What you are putting forth is a bastardization of the text.

It is simple. What you call "saving baptism" is a pledge, or appeal TO GOD for a clear conscience. A person, during the baptismal rite, appeals to God to keep his conscience clear, which means, he appeals to God to keep him from sin. Where it get's convoluted is when you try to force your notions into the text.

You have ignored the following twice now. I'll repost it again one more time. If it doesn't get an answer this time, I'll just assume we agree that there are exceptions to Paul's "works" and that you think he is not teaching faith alone. I'll also assume you just don't want to admit it.

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?

 

[digging]

Jethro you made some very good points, I like your illustrations, I understand and agree with you. I see the law is fulfilled in the end as a result of the righteousness God gives us through the gift of his spirit. First we have the fruitage of the spirit in our heart which leads to our flesh growing toward righteous behaviors,(which behaviors are in line with the law), and in time will be completely redeemed and restored.

At Christ's return the law will be written in our hearts and expressed through our every action.

Digging

 

[Davies]

No my friend Davies, we are not talking about a term some call sanctification! we have been talking for days about justification as is clearly stated and used throughout scriptue.

I doubt some of understand holiness any more than justification. I assure you that holiness does not come from the flesh of men any more that justification.

Now If you have been following along at all with jethro and i?
You should understand that jethro indeed believes that the "works" of the law are needed to be justified by faith. Although he like many others attempts to cloak this in trying to define terms like" justified" really has two meanings, and I he has a list of legal requirements for holiness as well? Holiness is being seperated from the flesh and living in the HOLY SPRIT. its that simple. For Christ has been made unto us holiness from God.

Now whether of not you agree with jethros doctrines? You appeared to take up the false doctrine and deception that one is justified by law. Read your own post and you can see why one might think you are making that point? I might add as you have done in the past.
And again i say that the commandment produces and evil desire in the flesh of all men! read your last post? and pretend to say something different than what i said very clearly? Why is that? Why Davies are you trying to confuse the truth? The law produces sinful desires in all men! those who preach thou shall not bear false witness are always breakers of that commandment. None of you can keep the law! none of you can be justified, because the law is not of faith. The strength of sin is the law!

You who attempt to be justified by the law are cut off from Christ, ye have fallen from grace!

Hi Mitspa,

I'll chime in from time to time. I've learned that you don't know how to listen or have a conversation. So, forgive me if I don't respond to your questions. You can think whatever you want to without condemnation from me.

- Davies

 

[digging]

I'm with you Davies,

Mitspa tends to say provoking things.

Question for Mitspa, you said "The law produces sinful desires in all men"

IF that is so then why does God promise to write the law on our hearts?

Why would he put something in our heart that would produce sin?

You need to slow down and peacefully think deeply about this matter.

Digging

 

[Mitspa]

I'm with you Davies,

Mitspa tends to say provoking things.

Question for Mitspa, you said "The law produces sinful desires in all men"

IF that is so then why does God promise to write the law on our hearts?

Why would he put something in our heart that would produce sin?

You need to slow down and peacefully think deeply about this matter.

Digging

Well do you understand the differance between being commanded to follow rules that you can not keep, And have the Spirit of God in your heart that gives you the supernatural love of God, by which you love others and fulfill all that is written?

This is the difference between the "letter" which kills and the "spirit" which gives life.
I tell you that some of you love to teach, but if you would only be humble enough to learn for a season, you could stop harming others with false doctrine, and begin to help others to know Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I see the law is fulfilled in the end as a result of the righteousness God gives us through the gift of his spirit. First we have the fruitage of the spirit in our heart which leads to our flesh growing toward righteous behaviors,(which behaviors are in line with the law), and in time will be completely redeemed and restored.

Very well said.

A must read for Mitspa.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well do you understand the differance between being commanded to follow rules that you can not keep...

You mean like James commands in his letter?

...And have the Spirit of God in your heart that gives you the supernatural love of God, by which you love others and fulfill all that is written?

'Fulfill all that is written'. As you use that here, to us that means because of the Spirit within us we have "flesh growing toward righteous behaviors,(which behaviors are in line with the law)" as digging says. Reread that post for the full explanation to make sure you understand no one is suggesting that this behavior that's 'in line with the law' is somehow a fleshly effort absent of the Spirit. Not even close. But you keep unfairly spinning it that way and accusing us of teaching false doctrine.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You appeared to take up the false doctrine and deception that one is justified by law. Read your own post and you can see why one might think you are making that point?

Mitspa, read your own posts and see why one would think that YOU are in fact making that point.

If you insist that 'justified' as James is using that word is exactly as Paul is using it, then you most certainly are making the point that a man is 'justified' (MADE righteous--Paul's use of the word) by what he does according to the law, even though you claim you are not.

I showed that James uses four commands of the law to demonstrate the 'doing' of faith that saves, but you clasp your hands over your ears and refuse to acknowledge what I so plainly showed you James is saying. And again, if you would only listen, that does not mean we are MADE righteous by deeds of the law, we are SHOWN to be righteous by our behaviors that are "in line with the law", as digging says.

 

[Mitspa]

Mitspa, read your own posts and see why one would think that YOU are in fact making that point.

If you insist that 'justified' as James is using that word is exactly as Paul is using it, then you most certainly are making the point that a man is 'justified' (MADE righteous--Paul's use of the word) by what he does according to the law, even though you claim you are not.

I showed that James uses four commands of the law to demonstrate the 'doing' of faith that saves, but you clasp your hands over your ears and refuse to acknowledge what I so plainly showed you James is saying. And again, if you would only listen, that does not mean we are MADE righteous by deeds of the law, we are SHOWN to be righteous by our behaviors that are "in line with the law", as digging says.

Your just wrong! James is not uses the law as an example of the works of faith! He uses Abraham and Rahab the HARLOT, as examples of works that justify!

He uses the law as a witness to love. That you cannot say that you keep the royal law of love, if you love the rich and despise the poor, no more than you can say you keep the Law of Moses if you do not murder, yet you commit adultry!

This is his clear point! One would have to ignore the whole witness of the Gospel and all the other epistles to believe what you are trying to say!

Your just wrong, and even until this day a veil lays upon the heart and mind at the reading of moses and the old testament.

You should start back at Romans And then when you get to James you will be able to understand.

Also, why did you leave out those verses In 1 John yesterday?
Thou shalt not bear false witness, means nothing to those of you who claim to uphold the works of law.

 

[Mitspa]

You mean like James commands in his letter?



'Fulfill all that is written'. As you use that here, to us that means because of the Spirit within us we have "flesh growing toward righteous behaviors,(which behaviors are in line with the law)" as digging says. Reread that post for the full explanation to make sure you understand no one is suggesting that this behavior that's 'in line with the law' is somehow a fleshly effort absent of the Spirit. Not even close. But you keep unfairly spinning it that way and accusing us of teaching false doctrine.

You are teaching false doctrine, because you are putting the written code "the letter" in the place of judgment. The sabbath cannot be judged by the letter, for it is a work of the spirit.

The law is Spiritual! The Spirit is the law! love is of the Spirit.

We do not look to the letter to judge one who is justified In Christ. But the law is a witness to the truth of the Spirit within the believer. The letter will always judge the flesh.

The flesh does not dissappear when one is saved. The flesh is overcome when we die to the flesh and live in the Spirit.

The flesh profits nothing, It cannot justify nor condemn!

Reckon yourselves dead to the law, means that the law can no longer judge the sin that is in the flesh. Nor can the law justify the works of the flesh.

This is why we are told over and over to walk in the spirit and love and we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

Those who worship God must worship Him in Spirit!

If this makes no sense to you? That means you have not the Spirit or you have not gone to the Cross with Christ.
AS COMMANDED!

 

[heymikey80]

Do you consider the ESV an accurate translation? The verse in question is "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" in the ESV. Would you agree it's accurately translated? I hope so, since you posted it here.

It's only as accurate as the Greek supports.

You keep doing it. NO versions say "answer in good conscience toward[/COLOR] God".

Pointing out my English usage doesn't mean you can replace what the verse actually says.

"βαπτισμα ... συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου"
baptism ... conscientious, good profession toward God through resurrection [of] Jesus Christ

Pick from among these versions if you like, I couldn't care less, because "of" or "for" doesn't appear in the verse any more than "in" does.

NIV: the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.
RSV: an appeal to God for a good conscience
Mounce: the answer of a good conscience to God
NASB: an appeal to God for a good conscience
Phillips: the ability to face God with a clear conscience
NKJV: the answer of a good conscience toward God

NONE. You are purposely mistranslating the verse to suit a sola-fide bias.

That'd be silly of me, because "in" doesn't clinch sola fide anyway. It doesn't fit the purpose you wish to imply onto it. Why would I do something that doesn't fit the purpose? Because that's not the purpose. See? I can remove "in" with no problem, and yet it still supports sola fide:

"βαπτισμα ... συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου"
baptism ... conscientious, good profession toward God through resurrection [of] Jesus Christ

It's because Peter supports sola fide, so Peter's Greek supports it. "in" has nothing to do with it. It's not even there. It's solely for the benefit of the English reader.

AGAIN, the versions that use the word "answer" (more on that word later) have some variation of "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (KJV). Most versions use some variation of "as an appeal to God for a good conscience"(ESV). This bolsters my case that the "pledge" or "answer" or "appeal" is an ACT a person does which is not faith alone.

No, it doesn't. Once more, this is not an "act" or a "work" the person does, who then gets paid for it. Pledges don't draw a wage. Even in the ancient world that would be "bribery" at worst. It was one major complaint against paganism by early Christianity. See that word "conscientious" ? It means something caused it.

And that's what Peter is writing.

 

[heymikey80]

So, where is the word "answer" in this Greek sentence? Here is the definition from Thayer's:

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


Nope. No "answer". So, "saving baptism" is an inquiry or a demand or a seeking or a craving, all acts that are NOT faith alone.

Thayer was an early lexicon. But not alone.

Friberg lexicon promise, answer; appeal;... perhaps promise or answer made to God from a good conscience (1 Pe 3.21)

Barclay Newman Lexicon 33.162 that which is asked for - 'request, appeal.' 'but baptism ... is a request to God for a good conscience' 1 Pe 3.21. It is also possible to interpret επερωτημα in 1 Pe 3.21 as meaning 'pledge' or 'promise,' in which case it may be classified under 33.288. Accordingly, the phrase συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον may be rendered as 'a promise made to God from a good conscience.'

Louw and Nida Lexicon 1. the content of asking; the question 2. a formal request, appeal an appeal to God for a clear conscience 1 Pt 3:21.

BDAG 3rd edition 1. question ... 2. request, appeal συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον an appeal to God for a clear conscience 1 Pt 3:21

Again, this argument also seems to be a non sequitur. You're not really striking at the case. If you want to change the words, that's fine, but once again, it's essentially no gain for your position. Do you want it to be an appeal? Fine, consider it an appeal. But it's what baptism is -- not cleaning off flesh, but -- as Peter first said -- "[a] conscientious, good appeal toward God".

If you want it to be a question, asking God, that's fine. But as you can see from the Greek, it's a question toward God, not an act. Interesting again that you'd think merely asking a question is some kind of act that God would repay with salvation. It's not an act.

Y'see the basic problem here. The Greek is in full view. It's not some kind of performance or good work. It's conscience, an appeal, a question, an answer, take your pick. It's not some kind of work. We could argue why I think επερωτημα is an answer (ερωτημα is a question, επ often points to what's immediately after it), but again, it's an argument without affecting the real issue. It's not a work, and it's even less of a work if there's no answer ...!

And that's baptism ... as Peter did say.

"βαπτισμα ... συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου"
baptism ... conscientious, good appeal toward God through resurrection [of] Jesus Christ

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your just wrong! James is not uses the law as an example of the works of faith!

"14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action (Deuteronomy 15 in this case), is dead." (James 2:14-17 NIV1984)

In the same way that giving lip service to a person in need can not help (save) them, so faith that doesn't help them in accordance with Deuteronomy 15:7-8 cannot save you (show you to have the faith that makes you a doer of God's righteous requirements).

Do you want to somehow argue that James is not saying the faith that does not act on the requirement of law to help those in need can no more save you than it can help the person you won't help?

And we KNOW he's not saying you MAKE yourself righteous by doing Deuteronomy 15 (the very thing Paul says you can not do, that is, make yourself righteous by works of the law), but rather is saying you SHOW your saving faith by what you do (also called being 'justified') by this:

"18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:18 NIV1984)

Directly address what I'm showing you here. Prove to me James is NOT saying we show we have faith, the faith that saves, by works of the law. Prove it with your gift of teaching. Don't tell me what you think. Show me from the Bible through your gift that James is NOT telling us to justify our selves as having faith by DOING the requirements of the law.

He uses Abraham and Rahab the HARLOT, as examples of works that justify!

Read it. He uses them as the "evidence that faith without deeds is useless" (James 2:20 NIV1984). Even though what Abraham does will in fact be a lawful requirement of the law (sacrifice), he's demonstrating how faith, if you really have a faith that is alive and able to save, acts on what it believes.

For Abraham what he did SHOWED he truly believed that God would literally raise the promised son from the dead in order to keep the surety of his promise to him, and for Rahab what she did SHOWED she truly believed God was going to keep his promise to Abraham that she had heard about. Their actions are EXAMPLES of how faith can and must be seen in what it does for it to validate one as having that faith, also called being justified, but NOT the way Paul uses that word. If he was using it that same way then you have no choice but to concede that James is saying we are justified by the works of the law he makes reference to.

He uses the law as a witness to love.

He uses upholding the law as a witness to YOUR FAITH, THE FAITH THAT SAVES. Prove to me from the passage he isn't saying that if that's what you believe.

That you cannot say that you keep the royal law of love, if you love the rich and despise the poor...

Right! You cannot say that you keep the royal law of love, 'love your neighbor as yourself', if you do not keep the commandments of the law of Moses 'do not murder', 'do not steal', etc.. Paul himself said this very same thing, that to keep the law of love, 'love your neighbor as yourself', is to satisfy the commandments of Moses! Prove to me he did NOT say that (Romans 13:9-10).

This is his clear point! One would have to ignore the whole witness of the Gospel and all the other epistles to believe what you are trying to say!

One has to ignore the clear words and context right there in James to believe what you say.

Your just wrong, and even until this day a veil lays upon the heart and mind at the reading of moses and the old testament.

You should start back at Romans And then when you get to James you will be able to understand.

Also, why did you leave out those verses In 1 John yesterday?
Thou shalt not bear false witness, means nothing to those of you who claim to uphold the works of law.

It's funny how it seems you either leave out too much, or include too much in these forums when you're quoting the Word of God, lol. Feel free to add any more of 1 John along with what I quoted and post it here to try and make your point.

And don't neglect to share your commentary about the Hebrews 6 and 2 Peter 1 passages I shared, okay? It plainly says we are to make our calling and election sure by what we do. Not establish it by what we do, but SHOW it to be a certainty by what we do. Since you are sure I'm a false teacher you OWE it to me and everyone reading this thread to address everything I share here, specifically and pointedly, not by going off on tangents like you do.

 

[Mitspa]

Again you go from works of love and the spirit into works of the flesh by the law. Because you have not heard the gospel?

You have not heard Paul, so you cannot understand what James is saying. James assumes one has heeded the truth of the Gospel? That we have been set free from the LETTER to live by the SPIRIT, now if one has the Spirit that have that which the letter represented. The Letter was a shadow of the Spirit that would come and be the LAW WRITTEN UPON THE HEART. which is love! James like Paul uses the law as a witness ONLY to the truth of the SPIRIT.

now this is the gospel! You are trying to justify yourself by the letter, which you can not keep, nor can anyone keep!

So no one can be justified by your false doctrines.
You have made the whole of the gospel untrue by your false teachings.

Sorry you are missing the truth, and you do not seem to care that you ignore the rest of the New Testament, to twist these few scriptures in James into a lie?
Why is that? What spirit are you submitting too?

For it is written, some will give heed to seducing spirits!
Trying to be teachers of the law, not knowing what the are saying or trying to affirm.

For being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own, have not SUBMITTED to the rightoeusness of God.

That I might be found IN HIM not having my own righteousness, WHICH IS BY THE LAW, BUT THAT WHICH COMES BY FAITH IN CHRIST!

for the JUST shall live by faith!

You are far from the truth! I cannot say that you seem to care at all?

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

The only power over sin, is to be FREELY JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE!