Is Righteousness Imputed Apart From Works?

[billwald]

>2Th 1:11 ¶ Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling,

>Note, It does not say: "worthy of salvation."

Note that it says "God would count," not "you are." In other words, a legal fiction.

 

[DHK]

HP: 1. A pardon is given “voluntarily without payment in return.” If it required payment, such payment would be considered a bribe.
2. One granting a pardon performs an act of giving
3. A pardon is bestowed or “acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without being earned.”
4. (does not apply to the sense of ‘gift’ we are discussing)

Nothing new here Amy. A pardon is a gift fitting nicely inside the parameters of the first three definitions shown, yet clearly has implied conditions on receiving and remaining the freedom it grants. Of a truth, a gift certainly can have conditions, salvation being no exception, as demonstrated clearly by a pardon.

Why are you so enamored with pardons?
A pardon may be like a gift but it is not a gift.
It is not a free gift.
It is a pardon, by definition, and pardons are often granted on the basis of merit. Salvation is never granted on the basis of merit.
This is apples and oranges.

You don't seem to know what a free gift is, either that, or you don't want to know.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You don't seem to know what a free gift is, either that, or you don't want to know.

Tell that to one that has been pardoned.........such as myself. I have experienced a pardon and I certainly understand what a free gift is all about.

 

[DHK]

Tell that to one that has been pardoned.........such as myself. I have experienced a pardon and I certainly understand what a free gift is all about.

I was saved, given the free gift of eternal life. I know what that is.
That free gift never had any conditions to it.
I don't know of any free gift that has conditions to it.
If you do come out with it. If you can I will show you that it isn't a free gift. It is that simple.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I don't know of any free gift that has conditions to it.
If you do come out with it. If you can I will show you that it isn't a free gift. It is that simple.

HP: For starters, salvation is a free gift, but it indeed has conditions. The conditions are repentance, faith, and obedience until the end.

Now show me that salvation is not a free gift.

 

[DHK]

HP: For starters, salvation is a free gift, but it indeed has conditions. The conditions are repentance, faith, and obedience until the end.

Now show me that salvation is not a free gift.

There is not one Scripture in the Bible that indicates obedience as a condition or requirement for salvation. If you believe that then join a cult or perhaps even the RCC, which preach a message of works. It is not the gospel, but works that gets you to heaven. This is a false gospel, a false message.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

 

[DHK]

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Yes, and every true believer has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, and desires to keep his commandments, and does abide in the love of Christ. It is a no brainer. If you don't you are not saved. A Christian is one who demonstrates in his life the fruit of the Spirit. An unsaved person is one who demonstrates in his life the works of the flesh. By their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1524938#post1524938
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

DHK: Yes, and every true believer has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, and desires to keep his commandments,

HP: DHK, where does this verse mention mere "desire??" It said “If ye 'KEEP' my commandments” NOT’ if ye desire to keep.’ 'Keeping' and having a 'desire to keep' can be two distinctly different things.

 

[DHK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.


HP: DHK, where does this verse mention mere "desire??" It said “If ye 'KEEP' my commandments” NOT’ if ye desire to keep.’ 'Keeping' and having a 'desire to keep' can be two distinctly different things.

I simply told you the meaning of the verse. You can take it or leave it.
The verse, in John 15, is Jesus speaking to his disciples. Did Peter, James, John, etc. have salvation or not? Of course, they were saved already. There were no conditions attached to their salvation. They already had eternal life. Christ had reaffirmed that with Peter.

This is not a condition of salvation. Salvation is not of works. It is by grace through faith. If it is by works they you believe in a false gospel. So what is it? If you are saved you believe in the work of Christ by grace through faith.
Cults believe in a message of works. Works do not save.
This is clearly taught in the Bible.

 

[Matt Black]

There is a reason for everything. Your reason is....

No, you don't know how I study the Bible. I have been through every book of the Bible, and study each one independently. Unless you see my approach to Bible Study you have no basis on which to make which seem to be false accusations.

The conclusions you have reached at least strongly suggest it. No false accusations here. Mistaken, perhaps, but based on sound evidence. If you wanted me to believe to the contrary then you should have produced different conclusions.

So your approach to the Bible is "Matt doesn't believe Romans 5 is correct." You go into the Bible with an inherent belief that Romans 5 shouldn't be there or what? What exactly are you saying?

Now it's you who is making the incorrect assumption. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, have I said I believe Romans 5 is incorrect. I believe that your interpretation of Romans 5 is incorrect (and in particular your adding to what it actually says), and I trust that you are mature enough to know the difference between Romans 5 and your interpretation of it.

Your approach to the Bible: Treat every book the same regardless of context. The context doesn't matter.

Wrong assumption again! Of course context matters; that's the whole crux of my argument - that Romans 5 has to be read within the context of other Scripture such as James and many of the teachings of Jesus.

Thus the key verse of the book of Judges: "And every man did that which is right in their own eyes." should apply to us. Forget about the law; forget about God. We should have complete anarchy; antinomianism.

Er...no; I think you'll find it's sola fide that can lead to that, as Luther discovered to his horror fairly quickly (Peasants' War, anyone?).

This is your belief because context has no place in your theology. Is this correct?

No - see above. You're more wrong than a wrong man on a wrong day in a wrong place looking the wrong way.

 

[DHK]

The conclusions you have reached at least strongly suggest it. No false accusations here. Mistaken, perhaps, but based on sound evidence. If you wanted me to believe to the contrary then you should have produced different conclusions.

Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God. (Rom.5:1)
What is your interpretation. The verse is clear. There is nothing to add.

Now it's you who is making the incorrect assumption. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, have I said I believe Romans 5 is incorrect. I believe that your interpretation of Romans 5 is incorrect (and in particular your adding to what it actually says), and I trust that you are mature enough to know the difference between Romans 5 and your interpretation of it.

I didn't really interpret the verse. I posted it, and demonstrated how nothing could be added to it. The RCC and perhaps yourself want to add to a verse where nothing should be added.

Wrong assumption again! Of course context matters; that's the whole crux of my argument - that Romans 5 has to be read within the context of other Scripture such as James and many of the teachings of Jesus.

Then you should agree with me that Romans is a doctrinal book written about the theology or doctrine of salvation, and James is a practical book dealing with every day practical issues of life. Some of them I mentioned for you. It is not your every day book of doctrine (as in theology) but practical teaching for practical living, and that includes an outworking of one's faith as explained in James chapter two. The result of exercising one's faith is not to invite the poor and send them away empty-handed, but rather to meet their needs. Then other examples are given near the end of the chapter. Why do you ignore this context and try to force it into the same context as Romans 4?

Er...no; I think you'll find it's sola fide that can lead to that, as Luther discovered to his horror fairly quickly (Peasants' War, anyone?). No - see above. You're more wrong than a wrong man on a wrong day in a wrong place looking the wrong way.

Again you are wrong. I was demonstrating that every book has a definite context and purpose and you have been ignoring that. I don't understand that.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I was demonstrating that every book has a definite context

HP: Context changes throughout many books. Books at times have themes, but the context within that theme changes. Your statement above is simply not true as written. It implies that every book has a singular context which is simply far from reality.

Don't agree? Tell us the singualar context of the Psalms just for starters.

 

[DHK]

HP: Context changes throughout many books. Books at times have themes, but the context within that theme changes. Your statement above is simply not true as written. It implies that every book has a singular context which is simply far from reality.

There is a general overall context for the book.
There are chapter divisions within the book.
There is context for each chapter.
There is context for the passage.
There is context for the verse.
There is context for the very word in the verse being examined.
There is historical context.

I am sorry HP, but if you know nothing of context you are in a sad state and know little of the Bible. It is no wonder that you are so confused.

Don't agree? Tell us the singualar context of the Psalms just for starters.

The one singular context for the entire book is that it is a book of prayers; men speaking to God from their hearts.
From there the book can be divided further.

 

[Matt Black]

Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God. (Rom.5:1)
What is your interpretation. The verse is clear. There is nothing to add.

Oh dear! You sound just like my Exclusive Brethren father-in-law, who tries to settle theological arguments with the phrase "Quite clearly, Scripture says...". I dare say you and he could sit down and have hours if not days of fruitless debates over the meaning of many Scriptures, secure in your certain infallible knowledge that Scripture is 'clear' before possibly, just possibly, you might come to the realisation that the words "Scripture says..." mark the start of a discussion, not the end.

I didn't really interpret the verse.

:laugh: See above

I posted it, and demonstrated how nothing could be added to it.

Except you've done the exact opposite: you have added to it and, in so doing, have on your own authority alone contradicted not only other Scripture but also what the Church consistently believed about this verse in the first 1500 years or so of its existence. So much for demonstrating that nothing can be added!

The RCC and perhaps yourself want to add to a verse where nothing should be added.

I haven't added anything to it; it's you who's added the 'alone'.

Then you should agree with me that Romans is a doctrinal book written about the theology or doctrine of salvation, and James is a practical book dealing with every day practical issues of life. Some of them I mentioned for you. It is not your every day book of doctrine (as in theology) but practical teaching for practical living, and that includes an outworking of one's faith as explained in James chapter two. The result of exercising one's faith is not to invite the poor and send them away empty-handed, but rather to meet their needs. Then other examples are given near the end of the chapter. Why do you ignore this context and try to force it into the same context as Romans 4?

Again you are wrong. I was demonstrating that every book has a definite context and purpose and you have been ignoring that. I don't understand that.

All of which presupposes that each and every book has a definite context. Scripture does not claim that for itself - why do you? Again, you are adding to what Scripture says and therefore fail your own epistemological test.

Your arguments are a mass of contradictions and become more muddled with each post; you don't have a coherent theology.

 

[DHK]

All of which presupposes that each and every book has a definite context. Scripture does not claim that for itself - why do you? Again, you are adding to what Scripture says and therefore fail your own epistemological test.

Every book does have a different context. Scripture does claim that for itself. Let me give you an example:

Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

The purpose that Luke states in his gospel is to write to his Greek friend Theophilus that he might have an understanding of the life of Christ from the beginning of his life to the end, from those that were eyewitnesses of the life of Christ.

Acts 1:1-2 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

Acts is the second volume of Luke's treatise. The first was the book of Luke. Here he states in verse one that the book of Luke was about all that Jesus began to do and to teach.
Acts was about the Apostles, as the Holy Spirit gave them commandments and worked through them. It was his second volume explaining to Theophilus the acts of the Apostles. The context of both books are clearly stated.

John states the purpose of his book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[Matt Black]

You're conflating context with purpose based on just three examples, none of which relate to the relationship between Romans 5 and James 2.

 

[DHK]

You're conflating context with purpose based on just three examples, none of which relate to the relationship between Romans 5 and James 2.

Do you want me to give you the stated purpose or context of each of the 66 books of the Bible. It is a laborious job. But it can be done. I gave you examples to dispute your claim--"All of which presupposes that each and every book has a definite context. Scripture does not claim that for itself - why do you?"

Now that your claim has been proven false you say it has nothing to do with Romans or James. Hard to keep track of the conversation, is it?

 

[Matt Black]

Only because your argument is so muddled and you keep changing the parameters of dialogue.