Is Faith Without Works Dead?

[Derf]

On the contrary. A believing Jew who had come to faith in Christ while the previous dispensation was still in effect, and who attempting to apply his teaching directly would shipwreck his faith in a most disastrous way, even possibly to the point of losing his salvation altogether! In James' dispensation, works were a duty and were required. In Paul's dispensation, it is he who does NOT work but believes who is justified. For us, works are not a duty nor are they required.

For salvation? Or at all? Is Jesus the lord of someone who rejects any attempt to align his behavior to the lord's will?

To the extent that they rightly exist is the extent to which they are motivated by love, not by requirement or duty.

But James is saying "be motivated by duty and not by love"?

It's the works you do, not because you're expected to, not because you've been asked to do them by some higher authority, not because there is a rule on the wall that says so, and not because you have to for any other reason, but because you love God,

Who is a higher authority.

you know that you are loved by God and because you love other people and you simply desire to do good things to and for them.

Simply? Then why did Paul have to keep telling people to love one another? If "simply" there's no need to write it in his letters.

Will such works exist in a Christians life? Sure! Probably. But the distinction must be maintain that it is NOT REQUIRED to be so and it is not a test of faith!

If you are a Christian, and you have no love for any other Christian, are you saved at all? There's nothing wrong with us testing our faith every now and then to see if we are really following Christ, to see if we really believe in His death and resurrection, to see if we love Him. And if joyously following His commands (like "love one another") shows that we are still believing in His power to save, then let's have more and more of that all the time.

The moment you do that, you resurrect your flesh, and take the law back down off of the cross and hobble your daily walk in Christ which is enabled not by your effort but by faith in the biblical facts which we are to "reckon" as truth (Romans 6:11) and by crucifying your flesh and allowing Christ to live His life through you (Gal. 2:20). For, whether we have good works or not, we are complete in Him (Col. 2:10) because of His good work, and He who began a good work in us will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6).

But you're saying that he might not complete it, because the works might not exist in a person's life.

It makes no sense to say that Jesus will complete a good work in us, but we might not have any good works. The whole reason for Paul to write to believers about how to be better believers is that we should actually be better believers. And there's no point in handing someone over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and the salvation of the soul, if the changes desired aren't really necessary.
1 Corinthians 5:5 KJV — To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Paul definitely thought some kind of behavioral change was necessary for the saving of the person's spirit.

 

[Clete]

For salvation? Or at all? Is Jesus the lord of someone who rejects any attempt to align his behavior to the lord's will?

If he believes, yes!

That's the gospel, Derf! You are not saved based on whether you do anything good bad or indifferent.

Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

You don't get to have a grace based salvation and sneak in a requirement for works through the back door. It's either about faith alone apart from works or its about faith plus works.

Interestingly, on that particular point, it completely works the other way. In other words, adding works to a covenant of grace doesn't work but adding grace to a covenant of works totally does work.

Let's say, for example, you hire someone to replace your roof and they do such an excellent job that you not only pay them what they are owed for their work but you get some steaks and grill them up for the crew to eat after a job well done. That's grace added to debt (law) and it completely works and everyone is happy as clams.

Now look at the reverse. Let's say you're poor and have no way of repairing, much less replacing your completely warn out and useless, leaking roof and someone comes along and offers to replace your roof for free. You accept the offer and they get to work right away. While they're toiling away, you run out to Arby's and pick up some roast-beef sandwiches and a bunch of potato cakes and bring it back for everyone to enjoy. Then, after the work is done you happen across the roofer at church and you start bragging to everyone within ear shot about how great a job they did and how wonder it is that you don't have to deal with a leaky roof anymore and then you say, "....and all it cost me was a handful of Arby's #2 combos!"

See how that totally cheapens what was done? It just completely undoes the whole thing! It turns an incredibly lavish gift into something cheap and pedestrian. It is, in fact, insulting to the gift giver.

Likewise, our salvation is a free gift and we do not owe God anything in return for it. We have nothing to offer in exchange for it that isn't an insult to it's immeasurable value and we aught not feel any more obligation to God for having saved us than we feel an obligation when we, as a child, receive a gift from our grandparents on Christmas morning, beyond simply loving God just as kids love their grandma and grandpa.

But James is saying "be motivated by duty and not by love"?

Yeah! That's precisely what he is saying. James 2 is quite the opposite of Romans 4. Both are speaking about what it takes to get saved, not what happens after and they teach quite contrary things and rightly so because they are speaking to two different groups under two quite contrary dispensations.

Who is a higher authority.

It doesn't matter who it is! If God Himself came down and told you do something, doing it would have NO EFFECT on your standing before Him during this dispensation.

That, by the way, is a completely pure hypothetical for the sake of argument! God would never actually order someone to do anything contrary to the dispensation the person is under. It would be God contradicting Himself.

Simply? Then why did Paul have to keep telling people to love one another? If "simply" there's no need to write it in his letters.

Because our flesh has not yet been redeemed and so we are constantly in a battle against it. A battle which is fought in the mind, by the way.

Romans 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.​

We must constantly be "reckoning" (to use the biblical term) ourselves dead unto sin. The more real this biblical fact becomes to our minds, the more Christ is free to live His life through us by faith because dead men cannot strive to do anything but rest. We have been crucified in Him and it is when we finally rest in Him that things get going in the right direction.

If you are a Christian, and you have no love for any other Christian, are you saved at all?

You are if you believe that Jesus in God incarnate, that He lived a flawlessly perfect life and was totally innocent and offered His pure life in place of yours which was forfeit because of your own sin and that God raised Him from the dead.

There's nothing wrong with us testing our faith every now and then to see if we are really following Christ, to see if we really believe in His death and resurrection, to see if we love Him. And if joyously following His commands (like "love one another") shows that we are still believing in His power to save, then let's have more and more of that all the time.

What we are talking about right now is precisely what I would call "testing our faith". What you are talking about is testing your flesh. I know that isn't what you intend but it is nevertheless true. You cannot test your faith by looking at the performance of your flesh. Your flesh is contrary to your faith (in this dispensation).

But you're saying that he might not complete it, because the works might not exist in a person's life.

On the contrary, I am saying that it is already complete! There isn't anything else to do other than to redeem your flesh which is guaranteed by the giving of the Holy Spirit are an earnest payment. You cannot be better than you are right now - ever! If you think otherwise then your goal post is set too low! The only standard is perfection. It is all or nothing. Christ paid it all and then some! You have nothing of value to contribute. Stop trying and simply rest in His completed work and let the proverbial chips fall where they may. God's got it.

It makes no sense to say that Jesus will complete a good work in us, but we might not have any good works. The whole reason for Paul to write to believers about how to be better believers is that we should actually be better believers. And there's no point in handing someone over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and the salvation of the soul, if the changes desired aren't really necessary.

I understand what you're saying but the problem is that it comes from a faulty premise. You are interpreting Paul's gospel as if it were James'. The flesh is very tricky in this respect. It is always attempting to figure out a way to take another bite from that forbidden fruit. Your desire to do rightly is commendable but the source you're attempting to bring it from is corrupted. Your flesh must be killed, not improved. For the Christian, sin is not the problem, YOU are the problem! For in you, that is in your flesh, no good thing dwells nor can any good thing dwell.

1 Corinthians 5:5 KJV — To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Paul definitely thought some kind of behavioral change was necessary for the saving of the person's spirit.

It's interesting that people always make this sort of argument. It comes in one of two forms. The premise is either that I'm trying to say that evil actions aren't a problem; that they aren't hurtful or that for whatever reason it can be basically ignored, or they take the reverse tack and suggest (tacitly) that I'm suggesting that we have actual permission to do evil. My response is the same either way...

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.​

​

And if your immediate reaction to that is to say that this is your position then I say you've missed the point! It is the opposite of your position because Romans 6 makes no sense to even say if one's presentation of the gospel doesn't ever lead people to make the accusation that you're preaching what modern folks often call "greasy grace" or "easy believism", which no one would ever have any reason to accuse you of if you're telling them that "real" Christians must have good works (i.e. both abstaining from sin and doing good things).

And what is Romans 6 predicated on? What is it that prompted the rhetorical question that Paul asks in verse 1?.....

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.​

​

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.​

How does righteousness reign? Through our effort? NO! Through Jesus Christ, who is the only ONE righteous Man and who's righteousness has been imputed to us IN SPITE of our flesh, in spite of our own unworthiness, in spite of our sin! As it says in Romans 7...

Romans 7:13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!​

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.​

​

Notice the dichotomy there between the mind and the flesh! The battle is fought in the mind and we are to RECKON ourselves dead unto sin but alive to God, which brings me full circle to ground I've already covered.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bladerunner]

From Chat GPT....

Prompt: "Ignore other English translations and simply translated 2 Thes. 2:3 based solely on the Greek itself."

Certainly! Here's a direct translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 based solely on the Greek text:

"Let no one deceive you in any way, because unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed—the son of destruction—"

Here are the two verses that are the context of the above telling us 'why does apostasy have to come first'? v1.."Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,......" Here Paul is speaking of the Rapture that is to come; for Paul is speaking to the true Christians at the Thessalonian church. v2.."That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." In the second verse, He is trying to calm the church members as they had received a bogus letter stating 'the Rapture, the coming of Jesus Christ in the Clouds' would not happen. They were afraid for those that had already died would not get to heaven. v3..."Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" here is the scripture that was changed above, not by the Greek nor by the Latin Textus Receptus. It specifies the Rapture (the Gathering of His Church, His Body, His Betrothed Bride) cannot happen until there is a falling away of faith in the Church (we see this exponentially today) and the Revealing of the Anti-Christ cannot happen until the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit within each Church member) is removed from the earth (i.e the Rapture)

Key Greek Terms:​

1. ἀποστασία (apostasia):
   • Often means "departure," "rebellion," or "falling away."
   • The context here suggests a significant event involving a departure from faith or order.

Yes and the KJV along with Strongs translation: STRONGS G646: ἀποστασία, -ας, ἡ, (ἀφίσταμαι), a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; ([Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 2 Chronicles 33:19]; Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 36:32 (Jeremiah 29:32) Complutensian; 1 Macc. 2:15). The earlier Greeks say ἀπόστασις; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; [Winer's Grammar, 24].

1. ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας (anthrōpos tēs anomias):
   • "Man of lawlessness," referring to a figure embodying rebellion against divine law.

ἄνθρωπος ánthrōpos, anth'-ro-pos; from G435 and ὤψ ṓps (the countenance; from G3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:—certain, man.

PLUS

ἁμαρτία hamartía, ham-ar-tee'-ah; from G264; a sin (properly abstract):—offence, sin(-ful).

1. υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (huios tēs apōleias):
   • "Son of destruction," emphasizing his doomed and destructive nature.

This translation highlights the sequence of events Paul describes: first, a notable apostasy or rebellion, followed by the revealing of the "man of lawlessness."

Thus, a man of sin {huios} (strongs G5207), G 684 the {apōleia} or (son of Perdition)}

One can see even with the scripture changed the meaning still remains the same yet the Author leaves out the gathering of the chosen before the man of sin is known.......

 

[Clete]

Here are the two verses that are the context of the above telling us 'why does apostasy have to come first'? v1.."Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,......" Here Paul is speaking of the Rapture that is to come; for Paul is speaking to the true Christians at the Thessalonian church. v2.."That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." In the second verse, He is trying to calm the church members as they had received a bogus letter stating 'the Rapture, the coming of Jesus Christ in the Clouds' would not happen. They were afraid for those that had already died would not get to heaven. v3..."Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" here is the scripture that was changed above, not by the Greek nor by the Latin Textus Receptus. It specifies the Rapture (the Gathering of His Church, His Body, His Betrothed Bride) cannot happen until there is a falling away of faith in the Church (we see this exponentially today) and the Revealing of the Anti-Christ cannot happen until the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit within each Church member) is removed from the earth (i.e the Rapture)



Yes and the KJV along with Strongs translation: STRONGS G646: ἀποστασία, -ας, ἡ, (ἀφίσταμαι), a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; ([Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 2 Chronicles 33:19]; Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 36:32 (Jeremiah 29:32) Complutensian; 1 Macc. 2:15). The earlier Greeks say ἀπόστασις; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; [Winer's Grammar, 24].


ἄνθρωπος ánthrōpos, anth'-ro-pos; from G435 and ὤψ ṓps (the countenance; from G3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:—certain, man.

PLUS

ἁμαρτία hamartía, ham-ar-tee'-ah; from G264; a sin (properly abstract):—offence, sin(-ful).


Thus, a man of sin {huios} (strongs G5207), G 684 the {apōleia} or (son of Perdition)}

One can see even with the scripture changed the meaning still remains the same yet the Author leaves out the gathering of the chosen before the man of sin is known.......

So, you agree with GPT's translation then? I'm a bit unclear as to your intent with this post.

What changed scripture?

What "Author" are you referring to in that last sentence?

 

[Nick M]

This is from the late Bob Hill. His website was taken down by his son, from what I read here, after his passing. There is another one that specifically goes into the grammar. Which he in part repeats here. Aposticia is used in the NT a few times. They departed (apostasy) one place and went to another.

Paul had comforted the Thessalonian believers with the hope of the rapture in his first letter. Because of the intensity of persecution, though, confusion had set in. These suffering believers were afraid that the awful day of the Lord had come upon them. When Paul learned that his teaching (5:4) had been misinterpreted, he wrote a second letter for clarification. In order to assure them they were not experiencing the day of the Lord, he extended a guarantee to them: that day cannot come “unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed” (2:3). The interpretation of Paul’s promise depends on the meaning of the word ajpostasiva. This noun is compounded from ajpov, “away from,” and stavsi", “position, stance”, from i{sthmi, “stand.” Literally, the act of positioning oneself away is a departure or separation. That’s how we have rendered it. In secular Greek, this noun was used to refer to separatist political groups. From this sense, LXX employed it to denote “rebellion,” especially against God. Since James was familiar with the Greek Old Testament (he cites it in Acts 15:16-18 and Jam 2:23 and 4:6), it is probable that LXX usage underlies his phrase ajpostasiva from Moses” in Acts 21:21. However, his very phrase would be redundant if the concept of religious apostasy were inherent within the noun, for then he would not have defined the ajpostasiva as “from Moses.” From what other than Moses’ law could the Jew apostasize? While ajpostasiva was used in patristic sources in the technical sense of “apostasy,” the addition by James of the qualifying modifier suggests that in the New Testament, ajpostasiva does not carry that sense by itself.

Further, since the Thessalonians were recent converts from paganism, the relevance of LXX usage in Paul’s epistle to them is questionable. These believers would be more familiar with the noun’s Greek heritage. Liddell & Scott (1881:203) classify ajpostasiva as a “worse [later] form of ajpostavsi",” and give as one definition “distance.” Moulton and Milligan (1930:68) consider ajpostasiva “equivalent to ajpostavsi",” a noun commonly used in the sense of “departure.” Further, while the cognate verb ajfivsthmi sometimes describes a departure from godliness, it is often just the opposite:

In Acts 19:9, Paul departs from the unbelieving Jews.

In 1 Timothy 6:5, Paul instructs Timothy to depart from those who pervert the truth.

In 2 Timothy 2:19, those who name Christ’s name are to depart from iniquity.

Our understanding of ajpostasiva is supported by the syntax. The noun in this case has the definite article: “the departure.” The article cannot be generic; it must be anaphoric.[30] To what specific departure did Paul refer in Thessalonians? Had he discussed previously with them a specific time of apostasy? We see nothing of the sort in 1 Thessalonians. In contrast, the departure of the church is pre-eminent in the first epistle. Paul refers to this event and to our subsequent joy in Christ’s presence in 1:10, 2:19, 3:12 and 5:9,10, discussing it at length in 4:13-18. Within the immediate context of our noun, he writes of our gathering together with Christ (2 Th 2:1). We infer that Paul is referring back to a subject in which he has assiduously instructed his readers: “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him.”

Our interpretation of ajpostasiva as “departure” better serves Paul’s purpose in writing this chapter. Those who interpret ajpostasiva as “apostasy” assume that Paul refers to this “apostasy” as a sign to warn the Thessalonians of Christ’s return. However, Paul’s purpose is not to warn them of His impending return, but to reassure them in their persecution that they need not worry about enduring the wrath of God. It is not they who will be left behind. The unbelievers who refused the truth will be left behind (2:11-12).

 

[Nick M]

Ray Comfort is wrong here. He doesn't rightly divide. So it makes perfect sense that he doesn't understand. James is saying what the Lord said in his ministry to Israel. Do good works and obey the law or your history.

34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’


37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’


41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’


44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Then there is this big anti-Catholic bomb he drops.

48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

 

[Bladerunner]

So, you agree with GPT's translation then? I'm a bit unclear as to your intent with this post.

What changed scripture?

What "Author" are you referring to in that last sentence?

It is clear enough.

 

[Idolater]

Was Abraham's faith belief or allegiance to a duty in each case (Paul vs James)?

He wasn't just going through the motions, God saw that. And so do we see that, because God put it in the Bible. We all saw Abraham wasn't just going through the motions. That means something. That is important.

These are good distinctions, but allegiance to duty we usually call "faithfulness". We are saved by Christ's "faithfulness", because He was faithful to His mission to die for the sins of the world. However, He exercised "faith" (belief) in the Father in that He would be resurrected, and thus His faith fueled His faithfulness.

With the Trinity that gets counter intuitive. It's not like Christ could not believe the Father would raise Him, or that His death would ransom many. Those weren't matters of faith for Him, because He's God, because of the Trinity. I know this is something an Arian would argue is reading my theology into the text, eisegesis. But Trinitarians let it go without comment because the only people questioning this sort of thing are Arians (iow JWs).

(I mean we don't take Mormons seriously. They might question it also, but ... they're not serious. Because, we all know, that not only, is their origin story of remarkably low initial plausibility—just like genuine original Christianity—Christ's Resurrection, don't forget, ALSO has remarkably low initial plausibility—but it's trying to use genuine original Christianity to catapult themselves to the front of the line, as far as which organization and tradition is the actual Church in the Bible—which is Jesus's Church, iow—and that's just ridiculous; mainly because its origin story begins in the 1800s—there's no possibility this is Jesus's Church, just based on the timeline—by contrast there's a possibility JWs legitimately are descendants of the original Arians—although I doubt it, since they reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is contrary to what the original Arians believed.)

So I guess what I'm saying is that it's more His faithfulness that saves us.

Not exactly, as above

Maybe "is", if you're a president.

That was a partisan witch hunt, less substantive than the first one perpetrated against once and future President Trump by the Democrats.

But the Democratic party goes on the witch hunt, and then when their victim acts like he's being unfairly targeted, which he is being, then they charge him with obstructing justice! That part is absolutely retarded, and makes the prolonged Democratic party witch hunt against President Trump completely, clearly, as judged by a jury of our peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, PETTY and SMALL.

And it is the actual path that any surprise autocrat would need to gain access to the reins, or we might call it, the Button, nowadays. It'd be because Congress goes on a witch hunt and when you try to defend yourself against it? Then they charge you with obstructing justice, and when you fight that, you get charged with maybe treason next. And it's all while the Supreme Court watches helplessly from the sidelines because they're constitutionally prevented from intervening. And if the President at the time, doesn't do something to intervene, and idk what he could even do about it if he did care, but if he didn't care, then whoever Congress targeted would be imprisoned if not put to death. And nobody could stop it. Trump couldn't stop Congress impeaching him, and neither could Clinton. It's a nuclear bomb sized power that Congress is given—did you know, that if Congress so chose, they could literally impeach each individual member of the Supreme Court?—or just pick and choose, but they're not limited to just one at a time. Nothing could stop them if they got it into their head to impeach all the liberal justices, or all the conservative justices; nothing.

That's where democracy dies, contra anything that anybody else is saying about somehow Trump is going to ascend to autocrat, that's not happening, not when Congress is the autocrat. There's already an autocrat, and it's Congress, and the diabolic Congress during Trump's first term, Democratic party majority starting in mid-term, impeached him on trumped up charges, and then impeached him again but this time in the context of their first witch hunt, meaning they're basically guilty of entrapment, it's a crime that the police or government can perpetrate against civilians, but it's not something any civilian unconnected to the government could ever commit, because of the nature of the crime, it's necessarily perpetrated in the downward direction wrt political power, greater political power commits the crime of entrapment against parties with less political power.

Both Presidents Clinton and Trump were victims of Congress's initial witch hunts against them, but only Trump was subsequently accused of obstructing justice (ironically) subsequently too.

 

[Nick M]

He wasn't just going through the motions, God saw that.

Correct. The answers are always right in the text. The real issue is people don't believe it. Or they don't want it to be true, or something. It is hard to figure out.

1Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!”

And he said, “Here I am.”

He had to test Abraham and see if he would listen to him and do as asked, which is an act of love.

12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

A covenant is an agreement between parties. A promise is one sided. Israel has a covenant to keep. We don't.

 

[Clete]

It is clear enough.

Liar.

Good bye!

 

[Derf]

With the Trinity that gets counter intuitive. It's not like Christ could not believe the Father would raise Him, or that His death would ransom many. Those weren't matters of faith for Him, because He's God, because of the Trinity.

I don't think I'm an expert on exactly what the incarnation entailed for the second person of the Trinity, but if He really became a human being, then His death must have been much like a human's death, and not just a release of His soul back to God-ness.
Here's all of the verses talking about God raising Jesus from the dead:
[Act 2:24 KJV] Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
[Act 3:15 KJV] And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
[Act 4:10 KJV] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[Act 13:30 KJV] But God raised him from the dead:
[Act 13:34 KJV] And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
[Act 17:31 KJV] Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.
[Rom 4:24 KJV] But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
[Rom 6:4 KJV] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[Rom 8:11 KJV] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
[Rom 10:9 KJV] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
[1Co 15:15 KJV] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
[Gal 1:1 KJV] Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
[Eph 1:20 KJV] Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
[Col 2:12 KJV] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
[1Th 1:10 KJV] And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
[1Pe 1:21 KJV] Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Here are all the verses where the apostles/writers of the New Testament books said Jesus raised Himself from the dead:
<crickets>
The closest is this from Jesus:
[Jhn 10:17 KJV] Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
[Jhn 10:18 KJV] No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

But isn't it odd that none of the apostles ever said Jesus raised Himself from the dead??

I know this is something an Arian would argue is reading my theology into the text, eisegesis. But Trinitarians let it go without comment because the only people questioning this sort of thing are Arians (iow JWs).

And me. I question it, based on trying to understand what "death" entails. If death means that we are not able to do anything and our bodies are no longer functioning, such that "we" (not just our bodies but we, like Adam) are returning to dust, then wasn't Jesus experiencing the same thing when He died (except that He wasn't in the grave long enough to return to dust)??

 

[Clete]

This is from the late Bob Hill. His website was taken down by his son, from what I read here, after his passing. There is another one that specifically goes into the grammar. Which he in part repeats here. Aposticia is used in the NT a few times. They departed (apostasy) one place and went to another.

Honestly, maybe I have the late Pastor Hill on a bit too high of a pedestal, but that man had forgotten more about the bible and about the original languages than I'd ever learn in a hundred lifetimes. I take his word as gospel on such matters. You simply could not have cited a better source if the goal was to convince me.

From this point on, someone will have to refute his argument for me to adopt any view that disagrees with what he stated.

 

[Clete]

I know of no issue concerning death or the bible's teaching thereof that is not solved or rendered moot by simply accepting death as a spiritual separation, either from your body (physical death) or from God (spiritual death) or both.

​

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead,...​

​

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,​

​

I'm short on time and so I'm going to just copy/paste the following from ChatGPT. I've made no attempt to verify but also have no reason to doubt any of the following....



The teaching that death is a form of separation—whether physical, spiritual, or eternal—has roots that trace back to early Christian theology and even into Jewish thought. Here’s an overview:

Jewish Roots​

• The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) often describe death in relational and spiritual terms. For example:
  • Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." This verse is commonly interpreted to refer to spiritual death (separation from God) as Adam and Eve were banished from God’s presence after their sin (Genesis 3:22-24).
  • Ecclesiastes 12:7: "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." This reflects the idea of physical death as the separation of body and spirit.

Early Christian Writings​

• New Testament: The concept is explicitly articulated by the apostles.
  • Romans 5:12: Paul links sin to death entering the world, which is often understood as encompassing both spiritual and physical death.
  • Ephesians 2:1-5: Paul describes believers as having been "dead in trespasses and sins" (spiritual death) before being made alive in Christ.
• Church Fathers: Early Christian theologians like Augustine (4th–5th century) elaborated on these ideas.
  • Augustine taught that physical death resulted from Adam's sin and that spiritual death was the separation from God caused by sin. His writings in The City of God emphasize both forms of separation.
  • He also discussed the "second death" as eternal separation from God, based on Revelation 20:14.

Medieval Theology​

• The teaching persisted through the Middle Ages in the works of theologians like Thomas Aquinas, who viewed physical death as the separation of the soul from the body and spiritual death as separation from God due to sin.

Reformation and Beyond​

• Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin reaffirmed this understanding, emphasizing spiritual death as humanity’s fallen state apart from Christ and eternal death as the final separation from God for the unredeemed.

Conclusion​

The concept of death as separation is deeply rooted in Christian theology and can be traced back to biblical times, gaining further clarity through early church teaching and systematic theology over the centuries. It reflects a consistent interpretation of scripture across various traditions.

 

[Lon]

Honestly, maybe I have the late Pastor Hill on a bit too high of a pedestal, but that man had forgotten more about the bible and about the original languages than I'd ever learn in a hundred lifetimes. I take his word as gospel on such matters. You simply could not have cited a better source if the goal was to convince me.

From this point on, someone will have to refute his argument for me to adopt any view that disagrees with what he stated.

No, not too high. It is well researched, well written.

 

[Nick M]

From this point on, someone will have to refute his argument for me to adopt any view that disagrees with what he stated.

You can also watch the video called "Departure or Apostacy" by Paul Felter. His channel conveniently is called Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. I pasted it here.

 

[Right Divider]

You can also watch the video called "Departure or Apostacy" by Paul Felter. His channel conveniently is called Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. I pasted it here.

Dr. Felter also has a website: https://breadoflife.media/about/

 

[Clete]

No, not too high. It is well researched, well written.

I only say "too high" because I just generally feel like it's bad form to take someone's word for it and for me, all it takes is for anything about the Greek language to be coming from him and I'm 1000% convinced by virtue of the fact that he's the one who said it.

I supposed that I am not really doing so, though. He demonstrated a long history of truly over the top expertise in the area of biblical languages and it is that long established reputation that lends his opinion so much weight.

 

[Idolater]

I don't think I'm an expert on exactly what the incarnation entailed for the second person of the Trinity, but if He really became a human being, then His death must have been much like a human's death, and not just a release of His soul back to God-ness.

We would say His soul IS His divinity. He is not partite in His essence. Surely He like us is one simple, indivisible essence. (Which is why we're not Nestorians, we can just simply say Mary is His mom simpliciter.)

Here's all of the verses talking about God raising Jesus from the dead:
[Act 2:24 KJV] Whom God hath raised up ... [Act 3:15 KJV] ... whom God hath raised from the dead ... [Act 4:10 KJV] ... whom God raised from the dead ... [Act 13:30 KJV] But God raised him from the dead: [Act 13:34 KJV] ... he raised him up from the dead ... [Act 17:31 KJV] ... he hath raised him from the dead. [Rom 4:24 KJV] ... him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; [Rom 6:4 KJV] ... Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father ... [Rom 8:11 KJV] ... him that raised up Jesus from the dead ... [Rom 10:9 KJV] ... God hath raised him from the dead ... [1Co 15:15 KJV] ... he raised up Christ ... [Gal 1:1 KJV] ... God the Father, who raised him from the dead; ) [Eph 1:20 KJV] ... he raised him from the dead ... [Col 2:12 KJV] ... God, who hath raised him from the dead. [1Th 1:10 KJV] ... whom he raised from the dead ... [1Pe 1:21 KJV] ... God, that raised him up from the dead ...

Yes.

Here are all the verses where the apostles/writers of the New Testament books said Jesus raised Himself from the dead:
<crickets>
The closest is this from Jesus:
[Jhn 10:17 KJV] Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
[Jhn 10:18 KJV] No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

$$ Joh 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
$$ Joh 2:20
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
$$ Joh 2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body.

But isn't it odd that none of the apostles ever said Jesus raised Himself from the dead??

Your argument here is that under the theory that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, it's surprising how many Scriptures say that He was passively raised, rather than that He raised himself, intransitively. But there are Scriptures (above) which are consistent with the idea that He indeed raised Himself.

And me. I question it, based on trying to understand what "death" entails. If death means that we are not able to do anything and our bodies are no longer functioning, such that "we" (not just our bodies but we, like Adam) are returning to dust, then wasn't Jesus experiencing the same thing when He died (except that He wasn't in the grave long enough to return to dust)??

“ Suppose there are many Scriptures which indicate a distinction between the Father and Jesus.

“ Suppose there are many Scriptures which indicate some sort of equality between the Father and Jesus.

“ Only under Trinitarianism are both of these sets of Scriptures unsurprising. ”

What is your take on this? I think that if you start from trying to understand His death better, that it's much harder to worm your way toward Trinitarianism. I think you're just stuck in a ditch.

A possible defeater for the Trinity even based on the above, is Which Trinity? Modalism is defeated by the above, but what about Nestorian Trinitarianism, or Monophysitism?

Fortunately the first seven ecumenical Church councils save the day, and generate propositions consonant with what the Scripture and all the Apostles taught. They didn't generate words which are in the Bible, they generated words which are consonant with the Bible.

This is cosigned by most if not all Evangelical mainstreamers. So that's basically >90% of Christians. Maybe 99%.

It's not an appeal to popularity, I'm saying it's unsurprising that c. 99% of Christians all agree on the first seven ecumenical Church councils if Apostolicity is ontic. If it's not ontic, then that is surprising.

 

[Idolater]

Correct. The answers are always right in the text. The real issue is people don't believe it. Or they don't want it to be true, or something. It is hard to figure out.

1Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!”

And he said, “Here I am.”

He had to test Abraham and see if he would listen to him and do as asked, which is an act of love.

12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

A covenant is an agreement between parties. A promise is one sided. Israel has a covenant to keep. We don't.

We don't if we don't promise. That, I agree with. If we do promise, then we made a promise, and we should keep it. Like a marriage vow. Very much like a marriage vow.

 

[Idolater]

... big anti-Catholic bomb ...

48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

I mean it's rhetoric, right? Clearly. As clearly as you all Evangelicals read the words of consecration as metaphor, this is rhetoric. It's a genre of Scripture, like poetry and narrative and laws and proverbs. It's rhetoric. Hyperbole is a rhetorical device, for example.

c. "If you do the will of My Father in Heaven, you are My brother and sister and mother."

Rhetoric doesn't change the fact. It's an attempt to persuade. And it also is going to be in a sense which isn't the same as how Mary is His mom. He's not saying, you will become His mom. He's not saying you'll literally become Mary. I mean that's as obv as how you all Evangelicals say the bread and wine do not literally become His body, blood, soul and divinity.