Works

[Darkelf]

" Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone"

 

[Darkelf]

" Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone"
(John Calvin.)

 

[Swart]

Just a couple or three comments, FB. One, there is no one who is a Christian who is not a "BAC." Jesus said that we MUST be born again in order to be considered His follower. Is that not what the "BA" stands for in "BAC?" - "Born Again Christian" Do you know of any Christians who are not born again? In my parlance, that is a oxymoron.

If we are going to get stuck on semantics:

I have faith in Jesus Christ and have been born of water and of the spirit: I am a born-again Christian.

I am a witness of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ = Jehovah: I am one of Jehovah's witnesses.

I keep one day in seven holy and dedicated to the worship of God. I also look forward to the advent of Jesus Christ: I am a seventh-day adventist.

I belong to the Holy catholic (universal) church of Jesus Christ. I practice the orthodox religion.

I am baptist, presbyterian, methodist, episcopalian, anglican, apostolic, evangelical and pentecostal.

Now that we have that cleared up...

For the purpose of clarification, I'm sure that FB and others will be happy to stick to the term 'Evangelical Christian' (or EC for short) when referring to the particular subset of 'Orthodox Christians' (OC) that stress personal conversion and salvation by faith alone. Just as I'm sure everyone else will refer to the particular group of 'Unorthodox Christians' (UC) that are members of the CoJCoLDS as LDS.

And I'm sure Jenda will be VERY happy if no-one confuses her with either grouping. (and perhaps Casi too).

Now lets all have a group hug!

 

[Cassiopeia]

If we are going to get stuck on semantics:

I have faith in Jesus Christ and have been born of water and of the spirit: I am a born-again Christian.

I am a witness of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ = Jehovah: I am one of Jehovah's witnesses.

I keep one day in seven holy and dedicated to the worship of God. I also look forward to the advent of Jesus Christ: I am a seventh-day adventist.

I belong to the Holy catholic (universal) church of Jesus Christ. I practice the orthodox religion.

I am baptist, presbyterian, methodist, episcopalian, anglican, apostolic, evangelical and pentecostal.

Now that we have that cleared up...

For the purpose of clarification, I'm sure that FB and others will be happy to stick to the term 'Evangelical Christian' (or EC for short) when referring to the particular subset of 'Orthodox Christians' (OC) that stress personal conversion and salvation by faith alone. Just as I'm sure everyone else will refer to the particular group of 'Unorthodox Christians' (UC) that are members of the CoJCoLDS as LDS.

And I'm sure Jenda will be VERY happy if no-one confuses her with either grouping. (and perhaps Casi too).

Now lets all have a group hug!

Well Done! Absolutely Brilliant and clear thinking Swartz.

 

[Redneck Crow]

The "LAW" is refering to the old testiment law given by Moses. This law was the filthy rags because it could not bring us to perfection as the laws of Christ could

I have to disagree with you here, fatboys.

Works are referred to as filthy rags. Not the Law.

The Law is the tutor by which we come to know that we cannot acheive righteousness by our own works because none of us, with our sinful natures, keeps the Law. The Law's intention is to open our eyes to this fact.

The laws of Christ? You have me stumped there. Did Christ give us any laws that we can keep perfectly and thereby attain perfection? I'm not aware of any. When Christ told us that intent to murder was just as bad as actually murdering, he was driving home the point that man cannot keep the Law perfectly, and that men are therefore incapable of being rightous of their own accords.

The Law points out to us that we need the Grace we receive by faith in Christ as our savior to receive His righteousness to be saved.

 

[Rescued One]

I have to disagree with you here, fatboys.

Works are referred to as filthy rags. Not the Law.

The Law is the tutor by which we come to know that we cannot acheive righteousness by our own works because none of us, with our sinful natures, keeps the Law. The Law's intention is to open our eyes to this fact.

The laws of Christ? You have me stumped there. Did Christ give us any laws that we can keep perfectly and thereby attain perfection? I'm not aware of any. When Christ told us that intent to murder was just as bad as actually murdering, he was driving home the point that man cannot keep the Law perfectly, and that men are therefore incapable of being rightous of their own accords.

The Law points out to us that we need the Grace we receive by faith in Christ as our savior to receive His righteousness to be saved.

 

[A New Dawn]

And I'm sure Jenda will be VERY happy if no-one confuses her with either grouping. (and perhaps Casi too).

Now lets all have a group hug!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, Swart!

 

[Cassiopeia]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, Swart!

Can I have an amen sister?

 

[Apex]

Yeah right.

Yes I am rigtht. Ive already said it once in another thread and almost recieved a warning. So Ill do what the admin tells me to and keep my opinion to myself.

This tells me that you didn’t really read what I had to say.

Explain???

 

[Apex]

And specifically what "works" are the ones being at subject here? Baptism for the dead?

Why is it Mormons think they need to baptize dead people by proxy when they also maintain that the "laying on of hands" is neccesary?

Perhaps you can explain to me how "laying on of hands" can be of any effect, when the body of the person being baptised is 6 ft in the ground, or maybe even cremated?

You believe that you can give baptisms by laying on the hands, by proxy, but yet the priesthood can not be?

If we follow this same logic , we can now see that Christ can give any one of us the "keys" of priesthood, all without any kind of "laying on of hands", but through proxy, from heaven.

But of course, if your religion is claiming exclusivity to the Kingdom of God, then it naturally follows that you would not understand the hipocrosy of this doctrine.Such things are to be expected from an organization claiming to be the one "true church".

This is why I believe the LDS church to be such an intrusive organization. Nothing is off limits, they even try to push thier religion off onto dead people.

You changed the subject.

 

[Apex]

Apex, notice the verse said they were judged by their works. Even the morally upright will be judged to the lake of fire if Jesus was not their Lord and Savior.

Works plays no part whatsoever in "getting into heaven". It is all of Gods Grace and Mercy.


<><

Then why are we juged by are works at all? Why put it in the Bible? Why even do it? Iam not saying we are only juged by works but "faith without works is dead".

 

[A New Dawn]

I have to disagree with you here, fatboys.

Works are referred to as filthy rags. Not the Law.

The Law is the tutor by which we come to know that we cannot acheive righteousness by our own works because none of us, with our sinful natures, keeps the Law. The Law's intention is to open our eyes to this fact.

The laws of Christ? You have me stumped there. Did Christ give us any laws that we can keep perfectly and thereby attain perfection? I'm not aware of any. When Christ told us that intent to murder was just as bad as actually murdering, he was driving home the point that man cannot keep the Law perfectly, and that men are therefore incapable of being rightous of their own accords.

The Law points out to us that we need the Grace we receive by faith in Christ as our savior to receive His righteousness to be saved.

I believe that Fatboys already stated what he meant when he made that remark, if you cared to look at it. It is post #32.

 

[A New Dawn]

Can I have an amen sister?

AMEN!

 

[skylark1]

Then why are we juged by are works at all? Why put it in the Bible? Why even do it? Iam not saying we are only juged by works but "faith without works is dead".

I don't know if you read my earlier post, but I think that it answers your question.



I like the way that John Gill reconciles James claim that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24), and Paul's claim that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28). He writes that Paul speaks of justification before God, while James speaks of justification before men... the fruits of justification. It is a little long, but I think that it is worth reading:

and not by faith only...

or as without works, or a mere historical faith, which being without works is dead, of which the apostle is speaking; and therefore can bear no testimony to a man's justification; hence it appears, that the Apostle James does not contradict the Apostle Paul in (Romans 3:28) since they speak not of the same sort of faith; the one speaks of a mere profession of faith, a dead and lifeless one; the other of a true faith, which has Christ, and his righteousness, for its object, and works by love, and produces peace, joy, and comfort in the soul. Moreover, the Apostle Paul speaks of justification before God; and James speaks of it as it is known by its fruits unto men; the one speaks of a justification of their persons, in the sight of God; the other of the justification and approbation of their cause, their conduct, and their faith before men, and the vindication of them from all charges and calumnies of hypocrisy, and the like; the one speaks of good works as causes, which he denies to have any place as such in justification; and the other speaks of them as effects flowing from faith, and showing the truth of it, and so of justification by it; the one had to do with legalists and self-justiciaries, who sought righteousness not by faith, but by the works of the law, whom he opposed; and the other had to do with libertines, who cried up faith and knowledge, but had no regard to a religious life and conversation; and these things considered will tend to reconcile the two apostles about this business, but as effects declaring it; for the best works are imperfect, and cannot be a righteousness justifying in the sight of God, and are unprofitable in this respect; for when they are performed in the best manner, they are no other than what it is a man's duty to perform, and therefore cannot justify from sin he has committed: and besides, justification in this sense would frustrate the grace of God, make void the death of Christ, and encourage boasting in men. Good works do not go before justification as causes or conditions, but follow it as fruits and effects:​

 

[Rescued One]

Then why are we juged by are works at all? Why put it in the Bible? Why even do it? Iam not saying we are only juged by works but "faith without works is dead".

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

There is no good fruit except that which grows on the branch of the True Vine.

1 Corinthians 15
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Matthew 20:1-16

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~*~†~

The judgment will reveal whether our works are of man or of God.

Philippians 1
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

John 15
5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

 

[Tawhano]

Apex said:
Yes I am rigtht. Ive already said it once in another thread and almost recieved a warning. So Ill do what the admin tells me to and keep my opinion to myself.

That would explain why you refuse to answer my questions and only offer questions as answers. If you truly believe you are not allowed to voice your opinion on scriptures here then why are you here? You probably received a warning for something completely different but now that you got your knickers in a knot you want to play the poor persecuted Mormon. I want no part in your games any more.

 

[Wrigley]

I don't know if you read my earlier post, but I think that it answers your question.



I like the way that John Gill reconciles James claim that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24), and Paul's claim that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28). He writes that Paul speaks of justification before God, while James speaks of justification before men... the fruits of justification. It is a little long, but I think that it is worth reading:

and not by faith only...

or as without works, or a mere historical faith, which being without works is dead, of which the apostle is speaking; and therefore can bear no testimony to a man's justification; hence it appears, that the Apostle James does not contradict the Apostle Paul in (Romans 3:28) since they speak not of the same sort of faith; the one speaks of a mere profession of faith, a dead and lifeless one; the other of a true faith, which has Christ, and his righteousness, for its object, and works by love, and produces peace, joy, and comfort in the soul. Moreover, the Apostle Paul speaks of justification before God; and James speaks of it as it is known by its fruits unto men; the one speaks of a justification of their persons, in the sight of God; the other of the justification and approbation of their cause, their conduct, and their faith before men, and the vindication of them from all charges and calumnies of hypocrisy, and the like; the one speaks of good works as causes, which he denies to have any place as such in justification; and the other speaks of them as effects flowing from faith, and showing the truth of it, and so of justification by it; the one had to do with legalists and self-justiciaries, who sought righteousness not by faith, but by the works of the law, whom he opposed; and the other had to do with libertines, who cried up faith and knowledge, but had no regard to a religious life and conversation; and these things considered will tend to reconcile the two apostles about this business, but as effects declaring it; for the best works are imperfect, and cannot be a righteousness justifying in the sight of God, and are unprofitable in this respect; for when they are performed in the best manner, they are no other than what it is a man's duty to perform, and therefore cannot justify from sin he has committed: and besides, justification in this sense would frustrate the grace of God, make void the death of Christ, and encourage boasting in men. Good works do not go before justification as causes or conditions, but follow it as fruits and effects:​

I agree with Gill.

 

[Tawhano]

skylark1,

I can see the reasoning behind John Gill’s comments and agree to a point, however I don’t believe James is talking about justification before men at all. Take this for example:

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Abraham didn’t do this before men. There was no law that required him to offer his son for sacrifice. Paul clarifies his definition of the works he was referring to by calling them ‘works of the law’. I see that the two references are defining two different works not different faiths; works of the law and works of faith. Works of the law is obedience and is critical to those under the law (we all know the outcome of this sort).

Take in consideration the story of the rich fella. He told Jesus that he kept the law from his youth. Notice Jesus didn’t tell him that he didn’t and he was lying. I believe the reason was that this man did keep the law, all be it in letter only. He was obedient but he didn’t have faith. There was no law that said a man must give up his possessions to enter into eternal life so Jesus wasn’t saying this was a requirement but was pointing out the flaw in this man’s law keeping. Clearly this man didn’t love (not man’s love, emotional love, but God’s love) God with all his heart. Jesus went on to say that rich men tend to love their money more.

I see it as a matter of being obedient, not to written laws and ordinances, but to the laws that God will write in our hearts. That obedience is of faith.

 

[A New Dawn]

That obedience is of faith.

But it is still obedience.

 

[Tawhano]

Jenda said:
But it is still obedience.

Sometimes you appear to post just for the sake of posting. So what if obedience is still obedience? Faith is still faith, misguided or not. So does misguided faith gain you access to grace? If we are not justified by works of the law then are we justified by obedience to the law?

You need to broaden your rebuttals to include more than just one liners if you want people to understand your point of view.