WE ARE NOT MADE RIGHTEOUS BY DOING RIGHTEOUS DEEDS;

Albion said:

That's not what the verse is saying. And it's definitely not how Paul looked at things.

Take a look at the commentary section of this link, especially perhaps Barnes' notes.
Romans 6:16 Commentaries: Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (biblehub.com)

Click to expand...

Amen! How does one become a servant of obedience unto righteousness? By faith or by works?

We must first obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel (Romans 10:16; 1:16) in order to become righteous.

Notice in Romans 10:10 - For with the heart one believes unto righteousness..

Notice in Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith (not his works) is accounted for righteousness.

There are only two kinds of servants in this world, in the spiritual sense; slaves of sin unto death, or slaves of obedience unto righteousness. When we place our faith exclusively in Jesus Christ for salvation/believe the gospel by trusting in His finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation, we then become "servants of obedience unto righteousness."

Being slaves of sin is put in the past tense. Paul goes on in Romans 6:18 - "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." Those who teach salvation by works typically ignore "servants of obedience unto righteousness" (Romans 6:16) and simply stress "obedience unto righteousness" as if works of obedience which "follow" saving faith in Christ are unto righteousness, as if we are saved by works.

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day, Butterball

Such error would be known as the historical heresy of Pelagianism which has been soundly and repeatedly rejected as "Christian" for many years.

In Him

Bill

Click to expand...

Men having the ability to choose for or against God is found throughout the BIble and never been refuted. It's those who have argued for orginal sin/total depravity who have failed miserably.

Again, if God must UNCONDITIONALLY, ARBITRATILY make one righteous in order for one to be righteous then that makes GOD CULPABALE for the lost and makes God a RESPECTER OF PERSON when God is neither.

Albion said:

That's not what the verse is saying. And it's definitely not how Paul looked at things.

Take a look at the commentary section of this link, especially perhaps Barnes' notes.
Romans 6:16 Commentaries: Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (biblehub.com)

Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY what Romans 6:16 is saying...obedience UNTO righteousness....obedience leads one to being righteous. There are only 2 options for man, he is either obeying God or disobeying God. NO VERSE teachines 'DISobedience unto righteous' for such makes no sense whatsoever for how can doing wrong lead one to being right doing? It cannot. Thus John says he that CONTINUES in doing unrighteousness CONTINUES to not be of God (1 John 3:10). For it FIRST takes doing righteousness to be of God (Acts of the Apostles 10:35). Again, NO VERSE says God FIRST accepts one while one continues in in his rebellious disobdience to God's will.

Calvinists look for ways to push faith onlyism into the Bible even though it is not there, they look for ways to get a man to be made righteous/justified while man does nothing though that idea is not Biblical. It's based on the erroneous idea that if man does some thing in obeying God's wil, man then is trying to earn God's free gift even though NOT ONE TIME in the Bible ever is man's obedience said to earn God's free gift.

Did you see where Barnes wrote "To whom ye yield yourselves - To whom ye give up yourselves for servitude or obedience. The apostle here refers to voluntary servitude;" Men VOLUNTARILY choose to serve sin unto death of obedience unto righteousness. Therefore whom one serves is not forced upon men by some sin nature one is innately born or forced upon men by a choice God makes for men.

One can voluntarily serve "sin unto death" means sinning leads one to spiritual death. Hence one is not born a sinner, spiritually dead not having yet sinned. One must FIRST VOLUNTARILTY CHOOSE do sin to be a sinner something infants are not capable of doing. Genesis 8:21 "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." Man's heart is evil from YOUTH not birth/conception. It specifically says 'for the IMAGINATION of man's HEART is evil from youth. "Imagination" has to do with one's frame of mind, the way one thinks. "Heart" has to do with one's understanding, the seat of one's conscience. This does NOT describe infants for they have no understanding, no cognative abilty to even know what good or evil are, no language skills.

Or one can VOLUNTARILY choose to serve "obedience unto righteousness". This context nor any context even remotley suggests man must first need to be given ability bu God to do so. Man needs no abiliy given him by God to choose to sin and he needs no ability given him by God to choose to do tight. Adam and Eve were NOT created with original sin/totally depraved but were still able to sin. All needed for them to sin was a law and them use their free will to transgress that law THEN sin came into existence (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15). We sin today by following in the steps of Adam and NOT by being born/created totally depraved sinners but by VOLUNTARILY choosing to transgress God's law.
Barnes says "Unto righteousness - Unto justification; that is, unto eternal life. The expression stands contrasted with “death,” and doubtless means that he who thus becomes the voluntary servant of holiness,..." Again, I do not see the Bible or Barnes saying GOd must FIRST act upon one before one can voluntarily choose to serve obedience unto righteousness.

Where Barnes goes off track is when he says "This would seem to imply that justification is the effect of obedience. Δικαιοσυνη Dikaiosunē, however, does not signify justification, but righteousness, that is, in this case, personal holiness."
Seems Barnes to say obedience leads to righteousness but not to justification. Yet the order of event as Paul putes them in Romans 6:17-18:
1) were servants of unrighteousness
2) obeyed from the heart
3) THEN freed from sin > JUSTIFIED

So being labeled a sinner or being righteous is not acheived by doing nothing or determined capriciously or unconditionally but achieved by what one does in choosing to serve sin into death or choose to serve obedience unto righteousness

fhansen said:

Well, FWIW the church rejected that thought centuries ago. Fallen man lacks the Spirit, lacks grace, lacks God until he begins to acknowledge Him-and God must approach him first in order for him to be found even though we possess a sense of Him within us, having been made in His image. But there's a reason why all inevitably sin, and why that image is so obscured and distorted and twisted in man; God did not create man for that to happen either. So fallen man is not bad so much as severely "disadvantaged": sick, wounded, lost to the degree that he's not in communion with God.

Click to expand...

1) you and I would never reach any agreement over who or what the "one body" and "one faith" is, (Ephesians 4:4-5)

2) God nor His word ever taught original sin/total depravity so the opinions of "the church" is meaningless, useless and are in error when those opinions contradict God.

3) you continue saying that "God must approach him first in order for him to be found even though we possess a sense of Him within us, having been made in His image". Salvation requires God's role and man's role. God has already fulfilled His role in man's salvation when He sent Christ to earth to die and shed His blood that clenases away all sins. So man must accomplish his role in obeying God (Hebrews 5:9) to be saved. And man is born with the ability to obey as well as the ability to disobey, Genesis 4:7. What I have not seen addressed yet is if God must FIRST act upon man before man can be righteous/justified/saved then that puts the culpability of the lost upon God and makes God a respecter of persons when He he has no such culpability nor a respecter of persons.

Butterball1 said:

That is EXACTLY what Romans 6:16 is saying...obedience UNTO righteousness....obedience leads one to being righteous. There are only 2 options for man, he is either obeying God or disobeying God. NO VERSE teachines 'DISobedience unto righteous' for such makes no sense whatsoever....

Click to expand...

Best as I can tell at this stage in the discussion, you interpret every admonition given to mankind to follow the Commandments, the Law, as being a guarantee of salvation--for those who pull it off successfully, perfectly, and consistently throughout life.

But the message of the New Testament, and which is evident in Paul's writings, is that because we cannot accomplish that, we need a Savior; and thanks to the graciousness of God, we've been given one who has called upon us to trust him and to find righteousness through HIS merits.

Thus John says he that CONTINUES in doing unrighteousness CONTINUES to not be of God (1 John 3:10). For it FIRST takes doing righteousness to be of God (Acts of the Apostles 10:35).

Click to expand...

Do you really think that John is one of the damned? Or is it that he, like all of us, is fallible and unable to keep the Law perfectly?

Again, NO VERSE says God FIRST accepts one while one continues in in his rebellious disobdience to God's will.

Click to expand...

Not intentionally, no. That would mark such as person as one who does not have the Faith which saves. But neither is it the case that even those who attempt to follow God's commands throughout life and to the best of their abilities are capable of doing so and, as a result, of saving themselves.

Calvinists look for ways to push faith onlyism into the Bible even though it is not there....

Click to expand...

Salvation by Faith is the position taken by virtually ALL Protestant denominations. It is quite incorrect to talk as though this is somehow a special prerogative of "Calvinists."

Albion said:

Well, that's not what Scripture teaches or, for that matter, what almost every Christian church teaches. We may, without God, do some things that would be considered by society good to do. We may avoid those things that are unfair or self-serving.

BUT no man is perfect. Not even those who try to obey the Commandments, the Law. No man is always guileless, fair, completely loving, etc. That said, the Bible is quite clear that all of us are sinners and that any transgression deserves damnation. Unless there is Faith, that is.


Okay. That's second-guessing God's decision-making. We don't think that's logical to do or our place to do it, either.

Click to expand...

Genesis 4:7 occurs after the fall in the garden yet man has the ability to choose to do well or not do well.

Other than Christ, no man will be perfect in his obedience but thankfully God does not required prefection but offers grace for those times when man's obedience is not perfect.

Luke 17:10 "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."
Man has a duty to obey God's will (Ecclesiastes 12:13) and the disobedient are derelict in doing what is their duty to do. Even when man does his duty in obeying God he is still unprofitable for he did not obey perfectly therefore in need of grace. Yet man must obey God in order to receive grace for the disobedient will not receive grace. he Christian must also obey for in ROmans 6:1-2 even though the Christian is saved by grace that does not give the CHristian license to sin. For if the Christian does not obey he then will be serving "sin unto death" having abandoned serving obedience unto righteousness. Therefore obedience is not atithical to grace as faith onlyism wrongly implies but obedience and grace go together like an hand in glove.

Butterball1 said:

Luke 17:10 "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."
Man has a duty to obey God's will (Ecclesiastes 12:13) and the disobedient are derelict in doing what is their duty to do. Even when man does his duty in obeying God he is still unprofitable for he did not obey perfectly therefore in need of grace. Yet man must obey God in order to receive grace for the disobedient will not receive grace.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you are simply repeating what you've said several times before. In the absence of anything here that's new, I'll exit.

Albion said:

Best as I can tell at this stage in the discussion, you interpret every admonition given to mankind to follow the Commandments, the Law, as being a guarantee of salvation--for those who pull it off successfully, perfectly, and consistently throughout life.

But the message of the New Testament, and which is evident in Paul's writings, is that because we cannot accomplish that, we need a Savior; and thanks to the graciousness of God, we've been given one who has called upon us to trust him and to find righteousness through HIS merits.

Click to expand...

Man cannot be saved/justified by following the OT law and commandments for that OT law cannot justifiy (Galatians 3:11) for that OT law required perfect, flawless obedience to ALL that law to be justified. Just one sin brought the curse of that law upon one. Yet the NT law does not require strict perfect flawless obedience but a simple faithful obedience in doing God's will.

Albion said:

Do you really think that John is one of the damned? Or is it that he, like all of us, is fallible and unable to keep the Law perfectly?

Click to expand...

No, John was not one that CONTINUED in doing unrighteousness (1 John 3:10) but one who continued to walk in the light (1 John 1:7). Was John perfectly sinelss? No but again the NT does not require strict perfect flawless obedience as the OT but the NT requires a faithful obedience which includes repenting of sins (1 John 1:9) and GOd forgives.

Albion said:

Not intentionally, no. That would mark such as person as one who does not have the Faith which saves. But neither is it the case that even those who attempt to follow God's commands throughout life and to the best of their abilities are capable of doing so and, as a result, of saving themselves.

Click to expand...

God does not ever unconditionally make the disobedent righteous while he continues to live in rebellion to God's will. GOd requires man to believe repent confess and be baptized to be saved so those who quit disobeying and choose to obey God in doing these things are the ones God saves. Thus Romans 10:9-10 says belief UNTO righteousness and confession UNTO salvation for obedience leads on to righteousness ie "obedience UNTO righteousness. One does not obey because he already is righteous that would mean one believed BECAUSE he already is righteous even though the Bible NOWHERE ever calls the unbeliever righteous but says the unbeliever is unrighteous, lost and remains in that unrighteous, lost state until he FIRST chooses to obey God by believing THEN he will be made righteous

Albion said:

Salvation by Faith is the position taken by virtually ALL Protestant denominations. It is quite incorrect to talk as though this is somehow a special prerogative of "Calvinists."

Click to expand...

I too believe salvation is by faith. I do NOT beleive salvation is by faith alone.

"Faith and "faith alone" are NOT the same thing but are total opposites. "Faith" includes obedience to God's will and therfore can justify Romans 5:1 while 'faith alone' is void of obedience to God's will therefore does NOT justify James 2:24.

Sola Fide has been a divisive doctrine from it's conception. As a Catholic, I believe in Sola Fide, and I don’t understand how it's useful.

Landon Caeli said:

Sola Fide has been a divisive doctrine from it's conception. As a Catholic, I believe in Sola Fide, and I don’t understand how it's useful.

Click to expand...

??

Albion said:

??

Click to expand...

If Catholics believe in Sola Fide, there are no consequences for it... It's never been our doctrine, so my acceptance of it or not is just like whether I believe blue is a better color than green.

...Personally I like it

I'm still unclear about this comment, Landon. If Catholics accept Sola Fide, they reject their own church's teaching (and practices). That would be wrong, even heretical, so how can it be a "no consequences" matter?

Albion said:

I'm still unclear about this comment, Landon. If Catholics accept Sola Fide, they reject their own church's teaching (and practices). That would be wrong, even heretical, so how can it be a "no consequences" matter?

Click to expand...

Actually, it's never been a Catholic teaching either way, since it's not in the Catechism, and never has been. Most people don't realize that.

Catholics can go either way on this Protestant doctrine without consequence.

Landon Caeli said:

Actually, it's never been a Catholic teaching either way, since it's not in the Catechism, and never has been.

Catholics can go either way on this Protestant doctrine without consequence.

Click to expand...

Ouch! No, you probably wouldn't be thrown out of church for siding with Martin Luther on this matter, but it's not a "no consequence" issue in the bigger sense.

I haven't checked the Catechism (which isn't the final word on the subject, but just a quick reference for Catholics), but the well-known "Catholic Answers" page has a long article about it, including this summary:

"Here St. Paul teaches that through good works, or continuing to 'sow to the Spirit,' we will be rewarded with eternal life, but only if we persevere."

Albion said:

Ouch! No. You probably wouldn't be thrown out of church for siding with Martin Luther on this matter, but it's not a "no consequence" issue in the bigger sense.

Click to expand...

I guess I just don't feel obligated to reject something out of spite because it's not a proto-Catholic teaching.

Hi. It looks like I was editing while you were writing, so please take another look at the previous post.

Albion said:

I haven't checked the Catechism (which isn't the final word on the subject, but just a quick reference for Catholics), but the well-known "Catholic Answers" page has a long article about it, including this summary:

"Here St. Paul teaches that through good works, or continuing to 'sow to the Spirit,' we will be rewarded with eternal life, but only if we persevere."

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Hi. It looks like I was editing while you were writing, so please take another look at the previous post.

Click to expand...

It looks like Catholic Answers is attempting to interpret scripture on their own... They're not offering any official Church teaching, since there really isn't one.

...I realize that this may come as a surprise to many.

There was a pope who spoke out against Sola Fide once, but then, popes have spoke out against democracies too, and an array of other side issues, none of which ever made it to the level of official Church teaching.

Landon Caeli said:

It looks like Catholic Answers is attempting to interpret scripture on their own... They're not offering any official Church teaching, since there isn't one.

Click to expand...

The Reformation started over several issues, one of which was Sola Fide/Faith Alone. That issue split the church of the sixteenth century.

If the Catholic teaching of salvation by faith + works was NOT an issue, would Luther and the rest of the Protestants have taken the stand they did? Of course not. But all I can do here, if I even should, is to suggest you look closer into it with your church.

Catholic Answers, by the way, functions with the authorization off the Catholic Diocese of San Diego. It is listed in The Official Catholic Directory, the official listing of American Catholic organizations, priests, and bishops. These organizations are not interpreting scripture on their own.

Albion said:

The Reformation started over several issues, one of which was Sola Fide/Faith Alone. That issue split the church of the sixteenth century.

If the Catholic teaching of salvation by faith + works was NOT an issue, would Luther and the rest of the Protestants have taken the stand they did? Of course not. But all I can do here, if I even should, is to suggest you look closer into it with your church.

Click to expand...

From my understanding, Sola Fide was promulgated as an add-on, being an original idea, and not actually a rejection of anything.

...Later on, after that, a pope did speak out against Sola Fide, but as people are people alike, his rejection of the concept of Sola Fide was mere tribalism, where a Catholic protested Protestantism because a Catholic didn't think of it first.

Landon Caeli said:

From my understanding, Sola Fide was promulgated as an add-on, and not actually a rejection of anything... It was an original idea, and not actually a rejection of anything.

Click to expand...

It was a rejection of the Catholic belief that good works, along with faith, are effective--and necessary--when it comes salvation. And there was nothing "new" at the time about the belief that pilgrimages, solemn devotional exercises, and works of charity can and do increase the chances of the church member being saved upon death.