romans 4:5

[bene7]

Pax:

In James 2:21 the word “justifed” is applied to Abraham when he offered Isaac upon the altar. This means that Abraham’s faith and works on that occassion were reckoned as righteousness.

Again, Pax, your whole argment is defeated by the FACT that James quotes NOTHING from Gen. 22 in regards to Abraham’s reckoned righteousness by God. He does, and must, quote the same verse as Paul in Gen. 15:6 where Abraham BELIEVED GOD (i.e, his Word) and it (his act of faith) was reckoned as righteousness by God, totally apart from any works: circumcision or the Mt. Moriah episode. This is the whole foundation of Paul’s logic in Romans four regarding God justifying (declaring righteous) the UNgodly (Jew and Gentile alike) totally apart from any works and wholly through faith in God’s Word alone:

“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:2-3)

Some 20 years later at Mt. Moriah Abraham’s faith in the Word God told to him back in Gen. 15:5-6 showed, or demonstrated, “mature,” “complete,” “perfected.”

"You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, FAITH was perfected (or made complete, James 2:22).

Neither James or Paul state that Abraham was reckoned righteous because he was willing to offer up Isaac. James quotes Gen. 15:6: “And Abraham BELIEVED GOD and it was reckoned to Him as righteousness” (James 2:23). He contends that it was Abraham’s FAITH that was being demonstrated, perfected, made complete by the test at Mt. Moriah. The SAME faith he exercised back in Gen. 15:6 in God’s Word, by which God then reckoned him righteous. But James does not say God reckoned Abraham righteous again at Mt. Moriah. His argument is that in Gen. 22 Abraham demonstrates outwardly the faith he had inwardly in God’s Word which He spoke to him back in Gen. 15:6. The faith by which, at that time, he was reckoned righteous by God.

In similar manner, that which God does today, inwardly, for a man who BELIEVES His word regarding His Son (forgiven, redeemed, saved and justified) will, like Abraham, be demonstrated outwardly in his life by works which God prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:10). Remember, it was God’s idea that Abraham take Isaac to Mt. Moriah as a burnt offering (a work prepared beforehand by God) as a “type” of Christ. But it was Abraham’s belief IN GOD’S WORD, not his willingness to offer up Isaac, that Scripture says justified him. Same for us today when we believe God’s Word concerning His Son:

“*But the one who does not work, but BELIEVES in Him who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

May God Bless you,
Bene*

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

In my mind I read, “do you AGREE with this?”

God Bless,
Bene

OK, as I thought, you were a little hasty in your original reply. Fortunately that means we still have some common ground for discussion. Unfortunately that completely puts you back in the position of needing to show where my logic fails from my original post. Here it is again, in the form of a syllogism. You need to either identify one of the premises as false, or refute the conclusion as unsupported by the premises. Sound like fun? This type of exercise will help you greatly in your future apologetic efforts and in any application of logical analysis.

**Premise 1: **Salvation requires God to forgive our sins
Premise 2: God will not forgive us if we fail to forgive others(Matt6:14)
Conclusion: THEREFORE salvation requires that we not fail to forgive others.

Now we will take our conclusion and restate it as a premise in the next syllogism:

Premise 1: Salvation requires that we not fail to forgive others
Premise 2: Salvation is through faith
Conclusion: THEREFORE Not failing to forgive others is faith

Unless you have refuted the first syllogism, your are left only needing to refute premise 2 or the conclusion of the second. Now, one other word of advice. I dont, at this time, require an explanation of your theology - no matter how eloquent it does not constitute a refutation.
Last time you erred on the first premise by not taking the time to read it carefully.
In addition, you effectively made the claim that Christ was in error when he made the statement that “unless you forgive others their sins God will not forgive yours” You didn’t state it explicitly so as to say “I disagree with what Christ says here” but when I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
*Gods forgiveness REQUIRES us to forgive others. *

You said:

bene7:

Absolutely not. God’ forgiveness requires His infinite justice to be met since sin violates God’s holiness. This requirement was met completely and perfectly at the cross of Christ:

Your reply was wonderful in many respects, but it fails to address the origin of my statement: Matt6:14. I felt I was simply carrying that verse to its logical implication, but you clearly disagree. But why? What, exactly, do you think Christ meant when he said that our sins will not be forgiven if we don’t forgive others? I asked if you considered it a hollow threat but you did not reply. I just don’t see that much room for interpretation - plenty of room for diversion, but very little room for interpretation. It’s such a simple statement, but the implications are huge once we realize that our salvation is linked to the forgiveness of our sins.
I will apologize in advance for not responding to the rest of your post, but I haven’t read it yet - we need to clear this up first.
I will also apologize if my manner is painfully slow and deliberate, but I don’t consider myself particularly bright and this form of debate - logical analysis - is my strongest. I know its very tedious - my wife hates it! Most people run from it because it is very forceful and exacting. I hope you don’t run.

Phil

 

[Pax]

bene,

I would appreciate it if you would stop mischaracterizing what I gave to you concerning “hope.” Anyone that reads my posts on this thread will know that you are willfully distorting virtually everything I have submitted for your consideration. This merely weakens your position and credibility.

You still insist on your spin about James 2:21-23 yet you have only reiterated your position rather than refuting what I said about it. You cannot overcome the fact that James uses the word “justify” and you haven’t even been willing to tackle that word head on as it applies to Abraham offering Isaac upon the altar. Moreover, you did not refute what I said about Chapter 11 in the book of Hebrews.

You also casually brushed off what I addressed in Ephesians 2:8-10 by pointing to a totally inadequate remark you made in your post to Phil. I stand by my posts…they remain unscathed by your responses.

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

In reference to Eph. 2:8-10 you replied:“For we are His workmanship” is addressed to those who “have been saved by grace through faith” (2:8). Those who were once dead in trespasses and sins but now through faith in Christ have been “made alive together with Christ,” and who are already, positionally, “seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” And in the ages to come God will show the surpassing riches of His GRACE in kindness toward them who are NOW “in Christ Jesus.” You need to read Eph. 2:10 in the full context of Eph. 2:1-7.

Sure I’ll read it again - nothing of what you have said is disagreeable.

bene7:

You see Phil, this is what “His workmanship, created IN Christ Jesus” means (Eph. 2:10). The true believer, at the time of faith, is newly created in Christ Jesus FOR good works, never BY good works.

2nd time now - I never said anyone is newly created by good works.

bene7:
He doesn’t “hope” (Pax’s pet word) that at the end of his life he’ll be, by his good works, “created in Christ Jesus.” But he knows NOW, this side of eternity, that he has actually become “a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17) “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works, which God prepared beforehand, that he should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). These “good works” are for those already saved by God’s grace, already created, new, in Christ Jesus.

I havent read Pax quote but I know he believes that being “created in Christ Jesus” happens in the Christian life. This may happen in a special way at the completion of our earthly life, but that is hardly relevant, and that may be what is confusing you.

bene7:
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic “hopes” (like Pax) to be saved at the end of his life, based on his avoidance of any unconfessed, mortal sins and “hopes” to find favor from God with a sack full of what he considers his “good works.”

You can’t get over the hurdle: we don’t believe works save us.

bene7:

But the man who humbly believes God’s Word [like Abraham] concerning His Son, knows without a doubt that he is (“has been”) saved and justified (gift-wise), sanctified and purified of all sins through faith in Christ who took upon Himself his judgment, in his stead, on the cross, and will one day be glorified with Him - and all the world will see (1 John 3:2).

I believe Matt 6:14! Just kidding…

bene7:

This, Phil, is the Gospel (good news) message, this side of the cross (yes, “this side of eternity”). According to Biblical revelation salvation cannot be based on anything other than just faith.

Yes I know. Now we need the definition of faith - we are back to post 1.

bene7:

It was in Abraham’s day, it is today. Adam and Eve didn’t believe God’s Word, but instead listened to the word of Satan, “You surely shall not die” (Gen. 3:4), they ate of the tree and they did die. But the one who believes God’s word concerning His Son “does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into LIFE” (John 5:24).

So when did they fall? When they “disbelieved” or when they “disobeyed”? Is there a difference? Are you sure?

bene7:

This is what separates us, Phil. I believe God HAS saved me through Christ, apart from my works, you “hope,” in the end God will save you BY your works. We’re VERY far apart in our soteriology.

God Bless,
Bene

3rd time - I don’t hope that God will save me by my works - neither does Pax. The only differences in our soteriology are that you believe in OSAS during this life, and I believe in OSAS after judgement based on a life of faith in Christ Jesus; and you believe in faith apart from its effect in this life, and I believe in faith alive as love in this life. I actually think you also believe in faith alive as love in this life, but you are so stuck on faith alone that you don’t verbalize what your faith is.

 

[Pax]

bene7:

…
…
You see Phil, this is what “His workmanship, created IN Christ Jesus” means (Eph. 2:10). The true believer, at the time of faith, is newly created in Christ Jesus FOR good works, never BY good works. He doesn’t “hope” (Pax’s pet word) that at the end of his life he’ll be, by his good works, “created in Christ Jesus.”
…
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic “hopes” (like Pax) to be saved at the end of his life, based on his avoidance of any unconfessed, mortal sins and “hopes” to find favor from God with a sack full of what he considers his “good works.”
…

God Bless,
Bene

When I read remarks like this about my beliefs, I have to wonder if you have even bothered to read my posts or if you have ever read official Catholic teaching. Part of the exchange in this thread has demonstrated the sciptural weakness in your view of justification and salvation, while part of it has been used to show what Catholic teaching really is and why it conforms perfectly to scripture. So far, it would appear that you still think that we believe that we somehow earn our way into heaven or that we somehow believe that we can buy salvation with good works.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. This has already been stated in my post #55 but you charged on in post #56 with this same ridiculous claim. Please read what I have written again in order to understand my position and that of the Catholic Church concerning how we are saved.

Phil has also pointed out that we do not believe that we are saved by our works. Please step off of that train and address what we are really saying.

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

Premise 1: Salvation requires God to forgive our sins
Premise 2: God will not forgive us if we fail to forgive others(Matt6:14)
Conclusion: THEREFORE salvation requires that we not fail to forgive others.

Premise 1 is correct. Premise 2 is incorrect based on a faulty application of Matt. 6:14, which in turn is based on your failing to “rightly divide” the Word of truth. Jesus also said in Matt. 5:29 and 30 that if your right eye makes you stumble (cause you to sin), tear it out, and throw it from you. And if your right hand makes you stumble (cause you to sin), cut it off and throw it from you. Have you also literally applied this teaching of His to yourself? If I were to meet you personally and see that you have retained both eyes and hands, can I then conclude that you have never sinned? Your conclusion must be false since number 2 is a false premise.

Premise 1: Salvation requires that we not fail to forgive others Premise 2: Salvation is through faith
Conclusion: THEREFORE Not failing to forgive others is faith

Premise 1 is false. Premise 2 is true. Hence your conclusion must be false. Faith is not defined in the Bible as forgiving others, but trusting in who Christ is and what HE DID for you on the cross. Have you never read the words of Peter, whom you believe to be your first Pope?

“*Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who BELIEVES IN HIM *(not forgives others) HAS RECEIVED forgivenss of sins” (Acts 10:43).

Phil, do you really believe that salvation is conditioned upon your forgiving others? If so, then this is MY conclusion:

(1) You cannot say that you’re saved now, or ever during this life time, but must wait until the end of your life when God will examine the full intentions of your heart.

(2) The cross is rendered impotent, even unnecessary.

(3) Peter preached in error.

(4) Ultimately you’re saved by works (forgiving others).

You guys vehemently deny that you believe you’re saved by works, but your soteriology reveals something else.

God Bless,
Bene

P.S. Have a good Thanksgiving

 

[bene7]

Pax:

When I read remarks like this about my beliefs, I have to wonder if you have even bothered to read my posts or if you have ever read official Catholic teaching.

I have done both.

Part of the exchange in this thread has demonstrated the sciptural weakness in your view of justification and salvation, while part of it has been used to show what Catholic teaching really is and why it conforms perfectly to scripture.

If my view of justification and salvation is weak, then so is Paul’s, since I have only reflected his. And if Paul’s is weak, then the Word of God is weak:

Paul’s argument:

“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

Foundation of Paul’s argument:

“And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:5-6).

James agrees with Paul:

"…and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” (Ja. 2:23).

Jesus agrees with Paul:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Peter agrees with Paul, James, Jesus and the prophets:

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).

I agree with all of the above. You’re the one arguing against it.

Phil has also pointed out that we do not believe that we are saved by our works.

Phil has demonstated by his “logic” and inability to “rightly divide the Word of truth” that he believes salvation IS based on works: a “wage due” (Rom. 4:4): If we forgive others then (and only then) will God forgive us.

I have replied to all your “considerations” with the same Pauline response. Now I have brought the above witnesses, as well. But I’m sure you’ll still disagree with them too, and you, like Phil, will continue to “hope” that at the end of your life your sins are forgiven (if, of course, you’ve forgiven everyone else) and you will have eternal life. No Catholic dares to believe God’s Word that by believing in Christ alone he HAS eternal life NOW, ALL his sins have been forgiven and he is forever justified. But this, brother, is pure Pauline soteriology. And its logic is based on the cross where God had His Judgment Day on our sins and He is now free to save eternally and justify *forever * all who BELIEVE in His Son i.e., what He accomplished perfectly and completely on the cross FOR US (John 3:14-18).

“…for the demonstration I say, of His righteousness AT THE PRESENT TIME, that He might be JUST and the JUSTIFIER of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 4:26).

Phil’s still trying to figure out what “faith” is because he doesn’t want to “believe” that all that is required is to “trust” God’s Word concerning His Son who did it ALL for us (John 5:24).

Happy Thanksgiving,
If Paul is right (and he is) then you have much to be thankful for if you’ll simply believe (trust) what God has said concerning His Son (this is Abrahamic faith - “and Abraham beleived God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”).

Bene

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

Premise 1 is correct. Premise 2 is incorrect based on a faulty application of Matt. 6:14, which in turn is based on your failing to “rightly divide” the Word of truth.

Bold statement! Lets see if you can actually back it up or if you will digress and end with a question rather than a conclusion:

bene7:

Jesus also said in Matt. 5:29 and 30 that if your right eye makes you stumble (cause you to sin), tear it out, and throw it from you. And if your right hand makes you stumble (cause you to sin), cut it off and throw it from you. Have you also literally applied this teaching of His to yourself? If I were to meet you personally and see that you have retained both eyes and hands, can I then conclude that you have never sinned?

It appears you have digressed. Without qualifying why Matt 6:14 is not to be taken literally, you compare it to another, unrelated verse. In addition, you have yet to tell us what it means even if it were simply figurative! You can do better than that.
In addition, I will take the time to respond to your example as if it were valid. You are contending that since no one is cutting off their hands/eyes that Matt5:29 is therefore figurative. You then, for reasons you have yet to provide, place Matt6:14 into the same category, and conclude it also is figurative. My task, logically, is to question your characterization of 5:29 as figurative and or question your association of the two verses. Here would one reasonable approach: In Matt 5:29 Christ presents a “conditional” command in the form of IF/THEN. I disagree with your conclusion. Christ knew that no one would be cutting limbs off. Why? Because hands and eyes do not cause one to sin! Our sin nature does that."…it is what comes out from within you that defiles you." Therefore the predicate of the conditional (If your hand causes you to sin…) is not met, and the required action (cut it off) does not apply. Christ used these words to get people to realize that it was their very NATURE which led them to sin, not their body parts, not the foods they ate, nothing other than their very being. Think about it.
You need to do better to refute Matt6:14 - it isn’t asking us to do anything unreasonable such as cut off our hands/eyes and its relationship to Matt5:29 as figurative remains baseless. If you disagree, please tell me why.

bene7:

Your conclusion must be false since number 2 is a false premise.Premise 1 is false. Premise 2 is true. Hence your conclusion must be false.

This demonstrated well that you know how the game is to be played - unfortunately you have simply asserted that the premise is false as I mentioned above. You cannot, therefore, deny the conclusion yet.

bene7:

Faith is not defined in the Bible as forgiving others, but trusting in who Christ is and what HE DID for you on the cross.

Could you point me to the verse please? And not only that, make sure the verse says its trusting in your heart apart from your actions. You see, I never said that trusting what HE DID wasn’t part of faith, I have simply taken all that He said and formed what I consider an undeniable conclusion as to what it teaches.

Con’d

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

Have you never read the words of Peter, whom you believe to be your first Pope?
“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who BELIEVES IN HIM (not forgives others) HAS RECEIVED forgivenss of sins” (Acts 10:43).

I don’t remember that paranthetical from that verse - what translation are you using?! Now we move back to the earliest posts of what “believing” means in the bible. You have now committed to “faith means believing”, would you please now tell us what believing is with a biblical quote to support it?

bene7:
Phil, do you really believe that salvation is conditioned upon your forgiving others?

This is what everyone asks me when they can’t refute my logic! As if it will have some magic effect on me. Here is what I will say: I will not enter heaven without having forgiven everyone who has sinned against me - that would be “unclean”. Do you think you will enter without having done the same?

bene7:

If so, then this is MY conclusion:
(1) You cannot say that you’re saved now, or ever during this life time, but must wait until the end of your life when God will examine the full intentions of your heart.

You are so loose with your words - you really need to work on that.
What you mean to say is that I cannot say that I am COMPLETELY and PERMANENTLY saved now/during this life - and I would agree with that. It doesn’t mean Im not as saved as I can be right now, it simply means that there is an element of the completion of salvation(Judgement for ex) which remains unfinished. Or do you think the judgement is figurative also? “Just as it is appointed that humans die once and AFTER this, the judgement” Heb 9:27

bene7:

(2) The cross is rendered impotent, even unnecessary. (3) Peter preached in error.

Don’t be silly - these are both false and are both invalid conclusions.

bene7:

(4) Ultimately you’re saved by works (forgiving others).

It is you who has defined forgiving others as a work - I prefer to call it part of a living faith - “the handiwork of God prepared in advance that I should live in them”. That was the entire context of the discussion which remains intact despite your best efforts to date.

bene7:

You guys vehemently deny that you believe you’re saved by works, but your soteriology reveals something else.
God Bless,BeneP.S. Have a good Thanksgiving

You are still lost in the semantics IMHO. That’s OK, I have probably wrestled with these issues more than you have and have been forced to tease out nuances of thought and recognize differences of intent more readily. I wish you a blessed Thanksgiving as well - a national treasure which needs to be restored to the spiritual intent of the settlers.

Peace,

Phil

 

[Pax]

bene7:

I have done both.If my view of justification and salvation is weak, then so is Paul’s, since I have only reflected his. And if Paul’s is weak, then the Word of God is weak:

Paul’s argument:

“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

Foundation of Paul’s argument:

“And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:5-6).

James agrees with Paul:

"…and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” (Ja. 2:23).

Jesus agrees with Paul:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Peter agrees with Paul, James, Jesus and the prophets:

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).

**I agree with all of the above. You’re the one arguing against it.**Phil has demonstated by his “logic” and inability to “rightly divide the Word of truth” that he believes salvation IS based on works: a “wage due” (Rom. 4:4): If we forgive others then (and only then) will God forgive us.

I have replied to all your “considerations” with the same Pauline response. Now I have brought the above witnesses, as well. But I’m sure you’ll still disagree with them too, and you, like Phil, will continue to “hope” that at the end of your life your sins are forgiven (if, of course, you’ve forgiven everyone else) and you will have eternal life. No Catholic dares to believe God’s Word that by believing in Christ alone he HAS eternal life NOW, ALL his sins have been forgiven and he is forever justified. But this, brother, is pure Pauline soteriology. And its logic is based on the cross where God had His Judgment Day on our sins and He is now free to save eternally and justify *forever * all who BELIEVE in His Son i.e., what He accomplished perfectly and completely on the cross FOR US (John 3:14-18).

“…for the demonstration I say, of His righteousness AT THE PRESENT TIME, that He might be JUST and the JUSTIFIER of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 4:26).

Phil’s still trying to figure out what “faith” is because he doesn’t want to “believe” that all that is required is to “trust” God’s Word concerning His Son who did it ALL for us (John 5:24).

Happy Thanksgiving,
If Paul is right (and he is) then you have much to be thankful for if you’ll simply believe (trust) what God has said concerning His Son (this is Abrahamic faith - “and Abraham beleived God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”).

Bene

Your continued mantra does not alter the fact that we do not disagree with Paul. You simply misinterpret Paul, and it is you that we disagree with. Not only that, but you have again failed to address certain of our points head on. Moreover, you are now mixing terms and contradicting yourself. You attacked what I told you about the word “hope” and what Paul has to say about it. The words hope and trust are virtually interchangeable, but you blew off all of this in spite of the fact that Paul says that “hope saves you.” Now you say at the end of this post that all we need to do is believe/trust God and we are saved. You rejected my post about hope/trust, but you are now embracing the word “trust” as part of your requirements for salvation. Perhaps, we are actually making some progress with you after all.

You have refused to address Phil on the definition of “faith” but you have now added the word “trust” to your “faith alone” formula. You are not thinking logically about all of this, but you may have inadvertantly just swerved a little closer to the truth.

Happy Thanksgiving

 

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by bene7
*
It was in Abraham’s day, it is today. Adam and Eve didn’t believe God’s Word, but instead listened to the word of Satan, “You surely shall not die” (Gen. 3:4), they ate of the tree and they did die. But the one who believes God’s word concerning His Son “does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into LIFE” (John 5:24).
*

Philthy:

So when did they fall? When they “disbelieved” or when they “disobeyed”? Is there a difference? Are you sure?

Did you forget to respond to this? It’s most relevant to the discussion of what “believing” means in the fullest sense.
If “believing” in the manner you suggest (mental/emotional) is true, why did they not fall when they no longer “believed”? What was the point of having them fall only AFTER they “lived” their belief (by partaking of the fruit)?

Phil

 

[Pax]

Phil,

You’ve made a great point with Adam and Eve. It would appear from scripture, that Adam and Eve fell not because of belief or unbelief as Bene would suggest. Instead they fell by disobedience. This having been said, it would still appear that Bene associates belief and obedience in exactly the way you suggest that they are connected, i.e. that obedience is a subset of faith/belief. Bene has as much as said this but has not yet made the intellectual and logical connections that will enable him to properly articulate it. You are right to press this point.

 

[bene7]

3rd time - I don’t hope that God will save me by my works - neither does Pax.

Sure you do! As a Roman Catholic you must accept the teaching from Rome that the cross of Christ covers all your sins up to the time of baptism. And if you were baptized as an infant, well, then “original sin” is all that is covered up to that point. For the rest of your sin-conscious life it’s YOUR responsibility to deal with sins committed AFTER baptism, and to either maintain or restore (or even increase) the “initial” justification God supposedly reckoned to you at the time of baptism. In stark contrast to the Biblical fact that Divine justification is reckoned according to one’s faith, not baptism, and that the Scriptures teach no such things as “initial” justification with the implication that it, Divine justification, can be lost (via mortal sin) or increased (via “works” of righteousness fueled by grace).

By the above scenario, Phil, God ultimately justifies the godly (not the ungodly) - contrary to what Paul teaches in Rom. 4:5 (the verse in question on this thread). Read it in context:

ROM 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was
reckoned to him as righteousness.”

ROM 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as
what is due (to him).

ROM 4:5 BUT to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the
ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,

ROM 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God
reckons righteousness apart from works:

ROM 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose
sins have been covered.

ROM 4:8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

All of this God could do without violating His infinite holiness becasue of the cross of Christ where the Just died for the unjust (ungodly). Read a little more Pauline soteriology taught to those in Colossea who had believed in Christ:

“And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Col. 2:13-14).

“Dead in transgressions” is describing the ungodly, Phil. The price was paid BEFORE anyone ever believed in the name of Christ. It’s the ungodly who have ALL their transgressions canceled out through the cross of Christ. Is this universalism? Yes! Only in that ALL men, universally, have sinned (“transgressed,” save the Savior), and Christ took upon Himself the sin of the whole world. It’s called “unlimited atonement.” But His atoning work on the cross is applied only to those who turn from unbelief to belief in what God says He accomplished through His Son FOR THEM (John 3:14-18; 5:24).

There is no room for a “faith plus works” (of any kind) doctrine in the Gospel message of Christ, nor in the soteriological messages preached by Paul, Peter, James or John. And men cannot, themselves, deal with sins that were already, forever, dealt with by Christ’s atoning work on the cross (i.e., “ALL” of them). Man can do NOTHING, this side of the cross, but turn from unbelief to God-honoring belief in His Son only:

“But to the one who does not work, but BELIEVES in Him who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

Not everything said in the Bible applies to you, Phil. Not even everything that Jesus said. But praise God this Gospel message, barring any works, does. Take advantage of it and all heaven rejoices.

God Bless,
Bene

 

[Pax]

:

James agrees with Paul:

"…and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” (Ja. 2:23).

Bene

Bene,

It would be better to say that James and Paul agree with one another but they certainly do not agree with your interpretation of Paul. I will address the issue of James 2:21-23 one last time in the hope that you will address it head on. I do this at the risk of the thread being somewhat redundant on this point. You will be given the last word on this particular issue unless you can present some credible argument rather than a simple restatement of your position.

Once again the passage reads as follows:

*“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.” *

The passage tells us the following:

1. Abraham was “justified” by works when he offered Isaac upon the altar.
2. **Faith ** was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works.

James then comes to this conclusion based on the above statements and context:

By offering Isaac upon the altar (a work accomplished through faith) Abraham was justified. Not only that, but there is a “fulfilment” of the reckoning of righteousness spoken of in Genesis 15:5-6. The “fulfilment” means that the reckoning of righteousness is indeed accomplished by Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac through faith because the fulfillment is associated with that event.

Logically, linguistically, and exegetically it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than Abraham being justified on this occassion just as he was justified in Genesis 15:5-6. Look at it this way. The promise is made to Abraham about his descendants and he does something. What Abraham did was “believe” God. Now Abraham and Sarah were up in years and neither believed that they would have children until God made the promise. If Abraham did not follow God’s promise and have relations with Sarah, then there would be no reckoning of righteousness and there would be no fulfillment of the promise of descendents.

Likewise, Abraham is told by God to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham then does something. Abraham “believes” God. Moreover, he then follows God’s command to sacrifice Isaac just as he followed God’s command to procreate with Sarah. In both cases there is belief and there is the follow through in accordance with what God has promised/commanded. You cannot separate the belief and the action in either case. Each instance has the same components and in each case there is the “fulfillment” of the “reckoning of righteousness.”

It is important to notice that neither instance has the components associated with the requirements of the OT Law. Paul’s argument is with the Judaizers and their belief that the OT Law and all of its requirements are what saves a person. Catholic teaching agrees with Paul and not the Judaizers.

In your post # 22 you said this: It was a one time declaration. Just as the one who now believes in Christ and His one time, once-for-all, sacrifice for our sins is forever justified, as a gift, by the God of Abraham who calls him (Abraham) the father of all who BELIEVE (Rom. 4:16).

Per the King James version, Romans 4:16 actually says:
“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,” Nowhere in this passage does it say that justification is a one time event, and that we never need to repent of future sin, or that we “are forever justified.” This is eisegesis and you are forcing an interpretation of scripture to fit your doctrine rather than allowing scripture to form your doctrine. It is for this reason that you are having difficulty accepting what is clearly stated by the apostle James concerning Abraham.

 

[Pax]

bene7:

Sure you do! As a Roman Catholic you must accept the teaching from Rome that the cross of Christ covers all your sins up to the time of baptism. And if you were baptized as an infant, well, then “original sin” is all that is covered up to that point. For the rest of your sin-conscious life it’s YOUR responsibility to deal with sins committed AFTER baptism, and to either maintain or restore (or even increase) the “initial” justification God supposedly reckoned to you at the time of baptism.
…
…

Not everything said in the Bible applies to you, Phil. Not even everything that Jesus said. But praise God this Gospel message, barring any works, does. Take advantage of it and all heaven rejoices.

God Bless,
Bene

I’ll address the last part of this post first. You are in no way qualified to determine what does and does not apply to us in scripture. Moreover, nothing written by anyone, including Paul, trumps the words of Jesus. Afterall, Jesus is Paul’s teacher. Furthermore, I have never found anything in Paul’s writings that contradicts Jesus. I have, however, found numerous interpretations such as yours that do.

Once again, I will repeat my earlier statements. We do not believe that we save ourselves or that we work our way into heaven. You have created a caricature of Catholic teaching in order to have a straw man that you can attack. This violates every rule of logic and argument. Get off that train and please cease reciting your anti-Catholic, quotidian mantra of works righteousness. It simply isn’t the truth and if you believe otherwise then you are clueless about Catholic teaching. Your statements to the contrary lack credibility when you continue to make uninformed remarks.

I would suggest that you carefully use Catholic terminology and Catholic statements within their context, rather than manufacturing inaccurate statements on your own. Making up caricatures that do not fit with the truth of another’s beliefs is dishonest and disrespectful. Moreover, if you do not begin with what someone truly believes you cannot properly analyze it. Additionally, what you have been engaging in merely strains your own credibility and weakens any position that you yourself may hold.

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

Sure you do! As a Roman Catholic you must accept the teaching from Rome that the cross of Christ covers all your sins up to the time of baptism. And if you were baptized as an infant, well, then “original sin” is all that is covered up to that point. For the rest of your sin-conscious life it’s YOUR responsibility to deal with sins committed AFTER baptism, and to either maintain or restore (or even increase) the “initial” justification God supposedly reckoned to you at the time of baptism. In stark contrast to the Biblical fact that Divine justification is reckoned according to one’s faith, not baptism, and that the Scriptures teach no such things as “initial” justification with the implication that it, Divine justification, can be lost (via mortal sin) or increased (via “works” of righteousness fueled by grace).

By the above scenario, Phil, God ultimately justifies the godly (not the ungodly) - contrary to what Paul teaches in Rom. 4:5 (the verse in question on this thread). Read it in context:

All of this God could do without violating His infinite holiness becasue of the cross of Christ where the Just died for the unjust (ungodly). Read a little more Pauline soteriology taught to those in Colossea who had believed in Christ:

“And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Col. 2:13-14).

“Dead in transgressions” is describing the ungodly, Phil. The price was paid BEFORE anyone ever believed in the name of Christ. It’s the ungodly who have ALL their transgressions canceled out through the cross of Christ. Is this universalism? Yes! Only in that ALL men, universally, have sinned (“transgressed,” save the Savior), and Christ took upon Himself the sin of the whole world. It’s called “unlimited atonement.” But His atoning work on the cross is applied only to those who turn from unbelief to belief in what God says He accomplished through His Son FOR THEM (John 3:14-18; 5:24).

There is no room for a “faith plus works” (of any kind) doctrine in the Gospel message of Christ, nor in the soteriological messages preached by Paul, Peter, James or John. And men cannot, themselves, deal with sins that were already, forever, dealt with by Christ’s atoning work on the cross (i.e., “ALL” of them). Man can do NOTHING, this side of the cross, but turn from unbelief to God-honoring belief in His Son only:
“But to the one who does not work, but BELIEVES in Him who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).
Not everything said in the Bible applies to you, Phil. Not even everything that Jesus said. But praise God this Gospel message, barring any works, does. Take advantage of it and all heaven rejoices.
God Bless,
Bene

All this and you won’t provide a reason why Matt 6:14 is not to be taken literally - other than it conflicts with your interpretation of the gospel message?
All this and you can’t answer why Adam and Eve did not fall due to their “unbelief” in your understanding of the term as it must apply to your interpretation of the gospel message?
All this and you won’t answer yes or no to whether you will have forgiven everyone of their sins before entering Heaven?

It would seem that you have an unwavering theological construct based largely on Pauls writings(which you wisely retreat to) which all Scripture must bend to fit or, if that becomes untenable, becomes jetisoned as “figurative”, not applicable to you or “disputable”.
I appreciate everything you have shared! I have heard you repeat your message several times - and I am grateful for that - honestly. I only wish, that if you possess the truth you claim, that you would address the specific questions that I have with respect to those claims - that is how you can most effectively communicate that message to me. If you get to a point where you simply don’t know the answer, that’s OK, just say so.

Thanks again,

Phil

 

[bene7]

Phithy:

You need to do better to refute Matt6:14 - it isn’t asking us to do anything unreasonable such as cut off our hands/eyes and its relationship to Matt5:29 as figurative remains baseless. If you disagree, please tell me why.

First of all I do not take what Jesus said as “figurative.” It’s you who are choosing what is figurative in Christ’s words and what is not. Actually, how I interpret and apply Matthew chapters 5-7 would be futile for me to discuss with you, you being Catholic and adhering to the Amillennial eschatology handed down to you from Rome. Suffice it to say that everything recorded in the Bible is written FOR us, but not everything is written TO us. And that’s why you struggle with the word “faith,” even trying to harmonize it with Matt. 6:14. There will come a time on this earth when all that Christ states in Matt. chapters 5-7 must be revered and feared, but not during this Church age, not this present age of GRACE.

But the real question is, can you show me where Paul, Peter, John or even James quotes Jesus in Matt. 6:14 in their gospel message?

What you mean to say is that I cannot say that I am COMPLETELY and PERMANENTLY saved now/during this life

No, that’s not at all what I meant to say. There’s no such thing as “incompletely” saved. God saves based on Christ’s FINISHED work on the cross: "…When He had made purification of sins, He sat down (the position of rest)* at the right hand of the Majesty on High* (Heb. 1:3). "Hence, also, He is able to save forever (or, completely) those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them (Heb. 7:25).

If God, through faith in Christ, saves INCOMPLETELY, then the completion of said salvation must be completed by someone other than Christ. This MUST be done by one’s own work, contrary to the verse in question on this thread:Rom. 4:5.

Pax gets irritated and calls this my “mantra.” But it’s not mine, it’s Paul’s. It’s Paul’s gospel. If only Christ had not saved Paul, right?

It doesn’t mean Im not as saved as I can be right now, it simply means that there is an element of the completion of salvation(Judgement for ex) which remains unfinished.

Oh, if only Jesus had not said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and BELIEVES HIM who sent Me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and DOES NOT come into judgment, but HAS passed out of death into life” (John 5:24).

The Scriptures are clear that the ONLY life God gives to anyone who BELIEVES in His Son is ETERNAL. Def. = continuing forever.

Now I suppose you’re going to come back with something like, “What does it mean to “hear” His word.” You kind of remind me of the Pharisees who kept interrogating the blind man completely healed by Jesus because they didn’t want to believe it, nor would he tell them what they wanted to hear (see John 9). Consider that Jesus, doing the works of God during His healing ministry on earth never healed anyone “temporarily” or “incompletely.” Far be it then that His work of redemption on the cross (which required His death) should be inferior.

It is you who has defined forgiving others as a work - I prefer to call it part of a living faith

No, it’s a definite work when you frame it in a propositional context: “If you do not, then I will not.” It then becomes what Paul calls a “wage that is due.” “If you do, then I will do.” (see Rom. 4:4). In a plain word: works.

Did you forget to respond to this? It’s most relevant to the discussion of what “believing” means in the fullest sense.

If “believing” in the manner you suggest (mental/emotional) is true, why did they not fall when they no longer “believed”? What was the point of having them fall only AFTER they “lived” their belief (by partaking of the fruit)?

More Pharisaic questioning of this healed man? Still trying to avoid the plain and clear teachings of Paul in Rom. 4:5? “We must probe into the deep meaning of “believe” until “believe” has no meaning at all.” But to answer your question, they fell when they actually transgressed the commandment. And through Adam death spread to ALL MEN because ALL sinned, in Adam (Rom. 5:12, read all of Rom. 5:12-21). But in the “Last Adam” ALL (who believe in Him) are made alive (1 Cor. 15:22).

I’ve always enjoyed and found comforting the words of Christ in His prayer to the Father:

LUK 10:21 “At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said,
"I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these
things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes. Yes,
Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.”

I find it pleasing to me too.

God Bless,
Bene

 

[Sherlock]

Bene
If salvation is assured, then why is it that in the parable of the unforgiving servant, the servant’s initial forgiveness by the Master is revoked when that same servant does not forgive the debt of one his fellow servants?

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

All this and you won’t provide a reason why Matt 6:14 is not to be taken literally - other than it conflicts with your interpretation of the gospel message?Yes, ALL THAT and you still run to a little verse in Matt. 6 to try and refute and discredit ALL that Paul clearly communicates to us concerning justification to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly.

You want me to answer EVERY little verse you put before me, saying, “OK, what about this?” and “what about this?” You do realize that could go on forever. Meanwhile, but both you and Pax utterly fail to refute what Paul very clearly teaches in Rom. chapters three and four concerning justification through faith alone. You ignore his teachings or try to add to them. It’s called the “mystery of unbelief.”

As you can see, I answered your questions regarding Matt. 6:14 and Adam and Eve’s fall. But my answers will not ever satisfy you because your ultimate goal is to discredit the clear teachings of Paul on justification since, if taken at face value, they contradict the basic soteriological position held by Rome: Faith plus works.

Unbelief truly is a GREAT mystery.

Blessings to you,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Sherlock:

Bene
If salvation is assured, then why is it that in the parable of the unforgiving servant, the servant’s initial forgiveness by the Master is revoked when that same servant does not forgive the debt of one his fellow servants?

Parables are not doctrines. They relate to the listener in story form a certain concept and are limited to that concept. In the case of the unforgiving servant, how could he not forgive his fellow man of a very little, when he himself was forgiven of a lot? How could I not forgive someone who offends me a little when, in fact, I was forgiven of everything by God through the cross of Christ? But my salvation does not hinge on my forgiving othes, but faith in the fact that God forgave me of ALL my sins through the substitutionary, sin-sacrifice of His Son. The message of salvation, or the cross, is not for me to forgive others, but that I have been forgiven by God who Himself took the drastic measures to procure that forgiveness. Now I who have been forgiven of much should forgive others who sin against me, a little, in comparison.

God Bless,
Bene