Not By Works

[Guojing]

The wonder is you can't see it.

The difference between us is that I respect your different doctrine and I don't try to change it nor call your names for having it.

I am only trying to understand why you believe that doctrine.

 

[VCO]

The very idea of faith without requisite deeds is foreign to the Biblical corpus. It is not simply a belief or assent in a proposition, but a lifestyle lived with regard to a given proposition.

2 Timothy 1:9 (HCSB)
9 He has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.


Titus 3:5-7 (HCSB)
5 He saved us— not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
6 He poured out this ⌊Spirit⌋ on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that having been justified by His grace, we may become heirs with the hope of eternal life.


Ephesians 2:8-9 (NJB)
8 Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God;
9 not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit.


Romans 11:6 (NASB)
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.


Romans 5:8-11 (HCSB)
8 But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us!
9 Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath.
10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, ⌊then how⌋ much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life!
11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We have now received this reconciliation through Him.


You may want to get your theology from the BIBLE ITSELF.

 

[azamzimtoti]

The difference between us is that I respect your different doctrine and I don't try to change it nor call your names for having it.

I am only trying to understand why you believe that doctrine.

The problem is I and others have given you plenty of in context scripture and you just brush it aside using a single line or two of scripture which tests the patience.

 

[Bbrdrd]

2 Timothy 1:9 (HCSB)
9 He has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.


Titus 3:5-7 (HCSB)
5 He saved us— not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
6 He poured out this ⌊Spirit⌋ on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that having been justified by His grace, we may become heirs with the hope of eternal life.


Ephesians 2:8-9 (NJB)
8 Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God;
9 not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit.


Romans 11:6 (NASB)
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.


Romans 5:8-11 (HCSB)
8 But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us!
9 Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath.
10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, ⌊then how⌋ much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life!
11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We have now received this reconciliation through Him.


You may want to get your theology from the BIBLE ITSELF.

I get my theology from the Bible, not by proof texting thank you very much. Each of the quotes you posted has a contextual meaning, and they do not add up to the false attribution you present them as. But you go on with your bad self robbing Scripture of its context and posting them to prove your points.

 

[VCO]

I get my theology from the Bible, not by proof texting thank you very much. Each of the quotes you posted has a contextual meaning, and they do not add up to the false attribution you present them as. But you go on with your bad self robbing Scripture of its context and posting them to prove your points.

NO, A LITERAL MEANING!

Most People on this THREAD are OSAS Genuine Believers, who KNOW HOW to defend their Beliefs with SCRIPTURE.

So you may want to leave now.

 

[Guojing]

The problem is I and others have given you plenty of in context scripture and you just brush it aside using a single line or two of scripture which tests the patience.

I could say the same about you too.

But the point is, once one is able to care enough about their doctrine until they are willing to put it in words, they won't change their mind when a stranger online puts it in different words.

So chill, no need to call people names or insult them, and just discuss cordially.

 

[EleventhHour]

James contradicts himself - personally I don't consider it doctrinal, more informational and homily.

James does not contradict himself.

James is teaching about the profitable walk ..... practical salvation not positional or eternal salvation.

 

[Guojing]

James contradicts himself - personally I don't consider it doctrinal, more informational and homily.

In the first place, James, in his lifetime on Earth, never accepted Paul's doctrine that Jews could be saved apart from works of the Law.

In chronological order, James 2, Acts 15, Acts 21:20-25 confirmed that was his view.

So no, he was not contradicting himself. He believed Jews who believed needed to have faith and works.

That was why the Holy Spirit divinely placed his book after Paul's epistles. James doctrine was meant for Israel during the Tribulation (Rev 14:12)

 

[azamzimtoti]

James does not contradict himself.

James is teaching about the profitable walk ..... practical salvation not positional or eternal salvation.

I think he does.

 

[EleventhHour]

I think he does.

He does not.. show me where.

 

[azamzimtoti]

In the first place, James, in his lifetime on Earth, never accepted Paul's doctrine that Jews could be saved apart from works of the Law.

In chronological order, James 2, Acts 15, Acts 21:20-25 confirmed that was his view.

He contradicts himself in his letter in my opinion. We don't have a speech from him preaching the gospel. All we can do is piece together what is written.

So no, he was not contradicting himself. He believed Jews who believed needed to have faith and works.

That was why the Holy Spirit divinely placed his book after Paul's epistles. James doctrine was meant for Israel during the Tribulation (Rev 14:12)

I don't think so, his letter was written to living people in his lifetime. There is no mention of a gospel in his letter, he concentrates on the Law and that's why he strong armed Paul into the purifying ritual - if he was preaching the gospel he would have realised these ritual shadows had passed.

James was still thinking he needed to cleanse the outside of the cup.

(Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.)

Fortunately God had that temple and it's rituals destroyed permanently.

(Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.)

 

[azamzimtoti]

He does not.. show me where.

I think I posted the verses before on here, one claiming Abraham was declared righteous on belief the other being declared righteous and justified by his work on the offering of Isaac. I know you don't agree with me on this.

 

[Guojing]

He contradicts himself in his letter in my opinion. We don't have a speech from him preaching the gospel. All we can do is piece together what is written.



I don't think so, his letter was written to living people in his lifetime. There is no mention of a gospel in his letter, he concentrates on the Law and that's why he strong armed Paul into the purifying ritual - if he was preaching the gospel he would have realised these ritual shadows had passed.

James was still thinking he needed to cleanse the outside of the cup.

(Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.)

Fortunately God had that temple and it's rituals destroyed permanently.

(Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.)

Well, the resurrected Christ never told anyone, even when he appeared to James, that after the cross, all the Jews are now dead to the Law of Moses.

In Matthew 28, he even commanded the 12 to teach the Jews to obey everything he commanded.

So as far as James and the other 12 are concerned, the Law of Moses was always valid throughout Acts.

 

[EleventhHour]

I think I posted the verses before on here, one claiming Abraham was declared righteous on belief the other being declared righteous and justified by his work on the offering of Isaac. I know you don't agree with me on this.

I will look it up later.....

 

[azamzimtoti]

Well, the resurrected Christ never told anyone, even when he appeared to James, that after the cross, all the Jews are now dead to the Law of Moses.

We don't know what Jesus said about the Law to Peter or James. Paul made the claim of being dead to the Law by revelation from Christ. He stated that anyone preaching another gospel was accursed. He even denied that circumcision was applicable.

In Matthew 28, he even commanded the 12 to teach the Jews to obey everything he commanded.

(Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost)

(Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age. Amen)

If that's the case then all Gentiles would have been commanded to keep the Law. Did he command them to preach the Law?

So as far as James and the other 12 are concerned, the Law of Moses was always valid throughout Acts.

Peter wasn't so sure, that's why he dithered between the two positions being intimidate by the Lawyers.

 

[Guojing]

We don't know what Jesus said about the Law to Peter or James. Paul made the claim of being dead to the Law by revelation from Christ. He stated that anyone preaching another gospel was accursed. He even denied that circumcision was applicable.



(Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost)

(Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age. Amen)

If that's the case then all Gentiles would have been commanded to keep the Law. Did he command them to preach the Law?



Peter wasn't so sure, that's why he dithered between the two positions being intimidate by the Lawyers.

For your first point, see it from James and the 12's point of view.

They see Saul as a persecutor of them. Out of the blue, he claimed that the ascended Christ revealed mysteries to him that none of them are aware of, and no one else could verify.

If you are one of them then, would you put weight in whatever he says?

For your last point, he was only unsure after Acts 10, when he saw God saving Gentiles, before national Israel repented. It was only then he realized that Israel may have lost her status as God's favored nation.

Before Acts 10, Peter was a fervent law keeper. He told God three times he will not eat unclean animals.

 

[azamzimtoti]

For your first point, see it from James and the 12's point of view.

They see Saul as a persecutor of them. Out of the blue, he claimed that the ascended Christ revealed mysteries to him that none of them are aware of, and no one else could verify.

If you are one of them then, would you put weight in whatever he says?

I can understand your point.

For your last point, he was only unsure after Acts 10, when he saw God saving Gentiles, before national Israel repented. It was only then he realized that Israel may have lost her status as God's favored nation.

I think there is more to it than just that.

Before Acts 10, Peter was a fervent law keeper. He told God three times he will not eat unclean animals.

I think you made my point that they did not understand they were not under law. Paul is clear as a bell, the only reason he performed the purifying ritual was he would be surrounded by thousands of Jew's who were zealous for the law - I've no doubt that rabble would have stoned Paul if he had not complied.

(Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law)

That's why John in his revelation warns Jesus' people to come out of her:

(Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues)

 

[Guojing]

I can understand your point.



I think there is more to it than just that.



I think you made my point that they did not understand they were not under law. Paul is clear as a bell, the only reason he performed the purifying ritual was he would be surrounded by thousands of Jew's who were zealous for the law - I've no doubt that rabble would have stoned Paul if he had not complied.

(Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law)

That's why John in his revelation warns Jesus' people to come out of her:

(Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues)

No, my original point was that the resurrected Christ never told them that they are now dead to the Law of Moses. So Peter's initial response to the vision by the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 was correct.

He did not realized that God is becoming an enemy to Israel now (Romans 11:28). We know now, because of Paul but it was not revealed to Peter at anytime during the period in Acts.

Of course Peter near the end of his life finally understood more and more the mystery revelations given to Paul, if you read 1 and 2 Peter, but even then, he still find many of those revelations hard to understand. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

[azamzimtoti]

No, my original point was that the resurrected Christ never told them that they are now dead to the Law of Moses. So Peter's initial response to the vision by the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 was correct.

That's an assumption, the vision was given because he did not understand the command given to preach to all the nations - Peter was not the sharpest tool in Christ's tool bag.

He did not realized that God is becoming an enemy to Israel now (Romans 11:28). We know now, because of Paul but it was not revealed to Peter at anytime during the period in Acts.

Supposition, we have no conclusive evidence for your claim, but he certainly had heard this:

(Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof)

Of course Peter near the end of his life finally understood more and more the mystery revelations given to Paul

if you read 1 and 2 Peter, but even then, he still find many of those revelations hard to understand. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

He didn't say that he didn't understand them - he stated those that didn't "are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction"

 

[Guojing]

That's an assumption, the vision was given because he did not understand the command given to preach to all the nations - Peter was not the sharpest tool in Christ's tool bag.



Supposition, we have no conclusive evidence for your claim, but he certainly had heard this:

(Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof)



He didn't say that he didn't understand them - he stated those that didn't "are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction"

Are you reading the same Bible as me?

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,