Why We Are Justified by Faith Alone

[Ben Masada]

Why We Are Justified by Faith Alone!

We aren't. Faith alone justifies none. Faith without obedience to the Law is no different from a body without the breath of life. Dead if you know what James meant. (James 2:26) Jesus himself said that justification comes only from listening to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You say we're justified by faith alone but when I read the examples of what judgment will look like in the bible, it comes down to our deeds like in this example.
Rom. 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Here Paul is saying that if a man continues in well doing and does not sin then he will earn eternal life. But Paul makes it plain that no one earns eternal life by law keeping:

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Ro.3:19-20).​

You have yet to learn the following principle and because of that I seriously doubt if you even understand the gospel of grace:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:5).​

Somehow you have been deceived into believing that a man's faith is not counted for righteousness.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So is believing a good work?

Here Paul contrasts "faith" with "works" and he certainly did not believe that believing is a work:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:5).​

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Unfortunately Romanists would distinguish justification as initial and progressive. It is a distinction without a difference when considering the meaning of the word "justification". Adding adjectives, "initial" or "progressive" to modify the word is a sure signal that something amiss is afoot. Rome is simply using flowery adjectives to deny one cannot lose one's re-birth (regeneration) in Christ.

Thanks be to all of us that God is not double-minded. When God imputes the condignly meritorious righteousness of the active and passive obedience of Our Lord's works to those who call upon His name it is clear justification is a punctiliar declaration of God.

Would that Romanists and others aligned with them reject any notion that we have either congruent or condign merit. Christ’s obedience is perfect. His merit, His obedience, is active and suffering righteousness (i.e., His whole obedience) is imputed to us. The ground of our acceptance with God as righteousness is wholly outside of us. In other words, ours is an alien righteousness.

Beloved, give praise that God rejects congruent merit and any notion that would imply God grades on a curve. Rather rejoice that it is our consolation that we may be assured that our righteousness does not depend upon our works, for if this were the case we should lose it thousands of times, but rather our righteousness is upon the sacrifice and merit of Christ alone.

AMR

 

[glassjester]

Here Paul contrasts "faith" with "works" and he certainly did not believe that believing is a work:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:5).​

But works are necessary, still. Don't ignore the rest of the epistle. Specifically, Romans 2:6-7.

Pertaining to Romans 4:5,
"Counted for righteousness," in no way translates to "and nothing else at all is needed for justification."

 

[jamie]

We are called to live by Spirit and not laws, rules or religion.

This is why Paul wrote, "The letter (law) kills, but the Spirit gives life" 2 Corinthians 3:6.

The letter of the law kills if you violate it.

You are subject to God's law whether you believe in it or not, the law doesn't care.

Saying you are not subject to God's law is like a suicide bomber claiming to be invincible.

:nuke:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But works are necessary, still.

No, Paul made it plain that one's faith is counted for righteousness. Why do you refuse to believe him?

Don't ignore the rest of the epistle. Specifically, Romans 2:6-7.

Yes, if a person continues in well doing and never sins then he will earn eternal life. But Paul makes it plain that no one eternal life by trying to keep the works or deeds of the law:

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Ro.3:28).​

Pertaining to Romans 4:5,
"Counted for righteousness," in no way translates to "and nothing else at all is needed for justification."

One's faith either counts for righteousness or it doesn't. There is no middle ground. Paul says that it does and you say that it doesn't.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The letter of the law kills if you violate it.

You are subject to God's law whether you believe in it or not, the law doesn't care.

Saying you are not subject to God's law is like a suicide bomber claiming to be invincible.

:nuke:

Yes, but if you break just one part of the law you are guilty of all:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Heb.2:10).​

Being guilty of all will not save anyone.

 

[turbosixx]

That is a common self-delusional belief. You READ the scriptures, then your brain interprets what they mean. In fact, it is your personal interpretation of scriptures that you are believing in, not the scriptures themselves.

I hear what you're saying. I see all these divisions and each one can convincingly support their version of "truth" with scripture. They all can't be right. I believe we need to be honest with ourselves if we are to truly see the truth of God's word. What I see is a verse or a passage is given too much weight and it creates a divergence from the truth. In stead, we should consider all passages in the light of others to make sure there is harmony.

That is why the protestant world is dividing into hundreds of denominations teaching conflicting doctrines, all saying the same thing that you do.

I would not be so quick to cast stones. A good example of making more out of a verse when the rest of the scriptures say otherwise would be saying Matt. 16:18 makes Peter the head of the church. There are no other scriptures that support this claim so this verse must stand on it's own. In fact, I would suggest there are scriptures that make it clear Peter is not fit to be head.

Peter is just a man and an imperfect one at that. Right after that passage Jesus calls Peter Satan. Would he make Satan head of his church? In Gal. 2 Paul condemned Peter to his face because he was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel Would Jesus put this kind of man in charge?

There are several scriptures that refer to Jesus as the rock. Here is one.
1 Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

Also if we look at the Greek word used for rock, the rock is clearly not Peter because it's feminine not masculine. Peter is always masculine. Why would it not be in this case? The above verse calling Christ the rock is a feminine as are the others that call Christ the rock.

There is a verse that talks about what the church is built upon but it doesn't say Peter, it says apostles, plural. If Peter was the rock shouldn't it at least separate Peter?
Eph. 2:19...and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

 

[turbosixx]

Jesus taught the law to show us that we don't measure up to God's standards. Example: "Be perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect"

I agree. The old law was to show man he needed a Savior.

Our works are tainted with sin and pride, this is why God does not accept the works of sinners.

Are those in Christ sinners or have we been cleansed by his blood?

God does accept them because they are pleasing to Him and He expects them.
Phil. 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Abraham was justified by faith alone, Romans 4:1-5.

You added "alone". Also, does this verse trump the one in James?

You're missing Paul's point.

 

[turbosixx]

Here Paul is saying that if a man continues in well doing and does not sin then he will earn eternal life. But Paul makes it plain that no one earns eternal life by law keeping:

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Ro.3:19-20).​

You have yet to learn the following principle and because of that I seriously doubt if you even understand the gospel of grace:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:5).​

Somehow you have been deceived into believing that a man's faith is not counted for righteousness.

Paul is talking about the old law in Romans. The old law can save no one, that's why Christ had to die.

Gal. 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

 

[glassjester]

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Ro.3:28).​

I agree. The deeds of the law do not justify. You cannot possibly believe that every deed is a deed of the law.

Paul was refuting the claim of the Judaizers who insisted that the Mosaic law had to still be followed, specifically circumcision. I am sure you have read the entire epistle, but you seem to be taking Paul's words out of context - both Scriptural and historical.

One's faith either counts for righteousness or it doesn't.

Yes, it counts for righteousness. But Paul does not say faith is all that counts for righteousness. In fact, James 2:24 specifically states that we are justified by works as well.

In fact, nowhere in Scripture will you find that we are justified only by faith. It simply is not there.

 

[glassjester]

There's also the severely overlooked fact that the word "faith" as it is used by present day Protestants, is not necessarily the same way it was used, historically.

Consider the two connotations of the word, presently.
1. Faith, as in "belief." Peter lacked faith, when he fell into the water.
2. Faith, as in "loyalty." A good husband is faithful, in this sense. A good dog is faithful in this sense, too.

Which type of faith is Paul referring to, in Romans?

 

[jamie]

Yes, but if you break just one part of the law you are guilty of all:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Heb.2:10).​

Being guilty of all will not save anyone.

Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive his brother.

Jesus died so that we could be forgiven of sin, all sin, even if we broke every aspect of the law. If our repentance is sincere we can be forgiven of any number of sins. Forgiveness is not a one shot deal.

 

[Robert Pate]

Unfortunately Romanists would distinguish justification as initial and progressive. It is a distinction without a difference when considering the meaning of the word "justification". Adding adjectives, "initial" or "progressive" to modify the word is a sure signal that something amiss is afoot. Rome is simply using flowery adjectives to deny one cannot lose one's re-birth (regeneration) in Christ.

Thanks be to all of us that God is not double-minded. When God imputes the condignly meritorious righteousness of the active and passive obedience of Our Lord's works to those who call upon His name it is clear justification is a punctiliar declaration of God.

Would that Romanists and others aligned with them reject any notion that we have either congruent or condign merit. Christ’s obedience is perfect. His merit, His obedience, is active and suffering righteousness (i.e., His whole obedience) is imputed to us. The ground of our acceptance with God as righteousness is wholly outside of us. In other words, ours is an alien righteousness.

Beloved, give praise that God rejects congruent merit and any notion that would imply God grades on a curve. Rather rejoice that it is our consolation that we may be assured that our righteousness does not depend upon our works, for if this were the case we should lose it thousands of times, but rather our righteousness is upon the sacrifice and merit of Christ alone.

AMR

Nothing is ours if it is not received by faith, John 1:12. If God imposed salvation upon us then faith is not a requisite for our salvation.

 

[beloved57]

Nothing is ours if it is not received by faith, John 1:12. If God imposed salvation upon us then faith is not a requisite for our salvation.

False statements. Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies by His Death Rom 5:10

 

[KingdomRose]

Unfortunately Romanists would distinguish justification as initial and progressive. It is a distinction without a difference when considering the meaning of the word "justification". Adding adjectives, "initial" or "progressive" to modify the word is a sure signal that something amiss is afoot. Rome is simply using flowery adjectives to deny one cannot lose one's re-birth (regeneration) in Christ.

Thanks be to all of us that God is not double-minded. When God imputes the condignly meritorious righteousness of the active and passive obedience of Our Lord's works to those who call upon His name it is clear justification is a punctiliar declaration of God.

Would that Romanists and others aligned with them reject any notion that we have either congruent or condign merit. Christ’s obedience is perfect. His merit, His obedience, is active and suffering righteousness (i.e., His whole obedience) is imputed to us. The ground of our acceptance with God as righteousness is wholly outside of us. In other words, ours is an alien righteousness.

Beloved, give praise that God rejects congruent merit and any notion that would imply God grades on a curve. Rather rejoice that it is our consolation that we may be assured that our righteousness does not depend upon our works, for if this were the case we should lose it thousands of times, but rather our righteousness is upon the sacrifice and merit of Christ alone.

AMR

Sorry, Mr.Religion, but you leave out half of what the Bible teaches. It is true that we cannot earn our way to eternal life without accepting Jesus' sacrifice. But after we believe, Jesus clearly taught that we must do the will of the Father (Matthew 7:21) He told his disciples, "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your fine WORKS and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens." (Matt.5:16, emphasis mine) Everything in his Sermon on the Mount was teaching us what to DO. Do you disagree?

 

[Robert Pate]

I agree. The old law was to show man he needed a Savior.



Are those in Christ sinners or have we been cleansed by his blood?

God does accept them because they are pleasing to Him and He expects them.
Phil. 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.



You added "alone". Also, does this verse trump the one in James?

You're missing Paul's point.

James was a Judaizer. A Judizer is one that believes in Jesus but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses. See Acts 15:1-21, also, Galatians 2:11-14.

 

[jamie]

James was a Judaizer.

So was his brother.

 

[Robert Pate]

So was his brother.

There were lots of Judaizers in the early church. Paul was continually contending with them. There are a lot of Judaizers on the Forum.