Jesus & James

[Guojing]

Notice all the "accurate handling," "rightly handling," "correctly teaching," etc. ways they translate the Greek here. But the way you are using "divide," which is clear in your responses, is clearly wrong. It doesn't mean divide up soteriology into different gospels as you are doing. It means interpret scripture correctly.

I see, so at the end of the day, you are saying you disagree with the KJV translation of that verse.

You could have said that at the beginning.

 

[Guojing]

If God had intended us to cut His word into separate gospels, He would surely have given us instruction on how to do that. Also, we would expect to see references to "gospels" yet repeatedly it is simply called "the gospel".

He did in Galatians 2:7-9 KJV. That is why he sent Paul to reach to us gentiles, the uncircumcised (Romans 11:13)

People just don't like to use the KJV to understand scripture.

 

[fhansen]

"They went out from us... to show that they were not of us" (1 Jn. 2:19). If someone does not persevere in faith and repentance, they show they are not born of God. James explains this in Ja. 2. Jesus explains it this way, "Not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven." If someone turns back away from God, as you say, they prove "there is no fear of God before their eyes." It's the same thing Paul wrote in Rom. 8:13, "if you live according to the flesh you will die..." and Gal. 6:8, "the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption..."

And no one can predict whether they, themselves, will persevere or not, which camp they may end up in, IOW,

"Salvation is from the Lord" (Jonah 2:9), not from the Lord + me and my works. If you add your own works to Christ's work, you are adding self-righteous boasting.

It's not MY works; it's the works prepared for me in advance (Eph 2), which are as much a matter of grace as is faith. It's never about ME, but about God plus me; that vital union is the major difference between the old and new covenants. Paul wasn't objecting to doing the right thing or obeying God; he was objecting to "works of the law" because that is a matter of mere obedience by the Letter and the letter kills. That is a matter of ME, alone, proving my so-called "righteousness" apart from God; that is a matter of hypocrisy, of tryng to be holy by merely appearing to be holy while still filthy on the inside (Matt 23).

Faith means God + me instead of me alone-and that's what Paul was getting at and everything that flows now from that relationship is only good. And I know plenty of people who do God's will quite well and they do it humbly, quietly, with heads down, never boasting but asking if they're doing enough if anything, pressing on like Paul in Phil 3.

 

[tdidymas]

Maybe, but why don't you go ahead and explain to me why it's not antinomianism?

Paul taught "where sin abounds, grace much more abounds" and we have been justified "as a gift" (that is, as a FREE gift), so that God's forgiveness is unmerited. Grace, justification, sanctification, redemption, eternal life, and yes, even faith (the Biblical kind), are all the gift of God, and not from ourselves (Eph. 2:8). He also taught that faith in Christ without any works still results in righteousness imputed: Rom. 4:5 "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."

And to this, the Judaizers claimed that Paul taught antinomianism, in which Paul condemns them in Rom. 3:8 "And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), 'Let us do evil that good may come'? Their condemnation is just."

And even the apostle Peter admitted that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand, because it takes familiarity with scripture and spiritual mindedness to grasp it. 2 Pet. 3:15-16 "and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Where'd you get that?

I understand what Paul means by "faith" and what James means by "faith" in their context, and because Trent disagrees with the reformation truth that we are justified by faith alone as Paul teaches, it becomes obvious where Trent is coming from.

 

[tdidymas]

It wasn't bunk, it was a statement of fact.

No, it's bunk, and a straw man, since you seem to be accusing me of that error.

 

[tdidymas]

I see, so at the end of the day, you are saying you disagree with the KJV translation of that verse.

You could have said that at the beginning.

Wrong again. I disagree with your spin on it. All the translations are in agreement on the meaning of the term, including the KJV. But what you just did here is pit translations against each other, implying that only the KJV is correct (but ultimately only your interpretation, that is, your opinion, is correct). This is what puts you in error. My quoting other translations was to point out that your spin on the term "divide" is in error. But instead of examining it carefully, you hold to your error. How foolish!

 

[tdidymas]

And no one can predict whether they, themselves, will persevere or not, which camp they may end up in, IOW,

Your point is?
Just because you can't predict someone else's future doesn't mean we can't know anything. Jesus said, "by their fruit you shall know them." If someone shows the fruit of the Spirit in their life, does it not tell us that they are born of God? But even the apostle John assumes that anyone claiming faith in Christ should be regarded as a brother. This is seen in 1 John - "whoever hates his brother is still in the darkness until now." Notice that he says such a person is "still in darkness" - IOW, not born again, but still calls him "brother." In Mat. 18 Jesus gave a process to pressure a person to repent from sin, and if he finally refuses, he should be treated as an outcast and sinner (i.e. no longer called a brother). "They that endure to the end, the same shall be saved." So then, it is how people finish that shows they are children of God or not, ultimately. But it doesn't mean we cannot regard people as children of God who exhibit Christlike behavior. And it doesn't mean that we cannot know for certain that we have eternal life ourselves, as John says in 1 Jn. 5:12. Eternal life means eternal, not temporarily "if".

It's not MY works; it's the works prepared for me in advance (Eph 2), which are as much a matter of grace as is faith. It's never about ME, but about God plus me; that vital union is the major difference between the old and new covenants. Paul wasn't objecting to doing the right thing or obeying God; he was objecting to "works of the law" because that is a matter of mere obedience by the Letter and the letter kills. That is a matter of ME, alone, proving my so-called "righteousness" apart from God; that is a matter of hypocrisy, of tryng to be holy by merely appearing to be holy while still filthy on the inside (Matt 23).

Faith means God + me instead of me alone-and that's what Paul was getting at and everything that flows now from that relationship is only good. And I know plenty of people who do God's will quite well and they do it humbly, quietly, with heads down, never boasting but asking if they're doing enough if anything, pressing on like Paul in Phil 3.

I agree with this, but in the Biblical context. If you think this all means that justification results from faith plus your works, then I'd say you're wrong and not understanding the gospel of grace. If you take all that you say here with the understanding that God is the one working His works in you (and not you yourself originating any works through obedience to the law ["thou shalt love..."]), then why do you claim that works is required for justification? Doesn't the thief on the cross, of whom Jesus said, "today you will be with me in paradise", tell us that justification is by faith alone? Since Paul wrote, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness," (Rom. 4:5), it is not of works, but faith alone. Notice he says, "to the one who does not work..."

What it gets to is: we don't have to have assurance to be saved. Assurance is good, and we all want it, because the Spirit speaks it to us. I spent many years looking for assurance, and now having it, it is a precious treasure I'm not willing to abandon. That doesn't mean I wasn't justified from the very beginning of my Christian walk.

What the doctrine of justification by faith teaches people (as Paul taught it) is that God's forgiveness is unconditional, and we must take it as God's absolute promise in order to walk out our life in faith. "In His name we have forgiveness of sins." This is what motivates us to live by faith in Christ, as Paul wrote "the righteous shall live by faith."

 

[fhansen]

Paul taught "where sin abounds, grace much more abounds" and we have been justified "as a gift" (that is, as a FREE gift), so that God's forgiveness is unmerited. Grace, justification, sanctification, redemption, eternal life, and yes, even faith (the Biblical kind), are all the gift of God, and not from ourselves (Eph. 2:8). He also taught that faith in Christ without any works still results in righteousness imputed: Rom. 4:5 "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."

And to this, the Judaizers claimed that Paul taught antinomianism, in which Paul condemns them in Rom. 3:8 "And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), 'Let us do evil that good may come'? Their condemnation is just."

And even the apostle Peter admitted that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand, because it takes familiarity with scripture and spiritual mindedness to grasp it. 2 Pet. 3:15-16 "and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Then can I assume that you're saying here that it's not antinomianism because, in some manner, the ability to overcome sin, lawlessness, evil, is given at justification?

I understand what Paul means by "faith" and what James means by "faith" in their context, and because Trent disagrees with the reformation truth that we are justified by faith alone as Paul teaches, it becomes obvious where Trent is coming from.

Ok, except I don't know what that has to do with Trent considering it to be a theory.

 

[fhansen]

No, it's bunk, and a straw man, since you seem to be accusing me of that error.

No it's neither. And you assumed it was an accusation. It was meant as contrast. While, 1) at jusitification we don't become puppets who cannot sin, neither 2) are we carte blanc forgiven of all future sin, But 3) we are empowered nonetheless to overcome sin now by the Spirit, which we must make the effort to do. I don't think you think your believe either of the first two statements there.

Your point is?
Just because you can't predict someone else's future doesn't mean we can't know anything. Jesus said, "by their fruit you shall know them." If someone shows the fruit of the Spirit in their life, does it not tell us that they are born of God? But even the apostle John assumes that anyone claiming faith in Christ should be regarded as a brother. This is seen in 1 John - "whoever hates his brother is still in the darkness until now." Notice that he says such a person is "still in darkness" - IOW, not born again, but still calls him "brother." In Mat. 18 Jesus gave a process to pressure a person to repent from sin, and if he finally refuses, he should be treated as an outcast and sinner (i.e. no longer called a brother). "They that endure to the end, the same shall be saved." So then, it is how people finish that shows they are children of God or not, ultimately. But it doesn't mean we cannot regard people as children of God who exhibit Christlike behavior. And it doesn't mean that we cannot know for certain that we have eternal life ourselves, as John says in 1 Jn. 5:12. Eternal life means eternal, not temporarily "if".

Kind of a mixture of ideas here. Yes, we can know them by their fruit even though that can't give100% certainty of where the heart is at. The brothers referred to are not necessarily going to end up in heaven. And claiming to be saved doesn't mean much in itself. We won't know with perfect certainty until the end, until we meet Him face to face and He tells us how we did with what we were given, which is why the bible also warns and instructs us in many places to be vigilant, to strive, to remain in Him, to be holy, to obey, to refrain from sin, to do good, to persevere etc, with eternal life at stake. And Scripture places salvation in all three tenses: saved, being saved, and will be saved. We can walk away from our state of justification, and therefore our salvation, by livng unjustly which is the equiavlent of saying "no" to God all over again. Again, we cannot predict our own perseverence-and God, alone, knows with certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life.

Anyway, your post overall here gives reason to pretty much agree with Trent as I see it, that we can have a healthily strong yet gaurded level of assurance based on our fruit along with the humilty to acknowlwedge our limitations, weakness, and tendency towards sin.

 

[tdidymas]

Then can I assume that you're saying here that it's not antinomianism because, in some manner, the ability to overcome sin, lawlessness, evil, is given at justification?

Eph. 2:5 "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" Do you notice how Paul defines grace? This verse means that when a person is justified, they are born of God and receive the Holy Spirit. It is the power of God in the believer that gives a person the ability to overcome sin, lawlessness, and evil in their fallen nature. 1 Jn. 5:4 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

Ok, except I don't know what that has to do with Trent considering it to be a theory.

That's the effective result. It states "if anyone says that a person is justified by faith alone without any works, let him be anathema." This means they thought faith did not actually result in a change of heart and a love for God. Their statement follows exactly what Paul condemned in Rom. 3:8. It's the same idea in different words.

 

[tdidymas]

No it's neither. And you assumed it was an accusation. It was meant as contrast. While, 1) at jusitification we don't become puppets who cannot sin, neither 2) are we carte blanc forgiven of all future sin, But 3) we are empowered nonetheless to overcome sin now by the Spirit, which we must make the effort to do. I don't think you think your believe either of the first two statements there.

1) Who said anything about puppets? You brought it up, so it's your straw man.
2) For salvation in general and for eternal life in particular, we are forgiven, since in Christ we HAVE forgiveness of sins. Your statement denies 1 Pet. 1:5 saying, "we are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Because 4) our inheritance is incorruptible, and undefiled, and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven.
3) I agree on this point, that we are empowered by the Spirit to overcome sin, and that we must make an effort at it. This is called progressive sanctification, which is a present aspect of it. Justification is a past event ("having been justified..."), in which God has sanctified us to the extent that we HAVE eternal life. Efforts we make to walk in the Spirit yields a greater glorification at the resurrection.

What I disagree with is the idea that justification can be lost for any true believer. Just because a person can act like a Christian doesn't mean he is one. It's about trusting Christ in reality, not just in the imagination (Prov. 3:5-6).

Kind of a mixture of ideas here. Yes, we can know them by their fruit even though that can't give100% certainty of where the heart is at. The brothers referred to are not necessarily going to end up in heaven. And claiming to be saved doesn't mean much in itself. We won't know with perfect certainty until the end, until we meet Him face to face and He tells us how we did with what we were given, which is why the bible also warns and instructs us in many places to be vigilant, to strive, to remain in Him, to be holy, to obey, to refrain from sin, to do good, to persevere etc, with eternal life at stake. And Scripture places salvation in all three tenses: saved, being saved, and will be saved. We can walk away from our state of justification, and therefore our salvation, by livng unjustly which is the equiavlent of saying "no" to God all over again. Again, we cannot predict our own perseverence-and God, alone, knows with certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life.

You say "we can walk away..." but I've already quoted 1 Jn. 2:9 in which a "brother" fails to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. And here is another: 1 Jn. 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

So, theoretically a person could "walk away" from "so great a salvation," yet John states that a person who is actually born of God can't. I believe John, not you, not Trent, not the RCC or any of the EO teachings.

Anyway, your post overall here gives reason to pretty much agree with Trent as I see it, that we can have a healthily strong yet gaurded level of assurance based on our fruit along with the humilty to acknowlwedge our limitations, weakness, and tendency towards sin.

No, I disagree. I don't agree with Trent on their definitions of faith and grace. The way I read scripture, I believe they were confused (and still are).

 

[Guojing]

Wrong again. I disagree with your spin on it. All the translations are in agreement on the meaning of the term, including the KJV. But what you just did here is pit translations against each other, implying that only the KJV is correct (but ultimately only your interpretation, that is, your opinion, is correct). This is what puts you in error. My quoting other translations was to point out that your spin on the term "divide" is in error. But instead of examining it carefully, you hold to your error. How foolish!

I am just understanding the KJV literally.

That is hardly spinning anything.

If you consider a literal understanding an error, that is your choice.

 

[fhansen]

Eph. 2:5 "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" Do you notice how Paul defines grace? This verse means that when a person is justified, they are born of God and receive the Holy Spirit. It is the power of God in the believer that gives a person the ability to overcome sin, lawlessness, and evil in their fallen nature. 1 Jn. 5:4 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

And this means, as the CC teaches, that man is not merely imputed to be righteous at justification but he's enabled, by the Spirit, to overcome unrighteousness now. That's justifying the ungodly.
Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

That's the effective result. It states "if anyone says that a person is justified by faith alone without any works, let him be anathema."

Except that's not exactly what it says:
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

And that needs to be read in light of:
Canon 1.
"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

 

[fhansen]

1) Who said anything about puppets? You brought it up, so it's your straw man.

Yes, I did, and now you've apparently acknowledged it in your post #71 saying that the reborn cannot walk away, or sin, citing John. And this is absurdity, not born out in real life-and Scripture definitely affirms that any can fall back into the deeds of the flesh seriously enough to break their relationship with God. The church addressed this some 17-18 centuries ago but people just keep regurgitating the same old nonsense.

2) For salvation in general and for eternal life in particular, we are forgiven, since in Christ we HAVE forgiveness of sins. Your statement denies 1 Pet. 1:5 saying, "we are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Because 4) our inheritance is incorruptible, and undefiled, and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven.

Those are encouraging words, and will come true for anyone who perseveres and persists in truly remaining in Him. But you have to throw out the other half of the new testament, the "stick" part, that acknowledges that we can return to our old life, that we can die again, in order to believe that we cannot lose our justifed status before God.

"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Pet 2:20-22

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." Heb 6:4-6

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:5-6

"Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will certainly not spare you either. Take notice, therefore, of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." Rom 11:17-22

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." Gal 5:6

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

No, I disagree. I don't agree with Trent on their definitions of faith and grace. The way I read scripture, I believe they were confused (and still are).

Well, there's still hope for you.

 

[fhansen]

3) I agree on this point, that we are empowered by the Spirit to overcome sin, and that we must make an effort at it. This is called progressive sanctification, which is a present aspect of it. Justification is a past event ("having been justified..."), in which God has sanctified us to the extent that we HAVE eternal life. Efforts we make to walk in the Spirit yields a greater glorification at the resurrection.

When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. Rom 6:20-22

"Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14

 

[fhansen]

I am just understanding the KJV literally.

That is hardly spinning anything.

If you consider a literal understanding an error, that is your choice.

The KJV, while good, is far from the best translation-and certainly nothing to be idolized. The KJ New Testament translation was originally based on the Greek version prepared by Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus. Better translations of the Greek have followed.

 

[fhansen]

What the doctrine of justification by faith teaches people (as Paul taught it) is that God's forgiveness is unconditional, and we must take it as God's absolute promise in order to walk out our life in faith. "In His name we have forgiveness of sins." This is what motivates us to live by faith in Christ, as Paul wrote "the righteous shall live by faith."

Well, faith is certainly one condition, at least, with apparent dire consquences if lacking. But, again, we must also reciprocate with the love that we've been shown and received:

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:14-15

 

[Guojing]

The KJV, while good, is far from the best translation-and certainly nothing to be idolized. The KJ New Testament translation was originally based on the Greek version prepared by Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus. Better translations of the Greek have followed.

Well if people want to reject the KJV translation, I am fine, just be clear.

 

[tdidymas]

I am just understanding the KJV literally.

That is hardly spinning anything.

If you consider a literal understanding an error, that is your choice.

No, you are not understanding it literally. What you are doing is imposing a definition of the word "dividing" in your reading of it, that doesn't belong in the context of the scripture. You should be extracting the meaning from the scripture, not imposing meaning onto it. Correct interpretation requires taking account of the wider context of all the scripture. So the result of your imposition on the scripture, you come to a wrong conclusion about how many gospels there are. So it most certainly is a spin.

 

[tdidymas]

And this means, as the CC teaches, that man is not merely imputed to be righteous at justification but he's enabled, by the Spirit, to overcome unrighteousness now. That's justifying the ungodly.
Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

I get that this statement is against antinomianism which I have no problem with.

Except that's not exactly what it says:
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Effectively the same thing, and I disagree with it for several reasons:
1. "Cooperate" is the "faith + works" scenario.
2. "to obtain the grace of justification" is self-contradictory, since they just said "justified..." This tells me that they think one must do something "in order to obtain" justification. Paul teaches quite clearly that a person is justified who has faith without any works - "to him who does not work but believes (in the gospel), his faith is counted to him as righteousness." - IOW he is justified without works.
3. "prepared and disposed by the action of his own will" - tells me that they think a person must have the wherewithall within himself to act on his own will (in addition to the faith he has in Christ) to act by "his own will" something in addition to the faith he has, which Paul says he is justified by.
Therefore, Trent is speaking contrary to what Paul taught, and therefore I reject what Trent declared in this case.

And that needs to be read in light of:
Canon 1.
"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

I don't have any issue with this.

Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

I don't have any issue with this. Incidentally, what this statement opposes is the error of Pelagius and of modern-day Charles Finney.