The Real reason why one cannot be saved by faith alone.

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

javelin:

A beautiful quote indeed! Amen!! However, God loves all men, and desires that all be saved, but we know that no everyone is saved. How can that be? Because while Christ’s love is always with us, we can still choose to reject it through sin. When we sin, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love us anymore! It is we who are not loving God and accepting His constant, freely-offered love, without which we cannot be saved (which is Pax’s point as well, I believe). Bringing it back to the parable, even though the son took his inheritance and squandered it in death, the father continued to love him, but it was the son’s action (work) of returning to the father in repentance that restored him to the family and new life.

Just in the reply that you posted before this you insisted on the fact that not all humans are really children of God. So why don’t you want to see now that the children of God have a special kind of love because they have peace with God? Didn’t you read in the passage I quoted that this love is IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

Pax:

Yaqubos,

What do you mean by freedom from sin?

“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” ( Romans 7:5-6 )

“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” ( Romans 6:14 )

“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?”
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;
but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 15:55-57 )

Death and sin are related. When Jesus gives you LIFE, you are FREE from sin!

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

exrc:

WORK: Anything that can be achieved using the human body.

Not just body, but also soul and spirit. Before being alive, a man is dead. He lives in the flesh. Living in the flesh means spiritual death. So he does works of death.

We must be POOR in spirit.

This was just to clarify. But, of course, it is right that we can’t do works for justification without being in this body.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[exrc]

YAQUBOS:

Peace!

Not just body, but also soul and spirit. Before being alive, a man is dead. He lives in the flesh. Living in the flesh means spiritual death. So he does works of death.

We must be POOR in spirit.

This was just to clarify. But, of course, it is right that we can’t do works for justification without being in this body.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Thanks my friend,

It did look a little barren amongst the others.

I will edit my post accordingly.

Anyone else?

If not I will assume you that you agree.

beng, no is not an answer, correct me where I’m wrong. If you don’t, I must assume that you can not. Lets come to a common agreement of terms, or will that work against you?

P.S. I must apoligize for my lack of content in some of my posts. I’m a one finger typer, and very computer inept. But, I’m getting better!

In love ex-catholic Dan!

 

[exrc]

exrc:

Catholic friends,

Lets define a few things before we go on.

FAITH: to believe with mind and soul or heart, to trust without doubt,something unseen but real,not a work of any sort.( being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Heb 11:1)

WORK: Anything that can be achieved using the human body.

GRACE: an unmerited,undeserved, unearned gift from God.

LAW:The 613 articles in the book of Moses including the ten commandments, and Lev. 19:18 loving your neighbor.

BORN-AGAIN: the point at which a person is made spiritually alive, becomes the temple of the Holy Spirit, justified, declared righteous like Adam before the fall, becomes a chosen people and part of the royal priesthood and holy nation of God (1 Peter 2:9), the law is written on there hearts( Jer. 31:33). Did I miss any?

Can we all agree on this so far? If not reply.

In love ex-catholic Dan!

addendum to WORKS:

(stated to clarify) Not just body,but also soul and spirit. Before being alive, a man is dead. He lives in the flesh. Living in the flesh means spiritual death. So he does works of death. We must be poor in spirit.

 

[Pax]

YAQUBOS:

Peace!

“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” ( Romans 7:5-6 )

“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” ( Romans 6:14 )

“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?”
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;
but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 15:55-57 )

Death and sin are related. When Jesus gives you LIFE, you are FREE from sin!

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Yaqubos,

You have quoted some scripture (all of which I say Amen to) and you have returned to what you’ve been saying, " When Jesus gives you LIFE, you are FREE from sin!" I also agree with this, but I want to know specifically what this means to you.

Does this mean that we will be freed from commiting sin? Or does this mean something else to you?

 

[BouleTheou]

beng -

Dude, why are you using an argument that has been refuted?

This is the original Thread where Patrick (a Protestant) made the argument on Envoy (Catholic Magazine published by Patrick Madrid)

It’s such a shame that you rpovide an already rebutted argument.

[chuckle] - look at how it was “rebutted”… please.

Boule

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

Pax:

Yaqubos,

You have quoted some scripture (all of which I say Amen to) and you have returned to what you’ve been saying, " When Jesus gives you LIFE, you are FREE from sin!" I also agree with this, but I want to know specifically what this means to you.

Does this mean that we will be freed from commiting sin? Or does this mean something else to you?

Pax, the verses are more than clear. Sin is not MASTER over us, believers who have LIFE.

By the way: many here are trying to talk about how is life AFTER we receive Him. While the topic is about how we receive Life: by faith or by works?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[beng]

YAQUBOS:

Peace!

Do you think that your name is written in those books? For the Scripture says that the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books ( books with s )! Isn’t your name in the Book of Life yet? Read the passage again: the books were opened and ANOTHER book was opened ( the Book of Life ). Is your name in that OTHER book? Do you have Life?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Look in KJV Strong’s. All the word “books” and “book” are the same!

Are you saying that the wicked is judged according to their work but not the righteous?

 

[Pax]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

Pax, the verses are more than clear. Sin is not MASTER over us, believers who have LIFE.

By the way: many here are trying to talk about how is life AFTER we receive Him. While the topic is about how we receive Life: by faith or by works?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

I will ask one more time. Does this mean that we will be able to stop sinning or not? To say that sin is “not Master over us” is still not clear in regards to my question.

If you are criticizing my question by way of your comment on the thread topic, then you never should have put the matter in your posts.

 

[RBushlow]

tralon:

for by grace are you saved and not of works, so nobody can boast.

James 2:24 → You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Your brother in Christ

 

[Pax]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

…

By the way: many here are trying to talk about how is life AFTER we receive Him. While the topic is about how we receive Life: by faith or by works?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Yaqubos,

Rather than incorrectly stating the thread topic which you did not author, please read what the thread topic actually says. It reads as follows: “Re: The Real reason why one cannot be saved by faith alone.” Your statement about the thread topic says a lot about your doctrinal presuppostions and why you have difficulty understanding both Paul and James. It is not by faith “or” works. We are saved by grace alone, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by faith and works. This statement fully concurs with scripture as has been outlined many times in previous posts.

 

[RBushlow]

YAQUBOS:

By the way: many here are trying to talk about how is life AFTER we receive Him. While the topic is about how we receive Life: by faith or by works?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Yaqubos, no one is arguing between faith and works. ALL agree that faith is necessary. The argument is about whether Faith ALONE is enough. James 2:24 → You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Your brother in Christ

 

[Pax]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

Pax, I remember I answered this to you before, but it seems that you don’t want to believe.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love” ( Galatians 5:22 )

The Spirit gives Life. Love is the fruit of the Spirit and not the cause to receive the Spirit of Life.

You ask: “Can a person be saved that does not love God?”.
And I ask you: Can a DEAD person love before he has Life by receiving the Holy Spirit?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

You have not answered this question. Asking me a question is no answer at all. Stating that “The Spirit gives life. Love is the fruit of the Spirit and not the cause to receive the Spirit of Life.” also fails to answer the question.

Your answer is not really pertinent to the question. The question does not ask how we recieve the supernatural gift of charity. The question does not ask whether or not love is the fruit of the Spirit.

You tend to avoid certain kinds of questions and claim to answer them with nebulous or off task answers.

Please try again and please be direct.

 

[Pax]

BouleTheou:

beng -

[chuckle] - look at how it was “rebutted”… please.

Boule

I believe that the link that beng provided was incorrect. Perhaps he can post the correct one. You can, however, look at my posts #226 and #227. They should help you out.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

YAQUBOS:

N.B.: I said it before, and I say it now again: I don’t interpret the Scripture, but SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture interprets Scripture?

 

[beng]

BouleTheou:

beng -

[chuckle] - look at how it was “rebutted”… please.

Boule

Shall I rebut it then?

Here are some comments on Romans 4 and James 2 that should help you:

commenting on Romans 4:10-11, “How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,”

Paul, knowing that his opponents will still want to say that in some way Abraham’s works formed at least a part of his justification before God, rules that out in this verse.
Then why did we have Romans 2:13? Paul is not shy away from saying that “the doers of the law shall be justified.” If indeed Paul totally rules out the “work” part. He would not wrote Romans 3:21.

In Romans 4 Paul, again, emphasized his theme of NOT OBLIGATING GOD.

Romans 4:1 Paul begun to itroduce Abraham. He used Abraham to make a point as an example. At Romans 4:2 we could see how his “NOT OBLIGATING GOD” theme has been brough up.

Romans 4:2
*2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.
*

In here when Paul mention “work” it means a 100% human effort and no God. Paul condemned this.

We see again in Romans 4::
4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt.

This relationship of employer and employee is not what God had intended. Why?

1. Because men can not obligated God in any way
2. Men without God’s initial grace can not do any good let alone have faith or do good work.

Now, Romans 4:5
5 But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.

What did Paul mean by “worketh not”? Can it be that it’s “no work at all”? NO, BECAUSE IF THERE’S NO WORK WHATSOEVER THAN NO ACTION WHATSOEVER HAPPENED! But that can’t be right can’t it? Because:

1. Abraham LEFT Ur after God commandeth him so
2. Abraham SACRIFICED Isaac after God commandeth him.

Those ARE “works”

To be continue

 

[beng]

Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised.

Let me be cool too and engage like this is a debate.

My opponent tried to imply that just because Abraham was justified before circumcission, it means that Abraham did not do any work whatsoever. Or could it be that my opponent think that “works” here equal the Jewish laws? I shall explain if it’s the first and then explain whether it’s the later.

If my opponent think that Abraham is justified by FAITH ALONE just because it’s said that Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcission and not after (Romans 4:9-10) then he is deluding himself. Now ask yourself, ladies and gentlemen, what happens to Abraham before he was circumsized? Well, I can tell you that a few of things happened:

1. He left Ur
2. He bargained with God to save Lot
3. Lord promised him abundant offsprings.

The most important is No:1! God told Abaraham to leave Ur and HE DID! That’s a “work” ladies and gentlemen. If you want to leave “work” out of the equation, then what happened is that somehow God send Angels to Carry Abraham out of Ur.

This will be a critical statement for my opponent to deal with, for if he says (as all Roman Catholics I have dialogued about this with have) that James chapter two is teaching that Abraham was ‘justified’ in exactly the same sense (when he offered Isaac) as Paul does here, we are faced with a diametric contradiction to Paul’s express teaching in this passage.

My opponent is wrong again ladies and gentlemen. I have shown that Paul’s usage of the word “work” is interchangable between:

1. “Work” as in obligatory relation between employer and employee
2. “Work” by faith and under grace.

Paul, of course, did not left his audience puzzled which is which, for he explained in what sense he used the word “work” in a particular verses. We have seen how “work” in Romans 4 refer to “work” in an abligatory sense. But what about the other meaning of “work?” Look no further than the chapter Protestant fear the most, Romans Chapter 3:

In Romans Chapter, Form verse 1 to 16 points out about the existance of “laws” that man must follow. Jews have it, Gentiles have it. Keep the “laws” and you will be justified: Higlighted verses are:

Romans 2:6
*6 Who will render to every man according to his works.

Romans 2:10
10 But glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 2:13
13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified.

This is “laws” no:2. Laws that is done by faith in a father son relationship.

QUICKLY in verses 17-18 Paul warns about being “boastful”

Romans 2:17-18
17 But if thou art called a Jew and restest in the law and makest thy boast of God, 18 And knowest his will and approvest the more profitable things, being instructed by the law:

Verses 19 to 24 show how silly it is when one boast about the law and try to lead the gentiles into the law (in Romans what happenned was some Jewish who have converted to Christianity told Christian gentiles to obey the law)

Continue below*

 

[beng]

Now, verse 25 is interesting:

Romans 2:25
25 Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

So, according to Paul circumcision actually means something. Unlike what my opponent try to imply by saying that it doesn’t mean anything since Abraham was justified before he was circumcized. All of this contradictions only appear in Protestant theology ladies and gentlemen. Catholic theology of grace, faith and work explains all “seemingly” contradictory statements while Protestant theology try to said something what the Bible does not. I mean, how can they strenly advocate "faith alone’ when there’s a clear warning that it’s NOT BY FAIH ALONE?

The final part of Romans 2 in our study is verses 26 to 29. The verse explain how circumcision can profiteth. And that is if one obey the law.

Something interesting to not is that Paul also made an “if function” idea of circumcision, like he did with “work”. If anyone is a programmer or use excell you will now what “if function” is. It’s like “if A is true, then B. If A is false, then C”.

Paul said that circumcision profiteth BUT he put a “if” as a condition. So does in “work” Paul also put a condition (“boast”) when it’s never justified.

Soooooo ladies and gentlemen. I have proven to you how in Romans 2, Paul did not shy away from using “work” type 2 and he managed to explain it to his audience.

When Paul offered Isaac in Genesis 22, that was years after he was circumcised. Paul leaves no room for doubt about when Abraham was justified before God, “not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.” That is, in my opinion, the ultimate problem with the standard Roman Catholic interpretation of James 2:24. The standard Roman Catholic interpretation of James chapter two hands the victory to Paul’s enemies.

Already answered and explained. above that Abraham was justified when he DID many things. One of 'em is when he left Ur just to believe what God said.

continue below

 

[beng]

Final

To preclude the most common Roman Catholic response I’ve heard to this point, I’ve included this little paragraph. Most Catholic apologists will argue that Abraham was actually justified before God in exactly the same way in both instances, i.e. when he believed the promise of Yahweh in Genesis 15:6 and also in Genesis 22 when he was about to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering. Were this the case, Paul simply could not have argued the way he does in Romans chapter 4. If Abraham were justified before God more than once, i.e. once before his circumcision and again after his circumcision, this would have been a rather devastating reason not to argue so vociferously in these words, “How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.” If Paul’s enemies could simply have said, “Well Paul, it was both before and after,” his entire argument against works playing a role in justification, against circumcision playing a role in ju

stification, that God justifies the ungodly, and that God justifies the one who believes by imputing righteousness to them apart from works would have no merit whatsoever. If Abraham was justified before God after he was circumcised, Paul seems to have been utterly unaware of it – and such would be impossible for here Paul is expositing the precious doctrine of justification in a book of inspired Scripture.

BouleTheou
My opponent is creating a smoke screen ladies and gentlemen. The problem is not whether the Paul’s audience could answer that “Abraham was justified BOTH before circumcision and after circumcission” The issue is that **these audiences, who are Jewish converts who tried to made gentile Christian obey Jewish laws, thought that ONLY WHEN ONE IS CIRCUMCISSED ONE CAN BE JUSTIFIED! This is a strict Jewish thinking which they tried to imposed upon gentile Christians.

All Paul had to do is prove that Abraham is justified NOT WHEN HE WAS CIRCUMCISED and their whole notion of justification through circumcission will crumbled. It does not matter if AFTER the circumcision Abraham is still justified** (In fact this is in accordance with Catholic theology which said that justification is a process.)

Ladies and gentlemen, than you very much for your attention. Now after hearing the truth, if you’re not Catholic yet, go to the nearest Catholic Church and ask the Fater about RCIA.