Was James confused?

[bbyrd009]

What about Isaac?

sorry, what about him

 

[GodsGrace]

hence why defining it is Big Business, yes
so you say, but the next guy is as entitled to his definitions as you are yours, see. The links for "belief" go into this more, about how faith cannot be deceived, but belief contains an element of deception

They ARE NOT MY definitions.

I did not invent Christianity or how it's described.
I did not make up anything.

Everything I post is learned from a mainline Protestant church.
It's unfortunate we cannot all speak the same language since we all believe in the same Jesus.

 

[bbyrd009]

Did Abraham not believe and have faith in God and obey God when he left Ur?

sure, ok, then too, yes. Justification is not some Catholic ceremony or some ethereal religious term, it is an ongoing thing

 

[GodsGrace]

he was justified by his works, but one could hardly call them works of the law, is a point there.

Uffa.
He was justified by His belief and faith in God.
Hebrews 11.
We are saved by FAITH, even in the O.T.

Isaac was obeying. We've come to call this works.
Fine.

 

[GodsGrace]

sorry, what about him

Je ne sais pas.

 

[bbyrd009]

You use the word BELIEVE but not in the biblical sense.

so you say, but it is me arguing for the deception of belief and pointing out how belief is not synonymous with faith, even though they can be made into synonyms, and it is you telling me that pistis and paradiso+ are the same thing, right

 

[bbyrd009]

Did you read those two explanations I posted?
Do they mean anything to you?
Guess not.

if not, it is because they appear to argue against the definitions in Strong's, from my pov, which does not mean that they are not valid, ok, just that they do not mean anything to me. But we are having a difference in semantics here, not one of faith imo. Merely one of beliefs.

 

[GodsGrace]

sure, ok, then too, yes. Justification is not some Catholic ceremony or some ethereal religious term, it is an ongoing thing

Catholics call SANCTIFICATION ongoing justification.

Are you catholic??

 

[GodsGrace]

if not, it is because they appear to argue against the definitions in Strong's, from my pov, which does not mean that they are not valid, ok, just that they do not mean anything to me. But we are having a difference in semantics here, not one of faith imo. Merely one of beliefs.

Strong's explains words.
NOT THEOLOGY.

You cannot learn theology from Strong's.

 

[GodsGrace]

so you say, but it is me arguing for the deception of belief and pointing out how belief is not synonymous with faith, even though they can be made into synonyms, and it is you telling me that pistis and paradiso+ are the same thing, right

This conversation is becoming silly.

I'm not talking about words and what they mean.
I'm talking about CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

 

[bbyrd009]

It's unfortunate we cannot all speak the same language since we all believe in the same Jesus.

ha, well there is a language for that, right, it just doesn't involve speaking in tongues

 

[bbyrd009]

This conversation is becoming silly.

I'm not talking about words and what they mean.
I'm talking about CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Strong's explains words.
NOT THEOLOGY.

You cannot learn theology from Strong's.

theology is derived from words, words are all theology really is though, so if you are using a word differently from how Scripture meant it then your theology is going to be deficient, isn't it?

 

[Stranger]

I think what you're saying is that works are a natural outflow from wanting to please God, and, in fact, Jesus did give us different behaviors to imitate and different things to do. Such as the Beatitudes and feeding the poor, etc.

We cannot be SAVED by doing works. THIS is being UNDER THE LAW.
Our works cannot save us.

Only our faith can save us.
Ephesians 2:8
But we are created for good deeds or works.
Ephesians 2:10

There are rules to being in the Kingdom of God that starts right here on earth. Jesus made up the rules. So He ALLOWS us in through His grace through our faith in Him.

But if we want to STAY in the Kingdom, then the rules need to be followed. But we WANT to follow them.

If someone starts to abandon God and act like a person NOT in the Kingdom, then he's in trouble and may not be allowed to stay.

Jesus said we are to CONTINUE to abide in Him.
As long as we abide in Him, we're safe.

I think this covers it.
(I didn't mean that I don't want to discuss this. I meant that I don't like talking about sin - in my last sentence in the other post)

Sister, I praise God for you.

But, we do have differences. We agree on much, and on those things we do not, it may appear as a fine line. But, I think it is important. It is not a matter of your or my salvation, as far as going to heaven. But I think it affects ones walk with the Lord here.

When you say, "if we want to 'STAY' in the kingdom, then the rules need to be followed." That is law. Is it not? When you say, "If someone starts to abandon God and act like a person NOT in the Kingdom, then he's in trouble and may not be allowed to stay." That is law. Is it not? How is that grace?

In other words, the law says, thou shalt or thou shalt not. Is that not what you are saying?

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

Sister, I praise God for you.

But, we do have differences. We agree on much, and on those things we do not, it may appear as a fine line. But, I think it is important. It is not a matter of your or my salvation, as far as going to heaven. But I think it affects ones walk with the Lord here.

When you say, "if we want to 'STAY' in the kingdom, then the rules need to be followed." That is law. Is it not? When you say, "If someone starts to abandon God and act like a person NOT in the Kingdom, then he's in trouble and may not be allowed to stay." That is law. Is it not? How is that grace?

In other words, the law says, thou shalt or thou shalt not. Is that not what you are saying?

Stranger

I could or should start a thread on the Kingdom.
It's very much misunderstood.

There are no laws in the Kingdom that you would not WANT to follow.
Because following them makes it good for all that belong.

First of all we'd have to discuss why Jesus came to us.
Was it for salvation? Yes.
What else?

If you check the N.T., or information online, or whatever, you'll find that Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God about 100 times.
He spoke about being saved, or salvation, about 4 or 5 times.

Jesus' main theme in all His preaching and teaching was to show us HOW to create the Kingdom of which He spoke in John 3:3,5.

The Kingdom is a place where all believers belong. It has definite rules because Jesus said so.

For instance, in Mathew 5, the beatitudes verses 3-10, He tells us how we are to behave. He doesn't want mean and proudful people in His Kingdom. He wants those who seek righteousness, those who are poor in spirit - which means that they understand they need God for everything. etc.

In Mathew 25 He teaches us that we're to help each other and feed each other and clothe each other.

His rules make is pleasant to live in the Kingdom.

Rules do not negate Grace.
They can be followed through grace. No other way.

We don't need to choose between grace and works.
Both are necessary.

In Mathew 7:19 Jesus says that trees that do not bear good fruit will be cut down.
In verse 23 He says that those who are Lawless will be told to depart from Him.

He tells us that His Kingdom is like leaven. The good of one will affect all. The opposite will also be true.

In Mathew 13:48 Jesus tells us that the Kingdom is like a fish net.
It gathers fish, but the bad fish they threw away.

He tells us that it is not what goes INTO the mouth that defiles, but what comes out.

So much more.

I liken it to this.
My husband and I don't sit down every evening and make a list of the mean things we are not to say to each other, or the mean things we are not to do to each other.

However, our love makes us want to be good to each other.
BUT, do we not have rules to follow?

Having rules is not a bad thing.
Works or good deeds are not bad.
John 14:15
What ARE the commandments???

 

[amadeus]

We count the cost to remain in the Kingdom of God.
THERE IS NO COST TO ENTER.

Justification
Sanctification
There is a cost to sanctification.

What is sanctification? Is it not to be set apart or to set ourselves apart?
What does Paul mean in this verse?

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Rom 12:1

That is a higher price than most people are willing to pay, no matter what they may say to the contrary. Jesus did it, did he not, when he laid down his life for us. We want to be like him, but how willing are we to really follow him to the literal cross of suffering and pain and death?

We have not been given literal torture and death as our future at this point, but if God puts it to us as our way to continue on His Way, could we do it? For me, I continue to pray each day that He will make me ready for whatever He has for me so that when it comes, I will be ready for it. What else could we do.

Is there also no cost to enter in...? What bars the entrance but a flaming sword [Gen 3:24]? How can a person get past that sword? Jesus made it possible, but can just any unprepared unbelieving person walk on in...?

 

[amadeus]

so you say, but it is me arguing for the deception of belief and pointing out how belief is not synonymous with faith, even though they can be made into synonyms, and it is you telling me that pistis and paradiso+ are the same thing, right

Yes, I have run into this previously. People have built up a faith with faith meaning one thing and belief meaning something else. While this can be done as man can do whatever he wants, what is it that God wants? I see no such separation into two meanings in scripture. Could we be wrong? Yes, but I won't change just because of a someone's traditional stand.

 

[bbyrd009]

I see no such separation into two meanings in scripture.

ya, it is hard to find now without the use of a lexicon, but they seemed to have different definitions in the Bible era, hence pistis or paradiso i guess, still there in the original iow, only now you gotta go Lex to see the "correct" word

 

[Stranger]

I could or should start a thread on the Kingdom.
It's very much misunderstood.

There are no laws in the Kingdom that you would not WANT to follow.
Because following them makes it good for all that belong.

First of all we'd have to discuss why Jesus came to us.
Was it for salvation? Yes.
What else?

If you check the N.T., or information online, or whatever, you'll find that Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God about 100 times.
He spoke about being saved, or salvation, about 4 or 5 times.

Jesus' main theme in all His preaching and teaching was to show us HOW to create the Kingdom of which He spoke in John 3:3,5.

The Kingdom is a place where all believers belong. It has definite rules because Jesus said so.

For instance, in Mathew 5, the beatitudes verses 3-10, He tells us how we are to behave. He doesn't want mean and proudful people in His Kingdom. He wants those who seek righteousness, those who are poor in spirit - which means that they understand they need God for everything. etc.

In Mathew 25 He teaches us that we're to help each other and feed each other and clothe each other.

His rules make is pleasant to live in the Kingdom.

Rules do not negate Grace.
They can be followed through grace. No other way.

We don't need to choose between grace and works.
Both are necessary.

In Mathew 7:19 Jesus says that trees that do not bear good fruit will be cut down.
In verse 23 He says that those who are Lawless will be told to depart from Him.

He tells us that His Kingdom is like leaven. The good of one will affect all. The opposite will also be true.

In Mathew 13:48 Jesus tells us that the Kingdom is like a fish net.
It gathers fish, but the bad fish they threw away.

He tells us that it is not what goes INTO the mouth that defiles, but what comes out.

So much more.

I liken it to this.
My husband and I don't sit down every evening and make a list of the mean things we are not to say to each other, or the mean things we are not to do to each other.

However, our love makes us want to be good to each other.
BUT, do we not have rules to follow?

Having rules is not a bad thing.
Works or good deeds are not bad.
John 14:15
What ARE the commandments???

The kingdom would be a good thread. I guarantee you no one would change their mind, but it would be a good thread. I encourage you to do it.

You are correct in that there are no laws in the kingdom that I wouldn't want to do. But then, there are no laws in the Mosaic law that I wouldn't want to do. My problem is law...or, my ability to keep it.

You say 'rules do not negate grace'. If those rules are required for you to stay in the position grace has brought you in, then they do negate grace.

I don't think 'works' and 'law' are the same thing. Because, we have works under grace which are not the product of keeping the law. So, we don't need to choose between 'grace' and 'works'. But I believe we do need to choose between 'grace' and 'law'.

Concerning the marriage relationship, what are the rules? In other words, what rule would one spouse break that would cause the other to say, you're outta here.

The commandments Jesus refers to in (John 14:15) are not the Mosaic Commandments. First and foremost of these is, (John 13:34) "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Now Jesus has said this is a new commandment. This means it is not the same as the law which says, 'love thy neighbor as thyself'. This is love for the brethren and sistren in Christ. This commandment is overall to anything else Christ commands to the believer now. See (John 14:31), (John 15:12,17)

Future instructions would be given to the Church by the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13) And these would later be revealed through the New Testament writers, most especially Paul.

Stranger

 

[amadeus]

ya, it is hard to find now without the use of a lexicon, but they seemed to have different definitions in the Bible era, hence pistis or paradiso i guess, still there in the original iow, only now you gotta go Lex to see the "correct" word

The point is there is what men say and there is what God says. The first one is easy. The second one, not so much. We need help, but it can be difficult if men use the sophisticated theological writings and conclusions against our writings and conclusions. This is why the connection with God will make any important difference.

I wish I always knew the right answer, but even when I believe I really believe as God wants me to... someone will come along and disagree. If I was really wrong, I would want that, or I should. Too many people refuse to admit seriously even the possibility that they have it wrong. They have studied to hard and long to turn back now... even if they really did miss it.

 

[FHII]

I don't think 'works' and 'law' are the same thing. Because, we have works under grace which are not the product of keeping the law. So, we don't need to choose between 'grace' and 'works'. But I believe we do need to choose between 'grace' and 'law'.

I would like you to have a look at Romans 4. Paul equates the law with works. BUT even in that chapter he speaks of works in relation to Abraham (who of course, wasn't under the law).

So there is support for your statement both ways. My conclusion is that by trying to keep the law for the purpose of salvation you are doing works. But it isn't limited to the law. Without putting a whole lot of thought into it, the works we are not saved by through faith is anything that you in your heart are trying to do to secure salvation or try to prove your faith.