ECT The Gospel Proper

[JudgeRightly]

What James is saying is that real "faith" results in good works and if good works do not result then it is not a saving faith.

In other words, in order for it to be saving faith, works are required.

:think:

Thanks for making it obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

But he is not saying that works are required for salvation, as evidenced by what he said in the first chapter:

Speaking out of both sides of one's mouth is a sure sign of a dishonest person.

Either works are required, or they are not, Jerry.

Either:

Works + Faith

OR

Faith alone

There are no other options.

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures"​

(Jas.1:18).​

And Peter teaches the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.23,25).​

The Jews who lived under the law and believed in His name were given the right to be the children of God and therefore they were "born of God":

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn.1:11-13).​

The Lord Jesus said the following to a Jewess who lived under the law and notice that the only requirement which He said is needed for the reward is "believing":

"I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Then He asks:

"Do you believe this? "​

glorydaz, do you believe what the Savior said to the woman?

 

[john w]

A copy of that description of the content of Blades' book, Satan and His Plan of Evil, just in case it is removed from that site, sometime in the future.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/sata...urvey-of-the-biblical-doctrine/oclc/302419044



2 Timothy 2:15

Excellent "Big Picture" book-I have it.

 

[Clete]

What James is saying.....

James said what he meant and he meant exactly what it sounds like he meant.

We can read just fine, thank you very much.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Is it too hard for you to simply make a couple of lists?

I explained about the dispensation of the law and you had no comment about that. Why not?

Since Clete didn't give his interpretation of the meaning of the words "the dispensation of the grace of God" (Eph.3:2) I will explain their meaning. Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).​

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace."

Now I have explained both the meaning of the "dispensation of the law" and of the present dispensation as you asked. If you think anything I said about either of those dispensations is in error then please tell us what errors I made.

And I don't think anything about those two dispensations change the plain meaning of the following words of the Lord Jesus which were spoken to the Jews who lived under the law:

"For My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day" (Jn.6:40).​

The Jews who lived under the law who "believed" in the Lord Jesus had eternal life.

Not that those who believed and did works received eternal life.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

James said what he meant and he meant exactly what it sounds like he meant.

We can read just fine, thank you very much.

You may be able to read just fine but you are unable to understand what James said in the following verse:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In other words, in order for it to be saving faith, works are required.

No, saving faith results in good works. James made it plain that the new birth is by faith alone:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

That matches perfectly with the Savior's words which He spoke to the Jews who lived under the Law:

"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).​

 

[john w]

What James is saying is that real "faith" results in good works and if good works do not result then it is not a saving faith. But he is not saying that works are required for salvation, as evidenced by what he said in the first chapter:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures"​

(Jas.1:18).​

And Peter teaches the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.23,25).​

Do be a dear, Jerry, and lay out "real" faith. How much "good works?" Muslims, Buddhists, JW's, Mormons .................can demonstrate "good works." And? Lay it out for us, as eternal destinies are at stake. You talk like John Mac., Catholics, Kirl Cameron..............-they talk like you. Of course, because most of "Christendom" are rebels, and refuse to rightly divide the word of truth, they fall into the ditch of "Lordship 'Salvation'."

So, if what James is saying, affirms what Paul is saying, as, according to you, "It all says the same thing,"....

if good works do not result then it is not a saving faith

....Unpack for us the specifics, of "saving faith," how much "good works," and how you know, or anyone else knows,how one can see evidence of "internal" good works, and how anyone/you, can assess whether a Buddhist's, for eg., good works are not "saving faith," while someone else's is.

Unpack it for me, at least, asI am just a dumb hillbilly, scratchin' my noggin.

Jethro John

 

[john w]

There can be no doubt whatsoever that.... .

Translated: Whenever a proponent of a point of view, employs the old reliable "There can be no doubt whatsoever...Obviously....It is clear....No doubt about it....," it means there is doubt, it is not obvious/clear, and the opponent is really not sure what to say next, so they employ this as a "filler," debate ender," an "assert....pound the podium...declare 'victory'....return to 'that showed them' echo chamber."


Jerry has perfected this art, on TOL, and is up for his second TOL Pulitzer Prize for elaborating on this method, in his book,"How to Clearly, Without A Doubt, Obviously/Evidently Win A Debate, And Have Your Opponents Mesmerized, Without really Saying Anything." His first Pulitzer was for his "To Do List."

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, saving faith results in good works.

So, then if someone has faith, but they die before they have any works, can you know if they were saved?

James made it plain that the new birth is by faith alone:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

That matches perfectly with the Savior's words which He spoke to the Jews who lived under the Law:

"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).​

 

[Clete]

Excellent "Big Picture" book-I have it.

Tell me about this book.

 

[john w]

Tell me about this book.

I was referencing Keith Blade's book, "Satan and his plan of evil : a survey of the Biblical doctrine," which Danoh cited, just a few posts back.

 

[Right Divider]

I explained about the dispensation of the law and you had no comment about that. Why not?

Since Clete didn't give his interpretation of the meaning of the words "the dispensation of the grace of God" (Eph.3:2) I will explain their meaning. Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).​

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace."

Now I have explained both the meaning of the "dispensation of the law" and of the present dispensation as you asked. If you think anything I said about either of those dispensations is in error then please tell us what errors I made.

And I don't think anything about those two dispensations change the plain meaning of the following words of the Lord Jesus which were spoken to the Jews who lived under the law:

"For My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day" (Jn.6:40).​

The Jews who lived under the law who "believed" in the Lord Jesus had eternal life.

Not that those who believed and did works received eternal life.

So it's not possible to make two lists of the rules for each?

Make is really simple for those of us that are not super smart, like you.

 

[Rosenritter]

James calls the people foolish for thinking faith alone saves.

I think that James is demonstrating that some people have a misunderstanding as to what actual faith and belief mean.

James 2:18-20 KJV
(18) 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.
(19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
(20) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

There is a living faith and there is a dead faith, there is a genuine and true belief of the heart and there is a false and technical belief of the brain. When we say that we "believe [live] in the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ" it means quite a different thing than those that merely "believe" [know of] that there is one true God and His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Rosenritter]

The law does require faith, GT.

The verses you give show that.

Are you now contradicting yourself, GT?

Duh. Doesn't mean it didn't require faith. See above.

It seems you are the one contradicting yourself. In the same post you said that the law DOES require faith and DOES NOT require faith and then you criticized GT as contradicting herself.

Galatians 3:11-12 KJV
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

That's the passage GT posted, and it does certainly look like (from what Paul said) that the law (of Moses) was not a law of faith. I don't agree with GT in every conclusion but I don't think she is contradicting herself on this point, and the passage that she posted did establish that the law (of Moses) was not of faith.

Are there other passages you are thinking of that do establish that the law (of Moses) is of faith? I am not speaking of salvation of those who were within the Old Covenant (salvation has always been of faith, the just shall live by faith) but specifically of that Law.

 

[Rosenritter]

Paul was trying to destroy the church.

Paul was saved and was a testimony to the worst of sinners being able to be saved too.

1 Timothy 1:16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

On one side you have those who were with Christ from the beginning, and on the other spectrum you have he who was most zealous in trying to destroy those who were in Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:25-29 KJV
(25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
(27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
(28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
(29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

It's one of God's methods to take that which seems least likely and exalt it as an example of his strength, grace, and power.

 

[Rosenritter]

In other words, in order for it to be saving faith, works are required.

:think:

Thanks for making it obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you really don't get it. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but rather that it's like you're trying to make the cart push the horse. Please, take a day or two and just think on this calmly without fighting against anyone on a forum.

 

[God's Truth]

There is a snuck premise here. This is as much a textbook example of real world, live action question begging as I've ever seen in an active debate.


This is why I wish more people would debate in a more or less syllogistic form such as is exemplified in this post. It makes it so much easier to detect where there is a flaw is the reasoning.

There are two stated premises here, both of which are true. Paul definitely does teach that one IS justified by faith alone and James clearly teaches that one IS NOT justified by faith alone.

So, why doesn't the premise follow? Because there is an unstated premise!

That premise being, that both Paul and James are ministering to the same group and writing to the same audience.

Now, this renders the argument invalid for two reasons...

1. Because it presupposes the answer to the question being debated in order to make the argument. If you're debating whether dispensationalism is correct then you can't make an argument against dispensationalism that presupposes that every author in the New Testament are all writing to the same set of believers because that assumes your side of the debate is correct. That's why it's called begging the question. You're presupposing an answer to the question being debated in order to make your argument.

2. We know this premise is factually false because we are told in God's word that they ministered to different groups....

Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.​

Clete

The one gospel administered to two groups.
Paul administered the exact same gospel to the Jews but then since they didn't trust him, Jesus sent him far away to the Gentiles.

Jesus is not divided and he is not going to give Paul a faith alone doctrine that begs to be called foolish, worthless, and dead by his other apostle.

 

[God's Truth]

Yep, in the following, James says so, himself...

Acts 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

"And the Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35.

When Jesus walked the earth, he told his disciples to do everything the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to do, because they sat in Moses' seat. That is about the temple still standing. The Pharisees enforced the law for the temple. The Jews still had to obey the rules and regulations because the temple was still standing, but Jesus did say that the temple was going to be destroyed.

The Jews obeyed the old law, but were taught the new law of Christ.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 o you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Matthew 24:2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Galatians 5:11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

Galatians 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.


So we are shown by the scriptures that the Jews did not break the laws enforced by the Pharisees because they enforced the old law and the temple was still standing; yet, they taught the New Covenant, but drew back because of fear of the Jews.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It seems you are the one contradicting yourself. In the same post you said that the law DOES require faith and DOES NOT require faith and then you criticized GT as contradicting herself.

Nope. I said in response to GT:

The old law did not require faith.

The law does require faith, GT.

. . .

Galatians 3:12 The law is not based on faith;

Duh. Doesn't mean it didn't require faith. See above.

GT had said that the law was not based on faith.

I agreed. It is not based on faith.

Not being based on faith does not exclude it from requiring faith, however. That was the distinction I was making.

So no, no contradiction in what I said, just a misunderstanding of what was said, the same misunderstanding that GT has.

Galatians 3:11-12 KJV
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

:thumb:

The law is indeed not of faith.

But that doesn't mean that faith was not a requirement of it. It just means that faith wasn't the main focus of it.

That's the passage GT posted,

Out of context, no less...

and it does certainly look like (from what Paul said) that the law (of Moses) was not a law of faith.

I never said it was.

Just because the law is not of faith does not mean that it does not require faith.

I don't agree with GT in every conclusion but I don't think she is contradicting herself on this point, and the passage that she posted did establish that the law (of Moses) was not of faith.

Are there other passages you are thinking of that do establish that the law (of Moses) is of faith?

Again, not what I said. See above.

I am not speaking of salvation of those who were within the Old Covenant (salvation has always been of faith,

No, it has not been.

If someone broke a law in the Old Covenant, then they had to ask for forgiveness, or they would go to hell if they died. Not so with Paul's dispensation (not the New Covenant, which also requires works), which is by faith and NO works.

the just shall live by faith) but specifically of that Law.

Taking things out of context now?

 

[God's Truth]

What James is saying is that real "faith" results in good works and if good works do not result then it is not a saving faith. But he is not saying that works are required for salvation, as evidenced by what he said in the first chapter:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures"​

(Jas.1:18).​

No. James says faith alone does NOT even save.

And Peter teaches the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.23,25).​

Peter heard of the other gospel that people mistook Paul as preaching, faith alone. Peter says they are unstable and uneducated, then he warns us to obey. See all of 2 Peter 3 and especially 2 Peter 3:16 and 17.

The Jews who lived under the law and believed in His name were given the right to be the children of God and therefore they were "born of God":

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn.1:11-13).​

The Lord Jesus said the following to a Jewess who lived under the law and notice that the only requirement which He said is needed for the reward is "believing":

"I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Then He asks:

"Do you believe this? "​

glorydaz, do you believe what the Savior said to the woman?

The Jews ALREADY obeyed God! However, now they had to believe that they had to go through Jesus.