Justification…Is it works or faith alone?

[Simplelogic]

I don't think that it's Paul who's actually wrong. But those people who just quote-dig the bible, without looking at the verse in context.

I humbly disagree. Paul absolutely taught that works and grace were mutually exclusive concepts which are contrary to each other. He does this in almost every letter he writes. Here is an example from Romans. Taken from Yeshua/Jesus and Judaism versus Paul and Christianity :

"Moreover the Law entered that (for this purpose) the offense (sin) might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:20

Again he draws the mutually exclusive picture of Law versus grace in the following.

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law but under grace." Romans 6:14

Later on in Romans, Paul uses an analogy from the time of Elijah to make his grace-versus-works point.

But what does the divine response say to him (Elijah)? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant (of Israel) according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. Romans 11:4-6

Paul's logic is so stood on its head, and his proof demonstrated with smoke and mirrors here that it's almost humorous. It would be if so many didn't actually believe this is the infallible word of God! The only thing that Paul derives from what God said to Elijah is that He had reserved a "remnant" for Himself. Nothing more! Never mind the fact that these seven thousand men had themselves remained true to God's Law and not bowed their knee to Baal! Sounds like works to me! But then, to keep the illusion going, Paul states that this new remnant of saved Israel is "according to the election of grace". This he bases on the assumption that he firmly established the concept of predestination and the election by grace earlier in the infamous passages of Romans 9. This detestable doctrine is itself based on numerous misquotes of Scripture as I have shown. But now Paul continues to build lie on top of lie with the flow of logic that if salvation is by grace, then it is no longer by works; otherwise grace is no longer grace! What utter nonsense! Where is it written that grace and Law (works) are mutually exclusive concepts... other than in Paul's writings? Paul had previously tried to establish this principle that the two concepts cannot go together with this slight-of-hand.

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." Romans 4:4

This slight-of-hand is accomplished by renaming elements in the equation much the way an abortionist would never call an unborn child "a baby". If Paul can get away with calling obedience to God "work", then he can get away with calling the benefits of that work "wages", and if we continue to follow him down this road we find out that wages are really a "debt"! Oh no! Who would want to be accused of being so presumptuous as to bill God for grace?!! Phew! Let's back up and start over. What Paul calls "work" is reallyobedience to God. God is the One with the bill! He made us and demands the payment of obedience. His grace and mercy are benefits (not wages) of doing business with Him. No one, no matter how obedient, can presumptuously demand payment of anything from God. To do so would involve disobedience to the Law concerning walking humbly with God! Anyone who is obedient and walks humbly with God can have all the faith in the world that God will provide the benefits He promised. This is where true faith exists! Now doesn't this sound so much more simple and right?Even a child can grasp this picture. But one has to spend many years in seminary before they can even pretend to comprehend Paul's convoluted mess.

 

[Estro Felino]

I humbly disagree. Paul absolutely taught that works and grace were mutually exclusive concepts which are contrary to each other. He does this in almost every letter he writes. Here is an example from Romans. Taken from Yeshua/Jesus and Judaism versus Paul and Christianity :

"Moreover the Law entered that (for this purpose) the offense (sin) might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:20

Again he draws the mutually exclusive picture of Law versus grace in the following.

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law but under grace." Romans 6:14

Later on in Romans, Paul uses an analogy from the time of Elijah to make his grace-versus-works point.

But what does the divine response say to him (Elijah)? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant (of Israel) according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. Romans 11:4-6

Paul's logic is so stood on its head, and his proof demonstrated with smoke and mirrors here that it's almost humorous. It would be if so many didn't actually believe this is the infallible word of God! The only thing that Paul derives from what God said to Elijah is that He had reserved a "remnant" for Himself. Nothing more! Never mind the fact that these seven thousand men had themselves remained true to God's Law and not bowed their knee to Baal! Sounds like works to me! But then, to keep the illusion going, Paul states that this new remnant of saved Israel is "according to the election of grace". This he bases on the assumption that he firmly established the concept of predestination and the election by grace earlier in the infamous passages of Romans 9. This detestable doctrine is itself based on numerous misquotes of Scripture as I have shown. But now Paul continues to build lie on top of lie with the flow of logic that if salvation is by grace, then it is no longer by works; otherwise grace is no longer grace! What utter nonsense! Where is it written that grace and Law (works) are mutually exclusive concepts... other than in Paul's writings? Paul had previously tried to establish this principle that the two concepts cannot go together with this slight-of-hand.

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." Romans 4:4

This slight-of-hand is accomplished by renaming elements in the equation much the way an abortionist would never call an unborn child "a baby". If Paul can get away with calling obedience to God "work", then he can get away with calling the benefits of that work "wages", and if we continue to follow him down this road we find out that wages are really a "debt"! Oh no! Who would want to be accused of being so presumptuous as to bill God for grace?!! Phew! Let's back up and start over. What Paul calls "work" is reallyobedience to God. God is the One with the bill! He made us and demands the payment of obedience. His grace and mercy are benefits (not wages) of doing business with Him. No one, no matter how obedient, can presumptuously demand payment of anything from God. To do so would involve disobedience to the Law concerning walking humbly with God! Anyone who is obedient and walks humbly with God can have all the faith in the world that God will provide the benefits He promised. This is where true faith exists! Now doesn't this sound so much more simple and right?Even a child can grasp this picture. But one has to spend many years in seminary before they can even pretend to comprehend Paul's convoluted mess.

I strongly claim that Paul in Romans and in many letters expresses devilish and anti-Christian concepts.

The concept that we must boast about Jesus' merits and can't boast about our own, is devilish.

 

[Simplelogic]

I strongly claim that Paul in Romans and in many letters expresses devilish and anti-Christian concepts.

The concept that we must boast about Jesus' merits and can't boast about our own, is devilish.

Why on earth would a humble obedient person want to boast anyways?? Only in Paul's twisted world.

 

[1robin]

I never said anything about the debate itself. I am simply saying that I am convinced that the Hebrew translation is accurate despite what Paul says. YHVH makes it very clear that Abraham was blessed because of his obedience. His "right standing" with God was based off of what he did. Not some predetermined election.

Your case has definitely been challenged. You can choose to ignore it but to say it hasn't been challenged is dismissive.

1. No one I have ever heard who is a scholar (actually no one what so ever) in a relevant field has ever called into question whether Paul got it right or not. It is not among the scriptures where serious disagreement exists. IOW there is not even a hint at an issue with Paul's take on the verse from any NT scholar I have ever heard.
2. Christ himself commissioned Paul and knew exactly what Paul would record. Christ would not have commissioned anyone who would pervert his revelation. So you are left with only one option here. You must show compelling evidence Paul was not commissioned by Christ. Actually there is another option. God guaranteed purity in his initial revelation. So you can try and show that Paul's original perfect writings on this matter were corrupted somewhere in the transmission on the bible. Unless you can do one or the other that verse must stand as is and must be accurate as all initial revelation was accurate and perfect.
3. I also wanted to call attention to the fact that this verse in no way is sufficient to settle the issue alone. There are dozens of verses and a whole lot of reasoning that must be systematically combed through before this issue can be concluded.
4. The verse in Genesis 15 says specifically and emphatically states that at that very moment Abraham was righteous and the reason he was counted as righteous was because of his faith. There is no doubt whatever what that verses says. You have no argument that can be made about what the verse says. Your argument comes from another set of verses in a later chapter. However those later verses are not about how Abraham became righteous before God. They are about temporal rewards that came by way of obedience.
5. I agree that both verses are accurate. They are accurate and about two distinctly different things. Even a cursory reading of the bible will find all kinds of different covenants God makes with man. Some are based on faith (as in Abraham's righteousness), and some are based on obedience (like the rewards his descendant enjoyed which were gained by his obedience to instructions). These verse are NOT about the same issue. The latter does not modify, add to, or over rule the former. They are distinct and independent and about different issues. Much of biblical study concerns things that are shades of gray but this one is black and white. You must be able to see that one is about righteousness and one about temporal rewards because that is exactly what these simplistic verses say, point blank. There is no wiggle room here.
6. Lastly my case is salvation by grace which has yet to be challenged. Even if your later verse over wrote the earlier verse in Gen 15 that would not amount to an effective challenge to grace in general. The verses are about two district things and so far that is the only argument you made so no my position has not been effectively challenged. I was expecting to go 15 rounds here and your declaring victory by claiming your boxing gloves are better than mine even though they are not. The debate has not even begun yet.

 

[1robin]

What??? There is no mention of descendants being rewarded for obedience???

That is exactly what I said. In fact here is the words I said specifically. "There is no mention of descendants being a reward for obedience". What I actually said was that the things which Abraham's descendants received. Land, prosperity, victory in battle, etc..... was a reward for Abraham's obedience. However it does not say one word about his righteousness being a reward. It does not mention his righteousness at all in the verses you quoted. The verses about his righteousness say specifically that is was the result of faith alone.

Here it is again:

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws." Genesis 26:3-5

Yes, it is quite obvious that the WHOLE blessing was given BECAUSE Abraham obeyed YHVH's commandments! There is no way around this one my friend. Your whole argument of temporal vs eternal blessing is completely illogical.

I know what it says. You misunderstood what I said. The word righteousness however does not appear in your verses because they are not about Abraham's righteousness. Gen 15 is about his standing before God and specifically says it was the result of faith. Your later verses do not change or even address that FACT. In fact when Abraham was declared righteous no laws had yet been given and even if they had been Abraham had not at that time obeyed anything. At that time the only thing he had done was believe God and be declared righteous on that basis and that basis alone. These later verses simply have nothing to do with Abraham's righteousness. We are not debating the nature of any later blessings or rewards. We are discussing how a person is deemed righteous not how he gets rewards.

 

[1robin]

Actually, I have already explained how the verse makes complete sense. Nor is the verse meaningless. Abraham believed YHVH's promise and considered YHVH righteous (meaning that he believed that YHVH will bring His word to pass)

Not only is that a nonsensical interpretation I don't think you can find a single biblical scholar that supports that view. Abraham did not even know God until that moment and no human is in any position (not even after long experience which Abraham did not have) to judge God's righteousness. Righteousness means to be in a righty standing with God. However even forgetting all of that the Hebrew words themselves make the second he in the verse Yahweh not Abraham. I even gave the koine Greek and what the Greek means. Every single source, language, bible version, interpretation, and commentator I can find is on one page and your on the other. The original languages did not make any difference so lets take one more look at the verse in English.

6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Now lets substitute the words you use in your interpretation and see what we have.

Abraham believed the Lord, and Abraham credited it to God as righteousness.

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. It is not even a coherent sentence.

Yes this faulty translation has been a huge blunder and is completely contrary to proper Hebrew grammar. The proof, once again, is that YHVH reiterates this same oath and never speaks of Abraham's faith at all…thats kinda weird isn't it? Especially considering the supposed significance of this verse in relation to faith alone justification.

What translation? I went back to the original Hebrew, gave the Greek, and gave every major modern English version. They all agree that God credited Abraham with righteousness because of his faith. You are the only human I can find or have ever heard claim anything different. There is no conflict in biblical scholarship over the verse, no notes in modern bibles pointing out an issue, no writings from theologians about this issue. It is a straight forward verse which only you seem to find what you say in it.

YHVH only mentions Abraham's OBEDIENCE as being the reason for his justification and blessing. Not to mention the fact that the concept of "faith alone" doesn't exist anywhere else in the OT! Some think Habakkuk mentions this topic but this is another slight of hand which is based on changing one of the key Hebrew words in the text. I have already addressed this verse above also.

The number of times the doctrine appears in the OT is not under discussion and would be an argument from popularity anyway. You asked for a verse in the OT that made faith alone the basis for righteousness. I and others gave you the most famous and emphatically clear one we could think of. The rest of the OT was not discussed because you did not ask anything about it.

But what is mentioned?? Justification via obedience…over and over and over again. Check out these verses:

Let the LORD judge the peoples. Vindicate me, LORD, according to my
righteousness, according to my integrity, O Most High. Psalm 7:8

The LORD has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according
to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me. Psalm 18:20

Hold the phone. You asked a question which was answered. You made one of the weirdest responses to it I have ever heard and right in the middle of all this you launch into a parade of verses from other places in the OT. One thing at a time. I also must have said a half dozen times the best place to start was reasoning about what salvation could or could not be. Philosophy is the discipline by which truth is evaluated. If something conflicts with sound philosophy that is good evidence it is not true. We must look through the lens of what can be true to see what a verse says. The same way we use math to conclude that mistakes were made in the OT concerning the order of magnitude of how many people were in various armies and groups. Despite suggesting this so many times you started off with a question without first establishing what is reasonable. I answered it anyway. You ineffectively countered with a bizarre response and before that issue is concluded you start machine gunning cherry picked verses left and right.

Many Christians simply don't know what to do with these verses. Is David bragging about his own abilities??? No! I have already given numerous verses which prove that righteousness is obeying YHVH's commands. So this means that we become righteous when we do what He says. We have no grounds to boast BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS COMMANDMENTS….not OURS. Diligently following God's commandments is the clearest expression of our LOVE for God. Sure, fools will continue to create their own laws and pretend that they are righteous. This is what YHVH hates…fake obedience…not sincere obedience to His commands.

I will be more than happy to go through any verses you want to mention but we must first start by reasoning about what makes sense. Let me start with just a few examples.

1. God is not God unless his standards are perfection. Heaven is not heaven if flaws are allowed inside it. God's sense of perfect justice will not allow him to hand wave away any sin. IOW we must necessarily be perfect to be judged righteous. Since no matter how many rules we keep there are others we fail to then we are not perfect. Our record (not a single persons) will pass the test. If by the law then we must obey all the law. We don't. We have nothing to offer by which our failures are made right. I can pay a store for a candy bar I have stolen but I can't clear that sin off my record. Only God could provide what our sin demanded. Christ became a curse in our place and his perfection became ours if we believe. That works, merit does not and cannot.
2. Christ came to forgive all sin. Something the blood of bulls and rams never could. Nothing done by the Hebrews removed sin. It only pushed the debt forward until the true sacrifice came in the form of Christ. His blood could do what no animal's could, he accomplished what no amount of effort could have. He wiped out our guilt. His forgiving all sin means all my past, present and future sins were punished on the cross. I need add nothing to what Christ did. He is the author of my salvation. Saying I have to add to what Christ did to be saved is like saying you need to climb a ladder inside an elevator to get to the second floor.
3. Since you think merit or obedience is what saves and there exists no possible way you have been perfectly obedient then where does it say what percentage of the law is enough? You can't even obey much of OT law because there is no Temple to do them in. Which system allows verses about martyrdom to be obeyed. Yours which does not allow you to know whether or not you have ben obedient enough or grace which depends on God's power to save. Being born again and having the Holy spirit as the guranteur of my salvation and the assurance of it allows me to face death. Hoping I have been obedient enough to meet an arbitrary standard is no foundation to inspire the giving of one's life.

 

[Simplelogic]

6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Now lets substitute the words you use in your interpretation and see what we have.

Abraham believed the Lord, and Abraham credited it to God as righteousness.

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. It is not even a coherent sentence.

Not if you quote the verse before it:

Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him (YHVH) for righteousness. Genesis 15:5,6

This is very easy to understand.

 

[Simplelogic]

I know what it says. You misunderstood what I said. The word righteousness however does not appear in your verses because they are not about Abraham's righteousness. Gen 15 is about his standing before God and specifically says it was the result of faith. Your later verses do not change or even address that FACT. In fact when Abraham was declared righteous no laws had yet been given and even if they had been Abraham had not at that time obeyed anything. At that time the only thing he had done was believe God and be declared righteous on that basis and that basis alone. These later verses simply have nothing to do with Abraham's righteousness. We are not debating the nature of any later blessings or rewards. We are discussing how a person is deemed righteous not how he gets rewards.

Abraham's ability to keep YHVH's commandments have "nothing to do with his righteousness"? This is just silly. You are completely dismissing the way the scriptures even define righteousness! Gen 26 is referring to the same blessing as in Gen 15. You can't avoid this.

 

[Simplelogic]

The number of times the doctrine appears in the OT is not under discussion and would be an argument from popularity anyway. You asked for a verse in the OT that made faith alone the basis for righteousness. I and others gave you the most famous and emphatically clear one we could think of. The rest of the OT was not discussed because you did not ask anything about it.

The scriptures I posted was because I stated that righteousness in the Bible was defined as obedience to YHVH's commandments. You challenged this notion so I decided to provide verses for my statement. They are overwhelming and crystal clear. I stand by my original statement.

Righteousness = Obedience

 

[InChrist]

When I read the Bible I see that righteousness = Jesus Christ
...and that is the only source of righteousness available.

My faith has found a resting place,

My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device or creed;
I trust the ever living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.

Enough for me that Jesus saves,
This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him,
He’ll never cast me out.

My heart is leaning on the Word,
The living Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior’s Name,
Salvation through His blood.


Refrain


I need no other argument,
I need no other plea,
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.



Words by Eliza E. Hewitt

 

[katiemygirl]

Salvation ultimately occurs because of the shed blood of Jesus.

Our part in salvation is obedient faith, which is saving faith. Obedient faith includes repentance and baptism.

Faith alone is used only one time in the Bible, and it is used in a negative sense. See James 2.

Faith without works is dead, my friends.

Katie

 

[1robin]

Not if you quote the verse before it:

Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him (YHVH) for righteousness. Genesis 15:5,6

This is very easy to understand.

I have no idea if your trying to reinforce (what I still can't believe you said) that Abraham stated God was righteous in Genesis 15:6 or you are trying to show that Gen 26:5 has anything got do with Gen 15. I will take them in order.

As for the meaning of the verse.
1. Let's substitute in the words that make the verse coherent. "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He (God) said to him (Abraham), "So shall your (Abraham's) descendants be." And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and he (God) accounted it to him (Abraham) for righteousness. The words I substituted make that verse into how every commentator I have ever seen has viewed this verse. Can you find me a single commentator (an accepted one) that views the verse's last use of the word "Him" as (God)? If you can't then you have a view that is unacceptable to mainstream Judaism or Christianity and does not make for much of an argument. I have never seen a Jewish or any type of critic suggest Paul misunderstood this verse as he quoted it.

As for the question of how Gen 26 is connected with this verse in Gen 15.
1. Not one thing listed as a reward in Gen 26 is connected with what is being discussed in Gen 15. The items listed in Gen 26 as a reward are the land and their perpetual ownership. The things mentioned in Gen 15 are righteousness and descendants. It is obvious a verse that tells why the land is given does not supersede a verse that explains how righteousness was gained. I have said several times God makes many covenants. Some depend on obedience and some on faith. You can't just interchange them as is convenient. Righteousness is the exclusive issue under discussion not rewards for obedience. Righteousness is not mentioned in those verses about obedience. Even the descendants mentioned in Gen 15 are not part of what Abraham was given based on faith. That was the proposition which Abraham believed in.

In short Genesis 26 is in no way what so ever any threat to my clear and emphatic conclusions from Gen 15 and which every commentator I have ever read or can find agrees. The only challenge you have made to Gen 15 is the indirect one about other verses that indicate that merit is necessary. I will show you in the next post why even these are not game changers.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not really a follower of any Judeo-Christian beliefs, but let's see this scenario: Let's say that I am a christian. I accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. But on the other hand, I do things like committing murder, stealing, etc. Do you think, that just because I have faith in Christ, but still doing those 'sins' on the other hand, I am actually justified, without any attempts to change and make amendments to my actions? What kind of faith is that then (James 2:14-26)?

'Works' indicate action, not 'not-doing' something sinful.
That's the first problem with your comments.

 

[1robin]

The scriptures I posted was because I stated that righteousness in the Bible was defined as obedience to YHVH's commandments. You challenged this notion so I decided to provide verses for my statement. They are overwhelming and crystal clear. I stand by my original statement.

Righteousness = Obedience

I have studied this issue alone for 3 years. I know what verses say what. There are verses that seem to say that righteousness include merit and quite a few more which say the exact opposite. The issue is since they can't be saying both we must conclude which understanding is the correct one. You can't start off with a view and ignore all the scriptures than conflict with it and think you on solid ground. For every scripture you give I can give two that say the opposite. Here are a few:

1. Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
2. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
3. Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;"
4. Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;"
5. Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
6. Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
7. Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
8. Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
9. Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
10. Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
11. Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."
12. Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

New Living Translation
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
John 5:24 ESV
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever 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.
John 1:12 ESV / 19 helpful votes
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Titus 3:5 ESV / 8 helpful votes
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Mark 16:15-16 ESV / 4 helpful votes
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


There are well over a hundred of these. Did I convince you? No, then why did you think the few verses you gave would convince me? The issue will come down to exactly what I said we should start with. Logically comparing which system of view makes the most sense. Then all verses that are inconsistent with reason should be re-evaluated. Let me give you a few reasons why the verses I could give for grace alone should be taken over the few that suggest the opposite.

1. My verses are from much later sources and are therefor much more historically reliable. We have far more textual integrity for the later works compared to the earlier ones.
2. The bible uses progressive revelation to introduce more clarity over time. The latter verses will be and are far more clear and emphatic than the older ones.
3. I have far more that support my view than you have for yours.
4. It is far more logical that God bridge an infinite gap that that finite man has anything that can do so.
5. Paul was far more educated in Hebrew law than most Hebrew authors and he had all of it where as most OT writers had only portions of it. Paul also had access to the final revelations which no OT author had access to.
6. The greatest theological teacher in history was by far, Christ. Anyone who had the benefit of his teachings held massive advantages over anyone who came before them.

So by every standard which I can think of it is your verses in need of re-interpretation, not mine.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have studied this issue alone for 3 years. I know what verses say what. There are verses that seem to say that righteousness include merit and quite a few more which say the exact opposite. The issue is since they can't be saying both we must conclude which understanding is the correct one. You can't start off with a view and ignore all the scriptures than conflict with it and think you on solid ground. For every scripture you give I can give two that say the opposite.

What is your take on the verses where Jesus talks about the man who hears his word and acts on them? That's in the end of Luke chapter 6 and the end of Matthew chapter 7, but I'm sure you knew that. And just like James says... can faith without works save you? Obviously, the correct answer is "no". So sure salvation is a free gift from God, but if a person really believes in God and Jesus, they follow the commands God set forth. Right? Otherwise, it's not real "faith". So wouldn't that kind of make the definition of true belief, or "faith", in God as being something that requires action, or "works" to show that the belief is real?

And, you know I can't let you go without at another question, so here it goes... let's say a person comes to the front in a Billy Graham crusade, tears in his eyes and crying out "I believe! I believe!" He does the little "sinners" prayer, but the next day, he's doesn't repent. And, he never repents of any sin that he does. Was he saved? Isn't he like the sprout in shallow soil? He never acts upon those words he said, so doesn't that "faith" wither away and die? But then suppose, he does act upon it. Not a lot, but he repents on little things. He starts reading the Bible and trying to apply the commands of God and Jesus? He stumbles and falls, but he keeps moving forward in trusting and doing the things of God. So both times he had the right words, "I believe" or "I put my faith in Jesus." But, only one time did he act on the words. So were both times real "faith"? Let me answer it for you, because I don't trust your answers. No, only by "works" is faith made real. And besides that, Paul misquotes and takes things out of context.

 

[Pegg]

I was recently challenged by a very polite advocate of faith alone doctrine. I decided to take him up on the challenge and I will be defending justification by works. Just so the readers understand, my positions will be based off of the Tanakh (Old Testament) as well as the words of Jesus.

I personally do not believe Paul to be one of Jesus' apostles but this will not be the topic of this debate. Nor will I debate the notion that Paul believed in the very "faith alone" doctrine which my opponent will be arguing for. He most certainly did. I am looking to see if "faith alone" can be proved from the OT or the words of Jesus.

I also realize that some of the debate will pertain to the word faith. Some see faith as a mental assent of some kind (which is usually expressed in creeds or doctrinal statements which outline the "correct way" to approach God) and others see faith or "faithfulness" as a mans ability to trust God keep His commandments. I will not reject the notion of "faith" as long as the definition pertains to the latter, not the former.

So here is my first question:

Can anyone name any place in the OT where a man was called righteous by God by ONLY having faith?

So the basis of the discussion is that 'faith' is defined as obedience to commandments?

Wouldnt' that be called 'obedience'?

Why redefine faith? What do you think faith means?

 

[Pegg]

This is not the original. This is the original:

And he (Abraham) believed - וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן
In Yehovah - בַּֽיהוָ֑ה
and he (Abraham) counted it - וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ
to him - לּ֖וֹ
for righteousness - צְדָקָֽה

Did you include the (Abraham) in that verse, or do the translators insert the Abraham there?

Basically, Abraham counted himself as righteous because he believed in Jehovah? Does that sound right?? Can Abraham declare himself righteous?

 

[Simplelogic]

Did you include the (Abraham) in that verse, or do the translators insert the Abraham there?

Basically, Abraham counted himself as righteous because he believed in Jehovah? Does that sound right?? Can Abraham declare himself righteous?

the hebrew says "and he accounted in to him as righteousness" Hebrew grammar indicates that this means he (Abraham) accounted righteousness to YHVH after making His oath with Abraham.

 

[Simplelogic]

I have studied this issue alone for 3 years. I know what verses say what. There are verses that seem to say that righteousness include merit and quite a few more which say the exact opposite. The issue is since they can't be saying both we must conclude which understanding is the correct one. You can't start off with a view and ignore all the scriptures than conflict with it and think you on solid ground. For every scripture you give I can give two that say the opposite. Here are a few:

1. Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
2. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
3. Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;"
4. Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;"
5. Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
6. Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
7. Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
8. Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
9. Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
10. Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
11. Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."
12. Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

New Living Translation
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
John 5:24 ESV
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever 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.
John 1:12 ESV / 19 helpful votes
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Titus 3:5 ESV / 8 helpful votes
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Mark 16:15-16 ESV / 4 helpful votes
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


There are well over a hundred of these. Did I convince you? No, then why did you think the few verses you gave would convince me? The issue will come down to exactly what I said we should start with. Logically comparing which system of view makes the most sense. Then all verses that are inconsistent with reason should be re-evaluated. Let me give you a few reasons why the verses I could give for grace alone should be taken over the few that suggest the opposite.

1. My verses are from much later sources and are therefor much more historically reliable. We have far more textual integrity for the later works compared to the earlier ones.
2. The bible uses progressive revelation to introduce more clarity over time. The latter verses will be and are far more clear and emphatic than the older ones.
3. I have far more that support my view than you have for yours.
4. It is far more logical that God bridge an infinite gap that that finite man has anything that can do so.
5. Paul was far more educated in Hebrew law than most Hebrew authors and he had all of it where as most OT writers had only portions of it. Paul also had access to the final revelations which no OT author had access to.
6. The greatest theological teacher in history was by far, Christ. Anyone who had the benefit of his teachings held massive advantages over anyone who came before them.

So by every standard which I can think of it is your verses in need of re-interpretation, not mine.

I'm so glad you brought these verses up. I look forward to going over them with you. As I previously said, I will not argue that Paul believed in faith alone. I will challenge the verse you picked from the gospels though. I will get back to you shortly on this.

 

[Simplelogic]

So the basis of the discussion is that 'faith' is defined as obedience to commandments?

Wouldnt' that be called 'obedience'?

Why redefine faith? What do you think faith means?

My opponent "1robin" is arguing that faith (without works) equates to salvation. This is the reason for the discussion.