Amy, pleeeeese have mercy. :smilewinkgrin:
Sorry, you have fallen from my grace.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Amy, pleeeeese have mercy. :smilewinkgrin:
Really? OK, here's your starter for ten, then: read Matt 27:5 and Luke 10:37b. Are they truths we should follow?You should rethink your answer.
Assumption is the mother of all lash-ups. The trouble is that the Word of God itself adds to your assumption. Try reading the Gospels as a starting point (and that's before we even get to James 2:14-26....).When I tell my wife "I am going to the store." She assumes it is alone.
"Alone" is implicit in the statement. There is not Faith "and" or "plus". It is faith alone, exclusively, nothing else but faith. Read it any way you like, but faith is the only thing that is mentioned in that verse--faith and faith alone. If you add anything else to that verse then it is you that is adding to the Word of God that which ought not to be there. Faith and faith alone is the teaching. Simple.
You speak falsely of that which you know nothing about. Nothing you have ever said had made me ‘mad.’
No one gathers grapes of thorns or figs of thistles. The repentance, faith and obedience that you can see in the life of a believer are the fruits of rebirth, not the roots.This question comes up over and over. Another related question is, does imputed righteousness cover for present or future sins while one is actively engaged in such sin apart from the consideration of the conditions of repentance, faith, and obedience?
Do you have children? What did you require of them before they were born? What could they have delivered? And do they ever stop being human? In the same way, if God required something of you as a condition of rebirth, what could you have possibly brought him? Those who are born of God become partakers of the divine nature: eternal and incorruptible.Does God require anything out of us in order for Him to forgive our sins and to impute righteousness to our account? If not, it is certainly ‘all of God’ and we are right back to a necessitated system of fatalism and double predestination and that without exception.
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.The second line of questioning involves the following thoughts. Is it possible for a believer, having been forgiven of past sins and having had the righteousness of Christ imputed to us on behalf of sins that are past, to act righteously? I hope we can clarify that there is a sense in which the righteousness of Christ is indeed imputed to us upon the fulfilling of certain conditions (faith and repentance) , and that in another sense righteousness is that which we indeed are responsible and commanded to act in accordance to that is not merely imputed to us by God, without which no man shall see God. The second sense of righteousness can only be accomplished in the life of a believer, having had all sins that are past washed away by the blood of the Lamb.
There is no assumption there. Why do you assume differently than what the verse says? Read it for yourself:Assumption is the mother of all lash-ups. The trouble is that the Word of God itself adds to your assumption. Try reading the Gospels as a starting point (and that's before we even get to James 2:14-26....).
Really? OK, here's your starter for ten, then: read Matt 27:5 and Luke 10:37b. Are they truths we should follow?
DHK: What gives you the right to add something that is not there?
>Assumption is the mother of all lash-ups.
AMEN!
>Try reading the Gospels as a starting point . . . .
What other books do you recommend starting to read in the middle?
And you're not, by following Luther and adding that naughty little 'alein'...?There is no assumption there. Why do you assume differently than what the verse says? Read it for yourself:
Romans 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--If you add anything you are adding to the Scriptures, assuming that there is something else besides faith. What gives you the right to add something that is not there?
I guess Jesus and James didn't get your memo...It does not say faith plus baptism; faith plus works, faith plus going to church; faith plus jumping in the Ganges River; faith plus anything! It simply says faith. You cannot put something in the verse that is not there. Thus it is faith and faith alone that justifies a person.
It was a response to your challenge to HP's comment that not everything in Scripture should be regarded as truth.So what does that have to do with "and they shall never perish" ? Thats a rhetorical question BTW.
I don't know what you are speaking about. I didn't add a thing to Romans 5:1, not even a punctuation mark. It stands on its own.And you're not, by following Luther and adding that naughty little 'alein'...?
Here is the difference. You won't agree with it, but this is the basic difference.I guess Jesus and James didn't get your memo...
HP: Just when one might think they have heard every excuse in the book…..DHK: It is a practical application, not a theological one.
I see that you didn't even read my post did you.HP: Just when one might think they have heard every excuse in the book…..
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
*clears throat* "Ahem!"Do you have children? What did you require of them before they were born? What could they have delivered? And do they ever stop being human? In the same way, if God required something of you as a condition of rebirth, what could you have possibly brought him? Those who are born of God become partakers of the divine nature: eternal and incorruptible.
The word 'alone'.I don't know what you are speaking about. I didn't add a thing to Romans 5:1, not even a punctuation mark. It stands on its own.
All of this presumes that it is correct to read James (and the Gospels for that matter too) through the lens of Romans rather than, for example, the other way round or even Romans through the lens of Galatians.Here is the difference. You won't agree with it, but this is the basic difference.
Romans is a book written about the theology of salvation, a treatise on soteriology. It takes a theological approach to salvation. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. That is absolutely true, theologically, and there is no way around it. Read the book of Romans, and you will find that statement repeated many times.
James is a rather small book. lts theme is practical Christian living. Its approach is not theological by practical. Notice some of the themes: asking God for wisdom, taking care of widows, taking care of the poor, doing good works, being careful how you speak or use your tongue, not to live a carnal life, but rather a holy life, what to do with riches, what to do when your sick.
These are all practical problems for believers. The epistle is addressed to believers and they address problems that believers face. In the midst of chapter two the context is walking by faith. Walking by faith produces works. A righteous man will have faith that produces works. Abraham, who was a righteous man produced works in his life. He was a just man. We know that because of the kind of life that he lived. Every one could see it.
Jesus said: "By their fruit ye shall know them. In that sense he was "justified by his works." It is a practical application, not a theological one. The entire book is practical Christianity. Thus when you take it out of that context and put it into a theological context of course it is going to appear to be a contradiction. But there is none. There is no contradiction because the contexts are completely different.