The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults"

[JamesL]

.... or do they simply claim what James is teaching, that profession of justification should not be accepted among men where there is no manifest evidence of good works?

The Calvinist "claim" is that James eas teaching the inevitability of works stemming from "genuine" faith, but that is a perverted view of what James wrote.

Check your other thread for a reply to that view, where in post #1 you railed against faith+works, then betrayed your own stance in post #3

 

[The Biblicist]

Look at this quote from Westminster about Good Works. It's the same from London. That good works are evidence of a lively faith. Enabled by the Spirit of Christ. That the end of their good works is eternal life.

CHAPTER 16
Of Good Works
1. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention.

2. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

3. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
---------------------

But their view of works cannot be properly understood without first trting to nail them down on the nature of faith.

And in their view, Faith = faithfulness.
They don't define faith as simply trusting in Jesus to save them, it includes commitment to Him or it's not real faith.

James, there is not one word or statement in this confession that says sanctification is inclusive in justification. This confession clearly states precisely what James stated "are fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith."

I suggest you read them in their fuller context and go to their articles on Justification and on Sanctification to correctly represent them.

ON JUSTIFICATION

I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

For you to claim they believe exactly what I am condemning is inexcusable.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Calvinist "claim" is that James eas teaching the inevitability of works stemming from "genuine" faith, but that is a perverted view of what James wrote.

Check your other thread for a reply to that view, where in post #1 you railed against faith+works, then betrayed your own stance in post #3

I have always taught that the evidence of regenerative faith is good works and I have never taught that regenerative faith, good works, or progressive sanctification is justification.

I have always taught that justification never occurs in a vacuum but that regeneration and justification are simeltaneous events, distinct from each other as actions, but not distinct from each other in time and that good works are the essential consequences of the new birth (Eph. 2:10) as the new birth and good works are in a cause and effect relationship.

There is no such thing as unrepentant salvation.

 

[kyredneck]

Please look at the wording carefully. The text does not say the law was written in their heart.

The text specifically states these are DOERS of the law. They're doing the law BY NATURE because the law is written in their hearts. They're described as JEWS INWARDLY because of their circumcised hearts with the work of the law written upon. Like these in the previous verses who also showed their circumcised hearts with the work of the law written upon it:

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2

It says that only "THE WORK" of the law was written in their heart. What is "THE WORK" of the Law? What did God design the Law to do? It was to reveal or educate one in what sin is. That is what the conscience does as he goes on to say in very specific words "the conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thougths one with another accusing or else excusing them." The Law is not written in their hearts, but the "work of the Law" is written in the sense that the conscience provides the very same function that the Law provides - it defines righteousness or sin.

Lame. Lame. Lame explain away of how the heavenly birth equips His children to fulfil the law. You kinda go berserk with any mention of His children fulfilling the law, don't you?

Compare:

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, Ro 9

So this text does not support Wright or his view.

I disagree.

 

[JonC]

The Galatians were saved people who embraced this false doctrine. So a person can be genuinely saved and embrace this false doctrine. However, that does not free them from the condemnation by God in Galatians 1:8-9.

The "power" of the gospel does not dictate what doctrine saved persons may or may not embrace. It does not prevent them from being condemned and separated by church discipliine for false doctrines that are greviously condemned by Scripture. Whether a man's name is "john Wesley" or "John Doe" makes no difference with God. How much or how little truth that person may or may not embrace makes no difference if they deny this truth as the epitaph and condemnation still apply.

I agree that people can believe false doctrines and still believe the true gospel of Christ. To keep it simple, I used John Wesley as a representation of a group of Christians. I was wanting to get a closer grip on what you were speaking of here (and I agree that a denial of eternal security is a false teaching...probably not as dangerous as the teaching of eternal security misapplied, but false nonetheless).

I guess it comes to what one determines as false enough to constitute another gospel. There are other twists (that Jesus experienced an actual separation from the presence of God on the Cross, that God brings men to the point of decision and then leaves it up to men to save themselves, etc) that may also be a corruption of the gospel message....but we also have to have room for disagreements without lumping people into the "accursed" category.

 

[JamesL]

I have always taught that the evidence of regenerative faith is good works and I have never taught that regenerative faith, good works, or progressive sanctification is justification.

I have always taught that justification never occurs in a vacuum but that regeneration and justification are simeltaneous events, distinct from each other as actions, but not distinct from each other in time and that good works are the essential consequences of the new birth (Eph. 2:10) as the new birth and good works are in a cause and effect relationship.

There is no such thing as unrepentant salvation.

Then you need to stop touting your "WITHOUT WORKS" mantra, because you clearly don't understand the concept of without

 

[HankD]

As a three year old, I lost my mother and almost lost my own life in house with a gas leak. They rushed me to the nearest hospital (Catholic) where they believed I was not going to make it, and so they called in a Priest who sprinkled me and gave me last rights. My dad was infuriated when he heard what they had done. That is the nearest I have been to the Catholic faith in 66 years.

I am sorry you had to spend your youth having lost your mother.

Yes, Roman Catholicism is a religion dependent upon Seven Sacraments in which one must participate however without any certainty as to the final destination of the soul even after The Last Rites - not a guarantee of anything.

HankD

 

[JamesL]

James, there is not one word or statement in this confession that says sanctification is inclusive in justification. This confession clearly states precisely what James stated "are fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith."......

ON JUSTIFICATION
[....]

For you to claim they believe exactly what I am condemning is inexcusable.

I'm quite familiar with what the confessions say, probably more familiar that most adherents.

And just like you don't care how many times the SDA cries "faith alone", and you're willing to look past mere jargon to assess the true meaning garnered from further writings, I also don't care how many times a Protestant cries "faith slone". Their further writings display a view which includes the absolute necessity of good works in order to gain entrance into heaven.

Did you read what I quoted from Westminster on good works? That the end of their good works is eternal life ??
Yes or No ?

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that people can believe false doctrines and still believe the true gospel of Christ. To keep it simple, I used John Wesley as a representation of a group of Christians. I was wanting to get a closer grip on what you were speaking of here (and I agree that a denial of eternal security is a false teaching...probably not as dangerous as the teaching of eternal security misapplied, but false nonetheless).

I guess it comes to what one determines as false enough to constitute another gospel. There are other twists (that Jesus experienced an actual separation from the presence of God on the Cross, that God brings men to the point of decision and then leaves it up to men to save themselves, etc) that may also be a corruption of the gospel message....but we also have to have room for disagreements without lumping people into the "accursed" category.

The "accursed" category is clearly delineated by the words "justification by works". It is the denial that all the works God required for justification of the believer were performed by Christ in his own body. To claim that ANY works performed in the body of the believer either prevent or obtain ultimate justification is to fall under that condemnation. The denial of eternal security is the affirmation that ultimate justification is prevented or obtained by works.

 

[The Biblicist]

Then you need to stop touting your "WITHOUT WORKS" mantra, because you clearly don't understand the concept of without

....and your evidence for this accusation is??

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm quite familiar with what the confessions say, probably more familiar that most adherents.

And just like you don't care how many times the SDA cries "faith alone", and you're willing to look past mere jargon to assess the true meaning garnered from further writings, I also don't care how many times a Protestant cries "faith slone". Their further writings display a view which includes the absolute necessity of good works in order to gain entrance into heaven.

Did you read what I quoted from Westminster on good works? That the end of their good works is eternal life ??
Yes or No ?

I assume you are referring to the phrase: " that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life."

The bible does say "without holiness no man shall see God" and good works are the fruits unto holiness. There is no such salvation in scripture without true gospel repentance and true gospel repentance is manifested in good works. Now how much good works is another question altogether as a child of God can range from Lot to Abraham in that category, but there is no such thing as a saved person void of all good works. That does not mean the good works are causal in obtaining eternal life or included in justification but they are the necessary evidence of regeneration and that evidence will be manifested either a change of attitude and/or action.

A faith that does not work is not saving faith but the faith of demons (James). However, that does not mean good works are inclusive in the doctrine of justification or that justification is progressive in nature.

The Biblical view is justification WITHOUT WORKS not sanctification or regeneration without evidential works.

 

[JonC]

The "accursed" category is clearly delineated by the words "justification by works". It is the denial that all the works God required for justification of the believer were performed by Christ in his own body. To claim that ANY works performed in the body of the believer either prevent or obtain ultimate justification is to fall under that condemnation. The denial of eternal security is the affirmation that ultimate justification is prevented or obtained by works.

Your last sentence is an error. You and I would take a denial of eternal security to be an affirmation of works-based salvation (I'd take conditional election the same way) but we can't assume "logical conclusions" on the beliefs of others.

For example, John Wesley held strongly to Penal Substitution Theory and Justification by Faith. But he also stood against unconditional election and eternal security of the believer. Wesley was not an unlearned man, and he did not necessarily work out his understanding inconsistently. He was wrong, but we can't superimpose our own "logical conclusions" onto his understanding to place him under Galatians 1 for denying justification by faith (he didn't) because he denied eternal security (which he did).

 

[The Biblicist]

Your last sentence is an error. You and I would take a denial of eternal security to be an affirmation of works-based salvation (I'd take conditional election the same way) but we can't assume "logical conclusions" on the beliefs of others.

However, the Bible is not speaking of the doctrine of election or the doctrine of regeneration or the doctrine of sanctification or the doctrine of the atonement, but is only speaking of the doctrine of justification is "without works." The doctrine of regeneration is "unto good works". The doctrine of sanctification is inclusive of works. The doctrine of election is inclusive of "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:13). Everyone believes in the doctrine of justification by faith, but not everyone believes in the doctrine as defined as justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS.

Did John Wesley or any of the others define their doctrine of justification by faith so that it excluded all works performed in the life of the believer, thus distinguishing justification from sanctification? Did they admit to justification as a completed action at the point of faith?

The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is the doctrine of eternal security as Biblical justification demands the bill has been paid in full not merely in part and that it is wholly conditioned on the works performed in Christ's own body not in His body plus ours.

The "accursed" classification is based upon the doctrine of justification which includes works performed in our bodies as determinate of forfeiture or obtaining a right standing before God.

 

[JonC]

However, the Bible is not speaking of the doctrine of election or the doctrine of regeneration or the doctrine of sanctification or the doctrine of the atonement, but is only speaking of the doctrine of justification is "without works." The doctrine of regeneration is "unto good works". The doctrine of sanctification is inclusive of works. The doctrine of election is inclusive of "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:13). Everyone believes in the doctrine of justification by faith, but not everyone believes in the doctrine as defined as justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS.

Did John Wesley or any of the others define their doctrine of justification by faith so that it excluded all works performed in the life of the believer, thus distinguishing justification from sanctification? Did they admit to justification as a completed action at the point of faith?

The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is the doctrine of eternal security as Biblical justification demands the bill has been paid in full not merely in part and that it is wholly conditioned on the works performed in Christ's own body not in His body plus ours.

Some will say that you and I do not define justification by faith so that it excludes all works performed in the life of the believer, so maybe that's an issue of interpretation. That said, I do believe that John Wesley denounced justification by works.

I'll add that I believe much the same as you when applied to the Trinity as well. I see a huge difference between ignorance of the doctrine and denying those truths.

 

[The Biblicist]

Some will say that you and I do not define justification by faith so that it excludes all works performed in the life of the believer, so maybe that's an issue of interpretation.

Well, I am open to someone trying to substantiate that charge. So far, they make that charge not based upon my view of justification but my view of regeneration or sanctification. Just because I believe good works performed in my own body are the inseparable consequences of regeneration does not mean I believe good works done in my body is inclusive in justification by faith. However, if I define "faith" to be "faithfulness" then their charge would be just. Just because I believe sanctification is inseparable from "good works" performed in my own body does not mean I believe good works are included in Justification. However, if they could prove that my definitions of "imputed" or "faith" or "without works" or "works" or "justified" included what the Bible defines as works performed in the body of the believer then their charge would be just. If they could prove that my view of justification is not a completed action at the point of faith but is an ongoing progressive incompleted action then their charge would be just.

Let's be clear, the essence of the doctrine of justification by faith is that all works of obedience that obtain a clean bill of justification before God were restricted to and fully completed by Christ in his own body and not in the body of the believer. Any doctrine of justification that crosses that line from works in Christ's own body to works in our bodies falls under "another gospel" and "accursed" classification of the persons teaching it.

That said, I do believe that John Wesley denounced justification by works.

Are you saying that Weslely defined all the terms relative to the doctrine of justification to exclude all works (as scripture defines works) to be performed in and through the body of the believer? He did not include imparted righteousness into his definition of imputed righteousness? He did not include "faithfulness" in his definition of faith? He did not exclude Spirit caused good works from his definition of "without works"? He did not extend justification beyond the point of faith as a completed action?

 

[The Biblicist]

I just read Wesleys sermon on Justification by faith and he repudiates the very essence of the Biblical doctrine as he bases it completely upon remission of sins while repudiating imputed righteousness. He clearly states that the person being justified "worketh not' and is "ungodly" only up to the point of forgiveness or initial salvation. He explicitly states that God does not look at him any differently than what he actually is by his own condition in the act of justification. Imparted righteousness is the only righteousness obtained by the believer at the point of conversion. Wesely repudiates imputed righteousness and thus repudiates the life of Christ as a substitutionary element in his doctrine of justification. He is preaching "another gospel" clear and simple.

 

[The Biblicist]

4. Least of all does justification imply, that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply, that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth. Neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom, to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. He can no more, in this manner, confound me with Christ, than with David or Abraham. Let any man to whom God hath given understanding, weigh this without prejudice; and he cannot but perceive, that such a notion of justification is neither reconcilable to reason nor Scripture.


He saves from the guilt of sin, (and, at the same time, from the power,) sinners of every kind, of every degree: men who, till then, were altogether ungodly;...

It is true that Wesley claims sanctification and justification are two different works of God but what he does is remove from justification the doctrine of imputed righteousness and simply gives the sinner a clean bill of forgiveness in justification without any satisfaction of the righteousness required by by the same law of God that Weslely pardons him from the penalty of, whereas all righteousness is imparted in regeneration and manifested in sanctification and that determines ultimate rejection or acceptance into heaven.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/t...1872-edition/sermon-5-justification-by-faith/

 

[The Biblicist]

I have been searching the web for D.L.Moody's view on eternal security and I cannot find anything where he repudiated eternal security. What I can find is where he repudiated the idea that unrepentant sinners can be saved and it seems that he is talking about professions void of any evidence of salvation rather than repudiating the doctrine of eternal security.

 

[JamesL]

....and your evidence for this accusation is??

The evidence is that you keep going ALL CAPS on "without works", but then go on to argue that works are inevitable.

Either you simply don't undersrand what the word WITHOUT means, or you're trying to confuse people, or you're trying to pander to a number of BB members, or who knows whatever possibilities as to why you're doing it. Only God knows that

 

[The Biblicist]

The evidence is that you keep going ALL CAPS on "without works", but then go on to argue that works are inevitable.

Either you simply don't undersrand what the word WITHOUT means, or you're trying to confuse people, or you're trying to pander to a number of BB members, or who knows whatever possibilities as to why you're doing it. Only God knows that

You are making a very basic mistake and misinterpretation of my position. Those capitals are used only to modify the doctrine of justification. I do believe that "good works" are inevitable fruits of the doctrine of regeneration (not justification) just as Ephesians 2:10 explicitly states. I do believe that "good works" are inevitable evidence of the doctrine of sanctification (not justification) as sanctification has no existence apart from works.

Either your own theology does not distinguish between justification and sanctification or between justification and regeneration or you are misinterpreting my position. Justification and only the doctrine of justification is WITHOUT WORKS. Justification is not regeneration and it is not sanctification. Justification is restricted to the works of Jesus Christ performed in his own physical body during his own incarnate ministry on earth and it is completely sufficient and finished WITHOUT WORKS of any kind, by any definition, that can be performed in and/or through our own physical bodies.

This has always been my position and by God's grace it will always be my position.