Is Faith Without Works Dead?

[Idolater]

OR you can just read it and take it to mean what it is obviously saying and that any ten year old child can understand.

OR you can just use bombastic rhetoric in an attempt to create a smoke screen and hand waving in order to distract people away from the fact that your pet theology is full of holes, lacks structure, and is "built" on sand.

Right? 'Could do that too, no?

 

[Clete]

OR you can just use bombastic rhetoric in an attempt to create a smoke screen and hand waving in order to distract people away from the fact that your pet theology is full of holes, lacks structure, and is "built" on sand.

Right? 'Could do that too, no?

Said the irrational Catholic, bombastically!

That really did make me laugh out loud! I mean talk about hypocrisy! Wow!

First of all my "pet theology" hasn't even one single hole that I am aware of at all, which is the major reason I believe it! If it did have a hole, I'd be completely obsessed with it. I would literally be sitting up worried about it at night and, during the day, I'd be a mad man researching and making phone calls and doing anything and everything I could think to do to figure out what's going on with whatever this "hole" was.

Secondly, the "sand" my "pet theology" is built on is the plain reading of God's word and sound reason. If you think otherwise, the main reason I exist on this website is to debate precisely that so bring your big guns a prove me wrong if you think you can. I dare you.

Lastly, my point wasn't in any way rhetorical, bombastic or otherwise! It is a foundational principle of my "pet theology"! You simply don't need anyone to teach you what the books of James and Jude are saying (at least in regards to surface issues such as what they mean by "works"). All that is needed is to read them! That's why God wrote us a book! God happens to be an excellent author and He isn't in any need of some theologian's help to communicate what He's trying to say! JUST READ IT! If reading a book of the bible confuses you, it isn't the book that has the issue, its your doctrine!

 

[Right Divider]

Thanks for those words. In '1 Cor 15:3-4', a summary of the Gospel of Jesus Christ there is four words stated twice that most people miss. "according to the scriptures"

I read every word.

The mistake that you are making here is that you are confusing exactly what is "according to the scriptures". It is NOT Paul's gospel that is "according to the scriptures", but those things related to Paul's gospel (i.e., the death of Christ and His resurrection).

Paul's "mystery of Christ" was not found anywhere in scripture until Paul wrote about it. Paul made that clear time and time again.

Gal 1:11-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. (1:12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. ​

Does this mean that His Gospel is designated only to the Books of Paul.

Yep!

What does it mean that all "scriptures" are part of His Gospel.

Again, that is you trying to force your understanding onto the scripture.

Is the prophecy of Isaiah 53, the most beautiful rendition of His Gospel in the Bible, part of these scriptures, Paul is speaking of. What about the stormy childhood of Jesus found in the Book of Psalms or maybe the hidden prophecy found in Genesis 5, the Descendants of Adam. There are many many places in Bible and especially the OT where Jesus is found if one looks close enough and it all points to Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Not the gospel that Paul taught.

When did the dispensation of the Church begin. Jesus tells us in Luke 16:16.."The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." John the Baptist, met his end in the early pages of Matthew. Thus, no man was under the Law of Moses and would be held accountable to it after John came upon the scene in Matthew chapter 3. I believe the first page of Matthew, The Geneology of Jesus Christ, the Messiah (King) is that beginning. Thus, all that believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as put forth by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-4 will be saved regardless of their being Jew or Gentile. In my opinion, they are part of the same Church, the Church that is His Body, His Bride to be.

Confusion reigns with you.

This dispensation did not (nor could it) start until God gave it to Paul (i.e., Acts 9).

I could go on but I need to ask you a question: Is your belief that if a person does not believe in the Mid Acts dispensation, that that person is not saved?

It's the GOSPEL of the grace of God that saves someone today.

While it is obvious that we believe 'the Spiritual Church (His Body, His betrothed Bride) starts in different places in the Bible. Does this make one of us unsaved in your opinion?

See? Again your confusion reigns... you think that Christ will marry His own body. You do not understand figures of speech.

No need, you already know!

QUOTE it! Or you're just another poser.

We both do our best to discern the WORD of GOD while believing in our Lord Jesus Christ's Gospel and Our Savior. Have a Blessed day.

You clearly do not understand the simple fact that there are many gospels in the Bible.

If you continue to believe that works are a requirement for salvation, you may be in real trouble.

 

[Derf]

you think that Christ will marry His own body. You do not understand figures of speech.

You mean like we do?
Ephesians 5:23-32 KJV — For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

We marry our own bodies, and we do so as a picture of Christ and the church.

 

[Nick M]

OR you can just use bombastic rhetoric in an attempt to create a smoke screen and hand waving in order to distract people away from the fact that your pet theology is full of holes, lacks structure, and is "built" on sand.

Like the RCC and their emotional reaction to symbolism? The Jews The Lord Jesus Christ spoke in parables so they didn't understand also had an emotional reaction. Speaking of which...

This is more than just politics.

 

[Nick M]

his brethren

The text says brother. I just showed you.

 

[Bladerunner]

"Bunch of Mary's" is like exactly Biblical Scripture. Who is the famous "other Mary" in the Gospels, in your opinion? And don't forget Mary Magdalene. This was a case of mistaken identity, somebody thought, because evidently Jesus as a boy spent a lot of time with his cousins (so much so that neighbors started to think He was their brother even though He WAS their cousin), that Jesus was brothers with His cousins. It was an accident. It's kind of sweet to think that He would spend days playing with all His cousins who were sons of His Uncle Clopas and Aunt Mary when He was a boy. Uncle Clopas was Joseph's real, full brother, and he too married a Mary. It might sound odd to our ears, and maybe it was then too, but it's clearly not ontologically impossible, which is what the other party might have you believe. What if it's actually the truth, the true nonfiction history of the matter?

and where did this story above come from, certainly not the KJV...otherwise give some references or scriptures.

The Reformers didn't even question this, which really tells you something about how far away modern Protestantism (Evangelicalism) has strayed from its roots. It's barely the same thing, as far as a movement goes. More and more eccentric as time goes on, hardly a place for a true conservative. If you're conservative in your core, you're shooting yourself in the foot to be Evangelical and not simply a Roman Catholic.

==
OP: " Is Faith Without Works Dead (Faith)? "

Look, it's important to consider exactly what James (the first cousin of Jesus, along with Jude) means by works, and this can be "synced" with today's thoroughly modern (published c. 1992) Catechism of the Catholic Church (JP2's catechism).

The only two things he could mean is satisfying the grave moral obligations, or devotions.

If he means satisfying grave moral obligations by works, all James is saying is that if you're committing grave sin, especially habitually, you better get yourself to Confession as you're under diabolic onslaught rn.

If he means devotions by works, then we just need to recognize that there are untold numbers of devotions that count as a devotion. Other terms for devotions btw are penance and penitential acts, and they are all of the spiritual things that we do as simple Roman Catholics, to help cultivate the gifts of the Holy Spirit which we are all given, not for us personally, but for us the whole Church universally, we are all supposed to benefit from the gifts the Spirit gives to each of us, that are FOR the whole Church. We are waiting for your gifts to manifest too.

If you claim that you believe, but you don't even do a single devotion, like not even making the sign of the cross even once the whole year through, even though you are objectively satisfying all your grave moral obligations, then James is saying there is some reason to doubt your faith.

I find it very hard to believe a genuine original Christian would fail to even make the sign of the cross even once the whole year through, not even once. A nonbeliever—sure.¹ But not a real believer. Why would you fail to do even something so simple and small, but that counts as a devotion, thus escaping James's sharp words?

But nonetheless, devotions are not gravely obligatory for us. So even though we would agree with James ofc that faith literally without any devotions is dead (in that, its initial plausibility is high, and the defeaters offered against it have undefeated defeaters themselves, thus nullifying and blunting them all), it's hard to believe any ontologically true (i.e. not a hypocrite or actor) believer would opt against all supererogatory spiritual behaviors forever. So we don't think he's talking to anybody except unbelievers here.


¹ Those are the people who show up to Mass but only right before the presenting of the gifts, leaving immediately after the Victim is first consumed (everything beyond this window is supererogatory and thus devotion), except for precisely one Mass during Easter time when they receive Communion, just under one species, as receiving under both is supererogatory and therefore devotion or penance, with no spiritual acts like genuflection or crossing themselves with holy water, not even participating in the standing and kneeling devotions so universally popular among us—almost everybody does those. So this hypothetical person just doesn't exist is what I'm saying. ³Nobody goes to the trouble of satisfying their Mass obligation but doesn't first of all truly believe, and second of all ³refuses to even raise a finger wrt devotions like reading the Bible, praying, blessing your food, giving money, singing during hymns, etc. God loves a cheerful giver.

And then ofc the alternative, that James means satisfying your grave obligations as works, and this I think is more likely. (At least, on the surface.)²

I have explained my view on the above subject and there is no reason to discuss it any farther on my part. However, I will read and listen to those who are still searching for the truth.

² So working beneath the surface, what James would ha e to mean is that if you're not satisfying your grave obligations, then you should worry about whether your faith is real. This is sharp language. But so how do we understand this, using JP2's Catechism as our handbook? By understanding the ontology of grave sin (such as failing to satisfy your Mass obligation). There are a whole lot of non-diabolic reasons why we gravely sin, if or when we gravely sin. That's first off, but mainly the issue becomes more about habitual grave sin, or grave sin binges. If all you do is live a life of perpetual grave sin, then James here is saying, perhaps your faith is dead, and that's why. And together with our Catechism we can also say, that if you're gravely sinning habitually, but you know yourself to believe in Jesus, then you're under diabolic onslaught, taking heavy casualties in the spiritual war, so get to Confession for some sweet sweet exorcism. Extra grace, free of charge. All you need do is honestly confess type of grave sin, and the number of times committed, and make an act of contrition, which is easily accomplished by reading aloud the traditional act of contrition, sometimes even provided for you in the physical confessional. You'll be absolved and given penance, do the penance, and you're good to go. You've been exorcised. Your job now is to avoid getting attacked again, and that means a firm commitment to amendment, and that means avoiding near occasion of that particular sin. The most common example is a drunk, and avoiding the near occasion of sin for him is going to be to not hang around liquor stores or bars. That's where his diabolic opponents wait for him. So he doesn't go there, and then he won't need to go back to Confession, which is the goal here. To stay out of the confessional. That's the goal for simple Roman Catholics. That means satisfy your grave obligations. And we read James as saying that grave sins are super-duper important to not do, and if you do do them, then get to Confession. This is the much more likely interpretation rather than that James is saying if you don't pray or sing hymns or close your eyes when you pray or kneel or cross yourself or whatever other devotions there are, like visiting shrines or going on pilgrammages, then you should question your faith. I find that much less likely as I tried to explain above.³

Is this the Word of GOD or the WORD of the Vicar of Christ. (the Pope)

 

[Bladerunner]

I read every word.

The mistake that you are making here is that you are confusing exactly what is "according to the scriptures". It is NOT Paul's gospel that is "according to the scriptures", but those things related to Paul's gospel (i.e., the death of Christ and His resurrection).

Paul's "mystery of Christ" was not found anywhere in scripture until Paul wrote about it. Paul made that clear time and time again.

Gal 1:11-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. (1:12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. ​

Yep!

Again, that is you trying to force your understanding onto the scripture.

Not the gospel that Paul taught.

Confusion reigns with you.

This dispensation did not (nor could it) start until God gave it to Paul (i.e., Acts 9).

It's the GOSPEL of the grace of God that saves someone today.. Simply

See? Again your confusion reigns... you think that Christ will marry His own body. You do not understand figures of speech.

QUOTE it! Or you're just another poser.

You clearly do not understand the simple fact that there are many gospels in the Bible.

If you conytinue to believe that works are a requirement for salvation, you may be in real trouble.

Thank you for your interpretation of he Bible. Simply, I do not agree..

 

[Right Divider]

Thank you for your interpretation of he Bible.

It's not so much an interpretation as it is simply reading the Bible and believing what it says.

Simply, I do not agree..

I can show you the truth, but I can't make you believe it.

 

[Nick M]

Who is the famous "other Mary"

In general, these questions are not relevant and not doctrine.

 

[Clete]

It's not so much an interpretation as it is simply reading the Bible and believing what it says.

Such a critically important distinction to make!

 

[Bladerunner]

It's not so much an interpretation as it is simply reading the Bible and believing what it says.

I can show you the truth, but I can't make you believe it.

I could say the same about you.... so-----we can disagree, we both love and believe in Jesus Christ.

 

[Clete]

I could say the same about you.... so-----we can disagree, we both love and believe in Jesus Christ.

No, you couldn't!

I mean, you could say it, but saying it doesn't make it so!

There is the plain reading and then there are interpretations. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Right Divider]

I could say the same about you.... so-----we can disagree, we both love and believe in Jesus Christ.

I can see that you are unable to defend your position on this debate forum.

 

[Bladerunner]

I can see that you are unable to defend your position on this debate forum.

You say I am "unable to" and I say I 'have been able' to defend my position on this forum. I do not agree that it is a "debate" forum as there is only one point of view that is permitted. All other views automatically become "Blasphemy ". I have even been asked to leave the forum!

From what I can tell on the surface, all of us believe in Jesus Christ through faith and faith alone. Yet, the very words of James 2:24 is somehow under the Law of Moses, thereby not able to be used when applied to the Gentiles. Borrowing from 'Clete-#213', "There is the plain reading and then there are interpretations. They aren't the same thing.". Yet, it is clear the Law of Moses was ended at the beginning of John,the Baptist in Matthew 3 . The Gospel of Jesus Christ picked up at this point and is prevalent in all the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Faith Alone needed to receive Justification from Jesus Christ must in the end have good works that becomes (according to Jesus, James 2:14-26) the proof of the existence of one's salvation. Many on this forum tie Gods hands to His 'Omniscience without the ability to see the future'. They cannot see that a sovereign GOD sees all, knowing the works 'good or bad' that a person will do once he or she is justified. In other words, A person justified cannot return to the world for their faith would be dead. God (the Father), Jesus,(the Son) and the Holy Spirit, three in one GOD knew what each person will do long before the foundations of the earth were constructed.

Thank you for at least giving me the opportunity to present my side of the "debate?"

 

[Right Divider]

You say I am "unable to" and I say I 'have been able' to defend my position on this forum. I do not agree that it is a "debate" forum as there is only one point of view that is permitted. All other views automatically become "Blasphemy ". I have even been asked to leave the forum!

Lying is not a good way to try to convince anyone.

If you will not engage in debate (which you have not), then you don't belong on a debate forum.

From what I can tell on the surface, all of us believe in Jesus Christ through faith and faith alone.

And yet, you said that works were required. Are you now changing your story?

Yet, the very words of James 2:24 is somehow under the Law of Moses, thereby not able to be used when applied to the Gentiles.

Well, it's quite obvious that James was writing to the twelve tribes of ISRAEL.

Jas 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. ​

Therefore, when James says "my brethren", then that is who he is talking about.

Borrowing from 'Clete-#213', "There is the plain reading and then there are interpretations.

Yes, the plain reading of James 1:1 is that James is writing to his countrymen who were expelled from their land.

They aren't the same thing.". Yet, it is clear the Law of Moses was ended at the beginning of John,the Baptist in Matthew 3 .

Again, you are trying to force your understanding on the scripture and you are NOT allowing the text to speak for itself.

Acts 21:19-22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:19) And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. (21:20) And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: (21:21) And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs. (21:22) What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.​

The scripture does NOT say that there was anything wrong with their zealousness for the law.

As a matter of fact, some time AFTER your "pet verse", Jesus told His disciples to KEEP THE LAW.

Matt 23:1-3 (AKJV/PCE)​

(23:1) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (23:2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (23:3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.​

Matt 5:18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ​

The Gospel of Jesus Christ picked up at this point and is prevalent in all the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Faith Alone needed to receive Justification from Jesus Christ must in the end have good works that becomes (according to Jesus, James 2:14-26) the proof of the existence of one's salvation. Many on this forum tie Gods hands to His 'Omniscience without the ability to see the future'. They cannot see that a sovereign GOD sees all, knowing the works 'good or bad' that a person will do once he or she is justified. In other words, A person justified cannot return to the world for their faith would be dead. God (the Father), Jesus,(the Son) and the Holy Spirit, three in one GOD knew what each person will do long before the foundations of the earth were constructed.

Again, you are mashing the scripture into a mess because you cannot rightly divide the word of truth.

You are trying (and failing) to force the "interpretation" that you want.

Works are NOT proof of salvation in the dispensation that we are presently in.

 

[Bladerunner]

Lying is not a good way to try to convince anyone.

What am I lying about? there is only one main view on this forum? or I have accused of Blasphemy ?or maybe it is that I have been asked to leave the forum??.. which one is it Right Divider...

If you will not engage in debate (which you have not), then you don't belong on a debate forum.

Again, That is your opinion. we differ again.

And yet, you said that works were required. Are you now changing your story?

No, for Jas 2:24 states:"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." Is it that since James is speaking to the Jews, His words do not apply to the Gentiles as well..
James 2:24 is God's WORDs. not mine......not James', not anyone except GOD. Understand. and you are going against them.
Good luck with explaining that to GOD on His return

Well, it's quite obvious that James was writing to the twelve tribes of ISRAEL.

Jas 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. ​

Therefore, when James says "my brethren", then that is who he is talking about.

He is speaking to the Jews who have faith in Jesus Christ.....Does this also apply to the Gentiles.....I'll answer it for you...Yes it Does, the plain reading of James 1:1 is that James is writing to his countrymen who were expelled from their land.
OK, they are scattered around because of the Romans.

Again, you are trying to force your understanding on the scripture and you are NOT allowing the text to speak for itself. !

Acts 21:19-22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:19) And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. (21:20) And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: (21:21) And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs. (21:22) What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.​

The scripture does NOT say that there was anything wrong with their zealousness for the law..

"Thousands of Jews" did believe in Jesus Christ yet, they were still living in the Jewish Customs and the Law even though It had been stopped back at the beginning of the NT. As long as they do not rely on the law or the Customs to save them, it is ok with Jesus....Rem,,,He is the Author of the whole Bible....not Paul, He is only writing Jesus' words.

As a matter of fact, some time AFTER your "pet verse", Jesus told His disciples to KEEP THE LAW.

Why are you so angry....really "pet-verse"

Matt 23:1-3 (AKJV/PCE)​

(23:1) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (23:2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (23:3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. Again, you are mashing the scripture into a mess because you cannot rightly divide the word of truth.???​

​

Here Jesus tells the multitude not to do what the leaders, the Pharisees want them to do..This verrse is pretty simple or do you see it a different way. "but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."
Paul did not care about the Jews observing their customs and even the law (that was dead according to GOD, (His WORD). You will find in Romans 14:6-7.."He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself." (KJV)

check out Acts 18:18-21....Paul himself took a vow outside that of GOD's vows...."And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow. And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus." (KJV)

Paul was alright with this as long as they (the Jew) did not feel it made them more right in God's eyes. We also see this in Acts 8:36-37..."And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (KJV) Here Phillip only Baptized with Water when the Eunuch told him "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." this is in straight keepings of the teachings of Paul in Acts 21.

You are trying (and failing) to force the "interpretation" that you want.

Works are NOT proof of salvation in the dispensation that we are presently in.

Is the gospels of Mat, Mark, Luke and John in the 'church' dispensation....It started at the end of the Law at His Death on the Cross, at His Burial, at His resurrection.

Hope you have a better day.

 

[Lon]

I could say the same about you.... so-----we can disagree, we both love and believe in Jesus Christ.

Request: Go back up and try a line-by-line response to his post #203 (or if he likes, one more important to him, but #203 for me).
I'll try to help as if I were you for a template (realize I'm only able to guess and will have some of it wrong):

I read every word.

The mistake that you are making here is that you are confusing exactly what is "according to the scriptures". It is NOT Paul's gospel that is "according to the scriptures", but those things related to Paul's gospel (i.e., the death of Christ and His resurrection).

BR- Me? or my church? Both? I've always been under the impression that the gospel of Jesus' DBR was the same? Did it completely change under Paul? Was it no longer efficacious for Jews? What changed? What was the mystery?

(Asking questions helps to dig over the difference in beliefs)

Paul's "mystery of Christ" was not found anywhere in scripture until Paul wrote about it. Paul made that clear time and time again.

Gal 1:11-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. (1:12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. ​

BR- But what was it? Was it different than "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and Thou wilt be saved?" Or was it more the complete work of Christ that nobody knew? That He made even works part of what He did on the Cross? Why was it Jews had to keep the Law, even after Paul? Why didn't the whole church, Jew and gentiles simply live by the Spirit so they'd not obey the desires of the flesh? Is there a difference between Jews then, and Jews today? Do they still have to follow the Law?

Yep!

Again, that is you trying to force your understanding onto the scripture.

Br-I see what you are saying, but does that mean I have to entertain the Mid Acts View to get this right?

Not the gospel that Paul taught.

Confusion reigns with you.

Br- Okay, clear that up, or help? I'm stuck in 2nd Acts Dispensationalism (or Covenant Theology etc.).

This dispensation did not (nor could it) start until God gave it to Paul (i.e., Acts 9).

Br- Grace alone salvation? If the first church wrestled with this, repeatedly so that Paul had to address it time and again, how prevalent is this in the church today? Do you have some empathy?

It's the GOSPEL of the grace of God that saves someone today.

Br- Different than the gospel that saved/saves a Jew? What is different? Have a chart? Anything that can help one see what you are talking about?

See? Again your confusion reigns... you think that Christ will marry His own body. You do not understand figures of speech.

Br- Oops.

QUOTE it! Or you're just another poser.

If I were Bladerunner, evidence:

Now, you... you're an idiot and post idiocy.

Please respond to what people post... or leave. We don't need your nonsense.

You clearly do not understand the simple fact that there are many gospels in the Bible.

Br- I don't. Was there more 'good news' than the Death Burial, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?

(Note I agree with RD, that good new(s) exist(ed). While one may tie it all up into one "Good News" sentence, that'd be a LONG sentence!

If you continue to believe that works are a requirement for salvation, you may be in real trouble.

Br- How does doing 'good' works cause trouble??? That doesn't make sense to me

Just a request, but I, for one, would like to see your response. Thanks, -Lon

 

[Clete]

You say I am "unable to" and I say I 'have been able' to defend my position on this forum. I do not agree that it is a "debate" forum as there is only one point of view that is permitted.

This statement was an intentional lie.

Who are you trying to convince?

All other views automatically become "Blasphemy ".

A doctrine is only blasphemous when it insults the character of God. You cannot point to a single time when any doctrine has been called blasphemous for another reason.

I have even been asked to leave the forum!

Probably by people who have no authority to actually remove you from it and if there is an exception to that, it would be further evidence that your bolded comment above it false because asking someone to leave on their own isn't at all the same thing as removing them by force (i.e. banning them) which is what every other so called "Christian" web forums does to any of us who show up to debate open theism on their forums.

From what I can tell on the surface, all of us believe in Jesus Christ through faith and faith alone. Yet, the very words of James 2:24 is somehow under the Law of Moses, thereby not able to be used when applied to the Gentiles.

It isn't just "somehow"! It has been clearly explained to you over and over again but you just will not even acknowledge the explanation and pretend like we're just making it up out of whole clothe and have refused to explain anything rationally and instead have resorted to insulting you when the fact of the matter is that you relegate yourself to the level of ridicule because when we repeatedly explain and explain and explain and get ignored every single time, you've demonstrated yourself to be a waste of time.

No one has said that you have to be convinced but just pretending like no defense of our position has been presented is insulting and more than a little bit frustrating to say the least.

Borrowing from 'Clete-#213', "There is the plain reading and then there are interpretations. They aren't the same thing.". Yet, it is clear the Law of Moses was ended at the beginning of John,the Baptist in Matthew 3 .

Saying it doesn't make it so, Bladerunner! This is a terrific premise to start an argument with, but it isn't true just by virtue of the fact that you showed up and stated that "it is clear"! The fact is that it isn't clear and, in fact, I think you are the first person I've ever encountered that believes that specific point of doctrine! If you'd made actual arguments, you'd be everyone's favorite debate partner!

The Gospel of Jesus Christ picked up at this point and is prevalent in all the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Jesus didn't preach anything new, Bladerunner. He was born under the law, He was circumcised on the eighth day and kept the whole law and lived the only perfect life any human being has ever lived and died in accordance with the law as a sacrifice for sin. His entire Earthly ministry and the purpose of His coming had everything to do with the law and He even stated explicitly that He had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it - which is precisely what He did.

The Faith Alone needed to receive Justification from Jesus Christ must in the end have good works that becomes (according to Jesus, James 2:14-26) the proof of the existence of one's salvation.

Notice that we do not deny that what Jesus and James taught are the same thing! If that were not the case, it would be proof we were wrong! As it is, their agreement stands as evidence for our case, not yours. For your case, their agreement is, at best, a neutral fact that neither argues for nor against you.

Many on this forum tie Gods hands to His 'Omniscience without the ability to see the future'.

It isn't we who tie God's hands but rather the limitations of reality. God cannot do ANYTHING that pops into a theologian's mind. He is real and He is not a magician. There are those who believe that right and wrong are defined by God's fiat command and that if God were to declare it acceptable to have forcible sex with a woman who showed her ankles in public then it would become righteous to do so. Do you believe that God could do that or do you "tie God's hands to His righteousness without the ability to do anything at all"?

Our motive has nothing to do with tying God's hands and the only reason you even put it in those terms is to make an emotional based "argument". The only thing we desire is to acknowledge that God is real and to limit our doctrine to that which is consistent with that reality which means that you cannot have your cake and eat it to. Go ahead and call that an attempt to tie God's hands if you like but the only thing we're tying is our own theological hands. The fact is that words mean things and ideas do have real consequences and if you desire to have a rationaly coherent theology, then you have to choose between believing in a God who exhaustively knows every event that will ever happen or believing in a God who is just, wise and righteous. If you arbitrarily decide to ignore the contradictions inherent in those to versions of God then stop pretended to debate it because all you're doing is turning off your mind and making debate impossible. There is no rational argument that can defeat an appeal to mystery.

They cannot see that a sovereign GOD sees all, knowing the works 'good or bad' that a person will do once he or she is justified.

The only reason you "see" it is because a guy named Augustine imported Greek philosophical notions about God into the Catholic church in the 4th century.

In other words, A person justified cannot return to the world for their faith would be dead. God (the Father), Jesus,(the Son) and the Holy Spirit, three in one GOD knew what each person will do long before the foundations of the earth were constructed.

Those two sentences are not logically connected to each other. The first is legalism and was true prior to the cutting off of Israel (the people of the law) and the second is just Augustinian doctrine that is not taught anywhere in scripture.

Thank you for at least giving me the opportunity to present my side of the "debate?"

I know that this post of yours was not aimed at me, at least not directly, but bebating in favor of our doctrine is what we are all here for Bladrunner! I am not kidding! If you made actual arguments instead of simply declaring your doctrine as though that counts as a rebuttal of the arguments that have been presented to you then you'd very quickly have more people interacting with you than you have time to keep up with.

 

[Right Divider]

What am I lying about? there is only one main view on this forum?

Yes, that is a lie.

Here, again, is exactly what you said: "I do not agree that it is a "debate" forum as there is only one point of view that is permitted."

You did NOT simply say that"there is only one main view on this forum", but that "there is only one view that is PERMITTED."

That is flat-out false.

or I have accused of Blasphemy ?

Now you're twisting your story to create another lie. That is NOT what you said. Here is what you said: "All other views automatically become "Blasphemy ".".

That is a blatant falsehood. We do not call alternate views "blaspheme", we call blaspheme blaspheme.

No, for Jas 2:24 states:"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

James is NOT writing to the body of Christ.
James did NOT receive that revelation that Paul did and therefore was NOT preaching the gospel of the grace of God.

Is it that since James is speaking to the Jews, His words do not apply to the Gentiles as well..

James is writing kingdom doctrine to the twelve tribes of ISRAEL.
It's crystal clear and yet you conflate it and twist it.

James 2:24 is God's WORDs. not mine......not James', not anyone except GOD.

Again, not God's words to the body of Christ. Your confusion is immense.

Understand. and you are going against them.

No, I'm not "going against them". I'm properly understanding the CONTEXT!

Good luck with explaining that to GOD on His return

Your vanity will get you nowhere.

He is speaking to the Jews who have faith in Jesus Christ.....Does this also apply to the Gentiles.....I'll answer it for you...Yes it Does, the plain reading of James 1:1 is that James is writing to his countrymen who were expelled from their land.

Contradict yourself much?

OK, they are scattered around because of the Romans.

They were also scattered by their own leadership.

"Thousands of Jews" did believe in Jesus Christ yet, they were still living in the Jewish Customs and the Law even though It had been stopped back at the beginning of the NT.

The new testament cannot begin until the death of the testator.

Heb 9:15-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (9:16) For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (9:17) For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. ​

As long as they do not rely on the law or the Customs to save them, it is ok with Jesus....Rem,,,He is the Author of the whole Bible....not Paul, He is only writing Jesus' words.

Why are you so angry....really "pet-verse"

No anger, just the truth.

Here Jesus tells the multitude not to do what the leaders, the Pharisees want them to do..This verrse is pretty simple or do you see it a different way. "but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

Again, you conflate and confuse. Jesus told them to DO the LAW.

They were to keep the law, but not follow in the hypocrisy of their leaders.

Matt 23:1-4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(23:1) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (23:2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (23:3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (23:4) For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers. ​

Paul did not care about the Jews observing their customs and even the law (that was dead according to GOD, (His WORD). You will find in Romans 14:6-7.."He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself." (KJV)

Have you not noticed that you always have to go to Paul's epistles to find this?

Is the gospels of Mat, Mark, Luke and John in the 'church' dispensation....

There is no "church dispensation"... but there is the dispensation that God gave to Paul for us.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are old covenant books.

It started at the end of the Law at His Death on the Cross, at His Burial, at His resurrection.

See? Again you change your story. You previously said that the law ended with John the Baptist.

Hope you have a better day.

You are very childish. Come back when you grow up a little.