Works Complete Faith?

[romans113336]

Jas 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man SAY he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

A false profession of faith....OBVIOUSLY. You missed that as well as the entire thrust of the chapter.
Did you listen to Chronister? No. Yet you prattle on incoherently about that which you do not understand.

James 2 speaks NOTHING to losing your salvation OR salvation predicated upon works. Absolutely nothing.
Rather, it speaks to a FALSE profession of faith by pharisaical faithless and wealthy apostates who CARE NOTHING for the Body BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PART OF IT!

Yep, then he teaches us how faith does justify and does save in the end: justified by works which complete faith.

You, who delight in revenge and slander, despite being saved, are a great example of everything I'm saying. You have life but you walk in dead works. You are unleavened, but you need to purge out the old leaven.

 

[cv5]

Jas 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man SAY he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

A false profession of faith....OBVIOUSLY. You missed that as well as the entire thrust of the chapter.
Did you listen to Chronister? No. Yet you prattle on incoherently about that which you do not understand.

James 2 speaks NOTHING to losing your salvation OR salvation predicated upon works. Absolutely nothing.
Rather, it speaks to a FALSE profession of faith by pharisaical faithless and wealthy apostates who CARE NOTHING for the Body BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PART OF IT!

Jas 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man SAY he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Can a FASLE profession of faith save any man. NO!

 

[romans113336]

Jas 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man SAY he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Can a FASLE profession of faith save any man. NO!

He never says it's false, he simply says it's "incomplete".

 

[romans113336]

Jas 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man SAY he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Can a FASLE profession of faith save any man. NO!

When he says faith is comparable to a body, and that bodies can either be incomplete (without a spirit--dead), or complete (with a spirit--alive), he never mentions a "mannequin". If he was saying, "be on the lookout for FALSE faith" he would've said "some people have a mannequin faith--it looks like a body, but it's not a body!" No, he never mentions a FALSE body. He mentions INCOMPLETE and COMPLETE bodies--which correspond to INCOMPLETE and COMPLETE faith. Dead bodies are REAL bodies, they're merely INCOMPLETE bodies. I assure you dead bodies are REAL bodies--and DEAD faith is real faith, just incomplete.

It's so clear this is a call for his "adulterous" audience (Ja 4) to repent and act right.
Just as Paul's call for the Corinthians to repent and act right.
That's it. No mystery.

 

[studentoftheword]

Watch out folks for people who teach

 

[romans113336]

Watch out folks for people who teach

View attachment 256308

"When all the battering rams don't work, when you can't disprove someone's arguments using reason, resort to name-calling."

Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Not sure how you're disagreeing, in the light of these things.

How long have YOU been living completely "SIN FREE"? IF you're Born again, why do YOU continue to sin, "in the light of these things"??

 

[romans113336]

How long have YOU been living completely "SIN FREE"? IF you're Born again, why do YOU continue to sin, "in the light of these things"??

Give answers to the points laid out for you. Isn't that the honest way to provide a "response"?

Here are the seven points disproving your reading of Romans 7 :

1. It is about the past--"when we were in the flesh, the Law aroused our sinful passions", whereas Christians are "not in the flesh but in the Spirit" (Ro 8:9).
2. Paul says "no covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in God's Kingdom", but the man in Ro 7 is completely conquered by sin, and, explicitly, the sin of covetousness. Is Paul saying he has no inheritance in God's Kingdom? That's what you are saying, even if you don't understand you're saying that.
3. The man in Ro 7 could not keep God's Law, but Paul did (Ro 8:4).
4. The man in Ro 7 was "held captive" to Sin, but, after Christ (Ro 7:24,25), he is "set free" (Ro 7:6, 8:2).
5. The man in Ro 7 is "dead" in his sins, but Christians are "alive from the dead" (Ro 6:13).

Not sure how you're disagreeing, in the light of these things.

Actually, Paul said his conscience was clear and he wasn't aware he was sinning.

1 Cor 4
4For I am not aware of anything against myself; however I am not vindicated by this, but the one who examines me is the Lord.

So, no, again, Ro 7 is not descriptive of Paul's life as a Christian.

Also, Paul said that he, as a Christian, made his body his slave (1 Co 9:26).
What is sin? Spiritual slavery.
But, he had it the other way around: he (his inward man) made his body its slave.
So he had sin under control.

So, again, no, Ro 7 is not about Paul's Christian life, but about his pre-Christian life as a Jew under the Law.

 

[romans113336]

How long have YOU been living completely "SIN FREE"? IF you're Born again, why do YOU continue to sin, "in the light of these things"??

Not sure why @cv5 is agreeing with this--a post he deleted (once he finally recognized the arguments I was presenting were valid, and upended his view of Romans 7, and were not making the argument he thought they were making) actually agreed with ME! 🤣

 

[romans113336]

How long have YOU been living completely "SIN FREE"? IF you're Born again, why do YOU continue to sin, "in the light of these things"??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is called a false dilemma (a logical fallacy).

The options are not :
1. Romans 7 describes Paul's Christian walk--he struggled with sin, as we all do.
2. Romans 7 does not describe Paul's Christian walk--you are claiming you are sinless.

Those two aren't the options I'm limited to.

It's tangential, anyway, but at least be straightforward, and offer responses to the reasons why I disagree, don't just reiterate "I don't agree!", pretending that that's a valid response to the specific reasons I gave for disagreeing.

Address the reasons I don't read Ro 7 as you do, then you will have proven I shouldn't read Ro 7 as I do, just as my reasons have proven why it is reasonable to read Ro 7 as I do.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is called a false dilemma (a logical fallacy).

Not a dilemma, false or otherwise at all. You appear to claim is that Paul, in Romans 7, is writing as a NON-Christian, when he obviously had the same problem with SIN that we both do (since we BOTH STILL SIN, as born again Christians). I assume you're "Born Again", as I am.

 

[romans113336]

Not a dilemma, false or otherwise at all. You appear to claim is that Paul, in Romans 7, is writing as a NON-Christian, when he obviously had the same problem with SIN that we both do (since we BOTH STILL SIN, as born again Christians). I assume you're "Born Again", as I am.

Again, I furnished specific reasons why I read it the way I do; if you want to prove that I am erring, and help me (and the readers) out with that, address the reasons, because that will help me change my mind to see it your way, the "right" (as you would see it) way.

 

[romans113336]

Not a dilemma, false or otherwise at all. You appear to claim is that Paul, in Romans 7, is writing as a NON-Christian, when he obviously had the same problem with SIN that we both do (since we BOTH STILL SIN, as born again Christians). I assume you're "Born Again", as I am.

You're saying, "I've got you: either you agree with me, or else you're wrong because you're claiming sinlessness (bc John says anyone who says they don't sin is a liar)"--again, those aren't the only two options.

 

[studentoftheword]

Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

No---------------------- but you should be ashamed of yourself for posting false doctrine --for presenting a false narrative about God's Faith -----

Works complete Faith is False Doctrine ------Period ----

Faith produces Good Works ------

So X that

 

[cv5]

Not a dilemma, false or otherwise at all. You appear to claim is that Paul, in Romans 7, is writing as a NON-Christian, when he obviously had the same problem with SIN that we both do (since we BOTH STILL SIN, as born again Christians). I assume you're "Born Again", as I am.

He is on ignore. I'm done. Have other priorities.

 

[Dino246]

Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

The meme didn’t mention you. You assumed it was meant for you. You even posted an ‘x’ saying you disagree with it. Perhaps you think people shouldn’t watch out for those who teach deadly doctrines. For that, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[romans113336]

The meme didn’t mention you. You assumed it was meant for you. You even posted an ‘x’ saying you disagree with it. Perhaps you think people shouldn’t watch out for those who teach deadly doctrines. For that, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Actually, the poster just admitted it was about me.

No---------------------- but you should be ashamed of yourself for posting false doctrine --for presenting a false narrative about God's Faith -----

Works complete Faith is False Doctrine ------Period ----

Faith produces Good Works ------

So X that

Obviously, I agree people should look out for false doctrine, and the reason I responded with an "X" was because I disagreed with baseless accusations made as a last resort by people who are powerless to prove their Scriptural arguments with Scriptural reason and logic.

 

[romans113336]

He is on ignore. I'm done. Have other priorities.

Yeah, you're done--that is obvious--you have no way of assailing the doctrines I've presented. You're toast.

 

[studentoftheword]

Yeah, you're done--that is obvious--you have no way of assailing the doctrines I've presented. You're toast.

And your showing that you are this ----the Natural Man who doesn't receive Spiritual things

So That

 

[romans113336]

No---------------------- but you should be ashamed of yourself for posting false doctrine --for presenting a false narrative about God's Faith -----

Works complete Faith is False Doctrine ------Period ----

Faith produces Good Works ------

So X that

You can't prove it is false doctrine, as it is explicitly stated, and this frustrates you, so you namecall. That's what it comes down to.