G
guanophore
Guest
Right, yes, thank you Sean!
- Status
S
SyCarl
Guest
Could you tell me which Greek version includes “ergois agathois”? I have been unable to find it. I think that James and Paul are talking about the same type of works. Earlier in James 2 he is talking about one who keeps the whole law but stumbles in one point is guilty of all.
I believe that the difference between Paul and James is who the person is being justified before. In Romans 4:2 Paul tells us that Abraham was not justified before God by works. James says that Abraham was justified by works but doesn’t say to whom he is justified. Since Paul already tells us it was not God, James must be speaking about being justified in the eyes of other men. In other words, works show other men that we have the faith we claim. They are evidence.
G
guanophore
Guest
I wondered where that strange conclusion came from! I can see it now. No, Both are talking about being rightly related to God. The alternative you suggest here is invalid because Abraham was careful to make sure he left all the men behind when he went up to the mountain with Isaac. They had no way of knowing what he was called to do, or what happened up there.
Besides, Christ is very clear about His opinion of man’s efforts to justify himself in front of other men.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I don’t believe the fact that Abraham was alone matters since his deed is recorded to show us his faith. It is true that we are not to work to be praised by other men but Jesus also says we are to shine for others.
James is talking about someone who says they have faith. He says I will show you my faith by works, show me your faith without works. He is talking about proving to men.
The church fathers struggled with the apparent conflict between Paul and James. I am not on my home computer right now and cannot give quotes right now, but a number of them adopted the solution I put forward.
It should be noted that with respect to Abraham, Paul cannot be talking about works of the law since it was not given until much later.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, we don’t know if Abraham ever talked about this during his lifetime. For all we know, the story was passed on by Isaac, who was the only other person present. Abraham had no interest in being justified before men. In fact, had this tale been known, many of them would have thought he was off his nut!
What shines is the light placed in the believer by faith, after he is justified toward God. The fruit emanates from the justified state. What also does not hold together in this formulation is that Christians were killed for their faith. They took great pains to become justified before God in secret. Hidden baptsimal fonts, praying in the catacombs, sneaking from house to house so as not to be martyred pre-maturely. They were not interested in justifying themselves before men.
What is visible is the righteous deeds of a person who has already been justified toward God.
I don’t doubt. Throughout recorded history, men have been adopting points of view that are not consistent with divine revelation.
Yes, I agree. Abraham’s faith was tested by God, and he was obedient. It is only an obedient faith that saves.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
What is the purpose of this question?
In post 705 you stated that you do not believe a person is saved “by faith alone”. Why ask someone if they agree with your postion if you’ve already stated that you don’t believe it yourself?
If “faith alone” does not save then what is the purpose of the word “alone”. How does the addition benefit anyone. Salvation is the goal, if faith alone doesn’t save, then what purpose does the word alone have. How does it benefit anyone? Why is it important in the big picture?
S
sandusky
Guest
Catholic Dude:
Your argumentation is simply this: you cite a text, or text(s), and then state, “the only way the text(s) make any sense is my way.”
Not very convincing, Dude.
Catholic Dude:
What’s not taught in scripture, is “infusion” of grace, or “infusion” of righteousness. You have yet to demonstrate that either grace, or righteousness are substances that are “infused.”
Catholic Dude:
I say again, the “pouring out” of God’s love is a figure of speech. Neither God’s love, nor your love is something that can be “poured out.”
This is easily proven. Go into your kitchen, right now, grab a glass, and pour one-half of a cup of your love into the glass. After you’ve done that, come back and describe to me the contents of the glass into which you’ve just poured one-half cup of your love.
Catholic Dude:
That’s not so.
The Holy Spirit is said oikeō, from the Gk oikos, a dwelling, or, in the vernacular, a house.
Therefore, the Spirit “indwells” the believer in the same way that the believer indwells his own home; the believer inhabits, and possesses his home, he is not “infused” into his home; in the same manner, neither is Spirit “infused” into the believer.
Catholic Dude:
At the very least, you yourself admit that there exists in the Greek a word (logidzomai) which is an accounting term that bears the meaning to “credit,” “account to,” “reckon,” “consider,” “impute,” and that in many cases in the NT its meaning is that of “imputation.”
Score one for imputation.
OTOH, you continue to insist that it is an “infusion” of grace and righteousness that occur at the moment of justification while failing to demonstrate that there exists in the Greek a word meaning “infuse,” and while offering no proof that either grace, or righteousness are substances capable of being infused, except to insist that the scripture passage you cite must mean an “infusion,” because to understand the passages in any other way is absurd.
Not very convincing.
From the first time I read your article I said that what you are doing is not in anyway an exegetical explanation of any of the texts you cite.
Your argumentation is simply this: you cite a text, or text(s), and then state, “the only way the text(s) make any sense is my way.”
Not very convincing, Dude.
Catholic Dude:
Imputed righteousness is taught in scripture; that’s the reason I believe it today.
What’s not taught in scripture, is “infusion” of grace, or “infusion” of righteousness. You have yet to demonstrate that either grace, or righteousness are substances that are “infused.”
Catholic Dude:
Of course you don’t see a difference, Dude; you don’t want to.
I say again, the “pouring out” of God’s love is a figure of speech. Neither God’s love, nor your love is something that can be “poured out.”
This is easily proven. Go into your kitchen, right now, grab a glass, and pour one-half of a cup of your love into the glass. After you’ve done that, come back and describe to me the contents of the glass into which you’ve just poured one-half cup of your love.
Catholic Dude:
That’s the same argument Pax tried to make, namely, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit = the infusion of grace.
That’s not so.
The Holy Spirit is said oikeō, from the Gk oikos, a dwelling, or, in the vernacular, a house.
Therefore, the Spirit “indwells” the believer in the same way that the believer indwells his own home; the believer inhabits, and possesses his home, he is not “infused” into his home; in the same manner, neither is Spirit “infused” into the believer.
Catholic Dude:
Maybe not to your satisfaction, Dude, nevertheless, the idea of imputed righteousness has been around for thousands of years, and it has been clearly articulated since the rediscovery of the gospel at the reformation.
At the very least, you yourself admit that there exists in the Greek a word (logidzomai) which is an accounting term that bears the meaning to “credit,” “account to,” “reckon,” “consider,” “impute,” and that in many cases in the NT its meaning is that of “imputation.”
Score one for imputation.
OTOH, you continue to insist that it is an “infusion” of grace and righteousness that occur at the moment of justification while failing to demonstrate that there exists in the Greek a word meaning “infuse,” and while offering no proof that either grace, or righteousness are substances capable of being infused, except to insist that the scripture passage you cite must mean an “infusion,” because to understand the passages in any other way is absurd.
Not very convincing.
S
sandusky
Guest
Spoken like a true revisionist.
The context of the passage is the charge that all men, Jews and Greeks, are under sin; therefore, there are none righteous, not even one; there are none who understands; there are none who seeks for God; all have turned aside and all are useless.
Worship is innate, and worship of God apart from His supernatural intervention is impossible; thus the Holy Spirit concludes that none seeks for God.
Only by God’s initiating the desire to seek Him—to say otherwise is to preach Pelagian.
S
sandusky
Guest
Thanks for that.
Jesus focuses on “works,” in a “system of grace,” to "obtain salvation."
That’s quite contradictory.**Romans 11:6
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works,
OTHERWISE
grace IS NO LONGER grace.**
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Is that so? :coffeeread:
I’m afraid Paul teaches us, and I’m sure G assents, that good works are necessary for our salvation provided they are done through the grace of God (Rom 2, 4-13; Gal 6, 8-9). The apostle condemns those works which are done by people who boastfully lay all the credit and merit upon themselves with no regard to God’s divine favour and empowering grace. Grace is not just a divine favour; it is also a transformative power that works in our wounded human nature with our co-operation. We cannot rely solely on ourselves to be saved by doing good works, for they can only save us by the merits of Christ’s Passion provided we open ourselves to God’s saving grace and allow Him to help transform and completely restore us to holiness ( Eph 2, 1-10). We must invite God to water that tiny mustard seed of goodness that lies dormant in our sinful wounded nature. We are not declared righteous, but made righteous. Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to our account, we gradually become more and more Christlike, aiming for perfection with the help of God’s grace and our willingness.
Thus there would be no point in doing the community service unless it could keep one out of jail. The defendant would obviously have to pay a larger fine or perhaps even receive a jail term if he refused to do the community service. His co-operation with the judge’s lenient favour does necessarily save him from receiving a harsher sentence. The defendant is not fully justified in the eyes of the state until he completes the full length of the community service after paying his fine; so it cannot be an effect of his justification. He must respond to the judge’s gracious favour and obey the court order in order to be saved from a harsher penalty. Faith initially justifies us, but our justification by grace through faith is completed by our good works. Both faith and works are necessary for our salvation. What good would the defendant’s community service do him if half way through its term the judge decided to change his mind? And what good would it serve the defendant to brag about all the nice things he had done for the elderly and under-privileged if the judge arbitrarily repealled the original lenient sentence and substituted it for the harsher one? I suggest you open your Bible and go back to the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector ( Luke 18, 9-14 ) to see what I mean about the problem of good works being an effect of our justification.
In Romans 4:4, Paul is telling us that works of debt, works done prior to faith, have no salvific value. Works that are done in faith and in a spirit of repentance do save. (Please see Romans 2:6-7, 13.) Paul is making a distinction between the works that justify and the ones that fail to justify. Any work done by man cannot merit the grace of justification, but there are works done through grace that justify by the merits of Christ’s Passion: good works and obedience to the will of God and the law of love (cf. The Council of Trent). Faith initially justifies, and it must be behind every work in order to be a work of grace, not a work of debt.
I can see where you’re coming from with your reference to James. You believe that works are an effect of justification which serve to qualify true faith as opposed to a false faith. Setting up two types of faith (true vs false) accommodates your erroneous belief that faith alone saves, provided it’s the “faith that works”. But this is a Protestant construction, for James never speaks of two types of faith in competition with each other. The evangelist draws our attention to the tension that exists between faith and works. David still had faith in God after he committed adultery with Bethsheba, or else he wouldn’t have repented. Works do not qualify faith. Meanwhile, in spite of his faith in God, he trembled just like the demons but repented, unlike them, so that he would not be condemned. His free act of repentance in faith saved him. Faith and works go together. James tells us that works must be added to faith. If one does not add works, it doesn’t mean the person has no faith, but that without the addition of works he cannot be saved. David’s eternal destiny did depend on whether he freely repented with the help of God’s grace.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
P
Pax
Guest
The real problem is that what we have presented is logical and it is clearly supported by scripture. Your entire argument against our position is based upon the few passages that speak of “imputation.” You have deliberately ignored and blown off the many passages that we have presented that can only mean that grace and justification is something more than imputed.
We have offered the whole truth of the Christian gospel as it gives recognition to both the juridical aspect of justification as well as the ontological aspect of infusion which is another way of expressing the term “new creation.”
Imputation in your definitions is not a “new creation.” Imputation is part of the answer but not the whole answer. Even when Jesus speaks in parables we can clearly see the ontological difference in the believer versus the non-believer. Jesus spoke of the vine and the branches. Those that are part of Jesus, who is the vine, are alive while those that are not branches or have been cut off wither and die. Their end is to be burned. There is an ontological difference between that which is alive and that which is dead.
Likewise, Jesus, on more than one occassion, refers to himself as the “Good Shepherd” and believers are referred to as his “sheep.” In the parable of the sheep and the goats there is a distinction made between those that are saved and those that are not. These two groups in the parable are described as ontologically separate. Some are sheep and some are goats. They are not described as good sheep and bad sheep or saved sheep and non-saved sheep by way of an imputation. They are separate animals in kind or type.
We also see this in the parable of the wheat and the tares. The wheat refers to the saved. The tares refer to the damned. The tares are not wheat. The tares are weeds. There is a difference in kind and type. This helps us see the ontological change that takes place in the believer as a “new creation.”
If you dwell only on the verses that refer to the juridical aspects/imputation you are ignoring an enormously important part of grace, justification, and salvation. IMHO, this is exactly what you have been doing throughout this discussion. We are not arguing against the concept of imputation. We are simply demonstrating that it is an incomplete description of what takes place in the believer. We have shown this over and over by scripture and logic. We simply contend that your view is incomplete. What you present has truth, but it is not the complete truth, and it is, therefore, a different gospel.
P
Pax
Guest
This is nonsense…Pelagianism is not part of the equation at all, and has no part in Catholic teaching. Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism were and still are condemned by the Catholic Church.
Likewise, you should take some time to think about Romans 3:9-12 to get a better understanding of what Paul is talking about.
In Romans 3:9-12, Paul says that all are under the power of sin. This is a reference to the “Fall” and the burden of original sin. Paul is speaking of Jews and gentiles as equal in their damaged state of inheritance, and that the Jews need grace and redemption just as much as the gentiles. All of mankind needs redemption, and man is prone to sin.
In Romans 3:9-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14:1-5. Paul makes reference to the Psalm by saying, “as it is written,” and he would not have made that remark or quoted so much of the passage word for word, if he did not intend for us to look to the psalm in order to place his own statements within the Old Testament context. The context of Psalm 14 is made clear in the first verse which states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.” Then in verse four and five the psalm reads, “Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.” Psalm 14 clearly distinguishes between the evil doers (i.e. the fool that says there is no God) and “my people”….”the generation of the righteous.”
The distinctions make it clear that some are fools and say “There is no God.” Others do not do this and they seek God. We know this because elsewhere Paul says this:
Romans 2:14-16
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
There are those that are utter fools and say that there is no God, and there are those that do not know God but seek him. We see examples of this in scripture. Cornelius, the centurion, is one of those people that did not give himself up to worshiping idols. Instead, he was searching for God. He worshipped God, but Cornelius did not know God as the Jews or Christians did. Cornelius was considered outside of the fold until he became a Christian convert, but he clearly did not fall into the category that you describe that says, “that none seeks for God.”
Paul even tells the Athenians:
"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, [Acts 17:24-27]
God created man in such a way as to seek him even after the fall of Adam. That way no one has an excuse.[see Romans 1:20]
Needless to say, men need more than that to come to know God, to be known by God, and to believe in Jesus and the gospel. Grace is the empowering gift of transformation and forgiveness that acts upon the nature of man as created by God. Pelagianism has no place in any of this discussion.
I hope this helps.
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually, Scriptures don’t “teach”. People teach. You have learned this understanding from someone else, or you have taught it to yourself. Either way, it is a construction by man of what the Scriptures mean.
Are you really going to purport that there are no realities that are not tangible? Do you think that when the Scripture speaks of washing robes in the blood Christ it means literal, an not metaphorical? How can you even infer that these spiritual realities (grace and righteousness) are “substance”?
I am interested to hear your formulation of what it “really” means!
Rom 5:5
“…hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.” Rom 5:5
Titus 3:5-7
6 This Spirit he **poured out **on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Since we are in agreement that it is not a tangible “substance”, what do you propose?
I am so stuck in my experience of the Apostolic Teaching that I am having trouble seeing this any other way. Can you help me understand how the indwelling of the HS is NOT an infusion of grace? I am sorry that I am unable to grasp this from another point of view. Here is part of my stuckness:
Phil 2:12-13
13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
It seems to me that it is the indwelling HS, infusing grace, that enables us to will and to work for God. How can it be otherwise? Do you see where I am confused?
Col 1:27
7 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
It seems that it is “Christ in you” (or me) that is the hope of glory, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his riches He has saved us. Since we are, of ourselves, incapable of pleasing God, how can it NOT be His grace in us?
Acts 15:8-9
“And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in **cleansing their hearts **by faith he has made no distinction between them and us.”
Do you think this indwelling does not “cleanse”? I mean, I know you believe that the person is declared righteous/clean. Do you not think that the heart is really made clean?
Can the HS live in a house that is devoide of cleanliness? I think this is the whole principle behind mortal sin. If we sin, we make the dwelling place of the Spirit unfit, and He leaves.
It is a fallacy that the gospel was “lost” before the reformation. I do agree, though, that there were some lost people, who seemed to find the gospel of grace at that time. Had it occurred to you that both things might be true? That righteousness is imputed AND infused?
I agree. This is definitely part of the plan of salvation. Apostolic teaching, however, is not that we are just a snow covered dung heap, but that after we are declared righteous, God’s intention is to make us, in fact, righteous, by the grace of the indwelling spirit by Whom we are transformed day by day into His image. Is this not what you consider sanctification? How do you think people are sanctified, if not by infused grace?
G
guanophore
Guest
INFUSED grace is a term used to describe in metaphorical terms how God “pours” grace into our souls or, to put it another way, “fills” us with his grace. The word “infused” denotes the idea of something being “poured into” and is seen most commonly in the Latin formula gratia infusia. This language is symbolic, of course, but it is certainly biblical. Some Protestant critics of the Catholic Church criticize the concept of infused grace as being “unbiblical,” but as the following verses show, the concept is completely biblical.
“You are the fairest of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you for ever” (Psalm 45:2).
“For the palace will be forsaken . . . until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest” (Isaiah 32:14-15).
“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18).
“And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people” (Acts 6:8).
“And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31).
“And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles” (Acts 10:45).
“When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad; and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose; for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” (Acts 11:23-24).
“And hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Romans 5:5).
“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).
“He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7)
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9412vrs.asp
P
Pax
Guest
Sandusky,
Please explain to me how anyone is empowered by grace, and thus able to do something they were unable to do before, if grace is merely imputed.
Perhaps, a few examples will help you understand my concerns:
–speaking in tongues.
–leaving a sinful life and leading a holy life.
–prohesying.
–working signs and miracles.
–loving God.
–believing in God.
–etc., etc., etc.
Grace and the Holy Spirit are not visible, but the power associated with them has spiritual and physical effects. Both can be observed. An outward imputation cannot empower and it does not include being a “new creation.”
I can be acquitted by a jury of a crime, but that does not mean that I am empowered to avoid committing crimes in the future. God’s grace empowers us and frees us from being enslaved to sin. An external imputation is an acquital for past sins, but it is not empowerment or renewal that enables man to avoid a sinful life in the future.
Peter alludes to this in saying:
“His **divine power **has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,…For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly **provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom **of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”[2 Peter 1:3-11]
Please explain to me how anyone is empowered by grace, and thus able to do something they were unable to do before, if grace is merely imputed.
Perhaps, a few examples will help you understand my concerns:
–speaking in tongues.
–leaving a sinful life and leading a holy life.
–prohesying.
–working signs and miracles.
–loving God.
–believing in God.
–etc., etc., etc.
Grace and the Holy Spirit are not visible, but the power associated with them has spiritual and physical effects. Both can be observed. An outward imputation cannot empower and it does not include being a “new creation.”
I can be acquitted by a jury of a crime, but that does not mean that I am empowered to avoid committing crimes in the future. God’s grace empowers us and frees us from being enslaved to sin. An external imputation is an acquital for past sins, but it is not empowerment or renewal that enables man to avoid a sinful life in the future.
Peter alludes to this in saying:
“His **divine power **has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,…For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly **provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom **of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”[2 Peter 1:3-11]
M
moondweller
Guest
No. I’m saying nothing is to be added to faith. It simply states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…” You guys want to add works. Yet Paul goes on to say, “…not as a result of works.”
That’s right!
This is senseless. Faith and believe are synonymous.
Salvation faith is not a “leap of faith.” That is, faith without reason, without logic, without proof. To the contrary, the Apostles were eyewitnesses of all that occurred (Acts 1:8). And we have the testimony of God’s inspired, written Word.
God does not require us to believe something illogical. Salvation faith is believing what God has said He accomplished, once for all, through the Person and work of Jesus Christ on our behalf. Unbelief refuses to accept the testimony of God regarding the work of His Son alone, and adds works. The unbeliever cannot handle, cannot tolerate pure , unadulterated divine GRACE (unmerited favor). He hates it.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God, not as a result of works…"It is the only “element” require of man. Everything else is supplied by God.
There is no salvation program for fallen angels. Nor is the content of salvation faith mere belief in the existence of God. Your reply is non sequitur.
M
moondweller
Guest
But yet you’ll never read prior to Gen. 15:6 or after Gen. 15:6 the words: “Then he (Abram) believed in the Lord; and He (God) reckoned it (his belief) to him as righteousness.” It truly was a one time event.
No it doesn’t. You read that thought into it. Can you show me anywhere in Gen. 22 where God repeats what He said to Abraham in Gen. 15:6? The faith by which God justified Abraham many years prior, James says, was working with his works. And as a result of the works James does not say Abraham’s justification increased, or was “furthered,” but that his FAITH was perfected (i.e., matured, vs. 22).
James then says in verse 23 that his willingness to offering up Isaac fulfilled the Scripture: Gen. 15:6. IOW, the faith by which God justified Abraham years prior matured (perfected) to the point that when tested he confidently and dramatically demonstrated it by acting upon it. He believed God’s word concerning his descendants (by which God justified him), that he was even willing to offer up his only son, knowing that God would raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:19).
This is what James is requiring of his readers. To act upon the faith they profess.James 2:14-18 "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that (lit. the) faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for {their} body, what use is that? Even so (a comparison drawn) faith, if it has no works, is dead, {being} by itself. But someone may {well} say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."James is drawing a line between true faith and a “said” faith. Unlike a mere “said faith,” the faith by which God justified Abraham matured and was later demonstrable. He acted upon it. But James is not at all stating here that works contribute to God saving or justifying the believer. That’s a gross misinterpretation of the passage.
Scripture is very clear on the fact that both salvation and justification are “gifted” upon belief in Christ alone: Rom. 3:24, 26, 30; Eph. 2:8-9. James speaks about faith maturing, but he does not say that about justification. He cites only one verse, one instance, where God reckoned Abraham’s faith to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6). There are no others. Nowhere in Gen. 22 does it say God reckoned Abraham righteous by his willingness to offer up Isaac. But “Abraham believed God, and IT (his faith) was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Ja. 2:23; Gen. 15:6).
M
moondweller
Guest
I know. And that statement is exactly why it makes no sense to you. And it’s the reason Pauline theology makes no sense to you.
Grace is the means by which God saves the believer: "For by grace you have been saved through faith…"In salvation the cause of divine grace (unmerited favor) is the vicarious, sacrificial death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ’s work is the reason salvation requires no work on man’s part. Which then makes it all of “grace.” If it did, grace would no longer be grace:"Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."I know, this makes no sense to you either. It’s the mystery of unbelief. And that mystery never ceases to fascinate me.
S
sandusky
Guest
**Romans 15:4
For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.**Scripture instructs; it also encourages; ISTM that you are confused, and it is you who learned your understanding from someone else.
There’s the key—scripture speaks of washed in the blood of the Lamb.
I don’t infer that, your church does in its teaching that grace, and righteousness are “infused.”
If it’s not tangible, then how do you know its “infused?”
I doubt it; however, as I said, the Spirit indwells (oikeō); and the Greek word for “infusion” is?
That’s indwelling, and scripture defines grace as “favor,” not substance.
Within even the regenerate exists the principle of evil, and the principle of sin exist (Rom 7:21, 23)—you tell me: can the Spirit dwell within a house in which resides the principle of evil and the principle of sin?
And the Greek word for “infusion” is? And grace is defined as an infusible substance where?
So it’s a term—a metaphorical term?
- Status