The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[Davies]

Matthew 23:1-3

New King James Version (NKJV)

Woe to the Scribes and Pharisees

23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.


Jesus said what? "...whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do..." Jesus taught this to the Jews, even while the Temple rituals were still being observed. Jesus couldn't be teaching legalism. Is Jesus teaching them the letter of the law? Again, no. That would be legalism. That would be what Mitspa eloquently teaches against, looking to the law to be justified. This passage is too short to explain the relationship between faith and works, but I highlight it to point out that Jesus did teach to obey the law. It's well worth repeating that when a person is converted and is born again of the Spirit, his/her motivation changes. No longer is a person looking to the law to be justified or trying to obey the law of God to be found righteous in His site, but he seeks to obey the law because he has already been made right with God. His motivation has been changed. That still doesn't mean a person is justified by what he does, it only means he is being sanctified or growing in the grace of God.

Here is another example, and I apologize for the long Scripture quote, but it makes the point that we don't abandon the law. We do abandon are attempts to be righteous by the law.


Acts 21:20-25

New King James Version (NKJV)

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will[a] hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,[b] except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.â€


Paul would be the first to tell you we aren't justified by works, and yet we know that Paul was obedient to the council of the church. Why would Paul go through the Temple rituals of Judaism? I personally believe it was out of his love for his Jewish brothers and sisters. Paul wasn't looking to the law to be justified.

For those who are Gentiles, the law by the church that was given was stay away from things offered to idols, from blood, and sexual immorality. If the Gentiles obeyed these commandments to be right with God, that would be legalism, and that is not what is being taught here. The proper motivation would be to obey these commandments out of a love for God, because of what God has done for them.

- Davies

 

[Davies]

Mitspa makes me smile all the time because he really does make great points. Notice this one,

"The law produces sinful desires in all who look to it" now compare that to what happened to Eve, what did she do? Didn't she look longly at the tree and then formed a desire to take from it rather than a desire to obey God and reject the temptation and turn her back and reach out for the tree of life? The commandment was holy because it could also produce the desire to obey through faith over the desire to sin, as it did in Jesus Christ.

Hi digging,

I obviously haven't been reading this thread as carefully as I should, because I don't remember Mitspa saying this. Are you sure you're quoting properly? "The commandment was holy because it could also produce the desire to obey through faith over the desire to sin, as it did in Jesus Christ." I have been reading for weeks if not months now that the commandment produces evil desires from Mitspa. You're quoting Mitspa as saying the commandment produces the desire to obey? This is wrong on two counts no matter who said it. Sin produces evil desires by taking advantage of the law and it is by the grace of God a person comes to repentance. This certainly would be a wrench in this thread if that's an actual quote of Mitspa!

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.

Romans 2:4

New King James Version (NKJV)

4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

By grace, God forgives law breaking. The law does not express mercy.

Surely with all our heart we will wish to never do as Adam did, we will desire with our entire being to obey the commandment of God so we'll never be cut off from the tree of life which we hunger for completely.

I'm having a hard time with this statement because I don't think the right motivation to keep the laws of God or the commandments of God is so that we won't be cut off from the tree of life. I think we should keep the laws of God because we will never be cut off from the tree of life because we are already justified by faith in the completed work of Jesus, justified by His righteousness.

- Davies

 

[digging]

Sorry only this one smaller part!

"The law produces sinful desires in all who look to it"

I said the rest after that! I got a nice full belly laugh just thinking about how that's going to go over tomorrow!:toofunny

Digging

 

[Davies]

Sorry only this one smaller part!

"The law produces sinful desires in all who look to it"

I said the rest after that!

Digging

Hi digging,

I knew that sounded contrary to what Mitspa consistently says. I just didn't read it carefully to see the end quote mark. LOL. I wasn't trying to get you in trouble with Mitspa.

- Davies

 

[dadof10]

"...God; 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace..." (2 Timothy 1:9 KJV)

This is supposed to be evidence that by "works", Paul means "all non-law work"? Sorry, but simply Paul saying "works" without a direct reference to works of the law or circumcision AS HE DOES ALMOST EVERYWHERE ELSE does not come close to proving your point.

This is what I had in mind. My contention is that Paul means "works of the law" or "circumcision" by the word "works". Here is evidence:

"We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified." (Gal. 2)

"Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith."

Here it comes...

"28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law." (Rom. 3)

See how the word "works" is tied to "works of the law" here? He has just established that "works" mean "works of the law". Let's continue...

"What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."
9 Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Rom. 4)

This is DIRECTLY tying the word "works" to circumcision, not only in Abraham's case, but also David's.

Now, all you have to do is come up with evidence like this, where Paul ties "works" to "all non-law work". Can you?

Let's take a look at the other verse you posted.

"5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ..." (Titus 3:5 KJV)"

Because the word "righteousness" is used here doesn't mean Paul is referencing ALL DEEDS.

"Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, 6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Phil. 3)

"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame." (Rom. 9)

One more:

"Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it." (Rom. 10)

So, don't you think there is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that by "works of righteousness, which we have done" Paul means the "righteousness which is based on the law"?

Again, if you think that by "works of righteousness" Paul means "all non-law works", simply prove it.

Baptism is a work of the law, but anyway...

“I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?â€

15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.†(Matthew 3:14-15 NIV1984)

Why? Because the word "righteousness" is in the sentence, so, therefore Jesus means "baptism is a work"? Quite a stretch..

I already told you. One of his examples of faith that is alive in works is referring to Deuteronomy 15:7-8 . The requirement of law to be generous to the poor is a righteous work of the law. James says when we do that righteous work of the law we are showing our faith in Christ.

If you have no works of the law, like 'love your neighbor as yourself', and 'do not show favoritism to the rich', and 'be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy', you have a 'faith' that can not save, because the faith that justifies apart from works of the law MUST be seen in the keeping of those kinds of laws in the law. NOT because those works MAKE you righteous, but because they are the expected and obligatory outcome of saving faith. IOW, they SHOW you to have laid hold of the righteousness of God that comes from faith in God's Promised Son.

How is this NOT a work of the law?:

"...love your neighbor as yourself." (LEVITICUS 19:18 NIV1984)

Because it's IN the Mosaic Law doesn't mean it's considered by ANYONE, including Paul, to be a WORK of the law. You have listed a few things in the "law" that you consider "works". OK, here are a few more. Love of God, "husbands love your wives", and the biggie...FAITH!!!

I'm sure you can see how not everything mentioned in "the law" is a "work of the law", unless you want to make the ridiculous assertion that by "works" Paul is including love of God, filial love and belief in God.

Again, that ALL things mentioned in the "law" are "works" is a contention that has to be PROVED (you "telling me", notwithstanding). Can you draw a parallel between love of God or "be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy" and "WORKS of the law"?

What does 'royal' mean to you? Does it mean it's not part of where it came from? Doesn't it rather mean it is exalted, like a royal leader?

Well, sort of. It's a lot like the "Golden Rule" or the "Natural Law", at least according to some Biblical scholars:

http://bible.cc/james/2-8.htm

It is not proper to the Mosaic Law and certainly wouldn't be considered a "work of the law", just because it's mentioned in Lev. Paul speaks about it, I think in Rom. 2:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

I don't think love of neighbor can be linked to "works".

Let's add some common sense to show you I'm right:

"20 ...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20 NIV1984)

How is it that Paul is ONLY referring to things like circumcision when he says 'works of the law' when he says it is these works of the law make us conscious of sin? Is not being circumcised a sin? Are you following the common sense logic of what I'm pointing out?

Sure, let's keep following your "common sense logic". Does love of God make us conscience of sin? What about loving your neighbor? You are trying to make the case that EVERY "non-law work" is a "work" to Paul, so how does faith or "looking after widows and orphans" make us conscious of sin?

If "consciousness of sin" is your touchstone for "works", I think I am in a far better position than you are because this "test" RULES OUT many actions thereby proving MY point. Are you following my common sense logic?

Why aren't you hearing what I've been saying? I said CONTEXT (and compatibility with other scripture) helps us understand what particular meaning any one word that has multiple definitions means.

Really? So, in almost EVERY INSTANCE where Paul contrasts faith and works, he is referencing works of the law and drawing the parallel with circumcision. This is a fact. This really matters to you? Are you really "understanding" because of the context of the word or because of a sola-fide bias?

Impossible. Not only does that make his teaching directly opposed to Paul's for the reason I've stated, but the CONTEXT shows us he means to SHOW your declaration of righteousness by what you do, not establish it: "I will show you my faith by what I do" (James 2:18 NIV1984). How can you ignore or write off this obvious clue to what he's means by 'justified'?

I'm not ignoring the word "show", I just am putting THAT word in it's proper context, not exulting it as James' entire point.

As I said in the previous thread, first James rips the person who "says he has faith but has not works", then he does the same to the "someone" who will say "You have faith and I have works."

One has faith but not works, one has works but not faith.

Then we get "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith."

Both are necessary for salvation. Because he uses the word show HERE doesn't mean later, when he brings up the word "justify", he means "shown to be righteous". Why would he use the example of Abraham? Maybe because some were using Paul's example of Abraham to erroneously teach "faith alone", and James was guiding them away from this false doctrine by using the same example?

"27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27 NIV1984)

Surely you would equate pure and faultless religion with righteous work?

Nice try. As I pointed out above, to Paul, "righteous work" is not a subjective term. It is directly connected to the Mosaic Law and not to ALL DEEDS.

Looking after widows and orphans in there need and distress are ALSO commanded works of the law.

Then it makes us "conscious of sin". There is a huge difference between "works of" and "things within" the law. Just because it's written in the OT doesn't make it a "work".

And don't forget about Leviticus 19:15 that says to not show favoritism to the rich. James uses that righteous work of the law as example of 'doing not just hearing' and how one is to have a faith that is alive and not dead and able to save, thus justifying a man. Works of the law and deeds done from faith certainly are the same thing in Paul's and James' letters.

No...

 

[digging]

As for the other comments you made I wish to thank-you for the replies.

I agree with what you said in regards to fallen man.

"Sin produces evil desires by taking advantage of the law"

Bur if you go back you will notice I said this only in connection to Jesus Christ.

"The commandment was holy because it could also produce the desire to obey through faith over the desire to sin, as it did in Jesus Christ." Of course this is rather a more person reflection and opinion of spiritual things.

You also pointed out "not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? "

Yet Paul did say
Romans 7:12 NAS

"So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."

Thus I'm implying that part of that 'goodness' is in the law, giving it the abilitity to also lead/draw out the hearts deepest desire to be restored with the Father. Just as it lead believing Jews to Christ.

As for that last comment I made please notice I was only using Adam's experience as the lesson and he was cut of from the tree of life when he was put out.

So I agree it doesn't fully convey the positive bond of love that is embodied in the tree of life between us and our Father.
He first loved us and we never want to be cut off from that love.

Digging

 

[digging]

One more thing Davies,

Very good excellent point you made here.

"It's well worth repeating that when a person is converted and is born again of the Spirit, his/her motivation changes. No longer is a person looking to the law to be justified or trying to obey the law of God to be found righteous in His site, but he seeks to obey the law because he has already been made right with God. His motivation has been changed."

I would like to elaborate futher on this thought, not only does the motivation change, I feel the understanding of the purpose of the law changes as well.

It would seem Adam and Eve believed the purpose of the Commandment was only in order to keep something from them, where as really wasn't it also there to help them receive something from the tree of life?

Digging

 

[Mitspa]

Yes the law is connected to the curse that started in the very beginning. Adam fell under the curse because he failed to trust God which lead him to disobey that first commandment/law of God. That single first commandment has all the laws of God embodied within it.

Mitspa makes me smile all the time because he really does make great points. Notice this one,

"The law produces sinful desires in all who look to it" now compare that to what happened to Eve, what did she do? Didn't she look longly at the tree and then formed a desire to take from it rather than a desire to obey God and reject the temptation and turn her back and reach out for the tree of life? The commandment was holy because it could also produce the desire to obey through faith over the desire to sin, as it did in Jesus Christ.


I'm hoping Davies, and Jethro and the others here are interested in looking at what we've been saying with the law and looking at these other possible lessons connected back to the garden event.

As I said in a earlier post, two actions were required of them in the Garden. Obeying the Commandment of God not taking from the tree of knowledge while reaching for the gift from the tree of life. The TWO actioning working together, the law fulfilled through the power of the spirit doesn't take away the commandment made in the first place. It just showed the path to accomplishing it.

Jesus showed us how to do this. He took the curse that fell on Adam and has created the possibility for us to each have a cleansed standing before God, out from under Adams curse because he failed to obey the commandment of God and thus was also cut of from the tree of life.

What will we do now?

Surely with all our heart we will wish to never do as Adam did, we will desire with our entire being to obey the commandment of God so we'll never be cut off from the tree of life which we hunger for completely. Through this desire to obey we find our thirst for the water of life. The way to master the flesh(obey commandment) is through the power of the spirit that he promises to give us in full as a river of water of life bubbling up from our inward most parts.

Digging

Digging, if one sees that the origional intention of God for man was that man would walk before Him and with Him in His love , peace and life? And one would look at the clear scriptures, that show us the purpose of the Law was to make all men sinners and that all might come to Christ by faith apart from the law. So if sees that love and the Spirit is the goal and the law was but a witness and a tool of God to bring us to His divine nature. So then love is not justified or judged by the letter, but the letter is shown to be true in love!

So again when one attempts to be justified by the law, they are in fact missing the whole point of the gospel? That which the law represented by the letter, is now in the heart of every one who has received the Holy Spirit. The gospel is not about rules written on paper, but about a living nature of God.

So love fulfills all that the law represented! That which we could not do because of the flesh, we can know do in one word.

So we who have died with Christ now live by His life, by the Spirit. His commandment is to love.

So we have gone from the law of sin and death into the law of LIFE in Christ.

So just as on the Mt of transfiguration, moses and the phophets must disappear and ONLY CHRIST remains as the one who speaks to us!

THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM.

so we have passed from the law of moses into the law of Christ. we love with His Love! This is all the law represented.

 

[dadof10]

It's only as accurate as the Greek supports.

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

LOL...I'm not replacing anything. You are adding words that aren't in ANY translations.

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

I pick the RSV, because it's on my computer, "an appeal to God for a good conscience". I also choose your word "vowkeeping", which you seem to be running from as of late.

That'd be silly of me, because "in" doesn't clinch sola fide anyway.

Then why change it in the first place? Why change the verse, when you already posted from the ESV? Why change it and ADD A WORD that is not in the Greek sentence or in ANY TRANSLATIONS? Maybe to bolster a point? This 'aint my first rodeo.

When you change the verse to "answer in good conscience..." you change Peter's meaning. The person ALREADY HAS A GOOD CONSCIENCE and is giving an "conscientious answer" to God, which, SHAZAM!!! supports your preconceived notion that "the person who already relied on God had already given a conscientious answer".

Look at some of the versions you posted above.

RSV: an appeal to God for a good conscience
NASB: an appeal to God for a good conscience

This is an appeal FOR a good conscience. The person DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE ONE. He must ask God FOR one. In these versions, the thing he's asking for is to be kept from sin by God. What else could an appeal for a good conscience be? WAY different than your "already given a conscientious answer".

NIV: the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

Here, the person is making a PLEDGE to God "of" a clear conscience. He is PLEDGING to HAVE OR KEEP a clear conscience. Is his conscience already clear? Maybe, but either way this assumes that he is attempting to keep from sin and keep (or gain) a clear conscience. This is Peter's point, that part of the baptismal rite is a "pledge" or "appeal" to God to keep the person from future sin. Again, this translation doesn't support your point.

I've learned from years on forums that whenever someone changes the verbiage of Scripture it's for a reason, usually in an attempt to subjectively interpret what they THINK the words should say, as happened here.

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

Then you have no problem with "an appeal to God for a good conscience"? Please tell me how this supports "sola-fide". How is appealing to God for something not already possessed, sola-fide?

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.

No, the "in" you inserted was solely for YOUR benefit. ;)

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.

"Pledging" or "appealing" is not an act? I agree it's not a "work" or "work for wages", but it is certainly an action and an action you said was "saving". That would be two then, two acts that don't fit under Paul's definition of "works for wages", the first being the one you keep ignoring, giving without expecting repayment.

So, would you agree, then, that when Paul contrasts faith and works, he is NOT teaching sola-fide?

I'm not sure where you're going with this whole "ancient world, actions that draw a wage" tack. Does this mean that ONLY actions that can "draw a wage" are included in Paul's definition of "works"? Would "honoring father and mother" then be a excluded? What about NOT stealing or coveting? What about prayer, Scripture reading or, again, charitable acts? None of these would demand a wage.

 

[Davies]

Good morning,

For those of you who would try to maintain perfection or be justified by what you do, here is a lovely, wonderful, exciting verse for yours, or should I say for our, ears.

Hebrews 10:14

New King James Version (NKJV)

14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.


It's interesting that the past tense of perfected is used along with the present tense of being sanctified. If our faith and trust is in Jesus, are we not perfected? Paul said he had not reached his goal of being perfected in Philippians 3:12, so what can we say? We could say he was being sanctified. If Paul was still in the process of being sanctified, then we can say that he was perfected, not by anything that he was doing, but by the one time offering, Jesus Christ. The same is true of us if we are relying on the righteousness of Jesus, and not our own.

- Davies

 

[dadof10]

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

All these lexicons agree with the translations in your previous post, "an appeal to God for a clear conscience". Asking God for something not already possessed. Two give the "possibility" that "perhaps" it "may" mean a "promise made FROM a good conscience", which assumes the conscience is already "good". Either way, it is still an action (a "promise") which is not faith.

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.

AGAIN, I'm not the one changing the words, you are. NONE of the versions use the words "answer in good conscience". I am posting and commenting on the verses AS THEY ARE TRANSLATED, you are not.

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.

LOL...Where did I EVER say that? Please...I am the one who is saying that not all actions fall under Paul's definition. Why would I say that asking a question is an act that requires repayment, and with SALVATION, no less???

All I've EVER said is that this "appeal' is an act, and this ACT DOES NOT FIT UNDER PAUL'S DEFINITION OF "WORKS" so is not being addressed by Paul in the "faith vs. works" sections of his letters.

I hope you got it THIS time.

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 ...!

Great. So this is another saving act that does not fit under Paul's definition, unless you want to attempt to make the case that an appeal TO God is not an act.

 

[Mitspa]

Good morning,

For those of you who would try to maintain perfection or be justified by what you do, here is a lovely, wonderful, exciting verse for yours, or should I say for our, ears.

Hebrews 10:14

New King James Version (NKJV)

14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.


It's interesting that the past tense of perfected is used along with the present tense of being sanctified. If our faith and trust is in Jesus, are we not perfected? Paul said he had not reached his goal of being perfected in Philippians 3:12, so what can we say? We could say he was being sanctified. If Paul was still in the process of being sanctified, then we can say that he was perfected, not by anything that he was doing, but by the one time offering, Jesus Christ. The same is true of us if we are relying on the righteousness of Jesus, and not our own.

- Davies

Yes a very interesting point! but again If we see holiness as being seperation unto God by the Spirit. And Christ being formed in us by the truth? And can step away from the ideas of holiness by keeping the letter of the law? We will in fact enter into a holiness of grace. For the Grace of God has appeared unto all men, teaching us to deny ungodliness.

So again we grow in holiness as we see the power of grace over our own lust for worldly things.
We become more and more consumed with who we are in Spirit than the flesh and its desires.

For Paul wrote that great is the mystery of Godliness, For God was manifest in the flesh, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT.

First we must see our death with Him? Then we see the truth of who we are in Him and Him in us, in the spirit.

But its all about Christ!
For He has been made unto us wisdom , righteousness , holiness and redemption. 1 Cor 1:30

So then to be In Christ will produce fruit unto holiness!

We will be conformed to His Image!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So then to be In Christ will produce fruit unto holiness!

We will be conformed to His Image!

What does that image look like?

Do not murder?

Do not bear false witness?

Do not covet?

Do not commit adultery?

Just to name a few.

The upholding of these and other commands by the Spirit of God is how you are justified as having faith in Jesus Christ. I think it impossible that you could in any way disagree with this except that you continue to insist 'justified' as I just used it can only mean to be MADE righteous. But it's easy to see that 'justified' can mean something other than that. My sentence has properly used the word grammatically as to it's 'to be SHOWN to be righteous' meaning. And once again, if you reject that's how James is using the word in his letter then you are setting him up in direct opposition to what Paul teaches for he says a man is indeed justified by what he does and gives 4 lawful examples of how upholding those commands justifies a man by what he does.

So which is it?

1) James is saying we are justified (MADE righteous) by the examples of works of the law he gives.

2) James is saying we are justified (MADE righteous) by what we do, but the laws he says we are to do are really not works of the law but deeds done in faith.

3) James is saying we are justified as having the faith that saves when we uphold the requirements of the law, summed up in 'love your neighbor as yourself'. IOW, deeds that conform to the law of Moses SHOW us to have the righteous faith that can save us.

No more discourses about the law not being able to MAKE a person righteous before God. We know this very, very well. Prove that James can't possibly be saying we SHOW ourselves to have the righteousness of faith by what we do, specifically the doing of 'love your neighbor as yourself', a law of Moses.

 

[heymikey80]

LOL...I'm not replacing anything. You are adding words that aren't in ANY translations.

Golly, they added words that aren't in ANY Greek manuscripts. So by your logic, you should reject them all.

Like I said, unless you're examining the specific words the Apostles actually used, then you're having the thread your way through the translator's selection. It's readily wrong.

 

[heymikey80]

I do not think the scriptures are speaking vain things? The only way to overcome the flesh is to walk in the spirit.

Nobody said it's not important. But when Scripture doesn't say it's about soteriology, then it's probably not soteriology.

Now it seems you have knowledge of the Body and Blood of Christ. I hope these things are very real to you? But if in fact you do have confidence and trust in His Sacrifice? Then It was indeed the Holy Spirit who taught you these truths.

I wonder why anyone would ask a Christian what he professes from the start of his walk with Christ. Yes, I rely -- I don't merely acknowledge -- the sacrifice of Christ for my life.

We are in fact New Spiritual Creations. All that we are in God we are in spirit For those who worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and truth.
For we are those who worship God in spirit and have no confidence in the flesh.
So it seems you are saying that the Holy Spirt has a limited place and is somehow not the desired goal of the scriptures?

I'm saying the Spirit of God does as He pleases, and that means He chooses times, places, and circumstances without my criticizing His choices.

Maybe I am seeing your post in the wrong light? But make no mistake the scriptures main goal is to bring believers into the spirit, and to live by the spiritual mind, which is life,peach and love.

I tend to reserve Scripture's main goal as the spread of the announcement, both of God's Judgment and Christ's providing a way of reconciliation.

 

[dadof10]

Golly, they added words that aren't in ANY Greek manuscripts. So by your logic, you should reject them all.

Like I said, unless you're examining the specific words the Apostles actually used, then you're having the thread your way through the translator's selection. It's readily wrong.

No. Here are my exact words "You are adding words that aren't in ANY translations." I don't mean "adding words" to the Greek, obviously when translating into different languages, liberties have to be taken with sentence structure and such.

The point is you are not staying faithful to the Biblical translators when you INTERPRET the verse in question, "answer IN good conscience". YOU changed the wording of the verse into something that NONE of the scholars accept. I'm more interested in your reason. Why not simply pick a version that you consider accurate and stick with it? Why change it?

 

[Mitspa]

Nobody said it's not important. But when Scripture doesn't say it's about soteriology, then it's probably not soteriology.

I wonder why anyone would ask a Christian what he professes from the start of his walk with Christ. Yes, I rely -- I don't merely acknowledge -- the sacrifice of Christ for my life.

I'm saying the Spirit of God does as He pleases, and that means He chooses times, places, and circumstances without my criticizing His choices.

I tend to reserve Scripture's main goal as the spread of the announcement, both of God's Judgment and Christ's providing a way of reconciliation.

Well the sciptures do indeed say that savlation and life are only when we walk in the Spirit. So do you think Paul goes back to this point over and over just bcause he and The Holy Spirit was looking for religious things to say?

The gospel is a revelation of Christ by the Spirt. Apart from the Spirit no man knows anything about Christ, but just a bunch of big religious words they attempt to impress others with. I do not study "religion of man" and their made up words, but I know the Greek better than most Know the english. So please save your made-up words for others.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Now, all you have to do is come up with evidence like this, where Paul ties "works" to "all non-law work". Can you?

I did that, but you rejected it.

You're not getting it because you don't understand the principle that Paul is teaching: It's IMPOSSIBLE to get a declaration of righteousness by doing something--in or out of the law, doesn't matter (except for 'believing' of course). Righteousness is a GIFT.

We get to partake of Christ's right standing that he EARNED through his obedience. He shares that right standing with everyone who is honest enough to admit they aren't righteous but who long for salvation, and who then grow up into perfection and are the ones who SHOW themselves to have that free gift of righteousness gained apart from works--any works.

You aren't declared righteous (justified) on the basis of doing something (apart from the 'work' of believing, of course). You are declared righteous on the basis of believing something. Your work, in or out of the law, is what validates your righteousness by faith. In it's simplest form that means 'no works of righteousness means you don't have the free gift of righteousness that comes apart from works'. That is why you can't be saved if you have no righteous works. Not because righteous work somehow solicits a declaration of righteousness (works of law or not, doesn't matter), but because they signify a lack of justifying belief.

"5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ..." (Titus 3:5 KJV)"

Because the word "righteousness" is used here doesn't mean Paul is referencing ALL DEEDS.

You're missing it. Paul is saying the REASON works of righteousness don't make a person righteous (justify them) is because righteousness is a merciful gift from God apart from righteous work. Does a non-law work of righteousness suddenly make righteousness not of mercy anymore?

 

[dadof10]

I did that, but you rejected it.

You're not getting it because you don't understand the principle that Paul is teaching: It's IMPOSSIBLE to get a declaration of righteousness by doing something--in or out of the law, doesn't matter (except for 'believing' of course). Righteousness is a GIFT.

Here we go again. Does this conversation sound vaguely familiar to you? We went over this in the last thread.

I do "get it". Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you believe. You seem to still be under the impression that your arguments are so undeniably persuasive, that once you write them down, the only two options left to me (or anyone else) are ignorance or fawning agreement.

Of course righteousness is a gift, so is faith, love, baptism, sacrifice...everything we come in contact with is a gift, or as I like to call it, a Grace. This is how we are saved, by the Grace of God alone. The difference between us is that you think the ONLY gift that saves is faith, I think God saves us through MANY Graces, which we can REJECT because of our free-will, including the gift of faith.

We get to partake of Christ's right standing that he EARNED through his obedience. He shares that right standing with everyone who is honest enough to admit they aren't righteous but who long for salvation, and who then grow up into perfection and are the ones who SHOW themselves to have that free gift of righteousness gained apart from works--any works.

I know this is what you believe, but I don't see any Biblical evidence that this is what PAUL believes. My point in the previous thread and here has been that when Paul contrasts faith and "works" he is speaking specifically of "works of the law", not "any works". You have failed to make the case that "works" means "all non-law works" and are left only with the argument that BY EXTENSION he MUST mean all works.

My point has always been that baptism, charity, sacrifice, etc. are not even in Paul's mind while writing these words, ONLY WORKS OF THE LAW, since that is what he says. Your contention that he means "any works" must be proved.

What if I made the case that faith is "belief", therefore Paul is saying we are saved by ANY belief, not just belief in Jesus? I know Paul SAYS we must believe in Christ, but BY EXTENSION he MUST mean ALL BELIEF saves, right? You would think I was a lunatic, and you would be right. How is this different than what you are doing with the word "works", trying to extend Paul's intended meaning to suit a bias.

You aren't declared righteous (justified) on the basis of doing something (apart from the 'work' of believing, of course). You are declared righteous on the basis of believing something. Your work, in or out of the law, is what validates your righteousness by faith. In it's simplest form that means 'no works of righteousness means you don't have the free gift of righteousness that comes apart from works'. That is why you can't be saved if you have no righteous works. Not because righteous work somehow solicits a declaration of righteousness (works of law or not, doesn't matter), but because they signify a lack of justifying belief.




You're missing it. Paul is saying the REASON works of righteousness don't make a person righteous (justify them) is because righteousness is a merciful gift from God apart from righteous work. Does a non-law work of righteousness suddenly make righteousness not of mercy anymore?

I am missing it because it isn't there. I have read many posts from you where you insist on CONTEXT, yet with Paul's "faith vs. works" passages you throw these tests out the window because you are trying to prove a non-biblical notion.

Again, When Paul writes his "faith vs. works" passages, he ONLY has in mind "works of the law" or circumcision because this is what he says. These are the two things he mentions. Baptism, keeping the commandments, charity, etc. are not even on his radar. They aren't even being addressed. He is not writing on these subjects.

This is my view and if you disagree, your contention that he means "all non-law work" must be proved. You must somehow show Paul tying other things beside "works of the law" to "works". The "extension" arguments aren't cutting it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you believe. You seem to still be under the impression that your arguments are so undeniably persuasive, that once you write them down, the only two options left to me (or anyone else) are ignorance or fawning agreement.

Please, stop being so arrogant, lol!