Importance of Works in Salvation?

[drfuss]

The real issue between those who believing in justificaiton by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works is the definition of the terms involved.

This is especially true with the term "works"! What is a "work"? Jesus defines evil works or what the Bible calls "sin" to include the motives and thoughts of man. His outward actions are simply the extension of those motives and thoughts. Negatively, bad or evil works or what the Bible calls sin begins in the heart and that is exactly why Christ can say that if a man even casts a look of lust he has violated the commandment not to commit adultery already IN HIS HEART. The same is true with every other commandment of God. God looketh upon the heart.

Therefore WORKS both good and evil are inclusive of motives, attitudes and thoughts. What is faith or the lack thereof?

Most justification by works denominations define justification by faith to be equal with faithfulness, thus inclusive not only of the attitude of the heart but the actions manifesting that attitude. James chapter two is their favorite text to reinforce this definition. Therefore, where there is no works there is no faith. However, this interpretation is exactly what the Bible defines as justification by "works."

The truth is that justification by faith has to do solely with the proper object of faith rather than the actions of faith. The actions of faith are consequential but not causative (Eph. 2:10). Justifying faith is always described by the prepositions rather than by verbs of personal actions (Rom. 3:24-26). What justifies is faith IN the person and work of Christ as it is Christ's works rather than ours that justifies before God.

Furthermore, justification by faith in Christ is a completed action that stands completed because it is sustained by the power of God (Rom. 4:11, 5:1-2).

James is speaking about the evidential proof of justification before the court of human observation (James 2:14-18) rather than before God (Rom. 4:1). James says "show ME....I will show YOU" by my works. Abraham demonstrated his faith before his son and servants. Rahab demonstrated her faith before the two spies, her family and all of Israel with the red cord hanging from the window.

The issue is where does the sustaining power of justifying faith reside? With the believer or with the Holy Spirit? John says those that went out from us were really not of us for if they had been of us "THEY WOULD NO DOUBT HAVE CONTINUED WITH US." He is speaking in the context of antichrists or those who turn against Christ. The sustaining power of faith is grace (Rom. 5:2) or the power of God (Heb. 12:2; 1 Pet. 1:5) of faith is "kept by the power of God."

Everything that we either do or fail to do is called "works" in the Bible. This is precisely why justification by faith is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:8) and not of works and why salvation is "sure to all the seed" (Rom. 4:16).

I agree with what you said above except the part about the justification by works denominations. I think that you are misinformed about what some denominations believe.

However, this thread is not about the security of the believer, so let's get back to why the unsaved believe they can obtain salvation by works.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You really should check these things out before continuing the hearsay in eternal security circles.

I am not the one who needs to check it out. I know exactly what I am talking about and have both read and conversed with Lutherans, Assembly of God, Pentecostals and Methods for 40 years in the ministry.

You simply do not understand the real issues as they have been hidden from you by unbiblical definitions of terms.

A simple question is all that is needed to expose the unbiblical basis.

QUESTION: Does your definition of justification by faith include or exclude faithfulness?

 

[drfuss]

I am not the one who needs to check it out. I know exactly what I am talking about and have both read and conversed with Lutherans, Assembly of God, Pentecostals and Methods for 40 years in the ministry.
Perhaps it is WHO you have talked to within these denominations. For instance, I have read three different versions of eternal security by authors that are a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I don't consider all of the SBC to believe what one author has said; I check out the Baptist Faith and Message on the internet to determine what the SBC believes.

The denominations have what they believe on their websites. With the internet, it is easy to check on this. Over 20 years ago, it was much more difficult since we had to rely on scarce literature and conversations with a few people within the denominations.

You simply do not understand the real issues as they have been hidden from you by unbiblical definitions of terms.

A simple question is all that is needed to expose the unbiblical basis.

QUESTION: Does your definition of justification by faith include or exclude faithfulness?

I have not said what I believe on this thread, but talked about what some denominations believe. But since you ask, my justification by faith is based only on what Christ has done and my acceptance of Him as my Savior.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have not said what I believe on this thread, but talked about what some denominations believe. But since you ask, my justification by faith is based only on what Christ has done and my acceptance of Him as my Savior.

Why do you have "justification by faith" separated from "my acceptance" by the conjunction "and" which appears to mean "in addition to." Is justification by faith in addition to your acceptance? Rather, is not "my acceptance" inclusive of "justification by faith"????

What is the difference? The difference is between justification by works versus justification by grace. Your wording places "my acceptance" IN ADDITION TO ("and") "my justification by faith based only on what Christ has done" and therefore defines "my acceptance" as a work that you do in addition to the works Christ did. Thus you unite your faith and His works together as the basis for justification rather than His Person and works alone to be the basis for justification.

This is the fundemental difference between how Methodists, Assembly of God and Lutherans (Catholics, etc.) define justifying faith. They necessarily make it an ACTION rather than an ACCESS (Rom. 5:2). Justification by faith "before God" (Rom. 4:1) in the scriptures is ALWAYS in reference to prepositions ("by" "in" "through") rather than to verbs because justifying faith is merely an access ("by" "through") that terminates "IN" the proper object (Jesus Christ and His works) rather than in an ACTION (faithfulness). Faith understood as "faithfulness" is always in direct relationship to verbs or action words but that is never the case with justification by faith before God (Rom. 3:25-5:2).

Justification "by faith" is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) and therefore not of "works" or even "GOOD works" (Eph. 2:8-10). It is "of grace" because it is "God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" as faith is the product of a new heart (Rom. 10:10) rather than the product of the old heart (Eph. 4:18). Justifying faith is the work of God (Jn. 6:29, 44-45; 64-65) as Jesus is both the Author and the Finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2) as well as the sustainer (Philip. 1:6). Faith is inseparable from the hope of justification as that hope is the foundation for justification (Heb. 11:1). Therefore, justification by faith is always "IN" the foundation of its hope - The Person and finished work of Jesus Christ.

Lutheran's, Assembly of God and Methodists can become UNJUSTIFIED because their real definition of justification by faith is a CONTINUING ACTION or "faithfulness" toward the gospel whereas Biblical justification by faith is a completed action at the point of gospel conversion that gives permenant access into the standing or position of grace (Rom. 5:1-2).

 

[drfuss]

Why do you have "justification by faith" separated from "my acceptance" by the conjunction "and" which appears to mean "in addition to." Is justification by faith in addition to your acceptance? Rather, is not "my acceptance" inclusive of "justification by faith"????

What is the difference? The difference is between justification by works versus justification by grace. Your wording places "my acceptance" IN ADDITION TO ("and") "my justification by faith based only on what Christ has done" and therefore defines "my acceptance" as a work that you do in addition to the works Christ did. Thus you unite your faith and His works together as the basis for justification rather than His Person and works alone to be the basis for justification.

This is the fundemental difference between how Methodists, Assembly of God and Lutherans (Catholics, etc.) define justifying faith. They necessarily make it an ACTION rather than an ACCESS (Rom. 5:2). Justification by faith "before God" (Rom. 4:1) in the scriptures is ALWAYS in reference to prepositions ("by" "in" "through") rather than to verbs because justifying faith is merely an access ("by" "through") that terminates "IN" the proper object (Jesus Christ and His works) rather than in an ACTION (faithfulness). Faith understood as "faithfulness" is always in direct relationship to verbs or action words but that is never the case with justification by faith before God (Rom. 3:25-5:2).

Justification "by faith" is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) and therefore not of "works" or even "GOOD works" (Eph. 2:8-10). It is "of grace" because it is "God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" as faith is the product of a new heart (Rom. 10:10) rather than the product of the old heart (Eph. 4:18). Justifying faith is the work of God (Jn. 6:29, 44-45; 64-65) as Jesus is both the Author and the Finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2) as well as the sustainer (Philip. 1:6). Faith is inseparable from the hope of justification as that hope is the foundation for justification (Heb. 11:1). Therefore, justification by faith is always "IN" the foundation of its hope - The Person and finished work of Jesus Christ.

Lutheran's, Assembly of God and Methodists can become UNJUSTIFIED because their real definition of justification by faith is a CONTINUING ACTION or "faithfulness" toward the gospel whereas Biblical justification by faith is a completed action at the point of gospel conversion that gives permenant access into the standing or position of grace (Rom. 5:1-2).

Hmmm. I assume that you have accepted what Christ has done? Hopefully you have not rejected what Christ has done? I have accepted what Christ has done.

As I said in a previous post, this thread is not about the security of the believer, so let's get back to the subject of this thread which is why the unsaved believe they can obtain salvation by works. Accepting or rejecting Christ is not a work, so I will not respond any more to your comments about your definitions of justification or accepting/rejecting Christ.

 

[Andre]

I see the point you are trying to make saying that the "not by works" means "not by the works of the law". However, he was talking to gentiles who were not involved in the workings of the Jewish law. Had the scripture meant only the Jewish laws, It would have said so. Since it is written to the gentiles, it applies to any good work, I take it to mean what it says, any good work.

I politely suggest that you have not engaged the force of my argument. If Paul was not specifically talking about works of the Law of Moses, why does he immediately go on to explain in detail how the Gentile has indeed been incorporated into God's family, the very thing that would follow from an assertion that one is not saved by doing the "Jew-only" works of the Law of Moses.

The problem with your take on this text is this: given that "works" could denote either "good works" or the works of the Law of Moses, what Paul goes on to conclude in his "therefore" paragraph starting at verse 11 clearly only makes contextual sense if, in verse 9, he was denying salvation by works of the Law of Moses. It is the Law of Moses that carves the world up into those who can do its "works" - Jews and those who cannot.

Besides, the "he is writing to Gentiles" argument does not work. Yes he is writing to Gentiles. But one of the key things the Gentile needs to hear is that salvation is open to him too! And how can that be? If salvation is not based on doing the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Accepting and rejecting Christ is a work if it is dependent, produced and maintained by YOU! Your definition of accept and beleive in regard to loss of justification is a work and by necessity is progressive and incompleted and a complete denial of justification a past tense completed action. Jesus says there is no possibility of coming into future condemnation (lit. judgement) but your interpretation of faith repudiates His promise and demands that "faithfulness" is your actual interpetation of "faith" in regard to justification. The grammatical fact that justification by faith is a completed past tense action that stands completed denies it is only potential and possible but accomplished whereas your definition of "accept" and "reject" makes justification progressive and linear and thus conditional which can be forfeited at any time.

Hmmm. I assume that you have accepted what Christ has done? Hopefully you have not rejected what Christ has done? I have accepted what Christ has done.

As I said in a previous post, this thread is not about the security of the believer, so let's get back to the subject of this thread which is why the unsaved believe they can obtain salvation by works. Accepting or rejecting Christ is not a work, so I will not respond any more to your comments about your definitions of justification or accepting/rejecting Christ.

 

[Andre]

Furthermore, justification by faith in Christ is a completed action that stands completed because it is sustained by the power of God (Rom. 4:11, 5:1-2).

It is not this simple. Paul speaks of a future justification in this text from Romans 2:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is not this simple. Paul speaks of a future justification in this text from Romans 2:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified

I have refuted your interpretation of this so many times it makes my head spin just to hear it vainly repeated over and over again.

This text is found in the middle of a context that deals with those who think they can escape future judgement due to their wrongly self-perceived better than thou status in comparison to those described in Romans 1:19-31. They are the hypocrits described in Romans 2:1-5 and in particular those hypocrits described in Romans 2:17-24.

Paul simply reveals to such hypocrits the just standards by which those who come into judgement based upon their works (Rom. 2:6) must face. Just standards demand just rewards (Rom. 2:7-10). Just standards demands no respect of persons (Rom. 2:11). Just standards means judgement according to the light they are given (Rom. 2:12-15). Ultimately, the just standard is the common ground of God's righteousness that is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17 with 2:16).

Paul sets forth the just standards to prove to these hypocrits:

Rom. 3:9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin..........22 For there is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Thus all need the provision God has made in Christ and there is only salvation for both the Jew and the Gentile by faith in the gospel (vv. 24-26) as any "law" of "works" whether it is in attempt to keep the Mosaic law or the attempt to keep the law written upon conscience - neither can justify but both equally demonstrate you are a sinner!

 

[Andre]

James is speaking about the evidential proof of justification before the court of human observation (James 2:14-18) rather than before God (Rom. 4:1). James says "show ME....I will show YOU" by my works.

This argument does not work and I suggest that you are trying to make the ultimately unworkable case that since James frames this issue in a "show me" framework that he is talking about a "justification before men". Well there are huge problems with this.

I suggest you are leveraging a clear "figure of speech" and otherwise working against the clear import of the text. Here is the text:

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. 18But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." 19You believe that God is one (AI)You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Yes, we have James using the "show me" expression. But this is certainly not a warrant to conclude that he is talking about something other than what the passage otherwise so clearly is focusing on - namely jusftification before God.

This argument that this text deals with "justification before men" appears all the time in spite of its obvious weaknesses. Imagine if someone wrote this in the context of a discussion of how one is determined to be a "qualified" medical doctor:

"But someone may well say, "You have knowledge of human physiology and I have experience with actual patients; show me your knowledge without the experience, and I will show you my knowledge by my experience."

Is the speaker attempting to seek accreditation from the other person to be certified as a doctor? No he is not! Is the speaker appealing to the other party as the authority who gets to qualify doctors? No he is not. Instead, the speaker is using a figure of speech whereby each party "shows" the other party what they each think qualifies them as a doctor. This does not mean that they are trying to "justify" themselves in the eyes of the other person in the sense that they see the other party as the arbiter of what a qualified doctor is. No. The speaker, in this example, is appealing to some kind of "universal" standard as to what makes a qualified doctor - someone who has experience, not just mere knowledge.

In any event, it is clear that in this text James is indeed talking about justfication before God - he refers to the justification status of Abraham,
drawing on the famous Genesis text. Clearly, Genesis is addressing the fact that Abraham was justified before God, not men.

This text is clearly addressing the justification of men before God - the appeal to the Abraham case proves this. The fact that James couches his argument in terms of a hypothetical discussion between two men does not mean that James is making an argument about "justification before men". The "show me" stuff is a convenient literary device to establish a debate between two people about the real issue - justification before God.

 

[Andre]

I have refuted your interpretation of this so many times it makes my head spin just to hear it vainly repeated over and over again.

You have never actuallly refuted my position.

This text is found in the middle of a context that deals with those who think they can escape future judgement due to their wrongly self-perceived better than thou status in comparison to those described in Romans 1:19-31. They are the hypocrits described in Romans 2:1-5 and in particular those hypocrits described in Romans 2:17-24.

You are partly right here -the context is about someone who thinks they can escape future judgement. But this certainly does not mean that that this statement:

for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

...is not true. It is true. Why would one think otherwise? Do you think Paul is in the habit of making statements that are true of zero people?

Romans 2 begins with Paul's critique of the self-righteous man. Fine. Then comes the warning about the future judgement based on deeds.
That warning does not function as a warning if Paul is writing about an unattainable standard.

Imagine this scenario. A parent scolds a misbehaving child. The parent then warns the child that those children who behave will get a lollipop and those who do not will have to go to bed early (with no lollipop).

How is this possibly a warning if is impossible for the child to achieve a state where one gets a lollipop based on good behaviour? A warning in advance of a "deeds" judgement is only a warning if there is a possibility of changing one's path and achieving the "good side" of the coming judgement. If the child thinks its impossible to get the lollipop, then the warning has no meaning for him - it cannot affect his behaviour.

And yet this is precisely why the child is warned - to change his behaviour.

 

[Dr. Walter]

for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

That is simply one more principle of a just judgement. God does not lower the bar so that hypocrits can pass it. Doing the law requires that not one point is violated because he who violates the law in one point violates the law in all points (James 2:10-11) - this is precisely why your position is wrong as no flesh can measure up to this standard and that is precisely why ALL HAVE SINNED and all have come short of the glory that belongs to God - sinlessness.

Romans 2 begins with Paul's critique of the self-righteous man. Fine. Then comes the warning about the future judgement based on deeds.
That warning does not function as a warning if Paul is writing about an unattainable standard.

This is an amazing admission of complete and utter ignorance of the essential truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is that very unattainable standard of righteousness, the righteousness that belongs to God alone, that God sent Jesus into the world, as only sinless God in the flesh can measure up to such a standard IN THE PLACE OF the sinner. If it were attainable there would be no need of Christ!!!

Imagine this scenario. A parent scolds a misbehaving child. The parent then warns the child that those children who behave will get a lollipop and those who do not will have to go to bed early (with no lollipop).

How is this possibly a warning if is impossible for the child to achieve a state where one gets a lollipop based on good behaviour? A warning in advance of a "deeds" judgement is only a warning if there is a possibility of changing one's path and achieving the "good side" of the coming judgement. If the child thinks its impossible to get the lollipop, then the warning has no meaning for him - it cannot affect his behaviour.

And yet this is precisely why the child is warned - to change his behaviour.

Romans 5:12-22 is the Biblical response to this scenario. Adam represented the whole human race and Paul says that by ONE MAN and ONE ACT all mankind were made sinners (Rom. 5:19).

Adam stood as the representative of the Human Race in a test of allegiance to God. The whole Human nature was contained in one man. God said do this and you get the lolli pop but if you do that you go to bed early. Adam chose to disobey and so he went to bed early. All mankind was "in Adam" and acted when Adam acted as that is the only possibly way that "by one man" and the one "act" by one man could all mankind be made sinners.

All have sinned in Adam and that sinful nature is manifested as soon as the child is able to discern good from evil. The fact that infants die due to no individualized sin demonstrates they sinned in Adam as death is the wages of sin.

However, another man, the second Adam came to represent a people too. As "all in Adam die" so "all in Christ are made alive." Obviously not all in Adam are in Christ as it is by birth that all are in one or the other. We are all in Adam by physcial birth but only those who experience SPIRITUAL birth are in Christ. Just as Adam acted on behalf of all those in him, so Christ acted in behalf of all those in Him.

This brings us back to the crux of Andre's problem. It is the problem "in Adam" that makes it impossible for fallen man to measure up to a sinless standard. They lost their ability in Adam when Adam acted in their behalf and failed and that is infants and mentally retarded suffer death and why you and I suffer death. It is this very problem that God sent Christ into the world to resolve. Only a sinless God in human flesh can measure up to the standard of the Law which demands that it is not the hearer for the doing of the law that justifies a person. Only Christ has measured up to God's righteousness as He is the righteous God in flesh.

Remember, the common ground between God's law written upon conscience versus upon stone is moral righteousness and both Gentile and Jews has fallen "under sin" (Rom. 3:9) and that is why all need to hear the gospel and have but one way to be justified before God, not by their works but by faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is how God justifies the "ungodly" - Rom. 4:5-6.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: This is an amazing admission of complete and utter ignorance of the essential truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is that very unattainable standard of righteousness, the righteousness that belongs to God alone, that God sent Jesus into the world, as only sinless God in the flesh can measure up to such a standard IN THE PLACE OF the sinner. If it were attainable there would be no need of Christ!!!

HP: This is an amazing paper duck you put into play! What do you mean “if it were attainable there would be no need of Christ???” All have sinned and came short of the glory of God. There is your need of Christ. Now that we have crucified the flesh through repentance and faith, being born again, the Holy Spirit promises to help us fulfill the righteousness God requires from us. To deny that one can obey the laws of God as a believer is to have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. Tell us just what sin is so powerful that one cannot, with the Lord’s proffered help, keep from committing? The notion that future sins are covered on the basis of a one time act of faith in Christ is not founded on the Word of God. The notion that no one, subsequent to salvation, being filled with the Spirit, is able to keep the law of God, is not founded on the Word of God.

Scripture is clear that many obeyed God completely even in the OT. How much more should we walk consistently in the newness of the Spirit and in keeping with His law with the proffered help of the Holy Spirit in this NT dispensation? Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 1Th 5:23 ¶ And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

 

[annsni]

Scripture is clear that many obeyed God completely even in the OT.

Can you tell us who?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: Can you tell us who?

HP: If I simply quote Scriptures, will you promise to believe them or will you try and explain them away???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann, the point is not that any (apart from two distinct 'possibilities,' i.e., Enoch and Elijah) obeyed God from first light of moral agency forward, but that there were individuals that for a time period in their lives it could be rightfully said of them that they completely followed the Lord. It was clear that their hearts were right with God and were obeying His commandments and laws completely. It is an utter misrepresentation of God and His laws to indicate no man can live in accordance to them in this present world.

 

[annsni]

Ann, the point is not that any (apart from two distinct 'possibilities,' i.e., Enoch and Elijah) obeyed God from first light of moral agency forward, but that there were individuals that for a time period in their lives it could be rightfully said of them that they completely followed the Lord. It was clear that their hearts were right with God and were obeying His commandments and laws completely.

So there was a time that they were able to be perfect? I don't see that in anyone in Scripture, honestly. I do see righteous men but not perfect.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann, If God Himself told you of some, would you believe His testimony?

 

[annsni]

Ann, If God Himself told you of some, would you believe His testimony?

Go ahead and post the Scriptures.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Not until you settle in your heart whether or not you are going to believe Him.