Not By Works

[John146]

either way, christ’s Faith is not imputed to me. His righteousness is!

Agreed. However, Christ's righteousness was brought about through His faith. God's righteousness is through the faith of Christ. Christ's faith was on display through His obedience and righteous living. He never once fell short of God's glory. This is a vital reason for why He came. Christ came, not just to die on the cross for sin, but to live a sinless, righteous life so He could be the Lamb without spot to die for sin.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

 

[Ralph-]

You say it is "faith in Christ alone": I like that much better than saying "faith alone". If I say it in a shortened form I like to say that we are "saved by grace through faith". I think that you and some others here are trying to make sure no one adds any sort of works to the faith. I care deeply about that, but I also care that we don't have people make a dead profession of faith that is really no faith at all (and thinking they are really saved).

I try hard to never refer to Paul's argument as 'faith alone' so it doesn't get confused with James' 'faith alone'.

Paul taught about being justified by faith 'apart from works'. James taught about having faith that is 'alone'. Two different things.

 

[Chester]

if there is no grace, there is no MEANS of faith. (Except for faith in self which would include your works offered as payment for sin)

Your taking things to literally, No one is going to be confused about faith apart from Grace,

I know lots of people who have been confused and led astray by the "faith alone" teaching (wrongly taught).

 

[Chester]

if there is no grace, there is no MEANS of faith. (Except for faith in self which would include your works offered as payment for sin)

Your taking things to literally, No one is going to be confused about faith apart from Grace,

Now that is different - I am being accused of taking things "too literally" - I don't mind that accusation!

 

[Endoscopy]

The word impute means to charge to ones account, it is actually a bank term, If we owe a debt, someone can impute the debt we owe to the bank, and our payment will be paid in full. Ie, to reckon to ones account

Our sin is reckoned to Christ on the cross. He is punished for our sin
His righteousness is reckoned to our account (we are forgiven all sin because Christ paid for them all, past present and future)

either way, christ’s Faith is not imputed to me. His righteousness is!

I suggest you look at the dictionary.

im·pute
imˈpyo͞ot/
verb
past tense: imputed; past participle: imputed

• represent (something, especially something undesirable) as being done, caused, or possessed by someone; attribute.
  "the crimes imputed to Richard"
  
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]attribute to, ascribe to, assign to, credit to; More[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  
  
  
  • FINANCE
    assign (a value) to something by inference from the value of the products or processes to which it contributes.
    "recovering the initial outlay plus imputed interest"
    
  • THEOLOGY
    ascribe (righteousness, guilt, etc.) to someone by virtue of a similar quality in another.
    "Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us"
  
  
  
  

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I suggest you look at the dictionary.

im·pute
imˈpyo͞ot/
verb
[COLOR=#878787 !important]past tense: imputed; past participle: imputed[/COLOR]

• represent (something, especially something undesirable) as being done, caused, or possessed by someone; attribute.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"the crimes imputed to Richard"[/COLOR]
  [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]attribute to, ascribe to, assign to, credit to; More
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  
  
  
  • FINANCE
    assign (a value) to something by inference from the value of the products or processes to which it contributes.
    [COLOR=#878787 !important]"recovering the initial outlay plus imputed interest"[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
    
  • THEOLOGY
    ascribe (righteousness, guilt, etc.) to someone by virtue of a similar quality in another.
    [COLOR=#878787 !important]"Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us"[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
    
  
  
  
  

I suggest you back off. Not sure what your trying to prove, But we are saying the same thing.

Stop assuming you know what people think.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I know lots of people who have been confused and led astray by the "faith alone" teaching (wrongly taught).

yeah? Who?

I know James had people who believed belief was all that was needed (not faith) and Jude had issues with licentious people who claimed they also had faith. So it is not new.


The issue is not faith alone, it is their understanding of what faith is. Or what Grace is.

It is just as bad as those adding works and saying faith or salvation can be lost.

 

[Ralph-]

The Sola Fide (faith alone) doctrine? I fully support the thrust of the doctrine: we are saved by our faith in Jesus Christ completely apart from works. But I do not say we are saved by "faith alone" because the Bible does not say that anywhere. In fact, it clearly says in Ephesians 2 that we are saved by grace through faith.

(See also post 50377)

I for one can hear what you're saying. There is a difference between Paul's 'apart from faith', and James' 'faith alone'. They are not the same thing. It's a mistake to call Paul's argument 'faith alone'. Faith alone has a Biblical connotation attached to it that does not describe what Paul was saying when he said 'apart from works'-Romans 4:6.

 

[Endoscopy]

I suggest you back off. Not sure what your trying to prove, But we are saying the same thing.

Stop assuming you know what people think.

​Sorry. I only responded to the first part of your post. Only after I couldn't modify it I saw the rest of your post. I messed up.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

​Sorry. I only responded to the first part of your post. Only after I couldn't modify it I saw the rest of your post.

Its all good

 

[Ralph-]

I know lots of people who have been confused and led astray by the "faith alone" teaching (wrongly taught).

I have too. Many, many Christians thinking that Paul was teaching that faith can be alone, and not what he was actually teaching, that one is made righteous by faith apart from works.

Justification - by faith, no works required, Romans 4:6.

Salvation on the day Christ returns - by faith, works required as that which accompanies genuine salvation, Hebrews 6:9.


But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[SUP]a[/SUP]11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. 2 Peter 3:10-12

Do everything without grumbling or arguing, 15so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.”[SUP]c[/SUP] Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky 16as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain. Philippians 2:14-16

 

[preacher4truth]

Quite interesting idea - and I would say there is some truth to what you say, but there is also very great danger in what you say.

If we begin with an idea, or theology, or pet doctrine that we believe and then go to find it in the Bible, we can always piece Scriptures together to prove our point.

I refuse to support doctrine that is not clearly supported by Scripture verses understood correctly in context.

The Sola Fide (faith alone) doctrine? I fully support the thrust of the doctrine: we are saved by our faith in Jesus Christ completely apart from works. But I do not say we are saved by "faith alone" because the Bible does not say that anywhere. In fact, it clearly says in Ephesians 2 that we are saved by grace through faith.

(See also post 50377)

The typical method in which Sola Fide is attacked is to use a false faith to do so. That is simply a straw man argument yet is is employed often. It is disingenuous but mostly done out of ignorance by church goers. I don't say ignorance in derogation, it simply means without knowing. It is too bad so many take offense to this word.

Keep this in mind; One must be referring to genuine faith in teaching Biblical Sola Fide. What other kind of faith would a person use other than genuine faith when showing the truth of Sola Fide?

That's where the problem lies, persons must make the "Fide" a faith with no works in order to undermine it. They never talk of genuine faith when doing it, unless they are preaching a works gospel and adding that works must be done in addition to having true faith. But that is a false dichotomy. Time and again we've shown that is what true faith is shown to be -- it has works, it comes along with genuine faith.

Secondly, we should not take Sola Fide away from the other Solas which belong to it. There are 5 Sola's and I agree with all of them. Time and again people divorce true faith ("fide") from Sola Fide, and isolate it from the others Solas in order to create a belligerency against the truth of these doctrines.

 

[preacher4truth]

Quite interesting idea - and I would say there is some truth to what you say, but there is also very great danger in what you say.

If we begin with an idea, or theology, or pet doctrine that we believe and then go to find it in the Bible, we can always piece Scriptures together to prove our point.

I refuse to support doctrine that is not clearly supported by Scripture verses understood correctly in context.

Now I want to address the above false accusation, and show why it is false.

For the record I've done nothing that you accuse above and there is nothing "dangerous" in what I say. Please end the "you got a doctrine then went to the Bible to support it" false accusation. It's your understanding that is at fault, not my methodology. You've offered not one response showing that I've taken a passage out of context, yet you accuse without substantiation. Do you think your accusation is fair when you have not one thing to go by to prove it? Please employ a just balance bro, Proverbs 16:11.

Remember where I showed you how you misused John 3:36, making it out to mean "loss of salvation" when it isn't even remotely in the context? The context is the saved and the lost, not the saved and the one's who used to be saved. You got all bent out of shape, said your "blood boiled" when I showed you this, spoke of how you taught exegesis, but the fact remains you did misuse the text.

Why not just admit you've misused it, took an idea of what you have come to believe, and went to Scripture to make it support said belief out of context? It's hard to have any honest dialog when the person won't concede to their error and just carry on as if they cannot take correction.

I'll put it to you like this: Show us all one scholar or Bible commentary that concludes John 3:36 means the person lost salvation. Just one.

To be honest you've described your own faulty methodology and have been on a polemical path against "faith alone" while just now beginning (perhaps) to understand what we mean by Sola Fide. You're also not understanding Sola Gratia which is why you're using Ephesians 2:8-9 against Sola Fide.

 

[DJ2]

Yes, that is what James is referencing in James 2:14. "...can that faith save him?" James is pointing to mental assent, not genuine faith.

If James is simply speaking of mental assent why are Abraham and Rahab used as examples? Their examples were necessary acts to fulfill what was required. Their deeds were not simply natural byproducts of their faith but required acts.

If a faithful Abraham would have refused to offer Issac, God may have chosen someone else to use as a blessing to the world.
If Rahab would have not tied the red cord, she could have been used instead as an example of the consequences of disobedience, much like Uzzah.

James 2 is not speaking just of simple mental assent but required acts on the part of those who claim

that faith.

Much better people than you have tried to argue away the simple truth of these passages and failed.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If James is simply speaking of mental assent why are Abraham and Rahab used as examples? Their examples were necessary acts to fulfill what was required. Their deeds were not simply natural byproducts of their faith but required acts.

If a faithful Abraham would have refused to offer Issac, God may have chosen someone else to use as a blessing to the world.
If Rahab would have not tied the red cord, she could have been used instead as an example of the consequences of disobedience, much like Uzzah.

James 2 is not speaking just of simple mental assent but required acts on the part of those who claim

Much better people than you have tried to argue away the simple truth of these passages and failed.

Because Abraham and Rahab has true faith, Not just metal ascent. Unlike the people who CLAIMED to have faith but were hearers only, or demons (who had just metal ascent) Abraham and rahab had TRUE FAITH.

I KNOW it is hard for you to understand, But I pray youy just open your mind.

 

[stonesoffire]

It is the best Italian food I have ever had other than some ravioli and red sauce that an old lady I knew, she made from scratch over 2 days......

uh..you do know that chicken feed is called scratch don't you?

 

[Studyman]

Because Abraham and Rahab has true faith, Not just metal ascent. Unlike the people who CLAIMED to have faith but were hearers only, or demons (who had just metal ascent) Abraham and rahab had TRUE FAITH.

I KNOW it is hard for you to understand, But I pray youy just open your mind.

I think you made his point EG. We know Abraham had "True" Faith because he did as he was instructed. As did Rehab. Whereas Uzzah revealed by his disobedient works that he didn't have "true" faith.

It seems DJ2's mind is opened after all

 

[Ralph-]

If James is simply speaking of mental assent why are Abraham and Rahab used as examples? Their examples were necessary acts to fulfill what was required. Their deeds were not simply natural byproducts of their faith but required acts.

If a faithful Abraham would have refused to offer Issac, God may have chosen someone else to use as a blessing to the world.
If Rahab would have not tied the red cord, she could have been used instead as an example of the consequences of disobedience, much like Uzzah.

James 2 is not speaking just of simple mental assent but required acts on the part of those who claim

Much better people than you have tried to argue away the simple truth of these passages and failed.

I too, resist the notion of the actions produced by faith being automatic. By faith we lift one foot and set in front of the other. God doesn't do it for us. He helps....lots....but he doesn't do it for us while we check out in the background in some kind of lofty spiritual trance. And if that doesn't happen we're still good. Our responsibility is to respond in faith to God's urging with the spiritual power he provides for us to do that.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think you made his point EG. We know Abraham had "True" Faith because he did as he was instructed. As did Rehab. Whereas Uzzah revealed by his disobedient works that he didn't have "true" faith.

It seems DJ2's mind is opened after all

Wrong

What we knbow is Abraham had true faith, Using your mode of reasoning, Abraham would not have had much faith, He commited many sins AFTER he was declaired righteous. That should have disqualified him, and the righteousness he was given before he did works should have been revoked.

We are still saved by FAITH NOT WORKS. That proved it.

 

[stonesoffire]

To trust in an act (water baptism) as the means of your salvation and not exclusively in the "something" (Christ's finished work of redemption) renders "trust" misguided and in vain. Eternal life/Salvation is a free gift and not a reward (Romans 5:15-18; 6:23; Ephesians 2:8).

That is just your way of saying we are saved through faith + works. You are confusing the fruit with the root. Faith is the root of salvation and acts/works which follow are the fruit. We see the benefit of our trust in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation the moment that we place our faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation prior to "acting" on our trust "as you refer to it" by getting water baptized (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5 etc..).

Your logical fallacy misses the mark. We trust in Christ by choosing to believe the gospel and there is no work that we must accomplish afterwards in order to reap the benefit (eternal life) of that trust. You demonstrate your lack of trust in Christ by trusting in works for salvation.

Ephesians 1:13 - In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

1 Corinthians 1:21 - For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. When will you believe?

Believing the gospel is simply believing the gospel by trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-suffcient means of our salvation. You demonstrate that you don't believe the gospel through your desperate effort to try and "shoe horn" water baptism "into" salvation through faith/believing the gospel. You believe a "different" gospel of salvation by "water and works."

More faulty human logic. Are you alluding to Revelation 3:20? Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." Jesus IS the door.. If anyone enters by Him, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture (John 10:9). You are always trying to create an analogy that justifies being saved by an unmerited work, which is an oxymoron.

This act of baptism was a necessary part of Jesus fulfilling all righteousness (water baptism is a work of righteousness and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done - Titus 3:5). Christ secured our righteousness which is imputed to those who believe in Him/place faith in Christ for salvation (Romans 4:5-6; Philippians 3:9).

The act of submitting to being water baptized was necessary for Jesus to fulfill all righteousness, but the act of submitting to being water baptized is not the necessary means of our salvation. We are saved through faith in Christ, not water baptism.

It's you who continues to fight the obvious. You are unable to see anything beyond your church of Christ indoctrination.

DJ2 needs to study Mikvah. But, even then may reject if holding to church doctrine is more important than truth. Truth does free.