May I ask...

[way 2 go]

And your point is?

faith alone
(Ephesians 2:8-10) [8] For by grace are all of you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.
no , you're wrong

What about this verse do you think speaks against what I wrote?

Do you really think just quoting a scripture without any explanation is going to be effective? As if I never saw that scripture before? As if nobody who disagrees with your view ever saw it before?

faith alone.
(Romans 4:3) For what says the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

 

[Derf]

What?

Regardless of the content, you could be convinced that it was compatible with scripture?



I don't know if I would agree with any of those descriptions.

But I think those descriptions are accurate. Why don't you agree?

For instance, if Paul called preachers of other so-called gospels anathema (accursed), Gal 1:8, and the gospel of the kingdom is another gospel, which is a tenet of MAD, what is there to disagree about?

 

[Hoping]

Presenting the scriptures IS presenting the narrative.

Scripture is made to fit the narrative assigned to it by the reader.
Where the reader gets his understanding of scripture is a wide road.
How many narratives do you suppose there are regarding water baptism?
Or gifts of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Hoping]

What?

Regardless of the content, you could be convinced that it was compatible with scripture?

I was raised as a catholic and believed what they told me from scripture.
As I grew older, however, my reasons for seeking life in the scriptures forced me to disregard things I had previously held sacred.
Like worship of Mary.

I think folks see a narrative that fits their assumptions.
Or, perhaps, their hopes.

 

[Derf]

faith alone
(Ephesians 2:8-10) [8] For by grace are all of you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.
no , you're wrong

But faith is not alone. No able Christian should sit on the couch all day long "just" believing in Christ, asking others to provide for him.

No evangelist should just wait at home believing God has saved him and others, but should actually tell others of Christ and the resurrection.

No preacher should ascend the pulpit and forbear to speak.

faith alone.
(Romans 4:3) For what says the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

And James quotes the same passage, showing that Abraham's faith was backed up by his deeds. When both Paul and James talk about works, why would you ignore all of James and some of Paul and preach "no works"?

The question is, "what is the result if what?"
The result of faith, in this context (both Paul and James) is salvation...and works!

Salvation is not the result of works, but works is the result of salvation, according to James and Paul.

 

[Hoping]

how do you get that from those 3 verses , answer you don't
you have an illegitimate transfer of meaning of the word "works"
every time you see works you interpret not by context but by... feelings ?

I printed out a 5 or 6 item list of Paul's mentions of "works of the Law" in post 44....

1. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:27-28)
2. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; (Romans 9:32)
3. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)
4. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? {Galatians 3:2)
5. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:5)
6. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)

I don't see any mentions of other "works", except the disregarding of the OT's circumcision, dietary rules, sabbath keeping, fast keeping, tithing, etc.

Proof of conversion ?
who am I proving it to ?

Everyone who watches you.
Does a Christian ignore the needs of a child?
No, and if considering helping widows or orphans is a "work" to be refused, what happens to the widow and orphan?
Rejoice in the God given opportunities you have to manifest Christ on earth.

yes , can you

If you can, why are we having this discussion?
Paul fought against the OT's manner of salvation.
James taught that if you don't manifest Christ on earth you are not one of His. (paraphrasing)

is that you trying to back track on works salvation , a little goalpost moving
you said :
James is not talking about the Law, but about manifestations of the faith by which men are eventually saved.

Ok, true stuff.
Are not men saved by faith?

so what , his righteousness was accredited to him by faith alone.
he didn't get MORE righteous by works.

His faith was manifested by actions.
Would we be saying Abraham had faith if he had refused to offer his boy as a sacrifice?

[4] Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
[5] But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
those Laws are how the Jews stayed saved before the cross and a short time after the cross , until Paul

Those are the Mosaic Laws Paul wrote against.
Circumcision, dietary rules etc.

Peter kept the dietary laws after the cross.
(Acts 10:14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean
Paul's dispensation changed that.

I think Peter's vision changed that.

I don't fear works, is that confession through projection by you

I repeat..."If you are a Christian, serving one another should be bringing you great joy instead of the fear of "works".

I am made righteous by faith
I can't be made MORE righteous by works

You can be made unrighteous by ignoring the poor and needy, or cheat on your taxes..
You can prove/manifest your righteousness every time you volunteer at a food bank or hospital.

(Romans 4:3-5) [3] For what says the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. [4] Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. [5] But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Yep. it all happened to Abraham before the Law was enforced.
His actions determined his righteousness.
What actions?
Believing.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Scripture is made to fit the narrative assigned to it by the reader.

Uh, no.

That's not how this works. That's not how ANY of this works.

Scripture itself IS the narrative. What you're describing is called "interpretation." Mid-Acts Dispensationalism strives to do as little "interpretation" as possible, and just simply allow the narrative contained within Scripture to, quite literally, tell the story.

Where the reader gets his understanding of scripture is a wide road.

And entirely irrelevant.

Again, that's the point of MAD. It ignores interpretation in favor of what Scripture ACTUALLY SAYS.

How many narratives do you suppose there are regarding water baptism?

There is one narrative. It's called the Bible.

Plenty of different interpretations, though.

Or gifts of the Holy Spirit?

Supra.

But faith is not alone. No able Christian should sit on the couch all day long "just" believing in Christ, asking others to provide for him.

No evangelist should just wait at home believing God has saved him and others, but should actually tell others of Christ and the resurrection.

No preacher should ascend the pulpit and forbear to speak.

Salvation is not the result of works, but works is the result of salvation, according to James and Paul.

From what I can tell, the problem you're facing is that you're conflating topics here.

We're not saying Christians shouldn't do good works.

We're not saying that Paul said works were not important.

We're saying that, as far as what saves someone, Paul says one thing, and James says something else.

Paul says that, in order to be saved, only faith is required.

James says that, in order to achieve salvation, one do good works, in addition to having faith.

Can you see that qualifier?

Can you not see the difference between Paul's Romans 10:9-13, and James' James 2:14-26?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are not men saved by faith?

James seems to think not.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. - James 2:14-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James2:14-26&version=NKJV

 

[Derf]

From what I can tell, the problem you're facing is that you're conflating topics here.

We're not saying Christians shouldn't do good works.

We're not saying that Paul said works were not important.

We're saying that, as far as what saves someone, Paul says one thing, and James says something else.

Paul says that, in order to be saved, only faith is required.

James says that, in order to achieve salvation, one do good works, in addition to having faith.

Where does James say that? If you say James 2:14, then you're mistaken. James is making the point that a faith that has no evidence is not faith at all. Notice my addition of the indefinite article "a" before "faith"? It's because I haven't introduced the faith subject prior to that. If I had, I would say something like what James said:
δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν
The bolded word is the Greek "ho", which is a definite article. That means "the faith I've been talking about," not just some general idea about faith. KJV ignores the definite article, but some other translations render it like this:
James 2:14 ESV — What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

In other words, James is saying that you can claim to have faith til you're blue in the face, but unless the faith is producing some kind of works, it's not a saving faith. From your post, it seems like you agree with this idea from James.

Can you see that qualifier?

Can you not see the difference between Paul's Romans 10:9-13, and James' James 2:14-26?

Yes, I can see a difference. Paul is talking about how to get saved, but James is talking about what happens after you get saved, if you are truly saved at all. In other words, if you listen to Paul until he gets to the saved-by-faith part, but then stop listening when he says "unto good works", you should question your salvation.

They are definitely not talking about two different ways to be saved. Surely you would agree that works can't save the Jew any more than they can save the gentile.
Romans 9:31-32 KJV — But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

If Paul agreed with you, then He wouldn't rebuke the Jews for seeking salvation by works of the law, but rebuke he does.

 

[Jefferson]

Scripture is made to fit the narrative assigned to it by the reader.
Where the reader gets his understanding of scripture is a wide road.

What verse of scripture says this?

 

[Stripe]

But I think those descriptions are accurate. Why don't you agree?

For instance, if Paul called preachers of other so-called gospels anathema (accursed), Gal 1:8, and the gospel of the kingdom is another gospel, which is a tenet of MAD, what is there to disagree about?

OK. No. 1 I have the least problems with. Lol.

 

[Stripe]

I was raised as a catholic and believed what they told me from scripture.
As I grew older, however, my reasons for seeking life in the scriptures forced me to disregard things I had previously held sacred.
Like worship of Mary.

I think folks see a narrative that fits their assumptions.
Or, perhaps, their hopes.

Yeah, the narrative has to make sense.

You are not justified in equating every one of them or not rejecting those that are obviously not true.

 

[Hoping]

James seems to think not.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. - James 2:14-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James2:14-26&version=NKJV

Dead faith can't save.
Live faith can save.

 

[Hoping]

Yeah, the narrative has to make sense.

You are not justified in equating every one of them

Equating them to what?

or not rejecting those that are obviously not true.

Propaganda will sometimes usurp truth.
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao made a pretty good living at that.
Men have to know what truth is in order to adhere to it.

 

[Stripe]

Equating them to what?

Each other.

Propaganda will sometimes usurp truth.
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao made a pretty good living at that.
Men have to know what truth is in order to adhere to it.

Yeah. You can open the book and read it for yourself.

 

[Idolater]

Scripture is made to fit the narrative assigned to it by the reader.

I was raised as a catholic and believed what they told me from scripture.

When did you actually read the whole Bible though, Hope? Was it while you were Catholic, or "after?"

As I grew older, however, my reasons for seeking life in the scriptures forced me to disregard things I had previously held sacred.
Like worship of Mary.

We don't worship the Mother; we love the Mother.

I think folks see a narrative that fits their assumptions.

Agreed. Assumptions, presuppositions, tomato-tomahto. You really can only hold assumptions which are proven to be true, otherwise they are just assumptions and opinions, not facts. And they're certainly not self-evident, you have to prove them (show them, demonstrate them). Only the most basic things can be assumed without evidence proving them to be true. Elementary things, things that make up the universe and our thoughts.

Or, perhaps, their hopes.

Where the reader gets his understanding of scripture is a wide road.

What if they get it from their hopes, Hope? Is that still a wide road? or is it in your view necessarily the right road?

How many narratives do you suppose there are regarding water baptism?
Or gifts of the Holy Spirit?

There's one true, correct narrative, it's the Apostolic narrative, the one narrative which all the Apostles preached, while they were here on Earth amongst us. It's why we're all one faith (Ephesians 4:5). That's a really narrow road, contrasted with what you said above, "Where the reader gets his understanding of Scripture is a wide road."

There's one road which is Apostolic, it's got one lane, it's not a 10-lane divided highway, it's just one lane.

People really don't like this concept.

But facts are facts. When the Apostles had been 'at it' for many years (iow well after James son of Zebedee had been executed), they were all teaching and preaching and spreading the message as a team, they all agreed with each other, we have proof of the few times there were disputes, but all the rest of the time there isn't any corroboration about constant bickering and fighting. They were all in lockstep.

Whatever that lockstep is, is the actual, one Christian faith. Right? that's just a fact.

 

[Idolater]

@Hoping

There's one true, correct narrative, it's the Apostolic narrative, the one narrative which all the Apostles preached, while they were here on Earth amongst us. ...

Right? You agree with this, right Hope?

I'm assuming you agree with this, but I realized, I don't have any proof. I'm asking you for proof. Will you give me the proof I need, in order to establish this assumption of mine?

And assuming you will provide this to me, I'm going to continue my thought. Because there's just one Apostolic narrative, therefore the New Testament is in agreement with that one narrative. The New Testament corroborates that one narrative. It might not clearly specify it, spell it out, or set it out, not in every case, in fine detail. But it agrees with it, it doesn't conflict with it, so any narrative which conflicts with the Scripture is of course, cannot be, impossible, that it's the Apostolic narrative, which is the only narrative which is the actual, true, historic Christian faith.

This assumes you agree with the above. (No Dispensationalist agrees with the above, so I'm not talking to them, I'm talking to you, Hoping.)

 

[Derf]

there's just one Apostolic narrative, therefore the New Testament is in agreement with that one narrative. The New Testament corroborates that one narrative. It might not clearly specify it, spell it out, or set it out, not in every case, in fine detail. But it agrees with it, it doesn't conflict with it, so any narrative which conflicts with the Scripture is of course, cannot be, impossible, that it's the Apostolic narrative, which is the only narrative which is the actual, true, historic Christian faith.

The New Testament provides us the Apostolic narrative. It's the only trustworthy source. As such, you have your authority sources flipped. Since the apostles are no longer with us, the narrative they left behind is the remaining source. Calling something "the actual, true, historic Christian faith" puts your faith cart before the evidence horse.

No Dispensationalist agrees with the above

I don't think you are correct here, based upon my comment above.

 

[Idolater]

The New Testament provides us the Apostolic narrative. It's the only trustworthy source. As such, you have your authority sources flipped. Since the apostles are no longer with us, the narrative they left behind is the remaining source. Calling something "the actual, true, historic Christian faith" puts your faith cart before the evidence horse.

But that is your assumption, presupposition, preconception, opinion, view. And you're presenting it as declaratory. Fact is how I worded my post is universally true for all parties, who are not Dispensationalists in some sense. We all agree to just one Apostolic narrative. Your point about what exactly that narrative is, is besides my point.

I don't think you are correct here, based upon my comment above.

They believe there's two distinct Apostolic narratives, and that Paul's content reflects and corroborates just Paul's narrative, and that the other NT books express and demonstrate a separate Apostolic narrative. There are two Apostolic (and genuinely Apostolic, there is no disrespect intended on the part of Dispensationalists here, they aver that both are genuine and true, they are just not the same) narratives, two gospels, if you will.

 

[Derf]

But that is your assumption, presupposition, preconception, opinion, view. And you're presenting it as declaratory. Fact is how I worded my post is universally true for all parties, who are not Dispensationalists in some sense. We all agree to just one Apostolic narrative. Your point about what exactly that narrative is, is besides my point.

They believe there's two distinct Apostolic narratives, and that Paul's content reflects and corroborates just Paul's narrative, and that the other NT books express and demonstrate a separate Apostolic narrative. There are two Apostolic (and genuinely Apostolic, there is no disrespect intended on the part of Dispensationalists here, they aver that both are genuine and true, they are just not the same) narratives, two gospels, if you will.

"They" being MADs, perhaps, but not all dispensationalists. MADs are a subset of all dispensationalists.