Which of these two gospels is most correct?

[hedrick]

No one is saying the OT saints didn't have faith. James says we are justified by works and not faith only.

Here is Strong's definition for just (H6662)

But the word you’re talking about really corresponds to “righteous” not “justified.”

God says He will not justify the wicked (Exodus 23:7). Wickedness is often used in contrast with righteousness in the OT.

Sure. But you’re ignoring the issue. Justification in Paul isn’t really an evaluation of the quality of a person’s life, so the righteous / wicked alternative doesn’t exactly apply to it.

Again, we are not talking about OT saints being justified by works only, but in cooperation with their faith.

Of course the OT saints weren’t justified by works, though justification wasn’t really a term used in the OT. Paul says, however, that Abraham was justified by faith.

The covenant was something the people of God were to keep. It wasn't based upon faith only, but on their faith and life.

Right. The covenant committed them to follow God’s rules. So judging whether they’ve acted in accordance with the covenant means evaluating their lives. But judging whether the covenant applied to them didn’t. The covenant applied to all of Israel, good and bad.

In his argument with the Judaizers, Paul isn’t talking about whether people are living right or not. He does talk about that, but it’s not the issue in justification. The issue in justification is whether they’re part of God’s people. Paul’s opponents were arguing that to be part of God’s people you had to accept the Law, shown most visibly by circumcision. His argument was that faith in Christ, i.e. being a Christian, made one part of God’s people. He wasn’t talking about whether one was a good Christian or not. Not in that part of the argument. He does talk about it, of course, many places.

What are the implications of one who dies with Christ, but lives the old life. I've heard so many on here say we still have the old man along with the new man. How does one have the old man when he is supposed to die to it?

I don’t think this is the issue Paul was talking about with justification, but he does talk about it.

Paul’s teaching in Romans is almost paradoxical. We die with Christ to sin, and rise to new life. Yet in 7:14 he recognizes that this is not complete in this life. So of course we have the old man. This creates an intolerable situation. How can we escape it? (7:24) Christ. But the second half of 7:25 doesn’t suggest that he rescues us by making us perfect, but rather by being our savior. We still have the “flesh” with us.

Surely all Christians understand that, which is why God’s forgiveness is important in all Christian theology. God’s forgiveness doesn’t remove the “flesh.” Why not? Rom 11:28 - 36 suggests that it is to show his mercy, to make it clear that we are not accepted by God because of our perfection, but because he loves us and accepts us.

Being a follower of Jesus is to keep His commandments, along with faith. Again, no one have vaguely suggested faith is not important. Many have said works are not important. Some of us have said both are important and necessary.

They are both important, but in different ways. We become Christ’s through faith. That commits us to following his commandments. Of course it also enables us to do that.

You seem to be afraid that justification by faith is going to lead to bad Christian lives. I’m not convinced. Maybe I have more faith in the power of the Holy Spirit than you do. I think nervousness about our acceptance by God is more likely to lead to legalism and other kinds of works that aren’t truly what God wants. Jesus is very clear that the way we get good lives is through making the heart right, or (different metaphor) good fruit comes from good trees.

Indeed I think the approach you've advising historically has led to an overemphasis on "sin" as violating rules. If you look at Jesus' parables and other teaching about judgement, the people judged aren't those guilty of "sins" but people who either never made a difference to anyone else or those who abused others.

It's also worth noting that in addition to "justification," i.e. whether we're Christ's, Jesus also spoke of varying rewards for his followers. I suspect some of his teachings implied punishments for his followers as well, i.e. punishments that didn't reject them as followers.

 

[-57]

Post #44. Perhaps you didn't mean the ones who are told to repent by Jesus didn't represent the church.

I'd love to reply to you...but you're still not making any sense.

 

[EmSw]

Have you considered that to Christ doing good, was being faithful over the few little things in your life that He has given you, as well as the big ones?
Matthew 25:21
His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Matthew 25:23
His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Luke 19:17
And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

I totally understand that. Now, do you understand not all are faithful over things given by the Lord. I wish you would have given the whole parable, but I will provide verse 30 to show others what you failed to show them.

In Matthew 25, we have an unprofitable servant. Look what happens to him -

And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Now let's look at the rest of Luke 19, which you forgot to mention.

27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.

In verse 13, Jesus calls them servants; however, in verse 27, some are called wicked and lazy servants, yes, even enemies. So first off we see that servants can become enemies. Did you know that?

Anyway, those who weren't faithful, or did nothing in the parables, were cast into outer darkness (the darkness around a brightly-lit wedding hall, according to one person here), with weeping and gnashing of teeth. They are also brought before the nobleman a servant who did not want the nobleman to reign over him, and SLEW HIM BEFORE OTHERS.

I can guarantee those wicked, lazy, and unprofitable servants will not come forth to the resurrection of life. The wicked will come forth to the resurrection of damnation.

One more thing, the parable in Matthew 25 is given just before the judgment of sheep and goats. Notice why the sheep entered the kingdom and why the goats didn't. It wasn't their faith only, but it was according to their works, which beautifully is one with the resurrections in John 5.

 

[EmSw]

But the word you’re talking about really corresponds to “righteous” not “justified.”

Sure. But you’re ignoring the issue. Justification in Paul isn’t really an evaluation of the quality of a person’s life, so the righteous / wicked alternative doesn’t exactly apply to it.

Well, let's have a look at the word I've used and the word for justify, shall we? As I have already given, the word for just or righteous is Strong's H6662. I will now give you the word for justify in the following verse -

Exodus 23:7
Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

The word for justify in this verse is H6663.

to be just, be righteous

1. (Qal)
   1. to have a just cause, be in the right
   2. to be justified
   3. to be just (of God)
   4. to be just, be righteous (in conduct and character)
2. (Niphal) to be put or made right, be justified
3. (Piel) justify, make to appear righteous, make someone righteous
4. (Hiphil)
   1. to do or bring justice (in administering law)
   2. to declare righteous, justify
   3. to justify, vindicate the cause of, save
   4. to make righteous, turn to righteousness
5. (Hithpael) to justify oneself
   

Justification and righteousness is one and the same. Perhaps you will make an argument they aren't the same, but you would be disagreeing with Strong's, and with the Hebrew meaning.

So yes, the contrast of righteous/wicked very much applies. If Paul changed the meaning, then it didn't come from the Bible.

Of course the OT saints weren’t justified by works, though justification wasn’t really a term used in the OT. Paul says, however, that Abraham was justified by faith.

You misquoted me, I said OT saints weren't justified by works ALONE. And yes, justification was a term used in the OT.

Saying Abraham was justified by faith, is only seeing a part of the justification process. James gives us the whole picture in chapter 2 -

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says,“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Here James is speaking of OT justification. It is not by faith only, but also by works. It is the same in the NT as it was in the OT.

I see why Martin Luther had a problem with James, and that it shouldn't be included in the canon.

Right. The covenant committed them to follow God’s rules. So judging whether they’ve acted in accordance with the covenant means evaluating their lives. But judging whether the covenant applied to them didn’t. The covenant applied to all of Israel, good and bad.

I sure wish people would actually know what is said in the Bible, instead of conjecturing. The covenant was not applied to the bad, those who did not keep the covenant.

Genesis 17
9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.
10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;
11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.
12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.
13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

Do you see that the person who did not keep the covenant was cut off?

In his argument with the Judaizers, Paul isn’t talking about whether people are living right or not. He does talk about that, but it’s not the issue in justification. The issue in justification is whether they’re part of God’s people. Paul’s opponents were arguing that to be part of God’s people you had to accept the Law, shown most visibly by circumcision. His argument was that faith in Christ, i.e. being a Christian, made one part of God’s people. He wasn’t talking about whether one was a good Christian or not. Not in that part of the argument. He does talk about it, of course, many places.

Actually, the Judaizers were correct, in that those who were part of God's people had to be circumcised. Did you not read the verses above? Those who weren't circumcised were cut off; they had broken the covenant!

I don’t think this is the issue Paul was talking about with justification, but he does talk about it.

Paul’s teaching in Romans is almost paradoxical. We die with Christ to sin, and rise to new life. Yet in 7:14 he recognizes that this is not complete in this life. So of course we have the old man. This creates an intolerable situation. How can we escape it? (7:24) Christ. But the second half of 7:25 doesn’t suggest that he rescues us by making us perfect, but rather by being our savior. We still have the “flesh” with us.

Surely all Christians understand that, which is why God’s forgiveness is important in all Christian theology. God’s forgiveness doesn’t remove the “flesh.” Why not? Rom 11:28 - 36 suggests that it is to show his mercy, to make it clear that we are not accepted by God because of our perfection, but because he loves us and accepts us.

I don't understand. We are to put off the old man. Why do so many believers still have the old man around? Why do so many still live to the old man? Paul said the following -

Romans:13
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

We have so many who say it's okay to live to the flesh, but Paul says you will die. Do people not really believe this? Do they think they are exempt from dying?

Those will live WHO LIVE BY THE SPIRIT, THAT IS, THOSE WHO HAVE PUT TO DEATH THE DEEDS OF THE BODY. Yet, many say live by the flesh, it's okay, you won't die.

Why do you still have the flesh with you? Those who walk to the flesh have condemnation. Do you believe this?

Romans 8:4
that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh

Do you see what Paul wrote? The 'righteous' requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who DO NOT WALK ACCORDING TO THE FLESH! No one is righteous who walks after the flesh...NO ONE! Why would one want to even entertain living in the flesh? How does one think he will be saved living in the flesh?

 

[EmSw]

I'd love to reply to you...but you're still not making any sense.

Be on your way.

 

[pescador]

There was an interesting article in a recent National Geographic about how people tend to believe something that reinforces what they already believe. If someone already believes that works are necessary for salvation then they will cite verses that prove that point. If someone already believes that faith alone is necessary for salvation then they will cite verses that prove that point.

Don't forget that Paul disagreed with the church leaders over points of doctrine when he went to Jerusalem. They agreed on certain requirements for Gentile believers then "extended the right hand of fellowship".

While it is interesting to debate many points of doctrine, it is more important to recognize that those of us in Christ are not clones but individuals to whom God has given different gifts. Each person should live out their faith according to what God has given them, not according to some specific standard that applies to all. If someone spends their time in prayer or prophesy, should they be judged for not doing "works". If someone does many works but doesn't love their neighbor are they considered righteous?

We must all live according to the faith and gifts that God has given us and not judge others who aren't behaving the way we think they should.

Romans 14:4 (Berean Study Bible): "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

Romans 14:10-12 (NIV):"
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt?
For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written:

“‘As surely as I live, says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

 

[hedrick]

I'm going to ignore the Hebrew definition, since the distinction between righteousness and justification is fairly late, and would not be present in Exodus.

Romans:[8:]13
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
...
Romans 8:4
that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh

Do you see what Paul wrote? The 'righteous' requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who DO NOT WALK ACCORDING TO THE FLESH! No one is righteous who walks after the flesh...NO ONE! Why would one want to even entertain living in the flesh? How does one think he will be saved living in the flesh?

The problem is that the whole argument of chapter 8 recognizes that we are both in the flesh and the Spirit. That's the point of 8:10:
"10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
As always, Paul recognizes that we are alive and dead at the same time. The body is dead because it died with Christ. But it's still there. That's why Jesus talks so constantly about God's forgiveness.

From James Dunn's commentary on Romans:

"The weakness of interpreting the phrase as a reference to a death already accomplished at and as the beginning of the Christian life is the basic failure to appreciate the continuing two-sidedness of the believer’s existence and experience for Paul. In his view the believer has not been taken out of the body or been wholly removed from the flesh. As body and as flesh believers still belong to this age, and as such are still under their rule. The union with Christ in his death confirms the divine sentence of death on the “sinful flesh,” but its final execution awaits the death of the mortal body (see further on 6:6 and 7:24). The Spirit of life has opened believers to a decisively new dimension or age, but the tie to the old age is not yet completely broken. So sin’s operations through the body need still to be contested, the sentence of death put into daily effect (v 13); and the rule of death will not be finally ended until the resurrection of the body (v 11)"

Paul cares about our actions. The point of dying and being reborn with Christ is to produce new lives. But these are produced by the Spirit, not by a legalistic approach. In some sense the argument is more psychological than theological. How you do get people to live the way God wants? Jesus says that good actions come from good hearts, and good fruit from good trees. So you have to change the person from the inside out. So for Paul, you get new life by the Spirit, not by law.

I think this is true. You get good Christians by inspiration, not threats. Threats are too likely to produce legalism, not genuine new life.

You quote James. Paul uses justification in a special way, as a technical term. I don’t think James does that. Here’s an assessment from the introductory section of the Word commentary on James:

“Both writers agree on the primacy of faith; Paul sets his face against any attempt to subvert God’s gracious initiative by making “works” meritorious (e.g., Rom 4:3–5; Gal 3:6–9; Phil 3:9); James argues that living faith will complement itself by what it does (2:17, 22). Yet the same appeal to Gen 15:6 with a varying deduction drawn from the case of Abraham suggests that there is some tension. The most likely resolution (see Commentary) is that James is polemicizing against an ultra-Pauline emphasis that turned faith into a slogan, a badge of profession, and thereby led to a position close to an antinomian disregard for all moral claims. Paul himself disavowed this false step in his lifetime (Rom 3:7–8; 6:1–14, 15; Gal 5:13); now the argument in James 2:14–26 re-engages the extremists who sought to claim that “faith by itself” was all one needed, irrespective of the empirical outworking (see Goppelt, Theology 2:208–11, for this term).”

Paul believed that faith shows itself in action (he wouldn’t have used the term “works” I don’t think). Indeed you could probably say that that's the whole point of faith. Apparently the people James is talking about didn’t. Note that many exhortations in Paul to right action. But that demand for right action is made to people who are already accepted by Christ.

Some scholars have said that Paul teaches justification by faith and judgement by works. This is probably right. It’s a difficult combination. It's much easier to ignore one or the other.

I’m going to comment later on Jesus’ teaching. That would complicate a posting that’s already too long.

 

[samir]

There was an interesting article in a recent National Geographic about how people tend to believe something that reinforces what they already believe. If someone already believes that works are necessary for salvation then they will cite verses that prove that point. If someone already believes that faith alone is necessary for salvation then they will cite verses that prove that point.

I witness that all the time.

Don't forget that Paul disagreed with the church leaders over points of doctrine when he went to Jerusalem. They agreed on certain requirements for Gentile believers then "extended the right hand of fellowship".

Source? If you're referring to Acts 15, Paul disagreed with Judaizers, not church leaders.

While it is interesting to debate many points of doctrine, it is more important to recognize that those of us in Christ are not clones but individuals to whom God has given different gifts. Each person should live out their faith according to what God has given them, not according to some specific standard that applies to all.

Scripture says some have the gift of teaching and that lay Christians are to obey the leaders and submit to their authority.

If someone spends their time in prayer or prophesy, should they be judged for not doing "works".

Yes, if they neglect their family and let their children starve because they spend all their time in prayer they are absolutely to be judged. If they loved God, they wouldn't neglect their family.

If someone does many works but doesn't love their neighbor are they considered righteous?

No. Everyone, even atheists, do many good works. What matters is whether a person loves God. Since those who love God love those whom God loves (their neighbors), a person who doesn't love their neighbor does not love God which means he is not righteous.

We must all live according to the faith and gifts that God has given us and not judge others who aren't behaving the way we think they should.

Scripture is clear that certain actions are sinful and believers who love them will certainly warn them of the eternal consequences of their actions, as the apostle Paul did repeatedly.

Paul warned believers, "You, my brothers... walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh... The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5, NIV)"

 

[pescador]

I witness that all the time.



Source? If you're referring to Acts 15, Paul disagreed with Judaizers, not church leaders.



Scripture says some have the gift of teaching and that lay Christians are to obey the leaders and submit to their authority.



Yes, if they neglect their family and let their children starve because they spend all their time in prayer they are absolutely to be judged. If they loved God, they wouldn't neglect their family.



No. Everyone, even atheists, do many good works. What matters is whether a person loves God. Since those who love God love those whom God loves (their neighbors), a person who doesn't love their neighbor does not love God which means he is not righteous.



Scripture is clear that certain actions are sinful and believers who love them will certainly warn them of the eternal consequences of their actions, as the apostle Paul did repeatedly.

Paul warned believers, "You, my brothers... walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh... The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5, NIV)"

Source? If you're referring to Acts 15, Paul disagreed with Judaizers, not church leaders.
Response: I'm referring to Galatians 2. Verses 9-10 say, "James, and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."

Scripture says some have the gift of teaching and that lay Christians are to obey the leaders and submit to their authority.
Response: So only the appointed clergy have the gift of teaching but lay Christians do not? That is a serious problem with the church today.

Yes, if they neglect their family and let their children starve because they spend all their time in prayer they are absolutely to be judged. If they loved God, they wouldn't neglect their family.

Response:: Sorry but I don't follow you. I said that those who spend their time in prayer and prophecy aren't doing "works" as defined by legalists. That has nothing to do with letting their children starve(?) and/or neglecting their family(?). By your thinking those who do "works" for others are righteous, even if they neglect their families??No.

Everyone, even atheists, do many good works. What matters is whether a person loves God. Since those who love God love those whom God loves (their neighbors), a person who doesn't love their neighbor does not love God which means he is not righteous.

Response:: I don't understand your definition of "righteous". A person who is righteous lives by his/her faith. This goes back to my original premise that "works" have nothing to do with righteousness. We are made righteous by God's grace, period. If "works" are a factor then the New Covenant is incomplete; the Old Covenant is still in effect.

Scripture is clear that certain actions are sinful and believers who love them will certainly warn them of the eternal consequences of their actions, as the apostle Paul did repeatedly.

Paul warned believers, "You, my brothers... walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh... The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5, NIV)"

Response: This is obvious, but you misinterpret it. You lift a few words from the chapter but neglect the essence of it. Verse 16 says "So I say, walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." Paul is stating the obvious: those who live like this (not referring to Christians but to "the world") will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Verse 24 says: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." Past tense. Don't apply what Paul says about "the world" to the body of Christ![/QUOTE]

 

[hedrick]

Paul warned believers, "You, my brothers... walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh... The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5, NIV)"

The problem with taking this in an unqualified way is that it would prove something that both Jesus and Paul are known not to believe: that any sin excludes us from the Kingdom.

Jesus deals with this by forgiveness. Oddly, Paul doesn’t use the term forgiveness for God (he mentions people forgiving each other a couple of times), except for a quotation in Rom 4:7.

So how does Paul deal with God forgiving our sins? He does it by justification, and the concept that Spirit and flesh coexist. Where Jesus would say that God forgives our sins, Paul says that God accepts our faith as righteousness and doesn't impute sin to the person with faith. (Or more precisely, by considering sin part of the old man that is still present but is no longer really us.)

For this correspondence to work, of course faith would have to include repentance. While Paul doesn’t use the term repentance very much, passages such as this one and many others show that he does expect us to turn away from our old lives when we embrace Christ. This is repentance as taught by Jesus.

Because this passage gives no exceptions, we can’t use it to show what Paul thinks about forgiveness or his equivalent, unless we think he doesn’t believe in forgiveness. We have to look elsewhere in his writings.

What makes Paul so difficult to deal with is that his conceptual world is so different from Jesus'. I believe there are equivalents between the two for all key concepts, but you have to look carefully. If you simply try to combine them without doing this, you'll misunderstand both. But more specifically, if you don't understand justification and the coexistence of flesh and Spirit, you leave Paul with no equivalent of forgiveness.

 

[EmSw]

The problem with taking this in an unqualified way is that it would prove something that both Jesus and Paul are known not to believe: that any sin excludes us from the Kingdom.

Really? Have you not read the following?

1 Corinthians 6
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5
5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Do you really believe Paul didn't believe sin would exclude us from the kingdom?

 

[-57]

Really? Have you not read the following?

1 Corinthians 6
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5
5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Do you really believe Paul didn't believe sin would exclude us from the kingdom?

EmSw, how many sins from that list are or have you been guilty of?

 

[samir]

Source? If you're referring to Acts 15, Paul disagreed with Judaizers, not church leaders.
Response: I'm referring to Galatians 2. Verses 9-10 say, "James, and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."

Where does it say Paul disagreed with any of them?

Scripture says some have the gift of teaching and that lay Christians are to obey the leaders and submit to their authority.
Response: So only the appointed clergy have the gift of teaching but lay Christians do not? That is a serious problem with the church today.

There are lay Christians with the gift of teaching. I didn't intend to imply that only the clergy had that gift. That still doesn't change the fact that lay Christians are to submit to those higher up on the hierarchy. Having each "believer" decide for himself what he wants to believe based on however he chooses to interpret scripture has only led to chaos and not the unity God desires.

Yes, if they neglect their family and let their children starve because they spend all their time in prayer they are absolutely to be judged. If they loved God, they wouldn't neglect their family.
Response: Sorry but I don't follow you. I said that those who spend their time in prayer and prophecy aren't doing "works" as defined by legalists. That has nothing to do with letting their children starve(?) and/or neglecting their family(?). By your thinking those who do "works" for others are righteous, even if they neglect their families??No

The reason scripture says works are necessary for salvation is because loving God is necessary and those who love God will act accordingly.

If I spend so much time praying and prophesying that I don't do any works like get a job to feed my family then I will be judged for not doing works that are necessary since God demands we take care of our families.

Everyone, even atheists, do many good works. What matters is whether a person loves God. Since those who love God love those whom God loves (their neighbors), a person who doesn't love their neighbor does not love God which means he is not righteous.

Response:: I don't understand your definition of "righteous". A person who is righteous lives by his/her faith.

I agree the righteous live by their faith. Check out Hebrews and you'll see that living by faith involves action or works.

This goes back to my original premise that "works" have nothing to do with righteousness.

If a person has faith but does not live by his faith then his faith will not save him.

We are made righteous by God's grace, period. If "works" are a factor then the New Covenant is incomplete; the Old Covenant is still in effect.

Using that logic, if faith is a factor then the New Covenant is incomplete. I agree salvation is by grace but only those who believe and love God will be saved by his grace. That doesn't mean I think anyone is made righteous by faith or works apart from grace.

Scripture is clear that certain actions are sinful and believers who love them will certainly warn them of the eternal consequences of their actions, as the apostle Paul did repeatedly.

Paul warned believers, "You, my brothers... walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh... The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5, NIV)"

Response: This is obvious, but you misinterpret it. You lift a few words from the chapter but neglect the essence of it. Verse 16 says "So I say, walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." Paul is stating the obvious: those who live like this (not referring to Christians but to "the world") will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul specifically stated he was addressing brothers in Christ, meaning Christians. If they weren't Christians then how could they walk by the Spirit? Would you exhort an unbeliever to walk by the Spirit (that he didn't possess) so that he would not gratify the desires of his flesh? Unbelievers are already under condemnation for unbelief regardless of sins they commit so if unbelievers would still not inherit the kingdom of God even if they stopped committing those sins.

Verse 24 says: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." Past tense. Don't apply what Paul says about "the world" to the body of Christ!

I fully agree those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh. I believe Paul was addressing believers who didn't belong to Jesus because they continued to live in sin.

 

[samir]

The problem with taking this in an unqualified way is that it would prove something that both Jesus and Paul are known not to believe: that any sin excludes us from the Kingdom.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Believers either live by the Spirit (to please God) or they live to please the flesh (themselves and their sinful nature). If these choose to live to please their sinful nature instead of God they won't be saved. Living to please God/the Spirit doesn't mean the person will never sin.

Jesus deals with this by forgiveness. Oddly, Paul doesn’t use the term forgiveness for God (he mentions people forgiving each other a couple of times), except for a quotation in Rom 4:7.

God only forgives those who repent. That's the point of warning believers about their sins - so they will repent and return to God.

So how does Paul deal with God forgiving our sins? He does it by justification, and the concept that Spirit and flesh coexist. Where Jesus would say that God forgives our sins, Paul says that God accepts our faith as righteousness and doesn't impute sin to the person with faith. (Or more precisely, by considering sin part of the old man that is still present but is no longer really us.)

Where did Paul say "God accepts our faith as righteousness and doesn't impute sin to the person with faith?" I've read the NT several times and don't remember reading that anywhere.

For this correspondence to work, of course faith would have to include repentance. While Paul doesn’t use the term repentance very much, passages such as this one and many others show that he does expect us to turn away from our old lives when we embrace Christ. This is repentance as taught by Jesus.

Repentance isn't just expected, it's required. Those who turn away from God and don't repent will not be saved.

Because this passage gives no exceptions, we can’t use it to show what Paul thinks about forgiveness or his equivalent, unless we think he doesn’t believe in forgiveness. We have to look elsewhere in his writings.

What makes Paul so difficult to deal with is that his conceptual world is so different from Jesus'. I believe there are equivalents between the two for all key concepts, but you have to look carefully. If you simply try to combine them without doing this, you'll misunderstand both. But more specifically, if you don't understand justification and the coexistence of flesh and Spirit, you leave Paul with no equivalent of forgiveness.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I believe Paul warned believers to encourage them to repent.

 

[pescador]

Really? Have you not read the following?

1 Corinthians 6
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5
5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Do you really believe Paul didn't believe sin would exclude us from the kingdom?

Yes. Paul often referred to "the world", in contrast to the body of Christ. He explains that when people practice those activities they will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but the Christians have already died to sin in the flesh and are now living a new life in the Spirit.

BTW, is there anything else you would like to pull out of context?

1 Corinthians 6:11 "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." Notice the imperfect tense used. You were that way once but you were washed, sancified, and justified.

Ephesians 5:6-8 "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. [Clear separation between the two groups]

For you were [imperfect tense] once darkness, but now you are [present tense] light in the Lord.

 

[EmSw]

EmSw, how many sins from that list are or have you been guilty of?

Or rather, how many have I continued to be guilty of? Zero!

 

[EmSw]

Yes. Paul often referred to "the world", in contrast to the body of Christ. He explains that when people practice those activities they will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but the Christians have already died to sin in the flesh and are now living a new life in the Spirit.

pescador, God forbid me to stop you from living to the flesh. You have the choice to freely to live in sin or lay aside the old man. So you believe no Christians practice those activities? I have land to sell you in Iran.

What do believe a new life is? Practicing and living in sin?

BTW, is there anything else you would like to pull out of context?

1 Corinthians 6:11 "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." Notice the imperfect tense used. You were that way once but you were washed, sancified, and justified.

Ephesians 5:6-8 "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. [Clear separation between the two groups]

For you were [imperfect tense] once darkness, but now you are [present tense] light in the Lord.

Out of context, huh? Well do you see that little word 'some' in 1 Cor. 6:11? You flatly left it out of your bolded statement above. Why did you do that? Talk about out of context.

SOME were still living as fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and/or extortioners.

In Ephesians 5:6-8, you left out 'sons'. Why did you do that? Let's see the context of Ephesians 6, shall we?

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Paul is plainly speaking to the saints at Ephesus. If you tell me the wrath of God does not come upon sons of disobedience (which includes the saints at Ephesus), you are deceiving me with empty words. If any of these things is named among Christians, they do not have any inheritance in the kingdom of God. They are sons of disobedience!

Context my friend, context.

 

[hedrick]

Believers either live by the Spirit (to please God) or they live to please the flesh (themselves and their sinful nature). If these choose to live to please their sinful nature instead of God they won't be saved. Living to please God/the Spirit doesn't mean the person will never sin.

The reason it doesn’t mean that the person will never sin is because both the “flesh” and the Spirit are present at the same time. Paul would certainly never say that someone in Christ, or with the Spirit in them, sins. For him it’s always a remnant of the flesh, which is present in us all.

What’s interesting is that Paul doesn’t say that we have to repent and be forgiven for these instances. I think that’s because for Paul, those who have died and been reborn with Christ are in the Spirit, by definition. The remnants of the flesh aren’t really us. However it’s actually kind of a mystery why Paul doesn’t use the concepts of repentance and forgiveness, since Jesus certainly does.

God only forgives those who repent. That's the point of warning believers about their sins - so they will repent and return to God.

I think this is the key. The traditional Catholic belief (which you seem to represent) is that there's no stable relationship with God. When you sin, it's broken. You have to put it back. There are a problems with this. Because I’ve already given Paul’s scheme, and you don’t seem to believe me, let’s talk about Jesus.

Take a look at how Jesus used repent. It was for someone who reversed their life. Most commonly it was used for someone recognizing that the Kingdom was present and entering it. (Mat 4:16) But it also applies to cities who accepted (or should have accepted) Jesus, or who accepted Jonah’s preaching. (Mat 11:20, 21, 12:41) For Mark 1:14 it’s believing the good news. There’s no sign in Jesus’ teaching that one needs to repent of each sin, though certainly it’s something we should do.

Jesus is very interested in a change in direction of people’s lives. He’s less interested in the kinds of things most Christians think of as sins. Earlier this afternoon I went through Matthew looking for every place someone was judged. I picked Matthew because judgement is a lot more common in it than in the other Gospels. Here’s a summary:

lack of acceptance or faith in Jesus: 7 [once might be the Holy Spirit]
hyperbole: 3 [e.g. not cutting of your hand]
not forgiving: 2
not accepting Jesus’ disciples or persecuting them: 2
thought Jesus would never come: 2
doing things we think will be meritorious rather than what God wants: 1
their words don’t show a good heart: 1
sin and evildoers: 1 (Mat 13:43)
putting stumbling blocks before children 1
blowing off Jesus’ invitation: 1
not using the gifts given to him by God: 1
not feeding or visiting people in need: 1
taking the broad way: 1

What’s interesting is that almost none of these are “sins” in the sense most people mean them: specific violations of the rules that require repentance. (13:43 does talk about evildoers, but Jesus commonly uses “sinner” to refer to someone who hasn’t repented, i.e. hasn’t come into the Kingdom.) In general terms a lot of them are not living in a way that helps others, something that really can’t be assessed until the end, when you can look back on people’s lives.

Jesus’ clearest requirement is to follow him. And for those who follow him, forgiveness is available. What’s interesting is in the dozen of so occurrences of forgiveness in Matthew, repentance isn’t ever mentioned as a requirement. Forgiving others is. In Luke 17:4 the question about forgiving other people says that they say “I repent,” but (1) that’s between people and (2) the repentance isn’t in the parallel in Matthew. One of the most intereting passages is the paralytic who is lowered from the roof. Jesus says his sins are forgiven. There's no sign of repentance. It's said to be a response to their faith.

This is actually rather surprising. One would think repentance would be required for forgiveness. I certainly wouldn’t want to teach as doctrine that it isn’t, but Jesus (almost?) never says it. He doesn’t say that only minor sins can be forgiven, that your good deeds have to outnumber your bad, or that you have to do something specific to be forgiven, or anything like that. God forgives Jesus’ followers. It looks like repenting and becoming a follower brings you into the Kingdom.

Of course being in the Kingdom commits us to living according to Kingdom standards, and Jesus talks about varying rewards depending upon how we do. But for Jesus, good fruit comes from good trees, and good actions from a good heart. So he concentrates on changing our hearts, not on legal approaches to regulate behavior.

Where did Paul say "God accepts our faith as righteousness and doesn't impute sin to the person with faith?" I've read the NT several times and don't remember reading that anywhere.

Rom 4:6-8. (Note that this is the only place he talks about forgiveness, and I think it’s because it’s part of a quote.)

 

[pescador]

pescador, God forbid me to stop you from living to the flesh. You have the choice to freely to live in sin or lay aside the old man. So you believe no Christians practice those activities? I have land to sell you in Iran.

What do believe a new life is? Practicing and living in sin?



Out of context, huh? Well do you see that little word 'some' in 1 Cor. 6:11? You flatly left it out of your bolded statement above. Why did you do that? Talk about out of context.

SOME were still living as fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and/or extortioners.

In Ephesians 6:8, you left out 'sons'. Why did you do that? Let's see the context of Ephesians 6, shall we?

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Paul is plainly speaking to the saints at Ephesus. If you tell me the wrath of God does not come upon sons of disobedience (which includes the saints at Ephesus), you are deceiving me with empty words. If any of these things is named among Christians, they do not have any inheritance in the kingdom of God. They are sons of disobedience!

Context my friend, context.

I'm debating whether to answer your post or not, as it almost doesn't merit an answer.

My bolded summary of 1 Corinthans 11 left out other words also. I quoted scripture accurately at the beginning of the paragraph, but it shows where your thinking is to ignore the scripture that I posted.

Because I use translations that aren't written (incorrectly) in verses, such as the King James, I follow punctuation. Again, you are attempting to discredit what I said by choosing a half sentence that is separate from my quote.

I don't want to continue this discussion as you are choosing a single word in a summary and a half-sentence to try to prove me wrong and then lecture me on out-of-context.

You are deceived by your pre-determined outlook instead of reading scripture clearly.

You claim that I live in the flesh. How do you know how I live? Obviously you don't, so you must enjoy the fleshly fantasies in your own mind. If you read scripture you will someday realize that those of us in Christ are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Join us.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One side accuses the other of Works Salvationism or a lack of trust in God's grace.
And the other side accuses the other of Ignoring God's Morality or Goodness.

Both are serious accusations and one needs both Scripture and the real world to back up what they are saying.

In my analysis: The Conditional Security is the Biblical View (which can be backed up by real world examples) and Eternal Security is nowhere to be found within Scripture (and nor can it be made into a real world example).


...