A little sampling of church history is in order

[Thinkingstuff]

Catholic USE THE WORDS "salvation by grace alone" but do not believe in salvation by grace alone as defined by scriptural context.

Entirely untrue. Certainly we believe Grace alone saves. Again Biblicist I must suggest that you are wrong about Grace in that the Bible is not a dictionary. The Greek word that is used for Grace is χαρις and the scriptural use of that word can be assertained by these commentators of the text of scripture

the communication of Divine goodness by the inworking of the Spirit - Robert Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1871), p. 179.
It does not mean, in good Greek fashion, God’s graciousness, nor concetely his free love (Taylor). It almost always means the power of salvation which finds expression in specific gifts, acts, and spheres and which is even individualized in the charismata - Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 14.
In Paul ... χαρις is never merely an attitude or disposition of God (God’s character as gracious); consistently it denotes something much more dynamic—the wholly generous act of God. Like ‘Spirit,’ with which it overlaps in meaning (cf., e.g., [Rom] 6:14 and Gal 5:18), it denotes effective divine power in the experience of men - James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 17.
It may denote the kindness of beneficence of our Lord, II Cor. 8:9, or the favour manifested or bestowed by God, II Cor. 9:8 (referring to material blessings); I Pet. 5:10. Furthermore, the word is expressive of the emotion awakened in the heart of the recipient of such favour, and thus acquires the meaning “gratitude” or “thankfulness,” Luke 4:22; I Cor. 10:30; 15:57; II Cor. 2:14; 8:16; I Tim. 1:12. In most of the passages, however, in which the word charis is used in the New Testament, it signifies the unmerited operation of God in the heart of man, affected through the agency of the Holy Spirit. While we sometimes speak of grace as an inherent quality, it is in reality the active communication of divine blessings by the inworking of the Holy Spirit, out of the fulness of Him who is “full of grace and truth,” Rom. 3:24; 5:2, 15; 17:20; 6:1; I Cor. 1:4; II Cor. 6:1; 8:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:5, 8; 3:7; I Pet. 3:7; 5:12. - Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 426-27.

It is in all these senses which the Catholic Church believes in Grace Alone though it furhter Catagorizes Grace into actual Grace and Habitual Grace. However, both must be involved in the salvation of someone. Thus you are mistaken about Catholics not actually believe in Grace alone in the scriptural sense.

Hence, the Biblical idea is that "justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone" in contrast to works.

That isn't true first of all with regard to Justification James says its not by faith alone. Also you have a misunderstanding of what "works" is actually scripturally viewed in Pauls letters. You misaprhend that its any activity in which one participates but remember most of what you apply to "faith alone" contrasting with works comes from Paul's discourse to a specific group of Christians Namely those who are Jewish Christians and Judaizers. You forget that Paul wants Christians to get to good moral behavor doing God's "works" but you can't get there by law specifically the Mitzvot. As man cannot adhere to the Law with out Grace working with in him.

What Rome does is separate and isolate grace from faith and faith from the works and Person of Christ in order to INCLUDE our works rather than to contrast it to works

This isn't true at all. Catholics believe Grace is independent of Faith as it is always initiated and comes from God. God's grace can be given. Faith naturally results from Grace but Grace isn't reliant on faith. So you got that wrong about Catholic belief.

No, your understanding of James is false and you have jerked it out of context in order to pit it against the truth

I haven't pitted James against anything it is you who actually has made this mistake. The scripture consistantly suggest Justification isn't by faith alone as James says. I don't have to pull context as the context of james is clear. In fact you can't get any clearer message from James that justification is not by faith alone. Read the whole chapter two and its clear he supports this view with examples. Read the whole book of James as he support this same view. What is being pitted against James is the false notion that Faith Alone rather than in primacy is suggested in scripture thus you pit james against Paul where I say they are consistant with each other.

In context James is directing it toward baptized believing church members by profession (James 2:1-9)whereas Paul is speaking about the justification of the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5).

Interesting to note that you emphasize baptism though you believe its bereft of anything. However, to go on I would say exactly that you are right James is speaking to baptized believers whereas Paul is speaking to the Roman baptized believers but emphasizing the entry into the Kingdom. Thus james is saying that to be justified believers must do works as well as have faith Paul is saying that to enter the kingdom you must be given Grace and have faith which leads to works as it is in the context of Romans. Neither indicate that salvation which you already agree encompasses more than the final goal of attaining heaven. The problem is you are applying the whole process to one application of salvation which isn't meant by the Apostles. Ie you need faith given by Grace to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Which includes the body of Christ temporally present. But that isn't the end of the story. So faith in primacy not faith alone. Thus Paul says in agreement with James when Paul says that you must "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"

 

[The Biblicist]

Again Biblicist I must suggest that you are wrong about Grace in that the Bible is not a dictionary.

The Bible does not have to be a Dictionary to provide CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS. Any book by any writer can provide CONTEXTUAL USAGE of terms.

Your "commentators" are worthless unless they base their definition on CONTEXTUAL USAGE as etymology rarely defines anything.

That isn't true first of all with regard to Justification James says its not by faith alone.

You are ignoring the abc fundmentals! James is directly addressing baptized believing church members whereas Paul is providing a theological treatise of justification by faith of the "ungodly" (unbaptized, unchurched individual).

James is addressing the PROFESSION of justification by faith whereas Paul is addressing the THEOLOGICAL definition of justification by faith.

James is addressing a PROFESSION of justificaiton by faith without works in regard to PRAGMATIC CONNECTION with the practice of professed regenerated church members whereas, Paul is addressing justification by faith without works in regard to its THEOLOGICAL distinction from regeneration. The former requires "good works" as inclusive evidence whereas the latter requires denial of "good works" as inclusive.

Also you have a misunderstanding of what "works" is actually scripturally viewed in Pauls letters. You misaprhend that its any activity in which one participares but remember most of what you apply to "faith alone" contrasting with works comes from Paul's discourse to a specific group of Christians Namely those who are Jewish Christians and Judaizers. You forget that Paul wants Christians to get to good moral behavor doing God's "works" but you can't get there by law specifically the Mitzvot. As man cannot adhere to the Law with out Grace working with in him.

In the context, and I stress "context" of justification by faith, "works" are contextually defined to be anything contributed by the "ungodly" toward their justification before God.

1. "works" in Romans 4:1-6 refers to pre-mosaic law actions of Abraham.
2. "works" in Romans 4:9-11 refers to obedience to divine rites
3. "works" in Romans 4:13-15 refers to obedience of God's law
4. "works" in Romans 4:16-21 refers to every concievable contribution on the part of Abraham to obtain the promise of God.

This isn't true at all. Catholics believe Grace is independent of Faith as it is always initiated and comes from God. God's grace can be given. Faith naturally results from Grace but Grace isn't reliant on faith. So you got that wrong about Catholic belief.

I was speaking in the context of justification by faith not in the context of "grace" in general or the context of "faith" in general.

I haven't pitted James against anything it is you who actually has made this mistake.

Answered above already.

Interesting to note that you emphasize baptism though you believe its bereft of anything.

FALSE! Baptism is beneficial in all that God has designed for it but nothing more. Baptism is beneificial as a public profession of faith. Baptism is beneficial as public identification with the gospel and with a proper Biblical administrator. Baptism is beneficial as introduction into the congregational body of Christ. Baptism when Biblically administered is beneficial in identification with every major Biblical aspect of Theology (Godhead, regeneration, sanctification, the church, eschatology, etc.).

However, to go on I would say exactly that you are right James is speaking to baptized believers whereas Paul is speaking to the Roman baptized believers but emphasizing the entry into the Kingdom.

No! James is explicitly directing his words as a form of DIRECT address to his readers whereas Paul is directing his words to a THEOLOGICAL issue in regard to the "ungodly" rather than a direct address toward his readers as they are not "ungodly" but are professedly baptized believing church members.

Thus james is saying that to be justified believers must do works as well as have faith Paul is saying that to enter the kingdom you must be given Grace and have faith which leads to works as it is in the context of Romans.

False! James is not presenting any kind of conditions for justification. He is simply denying that the profession of baptized believing church members (that is the context) is valid if there are no works accompanying that profession. He is dealing with a completely different type of person than Paul. For those professing to be justified there are more things that accompany such a PROFESSION of salvation than mere justification and it is those other things that demand "good works" (Eph. 2:10).

In contrast, Paul is dealing with the justification of the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) or those condemned (Rom. 3:23) and how they are justified before God (Rom. 4:1-6).

The balance is seen in Ephesians 2:8-10 where there is first a denial of works in regard to the perfect tense completed INCLUSIVE of faith action of salvation (vv. 8-9) but then the proper placement of "good works" following that action (v. 10b). Romanism perverts this proper cause and effect relationship of works with initial salvation. Romanism makes works INCLUSIVE of regenerative/justification by faith whereas Paul makes works EXCLUSIVE to regenerative/justification, thus placing it as evidential rather than causative.

James argues for works as the manifest evidence of such in perfect keeping with the order given by Paul in Ephesians 2:10 - "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works." This is the line drawn in the sand between "another gospel" and the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the distinction between CAUSE versus EFFECTS - Rome includes effects within the cause whereas both Paul and James excludes effects as inclusive of cause. James rightly argues that works are the manifest effects and Paul denies that works are inclusive in the cause of justification.

 

[evangelist-7]

Catholics do believe salvation by Grace alone.

I thought we all knew that Roman Catholics are NOT sure of their salvation!
(Perhaps they take Paul's words seriously about the "hope" of our salvation.)

I thought we all knew that Roman Catholics believe they need to do some works to help God decide about them.

And I don't care what any "official" RC manifestos say ... I'm talkin' about what the actual people are thinking.

But then I've been known to be wrong about things before.
.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Bible does not have to be a Dictionary to provide CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS. Any book by any writer can provide CONTEXTUAL USAGE of terms.

The bible doesn't going around defining terms. It uses terms within a given context so the proper understanding of that term is clear. And I've supplied the Scriptural Context to understand its use of the word Grace. And its is in that context which the Catholic Church understands Grace and states that indeed we are saved by Grace alone. Once again the scriptural context which we find the use of Grace has been commented by these quoted authors commenting on Grace.

the communication of Divine goodness by the inworking of the Spirit - Robert Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1871), p. 179.
It does not mean, in good Greek fashion, God’s graciousness, nor concetely his free love (Taylor). It almost always means the power of salvation which finds expression in specific gifts, acts, and spheres and which is even individualized in the charismata - Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 14.
In Paul ... χαρις is never merely an attitude or disposition of God (God’s character as gracious); consistently it denotes something much more dynamic—the wholly generous act of God. Like ‘Spirit,’ with which it overlaps in meaning (cf., e.g., [Rom] 6:14 and Gal 5:18), it denotes effective divine power in the experience of men - James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 17.
It may denote the kindness of beneficence of our Lord, II Cor. 8:9, or the favour manifested or bestowed by God, II Cor. 9:8 (referring to material blessings); I Pet. 5:10. Furthermore, the word is expressive of the emotion awakened in the heart of the recipient of such favour, and thus acquires the meaning “gratitude” or “thankfulness,” Luke 4:22; I Cor. 10:30; 15:57; II Cor. 2:14; 8:16; I Tim. 1:12. In most of the passages, however, in which the word charis is used in the New Testament, it signifies the unmerited operation of God in the heart of man, affected through the agency of the Holy Spirit. While we sometimes speak of grace as an inherent quality, it is in reality the active communication of divine blessings by the inworking of the Holy Spirit, out of the fulness of Him who is “full of grace and truth,” Rom. 3:24; 5:2, 15; 17:20; 6:1; I Cor. 1:4; II Cor. 6:1; 8:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:5, 8; 3:7; I Pet. 3:7; 5:12. - Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 426-27.

Your "commentators" are worthless unless they base their definition on CONTEXTUAL USAGE as etymology rarely defines anything.

I always find it curious that you tend to immediately insult anyone who disagrees with you. That isn't a valid point of debate. However, look at what you just said previously that context provides the understanding of how a word is to be viewed (you used the word "defined"). Contextual Definition is a made up phrase by you. A word has meanings and at times several meanings, which to apply is moderated by the context. So you say

Any book by any writer can provide CONTEXTUAL USAGE of terms

and then go on to say that

Your "commentators" are worthless unless they base their definition on CONTEXTUAL USAGE

which we clearly see in my quotes that they provide the contextual usage by which to comment on scriptural use of grace specifically

Rom. 3:24; 5:2, 15; 17:20; 6:1; I Cor. 1:4; II Cor. 6:1; 8:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:5, 8; 3:7; I Pet. 3:7; 5:12Luke 4:22; I Cor. 10:30; 15:57; II Cor. 2:14; 8:16; I Tim. 1:12cf., e.g., [Rom] 6:14 and Gal 5:18

whereby they provide the context thus nulifying your contention their views are "worthless" because the meet your "unless" clause.

You are ignoring the abc fundmentals!

Not at all. I haven't ignored the fundamentals at all. I don't read a pretext into either what James or Paul is saying. You are suggesting I hold to your pretextual understanding before reading the verse. I refuse to do that. Thus not holding to the idea that your pretext is a fundamental "abc". I'm suggesting what the scriptural text actually says.

James is directly addressing baptized believing church members whereas Paul is providing a theological treatise of justification by faith of the "ungodly" (unbaptized, unchurched individual).

You are right about James. A simple question for you. Whom is Paul addressing in the book of Romans and specifically out of that group of Romans to whom is he directly referring? Its clear from the text that Paul is addressing the Roman Christian Church who is made up of Gentile Believers and Jewish believers

to the Jew first and also to the Greek

. Whom are at odds with one another because the Jewish Christians have

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

making of themselves

an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth

being faulted for

you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.

This immoral behavior while claiming a superiority based on the Mitzvot being the primary problem dividing the two groups. Note: Paul isn't making a "theological treatese on justification of faith by the ungodly". But rather pointing out that the divisiveness of the Jews "lording" over the Gentiles because of Jewish law while still sinning and living unrightly actually are on the same level with the Gentile Christians saying that in either case Jew or Gentile aren't better off from each other.

What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,

because both are under sin. The Jews can't claim any special relief from sin or consequence from practicing sin. But rather they both need

the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ

because

For there is no distinction

whereas the Jews believe there is a distinction because they have knowledge of the Mitzvot. Or the Law. But Paul is saying that isn't true. They are in the same page and both need faith that leads to righteousness because

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded...Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also

so that we don't continue to sin but live as we should

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

so that

we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand

and

so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

for the expressed purpose of

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions...

which is why Paul is writing this letter in the first place

to bring about the obedience of faith

This is the context of Paul and it agrees with James that Faith alone doesn't justify a person.

 

[Yeshua1]

The bible doesn't going around defining terms. It uses terms within a given context so the proper understanding of that term is clear. And I've supplied the Scriptural Context to understand its use of the word Grace. And its is in that context which the Catholic Church understands Grace and states that indeed we are saved by Grace alone. Once again the scriptural context which we find the use of Grace has been commented by these quoted authors commenting on Grace.

I always find it curious that you tend to immediately insult anyone who disagrees with you. That isn't a valid point of debate. However, look at what you just said previously that context provides the understanding of how a word is to be viewed (you used the word "defined"). Contextual Definition is a made up phrase by you. A word has meanings and at times several meanings, which to apply is moderated by the context. So you say and then go on to say that which we clearly see in my quotes that they provide the contextual usage by which to comment on scriptural use of grace specifically whereby they provide the context thus nulifying your contention their views are "worthless" because the meet your "unless" clause.


Not at all. I haven't ignored the fundamentals at all. I don't read a pretext into either what James or Paul is saying. You are suggesting I hold to your pretextual understanding before reading the verse. I refuse to do that. Thus not holding to the idea that your pretext is a fundamental "abc". I'm suggesting what the scriptural text actually says.


You are right about James. A simple question for you. Whom is Paul addressing in the book of Romans and specifically out of that group of Romans to whom is he directly referring? Its clear from the text that Paul is addressing the Roman Christian Church who is made up of Gentile Believers and Jewish believers . Whom are at odds with one another because the Jewish Christians have making of themselves being faulted for This immoral behavior while claiming a superiority based on the Mitzvot being the primary problem dividing the two groups. Note: Paul isn't making a "theological treatese on justification of faith by the ungodly". But rather pointing out that the divisiveness of the Jews "lording" over the Gentiles because of Jewish law while still sinning and living unrightly actually are on the same level with the Gentile Christians saying that in either case Jew or Gentile aren't better off from each other. because both are under sin. The Jews can't claim any special relief from sin or consequence from practicing sin. But rather they both need because whereas the Jews believe there is a distinction because they have knowledge of the Mitzvot. Or the Law. But Paul is saying that isn't true. They are in the same page and both need faith that leads to righteousness because so that we don't continue to sin but live as we should so that and for the expressed purpose of
which is why Paul is writing this letter in the first place
This is the context of Paul and it agrees with James that Faith alone doesn't justify a person.

the RCC does hold to Grace as method that God uses to save us, but its NOT meant in same way paul said!

Rome has God dispersing the Grace thru means of the Sacraments, NOT by faith alone in the work of Christ upon the Cross!

In the end, Sinner co operate with god in the salvation process, as its His grace but as we grasp and maintain it to save us!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I thought we all knew that Roman Catholics are NOT sure of their salvation!
.

I don't know what you think you know. However, you a speaking to 2 different things. Justification by Grace alone and Assurity. Man needs God to save him. Period. Man cannot do this on his own. Period. However, Catholics do not believe in a guarantee of salvation unless you remain in Christ up to the very end saying with Jesus

If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned

(Perhaps they take Paul's words seriously about the "hope" of our salvation.)

Catholics take these words seriously

I thought we all knew that Roman Catholics believe they need to do some works to help God decide about them.

What is being called "works" here is really what Catholics think of as co-operating with God's Grace. Thus when Jesus said we must believe on him we co-operate by believing on him. If God tells us to live rightly we co-oprate by living rightly. But we can do neither without God's grace. Think of it this way Who saved Israel at the battle of Jericho? God. Did Joshua cooperate with God (ie do what he said?)? Yes. Catholics wonder if you do not cooperate with God's grace are you really saved in any meaningful way? Because part of our salvation is clearly associated with our sanctification.

And I don't care what any "official" RC manifestos say ... I'm talkin' about what the actual people are thinking.

Well Catholics who don't think in line with Catholic teaching aren't really Catholic. They are non-believers taking up pew space. What Jesus refers to as the weeds. Its like a baptist who goes to church gets baptized and doesn't believe a thing taught to him. We have these types in all Christian denominations.

But then I've been known to be wrong about things before.

As have I, but until we study these things we never get to where we need to go.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

the RCC does hold to Grace as method that God uses to save us, but its NOT meant in same way paul said!

It absolutely does. Tell me what you think Paul meant.

Rome has God dispersing the Grace thru means of the Sacraments, NOT by faith alone in the work of Christ upon the Cross!

Not just the Sacraments by the way. Sacraments are only one way obtaining Grace. Let me ask you when you read the bible does God give you Grace? When you pray does God give you Grace? When you obey God does God give you Grace? And to do any of theses things Does God give you Grace? I would say yes in all cases as does the Catholic Church. Catholics even believe that God gives Grace to protestants when they do these things. Catholics even believe that God gives his Grace when a protestant baptizes someone eventhough the protestant doesn't think of baptism as a sacrament.

In the end, Sinner co operate with god in the salvation process, as its His grace but as we grasp and maintain it to save us!

Let me ask you a question. Are you cooperating with God by believing in his Son when Jesus says to believe in him? Are you cooperating when you come to faith and become baptized as a witness to others? I believe the answer to both these questions is yes. What happens if Jesus says to believe in him and you refuse to cooperate with him and decide not to believe? What then? What about if later on after believing in him you say I refuse to abide in you Jesus I will go living as I did before coming to know you and will never, ever come back because this is just rubbish? And then go about sinning as much as you can. What then?

But let me say this. I am personally assured that if I die this very minute I will go to be with God because I have remained in faith. I will not speak to tomorrow because it is not yet. But to say that if I continue to remain in faith with God I will go to heaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

It uses terms within a given context so the proper understanding of that term is clear.

That is precisely what I said! My words "contexual usage" or "contextual definition" is precisely "a given context so that the proper understanding of that term is clear."

And I've supplied the Scriptural Context to understand its use of the word Grace. And its is in that context which the Catholic Church understands Grace and states that indeed we are saved by Grace alone. Once again the scriptural context which we find the use of Grace has been commented by these quoted authors commenting on Grace.

Absolutely false! Neither your quotations or your assertions provide the full meaning of "grace" in the very texts you later list. The context provides the proper understanding of a term by contrasts, by use of synonyms, by expanded explanations, in regard to a given subject.

I always find it curious that you tend to immediately insult anyone who disagrees with you. That isn't a valid point of debate.

I find it curious that you define a very well qualified statement to be an "insult" when it is nothing more than plain common sense. Here is what I said,

Your "commentators" are worthless unless they base their definition on CONTEXTUAL USAGE as etymology rarely defines anything

Dictionary definitions based upon etymology rarely helps unless the etymological meaning equals current contextual usage. "Your" specific definitions provided by chosen commentators is INCOMPLETE and therefore biased by its obvious limitations.

Not at all. I haven't ignored the fundamentals at all. I don't read a pretext into either what James or Paul is saying. You are suggesting I hold to your pretextual understanding before reading the verse.

You not only hold to a pretextual understandng but a perverted textual understanding due to the kind of hermeneutics you employ.

I refuse to do that. Thus not holding to the idea that your pretext is a fundamental "abc". I'm suggesting what the scriptural text actually says. I will give an example what I mean in the next quotation below.

You are right about James. A simple question for you. Whom is Paul addressing in the book of Romans and specifically out of that group of Romans to whom is he directly referring? Its clear from the text that Paul is addressing the Roman Christian Church who is made up of Gentile Believers and Jewish believers . Whom are at odds with one another because the Jewish Christians have making of themselves being faulted for

Again, you overlook a simple fact of proper exegesis. James is addressing DIRECTLY a specific kind of person among his readership. Paul is not specifically addressing anyone at all but rather ABSTRACTLY dealing with a Theological point in regard to the "ungodly" which NONE of his actual readers fit as a description.

Furthermore, you are CONFUSING various subjects dealt with in the book of Romans in order to conveniently pervert the actual and literal context of Romans 3:24-5:2. You cannot take the problem in Romans 14-15 and read it back into Romans 3:24-5:2 but that is precisely what you are arguing.

Neither can you take the words "the faith" as found in a different context in Romans 1 or Romans 15 and read it back into a completely different context as Romans 3:24-5:2 any more than I can take the words "the faith" in Romans 14:32 and read that into Romans 1 or Romans 3:24-5:2.

Again, you abuse a simple rule of Bible interpretation! You cannot take the words "the faith" found in one specific context and claim it must mean the same thing in different contexts when those words have more than one meaning which only the immediate context can properly determine.

This immoral behavior while claiming a superiority based on the Mitzvot being the primary problem dividing the two groups. Note: Paul isn't making a "theological treatese on justification of faith by the ungodly". But rather pointing out that the divisiveness of the Jews "lording" over the Gentiles because of Jewish law while still sinning and living unrightly actually are on the same level with the Gentile Christians saying that in either case Jew or Gentile aren't better off from each other. because both are under sin. The Jews can't claim any special relief from sin or consequence from practicing sin. But rather they both need because whereas the Jews believe there is a distinction because they have knowledge of the Mitzvot. Or the Law. But Paul is saying that isn't true. They are in the same page and both need faith that leads to righteousness because so that we don't continue to sin but live as we should so that and for the expressed purpose of
which is why Paul is writing this letter in the first place
This is the context of Paul and it agrees with James that Faith alone doesn't justify a person.

Another basic error due to eisgetical methods you employ. Paul does not make any such presumption concerning the membership in the PLURAL congregations at Rome. Indeed, he assumes the opposite and praises them for their unity in the faith once delivered, but writes preemptively and provides a positive presentation of the salvation so that error would not enter into these PLURAL congregations at Rome.

Rom. 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 ¶ First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Rom. 16:17 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

 

[zara]

I present this for those who have been silently following the threads on cessationism.
As such, none of you are expected to respond, which is A-OK.

hello, evangelist:

We are all, including: Christian, non-christian, of any of the ages, Atheist, religious or not; .......transformed and sent onto eternity at the Judgment of God only. Christ and His atonement for Original Sin and sin in general are extremely helpful but arent the final Word. .....Only God has the final decision.

...... Daniel 7:9-14 NKJV

9 “I watched till thrones were put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
And the books were opened.



zara .....:1_grouphug:

 

[Revmitchell]

hello, evangelist:

We are all, including: Christian, non-christian, of any of the ages, Atheist, religious or not; .......transformed and sent onto eternity at the Judgment of God only. Christ and His atonement for Original Sin and sin in general helps extremely very much but isn't the final Word. .....Only God has the final decision.
...... Daniel 7:9-14

zara .....:1_grouphug:

Atonement helps but is not the final word? Can you clarify that?

 

[zara]

Atonement helps but is not the final word? Can you clarify that?

hello, Revmitchell:

By Atonement I mean:

1. for "Original Sin", atonement was at Calvary which placed all humans back to be alongside and in the "Good Graces" of God as Adam was before he chose evil. This is now done and the sacrifice was made.

2. for atonement for sin (what ever this is), Christ can offer forgiveness of your sins if you are worthy and the slate can be cleansed to take to God at Judgement.

Only God makes the final determination at Judgment but also "Opens the Books" to view your transgressions and faith.

zara

 

[Revmitchell]

hello, Revmitchell:

By Atonement I mean:

1. for "Original Sin", atonement was at Calvary which placed all humans back to be alongside and in the "Good Graces" of God as Adam was before he chose evil. This is now done and the sacrifice was made.

2. for atonement for sin (what ever this is), Christ can offer forgiveness of your sins if you are worthy and the slate can be cleansed to take to God at Judgement.

Only God makes the final determination at Judgment but also "Opens the Books" to view your transgressions and faith.

zara

Can you clarify "if you are worthy"?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is precisely what I said! My words "contexual usage" or "contextual definition" is precisely "a given context so that the proper understanding of that term is clear."

That isn't "precisely" what you said. It may have been what you meant however.

Absolutely false!

Can't help you if you fail to understand what it is you read.

Neither your quotations or your assertions provide the full meaning of "grace" in the very texts you later list.

In all meanings to include what ever you mean by "full" are inlcuded in that "full" meaning that the Catholic Church believes we are saved by Grace alone. There is no context of Grace in which you can say its full meaning is not considered. What I think you want to do is have every one limit their definition of Grace to what you want it to mean rather than all that it means. In fact you are not arguing for a "full" understanding of Grace but rather one aspect or a limited understanding of Grace. You in short want to exclude what these authors believe grace to mean within the context of the passages they quoted but in fact cannot as they very well provide a scritural understanding of Grace.

I find it curious that you define a very well qualified statement to be an "insult" when it is nothing more than plain common sense. Here is what I said,

I quoted well known protestant scholars and you throw around words like "worthless" which in any conotation directed at an individual or a group of individuals is considered an insult. I don't consider the insult to be directed at me because it wasn't but certainly to these other men.

"Your" specific definitions provided by chosen commentators is INCOMPLETE and therefore biased by its obvious limitations.

It may well be incomplete but that is not your issue. Your issue is to exclude their definition regardless of relevance. However, it is clear that they reasonably purport grace as it is seen in the context of the passages to which they refer. thus you do not want a "full" or even "complete" definition of Grace but a limited one that only apply to how you wish to use it. Thus though it is clear scripture reveals a special dispensation of charism to create an effect using the term Grace you don't want to include that grace can mean that but to exclude its meaning. In short you don't want a full definition of Grace but one that only means unmerited favor which is just one aspect of Grace. You are hidding your exclusive desire by protesting for inclusivity. That's just not right.

You not only hold to a pretextual understandng but a perverted textual understanding due to the kind of hermeneutics you employ.

Certainly, the same can be said of you because this is exactly what I believe you to be doing to support your pretext.

Again, you overlook a simple fact of proper exegesis

. What fact is that? Can you ennumerate it for me please.

James is addressing DIRECTLY a specific kind of person among his readership. Paul is not specifically addressing anyone

Sorry, but a simple re-reading of the book of Romans should clear that up for you. Here let me help you.

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints...that without ceasing I mention you...For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine... I have often intended to come to you... But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God...What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all...Then what becomes of our boasting... Do not present your members to sin...For when you were slaves of sin... Or do you not know, brothers... Likewise, my brothers... You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit... So then, brothers,[e] we are debtors...but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” ...I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a] of the church at Cenchreae, 2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.

3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. 5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,[d] and they were in Christ before me. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. 10 Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. 11 Greet my kinsman Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus. 12 Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers[e] who are with them. 15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. 16 Greet one another with a holy kiss.

at all but rather ABSTRACTLY dealing with a Theological point in regard to the "ungodly" which NONE of his actual readers fit as a description

I don't think Paul is being abstract but making valid points regarding the means by which Jews and Gentiles and all peoples are to be brought to faith that leads to obedience being empowered by the Grace of God.

Furthermore, you are CONFUSING various subjects dealt with in the book of Romans

Contrarily you are treating Romans like a smorgishboard to fit it into your already developed theology. Which pervertes the original intent of that book.

Neither can you take the words "the faith" as found in a different context in Romans 1 or Romans 15 and read it back into a completely different context as Romans 3:24-5:2 any more than I can take the words "the faith" in Romans 14:32 and read that into Romans 1 or Romans 3:24-5:2.

The problem is your view of Faith Alone forces you to do gymnastics with James whereas understanding that Paul is speaking of the primacy of faith rather than faith alone as is James and they complement each other as one speaks of the begining of the journey with regard to faith and the other speaks of the continuing on of that journey.

Again, you abuse a simple rule of Bible interpretation! You cannot take the words "the faith" found in one specific context and claim it must mean the same thing in different contexts when those words have more than one meaning which only the immediate context can properly determine.

Pauls use of faith in the context of his discourse is

we have been justified by faith

James use of Faith in the context of his discourse is

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Nope, You're wrong about that. As they are using faith in the same way with the same connotation in regard to justification. It just so happens that Paul is saying works can't justify of themselves and James is saying Faith with out works can't justify either. Thus works play a part but must have the primacy of faith which is consistent between the two. They aren't talking about two different kinds of faith as contextually its both related to justification.

Another basic error due to eisgetical methods you employ. Paul does not make any such presumption concerning the membership in the PLURAL congregations at Rome. Indeed, he assumes the opposite and praises them for their unity in the faith once delivered, but writes preemptively and provides a positive presentation of the salvation so that error would not enter into these PLURAL congregations at Rome.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. But I'll venture a guess. The fact is there were 3 principal aims his writing to the Romans 1) To introduce himself and his teachings to the Romans before his planned visit (1:11-13) 2) He hope to establish a missionary base for the eventuality of his plans for Spain (15:23-24) 3) ease the tensions that were problematic to the unity of fellowship to the Christians there (2:1-3:20)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Continued...

Rom. 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 ¶ First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

That doesn't speak of a strong unity btw. In fact that the Church was established in Rome before his missionary attempt to get him there spoke to the faithfulness passed on to the Romans by traveling Christians from other places. And note Rome was the hub of information and to reach the whole world it was there that Christians must start the message out and so it was even before Paul got there. It is with this in mind does Paul praise them. Not their cohesiveness despite their different heritage.

Rom. 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

A simple logical question for you. Why would Paul have a need to say this if it weren't a problem?

 

[evangelist-7]

hello, evangelist:
We are all, including: Christian, non-christian, of any of the ages, Atheist, religious or not; .......transformed and sent onto eternity at the Judgment of God only. Christ and His atonement for Original Sin and sin in general are extremely helpful but arent the final Word.
.....Only God has the final decision.

Would you like to see 10 NT verses which say ... Jesus is the Giver of eternal life!
.

 

[evangelist-7]

Proof that cessationism has been false doctrine for 1700(?) years

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0913573094/?tag=baptis04-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0884198723/?tag=baptis04-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974474894/?tag=baptis04-20

And a similar book by 2 Roman Catholic scholars:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0814650090/?tag=baptis04-20
.

 

[zara]

Can you clarify "if you are worthy"?

In this context I was speaking to our connections to Christ/Jesus.

Forgiveness of sin and being Christian is not free or a given and carries a real passion for Christ/Jesus. ..... It isn't enough to go to a Church, say a few disingenuous seances, get sprinkled, guided by an impostor who doesn't even know Christ/Jesus ......then expect the forgiveness of Christ and to be a part of His flock.

One must feel His presences, feel the sword piercing his side, thank Him with your tears that He has and will atone for sin, pray to Him in a quiet place and feel the warmth as he listens and speaks, join with Him each day as you engage with others..... He knows your deep motives and expect His to be put into your life. ....and,
Give Your Life To Him !!!

zara

 

[The Biblicist]

In all meanings to include what ever you mean by "full" are inlcuded in that "full" meaning that the Catholic Church believes we are saved by Grace alone.

Rome's definition of "works" is inclusive of their meaning of "grace" while Paul's meaning of grace is exclusive of his meaning of grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

This is a PRE-law, PRE-Mosaic use and meaning "works" in Romans 4 and therefore cannot be defined by any kind of POST-Mosaic Jewish meaning as Rome insists.

Paul makes it very clear that his meaning of works in Romans 4:4 is in direct contrast to his meaning of "believed" in verse 3 and his meaning of "believeth" in verse 5 as they are placed in direct opposition to each other and therefore not inclusive of one another.

Sorry, but a simple re-reading of the book of Romans should clear that up for you. Here let me help you.

What a patch quilt defense. Romans 4:5 explicitly identifies the subject being addressed and it is neither Jew or Gentile but the "ungodly." James 2:16 explicitly identifies the subject being addressed "one of you" - baptized believing church members. Two completely different subjects.

The problem is your view of Faith Alone forces you to do gymnastics

Quite the contary. It requires HONEST exposition of and distinction between the contexts of Romans 3:24-5:2 and James 2. Your exposition blends them rather than distinguishes between them due to complete lack of attention to details that distinguish them from one another.

Bottom line - you cannot insert post-mosaic meanings into Romans 4:1-12 as it is a PRE-Mosaic context.

 

[The Biblicist]

That doesn't speak of a strong unity btw. In fact that the Church was established in Rome before his missionary attempt to get him there spoke to the faithfulness passed on to the Romans by traveling Christians from other places. And note Rome was the hub of information and to reach the whole world it was there that Christians must start the message out and so it was even before Paul got there. It is with this in mind does Paul praise them. Not their cohesiveness despite their different heritage.

Paul is plainly praising them for their well reported unified testimony for the faith rather than correcting them. he NEVER asserts or applies anything he says in Romans 1:18-12:1 to any specific person or persons among them. His teaching is ABSTRACT in regard to subject application and merely designed to be positive and preemptive (Rom. 16:17-19) encouraging them to hold fast to what they have been taught if and when anyone may come among them and challenge it.

A simple logical question for you. Why would Paul have a need to say this if it weren't a problem?

I do this all the time in my assembly! I positively teach truths while exposing idea's opposed to that truth, like a flu shot so that when the germ appears the body will be able to overcome it instead of being taken by surprise and be overcome by it - Romans 16:17-19.

 

[evangelist-7]

Recently, I was given this testimony by Pilgram Marpeck, a South German Anabaptist leader in the 16th century,
of resurrections among those killed for confessing Jesus Christ:
"Many of them have remained constant, enduring tortures inflicted by sword, rope, fire and water and suffering terrible, tyrannical, unheard-of deaths and martyrdoms, all of which they could easily have avoided by recantation. Moreover one also marvels when he sees how the faithful God (who, after all, overflows with goodness) raises from the dead several such brothers and sisters of Christ after they were hanged, drowned, or killed in other ways. Even today, they are found alive and we can hear their own testimony... Cannot everyone who sees, even the blind, say with a good conscience that such things are a powerful, unusual, and miraculous act of God? Those who would deny it must be hardened men." You can doubt this account if you like, but this is exactly the attitude I would take and the proof I would offer to those who would doubt a resurrection I might witness. Even in Revelation when the saints are overcome by evil (Rev 13:7, Rev 11:7), when God's deliverance seems as far away as during Jesus' Passion, the saints are rewarded with resurrection (Rev 11:11).

Please forgive me for spoiling your day with yet another one of my troublesome posts.
Stay thirsty, my friends! ... And keep dat KoolAid cold.
.