Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Uh, James says he shows faith by his works (See James 2:18 cf. Hebrews 11). So works are a part of one’s faith.Half faith.?
Saved by half faith in Christ and half faith in works.? Or half faith in someone other than Christ.?*sarcasm*
As I noted in the other thread...Faith is not comatose unless someone is truly physically comatose.
Faith is indeed action, as the very word faith highly implies faithfulness. I don't think that is what's being argued here. What's being argued is whether or not our actions of faithfulness are accounted for our justification or even salvation (justification, sanctification, glorification).
If we are justified by the works of Christ alone and we are raised from the dead (glorified) by the power of God alone, why do we think sanctification is any different on Who the actor is?
So then, keeping the immediate context of at least a dozen, probably more (Galatians, James, Hebrews, Jude, etc.), scriptures we have beaten to death about Judaisers and those Christians who were being tempted to return to Judaism, were those Christians in the early church who left the Faith and returned to Judaism still sealed? Those who were "severed from Christ", "cut off", "fallen from grace"? Is it only Christians who have returned to Judaism that are described in this way?
Or are we back to "that's not Christians" again?
Most scholars put the book of James written by the half brother of Jesus Christ James the Just circa 48-50 AD. In the same timeframe 48-50 AD we see the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. There was no confusion after that council that one is saved by Grace through faith:James caused a bit of a problem in James 2:24
The reason is that he and Paul forgot to sit down and figure out some theology and how future generations would understand what they were saying.
Considering we are only saved by the Righteousness of Christ Jesus, I would agree you cannot separate His righteousness from His sovereign design of salvation.These things are all inextricably linked. You can’t separate any one of them from the others. None of them stand alone.
Saved by grace (free gift, unearned) through faith (belief proven through works). Faith is a law through which grace is administered. So is righteousness. Grace reigns, or rules, or runs, through righteousness. All of God’s commands are righteousness. None claiming to have earned grace, only claiming that these are the laws God established where grace resides, where it is to be found.
So no righteousness, no faith. No faith, no grace. No grace, no salvation. None can be severed from the others.
I think people get too tripped up trying to discuss these ideas in isolation. They were never meant to be isolated in the Christian experience.
I did not mention circumcision. I pointed out James gave examples of the OT moral law which still applies in taking care of the needy, orphans, widows etc. Jesus confirmed these Torah laws for the New Covenant in His Blood.Please quote me the exact verse in James where he says we must keep Circumcision or the Old Testament Law of Moses. James talks about the Royal Law of loving your neighbor (which is the second greatest commandment given to us by Jesus Christ) (See James 2:8).
Why indeed! So if those who were "troubled", "hindered", "bewitched", "cut off", "fallen from grace", "severed from Christ", were found as such, how is it we should believe we can't be found as such also?I have never once said that those believers who were “troubled”, “hindered” and “bewitched” by false teaching we’re not true Christians. True Christians can indeed fall into error.
Why else would there be so many warnings given in Scripture regarding this very issue?
I suggest it is clear that you do need “good works” to be justified; Romans 2:6-7 is crytal clear on this as are a number of other texts. This does not deny justification by faith - the two can be seen to be compatible if we understand that the good works are “evidence” that what really saves - faith - is genuine.I am in 100% agreement with you.
but there will be people who will not agree with you will take James 2 out of context to say we need works to be justified.
ROMANS.10: = Israel Needs the GospelCould I change your third paragraph around a bit?
No grace...not faith
No faith...no righteousness
No righteousness...no salvation
Also, the bible states very clearly that fornicators will not enter heaven.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
(amariselle said; "Scripture also clearly states in regard to fornication and other evil acts, “such were some of you.)
Right.
And when they WERE, they were NOT headed for heaven.
Jesus said that those who DO NOT ABIDE in Him will be cut off, thrown away, and burned. That doesn't sound like heaven to me.
If Jesus said it, it must surely be true.
John 15:1-6
Not really. Paul is really very clear that it is the indwelling Spirit that is the engine that generates the good works.Sola fide is pleading the merits of Christ as the only grounds for justification. Anything outside of this pleads mens works meritorious and the grounds for justification. And by doing so denies the gospel of Christ
This text is deeply misunderstood. In context, the “works” that do not save are not general good works, they are the works of the Law of Moses that only the Jew can do.What's the debate?
We are justified by faith, not by works.
Ephesians 2:8-9
I'll take common ground where I can find it. Are we also in agreement that our own will, choices, and actions, are part of His sovereign design of salvation?Considering we are only saved by the Righteousness of Christ Jesus, I would agree you cannot separate His righteousness from His sovereign design of salvation.
The NASB and KJV match. Don't see the issue. One is Modern English and one is Early Modern English.Verse 4 in the KJV says that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who not after the flesh (sin) but who walk after the Spirit.
Pretty good quotes, but if we are after what Paul is preaching in Romans 8:3-4 we only need to continue in Romans 8. You quote a bit of it, but the context is important:What is the righteousness of the Law?
It is loving your neighbor (Which is the equivalent of the Moral Law - See Romans 13:8-10). For if we walk after the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (See Galatians 5:16). What are the lusts of the flesh?
“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21).
Romans 8:13 says, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”
Please clarify, you provided exegesis for 1 Corinthians 5:5 previously or are just endorsing what someone wrote at Christian Courier?There are serious misunderstandings of scripture abounding in this thread... I've exegeted the above and will not do it again...but it does not mean what is posted above.
I came back to post this:
What Is the Meaning of, "Destruction of the Flesh," in 1 Corinthians 5:5?
Also, the bible states very clearly that fornicators will not enter heaven.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Sorry A, I didn't mean to imply that you did (re Calvin).I don’t listen to Calvin, actually, or any other man or woman. (I test what they say by Scripture, as we should all do) Eternal security is Biblical, it is not the invention of man.
The Gospel is simple, a little child can understand, and so it is that we must receive it, as Jesus plainly taught.
I'm sorry, but you didn't understand my post.Most scholars put the book of James written by the half brother of Jesus Christ James the Just circa 48-50 AD. In the same timeframe 48-50 AD we see the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. There was no confusion after that council that one is saved by Grace through faith:
Acts 15: NASB
7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
The above is the historical context in which we must put the writings of Paul, Peter and James.
I exegeted it previously.Please clarify, you provided exegesis for 1 Corinthians 5:5 previously or are just endorsing what someone wrote at Christian Courier?
As I noted in the other thread...Faith is not comatose unless someone is truly physically comatose.
Faith is indeed action, as the very word faith highly implies faithfulness. I don't think that is what's being argued here. What's being argued is whether or not our actions of faithfulness are accounted for our justification or even salvation (justification, sanctification, glorification).
If we are justified by the works of Christ alone and we are raised from the dead (glorified) by the power of God alone, why do we think sanctification is any different on Who the actor is?
What does the Bible have to say about human free will?We still have our free will to do so after salvation.
Simply, that we possess it.What does the Bible have to say about human free will?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?