Yes, God calls all men to repent and believe the Gospel. This is a necessary part of salvation. But unconverted men suppose themselves to be self-sufficient, …
I agree, pride is the sin of Adam in disbelieving.
Yes, but requires much more than mere introduction. Phil. 2:13, “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
No disrespect, but the passage in Philipians (not philemon) 2:13 is about those
already baptized.
Note, also, I’ll check the Greek later – but in the NAB (the only one I have at the moment) it reads – “he
begets in you every achievement…” The thrust of the translation, at least, is that it is a metaphor of a marital act. It takes two to make a marriage bed.
Yes, and see how unhappy these pride-filled men are to learn that their only hope of doing anything unto salvation is in Christ. "Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”(John 6:44)
And there was Jesus, in person, drawing them for the Father. The Spirit, too, is pushing… What of it? Jesus introduces himself even to the proud
sometimes.
No. Abraham believed God before the miracle of Issac took place.
I never said he didn’t! I said he did not have the fullness of faith.
If he had not believed prior to the miracle then he would not have been justified. (Rom. 4:20-22) Abraham was justified, because he trusted in God’s ability and power to perform what He had promised.
Before the miracle? Perhaps before the conception of Isaac, whom he
laughed at God over. No disrespect, but that isn’t the first, second, or even third miracle that Abraham had witnessed. My point in bringing it up is simply that he KNEW from experience that God can raise from the Dead – this is what Paul means when he says in verse 4:20 that he was
strengthened in faith. His faith grew. This strength is what allowed him NOT TO WAIVER AFTER the miracle when he took his son up the mountain. Abraham’s faith had grown to full stature at this point.
Clearly! there are a series of miracles and teachings starting very small and building up to the sacrifice of his Isaac. When did Abraham
first believe according to the OT scriptures?
When God asked him to do what he had
already started with his earthly father??? Abraham had
already begun the
work of journeying to the promised land
before he meets God – but he himself would not have finished the Journey (nor could he have) without God’s assistance.
Yes. James actually points out the ocassion of Abraham taking Issac up Mt. Moriah to sacrifice him. But we need to understand that James’ point in saying Abraham was justified by works is not that works were the grounds of his justification, but the evidence of it.
Explain how what James says has anything to do with a man coming to faith – not priding himself on his own abilities. I do not see anything of the sort in James.
Pointing back to John 6 – faith
is a work. James is comparing two like things, a work of the Law, and a work of faith.
I will say it again, because one works does not mean they earn anything.
The context makes this clear. “show me your faith apart from works, and I will show you mine by my works.”, “You *see *that faith was active…” “You see that a person is justified by works…” Abraham’s obedience was the fruition of his justification, not the grounds of it.
What? Hardly. Nothing about cause and effect are mentioned in that passage. Faith
is a work – so one can’t show faith, unless they WORK. James just proves the point even more.
That last sentence – a person is
justified by works. Clearly the relationship with God can only happen after one has met him!
That is justification.
I don’t mean any disrespect, however, your humble opinion raises itself against Paul’s teaching on justification. Works are the evidence of our justification, but the grounds of our justification rests on the only sure foundation of the church: the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
The grounds of our receiving daily bread – life eternal – is a work.
If one says it is only the “work of God” they are anathema – eg: their worship is another theme separate from the Catholic church.
Please read what Paul says in Romans 3:20-28.
Yeah. Back in verse 17 Paul offers a
hypothetical argument – eg: “you
rely solely on the law and
pride yourself on God”
– that is the context. He is not talking to the Humble, but to the Proud fools!
A humble servant does his masters bidding. Because his master has told him to work, and he
consents – he works. eg: Some slaves choose to die rather than work.
But, St. Paul says of the contrasting man-- v26 – “again if an uncircumcised person
keeps the precepts of the
law will he not be considered circumcised?”
He does not qualify HOW that man keeps the precepts of the Law.
But he indicates a WORK of that man – keeping the precepts.
I see nothing which contradicts that there are different kinds of law, as well as different kinds of works. If one is not versed in the law, and lawyerly talk, then Paul’s writing is a stumbling block to the proud self-interpreters.
Otherwise, how was Abraham justified?