Not By Works

[Guojing]

Romans 3:21 must be understood within the context of everything that came before it which was a discussion of how God made known to men the reality of sin via the law. Paul then pivots to speak of the revelation of what it means to truly be righteous and appeals to the universal nature of this revelation since He appeared before all men. This ties into Romans 4 because it highlights that the Jews are not the special caretakers of this revelation and their heritage is by faith not the physical descendency from Abraham. All of this is to address the problem in the Roman church which arose from the exile of the Jews from the city causing there to be a Jewish church and a gentile church within Rome rather than having the mixed multitudes of other churches.

I am asking “does those 2 verses mean what they say and say what they mean to you?”

I notice you were willing to let The book of James Do that, what about Paul?

Do you have an opinion on what Paul is saying after all these elaborating?

 

[Bbrdrd]

I am asking “does those 2 verses mean what they say and say what they mean to you?”

I notice you were willing to let The book of James Do that, what about Paul?

Do you have an opinion on what Paul is saying after all these elaborating?

I understand Paul in the same way I understand James. Not simply by addressing single verses but looking to the overall context of the letter.

Paul's usage of "law" is restricted to the sense of Sinai covenant, as righteousness was made apparent to man without reference to that covenant.

The discussion in Romans 4 is entirely about distinguishing the heirs to righteousness which comes by faith from those who are physical descendants of Abraham. The faith Paul speaks of is specifically the faith of Abraham, which "when he was called, obeyed [a]by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8 NASB)

I don't read Paul in light of what James said but in light of the Old Testament scriptures he draws upon. Too many have latched onto a medeival idea of atonement as satisfaction of nominal sin and taken that to be the gospel which distorts Paul's words.

 

[Guojing]

I understand Paul in the same way I understand James. Not simply by addressing single verses but looking to the overall context of the letter.

Paul's usage of "law" is restricted to the sense of Sinai covenant, as righteousness was made apparent to man without reference to that covenant.

The discussion in Romans 4 is entirely about distinguishing the heirs to righteousness which comes by faith from those who are physical descendants of Abraham. The faith Paul speaks of is specifically the faith of Abraham, which "when he was called, obeyed [a]by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8 NASB)

I don't read Paul in light of what James said but in light of the Old Testament scriptures he draws upon. Too many have latched onto a medeival idea of atonement as satisfaction of nominal sin and taken that to be the gospel which distorts Paul's words.

Abraham was unlike us, Christ has not arrived on the scene yet.

As you correctly quoted from Hebrews. Abraham showed his faith in God by leaving all he had at his original location, and move to the land God promised him, not knowing how the promise will pan out.

For us now, we show our faith by putting our trust in Jesus complete work on the cross.

To me, that is easier than what Abraham had to do.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Abraham was unlike us, Christ has not arrived on the scene yet.

As you correctly quoted from Hebrews. Abraham showed his faith in God by leaving all he had at his original location, and move to the land God promised him, not knowing how the promise will pan out.

For us now, we show our faith by putting our trust in Jesus complete work on the cross.

To me, that is easier than what Abraham had to do.

Paul references Abraham directly to show how we are justified. To then say "well, he was justified in a different manner" is to completely undermine Paul's point.

We are to trust in Christ, not a deed. Christ is alive and well, shepherding those who hear His voice. Abraham heard the call and answered, so to must we.

The idea of the "finished work" is a rather labored reading of John 19 with the theology of satisfaction being read into it. Instead, that Scripture speaks to the completion of prophetic statements about the cross fully identifying Jesus as Messiah.

God does not change, nor does His method of salvation. What Jesus accomplished on the cross is to produce a change in us.

 

[Guojing]

Paul references Abraham directly to show how we are justified. To then say "well, he was justified in a different manner" is to completely undermine Paul's point.

We are to trust in Christ, not a deed. Christ is alive and well, shepherding those who hear His voice. Abraham heard the call and answered, so to must we.

The idea of the "finished work" is a rather labored reading of John 19 with the theology of satisfaction being read into it. Instead, that Scripture speaks to the completion of prophetic statements about the cross fully identifying Jesus as Messiah.

God does not change, nor does His method of salvation. What Jesus accomplished on the cross is to produce a change in us.

No I am not saying he was justified differently. It was by faith like all of us

But his faith was shown by a work, He had to leave the land he came from.

like all before him In Hebrews 11:

Abel had to offer the correct sacrifice

Noah had to build an ark

For us, as Romans 4:5 stated, we show our faith by ceasing from all works and trusting Jesus finished work instead.

To God in the “but now” time period, that is how he sees faith.

 

[WilliamGrahamIII]

If God had only been a little more clear and direct in dictating the bible then we wouldnt have to have all these silly arguments. Its strange isnt it that God's will is that us humans should waste our time on silly nonsense like this instead of living good positive lives and not worrying about reward or punishment, still he is perfect and we are silly ignorant humans

 

[Bbrdrd]

No I am not saying he was justified differently. It was by faith like all of us

But his faith was shown by a work, He had to leave the land he came from.

like all before him In Hebrews 11:

Abel had to offer the correct sacrifice

Noah had to build an ark

For us, as Romans 4:5 stated, we show our faith by ceasing from all works and trusting Jesus finished work instead.

To God in the “but now” time period, that is how he sees faith.

If James, Jude, Peter, and John's epistle's weren't in the NT maybe there'd be a case, but even then there's a problem with that assessment since Paul referred several times to the fact that we will be judged by our deeds. Then of course there is Jesus finding the deeds of the the Sardian church incomplete.

There is nothing in the Bible that implies that there are different periods in which God relates to people differently. To do so would be showing partiality, and there is no partiality with God.

Romans 4:5 is one piece of an entire discussion that centers around the idea that men could gain favor by doing works of the law. It is this attitude that God "owes" us salvation if we work that Paul was speaking to. This is a different matter from distinguishing works done in true faith and works that testify there is no faith.

 

[Guojing]

If James, Jude, Peter, and John's epistle's weren't in the NT maybe there'd be a case, but even then there's a problem with that assessment since Paul referred several times to the fact that we will be judged by our deeds. Then of course there is Jesus finding the deeds of the the Sardian church incomplete.

There is nothing in the Bible that implies that there are different periods in which God relates to people differently. To do so would be showing partiality, and there is no partiality with God.

Romans 4:5 is one piece of an entire discussion that centers around the idea that men could gain favor by doing works of the law. It is this attitude that God "owes" us salvation if we work that Paul was speaking to. This is a different matter from distinguishing works done in true faith and works that testify there is no faith.

You must read Romans 9-11 properly to understand my point. We gentiles are included in the Abrahamic covenant because Israel has fallen.

Why did God made it so easy for all of us to be saved now, without having us to go thru circumcision and the same Law of Moses that Israel had to go thru? God wanted to make Israel jealous (Romans 11:14).

As for James to John, they are included in the NT, but the Holy Spirit chose to put all their letters after Romans-Philemon. Why is that? Its because they contain doctrine for Israel during the Great Tribulation, Jacob's trouble.

They do not contain doctrine for us in the Body of Christ, even though, we can benefit by reading them, similar to when we read the OT now.

 

[VCO]

The fact that Jesus states faith the size of a mustard seed is still great faith says a lot about the power and beauty of faith.

Here is the size of a mustard seed.

Now What Mountain was HE referring To ? ? ?

I think it was the MOUNTAIN OF SIN, that stood between GOD and US.
A little bit of that kind of FAITH, REMOVES THAT MOUNTAIN OF SIN, FOREVER,
Giving US that FREE GRACE OF GOD, causing us to be REDEEMED, by HIS POWER.

 

[Bbrdrd]

You must read Romans 9-11 properly to understand my point. We gentiles are included in the Abrahamic covenant because Israel has fallen.

Why did God made it so easy for all of us to be saved now, without having us to go thru circumcision and the same Law of Moses that Israel had to go thru? God wanted to make Israel jealous (Romans 11:14).

As for James to John, they are included in the NT, but the Holy Spirit chose to put all their letters after Romans-Philemon. Why is that? Its because they contain doctrine for Israel during the Great Tribulation, Jacob's trouble.

They do not contain doctrine for us in the Body of Christ, even though, we can benefit by reading them, similar to when we read the OT now.

No, your point isn't demonstrated in Romans 9-11. The argument there continues with the idea of who Abraham's descendants are, which again is those who operate in true faith. The issue the Israelite's had is precisely the issue many Christians have.

They believe that through their works they are earning themselves heaven. Those are not works of faith, they are in fact a demonstration of a lack of faith.

Of particular note is Jacob and Esau. The first issue is one of absolutes. Both Greek and Hebrew are lacking in mediating words, with absolutes being used and context supplying the degree to which they are intended. "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated" in English appears far more harshly than it does in Hebrew and Greek.

In fact, there is no partiality if we look to how God treated Esau since Esau rejected and despised his birthright, yet God still blessed him and his descendants.

While James to John have been arranged to be at the back of protestant Bibles, they are not so in every canon and to base doctrine on something as specious as the order is highly dangerous.

All Scripture is God-breathed and good for doctrine. You've bought into a theological system proferred by men(and a rather new one at that) and use that to carve up the Bible so that you can digest it.

Read the Bible so that it will change you, stop trying to change the Bible so that it's palatable.

 

[Guojing]

No, your point isn't demonstrated in Romans 9-11. The argument there continues with the idea of who Abraham's descendants are, which again is those who operate in true faith. The issue the Israelite's had is precisely the issue many Christians have.

They believe that through their works they are earning themselves heaven. Those are not works of faith, they are in fact a demonstration of a lack of faith.

Of particular note is Jacob and Esau. The first issue is one of absolutes. Both Greek and Hebrew are lacking in mediating words, with absolutes being used and context supplying the degree to which they are intended. "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated" in English appears far more harshly than it does in Hebrew and Greek.

In fact, there is no partiality if we look to how God treated Esau since Esau rejected and despised his birthright, yet God still blessed him and his descendants.

While James to John have been arranged to be at the back of protestant Bibles, they are not so in every canon and to base doctrine on something as specious as the order is highly dangerous.

All Scripture is God-breathed and good for doctrine. You've bought into a theological system proferred by men(and a rather new one at that) and use that to carve up the Bible so that you can digest it.

Read the Bible so that it will change you, stop trying to change the Bible so that it's palatable.

Okay, since you insist on making a distinction between works of law and works of faith, I can understand why that doctrine provides "an out", for you to make both James and Paul as doctrine for the Body of Christ.

I read both of them literally. Works and faith are different as both authors would state it in (Romans 4:5 and James 2:24). There is no distinction between works of faith and works of law, both are works that Man do.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Okay, since you insist on making a distinction between works of law and works of faith, I can understand why that doctrine provides "an out", for you to make both James and Paul as doctrine for the Body of Christ.

I read both of them literally. Works and faith are different as both authors would state it in (Romans 4:5 and James 2:24). There is no distinction between works of faith and works of law, both are works that Man do.

I read them both literally as well. Works are works, no matter what they are. But the intention behind them is what distinguishes the works in James that complete faith and the works in Paul that deny faith.

In James, the point is that faith that saves is a motivating faith. It's a faith that makes us want to work, and through our works the faith we have is a complete faith.

In Paul, the works were being done with a belief that they were putting God in their debt through them. They believe he *owed* them salvation because of the things that they do.

To decide that it doesn't apply today because you don't understand how they don't contradict is to place your own understanding as supreme. Nothing in the Bible implies that parts of it apply at different periods. James wrote to Christians 2000 years ago lessons for living the Christian life, not to some audience he had no knowledge of in an ordinary sense.

 

[Guojing]

I read them both literally as well. Works are works, no matter what they are. But the intention behind them is what distinguishes the works in James that complete faith and the works in Paul that deny faith.

In James, the point is that faith that saves is a motivating faith. It's a faith that makes us want to work, and through our works the faith we have is a complete faith.

In Paul, the works were being done with a belief that they were putting God in their debt through them. They believe he *owed* them salvation because of the things that they do.

To decide that it doesn't apply today because you don't understand how they don't contradict is to place your own understanding as supreme. Nothing in the Bible implies that parts of it apply at different periods. James wrote to Christians 2000 years ago lessons for living the Christian life, not to some audience he had no knowledge of in an ordinary sense.

No, that is not the reason why I rightly divide the word of truth.

James in chapter 1:1 clearly stated that he is writing to the 12 tribes.

That is the reason. And if you claim you read James literally, you cannot run away from that verse. Your attempt to separate works into faith and law is an artificial construct.

 

[Bbrdrd]

No, that is not the reason why I rightly divide the word of truth.

James in chapter 1:1 clearly stated that he is writing to the 12 tribes.

That is the reason. And if you claim you read James literally, you cannot run away from that verse. Your attempt to separate works into faith and law is an artificial construct.

You make far too much of a greeting. James addressing his audience as "the 12 tribes" speaks to the early date of the letter as the church was still primarily Jewish.

To take that little phrase and build an entire theology upon it and carve the Bible up into parts that are applicable to you and parts that aren't is not "rightly dividing the word of truth."

I don't "attempt to separate works into faith and law," works are works. But works of faith create a complete picture of faith. If I say I love my wife but I cheat on her, I am denying my love. When I said "I do" my marriage was not complete, it was not complete until it was consumated.

It is in this same way that James speaks of works as completing/perfecting faith. It is not a denial that the faith is what justifies but a recognition that faith in word only is not faith.

 

[Guojing]

You make far too much of a greeting. James addressing his audience as "the 12 tribes" speaks to the early date of the letter as the church was still primarily Jewish.

To take that little phrase and build an entire theology upon it and carve the Bible up into parts that are applicable to you and parts that aren't is not "rightly dividing the word of truth."

I don't "attempt to separate works into faith and law," works are works. But works of faith create a complete picture of faith. If I say I love my wife but I cheat on her, I am denying my love. When I said "I do" my marriage was not complete, it was not complete until it was consumated.

It is in this same way that James speaks of works as completing/perfecting faith. It is not a denial that the faith is what justifies but a recognition that faith in word only is not faith.

Its not James 1:1 alone, its also Galatians 2:9. Its also that the book of James was written before Acts 15, and so on and so forth.

And God is not human, he does not need to see works in us now to know that our faith is completed/perfected. In fact, it pleases God to know that we follow Romans 4:5, as he commanded, because it glorifies what his Son did.

When all of us are in heaven, I also don't have to expect many different Christians to come up to me and tell me "Guess what works of faith I did so that my faith is completed/perfected and that is why I am in heaven?"

No, thru Romans 4:5, all of us will be humbled knowing that it was TOTALLY Jesus's work on the cross that saved us.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Its not James 1:1 alone, its also Galatians 2:9. Its also that the book of James was written before Acts 15, and so on and so forth.

And God is not human, he does not need to see works in us now to know that our faith is completed/perfected. In fact, it pleases God to know that we follow Romans 4:5, as he commanded, because it glorifies what his Son did.

When all of us are in heaven, I also don't have to expect many different Christians to come up to me and tell me "Guess what works of faith I did so that my faith is completed/perfected and that is why I am in heaven?"

No, thru Romans 4:5, all of us will be humbled knowing that it was TOTALLY Jesus's work on the cross that saved us.

The dispensational thing runs too deep for us to ever even begin to see eye to eye there so I'll drop that thread.

Certainly, God doesn't need us to prove our faith. Though James isn't speaking of how faith is proven. He's speaking of what faith is, as he directly references Genesis 15:6 but then applies it to the binding of Isaac.

Why is that? Because the action is the same, Abraham believed God. Specifically, with offering Isaac "Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death. "(Hebrews 11:19 NIV) Once again, it's not the act but the trust that Abraham placed in God that mattered.

When James speaks to works completing faith it's not a question of merit. Faith's full value is found in God and God alone. What James is speaking to is authenticity.

 

[Guojing]

The dispensational thing runs too deep for us to ever even begin to see eye to eye there so I'll drop that thread.

Certainly, God doesn't need us to prove our faith. Though James isn't speaking of how faith is proven. He's speaking of what faith is, as he directly references Genesis 15:6 but then applies it to the binding of Isaac.

Why is that? Because the action is the same, Abraham believed God. Specifically, with offering Isaac "Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death. "(Hebrews 11:19 NIV) Once again, it's not the act but the trust that Abraham placed in God that mattered.

When James speaks to works completing faith it's not a question of merit. Faith's full value is found in God and God alone. What James is speaking to is authenticity.

And I am saying Abraham did not have Christ finished work on the cross unlike us.

Before Christ death, one could not rely on romans 4:5.

David called us blessEd, in the very next verse in the same chapter, because of the same reason

 

[Bbrdrd]

And I am saying Abraham did not have Christ finished work on the cross unlike us.

Before Christ death, one could not rely on romans 4:5.

David called us blessEd, in the very next verse in the same chapter, because of the same reason

All of that has to be understood within the context of the letter itself.

Considering Romans 4:5 occurs smack dab in the middle of a discussion of justification that's centerpiece is how Abraham was justified denying Abraham was justified in that way defeats the whole argument.

The question in Romans 4 is not centered on doing things per-se but a matter of identity, as demonstrated by 4:9-12. The argument Paul was addressing was the struggle about whether gentiles had to be circumcised and thus come under the law.

 

[Guojing]

All of that has to be understood within the context of the letter itself.

Considering Romans 4:5 occurs smack dab in the middle of a discussion of justification that's centerpiece is how Abraham was justified denying Abraham was justified in that way defeats the whole argument.

The question in Romans 4 is not centered on doing things per-se but a matter of identity, as demonstrated by 4:9-12. The argument Paul was addressing was the struggle about whether gentiles had to be circumcised and thus come under the law.

I thought I already agreed with you that Abraham was justified by faith, like us? I am saying he had to obey God by faith, which required him to leave the land he came from, and to move to an entire new place. You quoted that Hebrews 11 example where his name appeared correct?

He could not tell God that he is going to follow Romans 4:5, and stay where he was currently living in. He cannot because Christ has yet to die on the cross.

We can now, because we live after the cross. Now, we obey God by not working, by ceasing from any works, trusting in Christ's finished work to justify us. God sees that as faith now.

 

[dcontroversal]

You repeat the word "context" but you've presented nothing really about the context that indicates James is talking about a different justification than Paul. Yes, James is ridiculing the flat belief some call "faith" that is not justifying faith. He states "show me your faith" to bring forth that such a thing does not exist. Without actions that are in line with the faith it is not the faith that saves. It is clear he is speaking of the same justification Paul refers to because he cites the same Scripture Paul cites(Genesis 15:6) and highlights how what Abraham did was in agreement with what he believed. The whole of the argument points to James clarifying what saving faith is rather than explaining how to demonstrate such a faith before men.

Sure I did......you have to open your eyes to actually see it!!