Works of the Law

[Mem]

Then by your own words faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. If it was he would not have had to offer up Isaac. The fact that did doesn't change what would have happened if he didnt. The work of offering up his son completed his faith just like James said.

Abraham didn't have to offer up Isaac, after all (Hebrews 11:19). To have faith that God could raise the dead takes faith, even if Abraham wasn't prevented from following through with that command. His intention to follow through 'to the end' was proof of that faith "that God could even raise the dead."

 

[Nedsk]

Abraham didn't have to offer up Isaac, after all (Hebrews 11:19). To have faith that God could raise the dead takes faith, even if Abraham wasn't prevented from following through with that command. His intention to follow through 'to the end' was proof of that faith "that God could even raise the dead."

Proof of that faith to who? If faith alone was sufficient it wouldn't need to be proven. God doesnt know your faith?

 

[Nedsk]

I like how you punctuation good and grammar proper use.

...smh...

When you're reduced to mocking then you've already lost. Stop playing pretend here.

 

[Dino246]

When you're reduced to mocking then you've already lost. Stop playing pretend here.

Yawn.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

I asked you because I want to know what you think I believe that you think is false doctrine. I would seek God's perspective on the matter(s) separately.

The thing is you tend to get arguementative and that just distracts from what God wants to teach you. It's better that you just focus on what God says and wants of you in His Bible rather than what you think or have learned from outside of it. Also not beat you over the head with God's word or discourage you as if you are already judged like someone else is doing.

 

[Dino246]

The thing is you tend to get arguementative and that just distracts from what God wants to teach you. It's better that you just focus on what God says and wants of you in His Bible rather than what you think or have learned from outside of it. Also not beat you over the head with God's word or discourage you as if you are already judged like someone else is doing.

Fair enough. We may disagree on some things but we seem to agree on most.

 

[pinebeach]

More lies on your part.

I don't lie. In fact, neither do you except when you are falsely accusing a person such as myself, here, or claiming you need evidence of what we say regarding the actual gospel revealed in the New Testament when that very evidence has been provided over and over and over again. So why do you continue to ask for evidence? You continue to ask for it, because YOU DO NOT ACCEPT PAUL's letters as inspired so you count what he says as worthless and say you only go by what Jesus says (in the 4 gospels)

YET you actually refuse Jesus words too!! What words? These, found in Matthew chapt 26, v.28

For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

You do not accept the letters of Paul and therefore, you do not accept the New Covenant in spite of Jesus own words as noted above. So, your belief that the 10 commandments are the covenant, is, from your point of view, the gospel. However, that is a lie from hell itself ( note I am not saying you are a liar or that you have somehow become the father of lies) spawned in the depths of evil incarnate and introduced by lying spirits to all of us. All of us, however, do not accept that lie and so we have clear minds to accept the entire New Testament and see clearly that Jesus is the end of the law.

Is there any sense in going over Paul's letter to the Galatians on your behalf? Probably not, but the Galatians were listening to a sect of 'Christians' who, just like you and a few others here are doing, claim salvation comes from adherence to Mosaic Law, specifically, the 10 commandments. The Galatians were giving ear to these people, commonly referred to as Judaizers, and Paul got straight to the point and asked them who had bewitched them.

What the Judaizers of Paul's time were saying was in absolute conflict to the very foundation and truths of Christianity.

Salvation comes through faith in Jesus as opposed to adherence to any laws.

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all…. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Gal. 1:6–9)

 

[pinebeach]

Yes, the apostles’ understanding did grow over time, but it always grew from what Jesus already taught, not beyond it. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would remind them of His words, not replace them.
Jesus said:

“He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”​

John 14:26 NKJV​

That means the Spirit clarified and strengthened their understanding. He did not introduce a different gospel.
The gospel itself was already preached by Jesus before Paul. Jesus spoke of His death, resurrection, repentance, forgiveness of sins, and obedience to God. After His resurrection, He commanded the apostles to teach everything He had taught them to all nations (Matthew 28:19–20).
Paul did explain the gospel clearly, especially to Gentiles, and his explanation in 1 Corinthians 15 is valuable. But Paul himself says the gospel he preached was received, not invented, and it agrees with what was already proclaimed.
Paul was not the only one sent to Gentiles. Peter preached to Cornelius in Acts 10 before Paul’s Gentile mission fully began, and James, John, and the other apostles affirmed the same gospel in Acts 15.
Paul is an important teacher, but he is not the first point of contact. Jesus is. Paul himself points us back to Christ, saying we are to be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone(Ephesians 2:20).
Paul helps explain the faith, but Jesus defines it.
The Spirit does not move us away from Jesus’ words.
He moves us deeper into them.

Paul, an apostle--not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, the One having raised Him out from the dead-- Galatians 1:1

What vassal overlooks is that Paul is verified in the book of Acts as being chosen and sent by God. In fact, God told the disciple Ananias that Saul (to become Paul), was His CHOSEN INSTRUMENT.

It is not necessary to address anything other than the fact that vassal does not give credence to Paul and so follows another speech about why we do not have to believe Paul.

10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord spoke to him in a vision, “Ananias!”

“Here I am, Lord,” he answered.

11“Get up!” the Lord told him. “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13But Ananias answered, “Lord, many people have told me about this man and all the harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14And now he is here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on Your name.”

15“Go!” said the Lord. “This man is My chosen instrument to carry My name before the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for My name.”

17So Ananias went to the house, and when he arrived, he placed his hands on Saul. “Brother Saul,” he said, “the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

18At that instant, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and his sight was restored. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength. And he spent several days with the disciples in Damascus.

It is time to wake up and understand what is being 'taught' here by vassal. It is the exact thing Paul fought against. Peter almost gave credence to the Judaizers, but Paul rebuked him to his face and Peter repented.

Anybody going to throw Peter out with denial of his discipleship?

If you carefully read again the post I quote above, it becomes plain that vassal is trying to make people believe that Paul taught a different gospel. Now he really does not like Paul, who we need to remember, was verified in Acts long before he wrote any letters, who tells him that his gospel of commandment keeping is not the gospel. The gospel is not commandment keeping or law...it is only through the blood of Christ. There is no salvation without accepting the only way to be saved is through Jesus.

 

[pinebeach]

That means the Spirit clarified and strengthened their understanding. He did not introduce a different gospel.
The gospel itself was already preached by Jesus before Paul. Jesus spoke of His death, resurrection, repentance, forgiveness of sins, and obedience to God. After His resurrection, He commanded the apostles to teach everything He had taught them to all nations (Matthew 28:19–20).

Right there, underscored, is vassal saying Paul preached a different gospel. This is the common claim of all who deny Paul had an authentic calling from God.

Paul was not the only one sent to Gentiles. Peter preached to Cornelius in Acts 10 before Paul’s Gentile mission fully began, and James, John, and the other apostles affirmed the same gospel in Acts 15.

There is no one but Paul who is actually referred to as the Apostle to the Gentiles. God specifically called him for that very purpose. Is the disciple Ananias who received a vision directly from God, also some one who is best just brushed aside? Or, is he the first one to receive a man who would write much of the New Testament?

 

[vassal]

Right there, underscored, is vassal saying Paul preached a different gospel. This is the common claim of all who deny Paul had an authentic calling from God.
There is no one but Paul who is actually referred to as the Apostle to the Gentiles. God specifically called him for that very purpose. Is the disciple Ananias who received a vision directly from God, also some one who is best just brushed aside? Or, is he the first one to receive a man who would write much of the New Testament?

you do not know scripture

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

I do not have time for you in the meantime continue to make yourself ridiculous. yes Paul was called too and did as Jesus asked I never doubted that, but you keep accusing me unjustly, so please do not reply it would be useless.

 

[vassal]

I don't lie. In fact, neither do you except when you are falsely accusing a person such as myself, here, or claiming you need evidence of what we say regarding the actual gospel revealed in the New Testament when that very evidence has been provided over and over and over again. So why do you continue to ask for evidence? You continue to ask for it, because YOU DO NOT ACCEPT PAUL's letters as inspired so you count what he says as worthless and say you only go by what Jesus says (in the 4 gospels)

YET you actually refuse Jesus words too!! What words? These, found in Matthew chapt 26, v.28

For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

You do not accept the letters of Paul and therefore, you do not accept the New Covenant in spite of Jesus own words as noted above. So, your belief that the 10 commandments are the covenant, is, from your point of view, the gospel. However, that is a lie from hell itself ( note I am not saying you are a liar or that you have somehow become the father of lies) spawned in the depths of evil incarnate and introduced by lying spirits to all of us. All of us, however, do not accept that lie and so we have clear minds to accept the entire New Testament and see clearly that Jesus is the end of the law.

Is there any sense in going over Paul's letter to the Galatians on your behalf? Probably not, but the Galatians were listening to a sect of 'Christians' who, just like you and a few others here are doing, claim salvation comes from adherence to Mosaic Law, specifically, the 10 commandments. The Galatians were giving ear to these people, commonly referred to as Judaizers, and Paul got straight to the point and asked them who had bewitched them.

What the Judaizers of Paul's time were saying was in absolute conflict to the very foundation and truths of Christianity.

Salvation comes through faith in Jesus as opposed to adherence to any laws.

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all…. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Gal. 1:6–9)

are you nuts... please go away.

 

[Mem]

Proof of that faith to who? If faith alone was sufficient it wouldn't need to be proven. God doesnt know your faith?

Did God require that Abraham follow the directions to the letter in order to 'prove' he'd do it? God said to Abraham, "...Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son (Gen 22:12)."
Does that prove, exactly, that Abraham's faith was in that 'God could even raise the dead?' because Hebrews says that is what Abraham believed, and that is why he obeyed God to the extent of following through with God's directions, all of them, even those that said, "Do not lay a hand on the boy..."

 

[pinebeach]

you do not know scripture

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

I do not have time for you in the meantime continue to make yourself ridiculous. yes Paul was called too and did as Jesus asked I never doubted that, but you keep accusing me unjustly, so please do not reply it would be useless.

Got you angry it seems. Peter, even though you try to state otherwise, was not called of God as was Paul. Paul rebuked Peter for starting to side with the Judaizers. Peter received a vision from God to coinside with the message Paul was given regarding Gentiles.
Peter objected because of the very strict dieatary laws given by God to the Israelites but as has been explained many times now, believers are no longer under law. The 10 commandments are not a part of God's plan of salvation through Jesus.

There is no one but Paul who is actually referred to as the Apostle to the Gentiles. God specifically called him for that very purpose. Is the disciple Ananias who received a vision directly from God, also some one who is best just brushed aside? Or, is he the first one to receive a man who would write much of the New Testament?

Acts 9 records the vision given to Ananias concerning the fact God had chosen Paul. Paul identifies himself as called by God to be THE apostle to the Gentiles.

The scripture you have posted above is from Acts 15....this happened AFTER Ananias' vision.

11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. 12 Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile believers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. 13 The other Jewish believers also started acting like cowards along with Peter; and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action. 14 When I saw that they were not walking a straight path in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews?” Galatians 2

I am not really your concern so your rude comments are not my problem really. Your problem is with the word of God that does not agree with your law keeping and saying the 10 commandments are the covenant. It is God you need to make some time with because so far, it appears you have missed what is actually salvation accoring to God. You make it worse for yourself when you make these rude comments.

You make these rude comments because you cannot answer to the scriptures presented by different people here that prove you wrong. Again, your position is nothing new. Paul had to deal with Judaizers who were saying that new converts to Christ had to be circumcized and observe the commandments and dieatary laws.

 

[pinebeach]

are you nuts... please go away.

If you follow only Jesus as you say, then why will you not recognize the fact that at the last supper, He declared the covenant was His blood? That statement alone completely wipes away your posturing on the 10 commandments.

Reams of scripture have been presented to you in a number of different threads and the best you can say is 'go away?'

Law keeping has gone away; it is not the covenant believers have with God. There are 2 major covenants recorded in the Bible. The old covenant is about people earning their way to God through a system of animal sacrifices with a priest present and conducting the sacrifice. The High Priest entered the Holy of Holies only once a year to offer sacrifice for all the people but many many sacrifices took place during the year for individual sins.

The promise of salvation is through Jesus only and He has replaced the entire old covenant sacrificial system. He has done this through the shedding of His blood as He foretold at the last supper and the words spoken by Him, I have posted many times and you refuse to acknowledge that fact. So now I should go away.

Well, the power of God unto salvation is to everyone who believes; nothing whatsoever to do with commandments or law keeping or any other obstruction to the truth.

The shedding of the blood of Jesus, is the Covenant. So go against that truth, in scripture in many places, at your own peril.

Your anger is your problem, not mine.

 

[pinebeach]

If you do not accept Paul, then you cannot accept 2 Peter because the writer accepted the writings of Paul as Scripture (2 Pet 3:16). No one can reject Paul and accept 1 John as that book recognizes the writing of the apostles including Peter (1 John 1:1–4). Furthermore, Peter also accepted John (2 Pet 1:16–21).

Those who reject Paul must reject 1 Peter to be consistent. After all, the apostle Peter instructed Christians to subordinate to the governing authorities, servants subordinate to masters, and wives subordinate to husbands (1 Pet 2:13–3:6).

By rejecting Paul’s writings, you would have to dismiss the Gospel of Luke since Luke was with Paul and agreed with Paul (Acts 16:10). Paul quoted Luke’s Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Tim 2:8). Setting aside Luke also means setting aside Luke’s book of Acts and the previously written gospel narratives that Luke mentioned in Luke 1:1–3. The gospel narratives that Luke extensively shares material with the Gospel of Matthew and shares chronology with the Gospel of Mark. This leaves only two New Testament authors, James and Jude. However, Jude closely resembles 2 Peter 2 even speaking of fulfillment of Peter’s revelation, so the one rejecting Paul and Peter could not reasonably accept Jude. James was also an apostle with Peter, associated with the Twelve, and accepted Paul (Acts 15; Gal 1:18–2:10), so someone dismissing Paul would dismiss James’s epistle.

 

[Nedsk]

Did God require that Abraham follow the directions to the letter in order to 'prove' he'd do it? God said to Abraham, "...Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son (Gen 22:12)."
Does that prove, exactly, that Abraham's faith was in that 'God could even raise the dead?' because Hebrews says that is what Abraham believed, and that is why he obeyed God to the extent of following through with God's directions, all of them, even those that said, "Do not lay a hand on the boy..."

I am going to ask this of you like I've asked every other person that believes like you do, if faith alone (sola fide) is true and sufficient for salvation, then why would faith need completion by works? This requires you to understand the words alone and sufficient. God didnt know before Abraham offered up his son that Abraham feared him? Really? If faith alone is sufficient why the action?

 

[Dino246]

I am going to ask this of you like I've asked every other person that believes like you do, if faith alone (sola fide) is true and sufficient for salvation, then why would faith need completion by works? This requires you to understand the words alone and sufficient. God didnt know before Abraham offered up his son that Abraham feared him? Really? If faith alone is sufficient why the action?

The Greek word translated “complete” is also translated “perfect”. Both senses are relevant in this context. Faith is not “completed” by works in the sense of having been unfinished. Rather, its genuine character is made evident by works.

 

[Nedsk]

The Greek word translated “complete” is also translated “perfect”. Both senses are relevant in this context. Faith is not “completed” by works in the sense of having been unfinished. Rather, its genuine character is made evident by works.

Compete and perfect mean the same thing. If faith alone was complete/perfect James would have had no reason to say works complete faith. Works make faith perfect. Complete. If faith alone was sufficient it wouldn't need completion.

Why would faith need to be "made evident" if faith alone was sufficient? Needs to be made evident to who? For what reason?

 

[Dino246]

Compete and perfect mean the same thing. If faith alone was complete/perfect James would have had no reason to say works complete faith. Works make faith perfect. Complete. If faith alone was sufficient it wouldn't need completion.

Why would faith need to be "made evident" if faith alone was sufficient? Needs to be made evident to who? For what reason?

If you rebuild a classic car, you can get it operating with all parts in place. That is “complete”. That is not the same as having it repainted, clearcoated, and polished until it’s gleaming, and tuning the engine until it purrs when idling and roars when accelerating. That is “perfect”.

Faith, at the point of salvation, is both perfect and complete. No works are required.

Works are not needed for salvation; works are the evidence that salvation has taken hold.

 

[Nedsk]

If you rebuild a classic car, you can get it operating with all parts in place. That is “complete”. That is not the same as having it repainted, clearcoated, and polished until it’s gleaming, and tuning the engine until it purrs when idling and roars when accelerating. That is “perfect”.

Faith, at the point of salvation, is both perfect and complete. No works are required.

Works are not needed for salvation; works are the evidence that salvation has taken hold.

You should do yourself favor and look up the definition of perfect

Works are evidence for who? God? God doesn't need evidence, he knows your heart. So who is this "evidence" for? The fact is you can't say works are meaningless but faith alone doesn't jive with Scripture. Matt 7:21, Matt 25:31-46