/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>574484

>Are people who believe in Jesus Christ, but who believe in a doctrine of contrition damned?

You're asking if you go to hell if you fast for 3 days? If you die in mortal sin, that would be the least of your problems.

Also, that image is ridiculous, God put down many laws for the Jews to follow in order to please him, they couldn't just say 'I believe' and all's dandy. If those laws played no part in their salvation, that would mean God was toying with them needlessly.

>>574484

'Faith' has a very specific meaning. It isn't some vague, intellectual "faith", but faith in Jesus alone to save oneself from damnation.

So no, salvation doesn't require belief in sola fide, what it requires is sola fide.

>>574486

>Also, that image is ridiculous, God put down many laws for the Jews to follow in order to please him, they couldn't just say 'I believe' and all's dandy. If those laws played no part in their salvation, that would mean God was toying with them needlessly.

When did Catholics become literal judaizers?

>>574484

Keeping the commandments is "works", making sacrifices and going to the temple is "works". Doing what God wants you to do is "works". The OT might be many things, but not sola fide.

The more does it count for the NT, where Jesus is "the way", the fulfillment of the old prophecies. If you proclaim sola fide, you literally ignore everything the Father might've said before Christ and everything thereafter, and everything Christ told us to do.

Thus, you're not a Christian and should repent asap.

>>574490

We are justified by faith alone, but not a faith which is alone.

>>574488

<(image that implies both Covenants were based on faith alone)

>that's retarded, the Jews had to follow a bunch of laws, it wasn't faith alone by any means

<durr Judaizer

Who's the Judaizer, the one who correctly understands what the Old Covenant was, or the one who seems to imply that we are still bound by it?

>>574484

I don't think so. I believe, that either will recognize that without God's support they are not able to please him, thereby satisfying the condition of trust (which is faith) in God.

>>574493

The one who says Romans 4 is wrong

<Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

>>574491

Doesn't make any sense. Stop trying to rationalize yourself ignoring /everything God said since the Creation/ to justify calling yourself Christian without being an actual Christian.

PS I'm not opposed to Catholic or Protestant doctrine on this matter. I just recently heard a Baptist say that Roman Catholics are not saved, and when I asked why they are damned even though they have faith in Jesus he said it's because they don't believe in salvation through faith alone. That struck me as incongruous, but I want to hear opinions from both Catholics and Protestants. I'm not advancing any position myself because I don't have one on this matter.

>>574498

>I just recently heard a Baptist say that Roman Catholics are not saved, and when I asked why they are damned even though they have faith in Jesus he said it's because they don't believe in salvation through faith alon

Well then he committed the sin of presumption - which is not "only" a GRAVE AF sin, it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And guess what Jesus himself said ?

>/ANYTHING/ can be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Now, we're not baptist tier and God is infinitely merciful and I'm sure God also has a heart for people in grave error - but that doesn't make it any better.

In fact, it is something that is almost what lucifer did. It is placing yourself above God, because you proclaim that you KNOW who goes to hell and who doesn't - phasing God and His infinite mercy out of …. the universe.

So … Don't fall for the baptist memes. They might be people of more or less good intentions, but you know the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

>>574499

>because you proclaim that you KNOW who goes to hell and who doesn't

It's not a question of who goes to hell, it's a question of what path one takes to be saved. If you don't want to go to hell, that path better be strait and narrow.

>>574501

If YOU say who goes to hell, you are committing grave sin. There's no way around it. What about the virtuous heathens ? Will they go to hell, because they are mislead or don't even know about the Gospel ? Or jews ? Or virtuous muslims ? Once you proclaim that someone goes to hell, you paved the way for yourself - because that is one of the super-few things we ought not to do. Because God is the supreme judge and he is infinitely merciful, again.

The most important commandments are

>Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind

>Love your neighbor as yourself

Mt 22:36-40

We are not to judge the means by which people love God with all their heart - but we can bump them back on track if they went astray with blasphemies and heresies, which lead them to the grave sins they committ - making them repent, confess and atone - which I talked about earlier.

There's no path beside Christ.

>I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

John 14:6

That means to walk in Christ's footsteps, aspire to become like him - through works, through love and through charity, through His body which is the Church and the Eucharist.

>>574490

Hey apostates are still christians friends.

>>574509

>ID

Nice try satan

>>574510

Haha but seriously anyone baptised in the trinitarian formula are christians according to the church even if they have apostatised and become atheists or Muslim or a tranny

>>574511

I can't talk in terms of Church Law, but from intuition: Christian == people of Christ. Apostates, muslims, atheists etc. are not people of Christ, nor do they profess the faith anymore. So no, not really. Baptism doesn't make you inherently Christian - it first and foremost washes away original sin. In order to be Christian you have things to do such as taking the Mysteries, keeping the commandments, mortification of the flesh (though I believe that being ascetic - even only at specific times such as Lent) is not inherently "needed", if you know what I mean.

>>574503

Oh I see, you're just a liberal who believes truth doesn't matter

>If YOU say who goes to hell

Again, it's not a matter of pronouncing judgement on someone, we don't know who will end up where. But it is a matter of what path one is on, and if one dies in a false religion, they will be damned, bar none. This is what the bible says.

>What about the virtuous heathens

Virtuous heathens? Don't you mean wicked sinners who did not see fit to retain God in their knowledge?

>Will they go to hell, because they are mislead

Misled? They've been misled? They hate God, they absolutely deserve hell and that's exactly where they'll go if they die with hatred for God in their hearts.

>or don't even know about the Gospel

Well the gospel is the only way to be saved, so yes knowing the gospel is a vital step, as Romans 10:14 says.

>Or jews

Jews have an even greater condemnation, because they sin against greater light.

>Or virtuous muslims ?

Muslims are heathens, so see above.

>Once you proclaim that someone goes to hell, you paved the way for yourself

So there you go, we shouldn't preach like Paul did in Acts 17, we shouldn't warn the unbelievers that God will judge the world by Christ Jesus, we should hold hands and sing kumbaya and maybe offer God-hating heathens to believe in Jesus, but it doesn't really matter, right?

>We are not to judge the means by which people love God with all their heart

Well actually, we are, because not only are we to proclaim this command to those that hate Him, but He has also told us how we are to love Him.

>There's no path beside Christ

So much for virtuous heathens.

>That means to walk in Christ's footsteps, aspire to become like him - through works, through love and through charity

That is the opposite of what that means. It doesn't mean that Jesus gives you an example that you may find a way in yourself, but that there is absolutely no way to the Father but by Him alone.

>>574526

Can't red text green text. The more you know.

>Faith alone

Let's ask St. Paul

> For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. Galatians 5:6

Not every deed is an act of the law, since circumcision is a deed of the law which avails nothing, but deeds in faith do avail something. Further, since faith without love/charity is still faith, since St. Paul elsewhere says

>1 Corinthians 13:2 and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing

it shows faith alone is insufficient, since one can have all faith without deeds, however it avails not, since it is faith "working through love" that avails.

>>574538

>Galatians 5:6

We are to understand this qualitatively, not as cause and effect. For Paul here, pre-empting a charge of the judaizers, that he allows licentiousness, contends that only a faith which works through love is of any value.

>Not every deed is an act of the law

Indeed, it is only those works which are commanded by God which are works of the law. However, works of charity most certainly works of the law, and Paul forbids any works to be in our justification, as he says in Galatians 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain". This verse begs a question; what is so glorious and powerful in circumcision that if it factored into our justification, Christ dies needlessly? The answer, of course, is nothing, but that if there is anything which we can do, even aided by a great deal of grace, to be right with God, then Jesus Christ did not need to die. For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus is sufficient to prove that justification is by faith alone.

>since faith without love/charity is still faith

Scripture knows nothing of formed and unformed faith, but it says that faith in itself is efficient unto justification, as our Lord teaches in the parable of the pharisee and the publican; "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other".

>>574538

>Galatians

Paul is correcting the Galatians who have been deceived. Judaizers had crept in and muddied the simplicity of the gospel, teaching that these gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be called the children of Abraham. I'll spam the first half of Galatians 3.

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

>3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

>7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

As far as 1 Corinthians 13, you have to take it with the context of the previous chapter. Paul first addresses the Corinthians as "brothers". The Corinthians were already saved. The entirety of chapter 12 deals with spiritual gifts which "is given to every man to profit withal. (1 Cor 12:7)". Paul speaks of the diversity of gifts given to different believers, that we might all cooperate and build upon one another with those God given gifts. The latter part of the chapter has Paul tell us that there are greater gifts than others, but all necessary. Chapter 13 carries this idea forward with Paul declaring that the greatest of these is Charity. (1 Cor 13:13).

Finally, compare the charity chapter with Paul's words a little later in his letter to the Galatians. 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Certainly faith alone is NOT insufficient for salvation.

sola sola fide

Extra Ecclesiam nulla sola fide

>>574499

>he committed the sin of presumption - which is not "only" a GRAVE AF sin, it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Surely it can't be that easy to commit the unforgivable sin. I'm no fan of baptists, and I see the point you're trying to make, but I can't see how simply being mistaken about something would lead to the unforgivable. To be honest, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the one sin that scare the literal crap out of me, and I want to understand more about it so that I may not fall into it.

I always find it strange when the sola fide guys say you're damned if you believe or don't believe in a certain doctrine. I thought their whole schism was about not believing in certain doctrines and being saved by faith alone.

>>574516

Baptism is an unremovable mark on the soul that incorporates one into the body of Christ and is what defines someone as a Christian. You can't just stop being a christian as you can't remove baptism from your soul no matter how much you sin or engage in idolatry.

>>574555

If I recall correctly, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has traditionally been understood to be suicide. I believe the idea is that we are told in 1 John that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. He doesn't say anything about "except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." Now, what is the sin you CANNOT confess? Suicide, because you're dead afterwards. So just don't kill yourself.

>>574562

Jesus defined blausphemy against the Holy Spirit in response to the Pharisees having just witnessed Him firsthand casting out demons, and with their knowledge of the Scriptures recognizing for a fact that He is the prophesied Messiah, yet denying Him anyway, and dishonestly attributing His miracles to the Devil. Jesus said they had just blausphemed against the Holy Spirit, and their sin is unforgivable. Basically blausphemy against the Holy Spirit is KNOWING the truth of Christ (no possible room for doubt), yet rejecting Him anyway. Basically it's denying all truth and truth itself and refusing the entry of the Holy Spirit into your soul.

I beleive that God is withholding His judgement against the world to give as many people as possible the opportunity to come to Him by faith, because when He shows us His face and speaks the sight and sound will destroy everyone but the saints, because even knowing God most people will still deny Him anyway, thus blauspheming against the Holy Spirit and committing the one unforgivable sin and casting themselves into Hell. God wants to give us time to demonstrate our own natures to ourselves and to test us and when He finally gives the evidence that the atheists say they want it will be too late and will mark the end of the world. Blausphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin because it's the knowing, willing rejection of every last possibility forgiveness.

>>574547

If faith alone is not sufficient then why did our Lord give up His life?

>>574562

I believe suicide is forgiven if you die in Christ, did not Adam commit suicide? Yet the Lord didn't destroy Him or the woman, instead showed mercy by knowing this would happen and having the plan of redemption before the foundations of the earth

>>574484

Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. If you have faith in more than Christ, you’re unsaved. So you can’t just say, for example, that you’re saved because you have faith in Jesus and faith in Buddha. You also can’t be saved if, for example, you trust in both your faith in Christ and in your practice of new-age magick to save you. Sola fide refers to specifically trusting in Christ for your salvation, it doesn’t mean if you express some vague belief in Jesus your soul is suddenly placed on the nice list and you get whisked away to Heaven no matter what. If that were the case, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses would be saved

>>574484

We protestants teach that salvation is an offer not a requirement. If you still think of it as an requirement you haven't truly understood salvation. But it's not easy to understand it, and even if you've once done so you can yet forget all about it, not so much because of low intelligence but because it goes against the fallen human nature.

>>574570

I believe in faith alone by grace alone through Christ alone… What did I say to make you think differently?

>>574573

Adam and Eve committed spiritual suicide not physical suicide. As far as we know there's no way to repent of the sin of a successful physical suicide (which is also spiritual suicide because it's a mortal sin in itself) because as far as we know you need a mind to repent (and the human mind requires a body), so suicide might very well count as blausphemy against the Holy Spirit. But then again everything depends on factors like the intent behind the suicide. Theoretically God "might" offer a chance to repent of sin after death or on Judgement Day, but as far as I know no real church has ever actually taught that, only heretics, and many have taught against it, nor should any church ever teach it, because advocating the idea to others is playing with Hellfire.

>>574545

>contends that only a faith which works through love is of any value.

Which means a faith that does not work through love is of no value, which means not faith alone.

>However, works of charity most certainly works of the law, and Paul forbids any works to be in our justification, as he says in Galatians 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain". This verse begs a question; what is so glorious and powerful in circumcision that if it factored into our justification, Christ dies needlessly? The answer, of course, is nothing, but that if there is anything which we can do, even aided by a great deal of grace, to be right with God, then Jesus Christ did not need to die. For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus is sufficient to prove that justification is by faith alone.

Except that is not what St. Paul says at all. In Galatians 5 St. Paul lists the works of the flesh and works of the spirit, and not only does he state there is no law against the works of the spirit, he ges further in Galatians 6 to state

>7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

St. Paul says performing the works of the spirit will lead to reaping eternal life. How can it be since he defines eternal life as the grace of God? It's not difficult, since even the works you do are the grace of God, therefore receiving grace for grace. Of course, this shows the necessity of multiple justifications, which isn't problematic since justification is santification.

>Scripture knows nothing of formed and unformed faith, but it says that faith in itself is efficient unto justification, as our Lord teaches in the parable of the pharisee and the publican

That parable teaches the necessity of confessing your sins. Ignoring that, it also shows entirely my point, since they both had faith, but only one of them went away justified.

>>574484

yes

>>574486

>they couldn't just say 'I believe' and all's dandy

Read your Bible sometime

Galatians 3

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 4

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

>>574486

>God put down many laws for the Jews to follow in order to please him, they couldn't just say 'I believe' and all's dandy.

God must have been really aware of the sneakiness of the Jew and it's ability to skirt the rules for profit and debauchery, so he had no choice other than to get real specific.

>>574484

>Does salvation require a belief in the doctrine of salvation by faith alone?

No.

>Are people who believe in Jesus Christ, but who believe in a doctrine of contrition damned?

No.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

>>574486

>the law

Hasn't read Romans, Hebrews or James.

EXCELLENT reply. I should have thought to say this: >>574487

>salvation doesn't require belief in sola fide, what it requires is sola fide.

>>574498

Cool story, bro

>>574498

because there's an out of context piece of scripture they use that essentially points out that works without faith is completely dead, and baptists pretend that no faith in Christ is part of Catholic dogma or something???

it's a roundabout circular argument that damns 99% of Christians except themselves

>>575094

>Which means a faith that does not work through love is of no value, which means not faith alone.

It is not a requirement being thrust upon faith, as if faith were a man-made thing and man being supreme over salvation, but it is about the nature of faith given by the Spirit of God. Thus, faith, irrespective of works of love, is efficient unto justification on its own.

>Except that is not what St. Paul says at all

I'm afraid that isn't an argument

>St. Paul says performing the works of the spirit will lead to reaping eternal life

But he does not mean this as if it is a way to earn eternal life, and that it is what they must do if they will be saved. It is an errant assumption imported into scripture, that if a thing relating to the elect is described, that it is 'all up to us', rather than being a work of God.

>even the works you do are the grace of God

No, they are not, they are human deeds, what is grace is the new nature which gives root to them.

>Of course, this shows the necessity of multiple justifications

Which is, of course, most foreign to scripture

>which isn't problematic since justification is santification

Justification is not the same thing as sanctification. Justification is a positive verdict of acquittal, meaning "declaration of righteousness". Sanctify literally means 'to set apart', and so while it can in a sense be synonymous with justify, it normatively is ontological and means 'to make holy'. Justification could not be ontological, because the antonym is condemnation, so if justify meant 'to make righteous', condemn would mean 'to make sinful', and who would dare claim God infuses people with sin?

>That parable teaches the necessity of confessing your sins

What it teaches is the necessity of repentance unto life, of turning from sin to Christ.

>it also shows entirely my point, since they both had faith, but only one of them went away justified.

Is that what it says? Considering it has already been established that 'faith' is the pure trust in Christ, not making any attempt to escape hell and damnation, but putting itself fully at God's mercy, we must examine if both truly had this.

<The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Far from both having faith, the pharisee's prayer is very telling for this discussion. He does not, as it were, praise himself as being capable from himself of all this good, as Pelagius most likely would, but he recognizes his dependence on God's grace to do such good. In the pharisee, therefore, we find a direct parallel to Roman Catholic soteriology. But why does the publican go down justified?

<And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Was it the grace poured into his heart? Was it his co-operation with grace? Was it his works of love? No, it was none of these things, but that he, finding himself a hopeless sinner, saw his only hope in the mercy of God, offering nothing for forgiveness but the empty hand of faith.

>>574570

Faith is needed. In no way faith without love and charity is sufficient to be justified, that is retarded and you should spit on whatever source told you that.

>>575489

>Considering it has already been established that 'faith' is the pure trust in Christ,

I think every year there is a new crafted definition of faith that tries to justify the retarded protestant heresies.

>No no no, it wasn't REAL faith. REAL faith has not been tried.

>>575489

>Thus, faith, irrespective of works of love, is efficient unto justification on its own.

Again this is disregarding the scripture which says it is faith that works by charity which avails. And the works of charity are clear, and it is said to those that sow them that they shall reap eternal life. I don't know how it could be more clear, since it literally says in Galatians 6

>but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

"We shall reap" eternal life IF we do not lose heart and persevere in doing good.

>But he does not mean this as if it is a way to earn eternal life, and that it is what they must do if they will be saved.

But he does, since he literally says "let us continue to do good for we shall reap" in reference to eternal life.

>No, they are not, they are human deeds, what is grace is the new nature which gives root to them.

>Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.

Psalm 127:1

Actions are accompanied by Gods grace if they are good, or not if they are evil. An argument otherwise is modified pelagianism. I'd recommend reading St. Jeromes "Against the Pelagians" where this argument is put forward and in refuted.

>Justification could not be ontological, because the antonym is condemnation, so if justify meant 'to make righteous', condemn would mean 'to make sinful', and who would dare claim God infuses people with sin?

No one, however God does not need to, He only needs to not justify.

>Justification is not the same thing as sanctification

On the contrary,

>But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified

However to be washed is to be sanctified, therefore to be sanctified is to be justified. They are all the same thing. Forensic justification is an invention of the reformation, but not a teaching of scripture.

>Considering it has already been established that 'faith' is the pure trust in Christ, not making any attempt to escape hell and damnation, but putting itself fully at God's mercy

I know this is how you define faith. It is not how scripture defines faith, and I encourage you to show otherwise.

Further,

>No, it was none of these things, but that he, finding himself a hopeless sinner, saw his only hope in the mercy of God, offering nothing for forgiveness but the empty hand of faith.

The scripture tells you why one was justified and the other wasn't

>I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other:

>FOR every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted

Nothing about one having faith and the other not.

>>574484

>Does salvation require a belief in the doctrine of salvation by faith alone?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

"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." (Romans 11:6)

We are cautioned all throughout Scripture, that if we believe we can contribute ANYTHING in the way of righteousness to our Salvation, then we WILL NOT BE Saved!!!

This is precisely what separates true Faith in Jesus Christ from every religion on the face of the Earth!!!

>>574484

Faith and works are required for salvation.

>>575636

So, Jesus didn't do everything needed for Salvation, is what you're saying?

>>575650

Faith without works is dead is what I’m saying. And if you do not persevere to the end you will go to hell.

>>575653

Again: Did Jesus do everything needed for our Salvation? Because it sounds like you're definitely saying "no," here.

>>575650

I'm not debating your point or anything, jw, is that even applicable to Jesus? I mean, being fully God as well as man and being the one we're saved through..

>>575655

Are you suggesting that Jesus would lie to His brother about how to achieve salvation?

>>575659

Are YOU actually arguing that the Epistle of James is a treatise on how to acquire Salvation????

>>575657

Did you just call me a Jehovah's Witness?

Are you replying to the wrong post, perhaps?

>>575660

Do you believe James, the brother of Jesus preached a false salvation? Because that’s what you’re suggesting.

>>575661

A JW? Of course not. I'm just thinking about what you said, that's all.

>>575662

Again: Do YOU believe that the Epistle of James is a treatise on how one acquires Salvation?

Because, if so, then it is YOU who accuse Jesus of lying - to PAUL. When he VERY DEFINITELY wrote on HOW one acquires Salvation, in Galatians and Romans. Now THOSE books are EXPLICITLY WRITTEN to tell people how to be Saved - as is the Gospel of John (you will find the purpose statement of the Gospel of John in 20:30-31. NOT ONCE in John's Gospel - again, written so that men knew how to be Saved - are ANY sort of works mentioned - ONLY BELIEF. Ditto Galatians and Romans.

NOW, I will ask again:

Are you saying that the purpose of Jame's Epistle is that men might know how to acquire Salvation?

>>575669

Clarification: I'm not wondering whether or not you're right. The idea of Jesus' own "salvation" isn't something I've thought much about, considering he's the one through whom we are saved.

>>574484

my opinion on this endless subject

Salvation by faith: yes but with a big BUT, which is repeated various times in the epistles. If you believe but do nothing you will be rejected.

>>575673

You are most definitely misunderstanding me, if you think I think that Jesus needed to be Saved.

I was asking the other poster whether of not Jesus did everything necessary to accomplish our Salvation - NOT His Own. He is perfect and without sin; He needs no Salvation. He IS Salvation.

>>575675

>Salvation by faith: yes but with a big BUT, which is repeated various times in the epistles. If you believe but do nothing you will be rejected.

AGAIN, Paul actually CONTRASTS Faith and works - so you cannot say that. If Salvation is by Grace, then it is no longer works. And Salvation is TO HIM THAT WORKETH NOT, BUT BELIEVES.

I truly, truly fear for so many of you guys - and I mean that absolutely sincerely. You guys try to turn Faith in Jesus Christ into a chimera of one of the world's many religions - which all believe that it's about "how good" one is.

OUR God says THE OPPOSITE. He says that we CANNOT be "good enough," and that all of our "righteous" works are as filthy rags (lit: "menstrual cloths"). Think about that for a second: what is the purpose of a menstrual cloth? It has to do, really, with that which does not come to pass; life that never gets carried into the world. Literally, you're fruitless, and THAT is how God views your "RIGHTEOUS" acts! Think about the not-so-righteous ones!

Look: If you add ONE SINGLE WORK of yours to God's Grace, then it is no longer Grace, and Scripture is absolutely CLEAR on that. You are trying to turn GOD'S Way into one of MAN'S many way. Stop that. Trust in JESUS and what HE did - NOT what YOU do!!!

>>575679

I disagree. You say that you believe. But you don't act accordingly. Then you are lying.

Both are inseparable.

>>575680

>I disagree. You say that you believe. But you don't act accordingly. Then you are lying.

The thought of foolishness is sin (Prov 24:9)

You simply don't understand the depth and severity of the condition of sin. You genuinely believe (falsely) that a person can, in and of themselves, be "good."

Look, there are NONE good - no, not one! That's we Jesus is our Righteousness - that is why one of the Names of YHWH is "YHWH Our Righteousness." The ONLY way we can be seen by God as "good" is that we place our Faith in Jesus, so that when the Father sees us, He sees Jesus. YOU CANNOT IN ANY POSSIBLE IMAGINABLE WAY SUPPLEMENT, ADD TO, OR INCREASE THAT RIGHTEOUSNESS, NOR COULD YOU DO ONE SINGLE THING TO MERIT IT!

You are really, really in dire need of repentance (which, by the way, means "to think differently," and does NOT automatically imply or mean "from sin"), and truly recognizing our common fallen state. There's NOTHING you can do to merit Salvation through Jesus - you merely ACCEPT IT as a FREE GIFT!

>>575684

Nobody is good enough for God. That's why we believe in Him. But a faith without works is DOA.

Suppose one has faith but also does good works because God asks him to, but he doesn't believe those works to earn anything. From which perspectives is he saved? From which perspectives is he not?

>>575687

You are saying that Jesus is NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT.

That is WRONG.

>>575689

This is precisely how it's supposed to be!

>>575690

It's sufficient. But if you do nothing you are proving that it was a mere nominal adherence.

>>575693

>It's sufficient. But if you do nothing you are proving that it was a mere nominal adherence.

I don't know what you mean by "nominal adherence," but you're contradicting yourself!

If He is SUFFICIENT, then He is just that - SUFFICIENT! "Sufficient" means NOTHING ELSE NEED BE DONE!

As the guy here said:

>>575689

We are supposed to do the good works ordained for us in advance, but we do it OUT OF LOVE FOR WHAT HE DID FOR US! And, if perchance we DON'T do much at all with the Salvation that He gave us, then we are disobedient Children - but we are His CHILDREN, nonetheless!

A good Father does not throw His Kids away because they are disobedient, nor does He disown them and deny He's their Father. He DISCIPLINES them!

>>575679

The random caps lock and bold text makes this really interesting.

Now you might complain "but you're NOT making a argument!!!" but I'm almost sure this is a semantic argument so there's really no reason to bother with either side. I'd rather sperg about the filioque.

>>575696

I knew someone would eventually resort to critiquing my typing style, rather than go for the actual content of what I'm saying.

If you're interested in my reasons for typing that way, I do it so you know where the emphasis would be placed, were I speaking to you in person.

This is also a technique I use while reading Scripture: If you re-read a verse as many times as there are words in the verse, each time placing the emphasis on a different word, you'd be surprised how much more insight you'll extract from the Scriptures.

/Now, back to ALL CAPS

>>575710

>If you really believed, you would stop doing it.

Stop doing what?

>>575670

>NOT ONCE in John's Gospel - again, written so that men knew how to be Saved - are ANY sort of works mentioned - ONLY BELIEF. Ditto Galatians and Romans.

>9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

John 15. Evidently, not faith alone, since you have to love one another as He has loved us. Of course, the preceding verses also state the necessity of bearing fruit. Let us not forget as well in John 5 Jesus states

>25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, 27 and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Evidently doing good is necessary to be resurrected to life, which means it is not faith alone.

Romans doesn't offer any support either, since we read in Romans 6

>22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

If sanctification results in eternal life, then it is not faith alone.

>>575679

>You guys try to turn Faith in Jesus Christ into a chimera of one of the world's many religions

I'd rather just believe what Jesus says rather than be worried about whether other religions are correct about it or not. So let's see what Jesus says

>Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

So the kingdom was prepared for them because they did these things. Evidently works are necessary, since the people who didn't do these things got tossed into the fire prepared for the devil.

>>575727

This is one of the problems I have with Sola Fide. So much of the New Testament seems to demand good works and abstinence from evil. It seems almost like missing the forest for the trees to focus solely on faith as warranting salvation.

>>575670

James knew Jesus better than Paul did. They were brothers. He would not have preached a false gospel and he says faith without works is dead. Therefore works are required in order to truly persevere till the end. Christ said those that persevere are saved.

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

>>575710

They don't understand what faith really is. All that can be done is pray for God to open their understanding.

>>575727

>John 5:25-29

Why did you leave out John 5:24 I wonder? Maybe because it's one of the strongest verses on eternal security? And it sets the whole context of the following statement defining what "doing good" means?

>Romans doesn't offer any support either, since we read in Romans 6:22

Wait so Romans 6:22 is the entire book?

And what about Romans 6:23?

>For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Does that sound familiar?

>If sanctification results in eternal life, then it is not faith alone.

What if sanctification is without exception bound to and always together with faith? I don't see your logic.

>>575881

>James 2:14-26

It's about justification in the sight of men, and it's for their sake. That's why you have the first man SAYING he has faith to the second. See 1 Corinthians 4:1-4.

>>574484

>>575653

Don't worry, Methodist-kin. Pastor Steve will explain it to you.

>>575752

But in Heaven we'll not need to live by the commandments in the Bible, right? We're called to live pure and holy lives, called to be a royal priesthood and a peculiar people. That's this life, on Earth. Why wouldn't God's Word give us the methods to carry out God's purpose for our lives?

Yet whatever works we preform in His name can only be built on the foundation of His sacrifice, else we build on sandy grounds of our own "righteousness."

It's like the old hymn, I love Jesus because He first loved me.

>>575496

But the Lord is the author of our faith, if we believe in the Lord then it is He that was the one that put the faith in us and thus had chosen us to be His, faith doesn't come from within but from Lord Jesus

>>575907

Perseverance of faith is a work in and of itself. Believing in Christ in the first place is literally a conscious decision— a work. Baptism for the remission of sins is a work. It takes free agency to choose to believe in and follow Christ and there is no way to be saved without first believing in Christ the messiah. You cannot say that there is no work involved in the plan of salvation.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

>>575922

>baptism is a work

just fuck off back to your echo chamber you illiterate subhuman

>>575922

Philippians 2:13

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

>>575925

How is it not a work?

>>575927

Fuck off. You are lowering the IQ of this thread.

>>575928

Baptism is quite literally a work. Christ said you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without being baptized.

>>575925

Baptism is a work though?

>>575929

Baptism isn't a part of salvation, it's a work.

>>575930

Christ said you cannot enter heaven without being baptized though.

>>575929

>cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without being baptized.

John 3 is about faith, not baptism.

And it is God that works in you as I said. Romans 3:10-11 states absolutely that there is none righteous among men.

>>575929

>DURRRRRRRRRRRRRR BAPTISM IS A WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

>YOU CAN'T BE SAVED WITHOUT MUH WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

How is Baptism a work?

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IT JUST ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS JESUS SAID SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>*doesn't quote Jesus saying Baptism is a work*

>>575929

>“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭3:11‬ ‭KJV‬‬

>“For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

‭‭Acts‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The baptism is of the Holy Spirit being bestowed upon us, not by water but by spirit

>>575931

You're talking about Mark 16:16?

Jesus was giving the Great Commission to his followers here.

Compare with Matthew 28 19:20

>19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

>20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

If being baptized is a requirement for salvation, then does knowing and observing all things whatsoever Jesus commanded the disciples a requirement for salvation?

>>575936

He's probably talking about John 3:5 while ignoring John 3:6. Some people eisegete baptism into that verse. Also it's no good to strive with someone, just try to state the facts for them.

>>575932

No it’s about baptism obviously. But Peter also says baptism is necessary for salvation.

37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

>>575933

How the fuck is a conscious decision that precludes a physical action (baptism) anything but a work? It’s a physical act.

>>575934

That doesn’t disprove where Jesus clearly states you must be baptized by water and spirit.

>>575936

If you refuse baptism you will go to hell.

>>575939

Verse 6 does not change the meaning of verse 5. They are independent statements. He later says you must be born again aka baptized to enter heaven.

>>575939

You're right, I have a bad habit of biting at bait.

John 3:5 doesn't refer to baptism, though, it refers to the water of childbirth. The verse before Nicodemus asks if he's meant to return to his mother's womb

first birth=physically being born into this world

being born again=salvation, becoming a joint-heir with Christ.

And then the same chapter:

>whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

>He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

>>575940

Tell us whether John 5:24 is true or not.

>Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I have more to ask you if you do agree with this.

>>575947

It still doesn’t erase what he previously said that you must be born of water to enter heaven. If you believe you’ll get baptized. If you don’t believe you won’t. Baptism is part of faith in Christ. If you do not have complete faith in Christ then you have no faith at all. Baptism for the remission of sins is part following Christ’s actions and words and is necessary for salvation.

>>575522

>Again this is disregarding the scripture which says it is faith that works by charity which avails

No it isn't, it is simply a refusal to turn Paul's words on their head and make him say the opposite of what he does.

>"We shall reap" eternal life IF we do not lose heart and persevere in doing good.

Again, I reject the assumption that if a thing relating to the elect is described, that it is 'all up to us', rather than being a work of God.

>Actions are accompanied by Gods grace if they are good

I very clearly said that these good works are the product of a God-made nature.

>No one, however God does not need to, He only needs to not justify.

Condemn is an action verb, it is not passive.

>However to be washed is to be sanctified

No it is not. The washing to which Paul here refers is regeneration, the new birth, whereas sanctification is a progressive thing which continues through the Christian life.

>Forensic justification is an invention of the reformation

You're fighting a losing battle here, even Rome now recognizes that justification is forensic.

>I encourage you to show otherwise

Romans 4:21 defines faith as being fully convinced that God is able to do what He promised, which is to say that it is trusting in God to do what He has promised, namely, salvation.

>The scripture tells you why one was justified and the other wasn't

The publican 'humbled' himself while the pharisee 'exalted' himself. The meaning of these terms is defined by the parable itself, by what the pharisee and the publican do. Thus, the way we must be humble to be saved is the exact same as the publican, doing nothing but saying "God, have mercy on me, a sinner" (for whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved).

>>575953

Also after Pentecost Peter explains that you must be baptized to receive the spirit. That is the water and spirit that Christ says is necessary to enter heaven.

>>575953

>born of water

That's physical birth. Whereas born of the Spirit is being born again. No mention of baptism.

>If you believe you’ll get baptized.

I know, but belief isn't equivalent to it. Someone could get baptized yet not believe, so therefore to make them equivalent is false, yet you are doing so.

John 5:24 is true. So is John 6:29.

>>575957

>>575958

>>575959

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

>>575960

So what? That disproves nothing and certainly doesn’t explain why peter says baptism is necessary to receive the spirit.

>>575961

It was necessary for Jesus to explain how being born again is different from being born the first time, as Nicodemus asked

>4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Therefore, to be born again you must not only be born of water, but be born again. He does not say "born again" of water and the Spirit, because each of these is a separate birth, it isn't talking about one event. And verse 6 clarifies this again, because to be born of water is physical and involves a physical birth, but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. This fully explains why being born again is not physical or a physical act like your first birth, which is what Nicodemus had confused here. You can't just cut out verse 5 and read into a word that isn't there.

And with regard to Acts 2:38-39, don't confuse the gift of the Holy Ghost with the earnest of the Spirit. Also, that wasn't predicated on immersion baptism either, see Acts 11:15. But the signs such as the cloven tongues and speaking in tongues (Acts 2:3-4) were signs that followed the Apostles. Unless you're a charismatic, you probably fall into the cessationist camp.

>>575907

>Why did you leave out John 5:24 I wonder? Maybe because it's one of the strongest verses on eternal security? And it sets the whole context of the following statement defining what "doing good" means?

I left it out because it wasn't necessary.

>24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

>25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

>Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

So people hear and believe, and what they hear is "Come forward those who have done good to eternal life" and "come forward those who have done evil to judgement".

>Does that sound familiar?

Yes, sanctification is a gift of God.

>What if sanctification is without exception bound to and always together with faith? I don't see your logic.

Sanctification cannot exist without faith, however faith can exist without sanctification. Sanctification is defined to be abstaining from sins(1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, Hebrews 10:26-29) or the doing of good deeds(Romans 6:19, Hebrews 10:32-36). Since you can believe without doing good, or with doing evil, faith does not require sanctification. However, since the greatest commandment is to "Love your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind" it is impossible to have sanctification without faith.

>>575955

>No it isn't, it is simply a refusal to turn Paul's words on their head and make him say the opposite of what he does.

<Faith which works by charity avails

<Actually you don't need to have it work by charity it avails all on its own

What?

>Again, I reject the assumption that if a thing relating to the elect is described, that it is 'all up to us', rather than being a work of God.

>I very clearly said that these good works are the product of a God-made nature.

Again, "except the Lord keep the city the watchman wakes but in vain" etc. Gods grace is needed in every action, not only a new heart to enable these actions. Further, you aren't even dealing with scripture anymore. You're just reading the passage, saying "I don't believe what it says" and moving on. You aren't explaining how Galatians 6 doesn't describe the necessity of sowing the spirit, you just say "No I don't believe that is true" as if it explains away the passage.

>Condemn is an action verb, it is not passive.

God doesn't need to infuse sin to condemn someone. A person does that all on their own, God need only withhold justification to condemn them for their actions.

>No it is not. The washing to which Paul here refers is regeneration, the new birth, whereas sanctification is a progressive thing which continues through the Christian life.

Regeneration and sanctification are the same thing too. Sanctification is regeneration applied over time.

>You're fighting a losing battle here, even Rome now recognizes that justification is forensic.

Firstly, no. Secondly, it wouldn't matter.

>Romans 4:21 defines faith as being fully convinced that God is able to do what He promised, which is to say that it is trusting in God to do what He has promised, namely, salvation.

Which totally defeats your point, since Abraham actually had to offer Isaac and actually had to go to these countries and actually had to do things. You haven't shown the most important part of your definition of faith

>not making any attempt to escape hell and damnation, but putting itself fully at God's mercy

Which is not met by the example of Abraham, who had to actually do things for the promise his faith believed in to be realized.

>The publican 'humbled' himself while the pharisee 'exalted' himself. The meaning of these terms is defined by the parable itself, by what the pharisee and the publican do. Thus, the way we must be humble to be saved is the exact same as the publican, doing nothing but saying "God, have mercy on me, a sinner" (for whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved).

Which means it is not faith alone, since humbling yourself is also required.

>>576078

><Actually you don't need to have it work by charity it avails all on its own

Well that sure is a nice strawman but what I'm actually saying is that we need to leave this verse in its context as being part of the Epistle to the Galatians rather than ripping it out of that context and dragging it into the context of medieval Roman Catholicism. What you are saying, that this verse means we must do things to be justified, is the very error Paul is writing to condemn. What this verse describes is the nature of justifying faith, not the form of justifying faith.

>Further, you aren't even dealing with scripture anymore. You're just reading the passage, saying "I don't believe what it says" and moving on. You aren't explaining how Galatians 6 doesn't describe the necessity of sowing the spirit, you just say "No I don't believe that is true" as if it explains away the passage.

No, what I'm doing is pointing out the Pelagianistic assumption you are reading into this passage. Paul speaks of two groups, those who sow to the flesh and those who sow to the Spirit. What he never says (and what you anthropocentrically read in) is that which group we are in is up to us.

>God doesn't need to infuse sin to condemn someone. A person does that all on their own, God need only withhold justification to condemn them for their actions.

If condemn is forensic then justify is forensic. "God doesn't need to infuse sin to condemn someone" but He does need to infuse righteousness to justify someone? That's awful repetitive if justification is infusion of righteousness. Perhaps there is a reason why when scripture speaks of our justification it presents it as our relationship with God rather than a review of our internal character.

>Regeneration and sanctification are the same thing too

According to the Roman church, regeneration is found in the waters of baptism. Sanctification is progressive. Are we being progressively baptized? If regeneration is justification, must we not be re-baptized to be re-justified?

>Abraham actually had to offer Isaac and actually had to go to these countries and actually had to do things

Which it just so happens is the very error Paul is rebuking. You are no longer arguing against me, you are now arguing against Paul.

>You haven't shown the most important part of your definition of faith

Yes I have, because if the faith which justifies us is trust in the mercies of God, then it is mere trust in the mercies of God, because otherwise it is faith in the self and not in Christ. To do things to escape the wrath of God is to not trust Jesus to save you from the wrath of God. If you believe you will be damned if you don't stop sinning, then you don't believe Jesus can save you.

>Which is not met by the example of Abraham, who had to actually do things for the promise his faith believed in to be realized.

Give me an argument as to why circumcision is not one of those things.

>Which means it is not faith alone, since humbling yourself is also required.

What a shallow non-response. Did you really not grasp my point? My whole point was that this passage defines 'humbleth himself' as a synonym of 'has faith'.

>>576088

>What you are saying, that this verse means we must do things to be justified, is the very error Paul is writing to condemn.

St. Paul wrote that there are things that you do not need to do, it's an assumption you made that everything we do is in the set of things we do not need to do. Again, there is no other way to interpret statements like

>7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

Other than an action required of the believer.

>What he never says (and what you anthropocentrically read in) is that which group we are in is up to us.

He does not deny we play a role in it, since he says

>9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

"We shall reap IF we do not lose heart". There exists an element of responsibility on us. Not the totally of it, but a part of it.

>If condemn is forensic then justify is forensic.

Condemn is not forensic. Condemnation just isn't God infusing sin into you, a person infuses sin into themselves when they sin. God infuses righteousness, but a person infuses sin.

>Sanctification is progressive. Are we being progressively baptized?

The work begun in baptism is carried forward over the period of your life, to be regenerated is just a part of the process of sanctification. Each part of this journey can be called justification, and as a person grows in faith, grace and holyness these are increases in the state of your sanctification and hence increases in justification. That is multiple justifications.

>. To do things to escape the wrath of God is to not trust Jesus to save you from the wrath of God. If you believe you will be damned if you don't stop sinning, then you don't believe Jesus can save you.

Let's see what scripture says, in Hebrews 10 we read

>26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

>Give me an argument as to why circumcision is not one of those things.

Why? This has nothing to do with faith alone anymore, the question is "is something other than faith required", it has nothing to do with circumcision, which is only one kind of deed, one which I deny is necessary. You can't just assume that because one kind of deed is useless that all deeds are useless.

>My whole point was that this passage defines 'humbleth himself' as a synonym of 'has faith'.

It doesn't though. It says humbling oneself is necessary. It doesn't require that to be a synonym of "has faith" unless you assume faith alone, but you can't assume without discharging the assumption, which you haven't done.

>>576078

<Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

>what they hear is "Come forward those who have done good to eternal life" and "come forward those who have done evil to judgement".

Actually it says all that are in the graves will. As the Lord Jesus Christ says, those who hear and believe shall not come into judgment.

2 Corinthians 5:6

<Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

>I left it out because it wasn't necessary.

More like it disproves your entire premise because the saved shall not come into judgment.

>Yes, sanctification is a gift of God.

So then how is it something you must work?

Philippians 1:6

<Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

>or with doing evil, faith does not require sanctification.

Philippians 3:12.

>Abraham actually had to offer Isaac and actually had to go to these countries and actually had to do things.

Romans 4:2-4

<For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

<For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

<Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

>Which is not met by the example of Abraham, who had to actually do things for the promise his faith believed in to be realized.

True. But his faith was counted to him for righteousness, and his works justified him in the sight of men. That's why he "has whereof to glory; but not before God." Because others saw his faith through the works, see James 2:14-26.

>Which means it is not faith alone, since humbling yourself is also required.

Maybe you haven't understood what faith really entails. It means turning away from dead works. How hard is this for some?

>There exists an element of responsibility on us. Not the totally of it, but a part of it.

Yes, reaping eternal life means getting other people saved. Recall the great commission, parable of the sower, 1 Corinthians 3, etc.

>increases in justification.

In the sight of men, yes. In the sight of God, his faith that we have received is the only justification. See 1 Corinthians 4:1-4.

>Hebrews 10:26-31

Does it say the Lord will disown his people?

>>576235

>>576234

>More like it disproves your entire premise because the saved shall not come into judgment.

If they went to judgment they wouldn't be saved. Their salvation can be forfeited, again read Hebrews 10:26-31.

>So then how is it something you must work?

Because that's what the bible says? I don't understand what you are saying here.

>Philippians 1:6

Philippians 1:7

>7 It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

It is right to feel that because they are doing things which confirm they have not recieved the faith in vain.

>Philippians 3:12.

I don't understand what you are trying to express here.

>Romans 4:2-4

The context makes this clear, the work is circumcision. It's mentioned ~10 times in that chapter alone. The point is that you cannot force God to give you His grace just because you circumcize yourself or build parapets on your roof or go to church every sunday. God gives His grace how He does, and it isn't given through circumcision.

>and his works justified him in the sight of men.

Let's go see what God says about Abrahams offering of Isaac

>15 And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”

God honors the promise because Abraham obeys God in offering Isaac. That's just what scripture says.

>Maybe you haven't understood what faith really entails. It means turning away from dead works. How hard is this for some?

If faith requires obedience to save then it is no longer faith alone, but faith and obedience, which is works, that saves. A simple way to put it is this, in separating Abrahams faith and his works you have already defined faith as distinct from obedience, which means faith is distinct from turning from dead works. Either Abrahams faith needs his works, which means it is no longer faith alone, or Abrahams faith didn't need his works, which contradicts the claim that faith entails turning from dead works, or being obedient. Either you affirm faith and works, or you define faith as "Thinking with assent". Of course, once you define faith as "thinking with assent" you have no defense against the mountain of scripture that states faith alone is not good enough. Faith cannot simultaneously entail turning from dead works and being distinct from works.

>Yes, reaping eternal life means getting other people saved.

The context of sowing the flesh and sowing the spirit is defined just a chapter before and it has nothing to do with getting other people saved but your actions. See Galatians 5:19-23.

> See 1 Corinthians 4:1-4.

I don't see what relevance that has to your point?

>Does it say the Lord will disown his people?

<For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries

It seems clear to me that if you sin there remains the fire. But let's hear it right from St. Pauls mouth,

>24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; 27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Of course, it gets even worse for the "God will ignore my sins and actions" position, since the same word used to say he should be disqualified is used in Romans 1:28 to describe being given over to a depraved mind and used in 2 corinthians 13:6 to describe christians as "reprobates". Source: http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_96.htm

Obviously St. Paul cannot be taken to mean faith alone, since he fears that on the basis of his actions he could be made a reprobate, becoming

> filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity…

Faith alone does not save, since God requires you to "yield your members to sanctification" and sanctifications end is eternal life(Romans 6:19,22).

>>576103

>"We shall reap IF we do not lose heart"

Well there you go, Augustine was wrong and Pelagius was right. I mean, that is the logical conclusion of your interpretation, we don't need any grace we are all capable of perfect sinlessness on our own.

>There exists an element of responsibility on us

Losing heart would mean ceasing to sow to the Spirit and starting to again sow to the flesh. It would be apostasy. What Paul is saying is that sanctification leads to eternal life. I do not deny this, I deny that it is so as cause and effect, rather than journey and destination.

>Condemn is not forensic

It isn't? The word forensic is a synonym of legal. A forensic condemnation is one in which one condemns as judge, it implies a following punishment. That doesn't describe God's condemnation? What does condemn mean if not that? Is that not exactly how scripture defines it in Romans 1:32?

>to be regenerated is just a part of the process of sanctification

So regeneration is in fact not the same thing as sanctification?

>in Hebrews 10 we read

Keep in mind the historical context of the people being written to being Israelites called back to Judaism. Thus, the deliberate sin mentioned is apostasy (specifically back to Judaism), which is why it as blaspheming the sacrifice of Christ.

In fact, the very same chapter tells us of the perfection of Christ's sacrifice, which requires no addition for efficacy.

<But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

>Why?

Because your argument might scientifically reveal the difference between Roman Catholic and Pauline soteriology.

>You can't just assume that because one kind of deed is useless that all deeds are useless.

I agree. You can assume that because Paul's argument against that one deed applies to every deed.

>It says humbling oneself is necessary

Again, the passage itself defines humbling as being what the publican does in the parable. What does he do, does he give away a vast fortune, does he surrender a throne? No, he recognizes his sins, looks upon them with shame and guilt, and begs God for mercy. In contrast, the pharisee thanked God for the grace to be more righteous than other men. Something which Roman Catholicism enables.

>>576261

>If they went to judgment they wouldn't be saved.

You get it, good.

>I don't understand what you are saying here.

It's not I that works but God. Ephesians 2:8-9, there is none occasion of boasting. And furthermore Philippians 1:6 shows that we are confident God will continue his work.

>It is right to feel that because they are doing things which confirm they have not recieved the faith in vain.

Right because by their fruits we shall know them. He doesn't say that about himself however. Justification before man is not the same as justification in God's sight. The latter is shown to other men by the former, but is not predicated on it, which is where you're confused. It is a very small thing that I should be judged of you.

>I don't understand what you are trying to express here.

Well you said that "you can believe with doing evil, therefore faith does not require sanctification." I said this is false because we are not yet perfect and should not pretend to be, as mentioned in Philippians 3:12. That doesn't mean we are not being sanctified or conformed to the image of the Son, because as of this moment there is yet another law in my members warring against the law of my mind. 1 John 1:9. Any man claiming to be sinless is deceiving themselves, and the truth is not in them. So does that mean no one is being sanctified? According to your statement, it does. But actually, that's false. Therefore faith is as I said before always bound to and together with sanctification. Therefore saying sanctification results in eternal life does not contradict anything we've said, it always occurs with faith.

>which means faith is distinct from turning from dead works.

No, it means giving up your works as a means to save you. I didn't say turning from sins, I said turning from your works as a means of justification. Counting the cost and realizing you cannot build that tower, and no works will accomplish it. So by tieing it back to works, all you've done is create a new religion unto yourselves, saying that only those who earn their way by their personal merit in doing certain works will be saved. But that's not what God said: John 6:47.

>Faith cannot simultaneously entail turning from dead works and being distinct from works.

You've not understood, turning from dead works means being distinct from those works. As long as you lay grace and salvation on works, you haven't turned from them.

>Either you affirm faith and works, or you define faith as "Thinking with assent".

That's a false dichotomy and you have not established this here.

>The context of sowing the flesh and sowing the spirit is defined just a chapter before and it has nothing to do with getting other people saved but your actions.

How about try reading the very next verse of the passage that you cut off.

Galatians 6:10

<As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

>I don't see what relevance that has to your point?

It's talking about being found faithful by other men, which is something altogether different from justification before God. The former is what James 2:14-26 and several other passages are about. As it says there, a man may SAY he has faith, as he is trying to show he does to another man.

>Of course, it gets even worse for the "God will ignore my sins and actions" position,

Who's holding that position?

Hebrews 12:6-8

<For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

<If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

<But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

>since the same word used to say he should be disqualified is used in Romans 1:28

2 Corinthians 13:7 uses it as well. And I trust you know that Paul is not actually a reprobate, though he may have been AS a reprobate to some in Corinth. And I don't see any fear of that in 1 Corinthians 9, that's you inserting your own fear there. He simply doesn't want to be, by ANY means, as a reprobate to any he preached to. This goes back to the whole concept of not creating a stumbling block.

1 Corinthians 8:13—

<Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

>>576269

>Well there you go, Augustine was wrong and Pelagius was right. I mean, that is the logical conclusion of your interpretation, we don't need any grace we are all capable of perfect sinlessness on our own.

Why do you purposely ignore that I've already stated every deed must be accompanied by Gods grace to be of any value, and further the scripture I've cited to support that statement?

>apostasy. What Paul is saying is that sanctification leads to eternal life. I do not deny this, I deny that it is so as cause and effect, rather than journey and destination.

There is no discernable difference. And further, since you admit sanctification leads to eternal life how can you say that it is faith alone, knowing that sanctification is not only faith?

>So regeneration is in fact not the same thing as sanctification?

They are the same. Regeneration is used to describe the the process of sanctification, it can also be used to describe the change that occurs at the first instant of sanctifiation. They do the same thing, the are the same thing.

>I agree. You can assume that because Paul's argument against that one deed applies to every deed.

<You can't just assume that.

<I agree, you can just assume that

I'd like you to prove the assumption.

> In contrast, the pharisee thanked God for the grace to be more righteous than other men. Something which Roman Catholicism enables.

Again, show that the humbling is synonymous with faith and not something faith requires. So far you've only asserted that it must be the case, but you haven't shown why in scripture that must be the case.

>>576278

>It's not I that works but God.

But you're still physically doing the acts, which means you can't say "If I have to physically visit the sick then it isn't something God is doing, therefore it is boasting and a dead work".

>So does that mean no one is being sanctified? According to your statement, it does.

No, it doesn't. I said faith does not require sanctification. I did not say sanctification makes a person sinless, I said faith can exist without it.

>Therefore saying sanctification results in eternal life does not contradict anything we've said, it always occurs with faith.

It does contradict faith alone though, since sanctification is defined by doing and not doing various things as I showed earlier, if sanctification results in eternal life then it is faith and these various things done or not done that result in eternal life and that is not faith alone, but faith and works.

>As long as you lay grace and salvation on works, you haven't turned from them

So, let me understand your position most clearly. Please say how you define faith and then please answer the following two questions

1: Is the doing of works necessary in any form?

2: Are all works dead works, or are works done apart from God dead works.

>How about try reading the very next verse of the passage that you cut off.

How does this in any way change the fact that sowing the spirit will reap eternal life? It doesn't.

>Who's holding that position?

Does a person who believes go to hell for sins that a person who does not believe goes to hell for? Do you believe you will go to hell for sins that God sends an unbeliever to hell for?

>I don't see any fear of that in 1 Corinthians 9, that's you inserting your own fear there.

<27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

>I bring my body under subjection

>Lest I should be castaway as a reprobate

If Paul needed to bring his body under subjection to avoid being cast away then it is not by faith alone, since obedience is required. Further, this demolishes some of the definitions of faith put forward in this thread, such as

>>575489

< 'faith' is the pure trust in Christ, not making any attempt to escape hell and damnation, but putting itself fully at God's mercy

But St. Paul says he brings his body under subjection to avoid being damned. Therefore it is not faith alone, even if you define faith as cited above.

Of course, your admission sanctification leads to eternal life already destroys faith alone, and that goes for both of you.

>>576294

>But you're still physically doing the acts, which means you can't say "If I have to physically visit the sick then it isn't something God is doing, therefore it is boasting and a dead work".

Rather I would say "If I am allowed to return what I have been given from the Lord, this is not a work so much as God working in me. I haven't merited anything, only to further God's will."

>I did not say sanctification makes a person sinless, I said faith can exist without it.

Yeah you said that and your "proof" was that some people aren't sinless. As you said:

>Since you can believe without doing good, or with doing evil, faith does not require sanctification.

That was your proof. So your implication in this statement is that sanctification = always doing good and never doing evil. Which is why I went to Philippians 3.

>that is not faith alone, but faith and works.

Nothing I do can merit what God did for me. There is no way to obtain remission for my sins except by the righteousness of God.

Philippians 3:8-9

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

2 Corinthians 5:21

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

>1: Is the doing of works necessary in any form?

Is it necessary for faith? No, because it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.

>2: Are all works dead works, or are works done apart from God dead works.

When I say dead works, I'm using "dead" as an adjective, not part of the noun. Works are dead. And I was also implicitly referring to Hebrews 6:1 which uses the same term.

>How does this in any way change the fact that sowing the spirit will reap eternal life? It doesn't.

I already referred you to the fact this is talking about getting other people saved.

Luke 10:2

Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

John 4:35-38

Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.

And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.

I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.

>Does a person who believes go to hell for sins that a person who does not believe goes to hell for?

Someone who hears and believes the word of God shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. Someone who does not believe is condemned already for their sins and will be judged by the law. The law condemns all sinners.

>If Paul needed to bring his body under subjection to avoid being cast away then it is not by faith alone, since obedience is required.

Notice he says by any means. This is similar to 2 Corinthians 13 which you have already cited. If he did otherwise after preaching thus to others, he might by some means be perceived as being reprobate by those he preached to. Of course, you removed half of the verse in your paraphrase so it looks like something else after you did that.

>Of course, your admission sanctification leads to eternal life already destroys faith alone, and that goes for both of you.

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

>>576294

>Why do you purposely ignore that I've already stated every deed must be accompanied by Gods grace to be of any value

Why did you purposely ignore the words "logical conclusion"?

>There is no discernable difference

Do roads cause the cities they lead to?

>since you admit sanctification leads to eternal life how can you say that it is faith alone

Because faith alone is specifically about justification. No sanctification is required whatsoever to be right with God.

>They are the same

A component is not the whole.

>I'd like you to prove the assumption.

Ok, I pre-empted this and prepared some commentary on the passage, which I will post after this.

>So far you've only asserted that it must be the case, but you haven't shown why in scripture that must be the case.

That is false. Once more, "humbling" is what the publican does. Either interact or capitulate, but don't keep pressing me to do something I've already done.

>But St. Paul says he brings his body under subjection to avoid being damned

That is not at all what he means. It is in the context of preaching the gospel. He is saying that he fights his sinful urges lest they bring shame on his proclamation. His point is that, having preached the rules of the race, will he also brazenly brake them?

>>576294

>>576312

>What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

The specific work disputed about is circumcision, however Paul issues a blanket condemnation against all works. A 'work' is an act of obedience to God. If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, because then his righteousness would be the determining factor, he could boast against the damned that he had succeeded where they had failed, that he wisely co-operated while they foolishly rejected. Ergo, to be justified by any obedience grants ability to boast.

>For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Paul now takes the claim that circumcision is necessary for justification before the tribunal of scripture. This he refutes because "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Abraham has no ground for boasting because he was justified not because he was righteous but because he believed.

>Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

To be justified because of works is to deserve to be justified. It is not a free gift of mercy to an undeserving sinner, but what is deserved by a truly righteous man.

>And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly

The one who does not work is a vile sinner who has broken God's law and profaned His covenant. By God's righteous decree he deserves to die, but he 'believes in him who justifies the ungodly'. The last three word carry significance, because it is rather redundant to say that God justifies the ungodly if justify means 'to make righteous', since how will God make the righteous righteous? But it is something to note, because justification is a verdict of righteousness, that He justifies the ungodly, He justifies the undeserving. The ungodly therefore are the group of those who do not work, they are the unrighteous men who were rejected because they did not see fit to retain God in their knowledge. For this reason the one who does not work must believe in Him who justifies the ungodly, because that way and that way alone they may be justified though ungodly. And how is this?

>his faith is counted as righteousness

Righteousness cannot be taken to mean a single righteous thing, rather it must describe an entirely righteous life. It is the antonym of the aforementioned ungodliness and the thing they lack which makes them ungodly. Thus, though they lived an ungodly life of sin, God treats their faith as having been a perfectly sinless life, and for this reason God justifies the ungodly, because He counts their faith as perfection.

>just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works

The blessing cannot be separated from the imputation, because Paul here means by blessing 'blessedness'. This is not a new introduction, of one who is imputed righteousness apart from righteousness, because that is all Paul has been talking about for this entire sentence. Therefore no further comment is needed for this text, because it is a repetition of things already dealt with. We need only see what David says

>>576294

>>576312

>>576313

>“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

We see that Paul interprets non-imputation of sin to be the same thing as imputation of righteousness apart from works. The reason is that we are not imputed righteousness arbitrarily or because it is deserved by faith, but because we are counted as Christ Himself, and Christ Jesus is the one who died.

>Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

This is the first mention of circumcision in the passage. Having previously dealt with works in general, he now applies it in particular.

>For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

Paul's point is not as it might seem to the incautious reader, that Abraham was justified before circumcision. Rather, his point is that he was justified irrespective of circumcision. The question Paul raises is fundamentally a question of whether he was imputed righteousness because of his obedience to God, or because of his faith alone. Paul's answer is the latter, against both the Judaizers and the Romanists.

>He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Paul now explains why he was circumcised, if not to be righteous before God, then why? He received it not to be righteous, but as the sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith. The same applies to the new covenant sign, that being baptism.

>The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

He was justified by faith without works to show that works do not matter one bit in justification, but only faith regardless of works.

>For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

Since Abraham was justified by faith alone, so too must his children to whom the promise also is must be justified by faith alone, since it was the seed of Abraham and not any other who received the promise.

>>576306

>So your implication in this statement is that sanctification = always doing good and never doing evil. Which is why I went to Philippians 3.

No, my statement was that faith can exist without doing good or with doing evil. Not that sanctification means only doing one and never doing the other.

> There is no way to obtain remission for my sins except by the righteousness of God.

And having obtained that righteousness God places expectations of behavior on you and expects to see things out of you.

>No, because it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast

Ok, now I'll show salvation requires works. Matthew 25

>34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

The kingdom was prepared for them for they did these things. Since the doing of these things is what gets them the kingdom works are necessary.

>I already referred you to the fact this is talking about getting other people saved.

The context of sowing the spirit and sowing the flesh was defined in Galatians 5 with the works of the flesh and works of the spirit. You aren't supposed to grow weary in well doing, especially to members of the faith, for in due season we will reap. Of course, this doesn't benefit you even if your claim was true, since you've just defined works as "getting people saved" which doesn't change the fact it reaps eternal life. You'll try to claim it reaps eternal life for other people, but the text says "Whatever ONE sows, the same HE shall also reap" ergo if you are the one sowing the spirit then you are the one reaping eternal life. Not others who you get saved or whatever you'll try claim. The two passages you cited don't even exist within the same context of Galatians. They have some vaguely similar language about reaping and harvesting so somehow this means its talking about the same thing? Why not just use the context already established just a handful of verses prior?

>cited. If he did otherwise after preaching thus to others, he might by some means be perceived as being reprobate by those he preached to.

Except he doesn't say "I myself will be viewed as a reprobate" he says he will BE a reprobate.

>Why did you purposely ignore the words "logical conclusion"?

Because they aren't, since I've already showed contrary to pelagianism?

>Because faith alone is specifically about justification. No sanctification is required whatsoever to be right with God.

If sanctification leads to eternal life, and justification is the means of receiving eternal life, then sanctification IS required to be right with God.

>That is false. Once more, "humbling" is what the publican does. Either interact or capitulate, but don't keep pressing me to do something I've already done

You've never shown, only asserted, that faith is synonymous with humbling oneself. You've just said "since faith alone is true it must mean faith is synonymous with humbling oneself" as opposed to a plausible explanation that faith and humbling oneself is required. Which makes more sense, since God resists the proud. Not that the proud don't believe, but they are refused.

>His point is that, having preached the rules of the race, will he also brazenly brake them?

And become filled with all evil, and deceit and wickedness etc etc and do things which are worthy of death, and not just do them but applaud others that do them etc etc.

>Everything regarding romans

And not a single attempt to refute the necessity of Abrahams obedience in the honoring of the promise. That's because God literally says "you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven" in Genesis 22. Further, you claim

>Thus, though they lived an ungodly life of sin, God treats their faith as having been a perfectly sinless life, and for this reason God justifies the ungodly, because He counts their faith as perfection.

Evidently not, since you can just read in Revalation 21,

>But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death

The faithless are defined, but also murders and fornicators and idoators and liars etc.

>>576333

Further, the claim romans 4 means no works justify, or are necessary to enter life are plainly refuted by St. Paul when he declares in 1 Corinthians 7,

>19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

Since keeping the commandments is undoubtably a work, it must be that some works are of value to God, even if not all works are of value. This renders all of your attempt to explain away Galatians 5/6, Matthew 25, the necessity of the offering in Genesis 22, Romans 6:19,22, John 15, but most of all I'll conclude with the undeniable words of St Johns epistle

> And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

>9 He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling. 11 But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Undeniable,

>4 He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

If God was to ignore your disobedience such a statement is not just nonsensical, it's plainly untrue.

>>576333

>Because they aren't, since I've already showed contrary to pelagianism?

That doesn't mean it isn't the logical conclusion, it means you are inconsistent.

>If sanctification leads to eternal life, and justification is the means of receiving eternal life, then sanctification IS required to be right with God.

Have you forgotten already in what sense I said sanctification leads to eternal life?

>You've never shown, only asserted, that faith is synonymous with humbling oneself. You've just said "since faith alone is true it must mean faith is synonymous with humbling oneself" as opposed to a plausible explanation that faith and humbling oneself is required. Which makes more sense, since God resists the proud. Not that the proud don't believe, but they are refused.

Since you have failed yet again to so much as attempt to rebut my argument, I take that as a concession.

>And become filled with all evil, and deceit and wickedness etc etc and do things which are worthy of death, and not just do them but applaud others that do them etc etc.

Really? Romans 1 is about all unregenerate men, it is a huge category error to think this as a possible future for believers.

>>Everything regarding romans

Sir, I thank you. The fact that in your entire response you don't even touch the disputed text a single time, but instead leap all across scripture, shows my exegesis was stronger than even I thought. It is also abject capitulation that I am right about Romans 4.

>And not a single attempt to refute the necessity of Abrahams obedience in the honoring of the promise

That's because I let Paul do that for me

>That's because God literally says "you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven" in Genesis 22

And He also says "for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." So if he is only justified in this moment so too does God learn something previously unknown to Himself.

>The faithless are defined, but also murders and fornicators and idoators and liars etc.

Are you perfectly chaste? Do you worship God perfectly? Are you perfectly honest? That is the standard of the law, and that is the standard you must meet to be justified through the law.

>>576334

>Since keeping the commandments is undoubtably a work, it must be that some works are of value to God, even if not all works are of value

Allow us to examine the context

<Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.

He is not talking about how to be justified, he is talking about a state of being. He's saying not to fret, if they are uncircumcised or circumcised, that God doesn't care about the state of His children's flesh, He only cares that they are loyal and obedient.

>If God was to ignore your disobedience such a statement is not just nonsensical, it's plainly untrue.

That verse says the truth is not in him. Not that the truth is in him and unformed, but he is a liar and the truth is not in him. John in no uncertain terms says this rebellious person does not know Christ, they do not believe.

And of course God will not ignore disobedience, but He will act toward it like a father and not like a judge. He will not spare the rod, but He will spare the sword.