What is faith?

[Wormwood]

So because I don't see it your way I am teaching a heresy. Does that mean I should be put under the RCC inquisition. And yet I post the scriptures that confirm what I am saying. Thanks for you self righteous condemnation of what I believe. It shows an intolerant attitude towards those that do not yield to your belief.

Richard, you act as if I am being unreasonable and my condemnation of your views is based on my own personal biases. You have basically discredited large sections of the NT and argued that James was in error and that much of the NT was included by a legalistic church that didnt understand the Gospel. You have attacked the Word of God that Christians have held to and died for over thousands of years. Any Christian leader of any age from the first century until now would classify such views as an extreme form of heresy that is an aberration of what Christians have believed throughout the ages. If you cannot see that then you are diluted. I cannot believe that you think this is merely my personal bias. You are suggesting that rejecting significant portions of the New Testament as irrelevant or contrary to the true Gospel. Such a notion is heresy and contrary to what Christians have taught through the ages. That is just a simple fact.

 

[H. Richard]

Richard, you act as if I am being unreasonable and my condemnation of your views is based on my own personal biases. You have basically discredited large sections of the NT and argued that James was in error and that much of the NT was included by a legalistic church that didnt understand the Gospel. You have attacked the Word of God that Christians have held to and died for over thousands of years. Any Christian leader of any age from the first century until now would classify such views as an extreme form of heresy that is an aberration of what Christians have believed throughout the ages. If you cannot see that then you are diluted. I cannot believe that you think this is merely my personal bias. You are suggesting that rejecting significant portions of the New Testament as irrelevant or contrary to the true Gospel. Such a notion is heresy and contrary to what Christians have taught through the ages. That is just a simple fact.

The study of the scriptures indicates I am right. You think that down thru the ages your ideas have been the true understanding of the scriptures. But you are living in a very small world to believe that.

I believe in the dispensational study of the scriptures. You have been looking for a label for me. That label is Dispensationalist. God has dealt with mankind in different ways down through the ages and I see those different ways. You don't seem to be able to see that they are different.

I am not discredited large sections of the NT. I am establishing them as the age of Law that has been done away with for the children of God.under grace.

There is evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy that started while Paul was still alive.

I see your ideas as being a part of the apostasy because you substitute the works of man for the work of God.

I see what you are doing. You want me to give up my faith in what Jesus did on the cross and place it in what you believe. That will never happen and YES it is unreasonable.

I have not discredited James. I have shown that it was not written to those under grace (james 1:1). What James said is perfectly justified for those under the law. Nor have I rejected any part of the scriptures. I have stated that not everything is for those under grace.

 

[junobet]

The study of the scriptures indicates I am right. You think that down thru the ages your ideas have been the true understanding of the scriptures. But you are living in a very small world to believe that.

I believe in the dispensational study of the scriptures. You have been looking for a label for me. That label is Dispensationalist. God has dealt with mankind in different ways down through the ages and I see those different ways. You don't seem to be able to see that they are different.

I am not discredited large sections of the NT. I am establishing them as the age of Law that has been done away with for the children of God.under grace.

There is evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy that started while Paul was still alive.

I see your ideas as being a part of the apostasy because you substitute the works of man for the work of God.

I see what you are doing. You want me to give up my faith in what Jesus did on the cross and place it in what you believe. That will never happen and YES it is unreasonable.

I have not discredited James. I have shown that it was not written to those under grace (james 1:1). What James said is perfectly justified for those under the law. Nor have I rejected any part of the scriptures. I have stated that not everything is for those under grace.

[SIZE=medium]Well, I’m fine with people who interpret the Bible differently than I do. Of course I do find their arguments unconvincing and at times even utterly outlandish – otherwise I’d change my opinion -, but so far I’ve always managed to at least halfway get where they are coming from.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Not so with you: the criteria according to which you pick and choose – and let’s face it: to an extent all of us pick and choose – remain absolutely nebulous to me. You seem to be all over the place. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]For example I wonder why you think that Hebrews is addressed to us and James is not, even though - a clue is in the name - Hebrews was originally addressed to Jewish Christians, just as the Epistle of James was. Another example: I saw you just congratulated somebody for their post on New Covenant Theology, the very basics of which you still denied just a couple of days ago. Of course you may have just changed your opinion on the New Covenant, if so: kudos! But apparently you didn’t even notice that the closing verse in Net Chaplain’s post pretty much confirms everything you are still rejecting here:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]“Now may the God of peace—who brought up from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, and ratified an eternal covenant with His Blood—equip you with all you need for doing His will. May He produce in you, through the power of Jesus Christ, every good thing that is pleasing to Him. All glory to Him forever and ever! Amen” ([/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Heb 13:20[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]21[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] NLT).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So I'm afraid I can’t help but suspecting that your opinions on the connection of grace, faith and works are not so much the result of the study of scripture or any kind of systematic theology, but are of a more personal nature. Whatever it may be, that bothers you, I shall include you in my prayers. [/SIZE]

 

[H. Richard]

[SIZE=medium]Well, I’m fine with people who interpret the Bible differently than I do. Of course I do find their arguments unconvincing and at times even utterly outlandish – otherwise I’d change my opinion -, but so far I’ve always managed to at least halfway get where they are coming from.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Not so with you: the criteria according to which you pick and choose – and let’s face it: to an extent all of us pick and choose – remain absolutely nebulous to me. You seem to be all over the place. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]For example I wonder why you think that Hebrews is addressed to us and James is not, even though - a clue is in the name - Hebrews was originally addressed to Jewish Christians, just as the Epistle of James was. Another example: I saw you just congratulated somebody for their post on New Covenant Theology, the very basics of which you still denied just a couple of days ago. Of course you may have just changed your opinion on the New Covenant, if so: kudos! But apparently you didn’t even notice that the closing verse in Net Chaplain’s post pretty much confirms everything you are still rejecting here:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]“Now may the God of peace—who brought up from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, and ratified an eternal covenant with His Blood—equip you with all you need for doing His will. May He produce in you, through the power of Jesus Christ, every good thing that is pleasing to Him. All glory to Him forever and ever! Amen” ([/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Heb 13:20[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]21[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] NLT).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So I'm afraid I can’t help but suspecting that your opinions on the connection of grace, faith and works are not so much the result of the study of scripture or any kind of systematic theology, but are of a more personal nature. Whatever it may be, that bothers you, I shall include you in my prayers. [/SIZE]

Why would you say it bothers me? It does seem to bother you. As for me I am safe and secure in the body of Christ.

Let me make it clear, the 4 gospels are a record of What Jesus did when he came. They show how He fulfilled all the promises in the O.T. about Him. --- The books of Acts and Hebrews are transitional books explaining how faith in what Jesus did is much better than the Law of Moses. -- the rest of Paul's letters are addressed to those in Christ.

I don't care much for man's religions. It was the religious Jews that imprisoned and sometime killed the Prophets of God. -- It was the religious Jews who murdered Jesus because he was a threat to their religion. --It was the religious Jews who stoned Stephen. -- The Jews who believed Jesus was their Messiah and King were persecuted by the religious Jews (Saul was one of them). It was the RCC that persecuted and burned at the stake anyone that rejected their teachings. It was the RCC religion that burned at the stake men that had the Bible printed.

What did Jesus call the religious?

Matt 23:27-31
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'
31 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
NKJV

And yet many think Jesus just came to set up another religion.

 

[justaname]

I do not believe in progressive salvation.

1 Cor 6:10-12
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But you """were""" washed, but you """were""" sanctified, but you """were""" justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Glorify God in Body and Spirit 12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
NKJV

the word "were" is past tense meaning it has already been done. All thought you may not be able to see it you are preaching man's works for final salvation.

You do not need to believe it, but Paul presents it.

You have presented Paul's past view of salvation.

Here is his present view...

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:18

And here is his future view...

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. - Romans 5:9

There are many more verses that support this revelation given in scripture.

Are you currently glorified? Have you attained what Paul pressed on to receive? Have you finished the race? In a word, no. We are being confirmed into the image of Christ. Salvation is more than a one time event in the life of a believer. Salvation is the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[junobet]

Why would you say it bothers me? It does seem to bother you. As for me I am safe and secure in the body of Christ.

[SIZE=13.5pt]It bothers me for your sake. Not because I’m worried about your salvation – remember I happen to be a universalist – but because I think you are losing out on the bit of the kingdom of God that we can already have part in in this life. To go back to your opening post’s little story: your car is left rotting in the driveway until you die, but your friend intended it to be in constant use.[/SIZE]
​

Let me make it clear, the 4 gospels are a record of What Jesus did when he came. They show how He fulfilled all the promises in the O.T. about Him. --- The books of Acts and Hebrews are transitional books explaining how faith in what Jesus did is much better than the Law of Moses. -- the rest of Paul's letters are addressed to those in Christ.

I don't care much for man's religions. It was the religious Jews that imprisoned and sometime killed the Prophets of God. -- It was the religious Jews who murdered Jesus because he was a threat to their religion. --It was the religious Jews who stoned Stephen. -- The Jews who believed Jesus was their Messiah and King were persecuted by the religious Jews (Saul was one of them). It was the RCC that persecuted and burned at the stake anyone that rejected their teachings. It was the RCC religion that burned at the stake men that had the Bible printed.

What did Jesus call the religious?

Matt 23:27-31
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'
31 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
NKJV

And yet many think Jesus just came to set up another religion.
​

[SIZE=13.5pt]Again you are extremely eclectic and self-contradictory.[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Didn’t you keep banging on about how all of Jesus’ teachings as described in the gospels are supposedly irrelevant to us, because He taught to keep the Mosaic law that got obsolete when he died on the cross? And indeed the Gospel of Matthew you quoted from has it that Jesus was a very pious and religious Jew and that He did indeed want the Pharisees to [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]give a tenth of their spices--mint, dill and cumin, but He was frustrated with them forgetting about the weightier matters of the law: “justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Mt. 23:23)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Now Christianity, following both Hebrews and Paul, has it that under the New Covenant there is indeed no more need, especially for gentiles, to follow the ritual parts of Mosaic law, but Christianity is still very much concerned with those weightier matters as summarized in the double commandment of love (Mt. 22:34-40; Romans 13:8-10). This moral law – the law of Christ – is utterly non-legalistic. It’s the law written on our hearts that we believe with Hebrews Jeremiah has prophesized about (Hebrews 8:10). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]So I can utterly follow a criticism of Christians who’ve become so legalistic themselves that they are more worried about their neighbours hanging up the washing on a Sunday than about their neighbours’ well-being. I can’t follow you when you say that as Christians we aren’t obliged to be concerned about our neighbour’s well-being, because who cares when we are saved anyway. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]People of faith don’t try to follow the double commandment of love because they fear eternal punishment – after all Jesus has even forgiven those who nailed him to the cross. We try to follow it because we love God, who first loved us, and because we know that whenever we do harm to any of the least among our neighbours, we nail Jesus to the cross all over again. (Mt 25:31-46)- And we follow it because when you’ve experienced God’s love and grace for yourself, you can’t help letting it overflow to others.[/SIZE]
​

 

[H. Richard]

[SIZE=13.5pt]It bothers me for your sake. Not because I’m worried about your salvation – remember I happen to be a universalist – but because I think you are losing out on the bit of the kingdom of God that we can already have part in in this life. To go back to your opening post’s little story: your car is left rotting in the driveway until you die, but your friend intended it to be in constant use.[/SIZE]
​



[SIZE=13.5pt]Again you are extremely eclectic and self-contradictory.[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Didn’t you keep banging on about how all of Jesus’ teachings as described in the gospels are supposedly irrelevant to us, because He taught to keep the Mosaic law that got obsolete when he died on the cross? And indeed the Gospel of Matthew you quoted from has it that Jesus was a very pious and religious Jew and that He did indeed want the Pharisees to [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]give a tenth of their spices--mint, dill and cumin, but He was frustrated with them forgetting about the weightier matters of the law: “justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Mt. 23:23)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Now Christianity, following both Hebrews and Paul, has it that under the New Covenant there is indeed no more need, especially for gentiles, to follow the ritual parts of Mosaic law, but Christianity is still very much concerned with those weightier matters as summarized in the double commandment of love (Mt. 22:34-40; Romans 13:8-10). This moral law – the law of Christ – is utterly non-legalistic. It’s the law written on our hearts that we believe with Hebrews Jeremiah has prophesized about (Hebrews 8:10). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]So I can utterly follow a criticism of Christians who’ve become so legalistic themselves that they are more worried about their neighbours hanging up the washing on a Sunday than about their neighbours’ well-being. I can’t follow you when you say that as Christians we aren’t obliged to be concerned about our neighbour’s well-being, because who cares when we are saved anyway. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]People of faith don’t try to follow the double commandment of love because they fear eternal punishment – after all Jesus has even forgiven those who nailed him to the cross. We try to follow it because we love God, who first loved us, and because we know that whenever we do harm to any of the least among our neighbours, we nail Jesus to the cross all over again. (Mt 25:31-46)- And we follow it because when you’ve experienced God’s love and grace for yourself, you can’t help letting it overflow to others.[/SIZE]
​

No.1: I have used corruptible things to indicate spiritual things. So you think God’s plan of salvation by faith will rot away.

No.2: Only in your mind.

No.3: Your conclusions are all wrong. The scriptures tell me that the Law is still in effect for those that do not believe in the work of the cross. Only the children of God are dead to it. Jesus’ teaching to the religious Jew was, at it’s core, that no one could keep the Law of Moses. They need the promised Messiah and He was that Messiah. Have you not read Matt. 10:5-7 , 15;23-24, AND Rom. 15:8? Jesus was frustrated because the Jews thought they were being saved by the works of the Law instead of faith in the law giver. Just like today most think they are being saved by what they do.

No.4: Show me where Paul divides the Law of Moses. The Law is the Law. How do you came up with “the law written in hearts” as pertaining to this age of grace? Jeremiah never prophesized about this age of grace. It was hidden in God or is it that you just blend everything together.

No.5: The only work we are to do is spread the good news of salvation as a gift from God through the work of the cross. As children of God we are to spread the good news that sets people free of their sins of the flesh and makes them children of God.
Of what use is it to cloth and feed others when you fail to try and get them to see the wonderful gift that God has given to mankind.

No.6: So you think loving others is a commandment and a person must keep that commandment to be saved. I thought you said you were a Universalist. Don’t they teach everyone is going to be saved? If you really think a person HAS to love others then why aren’t you on this forum teaching that the shed blood on the cross has forgiven all the sins of the world and that now all a person has to do for salvation is have faith in it. Why aren’t you teaching them the gospel that sets them free from their sinful flesh?
　
　

 

[junobet]

No.1: I have used corruptible things to indicate spiritual things. So you think God’s plan of salvation by faith will rot away.


　
　

[SIZE=medium]No, if anything I think your illustrating story is a bit rotten. At least it misses out on a relevant point: how to best express the gratefulness that we feel for our undeserved salvation. Hence my first comment in this thread.[/SIZE]

No.3: Your conclusions are all wrong. The scriptures tell me that the Law is still in effect for those that do not believe in the work of the cross. Only the children of God are dead to it. Jesus’ teaching to the religious Jew was, at it’s core, that no one could keep the Law of Moses. They need the promised Messiah and He was that Messiah. Have you not read Matt. 10:5-7 , 15;23-24, AND Rom. 15:8? Jesus was frustrated because the Jews thought they were being saved by the works of the Law instead of faith in the law giver. Just like today most think they are being saved by what they do.

No.4: Show me where Paul divides the Law of Moses. The Law is the Law. How do you came up with “the law written in hearts” as pertaining to this age of grace? Jeremiah never prophesized about this age of grace. It was hidden in God or is it that you just blend everything together.

No.5: The only work we are to do is spread the good news of salvation as a gift from God through the work of the cross. As children of God we are to spread the good news that sets people free of their sins of the flesh and makes them children of God.
Of what use is it to cloth and feed others when you fail to try and get them to see the wonderful gift that God has given to mankind.

No.6: So you think loving others is a commandment and a person must keep that commandment to be saved. I thought you said you were a Universalist. Don’t they teach everyone is going to be saved? If you really think a person HAS to love others then why aren’t you on this forum teaching that the shed blood on the cross has forgiven all the sins of the world and that now all a person has to do for salvation is have faith in it. Why aren’t you teaching them the gospel that sets them free from their sinful flesh?

[SIZE=13.5pt]Been there, done that. If you scroll back in our previous conversations you will notice that I’m in the habit of almost always giving you the Biblical references for my theological viewpoints unless I’m sure the reference is utterly obvious anyway. Alas, you don’t seem to be in the habit of looking up the verses that I add in brackets. Copy-pasting doesn’t help either, because you’ll either say that the quoted book is irrelevant or you refuse to acknowledge what it plainly and obviously says, for instance that fulfilling the law of Christ means carrying each other’s burden (Gal 6:2). So I can tell you to read Romans from start to finish, the Sermon on the Mount etc., I can deplore you to ponder what it means to be free from our sinful flesh, but I can’t take your blinkers off. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]Seing that you Keep misrepresenting it, apparently I can’t even make you understand my Lutheran position concerning how faith in grace brings forward good fruit. And then of course you won’t understand my universalist position either: in faith it’s not out of fear that we keep his commandments, but out of love (1 John 4).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]So I shall give up explaining. Keep telling people that they are saved by grace. So will I. It's wonderful news indeed! But if the love that God has shown us, does not resonate in our words and actions, I would not blame anybody for not believing us.[/SIZE]
​

 

[mjrhealth]

I don't encourage anyone to sin. I just tell folks that under grace, all sins of the flesh are forgiven. Yet kbuckleheads don't seem to get that.

Amen, at least some can see pity so many who are supposed to be free in Christ are so condemned by there sinful nature. Why is it they cannot understand, he didnt die to stop you sinning, He died so you would not be condemned by it. But the enemy makes people a slave to the flesh. What is faith, believeing in those things not see, promises to come. When I gave my Life to Jesus, I was taken out from condmenation and set free, promised salvation, therefore I am saved. I know it to be true because God is not a liar. If anyone wants to take it up with God, they can do so.

 

[H. Richard]

[SIZE=medium]No, if anything I think your illustrating story is a bit rotten. At least it misses out on a relevant point: how to best express the gratefulness that we feel for our undeserved salvation. Hence my first comment in this thread.[/SIZE]




[SIZE=13.5pt]Been there, done that. If you scroll back in our previous conversations you will notice that I’m in the habit of almost always giving you the Biblical references for my theological viewpoints unless I’m sure the reference is utterly obvious anyway. Alas, you don’t seem to be in the habit of looking up the verses that I add in brackets. Copy-pasting doesn’t help either, because you’ll either say that the quoted book is irrelevant or you refuse to acknowledge what it plainly and obviously says, for instance that fulfilling the law of Christ means carrying each other’s burden (Gal 6:2). So I can tell you to read Romans from start to finish, the Sermon on the Mount etc., I can deplore you to ponder what it means to be free from our sinful flesh, but I can’t take your blinkers off. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]Seing that you Keep misrepresenting it, apparently I can’t even make you understand my Lutheran position concerning how faith in grace brings forward good fruit. And then of course you won’t understand my universalist position either: in faith it’s not out of fear that we keep his commandments, but out of love (1 John 4).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]So I shall give up explaining. Keep telling people that they are saved by grace. So will I. It's wonderful news indeed! But if the love that God has shown us, does not resonate in our words and actions, I would not blame anybody for not believing us.[/SIZE]
​

You said; "[SIZE=medium]No, if anything I think your illustrating story is a bit rotten. At least it misses out on a relevant point: how to best express the gratefulness that we feel for our undeserved salvation. Hence my first comment in this thread.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I said; " My friend has been a wonderful friend and now I am going to tell everyone I know about him.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] I think I express my gratefulness in the above but you couldn't see it because the only way you can express yours is by works of the flesh. I am on this forum telling everyone about Him. I am here telling everyone about what my friend has done for me. I am not on here to tell everyone how much I do for him so that I can put on a show of religion like the Pharisees did.[/SIZE]


Obviously you did not read all of it.

Your reply is all about me and you. I could care less about what you think of me. You say you are trying to make me understand. Who do you think you are, the Pope? I believe that the Holy Spirit exists and that He is my teacher, not men.

I am on this forum to discuss the scriptures, not you and me. You are big on works to please your god and elevate your self-righteousness.. I am big on teaching that the work of Salvation has already been accomplished by the work of Jesus on the cross. It is the work of mankind to believe in, have faith in, trust in, and confidence in that work of Jesus. All, and I mean all, of the glory goes to Jesus.

But you will turn it around that salvation is the work(s) of mankind.

 

[Wormwood]

I don't encourage anyone to sin. I just tell folks that under grace, all sins of the flesh are forgiven. Yet kbuckleheads don't seem to get that.

I dont think anyone has argued that grace does not cover all sins. What we are talking about is how one responds to grace and the sanctifying power of God's grace and Spirit in a person's life, not the efficacy of grace. There is a difference.

 

[H. Richard]

I dont think anyone has argued that grace does not cover all sins. What we are talking about is how one responds to grace and the sanctifying power of God's grace and Spirit in a person's life, not the efficacy of grace. There is a difference.

When Jesus fed the 1,000s didn't He say that the only reason they kept following Him was to get the free food? It's true today. Most of mankind is in religion in order to get self-rightness for themselves in the eyes of others.

If you want to do GOD works then teach the gospel of God's grace that will save them from God's wrath. not man's works, but God's work.

 

[Wormwood]

When Jesus fed the 1,000s didn't He say that the only reason they kept following Him was to get the free food? It's true today. Most of mankind is in religion in order to get self-rightness for themselves in the eyes of others.

If you want to do GOD works then teach the gospel of God's grace that will save them from God's wrath. not man's works, but God's work.

What are you talking about? You keep knocking down straw men. Its always to easier debate another person's position when you completely twist it and misrepresent it. I have never once said self-righteousness saves or that grace doesnt cover all sins. You are completely discrediting yourself in your attempts to smear others by misrepresenting their beliefs.

 

[H. Richard]

What are you talking about? You keep knocking down straw men. Its always to easier debate another person's position when you completely twist it and misrepresent it. I have never once said self-righteousness saves or that grace doesnt cover all sins. You are completely discrediting yourself in your attempts to smear others by misrepresenting their beliefs.

I thought you were talking about how mankind responds to grace. You are saying that to respond is to do good works I am saying that to respond is to teach others about God's grace. Seems perfectly clear to me.

Seems to me that one is to get people to do good works and the other is to teach mankind about a much better work that God has done for mankind.

One is a work that will pass away and the other may very well last for an eternity.

 

[FHII]

I dont think anyone has argued that grace does not cover all sins. What we are talking about is how one responds to grace and the sanctifying power of God's grace and Spirit in a person's life, not the efficacy of grace. There is a difference.

Some do. Some believe that grace only covers past sins, not the future sins. I believe grace covers all sins of the flesh. But there i go again being an abolutist! ;)

1. How one responds to grace to not mean they will quit sinning nor does it mean they will no longerdesire to sin. The response to grace??? A free gift?? no response is needed other than thanks. Grace, however only comes through faith, which must be maintained.
2. Explain to this sanctifying power of God's grace as you understand it according to the Bible.
3. What do youmean by the efficacy of God's grace?

 

[FHII]

I thought you were talking about how mankind responds to grace. You are saying that to respond is to do good works I am saying that to respond is to teach others about God's grace. Seems perfectly clear to me.

Seems to me that one is to get people to do good works and the other is to teach mankind about a much better work that God has done for mankind.

One is a work that will pass away and the other may very well last for an eternity.

H.Richard,

Its my beliefs that "good works" are different than "works". That's a long discussion that I've tried to start on the past on this board (long ago), and it failed to take root.

Good works as I understand the term pertain to doing God's work. They are done in secret and benefit him and his cause (which, in turn benefit the saints who are chosen before the foundations).

I also think that had James used the term "good works" (as Paul did often) my stance on him would be different. Yet he didn't. And his actions in the book of acts tell me he didn't fully comprhend grace or what is required.

......

On a side note, I have deep respect for both H. Richard and Wormwood. Guys... The bitter tones I read in these threads between you is beneath you!You guys deal with the bitterness between you as you like.... But I'm calling for you both to back off and focus on issues. Not each other. You both are capable of it and know better!

Furthermore, James, Paul and Jesus spoke against such personal dissections. Not necessarily debates... But against dissension.

 

[mjrhealth]

hey are done in secret and benefit him and his cause (which, in turn benefit the saints who are chosen before the foundations).

Amen this bit

Mat_6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Mat_6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat_6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
Mat_6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat_6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Mat_6:16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat_6:18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

 

[justaname]

Here is a portion of Scripture given through Paul. It seems to speak of faith differently than the OP...

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. - Ephesians 2:8-10

Through faith we are in Christ Jesus. We are created in Christ for good works. Faith and good works are like two chords intertwined. Both are accredited to God's grace.

For we are His workmanship Paul states. Thus we have no room for boasting. It is not because I can save myself, it is God's grace. It is not because of my good decisions, it is God's grace. It is not by an activity I did, it is God's grace.

Glory be unto the Lord!

 

[Wormwood]

Some do. Some believe that grace only covers past sins, not the future sins. I believe grace covers all sins of the flesh. But there i go again being an abolutist! ;)

1. How one responds to grace to not mean they will quit sinning nor does it mean they will no longerdesire to sin. The response to grace??? A free gift?? no response is needed other than thanks. Grace, however only comes through faith, which must be maintained.
2. Explain to this sanctifying power of God's grace as you understand it according to the Bible.
3. What do youmean by the efficacy of God's grace?

I also believe grace covers past and future sins.

1. I never said it did, nor implied that to Richard, yet he continues to charge me with legalism. Yet, if one does not "repent" then they are not saved. A person can claim they love Jesus all day, but it doesnt mean anything unless they turn from a lifestyle of sin toward Jesus Christ. Someone who really puts their faith in Jesus does so with their whole being, not just their tongues. This doesnt mean they live perfectly, but it does mean they put old ways behind them. A person cannot love God and the things of this world, they must choose one or the other.
2. God's grace doesn't just put a person in heaven. God's grace empowers them to live differently. The same power that raised Christ from the dead lives in the believer to bring inner transformation to their lives. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.” (Romans 6:22, ESV) Holiness is more than just a decree from God (although it is that), its is a lived reality that beings to form in the person who is touched by the grace and power of God.
3. As mentioned above, God's grace has transformative power. When the Word of God really manifests itself in a person's life, then transformation takes place. Creation is an illustration of this. In the beginning, the world was formless and void and dwelt in darkness. Yet God's Spirit hovered over the waters and God spoke. Through that, the formless world took on order, beauty and light. In the same way, through the Word of God, the Spirit of God and the waters of Christian baptism, a person becomes a "new creation." The old it put away and new order, beauty and light floods the person's life due to the working of God's love, grace and word. To suggest that God's grace would touch a person and that person would continue unashamedly reveling in lust, adultery, homosexuality, fornication, greed, hatred and filthy talk really calls the power of God's grace and Spirit into question, in my opinion. It would be like saying God said, "Let there be light" and the world stayed shrouded in darkness. How could that be? God's grace is powerful in its working. Yes, it can be resisted, but if a person is really lives by faith in God's grace, then their life is different. That is what James is talking about...and he is right.

On a side note, I have deep respect for both H. Richard and Wormwood. Guys... The bitter tones I read in these threads between you is beneath you!You guys deal with the bitterness between you as you like.... But I'm calling for you both to back off and focus on issues. Not each other. You both are capable of it and know better!

Personally, I do not believe I have been out of line. I have not attacked Richard personally, but I have said that his views are heretical (which they are). These are very weighty matters. He has continually attacked me concerning views I do not hold. More importantly, he has essentially claimed that James was in error, much of the NT doesnt apply or is wrong and that Paul is the only one who really preached the true Gospel..whereas the rest of the NT is written under the legalism of OT Judiasm and was incorporated in the Bible due to a legalistic early church that was twisting the true Gospel Paul preached. I find these views extremely dangerous and I think it is very important to let Richard and others reading how seriously dangerous his ideas are as they pertain to the nature of the Gospel and the Apostles teaching, the early church and the authority and validity of Scripture.

Furthermore, James, Paul and Jesus spoke against such personal dissections. Not necessarily debates... But against dissension.

Yes, but there was also reasons to cast people out of the fellowship. One of these has to do with false teaching that undermines the truth and discredited the teaching of the early Apostles (1 John 4:6). I do think issues like this qualify for breaking fellowship. Clearly, when someone discounts the majority of the NT as errant or irrelevant (and seeks to teach others to believe the same), than there is a major breach in the basic tenants of our faith such that others should be made aware that the Richard has deviated from the core teachings held by Christians. Simply saying, "I believe in Jesus died for my sins and I believe in grace" is not all there is to being a Christian. Mormans and JWs claim the same thing. There are other key elements to our faith upon which all Christians have agreed for thousands of years. It should be made known when a person deviates from those.

 

[H. Richard]

H.Richard,

Its my beliefs that "good works" are different than "works". That's a long discussion that I've tried to start on the past on this board (long ago), and it failed to take root.

Good works as I understand the term pertain to doing God's work. They are done in secret and benefit him and his cause (which, in turn benefit the saints who are chosen before the foundations).

I also think that had James used the term "good works" (as Paul did often) my stance on him would be different. Yet he didn't. And his actions in the book of acts tell me he didn't fully comprhend grace or what is required.

......

On a side note, I have deep respect for both H. Richard and Wormwood. Guys... The bitter tones I read in these threads between you is beneath you!You guys deal with the bitterness between you as you like.... But I'm calling for you both to back off and focus on issues. Not each other. You both are capable of it and know better!

Furthermore, James, Paul and Jesus spoke against such personal dissections. Not necessarily debates... But against dissension.

What amazes me is that if I don't teach good works I must not believe in a person caring for others. If all that is taught is doing good works then how do people know about the love of God shown in Jesus' work on the cross. Isn't teaching God's grace a good work? When God said to have fruit it is not doing good works of the flesh. It is giving birth to new Children of God.

What you see as bitterness is, as far as I am concerned, a discussion. All though I do think Wormwood should stop making it personal by denigrating my character. But I am sure he sees it that I am doing it to him.