saved by grace or by works

[Guojing]

No, I really don't see the truth in what you are saying, I see you are trying to say that the Jews were saved by a different means, in obeying the laws, but if you go back to how Abraham was declared righteous you will find that it was because he believed God and by that was by faith. Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. This is the same principle as quoted in the NT that says no one is saved by the obeying of the law but we are children of Abraham by faith, Gal 3:5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 7Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. 10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” 13Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. V14 here shows the blessing of Abraham came in the promise of God to Abraham that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Salvation has always been by faith and not by works, otherwise it is not of faith. Good works follow salvation by grace through faith, Eph 2:10 for we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before shown that we should walk in them.

The point I am simply saying is that you cannot use that Galatians 1:6-9 passage to conclude there can only be one gospel.

Paul is not saying that.

 

[Ligurian]

The point I am simply saying is that you cannot use that Galatians 1:6-9 passage to conclude there can only be one gospel.

Paul is not saying that.

You're saying the same thing I've been saying for months:
there is only one gospel for the uncircumcision,
there is only one gospel for the circumcision (and their proselytes).

How the uncircumcision thinks their gospel applies to the circumcision, I have yet to figure out. But even Luke got this part right: Acts of the Apostles 15:20. Otherwise, it's like Paul going to Pontus and bossing Peter's flock around.
The fact is that, in Galatia, both Paul and Peter were preaching.

The only way people can ever think these are the same gospels... is to look at Peter's gospel through the lense of Paul's gospel and start twisting everything ever said to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel by Ιησους, the apostle/sent by the Father specifically to these sheep.

Obviously, the Father didn't teach Paul his gospel of grace to gentiles.
Obviously, the Father did teach Ιησους His Gospel of the Reign of Heaven.
There are scriptures proving both things, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
But people see what they want to see.

So... the gentiles began to boast to the circumcision that all of physical Israel has been set aside. I don't have to wonder how this boasting will turn out, because prophecy is filled with this thing.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Saved by Grace alone. Good works follow as the evidence of faith and for the glory of God.

YES...WE ARE SAVED BT GRACE, THOUGH FAITH ALONE, UNTO GOOD WORKS EPH2:10

 

[Doug Brents]

The point I am simply saying is that you cannot use that Galatians 1:6-9 passage to conclude there can only be one gospel.

Paul is not saying that.

The Holy Spirit does, through Paul, does in Rom 1:16. “THE” Gospel of Jesus is “THE” power for salvation for both the Jews and the Gentile. It is the ONLY power to save, everyone, not just the Gentiles, not just the Jews, but EVERYONE.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”

 

[Guojing]

The Holy Spirit does, through Paul, does in Rom 1:16. “THE” Gospel of Jesus is “THE” power for salvation for both the Jews and the Gentile. It is the ONLY power to save, everyone, not just the Gentiles, not just the Jews, but EVERYONE.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”

Yes, in the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, that I agree.

But Israel the nation, still existed when Paul wrote Romans. Romans was written in the middle of the Acts period.

See Act 21:18-25 to understand the role of believing Israel, which includes James and the elders there.

 

[Guojing]

You're saying the same thing I've been saying for months:
there is only one gospel for the uncircumcision,
there is only one gospel for the circumcision (and their proselytes).

How the uncircumcision thinks their gospel applies to the circumcision, I have yet to figure out. But even Luke got this part right: Acts of the Apostles 15:20. Otherwise, it's like Paul going to Pontus and bossing Peter's flock around.
The fact is that, in Galatia, both Paul and Peter were preaching.

The only way people can ever think these are the same gospels... is to look at Peter's gospel through the lense of Paul's gospel and start twisting everything ever said to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel by Ιησους, the apostle/sent by the Father specifically to these sheep.

Obviously, the Father didn't teach Paul his gospel of grace to gentiles.
Obviously, the Father did teach Ιησους His Gospel of the Reign of Heaven.
There are scriptures proving both things, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
But people see what they want to see.

So... the gentiles began to boast to the circumcision that all of physical Israel has been set aside. I don't have to wonder how this boasting will turn out, because prophecy is filled with this thing.

Covenant Theologians see every gospel as the offshoot of their covenant of grace, so naturally, they will not unable to distinguish different gospels.

 

[Doug Brents]

Yes, in the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, that I agree.

But Israel the nation, still existed when Paul wrote Romans. Romans was written in the middle of the Acts period.

See Act 21:18-25 to understand the role of believing Israel, which includes James and the elders there.

Yes, the physical nation of Israel still existed, and they had traditions they kept that were not Law. And as Paul said in 1 Cor 9:19-23, “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”

One Gospel, delivered in different manners, with different traditions, to different peoples, but still the same Gospel with the same Lord and the same requirements to receive the promised salvation.

 

[Guojing]

Yes, the physical nation of Israel still existed, and they had traditions they kept that were not Law. And as Paul said in 1 Cor 9:19-23, “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”

One Gospel, delivered in different manners, with different traditions, to different peoples, but still the same Gospel with the same Lord and the same requirements to receive the promised salvation.

I suggest you read Acts 21:18-25 properly and understand what James and the elders, who belong to the believing remnant of Israel, think about the importance of law keeping for Israel.

But I guess since, in a previous exchange with me, I see that you are unable to distinguish between Israel and the Body of Christ, this advice will fall into deaf ears, so let's move on.

 

[Doug Brents]

I suggest you read Acts 21:18-25 properly and understand what James and the elders, who belong to the believing remnant of Israel, think about the importance of law keeping for Israel.

But I guess since, in a previous exchange with me, I see that you are unable to distinguish between Israel and the Body of Christ, this advice will fall into deaf ears, so let's move on.

LOL, no deaf ears here. I do distinguish between the nation of Israel and Spiritual Israel. The nation of Israel (the biological descendants of Abraham) is irrelevant, spiritually, today. Spiritual Israel consists of those who believe in Christ (both Jew and Gentile).

There is ONE Gospel for the World today. It is the same for both Jew and Gentile, because there is no separation between them anymore.

I did read and study Acts 21:18-25, and I see that there was a desire among many of the Apostles that, when dealing with the Jews, they keep to the TRADITIONS of the Jews so as not to cause offense and drive the Jews from the Gospel. But when dealing with the Gentiles there was no need to keep to the traditions because the Gentiles didn’t have them anyway. The same applies today to those seeking to reach the Jewish community (of whom I know many (my wife’s parents and the Messianic Jewish congregation in Atlanta of which they are members here among them).

 

[Ligurian]

Covenant Theologians see every gospel as the offshoot of their covenant of grace, so naturally, they will not unable to distinguish different gospels.

Ever ask them which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Kinda hard for the first gospel to be an offshoot of the second gospel. Especially when we can find prophecies about the first gospel... but the second gospel was called "mysteries"... which it couldn't have been if Messiah taught it already. There is no logic to their statements... it's all about "feelings", apparently. And it all goes back to that misunderstood-statement of Paul's... which they take as their God-given right to curse anyone who believes that the chicken came first.

 

[Ligurian]

I suggest you read Acts 21:18-25 properly and understand what James and the elders, who belong to the believing remnant of Israel, think about the importance of law keeping for Israel.

But I guess since, in a previous exchange with me, I see that you are unable to distinguish between Israel and the Body of Christ, this advice will fall into deaf ears, so let's move on.

I don't believe for a minute that it was the apostle James in Acts, remember Galatians 1:19... where James the Lord's brother is called an apostle? Also remember that Paul spent years in Arabia... a long enough time for James and Joses and Simon (the Lord's brothers) to live in Antioch and Jerusalem.

Luke wouldn't have known any better, since he seems to have been just a doctor living in Antioch... so he took the word of people saying they were disciples... but many disciples turned back from the Messiah, making them not true disciples at all, according to John 8:31. Who would have told Luke or Paul any of that? John 7 shows the nature of the Lord's brothers: the world didn't hate them because they were "of the world". And they tried to talk Ιησους into going to the festival... so there, we see the Jews looking for Him... why did John mention this fact if the two things were not related? And James in Acts calls "Peter" the name Simon... his brother Simon?

Because here's the thing. If Ιησους sent His Disciples only unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, and the Father sent Ιησους only unto the Lost Sheep of Israel... are we really comfortable with saying God changed His mind? Since Matthew 28:18-20 commands them to take the words He'd taught them into the nations (where the 10-lost-tribes were scattered)... aren't both Matthew 10:5-7 (which is virtually repeated in Matthew 24) and Matthew 15:24 a big part of the words taught them by Ιησους?

Or do we just follow the gentile gospel and kick the command to find these Lost Sheep to the curb? and pretend with everyone else that the Simon in Acts was actually the (disobedient) Peter taught to find the Lost Sheep?
Again, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Believe first-hand witness of Ιησους for the Father to His Disciples?
Or second-hand witness of a doctor in Antioch writing to Theophilus?

 

[Ligurian]

I suggest you read Acts 21:18-25 properly and understand what James and the elders, who belong to the believing remnant of Israel, think about the importance of law keeping for Israel.

About "the elders" "the believing remnant"... Seriously?

Matthew 15:1-9 Then came to Ιησους scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,[2] Why do thy Disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.[3] But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the Commandment of God by your tradition?[4] For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.[5] But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;[6] And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.[7] Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,[8] This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me.[9] But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men.

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Ιησους to shew unto His Disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Matthew 26:47 And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

 

[Guojing]

LOL, no deaf ears here. I do distinguish between the nation of Israel and Spiritual Israel. The nation of Israel (the biological descendants of Abraham) is irrelevant, spiritually, today. Spiritual Israel consists of those who believe in Christ (both Jew and Gentile).

It might be irrelevant today, but it was certainly not irrelevant at the time of Acts 21:18-25.

If it was, what James the elders are saying will make no sense at all.

 

[Guojing]

About "the elders" "the believing remnant"... Seriously?

The James, since Acts 15, has always been the half brother of Jesus.

James is one of the believing remnant of Israel during the time period of Acts.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

EVERYONE is required to obey God’s moral law - the believing AND the unbelieving. That doesn’t change when one comes to trust in Christ.

The Scripture says, "By grace are we saved through faith; not of ourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works lest any should boast."

That is about as clear as one can get concerning being saved by grace and not by works, and it depends on whether one believes the Scripture or not concerning how one is saved.

Repentance does not involve doing extra good works in order to be saved. If that was so, grace would not be grace. Repentance involves what one stops doing when the Gospel is believed and Christ as Saviour is embraced.

Of course, adherence to God's moral law is essential for the development of sanctification, but in order to be able to keep the moral law, one has to be converted to Christ already and have the indwelling Holy Spirit to provide the power for holiness of life.

Therefore living a holy life in adherence to God's moral law is the result of conversion to Christ, not the cause or conditions for it.

 

[Doug Brents]

It might be irrelevant today, but it was certainly not irrelevant at the time of Acts 21:18-25.

If it was, what James the elders are saying will make no sense at all.

“Today” includes everything from Pentecost on. That certainly includes Acts 21.

What James was saying was not “religious “, but cultural. It was not about righteousness, but about appeasing the Jews so that they were not turned off from the Gospel by the messengers. It didn’t work, but that is beside the point. The point is that this passage is not about different Gospels for different groups. It is about living according to the customs of the people to whom we are preaching (in so far as it does not violate righteousness) so as not to cause offense for the Gospel’s sake.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Too bad there is no option in the reply for fully disagreeing with a post, such as a thumb's down!

 

[msortwell]

EVERYONE is required to obey God’s moral law - the believing AND the unbelieving. That doesn’t change when one comes to trust in Christ.

The Scripture says, "By grace are we saved through faith; not of ourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works lest any should boast."

That is about as clear as one can get concerning being saved by grace and not by works, and it depends on whether one believes the Scripture or not concerning how one is saved.

Repentance does not involve doing extra good works in order to be saved. If that was so, grace would not be grace. Repentance involves what one stops doing when the Gospel is believed and Christ as Saviour is embraced.

Of course, adherence to God's moral law is essential for the development of sanctification, but in order to be able to keep the moral law, one has to be converted to Christ already and have the indwelling Holy Spirit to provide the power for holiness of life.

Therefore living a holy life in adherence to God's moral law is the result of conversion to Christ, not the cause or conditions for it.

I believe, when the balance of my entries on this topic are considered, you will see that we agree. You yourself correctly state . . . "Of course, adherence to God's moral law is essential for the development of sanctification . . ."

Essential and required are synonyms. As believers, we are still commanded to obey God's commandments. However, our success or failure in obeying God's commands does not determine our eternal state (i.e., eternal damnation or eternal blessedness with the Lord). We are required to obey what God commands, whether it is in the form of the greatest commandment, or the second (which is like it) or in the 10 commandments that provides the greatest and second commands in expanded form, or in the NT commands that apply the principles of the two or the ten. The fact that our justification does not depend upon our righteousness (or obedience to these commands) by upon Christ's obedience/righteousness, does not mean that obedience is not required of us (required of believers).

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I believe, when the balance of my entries on this topic are considered, you will see that we agree. You yourself correctly state . . . "Of course, adherence to God's moral law is essential for the development of sanctification . . ."

Essential and required are synonyms. As believers, we are still commanded to obey God's commandments. However, our success or failure in obeying God's commands does not determine our eternal state (i.e., eternal damnation or eternal blessedness with the Lord). We are required to obey what God commands, whether it is in the form of the greatest commandment, or the second (which is like it) or in the 10 commandments that provides the greatest and second commands in expanded form, or in the NT commands that apply the principles of the two or the ten. The fact that our justification does not depend upon our righteousness (or obedience to these commands) by upon Christ's obedience/righteousness, does not mean that obedience is not required of us (required of believers).

A genuinely converted believer wants with all his heart to follow what Christ has commanded, even though he knows that he cannot do it perfectly, and his regular daily prayer is, "Lord, forgive me, a sinner." A person who thinks they can just go on living a sinful lifestyle with the belief that they are saved by grace without having to make any effort to live a holy life, demonstrates that they are not genuinely converted to Christ and will be rejected by Christ as a hypocrite at the Judgment.

 

[Ligurian]

I don't believe for a minute that it was the apostle James in Acts, remember Galatians 1:19... where James the Lord's brother is called an apostle? Also remember that Paul spent years in Arabia... a long enough time for James and Joses and Simon (the Lord's brothers) to live in Antioch and Jerusalem.

Luke wouldn't have known any better, since he seems to have been just a doctor living in Antioch... so he took the word of people saying they were disciples... but many disciples turned back from the Messiah, making them not true disciples at all, according to John 8:31. Who would have told Luke or Paul any of that? John 7 shows the nature of the Lord's brothers: the world didn't hate them because they were "of the world". And they tried to talk Ιησους into going to the festival... so there, we see the Jews looking for Him... why did John mention this fact if the two things were not related? And James in Acts calls "Peter" the name Simon... his brother Simon?

Because here's the thing. If Ιησους sent His Disciples only unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, and the Father sent Ιησους only unto the Lost Sheep of Israel... are we really comfortable with saying God changed His mind? Since Matthew 28:18-20 commands them to take the words He'd taught them into the nations (where the 10-lost-tribes were scattered)... aren't both Matthew 10:5-7 (which is virtually repeated in Matthew 24) and Matthew 15:24 a big part of the words taught them by Ιησους?

Or do we just follow the gentile gospel and kick the command to find these Lost Sheep to the curb? and pretend with everyone else that the Simon in Acts was actually the (disobedient) Peter taught to find the Lost Sheep?
Again, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Believe first-hand witness of Ιησους for the Father to His Disciples?
Or second-hand witness of a doctor in Antioch writing to Theophilus?

About "the elders" "the believing remnant"... Seriously?

Matthew 15:1-9 Then came to Ιησους scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,[2] Why do thy Disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.[3] But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the Commandment of God by your tradition?[4] For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.[5] But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;[6] And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.[7] Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,[8] This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me.[9] But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men.

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Ιησους to shew unto His Disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Matthew 26:47 And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

It might be irrelevant today, but it was certainly not irrelevant at the time of Acts 21:18-25.

If it was, what James the elders are saying will make no sense at all.

Which James was that? Galatians 1:19 "apostle" "James the Lord's brother"?
We don't know, because Luke doesn't tell us where he got his information.
He just writes to someone named Theophilus... who seems to have been high priest.
The chief priests were part of the crowd that killed Messiah... and so were the elders... and so were the Pharisees... and so were the scribes. So then, why was Luke writing to this Theophilus guy? Did all these people have a change of heart? Seriously.