Faith Alone

[savedsinner]

John 6:29
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you **believe **in him whom he has sent.”

 

[guanophore]

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.

Well, I think you are assuming that your perception of what Paul is saying is the only one, whereas, the Apostolic teaching is shows a different perspective. Pauline theology is consistent entirely with Catholic teaching, but your perception of it is not. Why might that be?

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.

I just understand it differently. When I say that God gives all the grace to be saved, I am speaking of pre-venient grace, or drawing grace. Jesus said no one can come to Him unless the father draws them. Scripture tells us that God desires all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, therefore, everyone experiences the grace of the call. Not all respond. Those who respond are chosen, and gived with salvation.

It is rather judgemental of you to say “this makes no sense to you” however.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I never said that the scriptures were not essential for our instruction. They don’t “instruct” on their own.

1 Corinthians 10:11
sandusky;3803003:

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.

Everything that is written is for the benefit of our instruction, however, it was never meant to be separated from the teaching authority appointed by Christ who were commissioned to do the teaching. Once that occurs, then many and various interpretations result, some of which are not consistent with the apostolic teaching.

There’s the key—scripture speaks of washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Are you trying to say that the Scriptures do not speak about pouring?

I don’t infer that, your church does in its teaching that grace, and righteousness are “infused.”

This doesn;t make any sense. It is as if you are saying that things can only be “poured” if they are material/tangible. Scripture clearly indicates otherwise.

If it’s not tangible, then how do you know its “infused?”

By how it is described, and the effects it has. The same way we know about anything invisible.

I doubt it; however, as I said, the Spirit indwells (oikeō); and the Greek word for “infusion” is?

Infusion is the term that is used to describe “pouring”.

That’s indwelling, and scripture defines grace as “favor,” not substance.

I know, I don’t know why you are trying to make a spiritual reality into a physical one. Of course God’s pouring is “favor”. What else could it be?

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?

No. One who is washed is set free from evil - delivered. What we have is concupiscence, or a tendency to turn away from God, which is not evil in itself. We have the capacity to choose evil. When we do that, we quench the spirit.

And the Greek word for “infusion” is? And grace is defined as an infusible substance where?

So it’s a term—a metaphorical term?

I don’t know why you are insisting on substance. I think you are creating a strawman so you can deny the doctrine.

Rom 5:5
5 and 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.

Do you think that it is not possible to “pour” something that is invisible? If you think that this is not possible, then how can one “wash their garments in the blood of the Lamb”.?

Rev 7:14
"These are they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Literally, when something is washed in blood, it does not come out white. Would you not agree with me that this is a metaphore? Would you not agree that this is also an actual spiritual reality? I am guessing that we agree that when a person is saved by grace, through faith, one’s robes are washed in the blood of the lamb. His sins, tho they were as scarlet, are made white as snow. This is not a “substance” (real blood and robes), but is still a reality.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

NO, that is a misleading presentation of the case I build. Take these examples where the Hebrew word “chashab” which in English can mean impute/reckon/counted/ect appears in the OT.
NOTE that the words highlighted in red below are the SAME Hebrew word that appears in Gen 15:6 “it was counted/imputed/reckoned/etc as righteousness”:Gen 50: 18Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” 19But Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? 20"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

Lev 17: 3"Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, 4and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people.

Lev 25: 25’If a fellow countryman of yours becomes so poor he has to sell part of his property, then his nearest kinsman is to come and buy back what his relative has sold. 26’Or in case a man has no kinsman, but so recovers his means as to find sufficient for its redemption, 27then he shall calculate the years since its sale and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it, and so return to his property. Lev 25: 49or his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. 50’He then with his purchaser shall calculate from the year when he sold himself to him up to the year of jubilee; and the price of his sale shall correspond to the number of years. It is like the days of a hired man that he shall be with him. 51’If there are still many years, he shall refund part of his purchase price in proportion to them for his own redemption; 52and if few years remain until the year of jubilee, he shall so calculate with him. In proportion to his years he is to refund the amount for his redemption.
NOW, would you dare say that “impute” in these passages means to impute an alien status to an object? You yourself could, but the passages would be absurd. Take the Leviticus 25 passages above, the “calculations” done are SUPPOSED to correspond to the actual value of the land. To “calculate” a value that does NOT correspond to the actual value of the land is nothing short of theft. God’s teaching here is for fair and honest calculations, not imputing a value to the land that is not the actual value.
Take another one of my favorites:Neh 13: 13In charge of the storehouses I appointed Shelemiah the priest, Zadok the scribe, and Pedaiah of the Levites, and in addition to them was Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah; for they were considered reliable, and it was their task to distribute to their kinsmen.Here we have Nehemiah in charge of God’s work and the passage says these men were “reckoned/considered/imputed/counted” reliable. According to your definition of impute this passage is teaching Nehemiah was incompetent and put men in charge who were really dishonest scoundrels.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

Now to the Greek: Bible: Rom 3: 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Rom 6: 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 8: 18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
Tell us, HOW can these passages make sense if YOUR understanding of logizomai is used? They become absurd on their face. With the “impute” definition of logizomai in place Rom 3:28 it would mean justification is NOT REALLY by faith apart from works BUT THAT Paul will claim it is anyway. In Rom 6:11 those Christians are NOT REALLY dead to sin, but Paul will go ahead and say they are. In 8:18 the suffering on earth ARE REALLY GREATER than the joys of Heaven, but Paul will say they are not.

The Bible is so clear on this point that the Protestant position has no place to hide, and THIS is why Protestant articles/books today dont look into the usage of logizomai. This evidence which was likely not available before the era of Lexicons (the last 100 years) is now coming to light and it marks the end of classical Protestantism in our lifetime. The Catholic Church has shown itself the true path once again.

I was at the book store today and I looked in books like James Whites’s “The God who Justifies” and John Piper’s “Counted as Righteous”, among other famous Reformed authors, and they clearly mention “logizomai” and they clearly make the CLAIM it means imputing an alien status, but NONE of them give an actual look at the usage of logizomai in Scripture. IMAGINE that, the Protestant side which prides itself on appealing to the Scripture alone and yet it turns out their doctrines are founded upon sand. No honest Protestant author can look at the FOURTY verses in the NT where LOGIZOMAI occurs and claim that it means universally and unequivically to impute a alien quality which the object does not actually posses.

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.”

If you believe that an inner transformation takes place then imputed righteousness is rediculous. It would mean the Christian who is cleansed from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn 1:9) STILL needed an alien righteousness imputed to them. ABSURD!

Of course you don’t see a difference, Dude; you don’t want to.

Look who is talking.

Perhapse you could enlighten us on the astronomical difference between love being “poured into our heart” versus it being “poured on our heart”, and maybe you could follow that up with how all the major translations got it wrong by using “in” or “into”.

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.

It is a figure of speech BUT BUT it corresponds to a reality. It is worded in a way humans can get an idea of what is going on. Just like passages that say “God is love” does not mean God is a heart or a blob of love. When the Bible talks about hearts being purified it does NOT mean God cleared your arteries, it means your SOUL was made pure and is pure in God’s sight.

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.**

You have got to be kidding me! You are making an issue of nothing. There is no appreciable difference in Catholic theology if the Spirit is said to “indwell” or that it was “infused”. Infused means simply something was put inside, the soul originally lacked the Holy Spirit, now the Holy Spirit indwells in the soul.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 3 of 3)

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.

This is an empty claim. There is nothing supporting it.
There are no passages which teaches Christ’s Righteousness is imputed to us, making us appear righteous when in reality we are unrighteous. It has not been around for “thousands of years” it was a Protestant invention. Taking a honest look at factors such as logizomai totally contradict the classical Protestant understanding of critical passages such as Romans 4.

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.

You either dont know what you are talking about or are spouting off absurdities. Of the FORTY times logizomai occurs in the New Testament the great majority of the time it means to make a judgment based on what is ontologically true about the object. Only a few of the FORTY occurrences could mean impute, but even those are not so clear cut.

The evidence of the usage of logizomai is so damning to the Protestant position that it cannot be addressed head on and in a fair manner, letting Scripture speak, without at the same time condemning the Protestant position. It is no mistake Protestant articles out there wont address this issue and it is no mistake that you keep dodging the evidence I put forward (eg rom 3:28; 6:11; 8:18; etc)

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.

This is a straw man because it is putting the emphasis on the term rather than the concept appearing.
Fact 1: The Bible undeniably talks about an inner transformation at the moment of salvation.
Fact 2: The Bible mentions nothing of an external righteous status being given to the Christian (who is unrighteous at the moment of justification).

Not very convincing.

I have devoted myself to focusing the greatest amount of my energy discussing the “impute” issue, especially logizomai, because it is truly the heart of the Protestant Catholic dispute and it is undeniable where the evidence points to. Protestantism will be gone in our lifetime because of this evidence no Protestant scholars will continue to defend the Protestant position.

If the Catholic side would shift its focus onto this critical issue then Protestantism (ie the scholars and pastors) will be gone in 5-10 years.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

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.

No, you said that scripture argues for faith alone in your post. I merely asked why can’t infused be argued also?

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.

Wrong here too. Faith and belief are two entirely different words. I also covered the Apostle’s eyewitness testimony. Their faith was of a different nature because they had seen for themselves. Those that they taught and converted many times had barely heard of Jesus let alone ever seen Him. Those people like us need faith to believe that He is. You see, I believe that if I drop a rock from my hand that it will fall to the ground. I don’t need faith to believe it because I can go out right now and prove it. So now you know that belief is possible without faith. Now, without Scripture or Apostolic teaching, without the essays and doctrinal letters of the various churches, without anything other than physical proof itself, prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists. YOU CAN"T DO IT! Not even Thomas Aquainas could do that. One either chooses to believe or not believe. In either case it requires faith because God’s existence can’t be physically proven or disproven. There are certainly evidences in creation that this is all not random but perhaps the work of a greater entity but beyond that, zilch. All we have is what we were taught and it’s not provable. We know for certain that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate but as to whether or not the rest is true, it is what we choose to believe. For that we need that “leap of faith”. Pure and simple.

God does not require us to believe something illogical.

God’s logic and ours are entirely different.

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.

I agree with your first sentence. The rest is your personal misinterpretation. I refer you to the passage in the Gospels where the lawyer asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment and He answers that you love God with your whole heart and soul. The second is like it to love your neighbor as yourself. Nowhere in the discourse between Jesus and the lawyer nor in the subsequent parable of the Good Samaritan does Jesus mention faith. Now Jesus does teach faith elsewhere in the Gospels but the important point here is that if love of God and neighbor are seen by Jesus as the greatest commandments then perhaps you really need to rethink your “faith alone” concept. As I told another in this thread…you keep quoting Paul and I’ll keep quoting Jesus.

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.

Now this gave me a good laugh. You completely avoid the important part of the paragraph. First off, there is no salvation program for the demons because they had true knowledge of God yet rejected Him. That is far worse than rejection of God on a faith basis. But the part you avoided was about Michael the Archangel. Michael is saved. Michael did not reject God. He is one of God’s most trusted angels. He is the defender of humanity, God’s most precious creation. Yet Michael has no faith. He has no need of it. He has knowledge of God and he believes in Him. Wow, belief without faith again. Non sequitur? You really are a very funny fellow.

 

[Pax]

It’s justification that’s imputed, Pax.

You have argued in this thread that grace is not infused. We are “saved” by grace. When we are “declared” righteous God’s word goes out in power, and we are made righteous. Righteousness is not merely imputed.

 

[SyCarl]

If you believe that an inner transformation takes place then imputed righteousness is rediculous. It would mean the Christian who is cleansed from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn 1:9) STILL needed an alien righteousness imputed to them. ABSURD!

Not really very absurd. My understanding is that the Catholic teaching is that you remain in a state of grace even if you commit venial sin. In fact you can commit a multitude of venial sins and still be in a state of grace. Yet James tells us that one stumble and we become guilty of all.

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
(James 2:8-10 NASB)

Now, are you going to tell me that a man who sins continually, albeit what you would call venially, is truly righteous? Not by any definition of righteous I know. How can someone like this stand before God? Because our sins are covered.

"BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
(Romans 4:7 NASB)

What need to cover if a person is truly made righteous?

I have devoted myself to focusing the greatest amount of my energy discussing the “impute” issue, especially logizomai, because it is truly the heart of the Protestant Catholic dispute and it is undeniable where the evidence points to. Protestantism will be gone in our lifetime because of this evidence no Protestant scholars will continue to defend the Protestant position.

Do you really think that you have discovered something new, that your ideas are going to destroy Protestantism? I don’t really think so. They haven’t convinced me.

 

[Pax]

Christians are indeed made righteous when they are brought into a state of justification. The sins they have committed are forgiven.

If the Christian sins thereafter, then Christian must repent and be forgiven. It is in this way that all sins are covered. One cannot be washed, sanctified, and justified and then expect all future sins to be covered even if that person refuses to repent of those future sins when they are committed.

 

[guanophore]

Not really very absurd. My understanding is that the Catholic teaching is that you remain in a state of grace even if you commit venial sin. In fact you can commit a multitude of venial sins and still be in a state of grace. Yet James tells us that one stumble and we become guilty of all.

No, James is not talking about stumbling (venial sins) but deliberate (mortal) sins. We all fall short in many ways, but unintentional wrongs, though still wrong, do not quench the live of the spirit within as do deliberate wrongs.

Now, are you going to tell me that a man who sins continually, albeit what you would call venially, is truly righteous? Not by any definition of righteous I know. How can someone like this stand before God? Because our sins are covered.

I will tell you that making mistakes is human. We are all in a state of growth, and learn as we go. The righteous man lives by faith, and when the HS shows him his shortcoming, he repents and chooses the good. Such a man, whose heart is inclined to please God in all he does by faith and by choosing the good is indeed righteous. He may not yet be perfected, but he is a man after God’s own heart. Indeed, love covers a multitude of sins.

What need to cover if a person is truly made righteous?

This reveals an important element of Aposotlic Teaching, especially that, though we are perfect in the sight of God the moment we are baptized, we do not remain perfect. To the extent that we fall short, whether inadvertantly, or deliberately, we are no longer living in the righteousness in which we have been justified.

Do you really think that you have discovered something new, that your ideas are going to destroy Protestantism? I don’t really think so. They haven’t convinced me.

Well, we can only pray and trust God.

We believe that God wants us all in unity, and that He wants to heal that which separates us.

 

[Pax]

…
…
Do you really think that you have discovered something new, that your ideas are going to destroy Protestantism? I don’t really think so. They haven’t convinced me.

I tend to agree with this last statement on your part because scripture is already abundantly clear that justification involves “a new creation.” Even with that, Protestants are not convinced and it is not likely that the discussion presented will change that with everyone that argues for imputation alone.

Nevertheless, the presentation by Catholic Dude is persuasive and coincides with all that scripture says about the ontological change that occurs in the Christian. Does “regeneration” ring any bells?

 

[SyCarl]

I will tell you that making mistakes is human. We are all in a state of growth, and learn as we go. The righteous man lives by faith, and when the HS shows him his shortcoming, he repents and chooses the good. Such a man, whose heart is inclined to please God in all he does by faith and by choosing the good is indeed righteous. He may not yet be perfected, but he is a man after God’s own heart. Indeed, love covers a multitude of sins.

I think our primary difference is what we mean by righteous. To me righteousness is perfection, just as God is perfect. If a man is not perfected, he is not righteous.

There is no real dispute that a change has taken place in the man. Some Reformed have even described it as an infusion. A.W. Pink, a Reformed Baptist, wrote:

The positive side of regeneration is that Divine grace effects a complete change in the state of the soul, by infusing a principle of spiritual life, which renovates all its faculties. It is this which constitutes its subject a “new creature,” not in respect of his essence, but of his views, his desires, his aspirations, his habits. Regeneration or the new birth is the Divine communication of a powerful and revolutionizing principle in the soul and spirit, under the influence of which all their native faculties are exercised in a different manner from that in which they were formerly employed, and in this sense “old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). His thoughts are “new,” the objects of his choice are “new,” his aims and motives are “new,” and thereby the whole of his external deportment is changed.

“By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). The reference here is to subjective grace. There is an objective grace, inherent in God, which is His love, favour, goodwill for His elect. There is also a subjective grace which terminates on them, whereby a change is wrought in them. This is by the infusion of a principle of spiritual life, which is the spring of the Christian’s actions. This “principle” is called “a new heart” and a “new spirit” (Ezek. 36:26). It is a supernatural habit, residing in every faculty and power of the soul, as a principle of holy and spiritual operation.

As “justification” describes the change in the Christian’s objective relationship to God, so “regeneration” denotes that intrinsic subjective change which is wrought in the inclinations and tendencies of their souls Godwards. This saving work of God within His people is likened unto a “birth” because it is the gateway into a new world, the beginning of an entirely new experience, and also because as the natural birth is an issuing from a place of darkness and confinement (the womb) into a state of light and liberty, so is the experience of the soul when the Spirit quickens us.
(Regeneration or the New Birth, Chapter 2)

pbministries.org/books/pink/Regeneration/regeneration_02.htm

 

[fbl9]

and the just man falls little by little.the man is still just after a little fall yet if continued he falls completely.therefore venial sins do not make a just man unjust unless he continues to fall litttle by little with no repentence.Christ told us to carry our own cross if we are to follow him yet his cross was carried by another in the end.if we do not help one another we will all fall down…Sy Carl may you teach us to become as rightous as you so we don’t ever sin just like you.

 

[SyCarl]

I tend to agree with this last statement on your part because scripture is already abundantly clear that justification involves “a new creation.” Even with that, Protestants are not convinced and it is not likely that the discussion presented will change that with everyone that argues for imputation alone.

Nevertheless, the presentation by Catholic Dude is persuasive and coincides with all that scripture says about the ontological change that occurs in the Christian. Does “regeneration” ring any bells?

Unlike some, I have never denied that regeneration imparts to us a new spirit or nature. However since at least part of our sinful nature resides within us during this life, no matter what changes have actually been made, we are not truly righteous. We may act righteous but are not completely righteous.

 

[SyCarl]

Sy Carl may you teach us to become as rightous as you so we don’t ever sin just like you.

This is downright silly. Never have I claimed to be righteous. I know I sin and I hate it, but I trust Jesus.

 

[fbl9]

This is downright silly. Never have I claimed to be righteous. I know I sin and I hate it, but I trust Jesus.

how can one who is not righteous know righteousnes then? i have taken offense to the suggestion by you that venial sins make one unrighteous.scripture states there is sin and there is sin that causes death.one does not die physically if one commits a mortal sin but spiritually,but the other sin does not cause one to die so then they must still be righteous.it is through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior that we are made righteous before God.shoud i say instead imperfectly righteous in this life. but how can that which is not righteous stand before God.

 

[SyCarl]

how can one who is not righteous know righteousnes then? i have taken offense to the suggestion by you that venial sins make one unrighteous.scripture states there is sin and there is sin that causes death.one does not die physically if one commits a mortal sin but spiritually,but the other sin does not cause one to die so then they must still be righteous.it is through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior that we are made righteous before God.shoud i say instead imperfectly righteous in this life. but how can that which is not righteous stand before God.

Again, to me righteous means being perfect just as God is perfect. It is why David tells us:

A Psalm of David. Hear my prayer, O LORD, Give ear to my supplications! Answer me in Your faithfulness, in Your righteousness! And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no man living is righteous.
(Psalms 143:1-2 NASB)

We can act righteously without actually being righteous. God accepts as if we had already become what we are becoming. However we do not achieve it in this life.

 

[moondweller]

Wrong here too. Faith and belief are two entirely different words. I also covered the Apostle’s eyewitness testimony. Their faith was of a different nature because they had seen for themselves.

Multitudes of people saw Christ, heard Him preach, witnessed miracles, and some the crucifixion - and never believed. One is not saved by believing in the existence of Jesus. It’s those aspects of His redemptive work that no man could or can see, but are revealed by God, that salvation faith is based on. Unbelief refuses to accept them and preaches works other than that which Christ alone accomplished, once for all.

I agree with your first sentence. The rest is your personal misinterpretation. I refer you to the passage in the Gospels where the lawyer asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment and He answers that you love God with your whole heart and soul. The second is like it to love your neighbor as yourself. Nowhere in the discourse between Jesus and the lawyer nor in the subsequent parable of the Good Samaritan does Jesus mention faith. Now Jesus does teach faith elsewhere in the Gospels but the important point here is that if love of God and neighbor are seen by Jesus as the greatest commandments then perhaps you really need to rethink your “faith alone” concept.

Jesus and the Lawyer was discussed thoroughly in previous posts. But if you think men are saved by keeping the Law, then YOU really need to rethink what even basic Christianity is. Try reading the Epistles which explain it (especially Pauline).

As I told another in this thread…you keep quoting Paul and I’ll keep quoting Jesus.

Paul reveals those aspects of the cross that could not be seen, but divinely revealed and believed for salvation. The doctrines of God’s grace through Christ are developed in the letters, not the Gospel accounts.

It might sound pious that you look to the sayings of Christ in the Gospel accounts rather than Paul in his letters, but you cannot know or understand those things which could not be seen concerning the redemptive work of Christ apart from Paul’s Epistles; those things on which salvation, “by grace through faith,” are based. You cannot truly know Christ, or divine salvation, apart form Pauline theology. This is where you stumble terribly.

Now this gave me a good laugh. You completely avoid the important part of the paragraph. First off, there is no salvation program for the demons because they had true knowledge of God yet rejected Him.

God has not revealed to us why there is no salvation program for fallen angels. That’s conjecture on your part. However, we do know that the eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, so their fate is sealed.

That is far worse than rejection of God on a faith basis.

Your hypothesis is proven false since both unbelievers and angels end up in the same eternal abode (Matt. 25:41).

But the part you avoided was about Michael the Archangel. Michael is saved. Michael did not reject God.

Michael never rebelled. He had nothing to be saved from.

He is one of God’s most trusted angels. He is the defender of humanity, God’s most precious creation.

Michael is an archangel who stands guard over Israel (Dan. 12:1). He’s not revealed as the “defender of humanity,” nor is it revealed that he’s God’s most precious creation.

Yet Michael has no faith. He has no need of it.

Michael is not in need of salvation, period.

He has knowledge of God and he believes in Him.

Again, the content of salvation faith is not one’s belief in the existence of God, but one’s faith in His word concerning Christ.

Wow, belief without faith again. Non sequitur? You really are a very funny fellow.

To bring angels into the argument of the salvation of men is non sequitur.

 

[fbl9]

Sy Carl is there a difference between being righteous and being just?