- Mar 25, 2003
- 3,109
- 118
- 72
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
James clearly shows that works is not keeping the law. Works is the action you take because of faith.
Upvote
0
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.
Tawhano said:James clearly shows that works is not keeping the law. Works is the action you take because of faith.
I disagree, throughout the New Testament the emphasis is on faith and not in keeping laws. Obeying the commandments of the new covenant is the manifestation of our faith. Christ died for us when we were yet sinners. No one was able to keep the laws. No one was justified or made righteous by keeping the laws. We are not under the law any more, being made free from the law with the blood of Christ. If you keep the laws you are under the law. If you are under the law then you are not under grace.Whitehorse Said:
Throughout the new testament, the emphasis on keeping God's commands is a prerequisite for salvation.
Not according to James. Works are the manifestation of our faith. Jesus told his disciples that those who believed in him would do greater works. This doesnt mean they will keep the laws greater but that their faith will show forth in greater manifestations to the world.Whitehorse Said:
Are not works manifestations of the law?
Tawhano said:I disagree, throughout the New Testament the emphasis is on faith and not in keeping laws.
Obeying the commandments of the new covenant is the manifestation of our faith. Christ died for us when we were yet sinners. No one was able to keep the laws. No one was justified or made righteous by keeping the laws. We are not under the law any more, being made free from the law with the blood of Christ. If you keep the laws you are under the law. If you are under the law then you are not under grace.
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Galatians 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Not according to James. Works are the manifestation of our faith. Jesus told his disciples that those who believed in him would do greater works. This doesnt mean they will keep the laws greater but that their faith will show forth in greater manifestations to the world.
[/quote]John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
I wasn't asking that, I was asking if you agree in general that God uses men to communicate with us.Whitehorse said:Absolutely-I do agree. The question then is...who?
Aside from scripture telling us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), does Jesus not tell us to take disagreements to the Church for resolution? (rather than just "pray" on it...) This is because the Church is the protector of Truth (pillar and foundation in fact).Whitehorse said:If you know of a verse I'd be happy to take a look.
no, trusting in the Church IS trusting in God, as God gave us the Church and promised to protect it from the gates of hell.Whitehorse said:But don't you advocate leaning on man? Wouldn't putting faith in the church in order to put faith in God fall under this category?
The doctrine of the Trinity was given to us by the same Church who rejects the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Why do you reject one and not the other? Scripture does not support Sola Scriptura, but since you say it does, and I say it doesn't, who can know the truth? Does scripture not tell us to ask the Church? and when scripture talks of the Church scripture is speaking of the Apostolic Church (yes, the Catholic Church).Whitehorse said:About sola scriptura, those exact words may not be in scripture, the principle surely is. It didn't come from man. They sumarize the truth of scripture, and this is where the doctrine came from. The word trinity isn't in there either, but we know there is a trinity from other teachings in the Bible.
agreed, Catholics have 1 authority - God.Whitehorse said:But we can't have two authorities.
nor did I ever say it did - lets not confuse God with pillars.Whitehorse said:The church is still comprised of sinful human beings. And, to give man the equal authority of God isn't scriptural. That verse refering to the church being the pillar is not a relinquishment by God of His authority, nor does God make man equal with Himself. For it is written:
All I can do with that is agree. but how does that change, enhance, or do anything else for your argument?Whitehorse said:Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. Ephesians 5:24-26
This may help shed some light on I Timothy 3:15.
but who reveals the word of God to us? how did you come to know scriptures as truth apart from human tradition?Whitehorse said:Well, I would agree that the church does reveal the truth, but only as it is revealed to them in the word.
your whole foundation appears to be built on mud. You trust scripture to be true because scripture says it is. That is illogical - scriptures are just a book appart from tradition which says it is inspired, and trust which we give to the tradition.Whitehorse said:They, in and of themselves do not have authority greater than or equal to God. Since we agree on that, we can only rely on God's inspired word for this truth. If the church ever veers away from this, the church is in sin. It is no longer revealing the truth. Also, the Holy Spirit is the guide of all truth, not the church. The church's job, as revealed in the verse you gave me, is to send forth God's word, not add its own.
have you ever converted someone to Christ? do you consider that person to be saved now? are you not the instrumental cause of their salvation?Whitehorse said:Actually, it does. Then it is no longer faith in Christ. Where is it written that the church can save? Rather, is it not written:
what does finiate and infinite have to do with this?Whitehorse said:I don't think they were instrumental. There is no cooperation per se, it is obedience under the rulership of God, not a partnership. Man is finite, God is infinite. Man is subject to the judgment of God. How could he judge the church if the church is co-author with God?
Whitehorse said:Exactly. But these are all churches. So, how would we know which one is right?
that's new age reformed theology, and its silly. Christ was clear that the Church was visible.Whitehorse said:But the church is comprised of men. And I think the church that is protected is not the visible church, but the spiritual one.
My question to you was rhetorical. You seem to have missed it and this is getting redundant.Whitehorse said:An excellent question! They all use the scriptures, but which use it correctly? The answer requires diligent study of the word itself, not what someone says about the word. It can be helpful to get the reflections of others, but not in place of personal prayer and study. The scriptures laud the Bereans for not taking even the apostles' word as true by its own merit. They didn't go to another human being. They went straight to God through His word. And I find it is also wise to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and be open to His leading.
who are they to interpret scripture?Whitehorse said:A good start. Contradictions. But then we have another problem. Some say that the Bible contradicts itself, which further study reveals to be false. So how do we know an apparent contradiction from an actual one? Does this not go back to the scriptures?
oh boy. So you will find the definition of heresy in scripture?Whitehorse said:Okay, this is what the church says. Now we would check the scriptures to see if this is true. Catholic is spelled with a small c, so that would be the universal church of God. But this isn't what the Bible teaches, is it? This document is not scripture. There's something not right about what it teaches either, as we can see from the above verses-it doesn't place authority on God, but on man. If man is in submission to God, he will never try to usurp God's authority.
This isn't one of those "who has the poorest head of their church" contests is it?Whitehorse said:If I may offer something up as gently as I can: who was Jesus, and what did He wear?
Who is the head of the church, and what does he wear?
Why?
geocajun said:This isn't one of those "who has the poorest head of their church" contests is it?
Whitehouse, its a shame you cannot immediately comprehend the things I have written, but your lies about what I have said, and personal insults are not called for - such as implying that I do not believe in God.Whitehorse said:Friend, if you can at all compare any head of any church to Jesus Christ, that's all one needs to know. You're using scriptures out of context, you're one minute saying the church has as much authority as scripture, the next saying God is supreme, and equating new age to the Reformed faith...and youre saying a faith based solely on scripture is one built on mud. The reason you need human beings to validate God's word is because you do not believe God Himself.
geocajun said:Whitehouse, its a shame you cannot immediately comprehend the things I have written, but your lies about what I have said, and personal insults are not called for - such as implying that I do not believe in God.
geocajun said:your whole foundation appears to be built on mud. You trust scripture to be true because scripture says it is.
Geocajun said:agreed, Catholics have 1 authority - God.
Geocajun said:are you suggesting that God turned these men into drones, void of their own will in order to write scripture? Or did man Operate with God (co-operate) to write scripture?
Geocajun said:oh boy. So you will find the definition of heresy in scripture?
Geocajun said:I have met each of your arguments with reasonable rebuttels, and you are clearly out of reasonable responses, and this is, I imagine, why you have resorted to personal attacks on me.
Shame on you.
Geocajun said:that's new age reformed theology, and its silly.
Geocajun said:I will gladly remain an asset for you to ask questions too, but I will not correspond with you if you cannot carry on an intellegent, insult free conversation.
Oh I see, so its okay when you say Throughout the new testament, the emphasis on keeping God's commands is a prerequisite for salvation., but when I say the emphasis is on faith then it doesnt carry much weight? See how you are?Whitehorse Said:
Emphasis doesn't really carry much weight when it comes to scripture.
Not at all, it only seems that way to you because of the two important distinctions fabricated to explain away the irregularities between your doctrine and the teachings of the Bible. The Bible is very clear that the law functions as a whole, break one tiny bit and you transgress the lot. Jesus fulfilled the law, all of it, not some imaginary dividing line between ceremonial and moral laws.Whitehorse Said:
Well, we're kind of mixing apples and oranges here. There are two important distinctions that need to made:
Exactly what I was saying. Not the works of keeping the law but the works of our actions that stem from our faith.Whitehorse Said:
Yet we learn from the book of James that faith without works is dead. So this is what tips us off to the fact that we're really talking about a different kind of works here:
Im not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from the verse you quoted. Paul was explaining how sin was manifested through the law even though the law was good. Again there is no mention of dividing the law into groups, one we keep the other we dont. That is purely fabrication.Whitehorse Said:
7:7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, F25 except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
So we are not saved by the keeping of the law, ceremonial or moral, but if we are saved we do keep the moral law. Not to save us, but because we are saved.
Tawhano said:Oh I see, so its okay when you say Throughout the new testament, the emphasis on keeping God's commands is a prerequisite for salvation., but when I say the emphasis is on faith then it doesnt carry much weight? See how you are?
Not at all, it only seems that way to you because of the two important distinctions fabricated to explain away the irregularities between your doctrine and the teachings of the Bible. The Bible is very clear that the law functions as a whole, break one tiny bit and you transgress the lot. Jesus fulfilled the law, all of it, not some imaginary dividing line between ceremonial and moral laws.
Im guessing you mean these? I didnt address them because the rebuttal you posted was about faith without works is dead and I couldnt understand how these verses supported your rebuttal. My rebuttal was that the works in James was not the works of keeping the law. I posted my view on just what works James was referring to. This was your reply and I didnt understand your point.Whitehorse Said:
Which, you haven't adressed those verses yet.
Whitehorse Said:
1. How did Jesus summarize the law? Matthew 7:12:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
2. And what did John son of Zebedee say about hating our brothers, a violation of this law? I John 4:19-21
We love Him, because He first loved us. If a man say, I love God, but hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment hath we from Him, That he who loveth God loveth his brother also.
This is a fulfillment of the commandment. This is obeying the law and prophets.
I read what you said and I understood it to mean what it said:Whitehorse Said:
But if you try to see what I am actually saying instead of nitpicking semantics when you don't have actual material, it would save a lot of time and make you seem more sincere.
The reason you say this is because you ignore half of my post. I always back up what I believe with scripture. You have not once challenged my interpretation of the verses I quoted but instead offer rebuttal with your extra-scriptural evidence about Jesus fulfilling only the ceremonial laws and mixing commandments with the law.Whitehorse Said:
you don't have actual material
Whitehorse Said:
If there is no difference between ceremonial amd moral law, reconcile these verses, if you will:
Romans 2:26-27
2:26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
2:27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
The promise of God could not be obtained from the law. Does that mean the law was destroyed when Jesus brought in the new covenant of faith?Whitehorse Said:
Please explain this verse to me, if you will: Romans 3:313:31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Tawhano said:How else would one interpret that? You say now What I meant to say is, emphasis never in anywise eradicates another verse in the Bible. How was I to come to that conclusion with what you said?
Just because I disagree with you on interpretation of scripture does not make me automatically wrong.
You have demonstrated to me that your interpretation of scripture is influenced by your religious beliefs. My religious belief is that religion is man made and man centered.
As do I.The reason you say this is because you ignore half of my post. I always back up what I believe with scripture.
You have not once challenged my interpretation of the verses I quoted but instead offer rebuttal with your extra-scriptural evidence about Jesus fulfilling only the ceremonial laws and mixing commandments with the law.
The promise of God could not be obtained from the law. Does that mean the law was destroyed when Jesus brought in the new covenant of faith?
We are agreed on this, from post 87:As I have shown in post#87 the laws were part of the covenant (Ten Commandments) God made with Israel that if they kept the covenant and laws He would be their God. God promised to set up a new covenant because they did not keep His covenant. Paul explains how this works in the letter to the Galatians and shows that the law was not destroyed or made void but fulfilled in Christ and we establish the law by our faith in Christ because we obtain the promise that the law could not bring to Gods people.
Tawhano said:Later on God gave Moses the stones, which were later broken and written over again. So it is true that the Ten Commandments were separate from the law.
I wholeheartedly agree. Believe it or not I much prefer to debate without the digs but I have this nasty habit of firing back when provoked. I guess we got off on the wrong foot.Whitehorse Said:
These things can be worked out easier without the zing-o-rama.
I believe that the law written in out hearts isnt the law from the old covenant because that has been replaced by the new covenant. I guess the differences between your beliefs and mine is mainly in that sense. Yes the new covenant law encompasses all of the old covenant laws but the new laws are better than the old.Whitehorse Said:
Because why would we no longer obey a law that is written upon our hearts? The law is still there. Just in our hearts through the Holy Spirit.
I have held many jobs in my life and most of them required me to work on Sunday. I do not think that it is a sin to provide for your family, with that said, I do think that it will be required of the Employer to give just cause for having people work on Sunday or the Sabbath. I think that the Chik-fil-a company has proved that business can be succesful while remaining closed on Sunday. His testamony is going to be a strong one when we all face the judgement seat of Christ.wblastyn said:I was at an interview today for a part time job in a store, they told me I would have to work on some Sundays and asked me if my religious beliefs forbid it or anything, I panicked because I wasn't sure and I just said it was fine.
I'm wondering if working on Sundays is against Christian beliefs? I know we're supposed to keep the Sabbath Holy, but the non-working thing was for jews wasn't it? Plus Sunday isn't really the Sabbath, it's Saturday.
It wasnt my intent to address what the law is. We are not under the law. Perhaps I should not have used the word law when I said the law written in out heart as it isnt a law written there but the words of God being revealed to us through the Holy Spirit. Gods will being manifested by the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. No more laws.Whitehorse Said:
Tawhano, these don't really address what the law is, per se.
I dont believe that is the purpose of Romans 7:7 at all. Paul was explaining how the law worked before the new covenant, not how it is relevant for today. Notice how in verses 5 and 6 Paul tells us we are delivered from the law that brought us death. Then in verse 7 he asked the question that many would be asking after he identified the law as bringing death. If the law brought death then was the law sin? He answers that it was not.Whitehorse Said:
So still we see that the law is not dead in regards to teaching us how to live, nor has our application as a result of our faith diminished.
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?