ADDING WORKS:
- Thread starter H. Richard
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Many Calvinist anti-Catholics are unwilling or unable to understand the relationship of human free will to God’s grace. We believe we can cooperate with God’s grace in order to “merit.” Yet that very merit is itself completely an act of God’s grace. Here is some more relevant information to consider:
The Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.), accepted as dogma by the Catholic Church, dogmatically taught in its Canon 7:
If anyone asserts that we can, by our natural powers, think as we ought, or choose any good pertaining to the salvation of eternal life . . . without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . he is misled by a heretical spirit . . . [goes on to cite Jn 15:5, 2 Cor 3:5]
Likewise, the ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-63): Chapter 5, Decree on Justification:
. . . Man . . . is not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.
Canon I on Justification:
If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
The existence of a measure of human free will in order for man to cooperate with God’s grace does not reduce inevitably and necessarily to Semi-Pelagianism, as Luther, Calvin, and present-day Calvinists wrongly charge. The Catholic view is a third way. Our “meritorious actions” are always necessarily preceded and caused and crowned and bathed in God’s enabling grace. But this doesn’t wipe out our cooperation, which is not intrinsically meritorious in the sense that it derives from us and not God . . . Second Orange again:
The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.
All this, yet the Calvinoid myths about "good works" thrives to this day.
As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of supernatural good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious acts of man.St. Augustine wrote:
What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts? (Ep. 194, 5, 19; in Ott, 265)
The concept of merit and its corollary reward is well-supported in Scripture (Matthew 5:12; Matthew 19:17, 21, 29; Matthew 25:21; 25:34 ff.; Luke 6:38; Romans 2:6; 1 Corinthians 3:8; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Colosians 3:24; Hebrews 6:10; Hebrews 10:35; Hebrews 11:6; 2 Timothy 4:8; Ephesians 6:8).
. . . . The Catholic Church was right in maintaining against Luther, at the Council of Trent, that heaven is merited by our good works, because this is the clear teaching of revelation.
“We have shown that according to Holy Scripture the Christian can actually merit heaven for himself by his good works. But we must realize that these works have to be performed in the state of grace and with a good intention . . ."
Through these and similar works [we can actually merit heaven as our reward]. There are few truths so infallibly attested by Scripture. Christ himself has promised: ‘Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven’ (Matt 5:12)
Jesus himself tells his disciples: ‘I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me (by the state of grace), and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit (for heaven). If a man does not abide in me (by mortal sin) . . . he can do nothing’ – he can bear no fruit for heaven; just as the branch that is cut off from the vine cannot produce any grapes.
By sanctifying grace we are children of God. Only by sanctifying grace do we have a right to heaven as our heritage. By purely natural good acts, such as even the sinner can perform, heaven cannot be merited as a reward; we must be in the state of grace, a child of God. Only after human nature has been united to God by grace and raised up above it’s own nature can good acts, which proceed from this supernaturally elevated nature, be directed towards the possession of God in the hereafter. Only in this way can we merit the vision of God in heaven, since it completely surpasses the powers of our pure human nature.
By sanctifying grace we become living members of the mystical body of Christ, one with Christ our Head. Thus our acts become acts of Christ, who, in an incomprehensible way, is living and working in his members. Through this intimate union with Christ, our Mediator before the Father, we merit the happiness of heaven.
Finally, sanctifying grace makes us temples of the Holy Spirit, who compels us to good works (Romans 8:14). St. Francis de Sales writes that the Holy Spirit performs good works in us with such consummate skill that the works belong more to him than to us. He works with us and we work with him. In this activity we use our free will. By our free will we submit all our human activity to the grace and will of God. By this act of reverence and worship, our good acts redound to the glory of God. Our will could also take a stand against God’s will, and commit sin.
Jim McCarthy, author of The Gospel According to Rome had hoped to leave a false impression that we believe we can get to heaven on our own power, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps, without God’s enabling grace. But this is the heresy of Pelagianism, which the Church clearly condemns.
This is, therefore, apparently deliberate misrepresentation on McCarthy’s part, and that is a serious sin — a violation of the Ten Commandments and even basic pagan and secular ethical precepts. Whatever McCarthy or other anti-Catholics think of our theology, their own Christian tradition (as well as Jesus Himself) condemn them for slander and lying, whether we are Christian “brothers” or not, in their thinking. As we indeed are their brothers in Christ, their sin is all the greater. McCarthy’s polemical anti-Catholic video has also been clearly shown by Catholic apologetics magazine This Rock to be slanderous and grossly inaccurate. Let us hope and pray that he will repent, for his sake, and for the sake of the thousands he is leading astray.
Catholic Merit vs. Distorted Caricatures
Last edited:
James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to Galatians 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and Romans 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.” James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Galatians. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself. This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g.,clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment. Here is more proof:
Romans 3:20,28; Galatians 2:16 – Paul’s phrase for “works of the law” in the Greek is “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent (“hrvt ysm”) meaning “deeds of the law,” or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use “ergon nomou.” He uses “ergois agathois.” Therefore, Paul’s “works of the law” and James’ “works” are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
Romans 3:29 – Paul confirms that works of the law in this case refer to the Mosaic law by rhetorically asking “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” It does not mean “good works.”
Romans 4:9-17 – Paul provides further discussion that righteousness God seeks in us does not come from Mosaic law, but through faith. But notice that Paul also never says “faith alone.”
Romans 9:31-32 – righteousness is pursued through faith, not works of the law. Again, “works of law” does not mean “good works.”
Last edited:
H. Richard said: ↑
Protestants are fond of saying that Catholics reject "the finished work of Christ" since Catholics reject Salvation by Faith Alone. A popular text they appeal to is John 19:30, which mentions the final words of Jesus on the Cross, "It is finished!" By this, they suggest Christ did everything necessary for our salvation, that He paid everything, all that's left is for us to believe. To deny this, they say, is to deny the Gospel. While at first this might sound convincing, it's an unfortunate and serious distortion of a beautiful text.
The first thing I'd suggest people think about is that Jesus said "It is finished" before He actually died and before He Resurrected. If someone were to push this too far in the wrong way, it would end up saying the Resurrection and even the Death itself wasn't necessary. (Note: Calvinists technically deny the sufficiency of the Cross, they just don't realize it.) Given this, there needs to be a more careful approach to the text.
What many don't know is that there is actually a very good explanation to this text that can be discerned simply by examining the context:
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Notice that the focus of this event was not about Jesus paying the full penalty for sin, but rather about fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy. It was when Jesus received the sour wine (vinegar) that He spoke these words, fulfilling the set up from verse 28. In fact, the Greek word for "finished" only appears twice in John, in verse 19:28 and 19:30, under the same verbal form (tetelestai), strongly suggesting the two go together. And the context shows that a few other Old Testament prophecies were also going to be fulfilled (John 19:31-37). So it should really be understood as "It is fulfilled," or more traditionally, "It is Consummated."
The "fulfill" ("consummated") reading also makes better sense of the Greek term used (see how it's used in Luke 18:31 and Acts 13:29). In the 26 verses the word appears in, only twice is it used to refer to payment, and even in these two verse it only refers to paying taxes (Mt 17:24; Rom 13:6) and not some full payment. In virtually every other verse it's used, it means "fulfill" or "conclude". Given this, it is absolutely astonishing the way @H. Richard will over-reach with this word to make it suggest a financial transaction of "payment in full" and completely ignore the Biblical evidence available.
This is not to suggest that the "It is Consummated" doesn't have a deeper significance than just saying "this one prophecy was fulfilled," but rather that Christ's death is to be understood as the Old Testament said it would happen. For example, Protestants love to point to Jesus on the Cross saying "My God, why have You abandoned me," and claim this verse proves the Father's wrath was poured out on Jesus. But any alert reader would know Jesus was intoning Psalm 22, which clearly is speaking of David/Jesus being persecuted by enemies and not being rescued (immediately) by God.
In the case of "I thirst," the cross-reference given for this is Psalm 69:21, which is a Messianic Psalm talking about how David was persecuted and insulted by his fellow Jews and now how Jesus is persecuted and insulted by the Jews. It has nothing to do with taking someone's punishment or the Father's wrath being dumped on them.
This same kind of distortion is happening when H. Richard says "Because they trample under foot the “completed” work of Jesus on the cross. Which is stupid and insulting.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: What did Jesus mean by "It is finished"?
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.
Protestants are fond of saying that Catholics reject "the finished work of Christ" since Catholics reject Salvation by Faith Alone. A popular text they appeal to is John 19:30, which mentions the final words of Jesus on the Cross, "It is finished!" By this, they suggest Christ did everything necessary for our salvation, that He paid everything, all that's left is for us to believe. To deny this, they say, is to deny the Gospel. While at first this might sound convincing, it's an unfortunate and serious distortion of a beautiful text.
The first thing I'd suggest people think about is that Jesus said "It is finished" before He actually died and before He Resurrected. If someone were to push this too far in the wrong way, it would end up saying the Resurrection and even the Death itself wasn't necessary. (Note: Calvinists technically deny the sufficiency of the Cross, they just don't realize it.) Given this, there needs to be a more careful approach to the text.
What many don't know is that there is actually a very good explanation to this text that can be discerned simply by examining the context:
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Notice that the focus of this event was not about Jesus paying the full penalty for sin, but rather about fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy. It was when Jesus received the sour wine (vinegar) that He spoke these words, fulfilling the set up from verse 28. In fact, the Greek word for "finished" only appears twice in John, in verse 19:28 and 19:30, under the same verbal form (tetelestai), strongly suggesting the two go together. And the context shows that a few other Old Testament prophecies were also going to be fulfilled (John 19:31-37). So it should really be understood as "It is fulfilled," or more traditionally, "It is Consummated."
The "fulfill" ("consummated") reading also makes better sense of the Greek term used (see how it's used in Luke 18:31 and Acts 13:29). In the 26 verses the word appears in, only twice is it used to refer to payment, and even in these two verse it only refers to paying taxes (Mt 17:24; Rom 13:6) and not some full payment. In virtually every other verse it's used, it means "fulfill" or "conclude". Given this, it is absolutely astonishing the way @H. Richard will over-reach with this word to make it suggest a financial transaction of "payment in full" and completely ignore the Biblical evidence available.
This is not to suggest that the "It is Consummated" doesn't have a deeper significance than just saying "this one prophecy was fulfilled," but rather that Christ's death is to be understood as the Old Testament said it would happen. For example, Protestants love to point to Jesus on the Cross saying "My God, why have You abandoned me," and claim this verse proves the Father's wrath was poured out on Jesus. But any alert reader would know Jesus was intoning Psalm 22, which clearly is speaking of David/Jesus being persecuted by enemies and not being rescued (immediately) by God.
In the case of "I thirst," the cross-reference given for this is Psalm 69:21, which is a Messianic Psalm talking about how David was persecuted and insulted by his fellow Jews and now how Jesus is persecuted and insulted by the Jews. It has nothing to do with taking someone's punishment or the Father's wrath being dumped on them.
This same kind of distortion is happening when H. Richard says "Because they trample under foot the “completed” work of Jesus on the cross. Which is stupid and insulting.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: What did Jesus mean by "It is finished"?
Last edited:
So, according to you, we are still under the Law of Moses and are saved by keeping them.
I see that you only read the 4 gospels. Only Paul was specifically sent to the Gentiles and the whole world. You really ought the read Paul's writings
Any one that reads the Bible will know that the Law of Moses was replaced by God's grace. A person under grace is saved because they believe Jesus paid for their sins on a cross. A person, today, is saved by believing in what God did for mankind on the cross.
Salvation of a person has been accomplished on the cross. Man can not save him/her self by what they do.
It is the same old argument, works vs grace. The religious are just like Cain. They want God to owe them salvation because of their works.
There would be no contradictions if people would see that the gospel of Law was replaced by the Gospel of God's grace.
Under law a person was condemned for breaking them. Under grace God has kept them for mankind. Law vs grace. But the religious just blend them all together and destroy both of them.
Good works are indeed meritorious...just not to the obtaining of entrance into heaven. We lay gold, silver, and precious gems on the foundation of Jesus Christ and this determines our rewards in heaven. If a person does not have any gold, sliver, or precious gems laid on that foundation when that day comes, he himself will be saved, yet so as by fire...which indicates he will still go to heaven even if he had no meritorious works to save him. Scripture is clear that we are not saved by works...Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8, Titus 3:4-7, Romans 11:5-6 (kjv).
Man does not merit eternal life through his works; but rather he merits reward in heaven; which is obtained by grace through faith in Jesus Christ: not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).
A man is still not saved by meritorious works but by virtue of the fact that he is a child of God by faith in Jesus. If someone were to place their faith in Jesus Christ, thus entering into a state of grace as a child of God, and yet never has any opportunity to do good works, I do not believe that they will go to hell for the lack of good works. The scripture says,
Rom 4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6, Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
So is the Catholic practice of having statues in their churches that stand as idolatry for some.
Another way of seeing a reconciliation of these verses is to say that the verses in James are speaking of justification before man and the verses in Romans and Galatians are speaking of justification before God...1 Samuel 16:7 is of utmost importance to our understanding, as well as Romans 4:2.
God's grace does not exclude the law of Moses; for it is written on the minds and in the hearts of those who are under the new covenant (Hebrews 8:8-10, Hebrews 10:16).
Correct. And, yet, what Christ has done is that He has made us into new creatures in Christ whose behaviour is not the old behaviour any longer. We walk in newness of life because we have been born again.
The law is a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ (Galatians 3:24-25); and therefore it has its place in modern preaching. Also, the love of God is shed abroad in the heart of the believer (Romans 5:5) through faith (Galatians 3:14) and this love is the fulfilling of the righteousness of the law within us (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 8:4) and the bond of perfectness (Colossians 3:14). It is also not in word or in tongue only; but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:17-18).
Thus faith in Christ produces a life of obedience to the law; not in the sense that a man looks to a set of do's and don'ts in an attempt to obey them: but in the sense that he bears the fruit of the Spirit and that such fruit is not in violation of any just law (see Galatians 5:22-23, Psalms 94:20).
There is a righteousness apart from the law; that even the law and the prophets bear witness that it is righteousness indeed (Romans 3:21)!
Last edited:
There is no such thing as "gospel of law". You use “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) interchangeably with “ergois agathois” which means "good works". They are different words with different meanings. You treat them as if they mean the same thing. They don't.
Where did I say that? Quote me instead of making things up.
Nonsense. [/quote]Only Paul was specifically sent to the Gentiles and the whole world. You really ought the read Paul's writings.[/quote] You condescend because you have been proven wrong about "works" and are too proud to admit it.
Any one that reads the Bible will know that the Law of Moses was fulfilled, not replaced. "Replaced" is a man made tradition. A person under grace is saved because they believe Jesus paid for their sins on a cross. A person, today, is saved by believing in what God did for mankind on the cross.[/quote] I am not talking about "grace". I am talking about your refusal to understand the difference between "works of the law" and "good works". Good works cannot be done without God's grace, and you ignore everything I post.
Yes, I said that repeatedly.
It is the same old argument, confusing "good works" with "works of the law". "They want God to owe them salvation because of their works." I never said such a thing. I have been saying the opposite throughout this thread. It's a straw man fallacy.
There would be no contradiction if people would see that "works of the law" is not the same as "good works". You don't.
It is you that blends works of the law with good works. "Grace alone" and "Christ alone" was taught long before Calvin borrowed it, and claimed to have discovered it himself.
Protestants doing good works feeding the hungry
freely responding to God's grace already received.
H. Richards says they are earning their salvation, or "adding works".
Last edited:
There are those who carry the invalid interpretation that "works of the law" is not the same thing as "works".
I contend that the works of the law are indeed works; and that works refers not only to works of the law but to anything that we might try to do in order to earn our salvation.
There are scriptures that tell us that we are not saved by works; and these scriptures do not limit works to the works of the law. The scriptures in question point out that works of any kind do not have the power to save a man.
Ephesians 2:8-9 does not refer to works of the law but to works period.
Romans 4:5-6 does not refer to works of the law but to works period.
Titus 3:5 does not refer to the works of the law but to works period.
I would say that this means that works do not refer to works of the law only but to any works that we might try to do in order to obtain salvation. They simply will not avail.
We must obtain regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost by faith and through the mercy of the Lord (not through works of righteousness which we have done).
"works of righteousness" does not only refer only to the works of the law but to anything we might do in an attempt to earn salvation; such as giving to the poor.
The reality is that we are justified before man by works (see Romans 4:2, 1 Samuel 16:7); but before God we are justified through faith alone (again, understand the principle of 1 Samuel 16:7).
I contend that the works of the law are indeed works; and that works refers not only to works of the law but to anything that we might try to do in order to earn our salvation.
There are scriptures that tell us that we are not saved by works; and these scriptures do not limit works to the works of the law. The scriptures in question point out that works of any kind do not have the power to save a man.
Ephesians 2:8-9 does not refer to works of the law but to works period.
Romans 4:5-6 does not refer to works of the law but to works period.
Titus 3:5 does not refer to the works of the law but to works period.
I would say that this means that works do not refer to works of the law only but to any works that we might try to do in order to obtain salvation. They simply will not avail.
We must obtain regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost by faith and through the mercy of the Lord (not through works of righteousness which we have done).
"works of righteousness" does not only refer only to the works of the law but to anything we might do in an attempt to earn salvation; such as giving to the poor.
The reality is that we are justified before man by works (see Romans 4:2, 1 Samuel 16:7); but before God we are justified through faith alone (again, understand the principle of 1 Samuel 16:7).
Last edited:
The "all sufficiency of Christ" does not exclude our cooperation. Our human earthly cooperation. Most commentaries don't deny this. To exclude our freely given cooperation (expressed as good works) from Christ's all sufficiency is a tradition of men. It morphed into the double predestination lunacy that Calvinists can't defend.
We do not have to cooperate with grace in order to obtain it.
All we have to do is receive it by faith.
The works come because we are thankful to the Lord over what He has done for us.
Whoever has been forgiven much, also loves much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19, Romans 5:5).
And again, the love that we have for people as the result of free grace is not in word or in tongue only; but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:17-18).
All we have to do is receive it by faith.
The works come because we are thankful to the Lord over what He has done for us.
Whoever has been forgiven much, also loves much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19, Romans 5:5).
And again, the love that we have for people as the result of free grace is not in word or in tongue only; but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:17-18).
It seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, that what you are saying is that if a person does not do works then they are not a saved person. Am I correct?
Since I do not write about the """necessity""" of good works you fault me. Since I do not say good works are necessary then I must not be saved, right?
If good works are the results of being saved must a person harp about good works being required to show faith before man. Jesus showed faith in God before man but the religious did not believe Him. Nor will the religious to day believe those that are children of God. As Paul said, "if I boast about anything it will be of Jesus' work on the cross.
I will not go about placing a yoke around the necks of the children of God. The religious do it so they can show themselves as closer to God than others. They will have their reward.
If a person does not have the love of the Lord dwelling in them they are not a saved person; and good works are the normal expression of love.
However, scripture is clear that righteousness is imputed to us apart from works (Romans 4:6) through simple faith in Jesus and what He did for us on the Cross.
Simple faith is all that is needed.
I would say, however, that if anyone is forgiven much (through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone), they will love much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19, Romans 5:5) and that this love is not in word or in tongue only but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:17-18).
The outworking of this love is not necessary for salvation; but it is the normal outworking of salvation.
And therefore if this outworking of love is not the reality of a person's life; from a human perspective we might judge that their salvation is questionable.
But God is the One who truly knows; since He looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
And in this I am watering your understanding of Romans 4:2.
However, scripture is clear that righteousness is imputed to us apart from works (Romans 4:6) through simple faith in Jesus and what He did for us on the Cross.
Simple faith is all that is needed.
I would say, however, that if anyone is forgiven much (through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone), they will love much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19, Romans 5:5) and that this love is not in word or in tongue only but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:17-18).
The outworking of this love is not necessary for salvation; but it is the normal outworking of salvation.
And therefore if this outworking of love is not the reality of a person's life; from a human perspective we might judge that their salvation is questionable.
But God is the One who truly knows; since He looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
And in this I am watering your understanding of Romans 4:2.
Those judgements are not mine to make.
Your premise collapses due to a faulty definition of good works. You probably do good works but are not aware of it. All the better.
Since the Bible says the opposite you have invented a man made tradition. Eph. 2:8-9 – Paul teaches us that faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works, as we will see below. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This, of course, must be true, because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not of grace. But faith alone does not justify. A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. James 2:24. Get over it. This one verse collapses your false premise.
Because the "religious" had no faith to believe the good works of His miracles, which verified His teachings. So they killed Him.
James 2:18 – to avoid the truth of the Catholic position that we are justified by both faith and works, Protestants argue the justification that James is referring to in James 2 is “before men” and not “before God.” Scripture disproves their claim.
James 2:14 – James asks, “Can faith save him?” Salvation comes from God. This proves the justification James is referring to is before God, not men.
James 2:19 – also, James reminds us that even the demons believe and tremble. This refers to our relationship with God, not with men. Thus, our justification that requires works and not faith alone relates to our status before God, not men.
James 2:21 – James also appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham’s justification refers to his position before God, not men. This proves justification is before God, not men.
It is by grace, and grace alone, that flows from the cross of Christ that gives us the grace to do good works in the first place. This is where Calvin obscures the "all sufficiency of Christ". Calvinists technically deny the sufficiency of the Cross, they just don't realize it.
Agreed, but that is not why normal Christians do good works. Your false premise is disproven above. Humanitarianism is works done outside of faith. Although it is still good in itself, it is not good works according to Scripture.
click "Ctrl", then click "+" at the same time to expand.
You call these yokes, the Bible calls them good works. Your definition of "good works" is in error. A Christian who does not put his faith into action by any number of the works of mercy in varying degrees listed, but just puts his faith in faith alone and does nothing, is a liar. I know of no Protestant who does this, including Calvinists. That makes their position contradictory and illogical.
Last edited:
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
----The book of James is applicable to all Christians, not just to Jews.
----James clearly says Abraham was justified by works: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, What works? "when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?". The Bible does not contradict itself, Genesis 22 does not contradict James 2.
----The book of Genesis shows that Abraham being justified/righteous was a process and not a one time done deal regardless of how Abraham lived his life. This process would have began in Genesis 12 (Hebrews 11:8) when Abraham obeyed God by doing God's righteousness in leaving his house, land and kindred. Abraham's faith was viewed as righteous not just in Genesis 12 but also in Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 17 per Romans 4:22. But it was not until he offered Isaac did God say to Abraham " now I know" in Genesis 22:12. God did not say 'now I know" in Gen 12, 15 or 17 but not until Gen 22 when Abraham passed the last test in offering Isaac which is why James 2 refers to Gen 22 as to when Abraham's justification was final after he did all commanded of him.
There are quite a few verses where Paul refers to works as being not salvational and is referring to works period as opposed to the works of the law.
Romans 4:6, at the very least, shows that we are justified through faith apart from works. Ephesians 2:8-9 shows the same.
Faith without works does indeed justify (see Romans 4:6, Titus 3:5).
Romans 4:2 shows that this is before man and not before God; for man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Therefore God sees invisible faith and this is the catalyst for whether our names are written in the Book of Life or not. What is written in the other books shows God's justification to mankind why He is able to justify those who were redeemed by faith.
Scripture substantiates that claim:
Rom 4:2, For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Grace and works are mutually exclusive when it comes to salvation/election:
Rom 11:5, Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6, And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
That works or labour is the result of salvation/election, you will not ever find me disputing against that. For it is written,
1Co 15:10, But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
Therefore while works/labour is the evident result of grace, they are not a part of grace and they do not save in any manner.
Give the whole of the matter. In Genesis 22, God said, "now I know that thou fearest God".
In Genesis 15:6, it must have become evident to God that Abraham had faith in His promises; because God accounted Abraham's faith as righteousness at that time.
So then, in one place, Abraham's faith became evident to God; while in another, his fear is what became evident.
Last edited:
No I am applying what Jesus said about obeying him.
But if you want Pauls view try reading Romans 3 and pay attention to verse 31.
about not nulifying thje law but upholding it.
Jesus upheld the law FOR US.
Rom 3:19-24
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
God's Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
NKJV
Just to remind you, here Paul uses “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial), not “ergois agathois” which means "good works". 10,000 reminders might deprogram you into getting it right.
Similar threads
