ADDING WORKS:

[H. Richard]

You see, this should be an indication that there may be a flaw in your theology. Again, you ought to be able to give a defense. It's not as if I'm being ugly. I'm simply asking logical questions that need to be answered for your position to gain any credibility.


I didn't ask why He went to the cross. My specific question was:


So are you saying this is what they believed the purpose was for why He allowed Himself to be crucified? Yes or no?

Again, I ask, who are the THEY. Was it the Jews, Apostles, or the Gentiles under grace. You think you asked a simple question but it wasn't. I think it was a gotcha question and I will not play that game.

If this does not satisfy you then you will just have to be unsatisfied. LOL

 

[Hidden In Him]

Again, I ask, who are the THEY. Was it the Jews, Apostles, or the Gentiles under grace. You think you asked a simple question but it wasn't. I think it was a gotcha question and I will not play that game.

If this does not satisfy you then you will just have to be unsatisfied. LOL

The apostles, for Heaven's sake, LoL. Who else's opinion would we care about here?

 

[justbyfaith]

So some just talk (write) all around the fact that the Holy Spirit had James write his message to the Jews only.

The book of Philippians was written only to the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. And therefore, He who began a good work in you will NOT be faithful to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; because that promise does not apply to you.

 

[justbyfaith]

Some want to say that the believing Jews were saved under the gospel of grace but I can't find any scriptures to support that.

If the believing Jews weren't saved under the gospel of grace, what gospel were they saved under?

Will you expound to me this other gospel?

Because I was circumcised on the eight day; and therefore your theology tells me that I may not be able to take advantage of the gospel of grace.

So, please expound to me the gospel that will bring salvation to me.

Otherwise, you are telling me that I am up a creek without a paddle and are giving me no remedy.

 

[justbyfaith]

Act 15:7, And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8, And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9, And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10, Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11, But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

 

[GodsGrace]

What seems to be obvious is that those that teach a child of God MUST have works to show their faith have hung the statement of James that “faith without works is dead” around the necks of those “IN CHRIST” who believe in Jesus‘ work on the cross.

To these we are just required to keep the law of good works and those works are defined by them with selected verses. Which is better, to be kind to others or to try and get them to see the salvation that Jesus paid for on the cross? Baring fruit for God isn’t a person glorifying in their own works; but glorifying the work on the cross. We are to witness to faith in Jesus’ work and not our own.

Tell me, which is better, to be kind to others or to help lead them to eternal life? It seems to me that every time a person tries to reach out to God in faith the religious works crowd hangs the requirement of works around their neck.

I am completely aware that a child of God will be lead by the Holy Spirit to do what God wishes for them to do. But that is not what the works crowd wants. They want to determine the works others are to do. Doesn’t matter if those person’s are doing what God wants them to do.

Even though I have shown that James was certainly not writing to those under grace and that he got some things wrong the religious works crowd still cling to their traditions. They will not see that placing their faith in works will not save them and as Paul writes they are under a curse. Why???? Because they trample under foot the “:completed” work of Jesus on the cross.

Heb 10:28-29
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
NKJV

To me, it seems that, most can tell you about their faith in keeping commandment and picking up their cross of their works but they will not tell about their faith in what Jesus did on the cross. Many of the ones that testify that they have faith in Jesus’ work on the cross are even accused, by the works crowd, of not being saved by given them derogatory labels so they can accuse them of not having a true faith.

But to us who know that faith in what Jesus did on the cross is the only way to please God will never say we earn a place with God BECAUSE of our works. Now the works crowd will say that they are doing that too. If they are doing that too then why do they give statements like easy believes?

According to Paul, when a person adds works to grace they are under a curse. I, personally do not claim any works.. Does that mean I do not do any?? Off course not! It means I place no confidence in my works. If I have any God knows it, not me.

But that is okay, I let others talk about how they keep Jesus’ commandment. But when, and if, they look into their hearts they would know they are not. I think God’s judgment on them for giving a boast in their own works while neglecting to boast in Jesus’ work will not bring a good out come.

But hey, that is just a person’s remarks that have been told that what I believe in is easy believism. So faith in Jesus’ work on the cross is just easy believism. So get out there and do your works.

You have two great threads going on at the same time.
Wish you'd slow down so I could get my 2 cents in....
Later.

 

[H. Richard]

If the believing Jews weren't saved under the gospel of grace, what gospel were they saved under?

The gospel of the promised kingdom for the Jews under the covenant made with the Jews.

 

[justbyfaith]

The gospel of the promised kingdom for the Jews under the covenant made with the Jews.

So if I am Jewish, must I survive the Great Tribulation so that I can enter into the millenial kingdom?

What if I am alive during a time when those events are not about to come to pass?

Is my only salvation that I will be alive for 1,000 years but there is no heaven for me?

I am not saved by grace through faith (but am saved through some other means)?

Or, I am not really saved because the only promise that I have from God is that I will be alive during the millenial kingdom?

I really don't think that you have thought through the implications of your theology.

 

[H. Richard]

So if I am Jewish, must I survive the Great Tribulation so that I can enter into the millenial kingdom?

What if I am alive during a time when those events are not about to come to pass?

Is my only salvation that I will be alive for 1,000 years but there is no heaven for me?

I am not saved by grace through faith (but am saved through some other means)?

Or, I am not really saved because the only promise that I have from God is that I will be alive during the millenial kingdom?

I really don't think that you have thought through the implications of your theology.

Well if you have to ask me all these questions then you obviously have not thought through the implications of your own theology.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Again, I ask, who are the THEY. Was it the Jews, Apostles, or the Gentiles under grace.

The apostles, for Heaven's sake, LoL. Who else's opinion would we care about here?

H. Richard, what was your answer?

 

[H. Richard]

H. Richard, what was your answer?

The question was;
"So are (you) saying this is what they (THE APOSTLES) believed the purpose was for why He allowed Himself to be crucified? Yes or no?"

I have not said what the Apostles believed as to the purpose.

"The apostles, for Heaven's sake, LoL. Who else's opinion would we care about here?"

Sorry I thought you were asking my opinion. LOL

My answer; There is nothing in the 4 gospels that tell us what the Apostles thought about Jesus allowing Himself to be crucified. According to Peter the Jews were to repent of having crucified Him (Acts 2) It seems to me that the Apostles thought it was all over and went back to fishing. There is nothing in the 4 gospels where the "Apostles" said that Jesus' death on the cross paid for the sins of the whole world if you think there is show it.

Luke 18:31-34
31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.
32 For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon.
33 They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."
34 But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.
NKJV

They should have known. It was prophesied in the OT.

Sorry Hidden In Him but I am 86 years old, have to use a walker, and am on oxygen and I do not have the energy to play silly games. I feel that what I believe and say is completely covered in my OPs.

Got to go and take a nap.

 

[justbyfaith]

Well if you have to ask me all these questions then you obviously have not thought through the implications of your own theology.

Why don't you answer them?

I have thought through the implications of my theology...and it took probably a second of time to think through the implications of yours.

 

[justbyfaith]

There is nothing in the 4 gospels where the "Apostles" said that Jesus' death on the cross paid for the sins of the whole world if you think there is show it.

The words of Peter to Cornelius:

Act 10:43, To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

It may not be found in the gospels but in the book of Acts; but it shows that the understanding that Jesus brings forgiveness of sins is not limited to Paul.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Sorry Hidden In Him but I am 86 years old, have to use a walker, and am on oxygen and I do not have the energy to play silly games.

Well I'm sorry to hear about this, but what you have to understand here is that you influence people when you post things like this publicly on forums, and my replies are no game. Because of your ability to influence people, I am holding you accountable to prove that what you teach lines up with scripture. I overlooked it the first time, but since you are again accusing me of playing games, that's actually an insult to my character and you shouldn't be doing it. I've given you no reason to insult me, and this is not a game.

Now about your reply:

My answer; There is nothing in the 4 gospels that tell us what the Apostles thought about Jesus allowing Himself to be crucified. According to Peter the Jews were to repent of having crucified Him (Acts 2) It seems to me that the Apostles thought it was all over and went back to fishing. There is nothing in the 4 gospels where the "Apostles" said that Jesus' death on the cross paid for the sins of the whole world if you think there is show it.

Luke 18:31-34
31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.
32 For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon.
33 They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."
34 But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.
NKJV

This passage is speaking of a time before Christ had even been crucified yet. So of course they didn't understand yet. What I am asking you is regarding your claims in the post I initially responded to:

Some will find any excuse to get the writings of James to apply to the those under grace. They do not say how they get around James 1:1. They just rationalize all around it.

You were claiming that James was still teaching that the church was under law, so my first response was to ask you what you think the apostles would have believed about why Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified before the time Paul began preaching the gospel of grace. The Book of James is estimated to have been written around 45 A.D., which means that he was - according to your position - still not yet preaching the gospel of grace as of this time. That's 15 years removed from the time Christ was crucified. Now James was the head of the church in Jerusalem when he wrote his letter, so he would most certainly have not been the only one teaching something other than the gospel of grace. If not, the church would have removed him from his place of authority for teaching heresy.

So I am asking you what then would the church have been teaching during this entire time regarding why the Lord Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be crucified. If your answer is that "there is nothing in scripture," that would suggest they simply didn't bother answering the question amongst themselves for more than 15 years, sort of like ignoring the elephant in the room. Orthodox Christianity has an answer for what they would have believed about this question, and that is that James preached salvation by grace through Christ's sacrifice. This is why his letter was accepted as cannon. But you are arguing that James (and apparently the entire church for at least 15 years) was teaching something different.

Don't you think it behooves you to lay out for us what the church believed about why He allowed Himself to be crucified, if for 15 years they didn't know the purpose of it was to shed His blood to atone for man's sins? And why would they be completely in the dark during that entire time?

 

[GodsGrace]

The words of Peter to Cornelius:

Act 10:43, To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

It may not be found in the gospels but in the book of Acts; but it shows that the understanding that Jesus brings forgiveness of sins is not limited to Paul.

He said in the 4 gospels.
He's right.
This idea of the cross bearing our sins came after the Ascension.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well I'm sorry to hear about this, but what you have to understand here is that you influence people when you post things like this publicly on forums, and my replies are no game. Because of your ability to influence people, I am holding you accountable to prove that what you teach lines up with scripture. I overlooked it the first time, but since you are again accusing me of playing games, that's actually an insult to my character and you shouldn't be doing it. I've given you no reason to insult me, and this is not a game.

Now about your reply:


This passage is speaking of a time before Christ had even been crucified yet. So of course they didn't understand yet. What I am asking you is regarding your claims in the post I initially responded to:


You were claiming that James was still teaching that the church was under law, so my first response was to ask you what you think the apostles would have believed about why Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified before the time Paul began preaching the gospel of grace. The Book of James is estimated to have been written around 45 A.D., which means that he was - according to your position - still not yet preaching the gospel of grace as of this time. That's 15 years removed from the time Christ was crucified. Now James was the head of the church in Jerusalem when he wrote his letter, so he would most certainly have not been the only one teaching something other than the gospel of grace. If not, the church would have removed him from his place of authority for teaching heresy.

So I am asking you what then would the church have been teaching during this entire time regarding why the Lord Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be crucified. If your answer is that "there is nothing in scripture," that would suggest they simply didn't bother answering the question amongst themselves for more than 15 years, sort of like ignoring the elephant in the room. Orthodox Christianity has an answer for what they would have believed about this question, and that is that James preached salvation by grace through Christ's sacrifice. This is why his letter was accepted as cannon. But you are arguing that James (and apparently the entire church for at least 15 years) was teaching something different.

Don't you think it behooves you to lay out for us what the church believed about why He allowed Himself to be crucified, if for 15 years they didn't know the purpose of it was to shed His blood to atone for man's sins? And why would they be completely in the dark during that entire time?

Immediately after Jesus' death, the Apostles were at a loss and didn't really understand why this had to happen.

It was a revelation that took some time...
to tie the knots, so to speak.
You're right about the rest.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The words of Peter to Cornelius:

Act 10:43, To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Excellent work, and proof positive. The preaching of the gospel to Cornelius and his house (as described in this passage) is generally dated to 41 A.D., four years before James wrote his letter. And it was preached by Peter, not by Paul.

 

[farouk]

He said in the 4 gospels.
He's right.
This idea of the cross bearing our sins came after the Ascension.

It's also in Isaiah 53.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Immediately after Jesus' death, the Apostles were at a loss and didn't really understand why this had to happen.

It was a revelation that took some time...
to tie the knots, so to speak.
You're right about the rest.

I don't think it took that long. As @justbyfaith pointed out, Peter was preaching the gospel of grace in Acts 10, and in Acts 2:38 it also says that he was preaching being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[justbyfaith]

He said in the 4 gospels.
He's right.
This idea of the cross bearing our sins came after the Ascension.

Of course. Do you think that makes it invalid?

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth, and to teach them what they could not formerly bear.