Opening Post Part One
I am posting this here because I want anyone to be able to join in on the conversation regardless of denomination.
Most are aware of the division between Catholics and Protestants (as well as Evangelicals) and the many various divisions in the latter two. The latter view the former to have fallen into error and departed from a Biblical basis for numerous Doctrine and practices. So much so, in fact that a "Reformation" became necessary to restore the Body to sound Doctrine and Practice. But what if...
...that has happened again?
What if the Reformation took that error and while cleaning it up a bit remained with an erroneous position that impacts some of the most basic truths Scripture provides for us?
Before taking up the shield of your Theological System, let me just ask a few questions. We will begin with the notorious Faith Alone versus Faith and Works. James makes it very clear that Abraham was not justified by faith only, but by works also:
James 2:21-24 King James Version (KJV)
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
The standard answer of those who hold to faith alone is that this is a temporal context, and that this has a "horizontal application," meaning that it refers to the relationship between men, as opposed to man's relationship to God. I agree...this speaks of Temporal Justification. If we concluded that James is referring to Justification that has an eternal value we must equally conclude that men can be justified by giving food to the hungry and clothing to the cold.
Now, before the Catholic decides to stop reading, be patient, you'll want to know why the Protestant is in error concerning Justification as well.
The Protestant nullifies the Catholic view that men can be saved by faith and works, hence the temporal context. The problem, Catholic friend, is that James is not speaking about how one is saved, he is speaking about how one is justified in a temporal context, and it is very true that men can be justified by faith and works in a temporal context. So how is the Protestant in error concerning Justification? Quite simple, he does the exact same thing Catholics do, that is, impose an eternal and salvific context into Romans 4:
Romans 4:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Again...a temporal context. How do we know that? We simply look at how Abraham was justified. It was because of what he did...
...not what Jesus Christ did.
He believed God, and this is not about Christ dying in his stead. He believed God's promise/s but one simple truth to keep in mind is this: he died...not receiving the promises that pertain to Eternal Salvation (Hebrews 11:13 and Hebrews 11:39-40). And I will again remind the reader that the above, and all of the examples given in Romans 4 concerning Justification are speaking about...Justification. Not Eternal Redemption. Just as the Catholic imposes an eternal context into James 2, even so, those who read Romans 4 and equate Abraham's justification to Eternal REdemption do so at the expense of...Romans 3:
Romans 3:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
This is speaking in an eternal context. Abraham was declared righteous in a temporal perspective based on what he believed and did, but that did not change the fact that he died not receiving the promises and...not being made perfect (teleioō, complete in regards to remission of sins (see Hebrews 10:1-4 and Hebrews 10:14-18)). This does not say "There is none righteous, except Abraham," it states clearly that there isn't a single person that is righteous when viewed from the Eternal Perspective of God. Paul will go on to show how men are Justified in an eternal context, but first, let's take a look at Temporal Justification as opposed to Eternal Justification:
Romans 3:20-26 King James Version (KJV)
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.
But wait a minute, is that a contradiction I see in Scripture, because we see people justified by the works of the Law? Here are a few examples:
Romans 2:13-15 King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
Many commentators deny that men can be justified by the works of the Law by saying something to the effect that Paul makes the point "No one can perform the works of the Law," hence the conclusion is that none can be justified by the works of the Law. But that is precisely what Paul states here. That argument fails not only because we see men justified by doing the will of God (which is what the Law itself can be defined as, though it must be kept in the context in which is it given), that is what the verse above states. The Gentiles had the revelation of the works of the Law (God's will for their lives, which can only be revealed by God HImself) and the contrast is given between those who performed the works of the Law and those who did not (implied in v.13). And if we keep reading...
Romans 2:23-27 King James Version (KJV)
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
There is simply no way to dismiss vv.13-15 as hypothetical. It is evident in both the Old Testament as well as clarified in the New that whether one kept the Law or not...mattered. Again, we do not view the keeping of the Covenant of Law as a means of salvation, or Eternal Redemption. God's will for Man, whether prior to the formalized Covenant of Law or after, was for Man's benefit in the context of physical existence. Temporal Justification can be viewed as relevant to the salvation of the Old Testament Saints in that Justification secured their eternal destinies during their lifetime, but every Old Testament Saint died awaiting Eternal Redemption through Christ, which was attained by them postmortem. Eternal Redemption is only possible when it is Christ's righteousness imputed to the behalf of the individual. That is an irrefutable Biblical Doctrine. It might be likened to having an airplane ticket. One can have the ticket but until they board the plane they're still in the terminal (no pun intended).
And if you look at the establishment of the Law you are going to see that God demanded they keep the Law when He established it, judged them when they didn't, and justified them when they did. Let's look at two such individuals:
Luke 1:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Now, before anyone gets too excited and mistakenly thinks I am teaching salvation by works, let me just remind you the context is speaking of justification...and this in a temporal context (and thus, no...Scripture is not contradicting itself!). They were not saved because they walked in all of the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless...they were justified. Just as Abraham was justified by his belief, faith, and works (notably his willingness to offer up Isaac at the command of the Lord).
Continued...
I am posting this here because I want anyone to be able to join in on the conversation regardless of denomination.
Most are aware of the division between Catholics and Protestants (as well as Evangelicals) and the many various divisions in the latter two. The latter view the former to have fallen into error and departed from a Biblical basis for numerous Doctrine and practices. So much so, in fact that a "Reformation" became necessary to restore the Body to sound Doctrine and Practice. But what if...
...that has happened again?
What if the Reformation took that error and while cleaning it up a bit remained with an erroneous position that impacts some of the most basic truths Scripture provides for us?
Before taking up the shield of your Theological System, let me just ask a few questions. We will begin with the notorious Faith Alone versus Faith and Works. James makes it very clear that Abraham was not justified by faith only, but by works also:
James 2:21-24 King James Version (KJV)
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
The standard answer of those who hold to faith alone is that this is a temporal context, and that this has a "horizontal application," meaning that it refers to the relationship between men, as opposed to man's relationship to God. I agree...this speaks of Temporal Justification. If we concluded that James is referring to Justification that has an eternal value we must equally conclude that men can be justified by giving food to the hungry and clothing to the cold.
Now, before the Catholic decides to stop reading, be patient, you'll want to know why the Protestant is in error concerning Justification as well.
The Protestant nullifies the Catholic view that men can be saved by faith and works, hence the temporal context. The problem, Catholic friend, is that James is not speaking about how one is saved, he is speaking about how one is justified in a temporal context, and it is very true that men can be justified by faith and works in a temporal context. So how is the Protestant in error concerning Justification? Quite simple, he does the exact same thing Catholics do, that is, impose an eternal and salvific context into Romans 4:
Romans 4:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Again...a temporal context. How do we know that? We simply look at how Abraham was justified. It was because of what he did...
...not what Jesus Christ did.
He believed God, and this is not about Christ dying in his stead. He believed God's promise/s but one simple truth to keep in mind is this: he died...not receiving the promises that pertain to Eternal Salvation (Hebrews 11:13 and Hebrews 11:39-40). And I will again remind the reader that the above, and all of the examples given in Romans 4 concerning Justification are speaking about...Justification. Not Eternal Redemption. Just as the Catholic imposes an eternal context into James 2, even so, those who read Romans 4 and equate Abraham's justification to Eternal REdemption do so at the expense of...Romans 3:
Romans 3:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
This is speaking in an eternal context. Abraham was declared righteous in a temporal perspective based on what he believed and did, but that did not change the fact that he died not receiving the promises and...not being made perfect (teleioō, complete in regards to remission of sins (see Hebrews 10:1-4 and Hebrews 10:14-18)). This does not say "There is none righteous, except Abraham," it states clearly that there isn't a single person that is righteous when viewed from the Eternal Perspective of God. Paul will go on to show how men are Justified in an eternal context, but first, let's take a look at Temporal Justification as opposed to Eternal Justification:
Romans 3:20-26 King James Version (KJV)
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.
But wait a minute, is that a contradiction I see in Scripture, because we see people justified by the works of the Law? Here are a few examples:
Romans 2:13-15 King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
Many commentators deny that men can be justified by the works of the Law by saying something to the effect that Paul makes the point "No one can perform the works of the Law," hence the conclusion is that none can be justified by the works of the Law. But that is precisely what Paul states here. That argument fails not only because we see men justified by doing the will of God (which is what the Law itself can be defined as, though it must be kept in the context in which is it given), that is what the verse above states. The Gentiles had the revelation of the works of the Law (God's will for their lives, which can only be revealed by God HImself) and the contrast is given between those who performed the works of the Law and those who did not (implied in v.13). And if we keep reading...
Romans 2:23-27 King James Version (KJV)
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
There is simply no way to dismiss vv.13-15 as hypothetical. It is evident in both the Old Testament as well as clarified in the New that whether one kept the Law or not...mattered. Again, we do not view the keeping of the Covenant of Law as a means of salvation, or Eternal Redemption. God's will for Man, whether prior to the formalized Covenant of Law or after, was for Man's benefit in the context of physical existence. Temporal Justification can be viewed as relevant to the salvation of the Old Testament Saints in that Justification secured their eternal destinies during their lifetime, but every Old Testament Saint died awaiting Eternal Redemption through Christ, which was attained by them postmortem. Eternal Redemption is only possible when it is Christ's righteousness imputed to the behalf of the individual. That is an irrefutable Biblical Doctrine. It might be likened to having an airplane ticket. One can have the ticket but until they board the plane they're still in the terminal (no pun intended).
And if you look at the establishment of the Law you are going to see that God demanded they keep the Law when He established it, judged them when they didn't, and justified them when they did. Let's look at two such individuals:
Luke 1:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Now, before anyone gets too excited and mistakenly thinks I am teaching salvation by works, let me just remind you the context is speaking of justification...and this in a temporal context (and thus, no...Scripture is not contradicting itself!). They were not saved because they walked in all of the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless...they were justified. Just as Abraham was justified by his belief, faith, and works (notably his willingness to offer up Isaac at the command of the Lord).
Continued...