"So, faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." (James 2:18)

[Jimmy_B]

It actually does. There are controversies over it to this day, with two main approaches to resolving the “faith-works” problem in Protestantism: the much-more-believable “Lordship Salvation” (from which the controversy took its name: leading exponent, John MacArthur), which states that one must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior (read “Lord” as “master of thy life”), and that some control over sin is an indication that a man is justified. One could call this the “faith works” position.

The second position, which is based almost solely on a chapter or two of Paul, is called “Free Grace” (main proponents: Ryrie and Zane Hodges), which states that a man is justified as soon as he “confesseth with his lips”, in essence, and can sin his way straight in to heaven, and that it is a second choice to “undergo the process of sanctification”. One could call this the “draweth near to me with thy lips” position, or the “faith doesn’t need to work” position.

The second choice is popular amongst many evangelicals, and is quite completely contradictory to the words of Holy Writ penned by the Holy Spirit through James. The first choice, popular in Reformed circles, is completely consonant with James’ statement (a faith without works [without Jesus as Lord {=master of my life}] is literally dead, that is, it is not saving faith at all), and is more consonant with the Catholic position (that justification and sanctification are not artificially separated, but are one organic continuum or whole, and that any man who is justified will be at least, in the tiniest bit, sanctified, or he has not accepted Jesus as Lord =master of his life], and is not saved =justified] at all). It also provides a nice hedge for “perseverance of the saints”.

There are a couple other doctrines out there (in Protestantism), but those are the two common positions in Evangelicalism and amongst Reformed. The latter, IME, is more popular than the former, and, as I have said, and the OP noticed, is in direct contradiction to God-breathed words of Holy Writ.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Perhaps you could make use of the post to elucidate…otherwise, you just come off as rather glib, and I mean no disrespect. What you could have said, in terms of an answer, might have helped…

"I mean no disrespect"

Really? Not elucidate? Glib? I’m merely starting a conversation here brother. I have three grown kids who are college graduates… Two have received U.S. Congressional Nominations to attend the United Military Academy at West Point, New York and one works at the Pentagon. I’m a retired big city policeman and my wife is still on the department, with almost 30 years. I’m not a kid. I’m also a cradle Catlolic. I think your post is out of place, condescending, disrespectful and lacking Christian charity. If you would like to clarify your response, I would be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. Please, no insults this time.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

"I mean no disrespect"

Really? Not elucidate? Glib? I’m merely starting a conversation here brother. I have three grown kids who are college graduates… Two have received U.S. Congressional Nominations to attend the United Military Academy at West Point, New York and one works at the Pentagon. I’m a retired big city policeman and my wife is still on the department, with almost 30 years. I’m not a kid. I’m also a cradle Catlolic. I think your post is out of place, condescending, disrespectful and lacking Christian charity. If you would like to clarify your response, I would be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. Please, no insults this time.

joe was not responding to your post, Jimmy. He was responding to the user name “Indifferently.”

Blessings.

 

[Jimmy_B]

joe was not responding to your post, Jimmy. He was responding to the user name “Indifferently.”

Blessings.

Well… too late to delete… I guess my age and current medical condition is showing… sorry to Joe. It ain’t the first time, won’t be the last. I hope he forgives me…I was going through the posts’ here and didn’t read the original post… My bad… My fault… No accuse… I’m sorry. Thanks for the head’s up. This was a good dry-run for a real “attack”… lol…

 

[Jimmy_B]

"So, faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."
(James 2:18)

This is one of the verses that troubled Marin Luther and still troubles all those who hold Protestant, non-Catholic beliefs. Please read James 2:14-26, before posting.

Your Thoughts.

 

[Jimmy_B]

This verse is from the Book of James. The Book of James was originally called the Catholic Epistle. Luther later called it the “Epistle of straw”.

Your Thoughts? … after the 1500 or 1600 century

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

This verse is from the Book of James. The Book of James was originally called the Catholic Epistle. Luther later called it the “Epistle of straw”.

Your Thoughts? … after the 1500 or 1600 century

He was wrong? I am not so sure much more can be said than that. Of course, his statement must be evaluated in the context in which he used it. I have no obligation to defend his point, though. Maybe inquire a Lutheran on that part of their history.

I did, however, reply to your OP.

 

[Jimmy_B]

One thing I think is important is that Catholics have an understanding of “justification” that we are all fallen, that it is only by faith through grace that we are saved. We disagree with some Protestants on how that faith is to be enacted, and with some Protestants who hold to the “once saved, always saved” beliefs.

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church is a good read.

With regard to Catholic vs. Lutheran teachings on works:
"37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.

38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the “meritorious” character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.

*39.The concept of a preservation of grace and a growth in grace and faith is also held by Lutherans. They do emphasize that righteousness as acceptance by God and sharing in the righteousness of Christ is always complete. At the same time, they state that there can be growth in its effects in Christian living. When they view the good works of Christians as the fruits and signs of justification and not as one’s own “merits”, they nevertheless also understand eternal life in accord with the New Testament as unmerited “reward” in the sense of the fulfillment of God’s promise to the believer. [See Sources for section 4.7]. *
"

I would also recommend looking at 1 Corinthians 13 in its entirety.

I think it’s important to also stress that justification in scripture is not just about individual salvation. Far from it. Christ established his Kingdom over. As members of the Body of Christ, reborn through baptism, we are called to live in the Kingdom in Gospel, the epistles, and Revelation. Christ is the fulfillment of the Shekhinah, the Hebrew indwelling of God in the Tabernacle and Temple. Luke 1:33 tells us that the kingdom of Jesus will have no end. Paul tells us the Jesus is Lord. Colossians 2:10 says “you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power.” And it is only through the Resurrection on the Last Day that we are given eternal life, as Revelation ends with the New Jerusalem descending and God living among his people. All these things tell us that living in the Kingdom of God is not just about saving our own souls, but about transforming “new creation” on earth and reuniting wholly and truly with our God – the Shekhinah uniting Heaven and Earth.

The Rapture is a misreading of 1 Thessalonians 4, mistaking the parousia (Second Coming of Christ) as an exit from the world. Instead, parousia is the term of an emperor’s visiting a city, whose people go out to greet him as he enters. This is critical. Salvation is NOT about leaving the planet Earth.

Our “hope of salvation” is in the concrete, physical resurrection on the Last Day. It is in our reborn glorified bodies that our new life is to be lived. So it is only through baptism that we are given membership in the Body of Christ, and it is there that we live it (1 Corinthians 12).

Great post. I just want to add my humble two cents… I think, simply put, “good works” is doing those things that are pleasing to God. Why the Protestants made this an issue, I have no idea. I do however, think that this is just one more piece of evidence that Protestant, non-Catholic groups are not only non-biblical, they are arguing something against the original teachings of Christ. This is one big issue, the other is the obvious consternation regarding the Holy Mother, Mary, one of the greatest disciples… In my opinion, these are two great and disturbing signs, among many other disturbing signs found in Protestantism.

Your thoughts?

 

[Indifferently]

Gaelic Beard’s responses have been very interesting. This isn’t my first video either, which is why I am not at all surprised by the OP and his rather arrogant claim in one of his posts that his version is correct, which preceded an actual elucidation of that position which, when he did offer it, simply gave us a quote from somewhere else.

OP, what is your agenda?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Gaelic Beard’s responses have been very interesting. This isn’t my first video either, which is why I am not at all surprised by the OP and his rather arrogant claim in one of his posts that his version is correct, which preceded an actual elucidation of that position which, when he did offer it, simply gave us a quote from somewhere else.

OP, what is your agenda?

I’m a Roman Catholic, which means that the Protestant belief that allows for “personal interpretation”, doesn’t apply to me. As a Catholic, I am free to do the right thing and I am free to an opinion but if it conflicts with my Church, than I am in error. That’s why I post quotes and why I post sources. I don’t belong to the “church of my own intellect” or a “church of one”, or a few, for that matter. I completely and fully surrender to the infallible teachings of Christ’s church, the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t ever want to be in conflict with my Church. BTW, my quote here is from the Bible, what’s wrong with quoting the Bible? Also, I said, “this isn’t my first rodeo” not video… lol…

Thank you for your post .

 

[Indifferently]

I’m a Roman Catholic, which means that the Protestant belief that allows for “personal interpretation”, doesn’t apply to me. As a Catholic, I am free to do the right thing and I am free to an opinion but if it conflicts with my Church, than I am in error. That’s why I post quotes and why I post sources. I don’t belong to the “church of my own intellect” or a “church of one”, or a few, for that matter. I completely and fully surrender to the infallible teachings of Christ’s church, the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t ever want to be in conflict with my Church. BTW, my quote here is from the Bible, what’s wrong with quoting the Bible? Also, I said, “this isn’t my first rodeo” not video… lol…

Thank you for your post .

Rodeo.

If the purpose of this topic is to evangelize, I suggest you find a different vocation.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Rodeo.

If the purpose of this topic is to evangelize, I suggest you find a different vocation.

None of us are allowed to proselytize here at CAF and I don’t. I’ve study religions and Catholicism for a number of years. I find it interesting and enjoy discussing the differences between Catholicism and other faiths. I will however, always defend my Roman Catholic faith to the best of my ability but I have no intention to evangelize others here at CAF. I’ll leave that job to someone else.

Can to please respond to the first post here?

Your thoughts?

 

[Khalid]

Interesting analysis. In my experience, it seems that people influenced by Reformed theology (evangelicals or not) tend to be much more prone to a cheap grace mentality since God is ultimately viewed as pre-ordaining some for election and others for damnation. In this thought, we are saved because God has chosen us, and there really isn’t anything that we can do on our end to change that.

It may be true for some who are influenced by Reformed theology (free grace OSAS - which is, admittedly, professed in deed if not in word by a very large segment of Independent Evangelicals and Non-Denominationals in America - certainly is at least tinged by it), but is is emphatically not true for all die-hard Calvinists - those who aren’t influenced by Reformed theology, but breathe the Three Forms of Unity, or quote chapter and verse the Westminster Confession and read Spurgeon’s sermons for a bit of relief from the theological “heavy lifting” - I’ve known.

The most theologically-naive version of free grace OSAS theology - married to prosperity views of sanctification and blab-it-and-grab-it theology, nevertheless - seems to be not only prevalent or dominant, but very close to a fundamental doctrine, amongst Pentecostals (both Trinitarian and Modalist).

 

[Jimmy_B]

It may be true for some who are influenced by Reformed theology (free grace OSAS - which is, admittedly, professed in deed if not in word by a very large segment of Independent Evangelicals and Non-Denominationals in America - certainly is at least tinged by it), but is is emphatically not true for all die-hard Calvinists - those who aren’t influenced by Reformed theology, but breathe the Three Forms of Unity, or quote chapter and verse the Westminster Confession and read Spurgeon’s sermons for a bit of relief from the theological “heavy lifting” - I’ve known.

The most theologically-naive version of free grace OSAS theology - married to prosperity views of sanctification and blab-it-and-grab-it theology, nevertheless - seems to be not only prevalent or dominant, but very close to a fundamental doctrine, amongst Pentecostals (both Trinitarian and Modalist).

Great points. I think it’s important for Protestant, non-Catholic Christians to investigate the founders and the original roots of their particular denomination. For instance, the differences between Calvin and Luther. Many Protestant, non-Catholic’s couldn’t tell you from where, or from whom their denomination derived but as you demonstrated, those who have studied Christianity can tell by ones beliefs and posts here at CAF, who’s teachings they follow. Then again, it’s in the nature of Protestantism to reject or ignore “Christian traditions”, which, in other words, is a rejection of Christian history.

 

[Khalid]

Well… there are two branches of Protestants, those that follow Luther and those that follow Calvin, minus Zwingli. Who are you referring too?

EDIT: Without realizing it, my post also reads as a direct reply or further elucidation of the points in your post immediately preceding this one, and not just the one I quoted.

Oh, don’t even open this can of worms - if you want to, start with the evangelical historian Mark Noll. Maybe in 1550 there were two main branches of Protestants (probably not even then, because one has to count the originally very Catholique - erstwhile Calvinist, erstwhile Arminian, sometimes-Catholic, liberal and conservative - Anglican Protestantism, and Anabaptism), but soon enough there were three completely different kinds of Lutheranism (the Flacians, the Melanchthonians, and the Amsdorfians), then came the Osianderians, which today have become half a dozen or more. There were several kinds of Reformed (Calvinist and Arminian/Remonstrant) from the start, and Calvinism has fractured, although is still more united than any other Protestant theology, and Arminianism gave birth to Methodism/Wesleyanism, which taken to an extreme became Holiness (no baptism, Christian perfection), which helped spawn Pentecostalism. Anabaptism became the Mennonites and related denominations of today.

And, now, after that much-truncated denominational history, you come to today, where the majority of Protestants, at least in America, are generic evangelicals or non-denominationals who have no theology or theologians to speak of (unlike the great theologians produced by the major Reformation traditions of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and even Anglicanism), and have no history to speak of that stretches beyond their founding in schism from such-and-such parent body over such-and-such instrument used in worship thirty-eight years ago, or from the predictions and private revelations of such-and-such prophet (Joseph Smith, Ellen Gould White, Charles Taze Russell, etc.). Not to speak of the “post-conservatives” and Open Theists, and various raging heretics who are called “Christian” by some.

Then you have to go back to the Wycliffites, Hussites, Waldensians, and Lollards before the Magisterial Reformation proper, in order to attempt to trace the development of the Credobaptist branches fully, which eventually, for confessional, Reformed Baptists, culminated in the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

When you’re speaking of traditional, confessional Protestants, you can divide it somewhat in to “Credo” and “Paedo”, and divide “Credo” in to “Reformed” and “Not Reformed”, and “Paedo” in to “Reformed”, “Arminian”, and “Lutheran”. However, most Protestants in America aren’t traditional Protestants, and couldn’t tell you what consubstantiation was, or that Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration, or what the Five Articles of Remonstrace were - witness the rise of the much-vaunted “30,000 sects” (probably more like 350 if counted more fairly, and non-denominationals counted as one), Pentecostalism, name-it-and-claim-it, Word-Faith, prosperity theology, various forms of millenarianism (Rapture, Pre-Tribulationism), dispensationalism (the Church is not Israel), Adventism - and those are within the bounds of Trinitarian orthodoxy alone!

A good chunk of conservative evangelicals are dispensationalists, not realizing their theology has a pedigree that can be traced back exactly 90 some years, to the publication of the (Old) Scofield Reference Bible.

Even “Anglicanism” is such a big tent it encompasses the entire range of religious thought, from orthodox Christianity to liberalism to rank heresy to outright apostasy: it’s like a religion unto itself, attempting to investigate the various currents that are all “mainstream” within it. It ranges from John Hicks (heretic, author of The Myth of God Incarnate and a standard textbook of philosophy of religion) and John Shelby Spong (outright atheist apostate) to Rowan Williams and John Stott to Alister McGrath and NT Wright.

 

[Jimmy_B]

EDIT: Without realizing it, my post also reads as a direct reply or further elucidation of the points in your post immediately preceding this one, and not just the one I quoted.

Oh, don’t even open this can of worms - if you want to, start with the evangelical historian Mark Noll. Maybe in 1550 there were two main branches of Protestants (probably not even then, because one has to count the originally very Catholique - erstwhile Calvinist, erstwhile Arminian, sometimes-Catholic, liberal and conservative - Anglican Protestantism, and Anabaptism), but soon enough there were three completely different kinds of Lutheranism (the Flacians, the Melanchthonians, and the Amsdorfians), then came the Osianderians, which today have become half a dozen or more. There were several kinds of Reformed (Calvinist and Arminian/Remonstrant) from the start, and Calvinism has fractured, although is still more united than any other Protestant theology, and Arminianism gave birth to Methodism/Wesleyanism, which taken to an extreme became Holiness (no baptism, Christian perfection), which helped spawn Pentecostalism. Anabaptism became the Mennonites and related denominations of today.

And, now, after that much-truncated denominational history, you come to today, where the majority of Protestants, at least in America, are generic evangelicals or non-denominationals who have no theology or theologians to speak of (unlike the great theologians produced by the major Reformation traditions of Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Arminianism), and have no history to speak of that stretches beyond their founding in schism from such-and-such parent body over such-and-such instrument used in worship thirty-eight years ago, or from the predictions and private revelations of such-and-such prophet (Joseph Smith, Ellen Gould White, Charles Taze Russell, etc.). Not to speak of the “post-conservatives” and Open Theists, and various raging heretics who are called “Christian” by some.

Then you have to go back to the Wycliffites, Hussites, Waldensians, and Lollards before the Magisterial Reformation proper, in order to attempt to trace the development of the Credobaptist branches fully, which eventually, for confessional, Reformed Baptists, culminated in the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

When you’re speaking of traditional, confessional Protestants, you can divide it somewhat in to “Credo” and “Paedo”, and divide “Credo” in to “Reformed” and “Not Reformed”, and “Paedo” in to “Reformed”, “Arminian”, and “Lutheran”. However, most Protestants in America aren’t traditional Protestants, and couldn’t tell you what consubstantiation was, or that Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration, or what the Five Articles of Remonstrace were - witness the rise of the much-vaunted “30,000 sects” (probably more like 350 if counted more fairly, and non-denominationals counted as one), Pentecostalism, name-it-and-claim-it, Word-Faith, prosperity theology, various forms of millenarianism (Rapture, Pre-Tribulationism), dispensationalism (the Church is not Israel), Adventism - and those are within the bounds of Trinitarian orthodoxy alone!

Even “Anglicanism” is such a big tent it encompasses the entire range of religious thought, from orthodox Christianity to liberalism to rank heresy to outright apostasy: it’s like a religion unto itself, attempting to investigate the various currents that are all “mainstream” within it.

Call me crazy but even with all that there is Catholic… and it’s a lot, it still makes more sense to me than the confusing and convoluted state of Protestantism today. I think many of my Protestant friends here would agree.

 

[Jimmy_B]

"So, faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."
(James 2:18)

This is one of the verses that troubled Marin Luther and still troubles all those who hold Protestant, non-Catholic beliefs. Please read James 2:14-26, before posting.

Your Thoughts.

 

[Jimmy_B]

EDIT: Without realizing it, my post also reads as a direct reply or further elucidation of the points in your post immediately preceding this one, and not just the one I quoted.

Oh, don’t even open this can of worms - if you want to, start with the evangelical historian Mark Noll. Maybe in 1550 there were two main branches of Protestants (probably not even then, because one has to count the originally very Catholique - erstwhile Calvinist, erstwhile Arminian, sometimes-Catholic, liberal and conservative - Anglican Protestantism, and Anabaptism), but soon enough there were three completely different kinds of Lutheranism (the Flacians, the Melanchthonians, and the Amsdorfians), then came the Osianderians, which today have become half a dozen or more. There were several kinds of Reformed (Calvinist and Arminian/Remonstrant) from the start, and Calvinism has fractured, although is still more united than any other Protestant theology, and Arminianism gave birth to Methodism/Wesleyanism, which taken to an extreme became Holiness (no baptism, Christian perfection), which helped spawn Pentecostalism. Anabaptism became the Mennonites and related denominations of today.

And, now, after that much-truncated denominational history, you come to today, where the majority of Protestants, at least in America, are generic evangelicals or non-denominationals who have no theology or theologians to speak of (unlike the great theologians produced by the major Reformation traditions of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and even Anglicanism), and have no history to speak of that stretches beyond their founding in schism from such-and-such parent body over such-and-such instrument used in worship thirty-eight years ago, or from the predictions and private revelations of such-and-such prophet (Joseph Smith, Ellen Gould White, Charles Taze Russell, etc.). Not to speak of the “post-conservatives” and Open Theists, and various raging heretics who are called “Christian” by some.

Then you have to go back to the Wycliffites, Hussites, Waldensians, and Lollards before the Magisterial Reformation proper, in order to attempt to trace the development of the Credobaptist branches fully, which eventually, for confessional, Reformed Baptists, culminated in the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

When you’re speaking of traditional, confessional Protestants, you can divide it somewhat in to “Credo” and “Paedo”, and divide “Credo” in to “Reformed” and “Not Reformed”, and “Paedo” in to “Reformed”, “Arminian”, and “Lutheran”. However, most Protestants in America aren’t traditional Protestants, and couldn’t tell you what consubstantiation was, or that Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration, or what the Five Articles of Remonstrace were - witness the rise of the much-vaunted “30,000 sects” (probably more like 350 if counted more fairly, and non-denominationals counted as one), Pentecostalism, name-it-and-claim-it, Word-Faith, prosperity theology, various forms of millenarianism (Rapture, Pre-Tribulationism), dispensationalism (the Church is not Israel), Adventism - and those are within the bounds of Trinitarian orthodoxy alone!

A good chunk of conservative evangelicals are dispensationalists, not realizing their theology has a pedigree that can be traced back exactly 90 some years, to the publication of the (Old) Scofield Reference Bible.

Even “Anglicanism” is such a big tent it encompasses the entire range of religious thought, from orthodox Christianity to liberalism to rank heresy to outright apostasy: it’s like a religion unto itself, attempting to investigate the various currents that are all “mainstream” within it. It ranges from John Hicks (heretic, author of The Myth of God Incarnate and a standard textbook of philosophy of religion) and John Shelby Spong (outright atheist apostate) to Rowan Williams and John Stott to Alister McGrath and NT Wright.

I have a lot of none Catholic friends here at CAF who do a good job describing and defending their particular denomination’s beliefs. However, they tend to be the more orthodox, older and formally educated… many are ministers in their church. Some are my favorite people here.

 

[Khalid]

If you want to see an extraordinarily high level of Reformed Protestant (almost solely Presbyterian) discourse, including several well-known seminary professors, read the PuritanBoards (but you can’t join - the membership requirements are strict and exclude those who are not traditional, confessional Reformed).

 

[Reuben_J]

In a more detailed way, this is how I have tried to understand and apply what James is saying here to my own life. I will do so by using James’ very own subject - Abraham.

First we have to ask what faith is in a biblical sense. The gospel of Jesus Christ is, ultimately, a promise. It is a promise from God that our sins, in full, have been borne on the cross by the Son of God and the debt for our transgressions has been satisfied. The basis of our justification - our reconciliation to God - is not faith. The sole grounds of our innocence is the merits of Christ alone (solus Christus). Faith is the gift whereby we believe that promise from God, place all of our trust in it for our hope, both for this life and the next. As a sinner, I know that I am unable to live the life that the law of God demands, and so I trust that God’s promise that Christ lived it for me is true.

God made a similar, though veiled, promise to Abraham. He promised Abraham that he would be a great nation. That through his offspring, all nations would blessed. This ultimately would be Christ, Abraham’s greater offspring. In an immediate sense, though, it meant Isaac. “Through Isaac your offspring will be named.” Abraham believed this promise from God. How do we know that Abraham believed this promise? Had faith in this promise? Because God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son. How did Abraham demonstrate his faith in the promise? By obeying God’s command. Abraham knew, and had faith in, the fact that some how, sone way, God would still be faithful to His unconditional covenant to make Isaac his heir. How do we know this? The writer to the Hebrews tells us: “By faith, Abraham offered up Isaac…He considered that God was even able to raise him back from the dead.” (Heb. 11:17, 19).

This is what James is zeroing in on. Abraham completed, showed, etc. his faith in God’s promises by being obedient, knowing that no matter what, God would be true to His word.

Well spoken that speaks perhaps for all of us.

For us as Christians, we show our trust, our faith, by obeying the Lord who bought us. It is how the Spirit works in us to show that we are sons of Abraham…that no matter the cost to us, we hope for a city whose architect is God. Those who do not obey show that their trust is void of reality and is simply an empty profession.
Hope that helps.

Here is the important part. What is that we must obey? What is that we must have our faith in? There are many commandments of the Lord, even if one looks at the Bible only. Do we have to follow everything that are said there or do we pick and choose?

The above post if it is to be complete needs to tell us what is that we must obey so that our trust is not void of reality and an empty profession.