Justification - Part 2

[RichWh1]

Saint James writes that Abraham was justified by his works. James 2:21 Think of our father Abraham. Was he not justified by the act of offering his son Isaac on the altar?

Try keeping James in context please.

Continuing where you left off

You see that faith was working with his works, as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “ And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God.
James 2:22-23

James says that Abraham's faith was perfected by his works, not that righteousness was established by those works.

 

[davedajobauk]

Not wishing to interrupt this discourse, I offer¬

Metaphors and Analogies [Parables] were widely-used to express meaning for, the multitudes
Only scholars were educated during those times

 

[MoreCoffee]

Try keeping James in context please.

Continuing where you left off

You see that faith was working with his works, as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “ And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God.
James 2:22-23

James says that Abraham's faith was perfected by his works, not that righteousness was established by those works.

I included the context last time I quoted the passages so I believed you'd remember it since I did. But to help with the discussion I'll include the context again.

James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, to profess faith, without showing works? Such faith has no power to save you. 15 If a brother or sister is in need of clothes or food, 16 and one of you says, “May things go well for you; be warm and satisfied,” without attending to their material needs, what good is that? 17 So, it is, for faith without deeds: it is totally dead.

18 Say to whoever challenges you, “You have faith and I have good deeds; show me your faith apart from actions and I, for my part, will show you my faith in the way I act.” 19 Do you believe there is one God? Well enough, but do not forget, that the demons, also, believe, and tremble with fear!

20 You foolish one, do you have to be convinced, that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Think of our father Abraham. Was he not justified by the act of offering his son Isaac on the altar? 22 So you see, his faith was active, along with his deeds, and became perfect by what he did. 23 The word of Scripture was thus fulfilled, Abraham believed in God so he was considered a righteous person and he was called the friend of God.

24 So you see, a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, we read of Rahab, the prostitute, that she was acknowledged and saved, because she welcomed the spies, and showed them another way to leave.

26 So, just as the body is dead without its spirit, so faith, without deeds is also dead.​

The passage still says that Abraham was justified by works. Of course I do not claim that anybody is justified by works alone, that would be too much like the protestant insistence that people are justified by faith alone. Faith alone is dead, works alone are as dead. No point in playing with theology that is about what is dead. As James writes, a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Two "sides" of the coin, faith and works are necessary, no one is justified without both.

 

[davedajobauk]

"A tree shall be known by it's fruits"

 

[MoreCoffee]

"A tree shall be known by it's fruits"

Yes, that's a similar and related idea. Another related idea is told in the parable of the unwilling son.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Again, God is greater than me and my sins. He will reconcile whom He wills and not one child whom He chooses will be lost...

Even a Catholic or Orthodox before you...?

 

[MennoSota]

Even a Catholic or Orthodox before you...?

There is no Roman or Orthodox, there is only God's chosen family in Christ. All the other things are petty squabbles. God never mentions any denomination as the sole route by which He chooses His elect. We are all sinners plucked out of rebellion and given citizenship in the Kingdom of God by God's Sovereign choice.

 

[MennoSota]

"A tree shall be known by it's fruits"

Yes, that's a similar and related idea. Another related idea is told in the parable of the unwilling son.

Indeed, both examples point to the Father who made the tree and who adopted the son. Both are what they are because...God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Indeed, both examples point to the Father who made the tree and who adopted the son. Both are what they are because...God.

There's no mention of adoption in the parable of the unwilling son.

Matthew 21:28-31 "What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, 'Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.' He said in reply, 'I will not,' but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, 'Yes, sir,' but did not go. Which of the two did his father's will?" They answered, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you."​

 

[Josiah]

"A tree shall be known by it's fruits"

Agreed. But it is not bearing good fruit that gives the tree life, it's the tree having life that means it bears fruit.

IMO, JESUS is the Savior. Which means we're not, no Dead Atheist is for himself (job's taken).
And the HOLY SPIRIT is the Lord and Giver of spiritual Life. Which means we're not, no Dead Atheist gives spiritual life to himself.
That's the generally Protestant position. See post # 213. The faith which the RCC for 500 years has condemned as heresy and anathematized.

 

[MennoSota]

There's no mention of adoption in the parable of the unwilling son.

Matthew 21:28-31 "What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, 'Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.' He said in reply, 'I will not,' but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, 'Yes, sir,' but did not go. Which of the two did his father's will?" They answered, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you."​

You are correct. In that parable he's identified as a son, which is what all the elect are identified as being. The parable is not referring to those outside the family and thus any attempt to make the son out to be all humans is a false connection.
We, as God's sons may go astray, but the Father is always ready for us to come home. Those others who partied with the son have no connection to the family.
So...don't erroneously add the unregenerate and unredeemed to the story as though they are the son. They aren't. And they can only become adopted children by the will of the Father.
As to your quoted verses, notice that both are already sons. The story is about those whom God chooses. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Arsenios]

Amazing how you contradict your self on this thread. You need to leave it at the earlier statement that is biblical instead of adding other stuff and ship wrecking grace.

The Grace of God IS God...

God does not shipwreck...

Nor does God's Grace...

Not by you...

Not by me...

Not by Nuttin'...

(Nuttin' includes you and me...)

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I never altered your post. I expressed what you said, which is a Reformed position.
But, you must have recognized you were straying from the EO dogma and recanted.

We were just trading jousts...

It was between you and me anyway...

So we fixed it according to the rules...

No big whoooooop, I say!


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The first step is the Call of God unto repentance

I don't think so.....

Then your argument is with the Forerunner of Christ
who called men to repentance announcing the coming of Christ who was already here...
and who even baptized them into repentance.

And then with Paul
who established the sequence
of the links of the chain of Salvation:

Rom 8:29-30
1st - For whom He did Foreknow,
2nd - He also did Fore-ordain
to be conformed to the image of His Son,
that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom He did Fore-ordain,
3rd - them He also Called: and whom He Called,
4th - them He also Justified: and whom He Justified,
5th - them He also Glorified.

and if the "first step" is only an empty "call" with an inert God

YOU, my Lutheran friend, are the ONLY one who is calling God INERT and His Holy Calling EMPTY...

These are hateful and blashphemos words to even think, let alone to utter, much the more to write...

Please do not state them here with me in print again...

Until you can agree to do so, I will not communicate with you here again...

I am awaiting your agreement...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I see LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS of the bible becoming mentioned

Some of us prefer to see the words of the Bible as descriptive...

And Theology as empirical...

Your avatar looks like a Dave I know...

Arsenios

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...(T)here is only God's chosen family in Christ. All the other things are petty squabbles.

Every once in a while you hit the nail on the head.

 

[MennoSota]

The Grace of God IS God...

God does not shipwreck...

Nor does God's Grace...

Not by you...

Not by me...

Not by Nuttin'...

(Nuttin' includes you and me...)

Arsenios

Grace is an attribute of God. Grace is not God.
As I stated, YOU shipwreck grace by your legalistic teaching. (Galatians 5:4)
You make comments that are accurate, but then you add works onto it. Like Paul, I say to you, "You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?" (Galatians 5:7)
My perspective is that the EO hinders you from the truth.

 

[MennoSota]

We were just trading jousts...

It was between you and me anyway...

So we fixed it according to the rules...

No big whoooooop, I say!


Arsenios

I just quoted exactly what you said and then provided my interpretation of what you said. I never altered anything in the quote. Lämmchen is saying that it is against the CH rules to "fix" a quote and thus alter it. I never altered your quote. I removed the section in your post that was not relevant to the discussion, but I shared the exact quote from your post. No alteration.

 

[MennoSota]

Every once in a while you hit the nail on the head.

...blind squirrel ya know...

 

[Andrew]

.