Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

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.
First, you can't take liberties with a text and then base a theology on it. That's simply disingenuous.

You're objecting to "in" because it's not in a translation. The phrase "in good conscience" is just fine for the translation of "conscientious", which is what the Greek states.

But again, =shrug=, tempest in teapot. Go ahead. Swap it out for "conscientious", or "conscience's" or even "of-conscience". But it's a genitive noun; the nominative noun of "answer" is what's toward God, not its modifier, "conscience".
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?
Some trust in translators; I trust in the Lord My God. The Greek is right there for anyone to read. The tiny tempest being thrown has no bearing on the result. It's a "non sequitur" combined with an ad hominem attack, based on a TRANSLATION that you happen to prefer above the written word of God.

As I've cited the original Greek, I don't really care what you say about one of the translations, which it's becoming obvious any failings leave my deduction standing despite the minor complaint that I use "in good conscience" and some use "of good conscience". My response itself is maintained: SO WHAT? And what distinction between "in" and "of" can you come up with that's even glancingly relevant to the point under discussion? That I don't prefer one translation? That I'm constantly going to the source for my argument? That's an argument in favor of my position, not against it.

As long as you have no objection affecting the conclusion, then clearly the conclusion stands.

To Peter, "baptism is a good, conscientious answer toward God." And yeah, nobody translates it "conscientious" either, because it happens to be a genitive noun. But there's a nominative noun here too -- meaning the genitive modifies the nominative, and functions either as a possessive or attributive. To me the primary function is attributive (cf. http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/genitive_case.pdf ). Translators pick the less specific "of" -- and what does "of" mean in English? Well, just about any kind of association: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/of

The issue is quite interesting. When y'can't appeal to what Peter actually said, you're reduced to English translators over 1500 years distant from the Apostle Peter. Why not ... return to what Peter actually said? That's what he said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well the sciptures do indeed say that savlation and life are only when we walk in the Spirit.
Ah, look at what you just said. You said "only when", not "only because of". The words "when" are right, but there's a reason why it's formed that way in Scripture.

It's because the walk isn't a cause.

It's an effect.
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?
Didn't I say it was important? Yep, I did say it's important. So no, Paul isn't "waxing religious".

He's setting a structure on a foundation. Again, walk isn't cause. It's effect.

Good thing too. Because what would happen if you build without the foundation, or build the foundation on top of the house? The result would be unstable, to come crashing down.

So no, Paul's quite practical. So practical in fact that his precision is disarming, especially in Greek.
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.
(Are not Mitspa's words made-up by himself? Should I reject them on that basis? If not, why even state such a thing?)

I encourage a hard look at what the Greek says. Paul associates walking with the presence of the Spirit -- Paul does not say walking in the Spirit brings the Spirit to people, quite the opposite in fact (cf Rom 7:25-8:1,4). The Spirit makes such a thing possible, not the ability to walk.

What's more, Paul states pointblank, people who are still subject to the law of sin and death in their flesh, walk in the Spirit:

"Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. ... us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 7:25-8:1,4

We're still subject to the law of sin in our flesh, but we don't walk according to it, but rather according to the Spirit.
 
Ah, look at what you just said. You said "only when", not "only because of". The words "when" are right, but there's a reason why it's formed that way in Scripture.

It's because the walk isn't a cause.

It's an effect.

Didn't I say it was important? Yep, I did say it's important. So no, Paul isn't "waxing religious".

He's setting a structure on a foundation. Again, walk isn't cause. It's effect.

Good thing too. Because what would happen if you build without the foundation, or build the foundation on top of the house? The result would be unstable, to come crashing down.

So no, Paul's quite practical. So practical in fact that his precision is disarming, especially in Greek.

(Are not Mitspa's words made-up by himself? Should I reject them on that basis? If not, why even state such a thing?)

I encourage a hard look at what the Greek says. Paul associates walking with the presence of the Spirit -- Paul does not say walking in the Spirit brings the Spirit to people, quite the opposite in fact (cf Rom 7:25-8:1,4). The Spirit makes such a thing possible, not the ability to walk.

What's more, Paul states pointblank, people who are still subject to the law of sin and death in their flesh, walk in the Spirit:

"Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. ... us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 7:25-8:1,4

We're still subject to the law of sin in our flesh, but we don't walk according to it, but rather according to the Spirit.

Not sure that I see any point other than you like to kinda agree only long enough make up some false debate that takes away from the original point of the conversation.

We all who are" born-again" do in fact have the Spirit of God. Now the purpose of the scriptures is not to make us religious but to bring us into the truth of Life in the Spirit. The truth of this life is manifest when we walk "in" the spirit. We can think we are saved, we can remember and quote scripture. We can do alot of religious things and debate doctrine etc... But until we have The Life of the Spirit and walk by the Spirit, we are in the flesh just like all other men.

So again I am not sure of what point you attempted to make with this recent post? I think some just like to debate words and like to show others how smart they think they are? For it is written that knowledge puffs up? I think some would understand more if they became as fools?
 
Not sure that I see any point other than you like to kinda agree only long enough make up some false debate that takes away from the original point of the conversation.

We all who are" born-again" do in fact have the Spirit of God. Now the purpose of the scriptures is not to make us religious but to bring us into the truth of Life in the Spirit. The truth of this life is manifest when we walk "in" the spirit. We can think we are saved, we can remember and quote scripture. We can do alot of religious things and debate doctrine etc... But until we have The Life of the Spirit and walk by the Spirit, we are in the flesh just like all other men.

So again I am not sure of what point you attempted to make with this recent post? I think some just like to debate words and like to show others how smart they think they are? For it is written that knowledge puffs up? I think some would understand more if they became as fools?
Well, it was a reaponse to what you said. Are you now saying walking in the Spirit does not bring about salvation? If so my point is made.
 
Well, it was a reaponse to what you said. Are you now saying walking in the Spirit does not bring about salvation? If so my point is made.
I never suggested that! You could not defend your position so you decided to twist my words to mean something I did not say nor intend. Instead of trying to come to a common place of agreement in the truth, you seem to only want to find a place of contention? I see no point that you have made?

Maybe you would like to explain your point? Not twist mine!
 
First, you can't take liberties with a text and then base a theology on it. That's simply disingenuous.

Sorry, bad choice of words. Translators have to add words within the structure of the language so it will flow and make sense.

You're objecting to "in" because it's not in a translation. The phrase "in good conscience" is just fine for the translation of "conscientious", which is what the Greek states.

Again, no versions of the Bible translate the Greek like that so why would you? There are plenty of different versions, why not just pick one that you consider accurate and use it? Why this insistence on YOUR PERSONAL translation?

But again, =shrug=, tempest in teapot. Go ahead. Swap it out for "conscientious", or "conscience's" or even "of-conscience". But it's a genitive noun; the nominative noun of "answer" is what's toward God, not its modifier, "conscience".

I'm not concerned with the word "conscience", but with the entire sentence "answer in good conscience". This SENTENCE changes Peter's meaning, as I explained previously.

Some trust in translators; I trust in the Lord My God.

Please...The question is, do I trust ALL BIBLICAL SCHOLARS or you. I think the former. You are trying to turn water baptism into faith alone.

The Greek is right there for anyone to read. The tiny tempest being thrown has no bearing on the result. It's a "non sequitur" combined with an ad hominem attack, based on a TRANSLATION that you happen to prefer above the written word of God.

Where did I attack you personally?

Didn't you say this?

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

Didn't you also call saving baptism a "vowtaking"? I'll ask again, how is vowtaking faith alone?

As I've cited the original Greek, I don't really care what you say about one of the translations, which it's becoming obvious any failings leave my deduction standing despite the minor complaint that I use "in good conscience" and some use "of good conscience". My response itself is maintained: SO WHAT? And what distinction between "in" and "of" can you come up with that's even glancingly relevant to the point under discussion? That I don't prefer one translation? That I'm constantly going to the source for my argument? That's an argument in favor of my position, not against it.

Are you joking? The point under discussion is what constitutes "works for wages". We both agree that charitable giving without repayment is NOT a "work" to Paul, yet you refuse to answer my questions and move ahead, ignoring them at least three times. You prefer to discuss the nuances of baptism instead of moving onto my questions.

I said I wouldn't repost the questions again, so I won't. It was getting sad. Please don't attempt to insinuate that it's ME who won't stick to the subject. That is laughable.
 
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

Amen, well said.
 
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

Again Amen and Amen!
 
I never suggested that! You could not defend your position so you decided to twist my words to mean something I did not say nor intend. Instead of trying to come to a common place of agreement in the truth, you seem to only want to find a place of contention? I see no point that you have made?

Maybe you would like to explain your point? Not twist mine!
Maybe you'd like to answer a question and not attempt to divine my intent. You said you didn't see much point, before. Yet you responded with exclamation to its point. This point is clear from Rom 7:25-8:4. We continue to be subject to the law of sin. We are under no condemnation.

Paul says it.
 
Maybe you'd like to answer a question and not attempt to divine my intent. You said you didn't see much point, before. Yet you responded with exclamation to its point. This point is clear from Rom 7:25-8:4. We continue to be subject to the law of sin. We are under no condemnation.

Paul says it.

No! your wrong?
The scriptures goes on to explain that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death. So the point of Roms 7 is to bring us to the end of confidence in the flesh and ability of the natural mind, into the life and mind of the Spirit where we have life in Christ.

So we are brought from a lower law into a higher law!
We see this in the Lords words? he that taketh not his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.
For he that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it.

So until we see the truth of Roms7 we cannot take up the life of Roms 8. That is a New Life and New law of the Spirit.

So again I find that you are like many who have a form of knowledge in religious doctrine, but have not entered into the "Spiritual Mind" as the scriptures demand.

I could not speak to you as "spiritual" but as to carnal, as to a babe in Christ.
 
No! your wrong?
What's Rom 7:25-8:1 say? Not me, Paul.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
 
heymikey80,

O wretched man that you are! Who will deliver you from your body of death? Thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! Romans 7:24

- Davies
 
What's Rom 7:25-8:1 say? Not me, Paul.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Does the scriptures end with that verse? I dont think so!

Chapter 8 comes after chapter 7, for a reason?

The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has SET ME FREE from the law of sin and death.

So not sure what point you are trying make?

Why dont you lay out your doctrine so that I can understand what you are trying to say?
 
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.
The faith to believe is indeed the grace of God for salvation. As for 'love, baptism, sacrifice...everything we come in contact with', that is absurd to call them gifts. All you're saying is works of the law are God's gift, God's grace for salvation. The very thing you are sure you don't believe.


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.
9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity..." (2 Timothy 1:9 NASB)


5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs..." (Titus 3:5 NASB)

Righteous 'works' and 'grace' are two entirely different things. Being saved (specifically, being justified) is NOT because we did righteous things. We are justified by the grace and mercy of Christ's blood given to us through faith, not what we do, that washes away sin guilt and unrighteousness and replaces it with right standing with God.



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...
Baptism, charity, sacrifice ARE works of the law!!!!!!

The only way to not see that is to rationalize that truth away, as you did with charity (love) in a previous post (which, by the way, I have a very long response to tucked away in Wordpad). There's no foundation whatsoever upon which to suggest these things are not works of the law.


...since that is what he says. Your contention that he means "any works" must be proved.
When you can show me where Paul lists the works that DO justify (outside of the 'work' of believing, of course) then you'll have made your point. But as it is he plainly says there is no such thing. As he says it is God's grace given to us through the conduit of faith, not righteous works, that justifies. He says nothing else counts towards that (being justified), only faith. The faith that then expresses itself in love toward others (Galatians 5:6). Not even the love that faith produces can justify (MAKE) a person righteous.

It only makes sense, because the only way to have unrighteousness removed is for God to brush it away. There is nothing a man can do to brush his own sin guilt away. The only thing you can 'do' for that to happen is to believe that God brushes it away through the forgiveness of that unrighteousness. .



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.
Because of what I just said. The logic of only being justified through faith, all by itself apart from works, is that only forgiveness can remove sin guilt. Nothing a man can do outside of that can remove sin guilt. Nothing.



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.
The context of the passage is the fact that there is nothing a man can do to not be a condemned sinner anymore. Context is more than just words. It includes meaning, too. And he makes that meaning clear. We're all condemned as sinners because we don't keep the law, the standard by which that unrighteousness is measured for the purpose of determining unrighteousness. Unrighteousness that is then removed and replaced with God's free gift of righteousness through the forgiveness of sins, NOT through righteous things we do, of which the law is the standard.



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.
'Baptism, keeping the commandments, charity' ARE works of the law!!!!!!!



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.
Just show me where Paul says "baptism, keeping the commandments, charity, etc." JUSTIFY a person (as in 'make' one righteous, not 'show' one to have the righteousness of God). That's all YOU have to do. I've shown you where Paul says faith is the ONLY thing that counts towards justification, and how even he agrees with James that it is love, specifically (a commanded work of the law), that follows faith in Christ (the faith that justifies) validating that faith as genuine and able to save.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But again, =shrug=, tempest in teapot. Go ahead. Swap it out for "conscientious", or "conscience's" or even "of-conscience". But it's a genitive noun; the nominative noun of "answer" is what's toward God, not its modifier, "conscience".

I ran out of time when responding to the last post and would like to address your contention that this is a "tempest in teapot".

A person "accepts Jesus" in faith. At this moment you would say he is saved.

Your contention is that he is saved by faith alone, so he has ALREADY given an "answer in good conscience" to God. This is Peter's meaning when he wrote 1Pt 3:21, that "saving baptism" is simply repackaged sola-fide. When this verse is translated "answer in good conscience", it fits perfectly into your contention that when someone "accepts Jesus" they are at that exact moment (or even before), giving an "answer in good conscience".

My contention is that "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" CAN NOT POSSIBLY be the same thing as the person "accepting Jesus". It is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ACT THAN FAITH. Sure, it is done IN faith, but no one could possibly believe that when a person appeals (asks) to God for (to give him) a clear conscience, he is "accepting Jesus". The faith must come BEFORE the "appeal". It is obvious that an "appeal for a clear conscience" was part of the baptismal rite. The water washes away sin, and the person appeals for God to keep him from sin.

This is why the wording is not a "tiny tempest", any more than your contention that verse 20 MUST be translated "eight persons, were saved through water" is. Your ENTIRE interpretation hinges on this one word. If the word is translated "by", we have Peter saying point blank that the water saved (which he does anyway), and that moves your opinion that "the water destroyed, the ark saved and the ark is Christ" from the "laughable" column to the "impossible" column. The difference between these two examples is that the word "dia" is translated as "by" 241 times (an overwhelming majority) in Scripture, but verse 21 is NEVER translated "in good conscience" by ANYONE, Catholic or Protestant. Even those versions that translate the word as "answer" are held suspect by the very scholars you quoted a few posts back. The ones who do allow for "answer" say it's "possible" or it "may" be translated as "answer". Hardly a ringing endorsement.

You say you want to stick to issues "relevant to the point under discussion". OK, fine. Here are two.

1) You called "saving baptism" a "vowtaking". Please explain how taking a vow is the same thing as faith alone. A person "accepts Jesus", THEN might vow to do such-and-such, but the faith MUST come first. The two acts are not interchangeable. If you disagree, then please explain how a person can be saved by belief alone WITHOUT taking a vow.

2) We both agree that charitable giving without expecting repayment is not a "work for wages" to Paul. This ACT does not fit under his definition. Therefore, Paul is not teaching sola-fide when he contrasts faith and "works". Do you agree or disagree, and WHY?

I would really appreciate an answer to these two points, as they are directly "relevant" to this thread, thanks.
 
The faith to believe is indeed the grace of God for salvation. As for 'love, baptism, sacrifice...everything we come in contact with', that is absurd to call them gifts. All you're saying is works of the law are God's gift, God's grace for salvation. The very thing you are sure you don't believe.

Wow, talk about your straw men...Didn't I say DOZENS of times that these ACTIONS are not "works of the law"? Why are you putting YOUR words in my mouth? You are the one who thinks ALL deeds are "works of the law", not me. The desperation is starting to creep in...

9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity..." (2 Timothy 1:9 NASB)

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs..." (Titus 3:5 NASB)


Righteous 'works' and 'grace' are two entirely different things. Being saved (specifically, being justified) is NOT because we did righteous things. We are justified by the grace and mercy of Christ's blood given to us through faith, not what we do, that washes away sin guilt and unrighteousness and replaces it with right standing with God.
Simply repeating the verses that you THINK affirm your contention does not prove the point. I listed three verses FROM PAUL where he draws a DIRECT CONNECTION between "deeds which we have done (past tense) in righteousness" and "works of the law". You chose to ignore them, which is not surprising.

When Paul uses the term "deeds which we have done in righteousness", he is speaking of himself who "practic[ed] (past tense) the righteousness which is based on the law"

You want biblical proof, there it is. Now simply return the favor and show me ANY verses from ANYONE, not just Paul, that tie "deeds which we have done in righteousness" to baptism?....keeping the commandments?...charity?...Didn't think so...

Baptism, charity, sacrifice ARE works of the law!!!!!!
Another ignored point from a previous post. Again, simply repeating your contention is not proving it. As I said in a previous post, just because a deed or action is IN the OT or even in the "law" doesn't mean it's a "work" of the law. Love of God is then a "work" of the law? What about faith? Do you think Paul had in mind these two "works" while writing? So, then you can see how an ACTION can be written IN the law and not be a "work OF the law", right?

The only way to not see that is to rationalize that truth away, as you did with charity (love) in a previous post (which, by the way, I have a very long response to tucked away in Wordpad). There's no foundation whatsoever upon which to suggest these things are not works of the law.
You are the one who is making a positive statement, so the burden of proof rests firmly on you. I am mot obliged to prove a negative. I have proven, beyond a doubt, that by "works" Paul is talking about circumcision and "works OF the law". It's up to you to prove that he is expanding his use of the word to mean baptism, keeping the commandments, sacrifice, etc. Please proceed...

When you can show me where Paul lists the works that DO justify (outside of the 'work' of believing, of course) then you'll have made your point.
There is no "list". He didn't feel the need to write one because he was crystal clear on what he meant by "works", especially considering that gentile circumcision was the first real doctrinal challenge to the Church (Acts 15), he had discussed this topic with the recipients of his letters and there was a council called to deal with it. But, here are a couple of verses anyway.

"Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1Tim. 2:15)

This is pretty self-explanatory. It's obvious that the SACRIFICE of bearing children will effect a woman's salvation. IF she CONTINUES in faith, love holiness and modesty... So, if she doesn't CONTINUE in faith, will she lose her salvation? Humm...food for thought and another thread...

"But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek." (Rom 2)

Here, "works" are DIRECTLY tied to "well-doing", not "works of the law". The "works" being discussed here are not CONTRASTING faith and "works", but bad "works" and good "works" are being contrasted. One is said to give "eternal life" the other "tribulation and distress". Either Paul is contradicting himself within the the pages of same book, or "works" here mean something different from "works of the law" written elsewhere.

There is also James, who says we are Not justified by faith alone, Peter who says water baptism saves, and Jesus Who says keeping the commandments leads to eternal life, but you don't actually think those words mean what they say, so let's just discuss these two to start. There will be enough pretzels to go around.

But as it is he plainly says there is no such thing. As he says it is God's grace given to us through the conduit of faith, not righteous works, that justifies. He says nothing else counts towards that (being justified), only faith. The faith that then expresses itself in love toward others (Galatians 5:6). Not even the love that faith produces can justify (MAKE) a person righteous.
Another positive statement that demands proof. where does Paul say that not even love saves?

It only makes sense, because the only way to have unrighteousness removed is for God to brush it away. There is nothing a man can do to brush his own sin guilt away. The only thing you can 'do' for that to happen is to believe that God brushes it away through the forgiveness of that unrighteousness. .

Because of what I just said. The logic of only being justified through faith, all by itself apart from works, is that only forgiveness can remove sin guilt. Nothing a man can do outside of that can remove sin guilt. Nothing.
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

Ananias said to Paul, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'" (Acts 22:16)

Well, according to Peter and Ananias, repentance and water baptism remove sin guilt, not faith alone. I smell more pretzels...

The context of the passage is the fact that there is nothing a man can do to not be a condemned sinner anymore.
Nothing OUTSIDE faith. All salvific deeds MUST be done in faith.

Context is more than just words. It includes meaning, too.
OK...

And he makes that meaning clear. We're all condemned as sinners because we don't keep the law, the standard by which that unrighteousness is measured for the purpose of determining unrighteousness. Unrighteousness that is then removed and replaced with God's free gift of righteousness through the forgiveness of sins, NOT through righteous things we do, of which the law is the standard.
And, there it is, the "extension" notion. This is what needs to be proved, that Paul is merely using the "law" as an EXAMPLE of works that don't save, when he REALLY means to extend "works" to mean "everything done".

'Baptism, keeping the commandments, charity' ARE works of the law!!!!!!!
This is where we ended in the last thread. I asked questions you couldn't answer satisfactorily. Here they are again:

I'm sitting here, at my computer NOT committing adulatory or coveting or killing... Am I "earning" salvation? Is sitting NOT SINNING a "work of the law"?

Just show me where Paul says "baptism, keeping the commandments, charity, etc." JUSTIFY a person (as in 'make' one righteous, not 'show' one to have the righteousness of God). That's all YOU have to do.
I never made the claim that Paul specifically teaches this, I only said that, to Paul, "works" means "works of the Mosaic law", not everything done. YOU are the one making the claim that, to Paul, "works" means everything done. Again, I have proved my point, and I am not burdened to prove what Paul DOESN'T teach. The burden of proof is on you to prove your positive statement ("works" means baptism, keeping the commandments, etc.), not on me to DISPROVE it.

I've shown you where Paul says faith is the ONLY thing that counts towards justification, and how even he agrees with James that it is love, specifically (a commanded work of the law), that follows faith in Christ (the faith that justifies) validating that faith as genuine and able to save.
Let me address this "James" thing with an example. We can both think and talk in the abstract about these things, but it's when we take our thoughts into the real world is where we see which ones "work" (no pun intended).

A person gets saved. He "accepts Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and truly turns his life over to Christ. He reads the bible, goes to church, prays constantly. Everyone can see he has the "Spirit" of God within him. Jesus is always on his lips and in his heart. He volunteers at homeless shelters, teaches religious ed., works on his marriage, quits partying, quits sinning (as much as humanly possible), devotes his life to his family and his God.

In short, he "shows" his faith is not a "said" faith. He is "justified" (declared righteous) by his faith alone, yet he has "showed" his faith by his works, just like it says in James.

According to your view, his faith is a true SAVING faith, correct?

A few years go by and the Bible reading starts slipping, so does the church-going. He doesn't volunteer for the homeless shelter because he's "too busy". He prays only at night before bed and he can't see anything wrong with knocking down a few at the local bar every once in a while, after all, he supports his family well enough.

A few more years go by and he finds himself almost right where he was BEFORE conversion. He still "believes" in Jesus and still prays every once in a while, but the bulk of his attention is on the world and "getting ahead". He doesn't cheat on his wife, or beat his kids, but NO One can tell he is a "believer".

A few more years and he is right back where he was before conversion. He isn't a "bad" guy, but he really has no prayer life at all, yet considers himself "saved" due to his earlier "conversion". He's just living his life as a secular person, assuming he is going to Heaven upon death because the Bible says he is saved by "faith alone", which he SAYS he has.

He has sunk into a "said" faith, a faith with no "works", which James says can't save.

You only have two choices.

1) Either he had a "saving faith" DEMONSTRATED BY HIS WORKS, and he LOST IT, or;

2) He NEVER HAD a saving faith and his "good works" don't "show" anything, thereby proving James isn't saying what you want him to be saying. James would have to be saying what his untwisted words actually say, that we are justified (made righteous) by our works, not by faith alone.

You can't have it both ways.
 
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs..."


This is what the Bible plainly says. I can't make you see it if you truly aren't seeing it, and I certainly can't make you acknowledge what you refuse to acknowledge if you can see it but reject it anyway, if that be the case.

The very way Paul has worded it--"deeds...done in righteousness"--shows he's talking about anything you do (besides faith of course) done in righteousness (not done in unrighteousness, as 'works of the law' connotates). These deeds are NOT how a person is justified, and therefore, saved.

He even goes on to say it is purely by the mercy (not getting what you deserve) and the grace (getting what you don't deserve) of God that people are saved, NOT by the righteousness of what they do. If certain "deeds...done in righteousness" was in fact how a person was saved he would have said so.

Don't have two or three hours to make long posts, so here is the snippet from a response to a post of yours I have stored about 'faith' being a work of the law:

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!!!
Faithfulness to the commands of God is itself in the law. Faithfulness to do the commands is a work of the law. Faithfulness in the law MEANS doing all that God has commanded in the law. It is commanded to be faithful to everything commanded. Thinking you are made righteous by what you think is (in your own mind) being faithful to all things commanded is what Paul is saying can not solicit a declaration of righteousness. The very principle shows us that the point is righteous work can not make you righteous before God, not even the righteous work of being faithful to the law. It only makes sense. Faithfulness (not faith) is itself a command, a work, of the law. Even the Pharisees were faithful. What they didn't have is faith.

So, you can see it's crazy to think that 'faith' is a work of the law. Faithfulness (to the commands) is. That work can not MAKE a person righteous. It can only SHOW them to be righteous.
 
Does the scriptures end with that verse? I dont think so!

Chapter 8 comes after chapter 7, for a reason?

The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has SET ME FREE from the law of sin and death.

So not sure what point you are trying make?

Why dont you lay out your doctrine so that I can understand what you are trying to say?
It's sitting right there.

Like I said, and have maintained throughout this thread -- what follows is what follows. It is no cause of the Spirit indwelling us, and the Spirit's work actually enables us to walk in the Spirit, so it can't cause what the Spirit causes. It certainly doesn't contradict what the Spirit of God has already said through Paul's flat-out statement. And note Paul's timing.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

You may find these very difficult to recognize: but it's so very hard to deny them and maintain any logical understanding of what God is telling us in Scripture.
 
Back
Top