'Faith' is a 'work' of the New Testament! [Archive]

View Full Version : 'Faith' is a 'work' of the New Testament!

Stinker

10th November 2004, 11:47 PM

Then said they unto Him, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent." (Jn.6:28-29)

To believe or have faith, is a commandment. "But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." (Heb.11:6)

This faith or belief, is also qualified. It must be a 'live' faith not a 'dead' faith.
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17)

The works that are condemned in the New Testament are the 'works' of the Law of Moses' (Eph.2:9) and the 'works' of the flesh. (Gal.5:19-21)

fiveinjuly

11th November 2004, 01:01 AM

Faith without works is dead, but also rememver that isn't the only thing that will get you into heaven..

Flynmonkie

11th November 2004, 01:33 AM

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:........

Seems like it was there in the Old testiment too :) This has always been the message. FAITH! It took His Son for some of us to Finally "get it". :)

New_Wineskin

11th November 2004, 07:44 AM

The works that are condemned in the New Testament are the 'works' of the Law of Moses' (Eph.2:9) and the 'works' of the flesh. (Gal.5:19-21)
Paul praised the Law and did not condemn it . What Paul condemned was any work that was not of faith ( ie not given by the Lord personally ) in an attempt to achieve righteousness ( what you call "work of the flesh" ) . Paul spoke against obeying the commands of the Scriptures ( the Law ) when the sole reason was because they said so . Works are about a person doing things because of tradition and others convincing one that they sould be done instead of listening to the Lord . Paul also wrote that if *any* written code could obtain righteousness , that written code would be the Mosaic Law .

Paul wrote that Abraham did not obtain righteousness through obedience of Mosaic Law because they came after him . Well , he didn't obtain righteousness by obeying the Scriptures that came after the Law , either .

muffler dragon

11th November 2004, 09:22 AM

Paul praised the Law and did not condemn it . What Paul condemned was any work that was not of faith ( ie not given by the Lord personally ) in an attempt to achieve righteousness ( what you call "work of the flesh" ) . Paul spoke against obeying the commands of the Scriptures ( the Law ) when the sole reason was because they said so . Works are about a person doing things because of tradition and others convincing one that they sould be done instead of listening to the Lord . Paul also wrote that if *any* written code could obtain righteousness , that written code would be the Mosaic Law .

Paul wrote that Abraham did not obtain righteousness through obedience of Mosaic Law because they came after him . Well , he didn't obtain righteousness by obeying the Scriptures that came after the Law , either .
Just wanted to give you public KUDOS on this post!

Suffolk Sean

11th November 2004, 09:27 AM

Just wanted to give you public KUDOS on this post!I'll second it!

Reformationist

11th November 2004, 02:46 PM

- DRA -

11th November 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by: Stinker

The works that are condemned in the New Testament are the 'works' of the Law of Moses' (Eph.2:9) and the 'works' of the flesh. (Gal.5:19-21)

Paul praised the Law and did not condemn it . What Paul condemned was any work that was not of faith ( ie not given by the Lord personally ) in an attempt to achieve righteousness ( what you call "work of the flesh" ) . Paul spoke against obeying the commands of the Scriptures ( the Law ) when the sole reason was because they said so . Works are about a person doing things because of tradition and others convincing one that they sould be done instead of listening to the Lord . Paul also wrote that if *any* written code could obtain righteousness , that written code would be the Mosaic Law .

Paul wrote that Abraham did not obtain righteousness through obedience of Mosaic Law because they came after him . Well , he didn't obtain righteousness by obeying the Scriptures that came after the Law , either .

The works under consideration in Eph. 2:9 would include any works other than what God told us to do to be saved under the gospel of Christ.

Paul clearly states the consequences of those who attempt to be justified by the law of Moses in Gal. 5:1-4.

Reformationist

11th November 2004, 04:04 PM

The works under consideration in Eph. 2:9 would include any works other than what God told us to do to be saved under the gospel of Christ.
God never told us to do anything to be saved because salvation is solely by the grace and mercy of God. However, we are regularly admonished to do things because we are saved.

God bless

- DRA -

11th November 2004, 06:20 PM

God never told us to do anything to be saved because salvation is solely by the grace and mercy of God. However, we are regularly admonished to do things because we are saved.

God bless

Consider Titus 2:11. God's grace has been extended to all. However, all people will NOT be saved (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23). Therefore, the necessary inference is that we are indeed saved by God's grace e.g. Eph. 2:5, but not by it alone. There are other factors involved e.g. 1 Pet. 1:22.

There are things that we are admonished to do because we are saved. However, there are also things that we are admonished to do in order to be saved (Acts 2:38; 8:35-39; 10:47-48; 16:30-34; 17:30; 22:16).

P.S. Seeing your picture reminds me when my sons were young. They have grown and are now Christians. May God bless your family. :bow:

New_Wineskin

11th November 2004, 06:21 PM

The works under consideration in Eph. 2:9 would include any works other than what God told us to do to be saved under the gospel of Christ.

Paul clearly states the consequences of those who attempt to be justified by the law of Moses in Gal. 5:1-4.
Yes , I agree . Paul clearly states the consequences of those who attempt to be justified by the laws of the Scriptures .

New_Wineskin

11th November 2004, 06:23 PM

I'll second it!
Thanks , M.D. and S.S. :)

Iosias

11th November 2004, 07:00 PM

Faith without works is dead, but also rememver that isn't the only thing that will get you into heaven..
James was not written to Christians but to Jews of the disporia.

We are not saved by our faith but by the faith of Jesus Christ! :amen:

Galatians 2:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GAL+2:16&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Such a blessed truth! :clap:

Reformationist

11th November 2004, 07:29 PM

Consider Titus 2:11. God's grace has been extended to all.Okay. I considered it. How did you understand it? Do you mean to say that you interpret Titus 2:11 to mean that God extends His salvitic grace to all people?

However, all people will NOT be saved (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23).The fact that not all people are saved is proof that God does not extend His salvitic grace to all people.

Therefore, the necessary inference is that we are indeed saved by God's grace e.g. Eph. 2:5, but not by it alone.Being that Ephesians 2:5 is quite clear that we are saved by grace alone what leads you to believe that the grace of God alone is not capable of saving us?

There are other factors involved e.g. 1 Pet. 1:22. DRA, this verse isn't speaking of salvation so what's your point?

There are things that we are admonished to do because we are saved. However, there are also things that we are admonished to do in order to be saved (Acts 2:38; 8:35-39; 10:47-48; 16:30-34; 17:30; 22:16).DRA, not one of those verses is speaking of our eternal salvation.

P.S. Seeing your picture reminds me when my sons were young. They have grown and are now Christians. May God bless your family. :bow:Thank you.

God bless

Reformationist

11th November 2004, 07:31 PM

James was not written to Christians but to Jews of the disporia.

We are not saved by our faith but by the faith of Jesus Christ! :amen:

Galatians 2:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GAL+2:16&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Such a blessed truth! :clap:
I agree that Christ accomplishes our salvation for us but that verse is speaking of our faith in Christ's work on our behalf.

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

God bless

Stinker

11th November 2004, 08:44 PM

Reformationist

11th November 2004, 08:52 PM

"Paul spoke against obeying the commands of the scriptures (the Law) when the sole reason was because they said so."

Not so New_Wineskin: "But God be thanked. that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." (Romans 6:17):clap:
New_Wineskin's comment wasn't with regard to the appropriateness of being obedient. It was in regards to the motivation for being obedient. Obedience is not wrong because true obedience includes a godly motive for being obedient. I believe New_Wineskin was speaking against an outward alignment with the Gospel that is not motivated by love for God.

Could be wrong but that's how I took it. :)

New_Wineskin

11th November 2004, 09:39 PM

"Paul spoke against obeying the commands of the scriptures (the Law) when the sole reason was because they said so."

Not so New_Wineskin: "But God be thanked. that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." (Romans 6:17)
You didn't read all of what I wrote ... I said "sole" reason . Your quote mentions from the heart which is connected to faith . What you wrote stated nothing about the Scriptures . Nor did he state that it was any writings at all . It wouldn't have been any writings from Paul . The salutation shows his lack of affiliation with them .

Also , as you wrote , it was the "form of teaching" . What was that form ? Paul was in the middle of stating that it was obedience to the Lord and not writings . Paul would be a hypocrite and a cultist to state not to obey the Scriptures but to obey himself .

New_Wineskin

11th November 2004, 09:45 PM

New_Wineskin's comment wasn't with regard to the appropriateness of being obedient. It was in regards to the motivation for being obedient. Obedience is not wrong because true obedience includes a godly motive for being obedient. I believe New_Wineskin was speaking against an outward alignment with the Gospel that is not motivated by love for God.

Could be wrong but that's how I took it. :)
That is correct . Why one is obedient and what/whom one is obeying was my focus . It appears that Stinker was going after the idea that it was about obeying the Scriptures and somehow considered that the passage that they presented showed that Paul was thanking the Lord for the Roman's obedience to the Scriptures .

Stinker

11th November 2004, 10:16 PM

That is correct . Why one is obedient and what/whom one is obeying was my focus . It appears that Stinker was going after the idea that it was about obeying the Scriptures and somehow considered that the passage that they presented showed that Paul was thanking the Lord for the Roman's obedience to the Scriptures .

"......that form of doctrine...." Is the gospel. The teaching of Christ from the 4 gospels. The death burial, and resurrection of Christ, which Paul explained their own baptism did for their souls, in Romans 6:3-5

".....that form of doctrine...." Was also an ongoing revelation then because the Spirit was still being poured out, and was finished by the time of the second century. The full New Testament was completed by then but was not canonized.

New_Wineskin

12th November 2004, 07:45 AM

"......that form of doctrine...." Is the gospel. The teaching of Christ from the 4 gospels. The death burial, and resurrection of Christ, which Paul explained their own baptism did for their souls, in Romans 6:3-5
Romans says nothing about 4 gospels . Those four letters incorrectly called "gospels" are not referred to in any way nor does Paul indicate in any way that he read them or that they existed when he wrote to Rome . Also , Paul writes that he came to his gospel independantly from the leaders in Jerusalem .

".....that form of doctrine...." Was also an ongoing revelation then because the Spirit was still being poured out, and was finished by the time of the second century. The full New Testament was completed by then but was not canonized.For one that writes that they consider the Scriptures as important to doctrine , you certainly come up with some doozies that are not even given as a clue in the Scriptures .

To say that the Spirit is no longer among us or is no longer being "poured out" is an amazing statement . Christianity would be redundant if it were based on acts of the flesh instead of a persoanal interaction with the Lord . As Paul stated , if that were what this is about , the writings that existed before His birth were good enough . If the set of writings incorrectly named as "New Testament" were completed by then , then this generation are no longer in the age of the new testament . An ongoing revelation means an incomplete one . That would indicate that those before them were lacking in this whole area including the gospel . I see no indication that the gospel changed from the time that Jesus was physically here and now . Indeed , the gospel was around since Adam . The Gospel is free from the confines of ink and paper . It existed before they did and is not in need of their existance now .

Iosias

12th November 2004, 09:40 AM

I agree that Christ accomplishes our salvation for us but that verse is speaking of our faith in Christ's work on our behalf.

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

God bless
I am glad to see that you have changed the words of Holy Scripture :mad:

Galatians 2
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

muffler dragon

12th November 2004, 09:46 AM

Romans says nothing about 4 gospels . Those four letters incorrectly called "gospels" are not referred to in any way nor does Paul indicate in any way that he read them or that they existed when he wrote to Rome . Also , Paul writes that he came to his gospel independantly from the leaders in Jerusalem .

Considering they weren't even named as such until the end of the second century/beginning of third speaks even more on your side.

To say that the Spirit is no longer among us or is no longer being "poured out" is an amazing statement . Christianity would be redundant if it were based on acts of the flesh instead of a persoanal interaction with the Lord . As Paul stated , if that were what this is about , the writings that existed before His birth were good enough . If the set of writings incorrectly named as "New Testament" were completed by then , then this generation are no longer in the age of the new testament . An ongoing revelation means an incomplete one . That would indicate that those before them were lacking in this whole area including the gospel . I see no indication that the gospel changed from the time that Jesus was physically here and now . Indeed , the gospel was around since Adam . The Gospel is free from the confines of ink and paper . It existed before they did and is not in need of their existance now .

Absolutely awesome statement.

Reformationist

12th November 2004, 01:49 PM

I am glad to see that you have changed the words of Holy Scripture :mad:
Don't be presumptuous. Just because I use a different version than you do doesn't mean that I've changed the words of Scripture. Where is that rolling eyes smilie when you need it...

Galatians 2
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2
16knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Gal+2%3A16&NKJV_version=yes&language=english&x=14&y=7)

If you don't believe that's what the NKJV says, click on the verse I post.

God bless

Stinker

13th November 2004, 12:04 AM

Don't be presumptuous. Just because I use a different version than you do doesn't mean that I've changed the words of Scripture. Where is that rolling eyes smilie when you need it...

Galatians 2
16knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Gal+2%3A16&NKJV_version=yes&language=english&x=14&y=7)

If you don't believe that's what the NKJV says, click on the verse I post.

God bless

".......justified by faith....." Now what kind of faith does the New Testament refer to? What 'kind' of faith? Is it a 'live' faith or 'dead' faith? Is it a 'live' faith or a 'dead' faith?

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead being alone." (James 2:17)

Reformationist

14th November 2004, 04:37 PM

".......justified by faith....." Now what kind of faith does the New Testament refer to? What 'kind' of faith? Is it a 'live' faith or 'dead' faith? Is it a 'live' faith or a 'dead' faith?

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead being alone." (James 2:17)
I'm not sure why you're asking me this unless you are just looking to get my take on it. This verse is not speaking of justification before God, nor have I described our faith so I'm not sure why you addressed this to me. There is only one kind of true faith and that is a living, vital faith. That type of faith is shown to others in our works. True faith always produces works.

Just for the record, in case you are unaware, this oft misapplied verse is speaking of faith that shows itself to be true to others by its works. This is not a reference to faith that justifies us before God, who knows our heart. Faith that justifies us before God is the faith that Paul speaks of in Romans 3:28.

God bless

James1979

14th November 2004, 11:55 PM

Reformationist

15th November 2004, 02:35 PM

Reformationist:

If you check out blueletterbible.org or com I believe and look up Gal 2:16 you'll notice that the KJV and older versions has the true meaning and NKJV and other versions that came after it had change the meaning. There is a major different if you haven't notice.

James
I looked up the verse in both versions, KJV and NKJV, and I see that they are slightly different in their wording. I also looked up the verse on blueletterbible.org and, despite what you say, blueletterbible does not define "of" separately so I'm not sure where you get the idea that there is a major difference from blueletterbible.org. Maybe you could enlighten me as to where you get the feeling that there is a "major difference."

Additionally, when we consider the meaning of the verse it is incongruous to say that it is the "faith of Jesus" that saves us as if that is a separate thing than our "faith in the works of Jesus." I'm a reformed Christian which, in case you haven't noticed, means that I am an advocate of the belief that we are reconciled to the Father solely by the works of Christ on our behalf. If you say to me that we are saved by the "faith of Christ" I would be in complete agreement. However, the means by which the merit for Christ's works is imputed to us is our faith. Granted, that faith which manifests Christ's righteousness to us is, itself, a gift from God. However, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The proper way to understand that verse, which should satisfy both of us, is to acknowledge that it is our faith in the faithful works of Christ by which the Lord imputes His meritorious works to our account. We may rightfully distinguish between the saving, faithful works of the Lord and our faith by which those works are accounted unto us but it is biblically unsound to separate them.

God bless

Stinker

15th November 2004, 11:00 PM

I'm not sure why you're asking me this unless you are just looking to get my take on it. This verse is not speaking of justification before God, nor have I described our faith so I'm not sure why you addressed this to me. There is only one kind of true faith and that is a living, vital faith. That type of faith is shown to others in our works. True faith always produces works.

Just for the record, in case you are unaware, this oft misapplied verse is speaking of faith that shows itself to be true to others by its works. This is not a reference to faith that justifies us before God, who knows our heart. Faith that justifies us before God is the faith that Paul speaks of in Romans 3:28.

God bless

Everyone that is not a Christian is commanded to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or, to have faith that He is. (Mk.16:16) (Heb.11:6) The works of the New Testament that follow this first work (Jn.6:28-29) that are required to place them in Christ, 'confession' (Rom.10:9-10) repentance (Acts 17:30) and the final act 'baptism' (Gal.3:27-Eph.1:3,7) are just as valid New Testament works as those that are performed by those already in Christ. (Eph.2:10)

racer

16th November 2004, 02:30 PM

Let's look again at this verse:

Then said they unto Him, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent." (Jn.6:28-29)

THIS is THE work of God . . . .

Faith/belief is the work of God. It is the only work commanded of us. If we possess true faith/belief in Christ, then good deeds and good fruit will naturally follow. To perform works because you consider them your "Christian duty," is a waste.

"Work" is not plural. Good deeds and outward love for our fellowman are evidence of our faith, but we must not perform these deeds for the sole purpose of convincing others that we possess true faith.

racer

16th November 2004, 02:33 PM

Also, good deeds may not necessarily be visible to other people. There may be people who do not want praise or recognition for their goodness. These people's deeds may only be known by God. So, it is not for us to determine exactly who does or does not perform good deeds.

Stinker

16th November 2004, 02:47 PM

- DRA -

16th November 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Consider Titus 2:11. God's grace has been extended to all.

Okay. I considered it. How did you understand it? Do you mean to say that you interpret Titus 2:11 to mean that God extends His salvitic grace to all people?

Yes. I understand Titus 2:11 to mean that God's grace is extended to all people. That understanding harmonizes with John 3:16 (For God so loved the world) and Mark 16:15 (the gospel was to be preached to every creature). If that understanding is NOT correct, then God didn't extend His grace to all people, God only loved some in the world, and the gospel did not need to be preached to every creature.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

However, all people will NOT be saved (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23).

The fact that not all people are saved is proof that God does not extend His salvitic grace to all people.

This is not how I understand Bible harmony works. Bible harmony works by accepting what Titus 2:11 says as being true - - "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16a - - as well as accepting that Matt. 7:13-14 is true. When I accept what both passages say, then I must accept that God's grace has indeed been extended to all people, but because all people won't be saved, then the necessary inference is that God's grace alone doesn't save us.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Therefore, the necessary inference is that we are indeed saved by God's grace e.g. Eph. 2:5, but not by it alone.

Being that Ephesians 2:5 is quite clear that we are saved by grace alone what leads you to believe that the grace of God alone is not capable of saving us?

Eph. 2:5 says, "Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)." I don't see the word "alone" in this passage. If it is implied or inferred, then other Scriptures must teach that this is so. Where is the passage(s) that teaches we are saved by grace alone? Look at Eph. 2:8. Does it teach that salvation is by grace alone?

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

There are other factors involved e.g. 1 Pet. 1:22.

DRA, this verse isn't speaking of salvation so what's your point?

Look at the context of this passage. Christians have been redeemed with the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19). Christians also play a part in the purifying of their souls (1 Pet. 1:22). How? By the faith in Christ that leads one to be born again (see verses 21 and 23). Consequently, how does one accept that salvation comes by grace alone and also accept that the Christian plays a part in the purification of his/her soul?

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

There are things that we are admonished to do because we are saved. However, there are also things that we are admonished to do in order to be saved (Acts 2:38; 8:35-39; 10:47-48; 16:30-34; 17:30; 22:16).

DRA, not one of those verses is speaking of our eternal salvation.

Sure they are. The phrase "remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 is the same expression in the Koine Greek as in Matt. 26:28 that describes Jesus' blood being shed "for the remission of sins." Also, note the jailer's question in Acts 16:30: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Then, note Paul and Silas' reply in verse 31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." In Acts 22:16 Ananias tells Saul to be baptized to wash away his sins. Since sin is what separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2; Rom. 3:23; 6:23), then the requirements that are necessary to have sins taken away are indeed speaking of/discussing our eternal salvation.

BlessedbyGod

16th November 2004, 06:14 PM

- DRA -

16th November 2004, 07:50 PM

Reformationist

16th November 2004, 09:43 PM

Faith/belief is the work of God. It is the only work commanded of us.
I'm confused. How can something that is the work of God be a work that is commanded of us? :scratch:

God bless

Telrunya

17th November 2004, 12:18 AM

I work from my faith and salvation not for it.

Stan the Man

17th November 2004, 08:00 AM

:amen:

Ephesians 2:8-9

By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should bost.

The "not of works" part is a reference to the idea that we do not enter heaven based on our own merit.

"Faith without actions is dead" because if you do not act on the convictions of your faith, it is because you do not have faith. It is nominal faith. The works are part of being called to be witnesses, and washing one another's feet. Faith in iteslf is not a work. It is "the gift of God". So you cannot claim that 'faith is a work of the New Testament, since Ephesians 2:9 undermines this claim - as does the fact that Abraham had faith and it was credited to him as righteousness - but I would agree that a nominal Christian, who 'talks the talk', but doesn't 'walk the walk' cannot claim to have faith.

I regard James' statement about faith and works as a warning to us not to avoid getting our hands dirty to help our neighbours - he specifically refers to the failure to help someone who is in need.

Jesus talked about the kind of fruit we bare - I think James is getting at the same thing. If we do not show God's love to people, can we claim to be growing in that love? If we just offer empty words to people instead of helping them, are we not just following an empty religion?

But since we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith, the important thing is to remember to allow God to act through us, so that we cannot boast in any of our good deeds, but instead give all the glory to God, who is at work in us through the Spirit.

- DRA -

17th November 2004, 01:13 PM

I'm confused. How can something that is the work of God be a work that is commanded of us? :scratch:

God bless

Faith is a requirement or commandment. It is something that we must do. Consider Acts 16:30-31. It says (NKJV), "And he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' " Think about what Paul and Silas were telling the jailer. Were they commanding God to belief for the jailer? Of course not. The word "you" is implied. They were stating/commanding that the jailer himself must believe.

John 6:28-29 says, "Then they said to Him, 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.' " Note Jesus' response. It was NOT that they didn't have to do a thing and that God would believe for them. Rather, Jesus response was that their faith in Him (Jesus) was the work of God that they should do. I think of it this way: God has laid out the evidence (see John 20:30-31), but it is up to us to accept it and obey the Lord (Heb. 5:9; 2 Thess. 1:8).

May God bless you in your efforts to study His word. :bow:

Stan the Man

17th November 2004, 01:44 PM

Accepting Jesus is an act - Yes

Faith is a work - No.

Once again:

Ephesians 2:8-9

"By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should bost."

- DRA -

17th November 2004, 02:08 PM

:amen:

Ephesians 2:8-9

By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should bost.

The "not of works" part is a reference to the idea that we do not enter heaven based on our own merit.

Excellent passage . . . and relevant to our discussion. As we consider our salvation by grace (note Eph. 2:5), now in verse 8 we see that grace must be coupled with faith.

I agree with your understanding of "not of works" in Eph. 2:8-9. It harmonizes with Luke 17:10. After obeying all that we are commanded, we are still unprofitable servants. That should help us keep things in perspective.

Is faith a work? As we consider John 6:28-29, we are left with the understanding that faith/belief is something that we do and is the work of God that Jesus expects of us. On the other hand, as we consider Eph. 2:8 we might be left with the understanding that faith is not a work. So, which passage do we accept? My understanding is that we should accept both Eph. 2:8 and John 6:28-29 because "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16a). One of the things that helps me reason with these passages that deal with our salvation under the gospel of Christ is looking at the conversions of those who became Christians in the book of Acts. Those conversions are inspired commentaries on passages that discuss our salvation in Jesus. Consider Acts 2:38. It should harmonize with our understanding of Eph. 2:8-9. If it doesn't, there is a problem somewhere in our interpretation/understanding of the truth. Is something more than faith required in Acts 2:38 for the remission of sins. If there is, then we can rest assured that "all works" are NOT under consideration in Eph. 2:8. Since repentance and baptism are both commanded for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, we must realize that the "works" of Eph. 2:8 does NOT include those things that God has told us (through the apostles) are necessary for salvation/remission of sins. Rather, it would include any works that men might look to for a means of salvation other than what God tells them to do under the gospel of Christ. None of those works can save us.

"Faith without actions is dead" because if you do not act on the convictions of your faith, it is because you do not have faith. It is nominal faith. The works are part of being called to be witnesses, and washing one another's feet. Faith in iteslf is not a work. It is "the gift of God". So you cannot claim that 'faith is a work of the New Testament, since Ephesians 2:9 undermines this claim - as does the fact that Abraham had faith and it was credited to him as righteousness - but I would agree that a nominal Christian, who 'talks the talk', but doesn't 'walk the walk' cannot claim to have faith.

I agree that we must act upon our faith. I firmly believe that is the very point being stressed in James 2:14-26.

Jesus clearly declares that faith is a work in John 6:28-29. I harmonize this passage in John by understanding that Ephesians 2:8 is focused on a specific type of works. Faith is not of the type that one could boast about (see Eph. 2:9), but faith is a work that one must do to please God e.g. John 6:28-29; Acts 8:37; Acts 16:31).

I regard James' statement about faith and works as a warning to us not to avoid getting our hands dirty to help our neighbours - he specifically refers to the failure to help someone who is in need.

Your statement is focused on only one illustration that James uses in 2:14-26. Why not consider all the illustrations that are used to describe the faith that pleases God? Consider Abraham in verses 21-24. He was justified by his "works." What were his works? They were simply his obedience to what God told him. We see that same faith demonstrated by 3,000 of the Jews in Acts chapter 2 who responded favorably to the message that the apostle Peter preached (see verses 38 & 41). Likewise, we see the Samaritans respond in the same way (see Acts 8:12-13).

Jesus talked about the kind of fruit we bare - I think James is getting at the same thing. If we do not show God's love to people, can we claim to be growing in that love? If we just offer empty words to people instead of helping them, are we not just following an empty religion?

Consider Genesis 22:12. It elaborates on what Abraham's obedience demonstrated. Likewise, we should obey God to prove our faith to Him. Without obedience to God, what good will just our words be?

But since we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith, the important thing is to remember to allow God to act through us, so that we cannot boast in any of our good deeds, but instead give all the glory to God, who is at work in us through the Spirit.

If NOT being saved by works was an absolute, we would have to rule out faith as a requirement for salvation, because faith is a work. However, we should see a problem with such thinking e.g. Heb. 11:6.

We should give indeed give the glory to God. :bow: However, how can we do that if we don't obey Him e.g. Acts 2:38,41,47 & Acts 8:35-39?

- DRA -

17th November 2004, 02:12 PM

I work from my faith and salvation not for it.

Isn't there also another angle that must be considered? . . . "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12 NKJV)

BlessedbyGod

17th November 2004, 02:24 PM

:amen:

Ephesians 2:8-9

By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should bost.

Faith in iteslf is not a work. It is "the gift of God".
I've only started hearing this in the last 2 years. I don't quite understand how you define the scriptures so. The subject matter is "you being saved" , and "it is the gift of God". By grace and through faith are prepositional phrases (if I remeber my sentence structures correctly). The "it is the gift of God" would not reference back to a prepositional phrase, but it will refer back to the subject matter.

Another way to look at this is by asking questions:
1. What is the gift of God? The simple answer is: Salvation.
2. Next, How were we saved? The simple answer: By grace (the unmerrited favour of God that allowed a sacrifice).
3. Finaly, How do we receive this salvation by Grace? Only through faith.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

God might be just if we believe (faith, a work on our part).

Stan the Man

17th November 2004, 04:07 PM

Except that the "and that not of yourselves" kinda gives it away that it is also referring to the faith aspect.

- DRA -

17th November 2004, 04:53 PM

Except that the "and that not of yourselves" kinda gives it away that it is also referring to the faith aspect.

Can you harmonize your understanding of "faith" that is "not of yourselves" with what was required in Acts 16:31? Wasn't faith/belief something the jailer himself had to do?

Stan the Man

17th November 2004, 05:56 PM

Telrunya

17th November 2004, 06:31 PM

Isn't there also another angle that must be considered? . . . "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12 NKJV)
Philippians 2:12-13 (NASB) So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Putting it into context I don't get that it is me doing the work, but God. I must remain faithful so that He will continue to work through me.

Philippians 2:14-15 Do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,

To me this verse is talking about maintaining personal holiness rather than achieving salvation.

Stan the Man

17th November 2004, 06:34 PM

Thank you for putting verse 12 in context with verse 13. I thought that verse 12 alone sounded like a contradiction of the concept of grace.

Telrunya

17th November 2004, 06:48 PM

Thank you for putting verse 12 in context with verse 13. I thought that verse 12 alone sounded like a contradiction of the concept of grace.
I always check the surrounding verses. It's easy to be misled when you don't read it in context. Thats how Mormonism was born. Thats also why many people think the bible is full of contradictions when it isn't. Eye for and Eye and Turn the other cheek for example. Keep the faith Brother *S*

- DRA -

17th November 2004, 07:57 PM

It doesn't use the phrase 'have faith' in that passage, it uses the word 'believe'.

The difference is subtle, but it is there none the less, faith and belief are not interchangeable words. Believing is an action taken on my part, but faith is the gift that God bestowes upon me.

Romans 12:3 "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."

The word "faith" is a noun from the Greek word "oligopistos." Oligopistos is from the words "oligos" (an adjective) and "pistis" (a noun). The word "believe" is a verb from the Greek word "pisteuo." Pisteuo is also from the word "pistis."

Reference source: Strong's Online

Stinker

17th November 2004, 09:33 PM

The word "faith" is a noun from the Greek word "oligopistos." Oligopistos is from the words "oligos" (an adjective) and "pistis" (a noun). The word "believe" is a verb from the Greek word "pisteuo." Pisteuo is also from the word "pistis."

Reference source: Strong's Online

So, I wonder if we are going to see a post from someone of the 'faith alone' crowd saying: "Well, God gives us the noun 'faith' but we must exercise the verb 'believe' in order to be saved.":D

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 12:02 AM

Yes. I understand Titus 2:11 to mean that God's grace is extended to all people.If God's salvitic grace has been extended to all people then why does it accomplish salvation in some and not in others? Is it your contention that the grace of God is not, in and of itself, capable of accomplishing someone's salvation but must be coupled with a work of acceptance on our part to be effective? IOW, is the efficacy of God's salvitic grace contingent upon the acceptance of the recipient? Additionally, if God extends salvitic grace to someone that won't end up saved then isn't it incorrect to call that grace salvitic grace? That would be similar to saying that you gave someone motherly love when you're not a mother.

That understanding harmonizes with John 3:16 (For God so loved the world)John 3:16? I encourage you to read the entirity of John 3:16 and try to consider what the verse says without presupposing the meaning with which you feel most comfortable. It simply does not say what you imply. There are numerous inconsistancies in that verse if we interpret it as an advocation of universal salvitic grace. First off, you have clearly read "For God so loved the world..." to be a reference to God's love for all of humanity without exception. My question to you, in that regard, is why have you interpreted "world" to mean "all people without exception?" The word "world" is from the Greek kosmos (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1100743442-7578.html), which has approximately eleven different meanings in Scripture, only one of which is "the inhabitants of the earth, i.e., the human race." Strong's interpretation of kosmos understands "world" in John 3:16 as "believers only." How did you come to the conclusion that kosmos must mean "all without exception?" Let's consider something. It is proper when interpreting Scripture to interpret the implicit in light of the explicit, the ambiguous passages of Scripture by the clear and inarguable passages of Scripture. Now, some would say, "But wait, John 3:16 is clear." To that I can only ask, if you believe "world" is a reference to the entirity of the human race, how do you reconcile that view with passages, like Psalms 5:5 and Romans 9:13, which are just as "clear" and plainly contradict the view of God's universal and invariable love for all people without exception? Additionally, the view that "world" in John 3:16 is a reference to "all people without exception" makes a farce of God's love. Look at the verse:
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Note the two portions I have highlighted. If we assume your position then we have said the same thing as is stated in the following statement from a parent to his four children, Tommy, Johnny, Kelly and Julie:

"I love you all so much that I'm going to rescue Johnny and Kelly from this fire."
To that I offer a resounding "huh?" :scratch: How does selective salvation imply universal love?

John 3:16 doesn't say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that no one perish but all will have everlasting life." John 3:16 specifically says that God gave His only begotten Son so that believers will not perish but have everlasting life. He did this because He loved them. Your contention, as I stated, makes the love of God impotent to save all whom He loves. In effect, God is powerless to rescue everyone that He loves and is only able to accomplish their salvation if they add to the death of Christ their belief. And lastly, we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). If faith is the vehicle by which God delivers unto us His salvitic grace and I would venture to say that we are in agreement that there are many without faith, how is it that God delivers His salvitic grace to those with no faith? Does He have a different method for those who have no faith? Additionally, that faith through which God extends to us His salvitic grace is not something inherent to our fallen nature. In our unregenerate state we have no faith in God. Faith in God is something that is added to our nature. Again, Ephesians 2:8 is clear that the faith through which God extends to us His salvitic grace is "not of ourselves; it is a gift of God." IOW, the faith which God uses to deliver unto us His slavitic grace, the faith which saves, the faith that He demands...He supplies. St. Augustine recognized this very thing:
"Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt." - St. Augustine
and Mark 16:15 (the gospel was to be preached to every creature).What? How does our commission to spread the Gospel to every creature imply God's love for all creatures? Additionally, it's not as if God is waiting with bated breath to see who will respond to the Gospel in faith. Think about it. If God knows who will respond in faith, and He is the One who gives that faith in the first place (Eph 2:8; Phil 1:6), how does His demand that we spread the Gospel indicate His desire that all embrace it by faith? If God knows, and He surely does, that faith is necessary to submit to His teachings (Romans 8:7; 10:17; 1 Cor 1:18) then why would He work against Himself by commanding that we spread the Gospel to those to whom He has never given faith? The reason that we are commanded to spread the Gospel to all people without exception, insofar as it is in our power to do so, is twofold. First, God effectually calls those He has chosen in Himself before the foundations of the world through the message of the Word (1 Cor 1:21) and we are priviledged to participate in His sovereign work of gathering of His sheep. We are not omniscient and, as such, have no knowledge of whom the Lord has elected unto belief and salvation. Therefore, we spread the Word to all people knowing that the Lord will manifest Its power in those He has chosen. In fact, it is only because the Lord has predestined His elect before the foundations of the world and has promised to effectually call them, justify them, and glorify them that we know our spreading of the Word is not in vain. Because of the faithfulness of the Lord, we, as His messengers, can be confident that He will bring to pass exactly what He desires and nothing and no one can stay His divine hand from accomplishing His sovereign will. And secondly, the light of the Gospel reveals the darkness of man and, in doing so, makes them guilty of their transgressions against God. Actually, there is a third reason for the Law, that it be the model for government, but that isn't really applicable to this.

If that understanding is NOT correct, then God didn't extend His grace to all people, God only loved some in the world, and the gospel did not need to be preached to every creature.God doesn't extend His SALVITIC grace to all people, God only loves His elect, and the Gospel must be preaced in all the world because He has commanded that we do so and, as I previously stated, it is the means by which His elected are effectually called into His flock.

This is not how I understand Bible harmony works. Bible harmony works by accepting what Titus 2:11 says as being trueTitus 2:11 says "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." It doesn't say "For the grace of God that brings salvation to all men has appeared to all men." This is merely saying that Jesus, by Whom is wrought our salvation (i.e., the salvation of those who are/will be saved), has been made clearly known to all mankind. Though many will deny the validity of His ordination as King they cannot do so with impunity. There is a definitive knowledge of God that non-believers seek to suppress and pervert. This rebellion doesn't nullify their culpability, nor does it deny what they know in their hearts to be true.

- - "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16aUmmm...how did the question of the reliability of Scripture come into this discussion? "All" is an exhaustive reference to the infallibility and applicability of Scripture, a point I agree with, not people so what point are you making?

as well as accepting that Matt. 7:13-14 is true.Again, how does Matthew 7:13,14 have any bearing whatsoever on who are the recipients of God's salvitic grace? All Matthew 7:13,14 does is define that many will perish and some will be saved. What's your point?

When I accept what both passages say, then I must accept that God's grace has indeed been extended to all people, but because all people won't be saved, then the necessary inference is that God's grace alone doesn't save us.Wow. :eek: Okay. Good luck with that.

Eph. 2:5 says, "Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)." I don't see the word "alone" in this passage. If it is implied or inferred, then other Scriptures must teach that this is so.You have got to be kidding me. If not by grace alone then by what, grace and works? Oh, that's right, works are out of the questions because God specifically says that your salvation is "not of works, lest you should boast." It is not an "inference." It's as clear as if the word alone had been present, bolded and underlined. Do you truly believe that salvation is not by grace alone or are you just being contrary?

Where is the passage(s) that teaches we are saved by grace alone?
To deny salvation by grace alone is to claim that we either merit our salvation in some way or to claim that without our assistance God is unable to save us. Essentially, you are claiming that God is impotent to save us without our help. Is that truly a position you want to take?

Look at Eph. 2:8. Does it teach that salvation is by grace alone?
Absolutely. Not only does it clearly point out that the vehicle through which God delivers and manifests His salvitic grace to us is, itself, the unmerited gift of God, it completely and authoritatively rule out our works as either the basis or as contributory componants of God's monergistic work of salvation. If not by grace alone, what is salvation by?

Look at the context of this passage. Christians have been redeemed with the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19).
Okay. And yet you claim that salvation is not solely by the grace of God. Tell me, did you deserve to have the blood of Christ shed on your behalf? Either way, verse 18 isn't the verse we were reflecting upon. Verse 22 deals not with salvation but with sanctification through obedience.

Christians also play a part in the purifying of their souls (1 Pet. 1:22). How? By the faith in Christ that leads one to be born again (see verses 21 and 23).
This is one of the most illogical and unbiblical things you've stated up to this point. What, pray tell, does one need to be born again unto if they already have faith? Having faith is the product of God's work of regeneration (rebirthing you), not the catalyst to it. Being born again is solely by the power and authority of God, not the result of something you do, nor does He base His work of regeneration on some foreknowledge of your righteous inclinations. First off, prior to being reborn from above, we have no righteous inclinations. Secondly, if He based His work of regeneration on His foreknowledge of your works then He couldn't say it's not based on your works. Pretty simple.

Consequently, how does one accept that salvation comes by grace alone and also accept that the Christian plays a part in the purification of his/her soul?
Easily. Salvation is an everlasting and monergistic work of God. "Purification of the soul" is referring to sanctification.
Originally Posted by: - DRA -
There are things that we are admonished to do because we are saved. However, there are also things that we are admonished to do in order to be saved (Acts 2:38; 8:35-39; 10:47-48; 16:30-34; 17:30; 22:16).

Sure they are. The phrase "remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 is the same expression in the Koine Greek as in Matt. 26:28 that describes Jesus' blood being shed "for the remission of sins."
"For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1100746306-8051.html)

Also, note the jailer's question in Acts 16:30: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Then, note Paul and Silas' reply in verse 31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."
DRA, with all due respect, this is merely to show the relationship between faith and salvation. I do not, nor have I, denied that faith is a necessary componant of salvation. What I deny is the idea that you're purporting which is that believing in the Lord unto salvation is some inalienable and inherent power of the fallen will. It simply is not and until you recognize the loss of the fallen nature's liberty you'll continue to purport these types of unbiblical notions. Saving faith is necessary and it is a gift of God's grace. So, God demands it and supplies it. He supplies it because it is not something that is inherent to our nature, nor is it something we can manufacture.

In Acts 22:16 Ananias tells Saul to be baptized to wash away his sins. Since sin is what separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2; Rom. 3:23; 6:23), then the requirements that are necessary to have sins taken away are indeed speaking of/discussing our eternal salvation.
Are you actually contending that water baptism effects some supernatural power to save someone? Do you honestly believe that water baptism washes away sin? Water baptism is an outward sign of an inward cleansing. It is the public profession of alignment and union with Christ. It is, itself, incapable of renewing anyone's heart unto salvation.

God bless

BlessedbyGod

18th November 2004, 02:51 AM

Reromationist,

Wow. Long post. It's been along time since I've seen scriptures put forth in that manner. What doctrine does that fall under? Salvation without works? I only ask as a refresher for my own memory.

I use to think like that. Actually, I still do to some degree. A few questions got me studying it from a different angle many years ago.

Would God send people to a lake of fire to eternaly be tormented who never had a chance to be saved because they were not chosen from the foundations of the world?

God gave adam and eve a choice and HE gives all mankind a choice today. The way I see it, election/predestination is to them who choose christ through faith. From the foundations of the world, God knew that man would be in a fallen state and require a way back in, through faith. If we do not choose (freewill) christ, then we do not fall into God's predestination, but, if we choose christ then we fall into God's predestination in that HE determined from the begginning that we could be conformed to HIS image through HIS son through FAith in HIS blood.

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 03:24 AM

As I see it you all are bouncing back and forth on what is included in Faith. Is Faith a stand alone or is their works that go with faith?

I've bounced back and forth on this very subject for years, but one verse tilts the scale for me toward Faith + Works = Salvation.

James2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

The answer that James would give is: NO, Faith without works cannot save a man. Based on the context, I believe James was refering to the Saving of the Soul. Faith alone cannot save the soul.

I guess this would bring up the question, So, What works go with faith? Repentance, baptism, and continuing in Christ.
Let me see if I can spread some light on James' position. If you look at the entire passage something becomes clear. James' point is not that true faith alone does not save. What he is saying is that a mere profession of faith, which is shown to others to be spurious by the lack of accompanying works, is not a living, vital, saving faith. It is, in fact, not faith at all. Let's look at the immediate context to verify this:

James 2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

In verse 14 James is differentiating between the profession of a false faith, which is shown to be false, or "dead," by the lack of accompanying works and the unspoken, i.e., faith that is accompanied by works of obedience. James is not denying that we are saved by faith alone. What James is denying is that we are saved by a profession of faith alone. His point is the same point that advocates of grace alone by faith alone through Christ alone advocates make, i.e., true faith is always accompanied by works.

James 2:15-17
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.[/quote]
Here again, James is differentiating between spurious faith, which in this case is his analogy of the advice to "depart in peace, be warmed and filled" without the necessary accompaniment of "the things which are needed for the body" and true faith, which would be the same advice coupled with the applicable works. It is not that the works add to or make meritorious the faith. It is that faith is clearly not saving faith unless it is accompanied by works because true faith is ALWAYS accompanied by works.

James 2:18
But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Now, this is a blatantly clear verse that shows the difference between what James is speaking of and what Paul was speaking of Romans 3:28 when he said that "man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Here, and in verse 21, James is clearly talking about the public manifestation of the validity of a person's profession of faith. Here James says, "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." This "justification" is not the pronouncement of justification which God passes upon all those who have been saved by faith alone. You see, the difference between these seemingly contradictory teachings is nothing less than the difference between man and God, the finite and the infinite, the limited knowledge of a created being and the omniscience of the Lord God. James was speaking simply of justification in human eyes while Paul, when he said man is justified apart from the deeds of the law, was speaking of our justification by God through faith alone. The type of justification that James is speaking of is the same justification that is meant in Luke 7:35:

Luke 7:35
But wisdom is justified by all her children.

Consider this. The word in James 2:18, deiknuo, which is rendered "show" is closely related to the word, dikaioo, which is the word that is rendered "justified" in verse 21. Look at the meanings of the two words:

deiknuo:
1) to show, expose to the eyes
2) metaph.
a) to give evidence or proof of a thing
b) to show by words or teach

dikaioo:
1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

They are basically the same word with the same meaning. So, to summarize, James is speaking of our faith being justified, i.e., shown to others be true faith, by the fact that it is accompanied by works. James is not saying that true faith is not, in and of itself, the means of salvation via the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. He is merely defining that true faith is shown to be true faith, i.e., faith that is alive and vital, by it being accompanied by works.

God bless

James1979

18th November 2004, 03:35 AM

Would God send people to a lake of fire to eternaly be tormented who never had a chance to be saved because they were not chosen from the foundations of the world?

Yes God will send people in the lake of fire. Not just because they weren't chosen, because they deserve it just like the elect deserve to pay for their sins but Jesus has them covered. God doesn't wait for our response to his word, God has to make the first move to save an indiviual.

Adam/Eve had freewill because they weren't slaves to sin, so they had the ability to obey God or disobey God and we know what happen. For us, we are slaves to sin automatically because of what Adam/Eve did. There is no first choice in our lives to obey God, we are sinners in our mother's womb(we are disobedient already) So do you think we have the free will to follow God even though we are not in the same position as Adam/Eve once were. We don't have freewill, we love darkness rather than light. The only way we can get back in light is God had to elect us through Jesus being the sacrfice and then God has to apply his word to our lives.

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 03:36 AM

Faith is a requirement or commandment. It is something that we must do. Consider Acts 16:30-31. It says (NKJV), "And he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' " Think about what Paul and Silas were telling the jailer. Were they commanding God to belief for the jailer? Of course not. The word "you" is implied. They were stating/commanding that the jailer himself must believe.
I never said we musn't believe so I don't know why you're pursuing that point the way you are. My point is simply that God requires of us faith and, being that faith is something that is foreign to our fallen nature, provides it according to His righteous providence.

John 6:28-29 says, "Then they said to Him, 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.' " Note Jesus' response. It was NOT that they didn't have to do a thing and that God would believe for them.
Again, I never claimed that Christians can sit back and let God do the believing for them. However, unregenerate man is incapable of believing in God because he views the message of the Gospel as foolishness and, due to that view of the Gospel and his inherently rebellious disposition toward God, is unable to submit to His authority (Romans 8:7).

Rather, Jesus response was that their faith in Him (Jesus) was the work of God that they should do. I think of it this way: God has laid out the evidence (see John 20:30-31), but it is up to us to accept it and obey the Lord (Heb. 5:9; 2 Thess. 1:8).
None of those verses even come close to implying any such thing. Jesus wasn't saying, "Hey, God believes in me, you should too." He was saying, "If you believe in Me, whom He sent, it's by the work of God in you." This is basically a parallel to Phil 1:6 and 2:13:

Phil 1:6
He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ

Philippians 2:13
for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

May God bless you in your efforts to study His word. :bow:
And you as well.

God bless

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 03:37 AM

Isn't there also another angle that must be considered? . . . "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12 NKJV)
Don't forget verse 13:

Phil 2:13
for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. :)

WesWoodell

18th November 2004, 03:41 AM

So your point is that God created the majority of mankind to willfully sentence them to eternal damnation?

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 03:54 AM

I've only started hearing this in the last 2 years. I don't quite understand how you define the scriptures so. The subject matter is "you being saved" , and "it is the gift of God". By grace and through faith are prepositional phrases (if I remeber my sentence structures correctly). The "it is the gift of God" would not reference back to a prepositional phrase, but it will refer back to the subject matter.
Actually that's grammatically incorrect. The "and that" must refer to that which immediately proceeds it. Even if, as some contend, the "and that" refers to having been saved we still cannot isolate the result, i.e., salvation, from the means, i.e., faith, because in doing so we invalidate the statement that salvation is not of yourself because, at the least, it is partially of yourself. In fact, "yourself and your faith" plays such a vital and pivitol role in your salvation that you have plenty of reason to boast. On the other hand, if we understand that verse to be referring specifically to saving faith not being "of ourselves" then we would render that verse to say that the means/vehicle by which God saves us is not something of ourselves but is, instead, a gift of God's grace so we have no reason to boast because the means by which God saved us wasn't inherent to us. It was foreign to our nature.

Another way to look at this is by asking questions:
1. What is the gift of God? The simple answer is: Salvation.
2. Next, How were we saved? The simple answer: By grace (the unmerrited favour of God that allowed a sacrifice).
3. Finaly, How do we receive this salvation by Grace? Only through faith.
For the record, all those statements are true. However, there should be a number 4:

4. Where did this faith come from? It was a gift of God's unmerited favor.

In other words, God decreed salvation by grace through faith and then supplied unto His elect the necessary faith.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

God might be just if we believe (faith, a work on our part).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but are you contending that that passage is saying that the justness of God is dependent upon our belief? For the record, "might" does not mean "maybe" or "could possibly be." It means "to be."

God bless

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 03:59 AM

Can you harmonize your understanding of "faith" that is "not of yourselves" with what was required in Acts 16:31? Wasn't faith/belief something the jailer himself had to do?
The implication that you're making is the same implication that Erasmus made that was soundly refuted by Luther, i.e., that a command to do something necessitates ability to do it. If God says for someone to have faith in Him then we must distinguish between the imparative and the indicative.

Do you believe that if we are told to do something in the Gospel we have the inate ability to comply?

The ironic thing is that these types of imperative statements, like the one you posted, which are so often used to justify things like "free will" and "responsible grace" are, in actuality, given to show us how incapable we are of complying. These commands are given to show us the helplessness of our fallen will, not its strength.

God bless

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 04:21 AM

Reromationist,

Wow. Long post.Sorry about that. DRA committed a long post to the thread and I felt that he deserved the same time and attention he had provided the rest of us.

It's been along time since I've seen scriptures put forth in that manner. What doctrine does that fall under? Salvation without works? I only ask as a refresher for my own memory.I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Salvation is solely by the grace of God, accomplished by the triune work of the Godhead, i.e., ordination by the Father, atonement by the Son, regeneration and indwelling by the Spirit.

Would God send people to a lake of fire to eternaly be tormented who never had a chance to be saved because they were not chosen from the foundations of the world?Chance. There's that pesky word again. It pops up from time to time. Let me first say, there is no such thing as "chance" in theological discussions. There are mysteries but chance is a non-thing. Chance has no power. Chance has no being. There is not one single person ever created who was ever saved because of "chance." So, in answer to your question, I will simply say that if a person was never saved then it's not an accident. If they never heard the Gospel, it's not an accident. If they are born, live, and die without ever being told of the saving work of Christ, it wasn't an accident. We can either believe God is sovereign, omnipotent and omnipresent and, as such, providentially ordains where you're born, whom your parents are, what faiths you are exposed to, whom you encounter, how long you live, and when you die or we can believe we are saved by "chance."

God gave adam and eve a choice and HE gives all mankind a choice today.Okay. I don't disagree. Is it your contention that man's will is just as free from the power of sin as pre-Fall man was?

The way I see it, election/predestination is to them who choose christ through faith. From the foundations of the world, God knew that man would be in a fallen state and require a way back in, through faith. If we do not choose (freewill) christ, then we do not fall into God's predestination, but, if we choose christ then we fall into God's predestination in that HE determined from the begginning that we could be conformed to HIS image through HIS son through FAith in HIS blood.I'm sorry but this makes no sense when speaking of an omniscient God. It is incongruous to claim that God had this club called "the election club" but didn't ordain who would be in it. Even if you contend that His election, which the Bible very clearly says was before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4), is based on His foreknowledge of what you'd choose of your own volition apart from His divine intercession, you cannot submit that God didn't know who those specific people were. If you do, you deny God's divine attribute of omniscience, and ultimately, God's self revelation. You see, what you're purporting is that God had this "container" in which all believers will exist but didn't decree who will be in there. So, our obvious question to this would be, how do believers get in there. Your position is that we get in there because we "choose Christ" and then *poof* we're part of God's predestination. Now, forget every verse about not boasting because you must, at the very least, acknowledge that you're part of God's predestined elect because you made the right choice. So, in fact, you're not saved by grace at all. You're saved by making the right choice, a work. Now, you can deny this and claim "I'm not saying I earn my salvation. I don't deserve to be saved because I made the right choice." The is irrelevent. Your position, as stated, is that God's predestination is arbitrary until it is defined by the choice you make.

I must ask you, if His predestination is not specific, does that mean that God is indifferent to your personal salvation? Would He have been just as satisfied if you'd made the wrong choice? :scratch:

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 04:22 AM

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 04:25 AM

So your point is that God created the majority of mankind to willfully sentence them to eternal damnation?
Who is this directed at? Me? If so, I have no clue what percent of mankind God has ordained to bring to salvation. I know that the Bible intimates that the path leading to destruction is wide while the gate leading to salvation is narrow but I don't know that that means that a majority will go to hell.

God bless

WesWoodell

18th November 2004, 04:29 AM

Exactly.

Your previous posts seem to imply that a person doesn't have a choice when it comes to accepting the gift of salvation from Jesus. Is this correct?

Stan the Man

18th November 2004, 10:34 AM

the path leading to destruction is wide while the gate leading to salvation is narrow but I don't know that that means that a majority will go to hell

Well, actually, it says in there that many will follow the path to destruction and few will follow the path to salvation, so the ratio of condemned to saved is stated within that passage.

The word "faith" is a noun from the Greek word "oligopistos." Oligopistos is from the words "oligos" (an adjective) and "pistis" (a noun). The word "believe" is a verb from the Greek word "pisteuo." Pisteuo is also from the word "pistis."

Which means that faith cannot be a work... faith is a noun... believe is a verb, you can only class an action as a work, and you can only have an action that involves doing something, therefore you can only have a work that involves a verb, not a noun.

In response to the idea of whether or not someone gets a choice in accepting the salvation that comes through Christ, the fact that God knows whether or not you will accept this salvation, doesn't mean that you have no choice, it simply means that God knows what you will decide to do, before you do. In fact, he knew the choices you would make before the world had even been created. That doesn't eliminate free will or choice, it just acknowledges that God is all-knowing and isn't bound by the parameters of time.

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 03:09 PM

Your previous posts seem to imply that a person doesn't have a choice when it comes to accepting the gift of salvation from Jesus. Is this correct?
Salvation is something done to us. I don't mean to imply that it is done against our will. However, I do mean that it is solely a work of God, from start to finish. The salvation of the elect is ordained in eternity by the Father, accomplished in reality (temporally) by the Son, and manifested in us personally by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit indwelling us. Your question is rather a strawman to me because salvation isn't something that is regulated by our acceptance. On the contrary, our "acceptance" to be a child of God is result of God monergistically working in us to regenerate us unto life in His Son. Prior to that we are dead in our trespasses and wholly aligned against God. Our only "choice" at that point that we would even consider making is to rebel.

You see, you, like many others, seem to want to be credited with casting the deciding vote in your salvation. I can only assume that the reason for this is twofold. One, you have a very watered down view of how man's volitional liberty was corrupted by original sin and two, because you view your salvation as something that is about you. In reality, though you clearly benefit from the mercy and grace of God on an eternal level, your salvation is wrought to glorify God and show His mercy. Your acceptance is the result of being saved, not the determinitive factor.

God bless

Stan the Man

18th November 2004, 03:10 PM

:amen:

"He is the author and perfector of our faith."

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 03:15 PM

Well, actually, it says in there that many will follow the path to destruction and few will follow the path to salvation, so the ratio of condemned to saved is stated within that passage.
Yes, I agree. However, the percentage of those justifiably condemned versus those who are mercifully redeemed by the blood of Christ is not knowledge that the Lord has chosen to reveal to us so I prefer not to speculate. However, many following the path to destruction and few following the path unto salvation is fine by me. :)

In response to the idea of whether or not someone gets a choice in accepting the salvation that comes through Christ, the fact that God knows whether or not you will accept this salvation, doesn't mean that you have no choice, it simply means that God knows what you will decide to do, before you do. In fact, he knew the choices you would make before the world had even been created. That doesn't eliminate free will or choice, it just acknowledges that God is all-knowing and isn't bound by the parameters of time.
God doesn't just "know" what we will choose. He ordains whatsoever comes to pass. That is not an advocation of determinism or fatalism. It is merely a recognition that God, being omnipotent as well as omniscient, has the knowledge of what could happen as well as the knowledge of what will happen and also has the power to stop something from happening or ensure that it does happen. The bottom line is that God is not a bystander. His will is done.

God bless

Stan the Man

18th November 2004, 03:25 PM

:thumbsup:

Yes indeed, apologies for the ambiguity in my post, I totally agree with the above post.

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 03:38 PM

:thumbsup:

Yes indeed, apologies for the ambiguity in my post, I totally agree with the above post.
No apologies bro. You are clearly very well grounded in your faith and I have thoroughly enjoyed your insights.

God bless

- DRA -

18th November 2004, 05:02 PM

If God's salvitic grace has been extended to all people then why does it accomplish salvation in some and not in others? Is it your contention that the grace of God is not, in and of itself, capable of accomplishing someone's salvation but must be coupled with a work of acceptance on our part to be effective? IOW, is the efficacy of God's salvitic grace contingent upon the acceptance of the recipient? Additionally, if God extends salvitic grace to someone that won't end up saved then isn't it incorrect to call that grace salvitic grace? That would be similar to saying that you gave someone motherly love when you're not a mother.

Consider Acts chapter 2. Some of the Jews were convicted of crucifying the Christ, but some were not. Why not? Were does the blame fall? Was it upon the message? Or, was it upon the hearer? Consider Jesus' illustration to the Jews in Matt. 23:37 and what He says is the reason that they didn't come to Him - - "You were not willing!"

God has extended his grace to all e.g. Titus 2:11. Consequently, He is willing to accept any who fear Him and work righteousness (Acts 10:34-35). Consider the message of Jesus' death on the cross. It is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to the believer it is the power of God (see 1 Cor. 1:18-25). Does a person's perspective change what Jesus did upon the cross? Doesn't it just affect whether or not they accept His sacrifice?

Stan the Man

18th November 2004, 05:16 PM

Doesn't God make us? Does he not design our very nature and character? Will that not influence our perception.

All things are from God, all things are through God, and all things are to God.

BlessedbyGod

18th November 2004, 06:01 PM

So your point is that God created the majority of mankind to willfully sentence them to eternal damnation?
This is the point I tried to make a few posts back. This whole idea that we don't have a part in salvation makes God unjust. It also makes all mankind into idiots who cannot understand the simple ideas written in the bible. That simple idea being "belief" and "faith" in God for salvation. So much of the bible centers around our "faith" and "belief" as something on our part.

This debate has gone beyond the simple question: Is faith a work on our part? It has jumped into many other debates.

The bible is clear according to most all references that Faith is our work (freewill choice) in matters of salvation. We must take the first step through our freewill choice. At this point, God will proove that HE is God. It is at this point that God will also proove us, to the saving of the soul. Salvation is a process of continuation. Heb 6:18 "...who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19 which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil:"

Faith was also our work in matters of healing. Jesus himself said many times, "your faith", "according to your faith", etc... There are many lessons we can learn from this. One being, that man has faith to accomplish many things, and, putting that faith in God allows miricles.

The bible is also clear that after we become saved that God gives us a measure of faith, which is in excess of our faith in salvation. This faith is from God and is HIS doing, but, we still must choose to access this additional faith. Many times, this faith is applied to us as members of the body of christ and is for building up the church to greater hieghts in God. Still, we have freewill choice to use this faith through yeilding and choosing to do. Once we choose, then it is God who is working in us that which is well pleasing unto HIM. To think otherwise would make us into robots and God has the remote control and we have no say or responsibility in our actions.

Let me end with this point. Faith is something that we have from birth. More specificaly, all mankind, all creation, even the rocks and trees. All mankind is without excuse in this matter. God has put into every man from birth, faith in HIM. The question is, Do we put that faith back into God, Do we respond with actions?

Rom8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

All creation, including mankind has an expectation for something unseen. Furthermore, God has provided a means for us to approach unto HIM. The question is, How do we respond? What is our choice? Do we put our God given Faith into beleiving the Gospel message? Do we put OUR faith in God? Do we TAKE ACTION? Faith requires work/action, therefore faith is a work.

BlessedbyGod

18th November 2004, 06:36 PM

Sorry about that. DRA committed a long post to the thread and I felt that he deserved the same time and attention he had provided the rest of us.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Salvation is solely by the grace of God, accomplished by the triune work of the Godhead, i.e., ordination by the Father, atonement by the Son, regeneration and indwelling by the Spirit.

Chance. There's that pesky word again. It pops up from time to time. Let me first say, there is no such thing as "chance" in theological discussions. There are mysteries but chance is a non-thing. Chance has no power. Chance has no being. There is not one single person ever created who was ever saved because of "chance." So, in answer to your question, I will simply say that if a person was never saved then it's not an accident. If they never heard the Gospel, it's not an accident. If they are born, live, and die without ever being told of the saving work of Christ, it wasn't an accident. We can either believe God is sovereign, omnipotent and omnipresent and, as such, providentially ordains where you're born, whom your parents are, what faiths you are exposed to, whom you encounter, how long you live, and when you die or we can believe we are saved by "chance."

Okay. I don't disagree. Is it your contention that man's will is just as free from the power of sin as pre-Fall man was?

I'm sorry but this makes no sense when speaking of an omniscient God. It is incongruous to claim that God had this club called "the election club" but didn't ordain who would be in it. Even if you contend that His election, which the Bible very clearly says was before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4), is based on His foreknowledge of what you'd choose of your own volition apart from His divine intercession, you cannot submit that God didn't know who those specific people were. If you do, you deny God's divine attribute of omniscience, and ultimately, God's self revelation. You see, what you're purporting is that God had this "container" in which all believers will exist but didn't decree who will be in there. So, our obvious question to this would be, how do believers get in there. Your position is that we get in there because we "choose Christ" and then *poof* we're part of God's predestination. Now, forget every verse about not boasting because you must, at the very least, acknowledge that you're part of God's predestined elect because you made the right choice. So, in fact, you're not saved by grace at all. You're saved by making the right choice, a work. Now, you can deny this and claim "I'm not saying I earn my salvation. I don't deserve to be saved because I made the right choice." The is irrelevent. Your position, as stated, is that God's predestination is arbitrary until it is defined by the choice you make.

I must ask you, if His predestination is not specific, does that mean that God is indifferent to your personal salvation? Would He have been just as satisfied if you'd made the wrong choice? :scratch:
Actually, it is relevant. Freewill choice is very relevant to this discussion. That is why I stated in another post that this debate has turned into a whole nother debate, because in order to accept your view on "faith is not a work" requires us to accept many other views.

To the "indefferent", yes, God is not a repecter of persons. God provided a sacrifice for all mankind. God would that NONE SHOULD PERISH, but that all should come to repentance.

IJohn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

In other words, God has provided an umbrella for all mankind to get under. The question is, Do we choose to get under that umbrella? We have a choice, and we must show faith with actions.

As far as foreknowledge and omniscience, this all depends on how you view God's ability to perform these functions, or abilities. My understanding is very similar to Open View Theism. God know all possible choices that we could ever possibly make and HE knows the results of all these possible choices all the way up to the end of time and how all mankinds possible choices will affect each other. I can freewill choose left or right, and God will know the results of both, yet I retain my ability to have a freewill choice. This brings up the very question of: Why did God have to proove Israel? To know what they would do. Weather they would choose God or not. This shows that God did not know what they would choose, but HE knew the results of both choices. Dueteronomy 28 gives the outcome of both choices, life and death, blessing and cursing. "choose you this day whom ye will serve, as for me and my family we will choose the Lord."

Again, this is another debate. Your view makes freewill an illusion, and also makes the bible not acurate in that it paints a picture of the illusion of freewill choice. In other words, the bible is not correct in its idea that we have freewill.

Reformationist

18th November 2004, 08:52 PM

Consider Acts chapter 2. Some of the Jews were convicted of crucifying the Christ, but some were not. Why not? Were does the blame fall? Was it upon the message? Or, was it upon the hearer? Consider Jesus' illustration to the Jews in Matt. 23:37 and what He says is the reason that they didn't come to Him - - "You were not willing!"
I have never denied that the blame for rebellion falls upon the hearer of the message so I'm not sure what your point is. My point to you has always been that man's inherent proclivity is to rebel and, in fact, he will only rebel unless his nature, and thus inclinations, are changed by the work of God. You seem to be assuming that because Jesus acknowledges that some were not willing means that man, in his carnal state, is inherently able to overcome his sole desire to rebel and, instead, submit to the law. Unfortunately for your position, Romans 8:7 flatly denies man's inherent ability to submit to the law.

God has extended his grace to all e.g. Titus 2:11.
You keep citing 2:11 as if it says that God extends His grace to all mankind. The grace which has appeared to all men is Jesus Christ. This guilty knowledge of God which carnal man naturally seeks to suppress doesn't mean that the grace of God which overcomes man's inherently obstinate nature has failed or that it has even been extended to all. Try sticking with what the text says.

Consequently, He is willing to accept any who fear Him and work righteousness (Acts 10:34-35).
So God accepts man because man fears Him and works righteousness? Well, so much for not deserving salvation.

Consider the message of Jesus' death on the cross. It is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to the believer it is the power of God (see 1 Cor. 1:18-25).
Agreed, which is why I've quoted that verse. Tell me something, why is it that some believe and some don't?

Does a person's perspective change what Jesus did upon the cross?
Of course not.

Doesn't it just affect whether or not they accept His sacrifice?
You keep speaking of "accepting His sacrifice" as if doing so holds some eternal ramifications. Jesus' sacrifice accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish, i.e., atonement for the sins of God's elect. What, pray tell, does their "acceptance" of it have to do with anything? :scratch:

Stan the Man

19th November 2004, 07:18 AM

because in order to accept your view on "faith is not a work" requires us to accept many other views.

No dude, you just need to accept the rules of basic grammar. You cannot say that a noun is a work, unless the word also exists as a verb, which in this case it doesn't. Since faith is a part of the spiritual armour, it is clearly a noun - so you can't state that it's a work, purely because of basic grammar.

BlessedbyGod

19th November 2004, 03:41 PM

No dude, you just need to accept the rules of basic grammar. You cannot say that a noun is a work, unless the word also exists as a verb, which in this case it doesn't. Since faith is a part of the spiritual armour, it is clearly a noun - so you can't state that it's a work, purely because of basic grammar.
Ok, sir, I agree. But, a noun can show a person, place, or thing that is of action. For example, racer, boxer, runner, etc...Let me use the word fighter. A fighter fights. "we can't win without a fighter." The idea is clear that a fighter will have to fight in order to win.

Having faith is very similar. Having faith requires us to believe in the unseen, or to have hope. Having faith implies the power to act, just as having power implies the power to act. A man of faith, is a man of action. One of the qualities of faith is that it must be coupled with works. You cannot seperate faith from works.

Reformationist

19th November 2004, 03:58 PM

Actually, it is relevant. Freewill choice is very relevant to this discussion.

We're discussing the issue of salvation so your "freewill choice" is only relevent if you believe you become a child of God because of the choice you make, which is an unbiblical assertation.

That is why I stated in another post that this debate has turned into a whole nother debate, because in order to accept your view on "faith is not a work" requires us to accept many other views.

Aside from the fact that I think you have yet to grasp my position on faith vs. works, what else does my view require us to accept?

To the "indefferent", yes, God is not a repecter of persons.
Wow. Well, first off, God not being a respector of persons means that He doesn't save anyone based on any attribute He finds in them. God not being a respector of persons does NOT mean that God is indifferent to the eternal disposition of His elect. On the contrary, His special and effective love for them is one of the primary reasons He sent His Son to atone for them. Do you actually believe that God could care less whether you are saved or not?

God provided a sacrifice for all mankind.
Really? Let me see if I grasp what you're saying. You believe that God, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, the Ruler omnipotent, the source of all power sent His Son to die with the express purpose of atoning for the sins of "all mankind." In fact, you don't only claim that that was God's intent, you acknowledge that He actually provided the sacrifice that He required. Tell me something. If God "provided a sacrifice for all mankind" why is it that that sacrifice doesn't achieve the intent for which It was sent?

God would that NONE SHOULD PERISH, but that all should come to repentance.
Ahhh yes. Good old 2 Peter 3:9. Well, that is a verse that deserves its own thread but, since you have referenced it, I will address it. First off, 2 Peter 3:9, aside from being one of the most misapplied and misunderstood verses in the entire Bible (and that's saying something), simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Have you considered the very first words of that verse, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise..." Tell me, to whom is the promise made? But wait, that's not all, "but is longsuffering toward us..." To whom is God longsuffering? Who is the audience of 2 Peter? Let's look, "Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..." Hmmmm....take a look from 2 Peter 1:1 all the way up to and including 2 Peter 3:9, the verse in question. Critically examine every verse and whom it is addressing. I encourage you to do it but I will tell you, for the sake of brevity, EVERY SINGLE PERSONAL POSSESIVE REFERENCE, i.e., you, your, our, us, we, etc., is a reference to BELIEVERS while "they" and "them" are references to non-believers, specifically the false prophets. The entire context up to that point revolves around Peter's encouragement to believers to remain steadfast in their faith and not be led astray by false teachings, such as the insufficiency of the Lord's atonement and the false belief of His return. After his encouragement to remain steadfast he comes to his point, i.e., 2 Peter 3:9:

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

That verse, despite the fact that so many "free will, everyone has a chance at salvation" advocates wish to apply a universal meaning to it, is actually very exclusive. In fact, it is just as accurate to read the verse in this manner:

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise to us, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish but that all of us should come to repentance.

IJohn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Wow. You're referencing the gammit of misapplied and misunderstood passages, aren't you? Do you know what a "propitiation" is? A "propitiation" is something that "gains or regains the favor or goodwill" of someone. It is an "appeasement." We have four, and only four, choices when we seek to have an accurate understanding of 1 John 2:2 and its applicability. We can believe that 1 John 2:2 limits the intention of the propitiation while acknowledging its perfect efficacy, i.e., it is 100% successful in achieving its intent. We can believe that 1 John 2:2 limits the intention of the propitiation while acknowledging its failure to achieve its intent for even a limited beneficiary, i.e., it is unsuccessful in achieving its intent. We can believe that the intent of the propitiation is universal while acknowledging its perfect efficacy, i.e., it is 100% successful in achieving its intent, which is an advocation of universalism. And lastly, we can believe that the intent of the propitiation is universal while acknowledging its failure to achieve its intent in the case of all who are hellbound, it is unsuccessful in achieving its intent. The first view is the reformed view, i.e., God sets apart a people unto Himself, the elect, predestines them, calls them, justifies them and glorifies them. The second view makes a mockery of Christ's death. The third view advocates the unsubstantiated view of universalism. The fourth view, like the second, makes a mockery of God and His ability to achieve His purposes, something which is also plainly refuted by the Bible (Job 42:2).

These, so far as I can see, are the only conclusions we can reach on this issue. Do you align yourself with any of these or do you know of another possibility?

In other words, God has provided an umbrella for all mankind to get under. The question is, Do we choose to get under that umbrella? We have a choice, and we must show faith with actions.
So, in actuality, God didn't send Christ to actually accomplish anyone's salvation but, instead, sent Him to achieve only the possibility of salvation for everyone? IOW, Christ is the potential Savior of all but the actual Savior of only those who believe? This, of course, means that we must acknowledge a couple of things. First, Christ, by His death, actually reconciled no one to God. What actuates, or regulates, the efficacy of His death is the decision of the believer who, by the way, is dead in his trespasses and sins and inclined only to rebel. Second, we must acknowledge two possibilities, one, that all would avail themselves of the merits of Christ's death and hell would be empty of human souls, and, two, that no one would avail themselves of the merits of Christ's death and Christ would end up dying in vain. Either of those appeal to you?

As far as foreknowledge and omniscience, this all depends on how you view God's ability to perform these functions, or abilities. My understanding is very similar to Open View Theism. God know all possible choices that we could ever possibly make and HE knows the results of all these possible choices all the way up to the end of time and how all mankinds possible choices will affect each other. I can freewill choose left or right, and God will know the results of both, yet I retain my ability to have a freewill choice.
Your understanding makes your choices the regulative principal of God's knowledge. You're actually purporting that God is NOT omniscient. You know that right? You view is that God knows what choices we can make but not which choice we will make?

This brings up the very question of: Why did God have to proove Israel?
What is "proove?" :scratch:

To know what they would do. Weather they would choose God or not. This shows that God did not know what they would choose, but HE knew the results of both choices. Dueteronomy 28 gives the outcome of both choices, life and death, blessing and cursing. "choose you this day whom ye will serve, as for me and my family we will choose the Lord."
Wow. :eek:

Again, this is another debate. Your view makes freewill an illusion, and also makes the bible not acurate in that it paints a picture of the illusion of freewill choice. In other words, the bible is not correct in its idea that we have freewill.
The idea of a will that is free to make any and all moral choices IS an illusion and the Bible not only continuously describes man's will as a slave, either to righteousness or iniquity, but soundly refutes the belief of free will, as most mainstream Christians would use it.

Reformationist

19th November 2004, 04:01 PM

Having faith is very similar. Having faith requires