Sola Scriptura

[Andre]

Your very arguments to justify your position indicate clearly you reject justification by faith without ordinances/works (Rom. 4:9-12; Gal 1-5)

As you know, I have argued in detail that Romans 4, in fact, does not entail Paul arguing against final justification by good works - something he actually affirms in Romans 2:6-7. Instead, in Romans 4, Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

Which is certainly not the same thing as denying justification by "good works".

There may be no point in you and I going over this again, but if any other posters wish to see the relevant arguments, I will be happy to post them.

 

[Andre]

If Paul is only repudiating the Jewish type of progressive justification doctrine.....

This brings to mind another relevant issue.

As you know, I believe that the reformed tradition has misunderstood the nature of justification and that Paul really does hold to an ultimate justification by good works.

Now one of the reasons why I think the reformers made an error here is that they assumed that, in denying justification by "works", Paul was challenging the Jewish belief that one needed to earn one's salvation.

However, this view is strongly suspect. In his book "Paul and Palestine Judaism", Ed Sanders argues that the Jews of Jesus day never had such a view. Instead, Sanders argues, the first-century Jew viewed the Law of Moses as something to do in gratitude to God for his (the Jew's) being justified on grounds other than trying to earn it.

In other words, there is a case to be made that the reformers ascribed to the Jews of Jesus' (Paul's) day a belief that they never really had.

If Sanders (and others) are correct, this is further reason to question the belief that Paul ever denied ultimate justification by good works.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is an absurd argument because Paul has already defined "the law" as the manifestation of God's own righteousness:

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

The very same law in verses 19-20 is the very same law in verse 21 which is directly stated to be the manifestation of God's own righteousness and you cannot restrict God's own righteousness to Jews or to Mosaic Laws.

The reality is that the Mosaic law gives the most comprehensive detailed definition of GOOD WORKS in regard to the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD ever given to mankind. The Jew is the epitomy and apex of what GOOD WORKS are in relationsip to the ETERNAL MORAL RIGHTEOUS STANDARD of right and wrong found in the very character of God. Thus in denying that justification by faith is without the works of the Mosaic Law is to declare in the most comprehensive fashion that ANY and EVERY KIND OF GOOD WORKS has been EXCLUDED from justification by faith.

Furthermore, Paul makes it clear that He is not restricting this to the Jews but he is presenting Abraham as THE ROLE MODEL FOR ALL WHO BELIEVE and he was justified by faith FOURTEEN YEARS before submitting to circumcision demonstrating that justification by faith is completed WITHOUT ORDINANCES.

You simply will not accept the truth that is set forth in the clearest terms possible by the apostle Paul. Again, Paul states that the righteousness of God is manifested in the law (Rom. 3:22) and it is the same righteousnes found "without the law" in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22) and so to reject the righteousnes in the law is to reject both the righteousness of God and the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Remember, the Law that Jesus Christ fulfilled, was fulfilled "FOR US" and He is the end of THAT LAW for righteousness to all who believe (Rom. 10:4) and the righteousness of THAT LAW in Romans 10:4 is previously called the righteousness of God Himself in Romans 10:3 and it is the SAME RIGHTEOUSNESS rejected by the Jew in Romans 9:30-33 but received by the Gentile by faith in regard to the SAME LAW.

As you know, I have argued in detail that Romans 4, in fact, does not entail Paul arguing against final justification by good works - something he actually affirms in Romans 2:6-7. Instead, in Romans 4, Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

Which is certainly not the same thing as denying justification by "good works".

There may be no point in you and I going over this again, but if any other posters wish to see the relevant arguments, I will be happy to post them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You say that Rome teaches progressive justification (inclusive of good works, ordinances, etc.) as you are being made righteous whereas the Bible teaches instant justification (declared righteous) at the point of faith.

Do you make any distinction between faith "in" an object versus actions you do "by faith"? Does justification occur due to what you believe "in" or by what is what is being done "by" faith?

Let me ask it from a different angle. Do you believe that justification is accomplished fully by the completed actions of Christ as presented in the gospel which is the object of faith or do you believe justification occurs not merely in believing "in" Christ' finished work but in addition is obtained through your actions produced by faith?

Are you justified by what someone else DID for you as the object of faith or are you justified in addition to what you are DOING "by" faith?

In other words is there a cause versus consequence relationship between the object and action of faith?

Let me put it this way so that you are clear. I lived in Tennessee for 5 years. In the bible belt. Every other person I came in contact with believes in Jesus and his attoning sacrifice and can quote John 3:16 without a second thought. However, these same people...Now I'm telling you these things so that you understand what I am saying...behaved in this manner....1)A seminarian on his way to being a preacher got a girl drunk at a party and slept with her. He argued to her since they already had sex she might as well marry him which she did. A few years later they were divorsed. 2)Another seminary student was so addicted to porn that he didn't watch anything else. Left the seminary and began body building so he could not only get girls (outside of marriage) but also worship his body 3)a preacher who preached a lot of holiness discovered molesting a child. 4) a deacon who addopted a girl from the Phillipenes "because of the mercy of Christ" was found to be using her like a slave and also molested her. 5)Just a regular member who "loved" Jesus in their personal testimony and planned on being a missionary(female) who got knocked up by some guy and is away from any christian activity now. - These are just a few examples of the "believers" I met in the midst of the bible belt. It occured to me that they were just believers but had no faith. Faith is such that a belief is followed up by action. The examples above are examples of belief without faith. There has to be a distinguishing factor. Yet they all said they are "saved" because they believe. Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Read the link I gave you on Landmarkism. They are successionists. They are as far as one can be from the position that I can take.

They believe, as I mentioned in my example (for example), that one has to be baptized by a baptist by a baptist by a baptist by a baptist etc., right down to the Apostles or even John the Baptist. That is successionism.

Some believe that your Baptist church has to come from another baptist church which came from another baptist church which came from another baptist church which came from another baptist church right back to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 2.

Some people believe that only "true Baptists" will make up the Bride of Christ, and those are the ones that are saved and will be raptured.

You really don't know what successionism is do you?

Neither one of us believe anything remotely close to that.

Successionism is a direct link to the apostles. Simply put. Your position is similar in that you believe that the apostles founded churches. they were killed off or became heretical but before that happen they created an underground churches that was a spiritual kin to them. And as these passed on they left another group of spiritual kin and so on until the modern day baptist. Is that about it. Scrape away the hype and you get pretty much the same thing.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Another point that might be considered:
The Baptists (as a whole) don't believe in successionism.
The RCC does, as they claim they have a line of popes going right back to Peter. That is successionism, though it can easily be disproved. The RCC claims successionism, not the Baptists.

Yes this is what I've been saying. There is no successionism. That has been my point! For the baptist or the Catholics. The church evolved.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As you know, I have argued in detail that Romans 4, in fact, does not entail Paul arguing against final justification by good works - something he actually affirms in Romans 2:6-7. Instead, in Romans 4, Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

Which is certainly not the same thing as denying justification by "good works".

There may be no point in you and I going over this again, but if any other posters wish to see the relevant arguments, I will be happy to post them.

I'm in agreement with you its a treatese against return to Judaic Torah or Law since it was fulfilled by Christ. No need to maintain the ausipice of the old covenant under the new.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm in agreement with you its a treatese against return to Judaic Torah or Law since it was fulfilled by Christ. No need to maintain the ausipice of the old covenant under the new.

That is an absurd position on Romans 4 as Abraham is a gentile not a Jew and Abraham was justified 14 years before he was even circumcised and none were considered a Jew before circumcision. Moreover, the law is specifically addressed in Romans 4:14-15 demonstrating that "the works" in Romans 4:1-4 are those pertaining "to the flesh" not to the law of Moses as Moses didn't even come into existence until 430 years later and the law is but only ONE aspect Paul is systematically denying is inclusive in justification by faith. Romans 4:16-22 defines justifying faith as exclusive of any kind of assistance or performance on the part of Abraham but simply taking God at His promise and depending solely upon His power to perform that promise. Remember, Abraham is presented as the "Father" or role model for ALL THAT BELIEVE.

Paul has already stated in Romans 3:21-22 that the righteousness of God is revealed in "the law" as well as "the prophets" and thus "the law" in question expresses the very righteousness found in the very character of God as well in the person of Jesus Christ.

What I believe you don't see clearly is that the law given to the Jew is the most comprehensive PRACTICAL application of moral law ever given to mankind and thus the most definitive model for "GOOD WORKS" existent on planet earth and therefore to deny justification is by the "works of the law" is the most possible comprehensive denial that "good works" play any role whatsoever in justifying faith imaginable.

I agree with you that justifying faith accompanies new birth and progressive sanctification, thus making a real CHANGE and thus a progressive change rather than mere lip service but it is not inclusive of these things and can't be inclusive of these things because what justifies is only the works that can satisfy the righteousness of God seen in "the works of the law" or the life of Jesus Christ alone.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is an absurd position on Romans 4 as Abraham is a gentile not a Jew and Abraham was justified 14 years before he was even circumcised and none were considered a Jew before circumcision. Moreover, the law is specifically addressed in Romans 4:14-15 demonstrating that "the works" in Romans 4:1-4 are those pertaining "to the flesh" not to the law of Moses as Moses didn't even come into existence until 430 years later and the law is but only ONE aspect Paul is systematically denying is inclusive in justification by faith. Romans 4:16-22 defines justifying faith as exclusive of any kind of assistance or performance on the part of Abraham but simply taking God at His promise and depending solely upon His power to perform that promise. Remember, Abraham is presented as the "Father" or role model for ALL THAT BELIEVE.

Paul has already stated in Romans 3:21-22 that the righteousness of God is revealed in "the law" as well as "the prophets" and thus "the law" in question expresses the very righteousness found in the very character of God as well in the person of Jesus Christ.

What I believe you don't see clearly is that the law given to the Jew is the most comprehensive PRACTICAL application of moral law ever given to mankind and thus the most definitive model for "GOOD WORKS" existent on planet earth and therefore to deny justification is by the "works of the law" is the most possible comprehensive denial that "good works" play any role whatsoever in justifying faith imaginable.

I agree with you that justifying faith accompanies new birth and progressive sanctification, thus making a real CHANGE and thus a progressive change rather than mere lip service but it is not inclusive of these things and can't be inclusive of these things because what justifies is only the works that can satisfy the righteousness of God seen in "the works of the law" or the life of Jesus Christ alone.

Your taking an argument for absolution from OT Covental law and trying to argue something outside the context of the argument. Note in Chapter 2:17 Paul starts on the contrast from OT Law as the Jews felt need to adhere to it. It is from this context the passage can be viewed.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your taking an argument for absolution from OT Covental law and trying to argue something outside the context of the argument. Note in Chapter 2:17 Paul starts on the contrast from OT Law as the Jews felt need to adhere to it. It is from this context the passage can be viewed.

Your missing the point! The law given to the Jews is the most comprehensive "good works" application of moral law ever devised by God for man. The moral law is meticulously applied to every aspect of their personal, civil and religious life and thus this constitutes "the works of the law" or what is regarded as "good works" in the most comprehensive sense imaginable. Thus the Jew represents the ultimate possible example of what "good works" compasses in every possible facit of life.

To deny that the Jew could be justified by "the works of the law" is to deny that ANY HUMAN BEING could be justified by "good works" as the Jew is the epitomy of what "good works" are about in regard to the MORAL LAW of God in every possible application to every possible aspect of human life.

This is an argument from greater to lessor. If the Jew cannot be justified by "good works" as defined by God's law then NO FLESH could justified by "good works" as NO FLESH applied the works defined by law as "good" more comprehensive than the Jew.

In Romans 2:11-24 it is the hpocrisy of the Jew that is condemned not the Law as it is that very law that God uses as the standard of righteousness to condemn those who come by "good works" on the day of judgement because it is the most comprehensive possible definition given to man in regard to what is "good" versus "bad" works.

Furthermore, Romans 3:19-21 proves that it is not this very same law which "the whole world" will be condemned by (because it is the most comprehensive application of law to every facet of man's existence) but it also MANIFESTS the righteousness of God, which cannot be restricted to just Jews and it also the same law manifest in the rightousness provided in Jesus Christ. It is this exact Law that Christ SATISFIED by his own life and therefore you cannot restrict it to the Jew unless Christ only satisfied the law for the Jew ALONE!!!!!!!

Side lining the "works of the law" as for Jews only, side lines God's own righteousness. Side lining the "works of the law" as for Jews only, side lines the righteousness of Christ" for Jews only as it is this very law that defined HIS OWN LIFE as righteous and satisfactory unto God FOR US!

Paul's point is that if the Jew cannot do "good works" in God's sight to justify him than NO FLESH can as the Jewish life is the most COMPREHENSIVE application of God's moral law to the life of human beings ever attempted on planet earth among any people. If the Jew cannot be justified by "good works" NO HUMAN BEING CAN.

This is why Paul goes back to Abraham BEFORE MOSES, to a gentile BEFORE THE JEWS, to one defined as "ungodly" (v. 5) to clearly demonstrate that justification by faith cannot be inclusive of "good works" as defined by the TEN COMMANDMENTS given to Moses as the basis of all law in the Old Covenant.

 

[DHK]

Successionism is a direct link to the apostles. Simply put. Your position is similar in that you believe that the apostles founded churches. they were killed off or became heretical but before that happen they created an underground churches that was a spiritual kin to them. And as these passed on they left another group of spiritual kin and so on until the modern day baptist. Is that about it. Scrape away the hype and you get pretty much the same thing.

No it isn't. Your eyes are closed. It is as if you want to remain blind to the truth. The RCC claims a direct link to Peter and claims that they can prove through a succession of popes right back to Peter. Baptists claim no such thing. Only some, who call themselves Landmarkists, claim that. I am not one of them. It would be libel for you to put me into that category.

To simply say that there have been believers in every age since the time of Christ though they never knew each other existed is not successionism. We have that very example in the Bible. Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches. Out of those 100 churches I am sure that many of them never heard of several of the others. Why? For the same reason many Americans are not aware of many of the Baptist churches that exist in their own nation, much less in the world. You don't succeed from all the different churches in the world. It doesn't make sense. The church at Colosse and the church at Thessalonika, much less smaller churches like Lystra and Iconium, were miles apart from each other. They were independent from each other; not a part of a denomination. Colosse and Thessalonika is well over 300 miles from each other. They didn't succede or succeed from each other. It wasn't possible. Paul started them both. There was little communication in that day.

What about the Ethiopian Eunuch? Philip led him to the Lord. Tradition tells us that he went back to Africa and started a church there. Thomas went to India and started a church there. In Acts 8, due to a great persecution the disciples went everywhere preaching the word of God. That is how the Word spreads, souls are saved, baptized, and organized into local churches. It is not through successionism. Nowhere is successionism is taught in the Bible. Believers have always been persecuted for their faith (the RCC having been the most guilty party, and the governments coming in a close second).

If you were to study the history of Christianity in India you would see that there was no way there could be no possible theory of successionism in India. It is the wildest theory ever concocted as far as evangelical and Baptist churches are concerned. It doesn't exist.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Roman Catholic Church believes in "Apostolic succession" which is the historical link to link of Popes going back to Peter. This is "APOSTOLIC succession.

Some Landmarkers believe in "Church Succession" which is historical link to link of churches going back to the first church in Jerusalem. This is "CHURCH" succession.

Some Landmarkers believe in "Church perpetuity" which means there have been baptized believes assembling as New Testament churches every day of every generation from the first church in Jerusalem connected through scriptural baptismal administrators that go back to John the Baptist. This is "BAPTISMAL" succession.

Some Baptists believe in "Spiritual perpetuity" which means God never leaves any generation without a remnant of people who are faithful to the essential truths of God's word. In every generation there are true believers that embrace the essentials of New Testament Christianity and assemble as baptized beleivers because they read and obey the same book - the Bible, but they are not necessarily connected to each other or to apostolic Christianity in any other sense but the belief and practice of the truth. This is "SPIRITUAL" perpetuity. The moderator seems to be of this fourth position and not of any of the first three positions.

Successionism is a direct link to the apostles. Simply put. Your position is similar in that you believe that the apostles founded churches. they were killed off or became heretical but before that happen they created an underground churches that was a spiritual kin to them. And as these passed on they left another group of spiritual kin and so on until the modern day baptist. Is that about it. Scrape away the hype and you get pretty much the same thing.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No it isn't. Your eyes are closed. It is as if you want to remain blind to the truth. The RCC claims a direct link to Peter and claims that they can prove through a succession of popes right back to Peter. Baptists claim no such thing. Only some, who call themselves Landmarkists, claim that. I am not one of them. It would be libel for you to put me into that category.

To simply say that there have been believers in every age since the time of Christ though they never knew each other existed is not successionism. We have that very example in the Bible. Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches. Out of those 100 churches I am sure that many of them never heard of several of the others. Why? For the same reason many Americans are not aware of many of the Baptist churches that exist in their own nation, much less in the world. You don't succeed from all the different churches in the world. It doesn't make sense. The church at Colosse and the church at Thessalonika, much less smaller churches like Lystra and Iconium, were miles apart from each other. They were independent from each other; not a part of a denomination. Colosse and Thessalonika is well over 300 miles from each other. They didn't succede or succeed from each other. It wasn't possible. Paul started them both. There was little communication in that day.

What about the Ethiopian Eunuch? Philip led him to the Lord. Tradition tells us that he went back to Africa and started a church there. Thomas went to India and started a church there. In Acts 8, due to a great persecution the disciples went everywhere preaching the word of God. That is how the Word spreads, souls are saved, baptized, and organized into local churches. It is not through successionism. Nowhere is successionism is taught in the Bible. Believers have always been persecuted for their faith (the RCC having been the most guilty party, and the governments coming in a close second).

If you were to study the history of Christianity in India you would see that there was no way there could be no possible theory of successionism in India. It is the wildest theory ever concocted as far as evangelical and Baptist churches are concerned. It doesn't exist.

Note Ethiopians that claim to go back to the Ethiopian Eunich are Copts. India doesn't have proto-baptist either. I've said successionism isn't true in fact thats been my point all along. No proto-baptist but an ever changing and developing church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Roman Catholic Church believes in "Apostolic succession" which is the historical link to link of Popes going back to Peter. This is "APOSTOLIC succession.

Some Landmarkers believe in "Church Succession" which is historical link to link of churches going back to the first church in Jerusalem. This is "CHURCH" succession.

Some Landmarkers believe in "Church perpetuity" which means there have been baptized believes assembling as New Testament churches every day of every generation from the first church in Jerusalem connected through scriptural baptismal administrators that go back to John the Baptist. This is "BAPTISMAL" succession.

Some Baptists believe in "Spiritual perpetuity" which means God never leaves any generation without a remnant of people who are faithful to the essential truths of God's word. In every generation there are true believers that embrace the essentials of New Testament Christianity and assemble as baptized beleivers because they read and obey the same book - the Bible, but they are not necessarily connected to each other or to apostolic Christianity in any other sense but the belief and practice of the truth. This is "SPIRITUAL" perpetuity. The moderator seems to be of this fourth position and not of any of the first three positions.

Then he and I are closer than you and I. I believe in a changing church where there were real believers apart of it all throughout the centuries.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your missing the point! The law given to the Jews is the most comprehensive "good works" application of moral law ever devised by God for man. The moral law is meticulously applied to every aspect of their personal, civil and religious life and thus this constitutes "the works of the law" or what is regarded as "good works" in the most comprehensive sense imaginable. Thus the Jew represents the ultimate possible example of what "good works" compasses in every possible facit of life.

To deny that the Jew could be justified by "the works of the law" is to deny that ANY HUMAN BEING could be justified by "good works" as the Jew is the epitomy of what "good works" are about in regard to the MORAL LAW of God in every possible application to every possible aspect of human life.

This is an argument from greater to lessor. If the Jew cannot be justified by "good works" as defined by God's law then NO FLESH could justified by "good works" as NO FLESH applied the works defined by law as "good" more comprehensive than the Jew.

In Romans 2:11-24 it is the hpocrisy of the Jew that is condemned not the Law as it is that very law that God uses as the standard of righteousness to condemn those who come by "good works" on the day of judgement because it is the most comprehensive possible definition given to man in regard to what is "good" versus "bad" works.

Furthermore, Romans 3:19-21 proves that it is not this very same law which "the whole world" will be condemned by (because it is the most comprehensive application of law to every facet of man's existence) but it also MANIFESTS the righteousness of God, which cannot be restricted to just Jews and it also the same law manifest in the rightousness provided in Jesus Christ. It is this exact Law that Christ SATISFIED by his own life and therefore you cannot restrict it to the Jew unless Christ only satisfied the law for the Jew ALONE!!!!!!!

Side lining the "works of the law" as for Jews only, side lines God's own righteousness. Side lining the "works of the law" as for Jews only, side lines the righteousness of Christ" for Jews only as it is this very law that defined HIS OWN LIFE as righteous and satisfactory unto God FOR US!

Paul's point is that if the Jew cannot do "good works" in God's sight to justify him than NO FLESH can as the Jewish life is the most COMPREHENSIVE application of God's moral law to the life of human beings ever attempted on planet earth among any people. If the Jew cannot be justified by "good works" NO HUMAN BEING CAN.

This is why Paul goes back to Abraham BEFORE MOSES, to a gentile BEFORE THE JEWS, to one defined as "ungodly" (v. 5) to clearly demonstrate that justification by faith cannot be inclusive of "good works" as defined by the TEN COMMANDMENTS given to Moses as the basis of all law in the Old Covenant.

are you arguing excluding Good works? In fact, the passage is directed to a specific act of trying to attain heaven by Judaic law. It can't be done because the law can't be followed entirely. However, does this mean we exclude good works? Paul says God forbid! and that we "are saved unto good works" The point of our salvation is to give us the ability to do right, to live right, and do good works. Not that they by their own merit can save us. Jesus already accomplished that for the singular purpose of having us be able to obey God and observe his law. Prior to this we cannot do it. Remember he writes his law on our hearts. Motivation is different end result is good.

 

[Dr. Walter]

are you arguing excluding Good works? In fact, the passage is directed to a specific act of trying to attain heaven by Judaic law. It can't be done because the law can't be followed entirely. However, does this mean we exclude good works? Paul says God forbid! and that we "are saved unto good works" The point of our salvation is to give us the ability to do right, to live right, and do good works. Not that they by their own merit can save us. Jesus already accomplished that for the singular purpose of having us be able to obey God and observe his law. Prior to this we cannot do it. Remember he writes his law on our hearts. Motivation is different end result is good.

Justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS entirely and altogether. Zip, nada! God justifies through faith "the ungodly" and the "ungodly" are "ungodly." Don't confuse cause and consequences. We are first "created in Christ Jesus" (CAUSE) "unto good works" (Consequences) but the "good works" have NOTHING to do with justification by faith.

What is Judiac law? Paul says in Romans 3:21 that it manifests the righteousness of God. True, it is not the only manifestation of the righteousness of God as the rightoeusness of God is manifested "without the law and the prophets" in the life of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22).

What is Judiac Law? The Bible calls it "the law of God." God gave it thus it originates with God. However, when God gave it, it was the MORAL LAW on Mount Sinai written on tablets. From this base law (moral law) civil and ceremonial law are derived. Civil law is based upon the moral law as every law has a moral basis. Ceremonial law is based upon moral law as every ceremonial FORM is designed to convey a Moral message or a redemptive truth. The moral, civil and ceremonial law together form the THEOcratic government of Israel which is rule under God. Thus Judaic law manifests the righteousness of God.

What is Judaic Law? It is the law that Jesus Christ was born "under". It is the law that he came to fulfill. It is the law that says that anyone hanging on a tree is cursed. It is "under the law" this law that he challenged anyone to find sin in him. It is the satisfaction of this law that defined him as RIGHTEOUS before God and man. This is the law in Romans 9:32-10:4 that is called the "righteousness of God" that the Jews cannot fulfill but that Christ is "the end of righteousness" to every one that believeth in him.

What is Judaic Law? It is the most comprehensive application of "good works" ever devised and applied by God to mankind that manifests more completely "the righteousness of God" other than God in flesh living out that law.

Paul's whole argument is from lessor to greater. If the Jew cannot be justified by "good works" according to the most comprehensive law given to mankind then NO FLESH can be justified by "good works" and the "whole world" is condemned leaving no other option but to be justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS in the substitutionary works of Jesus Christ.

We are first "created in Christ Jesus" which is inclusive of justification by faith ("for by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves....not of works). Good works follow but good works do not precede that creative work nor are good works inclusive of that creative work, nor is that creative work a response to our good works.

It appears that you are trying to include "good works" in justification by faith?? Is that what you believe? Are you a better man than the Jew? Can you do what no Jew (but one) can do?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS entirely and altogether. Zip, nada! God justifies through faith "the ungodly" and the "ungodly" are "ungodly." Don't confuse cause and consequences. We are first "created in Christ Jesus" (CAUSE) "unto good works" (Consequences) but the "good works" have NOTHING to do with justification by faith.

What is Judiac law? Paul says in Romans 3:21 that it manifests the righteousness of God. True, it is not the only manifestation of the righteousness of God as the rightoeusness of God is manifested "without the law and the prophets" in the life of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22).

What is Judiac Law? The Bible calls it "the law of God." God gave it thus it originates with God. However, when God gave it, it was the MORAL LAW on Mount Sinai written on tablets. From this base law (moral law) civil and ceremonial law are derived. Civil law is based upon the moral law as every law has a moral basis. Ceremonial law is based upon moral law as every ceremonial FORM is designed to convey a Moral message or a redemptive truth. The moral, civil and ceremonial law together form the THEOcratic government of Israel which is rule under God. Thus Judaic law manifests the righteousness of God.

What is Judaic Law? It is the law that Jesus Christ was born "under". It is the law that he came to fulfill. It is the law that says that anyone hanging on a tree is cursed. It is "under the law" this law that he challenged anyone to find sin in him. It is the satisfaction of this law that defined him as RIGHTEOUS before God and man. This is the law in Romans 9:32-10:4 that is called the "righteousness of God" that the Jews cannot fulfill but that Christ is "the end of righteousness" to every one that believeth in him.

What is Judaic Law? It is the most comprehensive application of "good works" ever devised and applied by God to mankind that manifests more completely "the righteousness of God" other than God in flesh living out that law.

Paul's whole argument is from lessor to greater. If the Jew cannot be justified by "good works" according to the most comprehensive law given to mankind then NO FLESH can be justified by "good works" and the "whole world" is condemned leaving no other option but to be justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS in the substitutionary works of Jesus Christ.

We are first "created in Christ Jesus" which is inclusive of justification by faith ("for by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves....not of works). Good works follow but good works do not precede that creative work nor are good works inclusive of that creative work, nor is that creative work a response to our good works.

It appears that you are trying to include "good works" in justification by faith?? Is that what you believe? Are you a better man than the Jew? Can you do what no Jew (but one) can do?

Nope. You didn't read what I wrote. Justification is by faith. Faith is not faith without exemplification in good works. I'm telling you we are justified by our faith but God doesn't want us walking around believing something without acting on it. James give a pretty good discourse about it. And I gave examples of a few who believe and look at their lives! Why does God save us? So we can live in sin? Nope. God saves us UNTO GOOD WORKS. If your not living rightly and doing good things your salvation is in question. Good works in this sense is like this (just an example but to make a point) God invites us to a party to specifically have cake with us. The invite is accepted and we go to the party Salvation. Eating Cake (Good works). If we go to the party and do not partake in the point of it what good is it? None. Might as well not been invited.

You seem to be saying believe and jesus and sin all you want cause your saved! There is nothing else. Just do what you've always done.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I suggest that you reread what I said and give particular attention to that part where I spoke about the cause and consequence relationships. Even in your words below you give a cause and consequence relationship. For example, you said "God saves us" (cause) and then you gave the consequence "UNTO good works." Where there is the cause there will be the consequence and that is the argument of James but we are not justified by our works as that reverses cause and consequence.

Justification before God is based upon the substitutionary works of Jesus Christ FOR us that is imputed to us by faith alone. We are not justified by OUR WORKS before God (before men we are) because our works cannot measure up to the standard of God's law of righteousnes.

This is why I asked you previously if you distinguished between faith "in" the gospel versus actions you perform "by" faith. In the former there are no actions you perform but rather you simply receive what Christ has done FOR YOU while in the latter is your consequential response to what you have received that moves you to take actions out of love "by" faith. The first is the cause while the latter is the consequence. The cause is what justifies you before God while the latter justifies your profession of faith before men and is evidential progressive sanctification not to be confused with justification by faith before God.

Nope. You didn't read what I wrote. Justification is by faith. Faith is not faith without exemplification in good works. I'm telling you we are justified by our faith but God doesn't want us walking around believing something without acting on it. James give a pretty good discourse about it. And I gave examples of a few who believe and look at their lives! Why does God save us? So we can live in sin? Nope. God saves us UNTO GOOD WORKS. If your not living rightly and doing good things your salvation is in question. Good works in this sense is like this (just an example but to make a point) God invites us to a party to specifically have cake with us. The invite is accepted and we go to the party Salvation. Eating Cake (Good works). If we go to the party and do not partake in the point of it what good is it? None. Might as well not been invited.

You seem to be saying believe and jesus and sin all you want cause your saved! There is nothing else. Just do what you've always done.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is why I asked you previously if you distinguished between faith "in" the gospel versus actions you perform "by" faith..

I don't see the distinction.

In the former there are no actions you perform but rather you simply receive what Christ has done FOR YOU while in the latter is your consequential response to what you have received that moves you to take actions out of love "by" faith

I see this as one thing rather than two things. The consequence is just as applicable as the cause. I can agree that "you simply receive what Christ has done for you." actually I go a step further. "you simply receive Christ entirely" but the cause is Jesus actively choosing me and seeking me out. The consequence only speaks to the cause but with out it shows no cause has occured. I see them one in the same inseperable from each other.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Just because something is inseparable from something else does not mean they are the same or that there is no specific cause and consequence relationship between them. The scriptures do not see justification by faith and sanctification as the same. Nor does the scriptures see justification by faith and good works as the same as the Scriptures clearly state that the "ungodly" is justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS.

If you INCLUDE your good works within justification BEFORE GOD that is "another gospel" which Paul says is "accursed." If that is the gospel you believed in then you are as lost now as you were as a Roman Catholic because that is ESSENTIALLY the very position of Rome. I said "essentially" because they incoporate good works/sacraments with justification as inseparable from each other. Don't give me a technical rebuttal in regard to Rome because your technical rebuttal does not change the PRACTICAL reality that this is how the normal Roman Catholic perceives the doctrine of Justificaiton through sacraments which are "good" works.

I don't see the distinction.


I see this as one thing rather than two things. The consequence is just as applicable as the cause. I can agree that "you simply receive what Christ has done for you." actually I go a step further. "you simply receive Christ entirely" but the cause is Jesus actively choosing me and seeking me out. The consequence only speaks to the cause but with out it shows no cause has occured. I see them one in the same inseperable from each other.