Faith or Law?

[studier]

I don't believe it's opinion.

OSAS is not biblical and works are optional and have to be optional

"Genuine" faith? Only God knows who's faith is "genuine". As to obedience if it isn't a choice, separate from faith, then it's something else.

Agree re: OSAS.

Disagree that works are optional to genuine faith and relationship with God. As I said, I see the original language of James2:17 making works an intrinsic part of genuine, so no works, then no genuine faith.

"Genuine faith" is terminology from 1Tim1:5 and 2Tim1:5. We are able to some degree to test ourselves re: the faith per 2Cor13:5, and since works are intrinsic to genuine faith, then to whatever degree, genuine faith is able to be seen, though I agree that God is the final judge.

Besides what I noted re: James2:17, obedience is likely where we will both agree and mainly diverge. Agree: You may be as staunch in your beliefs re: willing obedience to God as I am, but I doubt you are more so than I am.

Now the likely divergence and probably the main reason we will not reconcile our differences: I see Scripture at minimum making faith and obedience parallel (Rom10:16; Heb13:18-19) and appositional (Rom1:5; Rom16:26) and tied also with submission in Rom10 beginning with its specific mention in Rom10:3. I also see this tie as the logical necessity of 1John3:23a. IOW, if no obedience, then no faith, and if no faith, then no meaningful obedience.

Just one point of clarity if it helps: when I said works become natural through spiritual growth, it is not in the OSAS sense and Reformed sense of perseverance because when I said growth I was in basic agreement with your seeming views of the necessity of cooperative, willing faith-obedience for spiritual growth. When you mentioned Phil2:12-13 for example, I translate that more literally than most who IMO are holding back a bit due to all the faith vs. works controversies. The commanded verb in Phil2:12 literally means to accomplish by work and coupled with Phil2:13 it shows where the capacity to both will and "work" what pleases God - to accomplish our salvation by work - comes from - it comes from God and IMO these 2 verses are the epitome of cooperative faith-obedience-work with God in our salvation as His children already in Christ.

In reading and translating the Text, I have little to no concern about most of the arguments re: faith-alone vs. works and my original question to you re: being certain of what you said about works of law vs. works was legitimate.

 

[GiftofGod23]

If God commanded to do something and the Jerusalem Council said to not do what God commanded, then who has the higher authority and which one should we follow?

And he has ascended into the heavens which is how we are able to obtain the promise while he is letting all else play out. All is under his feet but it says, he delays only for us, and to allow destruction to come to its completion. That is why he is our savior and redeemer and the way and the light and the truth and the Word and the son and God. All things are in him. We are graced to be of it. And that is a choice. He died and did it all for us to have the choice to be a part of it.

 

[Soyeong]

Right. He was born as THE Son of God to save us from the curse of the law. And, while He was alive as Jesus the man, He was accountable to the statutes of the law.

Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so Jesus does not saves us from the law but rather he sees us from lawlessness. In Deuteronomy 28, it lists the blessing of the law for lawfulness and the curse of the law for lawlessness. The Law of Moses was given for our own good in order to teach us how to be blessed (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so those under the law have no need to be redeemed from it, but rather we had the need to be redeemed from our lawlessness. In. Titus 2:14 it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Law of Moses but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20) while the way to reject what he accomplished would be by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from.

There is sin and there is the nature of sin. Sin is a word of art that literally means "to miss the mark". It is an archery term. It is the distance between the center of the target and the arrow that was fired. In archery, you cannot have sin without first having a target.

The Hebrew word “yada” refers to intimate relationships/knowledge gained by experience, such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God’s way is the way to know (yada) Him and Jesus by experiencing being in His likeness through embodying His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of His household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Law of Moses is to graciously teach us how to have an intimate relationship with God and Jesus by walking in His way, which is His gift of eternal life.

To know God is to know truth. An arrow flies true when it hits its mark, our mark is to walk in God’s way, and God’s law is truth (Psalms 119:142) because it was given to teach us how to walk in God’s way (1 Kings 2:1-3) while sin is missing the mark, sin is what is contrary to God’s character traits, and sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4). The Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13) and of leading us to obey God’s law (Ezekiel 36:26-26) because God’s character traits are the fruits of the Spirit. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God’s law, so he is the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to know the Father (John 14:6-11).

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."

A son of someone is someone who is in their likeness through embodying their character traits, such as with John 8:39 saying that if they were sons of Abraham then they would be doers of the same works as him, so the sons of God are those who are walking in His way through following Christ's example of embodying His character traits. This is why those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses are not children of God (1 John 3:4-10) and why Paul contrasted those who are born of the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of Moses (Romans 8:4-14).

 

[James456]

Do you think that Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for mature believers?

An exhaustive list of the mosaic law of rite, ritual and ceremony definatley

 

[Toknow]

Agree re: OSAS.

Disagree that works are optional to genuine faith and relationship with God. As I said, I see the original language of James2:17 making works an intrinsic part of genuine, so no works, then no genuine faith.

"Genuine faith" is terminology from 1Tim1:5 and 2Tim1:5. We are able to some degree to test ourselves re: the faith per 2Cor13:5, and since works are intrinsic to genuine faith, then to whatever degree, genuine faith is able to be seen, though I agree that God is the final judge.

Besides what I noted re: James2:17, obedience is likely where we will both agree and mainly diverge. Agree: You may be as staunch in your beliefs re: willing obedience to God as I am, but I doubt you are more so than I am.

Now the likely divergence and probably the main reason we will not reconcile our differences: I see Scripture at minimum making faith and obedience parallel (Rom10:16; Heb13:18-19) and appositional (Rom1:5; Rom16:26) and tied also with submission in Rom10 beginning with its specific mention in Rom10:3. I also see this tie as the logical necessity of 1John3:23a. IOW, if no obedience, then no faith, and if no faith, then no meaningful obedience.

Just one point of clarity if it helps: when I said works become natural through spiritual growth, it is not in the OSAS sense and Reformed sense of perseverance because when I said growth I was in basic agreement with your seeming views of the necessity of cooperative, willing faith-obedience for spiritual growth. When you mentioned Phil2:12-13 for example, I translate that more literally than most who IMO are holding back a bit due to all the faith vs. works controversies. The commanded verb in Phil2:12 literally means to accomplish by work and coupled with Phil2:13 it shows where the capacity to both will and "work" what pleases God - to accomplish our salvation by work - comes from - it comes from God and IMO these 2 verses are the epitome of cooperative faith-obedience-work with God in our salvation as His children already in Christ.

In reading and translating the Text, I have little to no concern about most of the arguments re: faith-alone vs. works and my original question to you re: being certain of what you said about works of law vs. works was legitimate.

Great post !

 

[Nedsk]

Agree re: OSAS.

Disagree that works are optional to genuine faith and relationship with God. As I said, I see the original language of James2:17 making works an intrinsic part of genuine, so no works, then no genuine faith.

"Genuine faith" is terminology from 1Tim1:5 and 2Tim1:5. We are able to some degree to test ourselves re: the faith per 2Cor13:5, and since works are intrinsic to genuine faith, then to whatever degree, genuine faith is able to be seen, though I agree that God is the final judge.

Besides what I noted re: James2:17, obedience is likely where we will both agree and mainly diverge. Agree: You may be as staunch in your beliefs re: willing obedience to God as I am, but I doubt you are more so than I am.

Now the likely divergence and probably the main reason we will not reconcile our differences: I see Scripture at minimum making faith and obedience parallel (Rom10:16; Heb13:18-19) and appositional (Rom1:5; Rom16:26) and tied also with submission in Rom10 beginning with its specific mention in Rom10:3. I also see this tie as the logical necessity of 1John3:23a. IOW, if no obedience, then no faith, and if no faith, then no meaningful obedience.

Just one point of clarity if it helps: when I said works become natural through spiritual growth, it is not in the OSAS sense and Reformed sense of perseverance because when I said growth I was in basic agreement with your seeming views of the necessity of cooperative, willing faith-obedience for spiritual growth. When you mentioned Phil2:12-13 for example, I translate that more literally than most who IMO are holding back a bit due to all the faith vs. works controversies. The commanded verb in Phil2:12 literally means to accomplish by work and coupled with Phil2:13 it shows where the capacity to both will and "work" what pleases God - to accomplish our salvation by work - comes from - it comes from God and IMO these 2 verses are the epitome of cooperative faith-obedience-work with God in our salvation as His children already in Christ.

In reading and translating the Text, I have little to no concern about most of the arguments re: faith-alone vs. works and my original question to you re: being certain of what you said about works of law vs. works was legitimate.

There is a lot there but I want to clarify and correct something. When I said works are optional I don't mean to suggest they arent necessary for salvation but deciding to engage in works is an option just as deciding not to do them is a different option.

 

[studier]

There is a lot there but I want to clarify and correct something. When I said works are optional I don't mean to suggest they arent necessary for salvation but deciding to engage in works is an option just as deciding not to do them is a different option.

Thanks for clarifying. It begs the question for my properly understanding you:

1. Works are necessary for Salvation,
2. Works are optional by choice, Thus
3. Salvation is optional by choice?

 

[Soyeong]

An exhaustive list of the mosaic law of rite, ritual and ceremony definatley

In Act 15:19-21, it does not specify that or make exceptions for the other laws, so you are trying make the text conform to. your theology rather than allowing yourself to be informed by it. The Bible never lists which laws are part of the ceremonial law and never even refers to that as being a category of law, so you have no way to establish a list of which laws the Jerusalem Council considered to be part of the ceremonial law or even that they considered that to be a category of law. If you leave Acts 15:19-21 open to include the other laws that you want to follow then you can no longer use it to limit the laws that you don't want to follow. There are many verses that call Gentiles to be holy and laws in regard to how to be holy as God is holy are often arbitrarily considered to be ceremonial.

 

[Nedsk]

Thanks for clarifying. It begs the question for my properly understanding you:

1. Works are necessary for Salvation,
2. Works are optional by choice, Thus
3. Salvation is optional by choice?

1. Just as scripture says
2. Just as scripture suggests
3. Of course it is.

 

[studier]

1. Just as scripture says
2. Just as scripture suggests
3. Of course it is.

Thanks for clarifying. Let me know if we have anything to clarify in my longer post.

BTW, my initial comment re: works of law and works was strictly based upon what the Text says in all places it speaks of work(s).

 

[Nedsk]

Thanks for clarifying. Let me know if we have anything to clarify in my longer post.

BTW, my initial comment re: works of law and works was strictly based upon what the Text says in all places it speaks of work(s).

Are you saying "works of the law" and "works" are the same thing?

I will go back and look at the longer post

 

[studier]

Are you saying "works of the law" and "works" are the same thing?

I will go back and look at the longer post

Yes, I'm saying when we read all the verses that speak of work(s) and works of law, some of the mentions of work(s) can seem a bit vague as to whether works of law is or is not the referent of works. It's been a few years since I last looked at it closely and that restudy included all verses using "work(s)" and my reading a few hundred page discussion of the topic in a book I had and maybe still have.

 

[Dino246]

No, in Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so renting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which is the Gospel that James argued that Gentiles had heard and believed in Acts 15:6-7, so he was siding with the Pharisees among the believers (Acts 15:5). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:8-9 in regard to Gentiles receiving the Spirit and having their hearts cleansed, so again he was siding with the Pharisees from among the believers. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is again in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:10-10 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, which was in agreement with the Pharisees among the believers in opposition to the men from Judea in Acts 15:1 who were arguing in favor of salvation by circumcision.

The Pharisees ARE the men from Judea.

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brother: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

It's the same message. It's the same men.

Peter opposed them by saying, "Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"

What is the "yoke"? THE LAW.

It's not that difficult... unless, of course, you are deceived into believing that Christians are, in fact, under the Law.

 

[James456]

In Act 15:19-21, it does not specify that or make exceptions for the other laws, so you are trying make the text conform to. your theology rather than allowing yourself to be informed by it. The Bible never lists which laws are part of the ceremonial law and never even refers to that as being a category of law, so you have no way to establish a list of which laws the Jerusalem Council considered to be part of the ceremonial law or even that they considered that to be a category of law. If you leave Acts 15:19-21 open to include the other laws that you want to follow then you can no longer use it to limit the laws that you don't want to follow. There are many verses that call Gentiles to be holy and laws in regard to how to be holy as God is holy are often arbitrarily considered to be ceremonial.

They were discussing disputable matters, otherwise there would not have been much debate

 

[Dino246]

If God commanded to do something and the Jerusalem Council said to not do what God commanded, then who has the higher authority and which one should we follow?

This question is disingenuous. You have made two errors here.

Firstly, the Jerusalem council did not say "not to do what God commanded". Again, you have corrupted the word of God with your paraphrasing.

Secondly, you have overlooked the fact that the Holy Spirit IS God.

The Jerusalem council sought the guidance of GOD.

It seemed good to GOD not to burden the gentiles with ANYTHING beyond the four restrictions.

You have set God against Himself. That's foolish.

 

[Soyeong]

They were discussing disputable matters, otherwise there would not have been much debate

God has given instructions to Israel for how to know, love, glorify, believe in, and testify about Him by walking in His way, so if you want to do those things, then you will follow his instructions for how to them, but if you don't, then you can continue to argue against following them.

 

[FlyingDove]

Agree re: OSAS.

Disagree that works are optional to genuine faith and relationship with God. As I said, I see the original language of James2:17 making works an intrinsic part of genuine, so no works, then no genuine faith.

"Genuine faith" is terminology from 1Tim1:5 and 2Tim1:5. We are able to some degree to test ourselves re: the faith per 2Cor13:5, and since works are intrinsic to genuine faith, then to whatever degree, genuine faith is able to be seen, though I agree that God is the final judge.

Besides what I noted re: James2:17, obedience is likely where we will both agree and mainly diverge. Agree: You may be as staunch in your beliefs re: willing obedience to God as I am, but I doubt you are more so than I am.

Now the likely divergence and probably the main reason we will not reconcile our differences: I see Scripture at minimum making faith and obedience parallel (Rom10:16; Heb13:18-19) and appositional (Rom1:5; Rom16:26) and tied also with submission in Rom10 beginning with its specific mention in Rom10:3. I also see this tie as the logical necessity of 1John3:23a. IOW, if no obedience, then no faith, and if no faith, then no meaningful obedience.

Just one point of clarity if it helps: when I said works become natural through spiritual growth, it is not in the OSAS sense and Reformed sense of perseverance because when I said growth I was in basic agreement with your seeming views of the necessity of cooperative, willing faith-obedience for spiritual growth. When you mentioned Phil2:12-13 for example, I translate that more literally than most who IMO are holding back a bit due to all the faith vs. works controversies. The commanded verb in Phil2:12 literally means to accomplish by work and coupled with Phil2:13 it shows where the capacity to both will and "work" what pleases God - to accomplish our salvation by work - comes from - it comes from God and IMO these 2 verses are the epitome of cooperative faith-obedience-work with God in our salvation as His children already in Christ.

In reading and translating the Text, I have little to no concern about most of the arguments re: faith-alone vs. works and my original question to you re: being certain of what you said about works of law vs. works was legitimate.

Your argument merges categories Scripture keeps distinct. James never defines works as part of the essence of faith; he explicitly speaks of ""faith by itself"" & then contrasts it with the works that demonstrate it (Ja 2:17 & 2:24). If works were built into faith’s definition, James could not speak of faith existing ""by itself.""

Paul makes the same distinction: we are ""justified by faith apart from works"" (Rom 3:28), yet we are ""created in Christ Jesus for good works"" (Eph 2:10). Works are the result of salvation, not the cause or component of it.

Your appeal to Romans 1:5 & 16:26 overlooks the fact that Paul is describing obedience that arises from faith, not obedience that is identical to faith. Romans 10:16 does not redefine faith as obedience; it simply shows that unbelief is disobedience to the gospel's call. Philippians 2:12–13 likewise describes believers expressing outwardly what God has already worked inwardly, not accomplishing salvation by cooperative effort & 1 John 3:23 lists believing & loving as 2 distinct commands that flow from new birth (1 Jn 5:1).

Scripture consistently presents faith as the root & obedience as its fruit. When those categories are merged, grace no longer produces works - works end up redefining grace

The issue isn't whether faith can be examined - Scripture clearly says we can test ourselves (2 Cor 13:5). The issue is the assumption that works are intrinsic to the substance of faith itself. Paul's use of ""genuine faith"" in 1 Timothy 1:5 & 2 Timothy 1:5 refers to sincerity, not composition. He is describing the quality of Timothy's trust, not redefining faith as a mixture of belief & works.

James likewise distinguishes ""faith by itself" from the works that reveal it (Ja 2:17). If works were part of faith's essence, James could not speak of faith existing ""by itself"" at all. Works make faith visible, but they do not make faith what it is. God alone sees the heart perfectly (1 Sam 16:7), but the fruit of faith can be observed - not because works are faith, but because works flow from faith (Eph 2:10). When works are treated as intrinsic to faith, the biblical categories of root & fruit collapse, turning evidence into essence & shifting the ground of assurance from Christ's finished work to our performance.

 

[James456]

God has given instructions to Israel for how to know, love, glorify, believe in, and testify about Him by walking in His way, so if you want to do those things, then you will follow his instructions for how to them, but if you don't, then you can continue to argue against following them.

I believe the leaders of the first century church can be trusted on the issue

 

[FlyingDove]

Fumble

 

[Soyeong]

I believe the leaders of the first century church can be trusted on the issue

But you don't think that God should be trusted to guide you in how to rightly through His law?