Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
But not required for salvation.
The Israelites were given the Law in order that they would see their sinfulness and therefore their need for a Savior.
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
But not required for salvation.
The Israelites were given the Law in order that they would see their sinfulness and therefore their need for a Savior.
Right Divider
Body part
I never said that is was, but again I asked: Could they just ignore the law and say "Lord I have faith alone"?
Why just them?
Jerry?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I did not ignore your evidence. Your evidence did not reveal in anyway the truth of the "gospel of grace," that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Jn.5:24).
Show me where the verse you quoted said that!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Thet were given the written law but all of mankind has the law written in their hearts, the law of which the conscience bears witness:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" (Ro.2:14-15).
Those who do not have the law also should know their sinfulness by their conscience.
Paul also tells us another of the reasons why the law was given to the Israelites:
"Wherefore, the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ" (Gal. 3: 24).
The Greek word translated "schoolmaster" is paidagogos, and a paidagogos was a disciplinarian who was given the responsibility of giving children moral training and keeping them from the evils of the world. The purpose of the Law was to place the children of Israel under the precise discipline of the law and the purpose was so that they might become a "holy nation" (Ex.19:5-6).
Jerry?
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (*Genesis *15:*6 NASB)
Next question my son
You haven't shown anything but that you are wrong. Cliff notes, and I will summarize what you think he didn't answer.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Are you under the illusion that verse says that those who believe are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Jn.5:24)?
Otherwise, I cannot see why you would think that you have answered anything at all!
What have you been drinking, my grandson?
Right Divider
Body part
Nice try Jerry. I was talking about the WHOLE law. The law of Moses, including all of the ceremonies and feasts, etc., etc.
God separated Israel and gave them additional requirements to live by. They were required and not optional. Could an Israelite be righteous if they ignored these requirements? I'm not talking about being made righteous by keeping the law.
Is James wrong?
Jas 2:20-26 KJV But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (22) Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? (23) And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (24) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (25) Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (26) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Spot on correct. Well done. The sad part is, this isn't hard. All they have to do is believe it.
I tend to be too lazy to use a lot of words.
Have you tried a good commentary? Google may also help.
Right Divider
Body part
So Israel could just ignore God's requirements?
I don't think so.
24 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord met him and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’ feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!” 26 So He let him go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the circumcision.
Matthew 23
1Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
1Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
Shasta
Well-known member
I do not think that at that point Peter knew Jesus was to be the sacrifice for sin . He and the Twelve were given ample notice that Jesus was going to die and even that he would rise again. They were just in denial about it. The Prince of this world was also aware of Jesus very prediction of his death and at times tried to end his life prematurely by inciting people to kill Him. John the Baptist had some inkling of what would occur but just how the Lamb's death could remove our sin was a mystery to everyone for, while "sometimes a righteous man might sacrifice his life to save the life of another" in the whole history of the world no person's death had ever served to remove the sin of another. The Twelve would not understand this until Jesus came in Resurrected form and walked them through all the relevant OT scriptures on the subject.
Before the Resurrection, of course, Jesus spoke about the new birth and receiving eternal life. However, what he was merely giving them the right to claim the promise when it became available like a gift which is effectively not not actually yours. It was on layaway, if you will. To demonstrate this let's look at a few promises, the new birth, for instance. Until the blood of Christ had cleansed the believer's heart it would not be a fit dwelling for the Holy Spirit Hebrews 9:13-15. Although the Holy Spirit had come upon some people in the OT and even filled them that phenomenon had been transitory with the Spirit coming and going as His supernatural working was needed. The unique sign of the Christ according to John the Baptist was that the Spirit would come upon Him and remain (John 1:32-33) . John himself had been filled with the Spirit before birth but obviously even that was not on par with the Spirit abiding on a person as it did upon Jesus. In the New Covenant the Spirit does not just come and go. Nor does He here merely rest upon them. Rather the Spirit joins Himself in union to the human spirit(1 Corinthians 6:17). This change, in relationship, foretold by Jesus in John 14:16-18, would not occur until happen until AFTER the Resurrection.
Essentially what you are saying is that that Jesus could bring all the benefits of the New Covenant - forgiveness, cleansing, redemption, salvation without even having to die on the cross. The scripture says otherwise.
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12)
The work had to be done before eternal redemption could be obtained.
The sins people committed under the the Old Covenant could be forgiven and eternal life secured for them on the basis of what Jesus would do on the cross. (Hebrews 9:11)
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, that those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15).
The promise of redemption from sins that were committed under the Old Covenant could be received on the full faith and credit of the one who had the authority to forgive sin. However, all the promises were pending final payment at Calvary. Had Jesus not gone to the cross He could not have forgiven sin. If He could have forgiven sin without the cross the the shedding of His blood was unnecessary and the Father would have shown Him that at Gethsemene but there was no other way.
When Jesus told people they were forgiven He was in a sense giving them a promissory note based upon what He was going to do on the cross. The full benefit could not be enjoyed until the note was paid for after He proclaimed tetelestai.
There is ample proof for this in scripture.
16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood (Hebrews 9:16-18)
The promise of the New Covenant - removal of sin, the Spirit moving inside us giving us a re-created heart upon which God could write His law was inaugurated by the cross meaning that it had not and could not have happened before that event.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Yes, they could. I have already given you the example of David, who lived under the Law. He received the imputed righteousness of God by his faith:
"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:6-8).
No, James was not wrong. Earlier in the same epistle he tells us exactly how a person is saved:
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures" (James 1:18).
Was James wrong?
The verses you quoted are in regard to what one man may know about another man's faith:
"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18).
Earlier I asked you the following question after quoting from Romans 4:
Here Paul used David, who lived under the law, as an example to illustrate the principle that salvation has always been apart from works.
And here is your answer:
I cannot understand why you quoted the verses from James which you did since you agree with me that “salvation has always been apart from works.“
Right Divider
Body part
I guess that you believe that the book of James should be removed from the Bible?
My point is that you neglect the apparent contradiction between these writings. I fully understand that God's grace has always been at work in the world and that 'eternal life' salvation is based on the gift and not the work. But there still remains some unresolved reconciliation of these two (from you) in my opinion.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Again, here is the question which I asked you:
Here Paul used David, who lived under the law, as an example to illustrate the principle that salvation has always been apart from works.
And here is your answer:
Since you agree that salvation has always been APART FROM WORKS then why did you quote the words you did from the second chapter of the epistle of James?
No, I neglected nothing. It is you who neglected what James said about how a person is saved:
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures" (James 1:18).
I have already quoted what the Lord Jesus said before the Cross to the Jews who lived under the law and it is evident that "works" played no part in receiving eternal life:
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
I did address the second chapter of James when I said the following:
The verses you quoted are in regard to what one man may know about another man's faith:
"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18).
Sir Robert Anderson, the father of systemized Mid Acts dispensationalism, has the following to say about the meaning of the second chapter of James:
"Paul's Epistle (Romans) unfolds the mind and purposes of God, revealing His righteousness and wrath. The Epistle of James addresses men upon their own ground. The one deals with justification as between the sinner and God, the other as between man and man. In the one, therefore, the word is, 'To him that worketh not, but believeth'. In the other it is, 'What is the profit if a man say he hath faith, and have not works?' Not 'If a man have faith', but 'If a man say he hath faith' proving that, in the case supposed, the individual is not dealing with God, but arguing the matter with his brethren. God, who searches the heart, does not need to judge by works, which are but the outward manifestation of faith within; but man can judge only by appearances...He (Abraham) was justified by faith when judged by God, for God knows the heart. He was justified by works when judged by his fellow men, for man can only read the life" [emphasis added] (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry, [Kregel Publications, 1978], pp.160-161).
With that in mind we can understand the following verse is saying that Abraham was justified before the Lord by his "faith" and he was justified before man by his "works":
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (Jamess.2:24).
I do not expect you to understand any of this. You sre so confused that you say that you agree with me that "salvation has always been apart from works" and then you turn around and quote verses which you think teaches that Abraham could not be saved unless he did works.
So now tell me what you do actually believe. Do you believe or do you not believe that salvation has always been apart from works?