The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The "guy who died in the car" ... was he saved by baptism or by the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Passive/ aggressive. You follow this pattern all the time. You launch into a bunch of name calling, you slip-slide back and forth halting between two opinions - and then you denigrate everyone on both sides of the issue.

You won't stop will you?

(Useless words I originally typed deleted)

Anyone else want to actually discuss?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You won't stop will you?

(Useless words I originally typed deleted)

Anyone else want to actually discuss?

Case in point. Grow up Mike.

You came barreling into this thread with your name calling and making accusations. You flew off the handle when you totally misread an exchange I was having with Rev. Randy - probably to Randy's great delight.

Then, your mind splits in two as you say that I'm not quoting the text and your "proof" is that you agree with me!

[augustianian]

THE LEGALIST:

So in James 2 he says justification take place "at" faith? I am strictly referring to James definition and context of "faith" in James 2.

Well that wasn't the questioned you asked.
James is not concerned with that which justifies a person before God but rather that which justifies a person before men, i.e. deeds. However, being justified before men cannot save, by works...being alone without faith. I also think that ignoring the troubles of the early Christian church in Jerusalem is fatal when interpreting James.

But...in reality my answer was consistent with what you asked. You asked me "when reading James..." with "you" (or me) being the assumed subject. In other words you were in essence asking me "When you're reading James..." and I consistently answered in light of how you prefaced your questions. When I'm reading James I assume (safely, I think) that he is quite aware of Paul, especially considering the council of Jerusalem, and justification apart from works "Before God" has to be assumed also for James' argument to be valid, an argument against a dead faith not against justification by faith alone.

I guess I could answer your questions according to the way you read James but I assumed that that was not what you were asking me.

You have ignored my questions. I am strictly talking about James and what he says.

Again, you asked me "When reading James..." (meaning when I read James) and then the questions following...which I answered. Let me say it like this

1."When I read James I take into account that justification takes place at the moment of faith"

And...

2."When I read James I already know that Paul establishes the fact that Abraham's justification in Genesis 15 was a declaration by God that lasted Abraham's lifetime before/after Genesis 22."

Hope that helps.

Look at the text. How does in "the scripture was fulfilled" in James 2 interelate to the context of James points.

Of course when I asked "what are you talking about" I meant it with some incredulity. But I did want to know if you thought that God needed deeds done by man to fulfill His declaration of justification? There's no argument that there is a declaration of righteousness made by God in Genesis 15 and in Romans 3, the issue then becomes what meaning are deeds done given, after such a declaration, in accordance to that declaration? What is the relationship between works after justification, and justification itself. The deeds cannot add to the justification declared, nor take away from it, all they can do is display it. That's it. So the fulfillment is NOT nor can it be a fulfillment or completion of God's activity of justification, for the believer is justified apart from works before God already, consequently making the fulfillment seen and witnessed before men.

Well that's nice now you point to what James says but you have not answered the points concerning what I asked

Actually I have.

augustianian

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by augustianian

THE LEGALIST:


Well that wasn't the questioned you asked.
James is not concerned with that which justifies a person before God but rather that which justifies a person before men, i.e. deeds. However, being justified before men cannot save, by works...being alone without faith. I also think that ignoring the troubles of the early Christian church in Jerusalem is fatal when interpreting James.

sigh... oh yeah James is only talking about how look before men. Seriously that is one of the weakest arguments ever.

1) James argument is not about presentation before men of justification. His bringing up of Isaac has NOTHING to do with men and Gen 15:6.
2) Is this about saving before men?

Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

I don't think men are saving him... Thus he is not talking about standing before men but God.


3) Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

hmmm is he talking about what good is that before men? NO! He is talking about the meaning of faith realized or not. The very aspect of it.

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Though James uses and employs argumentation as a tool he is not talking about in context before men for justification but how it is realized.

what does he follow through with next? does it allow for context before men or before God?

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!

hmmm doesn't sound like a continued argument about before men thus the context never was about before men but a argument about realization of faith to the context. Also what is the point of "even" the demons believe if it is about before men? You making the whole context about before men makes the rest of the text ignorant.

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

hmmmm wait how in the world can he talk about "faith" apart from works is useless if it's only about before men especially following the context verse 19. Paul also says faith without love he is nothing... hmmm sounds like salt of the earth losing it's savor. Oh wait it's men that taste/judge.consider our losing purpose and not God.... right? lol

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

oh yes... abraham and the big crowd and being justified before them.... I was wondering who said.... today I swear! I thought it was God.

Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

wait what is James doing dissecting how faith is completed if it's just about how it looks before men.. must have lost track of his thoughts.

Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.

Yep... we went off on a tangent... Brought up scripture of being considered just before God. Not a friend before men that thought he was right.

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

HOW in the world can James use this scripture per Genesis 15:6 and it be a referenced just before men?

Jas 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way

that's right the men kept her wall up it's wasn't God's judgment.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Case in point. Grow up Mike.

You came barreling into this thread with your name calling and making accusations. You flew off the handle when you totally misread an exchange I was having with Rev. Randy - probably to Randy's great delight.

Then, your mind splits in two as you say that I'm not quoting the text and your "proof" is that you agree with me!

AGAIN!!! (sigh) Let me know when you are going to discuss something.

Anyway, so interesting why one steppers will not say baptism saves by Christ's resurrection, unless forced to quote scripture. Meanwhile alleged "three steppers" use these passages all the time, as well as those that seem to one steppers to promote only faith.

So many passages like this will only be repeated by onestep believers when someone points them out to them. The language of the scriptures in these cases is otherwise absent. Be baptized and wash away thy sins. No one stepper would use those words unless reading Acts 22:16. One steppers will not respond to questions of how to be saved with Acts 2:38. The question has not changed but somehow the answer did.

No question by one steppers would be given to someone as Paul asked about Spirit and Water Baptism in Acts 19.

This is my point. The emphasis upon no need for baptism in salvation simply leaves these folks void of speaking the same thing the early church ministers spoke about.

We get SOME one steppers thinking they get your point, when they do not stop to consider maybe they MISSED your point, and have ASSUMED that a box for your thoughts is your actual box that they have emphasized as being error, when not at all. And when actual beliefs are presented, the ears are closed and accusations of self contradiction fly.

The fact is that baptism is part of salvation if Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. It's right there in black and white! Had baptism never been intended as PART of salvation, the two words "baptism saves" would never be associated as they are in Peter's words.

People quote Peter saying "baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus" and then say baptism does not save. Bottom line: If baptism had no part at all in salvation, then Peter would not have said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus.

[Adino]

Romans 4:2

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

Hmm...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

I think this is the problem many have... God's righteousness toward us is seen in several ways. The righteousness that saves in the sense of what brought about salvation or the offering of it is not of "anything" we can do or did.

Amen. Only what God did can make anyone righteous. People do not realize that contriving enough good deeds to award oneself righteousness is the entire error that Paul had in mind when speaking against salvation by works. Somehow that contrivance issue got lost with many.

I am referring to what Paul said was the gift of righteousness. God deemed Abraham righteous when Abraham believed God.

Paul stated that this sort of righteousness did not come by law. People thought Law's deeds of obedience would make one righteous without any such work of the cross that Paul preached is the sole cause of righteousness. The only WORK anyone can do to be righteous is the work GOD DID in in the work of the cross. Today many do not even know that the work of the cross speaks of the vicarious nature of Christ's death, with His death, burial, resurrection, ascension and even seating at the right hand throne, and so they wonder what you mean by work of the cross. But, the point is only God can do a work that is responsible for the righteousness given to us as a gift.

Instead of righteousness coming by deeds of law, which Jews tried to attain by law keeping, Paul stated righteousness is available aside from any concept of deeds of the Law.

Romans 3:21-22 KJV But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Two roads led to righteousness. Had humanity not had sin in us all, we could attain righteousness by the law. We would not need the cross. However, the law could not accomplish that for us due to the sins of the flesh. We clashed with law.

Romans 8:3-4 KJV For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Law was intended to make us righteous.

1 Timothy 1:5 KJV Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

Galatians 3:12 KJV And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

One had to DO all the law's requirements in order to be righteous.

The goal of law to produce charity from a pure heart, a good conscience and true faith could not be accomplished by law keeping, but it was granted by grace.

1 Timothy 1:14 KJV And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

This is where Romans 8:3-4 comes in and says what the law could not accomplish in us, God did through the cross. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. But it is not by works of the law or walking after the flesh to make self righteous by deeds. It is accomplished by walking after the Spirit, or believing in the power of God to instill it into us because of the work God did with the cross.

We believe as Abraham believed, and God makes us righteous. It's a gift.

Romans 5:17 KJV For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

The cross is the only work directly related to righteousness and justification. But any faith that is real is faith that obeys covenantal requirements stipulated by God. James informs us that true faith that is alive and real is faith that works. And when that faith is present, God sees it and justifies the person as well as makes them righteous. And if it is not such a faith, there never follows obedience to the requirements of the covenant.

How does that fit in with your thoughts, Legalist?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree. One can have faith and refuse to repent. I already noted that I had faith when I heard the gospel, but I refused to repent at first. I did not want to release some sins.

Mike, I really don't believe that that's even possible.

How do you define faith? And what does that mean for a person who "has faith" to you?

[Jeffrey]

TL responded to ONE of my posts, so I'm grateful, but I'm late getting back and it appears Pel and Adino have adequately jumped in here. I don't see any TL response to Adino or Pel at this point. *crickets*

In catching up, it appears some progress has been made in the thread though. And TL, surely the James issue is resolved now -- or are we still looking to James 2 with the view of "being saved" in mind?

[NotforSale]

You know folks, we can argue all day long on who's saved and who isn't, but the bottom line is, none of us really know, period!

I haven't been there and neither has anyone on this Forum. The "Other Side" will remain a mystery until the old Ticker stops ticking.

People will fight and bicker over this until the end of time. We can say the Bible is clear, but that is an out and out LIE! If the Bible was clear, we wouldn't be succumbed to this eternal debate.

The Good Book can say what we want it to say, and that is why there are thousands of denominations who claim they are SAVED. Why don't we just admit we DON'T KNOW, because that is the real Truth??

Someone will probably counter my post with a million Scriptures to prove they know, but it still comes down to this; YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, and, someone else will disagree with you! The unknown realms of life (current and after death) can only be validated by experiencing them. We are doing this World an injustice by building dogmas based upon a group’s interpretation of what's going to happen, even though we really aren't sure.

We've seen in History where claims were made about the unseen, solid factual claims, until the door was truly opened. When the Earth was seen from outer space, many past beliefs were put to rest forever, including beliefs by those who had FAITH. The unseen will always be used to manipulate people by those who can't see what they are talking about. If you can't question something, you can't validate it, leaving all the room in the universe to paint a FALSE picture.

There are so many holes in this topic, leaving me to want more proof about life, not more of the same of "I know" but can't confirm. Think about it; If we can't confirm something, the door is WIDE open to say whatever we want, believe what we want, tell people what God is like, isn't like, and how He will treat us when we die.

Why would God place us here with a body and mind that validates by what it sees and experiences, then turn around and produce a World we can't see or prove with the senses we are born with? This doesn't appear to be logical, or fair in our attempt to conceive what is really important, especially concerning Eternity.

We are supposed to prepare for this afterlife where time is no more, but we can't even prove its real, using a Book that has nothing but one missing link after another. Like I've stated in previous threads, Hell (Eternal Damnation) didn't even appear in the teachings of the Bible until recently (1000-1500 years ago). This unseen place is used to strike fear into people, but we can't even validate its existence, and don't know why it can't be found in the Old Testament. We just assume it’s real, ignoring that for some strange reason, Hell mysteriously appears in God’s Word just a few centuries ago.

To be honest, people are growing tired of the guess work. They want real answers. They want something that will keep their family together, not destroy it. I’ve seen so much divorce in the Church, it’s beyond sad. We tell people, “Come, God will mend your Family. God will heal your diseases. God will save your children”. After these things don’t happen, the most important thing regarding Faith, is LOST; TRUST. They only way to restore Trust, is to stop giving people false hopes, and give them answers that can be proven to be true.

Something to think about.