/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

When you say "justification theology" do you mean the doctrine of justification?

If yes I'm not following the argument

>>831608

Yes or the notion of justification. What’s not to follow? Someone who believes they are justified thanks God they are not like other men.

>>831611

I don't follow how this presents an issue for the doctrine of justification, a doctrine that is explicitly affirmed in the Bible

https://www.openbible.info/topics/justification

>Someone who believes they are justified thanks God they are not like other men.

I am thankful I have been justified, unlike other men who have not been justified. I'm justified by an alien righteousness, not one I've attained myself. There is no way that this constitutes exalting the self.

What is your alternative view that rejects the doctrine of justification?

>>831613

To not judge and leave all things to the Lord.

>>831619

Ok, that doesn't mean rejecting the doctrine of justification

>>831621

Right, it means not even thinking about it. It's vain and unfruitful.

>>831622

Reflecting on my salvation is not vain and unfruitful

It's a motif of the new testament

>>831624

I disagree. Christ is risen, all else is vanity to please the intellect.

>>831626

Do you mean to be saying that reading the Bible is vanity? That's what you're sharing with me right now

Tax collector goes to hell because he didn't repent his sin and quit his job as tax collector.

This is like the Hit man, abortion doctor, or Democrat. They go to confess their sins but they have no resolve at all to even try to stop sinning.

lets face it, Op doesn't understand Christianity. Christ said "Go and sin no more" not "It's okay, I'm gonna bear that cross so you can keep offending God".

>>831629

>Tax collector goes to hell because he didn't repent his sin and quit his job as tax collector

Take your meds. Jesus literally says the tax collector is justified.

>>831629

The other thing is

>Christ said "Go and sin no more"

So does the law. What’s your point?

>>831633

The tax collector was still going on doing the dirty tax collecting.

They weren't known for fairness back then.

>>831626

1 John 5:13

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Paul explains that the OT scriptures always taught justification by faith alone, that is how Abraham was made righteous in front of God, long before he even had Isaac.

Read Calvin on justification. Better yet read Paul's epistles.

It's not complicated. It's a free gift from God, the potter turning our hard hearts towards him, his sheep hear his voice, his sheep respond, Christ will lose no one, not even one….you can't turn yourself from a goat into a sheep. It doesn't work like that.

>>831661

Abraham's faith was still tied to actions and events. Not mere mental assertions in the sense of adopting a belief system. This is why we needed James to knock us across the heads when he said that faith without works is dead. Because he knew there'd be people who'd abuse what Paul said. He knew it, and purposely ruined it all by inserting that in his epistle. Thanks be to God. There's a reason why Luther disliked it and called it an epistle of "straw". It ruined all of his and Calvin's silly theology.

None of the original Reformers understood Abraham, and in fact, belittled him by equating belief with his faith. Only Wesley and a little later did Kierkegaard finally get the idea of how powerful Abraham's faith really was. Abraham was a man who left all he ever knew and understood in his life in Mesopotamia, and followed a voice only he could hear, risking EVERYTHING for this. Life, limb, finances, wife, family, etc.. Everything. Abraham's faith was attached to great risks and actions. From the beginning until later in his life, such as when he attempted to sacrifice Isaac. His "leaps of faith" were actual leaps, to the point that you almost have to feel sorry for him. No man should or would want to go through these things. He was tested beyond belief. Beyond everything rational and what people think they need to get by in life. No, God required of Abraham far, far, far much more. It's Faith in the sense of complete trust and abandon of all you think you know.

>>831664

He was justified by his faith, God sees into hearts, in fact he knows who is justified and saved "before the foundations of the world" before they even exist, let alone begin to perform actions. God doesn't have to wait and see what you do…that's a human way of thinking.

Outward actions are signs that help men see who is on the good path and who isn't. Who has saving faith and who is just professing "Lord, Lord" in vain. That's the point of James epistle as well.

Salvation has always been by faith alone through God's own workings, not by any of our merits or deeds.

>>831666

Your faith and actions are not compartmentalized or divorced from each other as separate events. It's all one thing. Which is the point of James' warning. I can only advise people to stop ignoring it and begin reckoning with it. Stop listening to the doctrines of men, and heed the word of God instead. Break from the system you've adopted and just reckon with James' words for a change.

Faith envelops the whole life. It's not some "kernel" of an idea that first sprouts in the heart. It's in everything about us. Or not there at all.

>>831669

>Faith envelops the whole life. It's not some "kernel" of an idea that first sprouts in the heart. It's in everything about us. Or not there at all.

How should it look then? Especially interested in light of >>831590

>>831669

If you view James 2:14-26 in light of Romans 4:5, it becomes even more clear what the apostle James meant. There is a justification with God that only God sees, and this is what Paul has written about, and there is also justification in the sight of men so that they may believe. There is a justification with God that only God sees, it has to do with their standing with God, but this by itself is not sufficient to save anyone else except for the person who has it. We see Paul acknowledge this as well in 1 Corinthians 4:1-4.

>Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

>But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

The Lord also said that "by their fruits ye shall know them" meaning we are to discern other people by their works. He also said "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

So then we see that good works were ordained for us in order to convince others. That's why James talks so much about showing another man his faith by his works. We know Abraham today by the record of the works that he did, God knew him, knew his faith and he was justified already before he had done a single work, see Romans 4.

>>831627

I'm saying trying to mold it to your intellectual demands is pride.

>>831714

It seems more moral than intellectual at this point.

>>831672

Jesus' life provided the biggest example for us. Being a servant (in his case, the Suffering Servant). Later on, James said much the same. What does James use as an example of an empty faith? He tells you about a guy who tells the poor "Be fed", but then does nothing to help them himself. Empty faith is the kind that isn't of service to anyone, that doesn't consider anyone, and never steps in for them. At best, he pays them lip service and just prays for them and tells them to be blessed. He's completely worthless on any practical level and just conceives of religion as an otherworldly affair. James also tells us "true religion is helping orphans and widows". The whole early church in Acts is a church showing itself to be in service and love as well. Reformers love to quote Paul, but seemingly only ever out of context. Paul himself was a man tirelessly devoted to service that it puts most of us to shame. He was a martyr as well, the ultimate form of service. He compared our walk to an athlete. Rather than being a simple mental assertion of "beliefs", it looks like something out of a Rocky movie.

"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." - 1 Cor 9:24-27

hey, if anyone was keen, i would love to have a conversation regarding christianity and faith…

my discord is Visitor Pope#7814

>>831731

Use riot

>>831685

>James 2 is about justification before men.

This is practically debunked even by modern Protestant commentaries on the subject(i.e Douglas Moo, Craig Blomberg..etc). But one does not need to consult them on this when the text itself is pretty clear that it aint talking about justification "before men". This is because of the basic context.

James 2 introduces the issue of partialism when it comes to treating believers. The one who is wealthy is treated better than the one who is poor, who is asked to sit down when he comes to church. This treatment will result in those who, showing no mercy will not receive it but judgement as Verse 13 says. In contrast those who have mercy need not worry about this "judgement" which is eschatological in context, not some bonus DLC judgement as other NT usage shows, like 2 Corinthians 5:10, Matthew 25-31-46 and 1 John 3:24.

It is this that sets the stage for the discussion on the nature of faith and works. Given verse 14, James' answer on whether the "faith" that results in no action can save is clearly "no". James example proves this as making vain assurances to those who have no food or clothes rather than actually aiding them is not going to fix their needs. This is also why James says that faith without works is akin to a dead body, it cannot move because it has no soul or life in it. This clearly is no "justification before men" because had it be so, James would not had used the example of partialism and then eschatological judgement to introduce the issue.

>But God knows the heart, so actions don't matter to God

This is stupid because as Abraham's own example in Romans 4 shows, the faith of Abraham is one that is tested and endures. God in His infinite wisdom would also foresee, know and if we want to get predestinarian, even cause this faith in Abraham. If this is so then making a silly dichotomy that God knows the inside but men don't so works are just to show men is moronic. Especially when all the actions are already foreseen by God or caused by Him in some way, meaning they actually factor into what faith is.

Secondly, making this claim shows one does not have any concept of free will. Because free choice requires the ability to set goals and act towards it. A person who act one way but think another in his heart is still acting in accordance with the heart, he just sees the act as means to achieve his goal. Thus this argument ends up assuming that people are NPCs who are unable to engage in goal setting or act towards some end.

>>831721

>Jesus' life provided the biggest example for us

Two things I cannot do are live an itinerant lifestyle like Christ or a monastic lifestyle like the monks. Apart from that, many opportunities for service remain of course, but it’s not specific enough. The problem is that service can often be unwittingly self-serving, e.g. the so-called earning-to-give movement, which says “the most effective way of helping people in absolute terms is not to spend time at the soup kitchen, but to become rich, so as to be able to fund entirely new soup kitchens, as well as political causes that advance my (hopefully Christian) values.”

Are you Catholic? Isn’t contributing to the life of the Church and advancing its aims in society one of the highest forms of service? That would narrow it down.

>>831746

>modern Protestant commentaries

They are so pozzed I have no idea why you would bring this up.

>James 2 introduces the issue of partialism when it comes to treating believers.

You mean partiality? Partialism is a theological heresy that asserts God in three parts and rejects the Trinity.

>It is this that sets the stage for the discussion on the nature of faith and works.

You mean James 2:1-13?

>Given verse 14, James' answer on whether the "faith" that results in no action can save is clearly "no".

Right, it cannot save the other person. The person he is saying he has faith to cannot be saved by that alone.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

>James example proves this as making vain assurances to those who have no food or clothes rather than actually aiding them is not going to fix their needs.

Right, you can't save the other person by merely saying you have food without actually giving them something. Only someone who actually has food and actually gives it will save that other person. See James 2:18, which again is about one man showing another man his faith by his works.

>This clearly is no "justification before men" because had it be so, James would not had used the example of partialism and then eschatological judgement to introduce the issue.

Your logic does not follow. According to the apostle in 1 Corinthians 3, "the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

>But God knows the heart, so actions don't matter to God

I never said this and this goes against 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, 2 Corinthians 5:10 and other passages.

>This is stupid because as Abraham's own example in Romans 4 shows, the faith of Abraham is one that is tested and endures.

Of course.

>Especially when all the actions are already foreseen by God or caused by Him in some way, meaning they actually factor into what faith is.

They don't count for our justification before God. The only thing we can trust in is God's word that he will be true, we cannot rely on works as a supplement. Furthermore these works are to help others be saved, as our Lord said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

>Because free choice requires the ability to set goals and act towards it.

>Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.

>For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.

>Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment. (Job 34)

>For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.

>To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth,

>To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High,

>To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not. (Lamentations 3)

>O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

>O LORD, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. (Jeremiah 10:23-24)

>>831756

>Pozzed

Just because there are bad liberal views in modern NT Scholarship doesnt mean it is all bad. Literally the ones I listed are conservative Prots in the first place. This is also fallacy because a fact is still a fact even if some trans or gay person says it. The atrocious nature of the one saying the fact doesn't detract from the reliability of it.

>partialism heresy

Literally NOT what I am saying at all. My point is about the treatment of believers in church, which should be clear.

>Right, it cannot save the other person. The person he is saying he has faith to cannot be saved by that alone.

Given the preceding verse, James is using the analogy of all talk and no action as a way to show how faith which has no works or acts to show, is useless. Just as empty talk to a poor man isn't gonna help him, so does faith without works gonna help you. It's going to only lead to no mercy to be shown at the eschatological judgement. This point being analogy is solidified by verse 17

>Right, you can't save the other person by merely saying you have food without actually giving them something. Only someone who actually has food and actually gives it will save that other person. See James 2:18, which again is about one man showing another man his faith by his works.

Again, this situation is an analogy of what empty faith is. Which is the faith of demons and one which only incurs the final judgement rather than mercy as Verse 13 warns. In fact early on before this he warns that the failure to keep one part of the Law(In this case literally what Christ says ala Sermon of the Mount) means one is guilty of breaking all of it. Hence you essentially take James out of context and project into him.

>Your logic does not follow. According to the apostle in 1 Corinthians 3, "the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

My logic follows because of how James introduces and frames his argument. It considers the literary structure of the author unlike what you are doing here, which is to just play mix and match eisegesis. Hence abusing 1 Corinthians 3, which doesn't support your point at all. Why? Because taking it at face value entails that this "fire" is akin to Purgatory where imperfect believers are temporarily burned. Only way to escape this kind of implication is literally to see that the "work" in this case are the audience and the man here is the Apostle himself.

It should also be noted that granting this verse as being lenient doesn't even have to necessitate the notion that demonic faith will save you because James 2 is merely about "works before men"(shown false as explained). Evangelical scholars Ciampa and Rosner are examples of this, while they consider this and some warning passages in 1 Corinthians to be lenient in nature, when it comes to 1 Corinthians 10 where the wandering Israelites in the desert becomes a Type of the audience, they pretty much say that falling into idolatry is going to result in damnation. So your appeal to 1 Corinthians fails because reading that text as a whole shows not the OSAS kind of logic you are going for.

>I never said this and this goes against 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, 2 Corinthians 5:10 and other passages.

Your eisegesis of James requires this because,

1)Works are no longer considered as a necessary component of faith and close to it.

2)Works are merely for men, not God who knows the heart but given 1), if God knows the heart, He also knows the works and fruits that will naturally come out from this

>Of course.

That proves your point false

>>831756

Cont.

>They don't count for our justification before God. The only thing we can trust in is God's word that he will be true, we cannot rely on works as a supplement. Furthermore these works are to help others be saved, as our Lord said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

Here's the thing, even if they arent counted as "justification before God", they are still considered in some capacity because those are necessary fruits or actions that will come as a result of a regenerated heart. Heck, this is practically what Reformed theology teaches on the issue. Secondly, your point here is silly because Scripture contains many injunctions to good works, using warnings if need be. For instance what does Galatians say about works? Oh right, those are fruits of the Spirit. So by your logic, as works are merely before men, those "fruits" matter not.

Even 1 John which says that if someone isnt of Christ, they will inevitably fall away makes clear that believers are to examine themselves. Do they have the fruits of light? Do they walk in the light? Confess and understand that they are without sin?

Then we get Revelations 2 where Jesus practically says to one of the Churches that if they continue in their sins, He will take their lampstand from them. That is a far cry from "works merely before men"

This is also why Double Justification or the Reformed view are the only two ways to make sense of the verses of Scripture. One may have an initial justification which then leads to Final Justification as the believer progresses and struggles, triumphing by the Spirit, or Justification which causes all the sanctification to take place(which is necessary). The former fits better due to the fact that many of the commands to works are addressed to believers.

>>831761

>Literally the ones I listed are conservative Prots in the first place.

There is no such thing, and these are pedobaptists and always have been. Why would you think such modernist commentaries add any weight to the argument? What you claim as "conservative" is inwardly flambuoyantly modernist and neo-liberal.

>The atrocious nature of the one saying the fact doesn't detract from the reliability of it.

When it comes to attempting exegesis, a person's natural mind being clouded destroys their ability to discern truth. Furthermore, nobody should even be relying on commentaries as some kind of frontline argument. The apostle John told the brethren that "the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you:" in 1 John 2:27.

>Just as empty talk to a poor man isn't gonna help him, so does faith without works gonna help you.

Just as empty talk to a poor man isn't gonna help him, so does faith without works gonna help him.

^Above is the actual analogy.

>In fact early on before this he warns that the failure to keep one part of the Law(In this case literally what Christ says ala Sermon of the Mount) means one is guilty of breaking all of it. Hence you essentially take James out of context and project into him.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

- (Galatians 3:22)

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

- (Matthew 19:25-26)

<For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

- (Romans 4:13)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

- (Ephesians 2:8-9)

>My logic follows

No it still doesn't.

>1 Corinthians 3, which doesn't support your point at all.

Yes it does. Believers will be rewarded accordingly to their labors.

>Because taking it at face value entails that this "fire" is akin to Purgatory

No it doesn't.

>Evangelical scholars Ciampa and Rosner are examples of this, while they consider…

>they pretty much say that…

You've got to be kidding me.

>1)Works are no longer considered as a necessary component of faith and close to it.

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:

- (Philippians 1:6)

>2)Works are merely for men,

I guess if you have the attitude of "merely" saving other people that means you don't think much of having compassion and making a difference, as St. Jude wrote in his general epistle verse 22.

>Here's the thing, even if they arent counted as "justification before God", they are still considered in some capacity

I know. That's why I bring up our works being tried from the passage in First Corinthians chapter three. These are very much considered.

>Secondly, your point here is silly because Scripture contains many injunctions to good works, using warnings if need be.

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

- (Hebrews 12:7)

>Even 1 John which says that if someone isnt of Christ, they will inevitably fall away

Yes, and that includes all who think some act they performed as a good work stands as justification for their salvation. Because that goes against the record that God gave of his Son (5:10). So, they will inevitably fall away.

>He will take their lampstand from them.

Does the context tell us that means the church as a whole, or do you think it means each person will be condemned? The context is obviously toward the entire church collectively. Furthermore, it is possible for a saved person to endure punishment in their life for some sin. That's not a contradiction to anything. There is no connection therefore to personal justification.

>Double justification fits better due to the fact that many of the commands to works are addressed to believers.

No comment.

>That proves your point false

It obviously proves your straw man false as I said!

Look dude, you're all over the place. You write stuff like "You're wrong because, " and then just fill in whatever codswallop you can come up with, even if it is completely irrelevant to the point. There is a point where this cycle has to stop because clearly you are taking fallible men as your authority and they are leading you astray if you are disagreeing with clear Scripture in 1 Corinthians 3 and elsewhere.

>>831774

>Muh Prot Pedobaptists

So what? If what they show is reasonable and flows with the text, then their argument still holds weight. It doesn't matter all because they hurt your fee fees.

>Attempting exegesis

Look at yourself, your own exegesis if it can even be called that, cannot make sense of the text and abuses the contexts and meaning of other texts. Let's use your own reply for example, in trying to answer my objections to your eisegesis of James 2, you ignore the context of Judgement and Analogy, instead choosing to ignore the flow of the text and claim that the issue of faith and works is merely "before men" and when James use the lack of help to the poor brethren as an example, it doesn't matter soteriogically because it's just additional DLC works.

Another example from your eisegesis of 1 John 2:27(ignoring all the other parts of the Epistle that speaks against the retarded version of faithed alone you preach) which makes John as the author inconsistent with himself. If what he said is true, then why would he even write all of that epistles to his audience in the first place? That's just silly

>Just as empty talk to a poor man isn't gonna help him, so does faith without works gonna help him.

That analogy breaks down your eisegesis of the text. Saying this adds nothing to your position when this was literally my point against the notion that James thinks works are merely "before men". The analogy is meant to show the audience that if their faith is just Demonic faith that merely say with the mouth and doesn't express or act, then it profits nothing. It does not save and will result in no mercy being shown because they have shown no mercy by just being idle in faith.

That's the analogy, not what you say.

>Muh Galatians 3

The same Galatians which literally contradict your notion of faith because it also in the same chapter speaks of that justification by faith as being tied to water Baptism and worse, in that same chapter he literally begins by paralleling a verse from 1 Philippians about how the beginning of the Christian's life will be completed by the Spirit. Whoops, Galatians later on goes on to list the fruits of the Spirit and also appeal to final eschatological judgement to warn the Galatians.

>Muh Matthew

The same Matthew which literally uses the analogy of the Goats and Sheep which shows Jesus judging based on one's conduct.

I already shown with Romans 4 how your version of faithed alone is incompatible so let's move on to Ephesians which literally says immediately after that Christians who are predestined by God are predestined/ordained onto Good Works. Apparently according to you, the predestination of God is so fallible that eventhough He predestines those He Saves to good works, the good works are actually just bonus DLC rather than how a regenerated heart empowered by the Spirit should act.

>Believers rewarded accordingly to their labors

In Context it either proves some sort of Purgatorial state, or that those people who are saved despite the additions to the foundation failing are the Apostles who preach and gain converts. You, being so utterly incapable of basic contextual exegesis fail to see Paul's own analogy of Christians being like the foundation stones of a Holy Temple, referring to the OT Temple itself due to basic intertextuality.

>Philippians 1:6

Which again contradicts you because that verse shows Good works as necessary. It isnt the optional DLC you preach

>>831774

>Muh 1 John includes those who preach works salvation

If it includes them, it also includes you because John's own logic, especially given the predestinarian tones present in the Gospel shows that those predestined and are of Christ will abide. They will not fall away and they will act consistently. That disproves your view which is also why you can't even show me how your flawed version of faith meshes with these verses which speak against it.

>Revelations 2 means the church collectively, no personal justification

Then Jesus wouldn't had bothered warning them to begin with and asking them to change their ways. Worse still anyone who actually knows Jewish symbolism knows that the lampstand is the symbol for God's presence in the temple. This means when Jesus makes that warning, it is literally him saying that if they don't change, God will withdraw his presence from them.

So your logic then entails that those who are saved don't need the presence of God in them. Now that's retarded.

>I strawman you

Prove it. So far you don't even bother clarifying your eisegesis at all in your mad tangent

And again, saying that my reference to NT Evangelical and Prot scholars means my points are illegitimate because those people don't hold your worldview is retarded. That's like me rejecting a Calvinist all because I don't like Calvinism. That is botherline retarded and SJW tier which is why people like you can never understand the Gospel and grow the church