Works Complete Faith?

You are making completely groundless assumptions and are so far off base that you're over in the next county.

Actually, you don't understand what you're saying: read Ro 14:5,23,where Christians are commanded to follow the rule of walking by their beliefs, and where Christians are condemned for sinning by not doing it.

Since you're saying "the only faith category is about Jesus dying and resurrecting", then the "sin" that leads to a Christian's "condemnation", because he is not walking by faith, and anything we do that isn't from faith is "sin", Ro 14:23, must be the loss of his faith in Christ.

It's not my issue that you don't know what you're saying when it comes to this issue.

I assure you, I do. Perhaps you don't understand what I'm saying, because you keep referring to things I have not said.

If you can't quote me saying it, I didn't say it!

If you didn't mean that, here...
...that would mean you agree with me that the "faith" referred to is "God writing His Law on our hearts and minds", "serving in newness of Spirit", etc, which means "walking by God-given convictions".

I agree with the definition given in Hebrews 11:1.

And it's a little beside the point: the point is that Paul teaches that if one does not walk in faith, but doubts that what he is doing is correct ("let every man be fully convinced in his own mind"), that he is condemned (not "justified").

Let's not lose focus.

Do you deny that Paul teaches Christians can be condemned for this sin mentioned in Ro 14:23?

Hebrews addresses the definition of faith, true, but that is a different issue than what we are covering here--and, of course, I agree with you on Hebrews 11:1's definition of "faith" being correct.

I'm done with your baiting. You obviously want an argument.

You mean to say, "I cannot defend my traditions anymore, I quit."

I accept that.

Yawn.

Guys, remember: when you get into a discussion about Scripture, sincerely trying to better see how it all fits together, if someone disagrees with you, and you reassert your position, you are "baiting".

You are wrong--it is not the person who disagrees with you, but cannot justify himself, it is you, because you are a bad man. A very, very bad man.

Isn't it clear that James is calling the audience to repentance?

James 4
4You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5Or do you think that the Scripture says to no purpose, “[f]He [g]jealously desires the Spirit whom He has made to dwell in us”?

Clearly, he knows his audience is "married" to God, right?
So, going back to James 2, he is, again, telling them "repent"--act the way you're supposed to act, act like what you are, saints, not sinners, or else you're in danger.

Same thing Paul says in 1 Corinthians--"purge out the old leaven, for you are unleavened" and "the unrighteous will not inherit God's Kingdom".

Yes, "Christ" (through the Apostles) said it:

Romans 2
6God “will repay each one according to his deeds.”a 7To those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life

Romans 8
12So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13for if you are living in accord with the flesh, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Galatians 6
6Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word must share in all good things with his instructor.
7Do not be deceived: God is not to be mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap in return.
8The one who sows to please his flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; but the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
9Let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
10Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to the family of faith.

etc, etc, etc.

What do you do with verses like Romans 14:23, which teaches that Christians are not "justified", but "condemned", when they sin (by not doing what they are fully convinced is correct Ro 14:5), then?

I have to thank all of you who have interacted (though you've all disagreed ) because you've given me a chance to exercise myself in the Scriptures, and I've seen connections I haven't seen before!

You're citing one measly verse out of context:
Romans 6
23For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I'm saying, "Let's look at the CONTEXT":
20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in relation to righteousness. 21Therefore what [aa]benefit were you then [ab]deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you [ac]derive your [ad]benefit, [ae]resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

How is the gift of God eternal life?
Righteousness is a gift, and that gift effectively makes eternal life, given only to the righteous, a gift--AND, later on, he still says "if you live after the flesh you will die". This he says to people who are "not in the flesh but in the spirit" (Ro 8:9), to Christians.

See, I seek a view of Scripture that will integrate ALL of these things Paul says, NOT just one little snippet here or there. Why would anyone settle for that? Yes, you can know God just believing little pieces of God's Word, but how can you live with so many contradictory ideas in your mind? I can't!! I have to understand how they are reconciled!

Consider...

...what many scholars say regarding this James 2 passage, that because of the structure (and here referring to what they term an Inclusio), the interloper / questioner's words (James is presenting) cover more than just verse 18 but continue on through verse 19 (so that it is the interloper / questioner speaking about "the demons also believe and..."); so that James's next words (his response) to that interloper / questioner starts where it says, "wilt thou know, O vain man, that _______?" in v.20 [etc], which changes how one reads those following couple / few verses, as James responding to the interloper / questioner's words in two verses (not merely the one).



_____________

...my additional thoughts (and I must be brief here due to time constraints): later where it says in v.23 the combination of both "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: AND HE WAS CALLED THE FRIEND OF GOD," note that he was "called the friend of God" by other humans... See this in 2Chron20:7. This, therefore is the "justified" reference in this James 2 passage: justified in the sight of other humans (they thus can "SEE" what is otherwise an "invisible" thing, so to speak).




Abraham's justification before God / by God was not [held] "in question" (from God's perspective) for something like "30 years" between the time when that which Romans 4:2-4 speaks of (and James 2:23a "Abraham BELIEVED God...") and the time when he [much] later "offered Isaac... upon the altar" (James 2:21).


Hope that makes sense. (I'm kind of in a rush... apologies! = ) )

I've often wondered how to apply that section in Romans about eating the food sacrificed to idols. Currently I assume it's meant to refer to any action that aren't specifically talked about in the bible, Grey Zone Actions like seeing an r rated movie. If you are strong in your faith and you're reasonably confident it's not going to shake you spiritually then it's okay for you. Whereas if you're a little shaky, whatever action it may be, may cause worry or some personal problem, for them it's essentially a sin.

1. 1 Co specifies the laws about eating foods offered to idols--in Ro 14, it's a little more generalized.

2. Ro 14:5 is the rule "let every man be fully convinced in his own mind".

3. Yes, it is not "essentially" a sin, it is an actual sin. The Torah gave place for a person to make a vow to not practice something that was permissible, but Jesus says "let your yes be yes and your no be no--anything beyond this is of the evil one", so you could argue that one's "yes" has the same power of a vow whereby they could turn the permissible into the impermissible, and this would be acceptable "unto the Lord" (Ro 14).

sounds about right.