Posted on 07/07/2008 10:49:08 PM PDT by Gamecock
For some Christians, one of the thorniest problems in the Bible is the apparent contradiction between Paul and James. It's enough to make anyone committed to complete inerrancy wither.
In Romans, 5:1-2, Paul writes, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."
James seems to say just the opposite, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." This appears to be a first rate contradiction.
I have seen people twist themselves into theological pretzels trying to deal with this problem. There are a few unresolved conflicts in the Bible, but this is not one of them.
Justified by Faith
In Romans 4:1-5, Paul lays out his case for justification by faith. He goes back to the very beginning, citing Abraham as the archetype:
What shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.
Paul makes two points here. First, if Abraham is justified by works, if salvation is his personal accomplishment, dependent on his effort alone, then he can brag about it. Second, any system of works makes God indebted to the one who qualifies. Salvation is not a gift, but a wage paid to the one who earns it.
Then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to prove that neither is the case: "Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
Two Terms
Two different terms used to illustrate Abraham's salvation. The first is "reckoned," and the second is "justified." As you will see, these are two aspects of a single act of redemption.
The word "reckoned" is a term that emphasizes an action God takes on behalf of poor sinners. To "reckon" means "to credit to the account of." God responds to our spiritual poverty with the abundant gift of righteousness. He places it into our empty bank accounts, under our names. In Paul's words, "Though [Jesus] was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich."
This transaction took place early in Abraham's life. We read in Genesis 15:6, "Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." Paul reminds us that Abraham "grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
From that time on God saw not Abraham's spiritual poverty, but his wealth. Abraham's moral bank account was rich with God's righteousness.
"Justification," our second term, is the result of this transaction. It means "to declare free of blame; to absolve." Because God reckons righteousness to us, He declares us free from guilt, absolved, and pardoned. Reckoning, the action, leads to justification, the result. Therefore, salvation is a result of justification, which comes by faith.
Ever Heard of the Ten Commandments?
Salvation must come from God and not ourselves for one very good reason: Our bank accounts are truly empty. Once, while I was discussing God's qualifications for heaven with a waitress, she said, "God will approve of me."
"How do you know that?" I asked.
The question was a pivotal one, but she'd never considered it. After a long, awkward silence she offered feebly, "Well, I don't take drugs."
"That's good, but I think God is concerned about more than that," I countered. "Have you heard of the Ten Commandments?" I began to list them.
1) Have you ever given allegiance to anything else above God in your life?
2) Have you ever used any thing as an object of worship or veneration?
3) Have you ever used God's name in a vain or vulgar fashion?
4) Have you consistently honored God by worshipping Him on a regular basis?
5) Have you ever disobeyed or dishonored your parents?
6) Have you ever murdered anyone? (Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that if you're merely angry with a brother, you violate this principle).
7) Have you ever had sex with someone other than your spouse? (Jesus said that if you look upon someone and entertain the thought, you're guilty of sin here. )
8) Have you ever taken something that was not yours?
9) Have you ever told an untruth about someone else?
10) Have you ever desired to have something that was not yours?
We'd only gotten through two before she began to wilt. "Now you're making me feel guilty," she complained. That's the point. We are guilty, each one of us. This is God's Law. These are God's requirements. Yet is there anyone who doesn't consistently violate every one?
Any attempt to whittle down God's requirements to make them easier is doomed. The Pharisees tried this, asking Jesus which commandment was the foremost of all. Jesus answered, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Which of us does not violate each command hundreds of times a day?
The Built-in Defeater
We want to compare ourselves to other people, but that doesn't work. We may fancy ourselves law-abiding citizens, but the truth is we're a lot more like Hitler than like Jesus Christ, and His righteousness is the standard.
Saved by works? The Law gives us no hope because it has a built-in defeater to any attempt at justification by works: The Law demands perfection.
"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law" (Galatians 5:3).
James agrees. He writes, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10).
In God's view, there are only two kinds of people: innocent and guilty. One violation of the Law, one sin, makes you guilty. This is enough to silence the most noble mortal: "...that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God" (Romans 3:19).
"The Scripture," Paul concludes, "has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22).
There is only one hope: God's mercy. The Scripture is replete with this teaching. "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5). "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Romans 10:6). "If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21).
That's why Paul states clearly, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies [absolves] the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [credited] as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).
But we still have a problem. Why does James contradict Paul by saying we're justified by works and not by faith alone? He even quotes Abraham for proof of his point, just as Paul did.
One Word, Two Meanings
Whenever one encounters an apparent contradiction, it's good to keep in mind a basic rule: Always first explore the possibility of a reconciliation between the two. Not all statements that appear to contradict actually do.
Take the two statements "Napoleon was a very big man" and "Napoleon was not a big man; he was a small man." At first glance, these two sentences appear contradictory. The word "big" is equivocal, though. It can mean two different things. Napoleon was a big man regarding his impact in history, but was small in physical size.
Consult any dictionary and you'll discover that virtually every word has more than one meaning. The word "peace" could mean cessation of hostility between two parties. When a war is over and the fighting stops, there's peace. Romans 5:1 carries this sense: "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
"Peace" could also refer to peace of mind, a freedom from anxiety or worry. This is what Paul had in mind when he promised that, after prayer, "the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Proper interpretation of any passage depends on a clear understanding of which meaning is in view.
The word "justify" is no different. It has two meanings, not just one. In addition to "absolve, declare free of blame," it can also mean "to demonstrate or prove to be just, right or valid; to show to be well founded." In the case of salvation, the first is the cause; the second is the effect.
This second definition is what is usually in view when we use the word "justify" in English. "Justify your position," we say. We're asking for evidence; we want proof.
The Bible frequently uses this sense of the word, too. Jesus taught that a person's true nature will be evident in his conduct:
The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.
Jesus teaches here that the man with good treasure brings forth good fruit, which "justifies" him. This external display demonstrates the quality of the man within. This is not justification in the sense of salvation. One's words don't absolve him (first definition). Rather, they bear testimony of the inner man (second definition).
The Crux
Now we face a key question. Which definition did James have in mind? How do we know when he uses the word "justify," that James is not referring to salvation--as Paul clearly is--but rather is pointing to the proof of salvation?
This is remarkably simple to determine. The cause must come before the effect. Salvation must come first, before it can be evidenced in a changed life.
When Paul makes his case for justification by faith, he cites the beginning of Abraham's walk with God in Genesis 15:5-6: "And He took him outside and said, 'Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.' Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
The justification James has in mind comes much later in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22:12: "And he said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.'"
Paul and James are cite two different times in Abraham's life, events separated by 25 years. They can't be referring to the same thing.
The works of Abraham that James mentions were a result of justification which came by faith a quarter of a century earlier. Abraham was not being saved again. Rather, he was showing evidence of his salvation. He was being confirmed in the justification by faith that had already been accomplished years before.
Abraham's faith was no passive, intellectual exercise. He proved his faith to God. The words of the text show this to be true: "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." God witnessed Abraham's faith first-hand, as it were. It was demonstrated. That's why James concludes, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'"
James speaks to the man who is all talk and no action. His simple message is that true salvation always proves itself. That's why he asks, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" The apostle John echoes the same sentiment: "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him."
One Coin, Two Sides
James and Paul go together. Like two sides of the same coin, they don't conflict with each other; they complement each other. Both teach us something vital. Paul looks at what goes on internally; James talks about the external results. Paul says, "We're saved by faith." James says, "This is what saving faith looks like."
My own interpretive paraphrase captures the sense of it:
(21) Consider Abraham for a minute (remember him, the father of true faith?). His life is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He demonstrated to everyone the content of his faith when he obeyed God by offering up Isaac on the altar. (22) His action was a clear, visible demonstration to us that his faith was not a bunch of words. To him, faith and works went hand in hand; they were two sides of the same coin. The exercise of one caused the other to grow. (23) Years before, God had declared Abraham righteous because of his faith ("And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" Genesis 15:6). Abraham's obedience regarding Isaac was visible proof that God's earlier declaration of his faith was accurate and well deserved. Abraham's actions fulfilled God's word, demonstrating his friendship with God.
The entire truth is conveniently captured for us in one passage, Titus 3:4-8:
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God may be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.
Christians need "justification" plus "justification." Faith alone saves, but faith that is alone is not the genuine article. It's not saving faith.
Selah!
John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
Faith is the form charity (love) takes. Charity and love is how the Lord knows us. It's what is written on our hearts.
The Holy Spirit cannot enter us until we have been purged and purified. That sometimes takes years after we are 'saved' when our heart of stone can be replaced with a heart of flesh.
The Bible is full of truth, laws and statutes. The love is there if one looks... see what Paul wrote on love in 1 Corinthians 13. Really profound and beautiful and certainly demonstrates how he lived his life.
To me, faith without charity (being of service) really means nothing. We are given free will to choose good over evil. A full confession of faith will reflect that.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
I've looked at all the verses...That which you refer to doesn't take place til a thousand years after I've attended the Wedding...
Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev 19:9 is referring to the Lord's New Church.
He’s certainly been merciful and gracious in my own life. I know there can be a time when our hearts are hardened and I’m not sure what happens then. Does HE harden our hearts, like Pharoah’s, or do WE do it at that point. Ah, these mysteries...
Protestants and Catholics are part of the universal church, the Body of Christ, and even though we disagree on the extra biblical stuff, that doesn’t make us evil. We love the Lord Jesus Christ as much as you do, and we look to Him as Saviour because we have a sin nature and need Him to forgive us our sins and to help us in our unrighteousness. God looks upon the heart, not the denomination. I know you are faithful and true to your church and its teachings as I am in mine.
If you can't see that you've just established that some form or other of Christianity is "true" (in this case, Protestantism, out of your own mouth) because God "raised it up," and that, therefore, being a Noachide is insufficient, as it denies the truth of Christ, then one can be excused when dismissing the rest of your labored sophistry about Catholic (and other "liturgicals") gratuitous dismissal of the Old Testament. Mind you, I do not think that God "raised up" Protestantism, but the fact that you just said He did should, if you really believe it, give you some pause about remaining a Noachide who, by definition, refuses to believe that Christ is God. Protestantism, in the classical sense, certainly acknowledges the divinity of Christ. Therefore, if you believe it is "raised up" by God, why don't you acknowledge Christ as classical Protestantism would? If you are merely using this statement of yours, quoted above, as some sort of rhetorical device, one can be excused if one thinks that most of the rest of your complaints are similarly rhetorical, and that you simply show up here to be "difficult" to Catholics in particular and other Christians in general.
Most of your observations about the alleged disrespect Catholics show to the Old Testament are utter nonsense. They have almost no warrant from official sources (and, what little "evidence" you can glean from those sources is somewhat out of context) and speak, in my opinion, at least, of a bad time you might have had with various individual Catholics of your past acquaintance. Your obsession with this theme, in my opinion, is nothing more than a public flailing out at those individuals who misinterpreted their own Faith to you, and you hold Catholicism collectively responsible for them. That they did what they did is regrettable, but you seem intelligent enough otherwise to know that even a large number of individuals within a religious body might speak outside of their group's official position, while the group itself maintains a quite different "official" take on things. These days, I imagine you are more closely allied with the Jews, yet you don't seem to mind that, within Judaism, there is a vast range of adherence to both the concept of divine inspiration for the Torah and the actual living out of its precepts. Why, then, don't you rail against Judaism as you do against Catholicism and "liturgical" Christianity? The range of opinion within Judaism bespeaks of their being even more "hypocritical" about the Torah than Christianity, since it devolves from their only Testament!
In any event, why should you care what we Christians think about the Torah? To you, we are all "idolators," no? You said so yourself, when you referred to Christ as a "false gxd." As "idolators," our opinions on this or any subject should have no more bearing on your time and energy than the opinions of Hindus, yet I don't see you castigating them or any other pantheistic/pagan religion. Why is that?
I don't buy your explanation about the asterisk in "Christ," either. It is a slap at Him, as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or it's some sort of scrupulosity. I'm certainly no Buddhist, yet I don't have any real or imagined problems writing the word as shown above, and feel no compulsion to write it as "B*ddhist." If I did, I would be surprised if Buddhists didn't take it as a deliberate affront to their beliefs, regardless of the sophistical spin I might try to put on it.
From the Christian POV, the Law was put in place for a people set apart by God as the race that would bring forth the Messiah. They needed peculiar practices to confirm them in their own minds as a "people set apart," and as a form of discipline for them to maintain their separateness until, in the fullness of His time, God sent the Messiah into the world from their midst. Once the Messiah manifested Himself to the world through His chosen people, and ratified the mission of his disciples to spread His teachings and salvation into the Gentile world, the mission of the Jews in this regard was fulfilled. The Law was replaced by grace, and the separateness of the Jews was no longer necessary to His purpose. Therefore, the emblems of the law, which set His chosen race apart, were not at all needed by the Gentiles, and the Law was abrogated. it's just that simple. It is not the case at all that Catholics and other Christians "deny" that the Law as written is authentically the Word of God, it is just the realization that it doesn't apply to them, and that its purpose was accomplished and no longer needed.
When truth is what matters, people squabble and fracture. When unity is what matters, everybody stays in one big organization no matter how far apart its members are in what they believe.
I have never understood what is allegedly so great about prizing unity above truth.
I understand what you meant and no offense was taken. What I am trying to point out is that Protestants do not understand why the rituals and commandments of Catholicism/Orthodoxy cannot likewise be disposed of as an unreasonable burden. What is the point of invoking Paul against Torah law if you're going to replace it with some other kind of law?
I realize it is extremely difficult for you to understand what I'm saying because our "centers of emotional energy are so different" (to quote William James). Once a Protestant loses his prejudice against Catholic/Orthodox traditions/laws/rituals then it's Katy bar the door. Once a Protestant is willing to listen to the Church Fathers (which is so foreign to him), what is to keep him from "keeping going" to the end, listening to heretofore unknown Jewish apologetics, and rejecting chr*stianity altogether? After all, every argument Catholics/Orthodox have for their traditions/rituals goes in spades for the laws of the Torah.
Protestants are raised to understand that the whole point of chr*stianity was to do away with law and with the concept of reward and punishment in favor of a once-for-all antinomian salvation. That is how they interpret Paul. To learn that Paul is merely opposing Torah observance by chr*stians seems disappointing and hypocritical.
What was the point of a new religion?
G-d raised up Protestantism not because it is "the true religion" but merely as a case of middah keneged middah (measure for measure). It is no coincidence that Protestant charges against Catholicism are identical to the charges Catholicism had always made against Judaism ("chr*stless works religion") and that Catholicism's responses are identical to those made by Judaism ("our law is beautiful, we were here first, we were founded by G-d").
It is obvious that the Catholics on this board are simply having a very difficult time understanding the point I have been trying to make because it is so foreign to you.
If there is still a "law" in effect, then there was no need to do away with Torah/Noachide law and no new religion was necessary. If a new religion was necessary, it would have to be an antinomian (or at least post-nomian) one in order to have an excuse to replace the religion already in existence.
I will continue to try to help you understand the point I am making, but I can tell it is going to be next to impossible for you. Perhaps only a Catholic who used to be a Protestant can understand.
>> What I am trying to point out is that Protestants do not understand why the rituals and commandments of Catholicism/Orthodoxy cannot likewise be disposed of as an unreasonable burden. <<
Well, when the Messiah returns and tells them to dispose of them as an unreasonable burden, that position will make sense. Catholics and (nearly all) Protestants do both agree that God himself came in the flesh and told people not to impose burdensome religious obligations on people. I understand if you don’t agree to that, but if you’re going to discuss what’s reasonable, you have to start with the same set of presumptions. The truth is Protestants don’t accept Catholic ritual not because some additional Messiah told them not to, but because they believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura.
>> Once a Protestant is willing to listen to the Church Fathers (which is so foreign to him), what is to keep him from “keeping going” to the end, listening to heretofore unknown Jewish apologetics, and rejecting chr*stianity altogether? <<
A belief in Christ? The difference between Catholic and Protestant is one of interpretation of revelation. The difference between Christian and Jew is over the substantial additions to revelation.
>> Protestants are raised to understand that the whole point of chr*stianity was to do away with law and with the concept of reward and punishment in favor of a once-for-all antinomian salvation. <<
Au contraire! If you accuse a Protestant of antinomianism, you’ll likely start a brawl. Luther flirted with antinomianism, causing his refutation by Catholicism, but most Protestants are very strongly antinomianist. That’s a core cause of misunderstanding between Catholics and Protestants: Protestants presume Catholics hold a lot of beliefs they don’t actually hold, because they misunderstand what it was Catholics were objecting to when they condemned Luther!
Ooops... excuse me... I meant to address additional issues:
>> Protestants are raised to understand that the whole point of chr*stianity was to do away with law and with the concept of reward and punishment in favor of a once-for-all antinomian salvation. <<
Well, Protestants don’t believe in antinomianism, and Catholics don’t believe that the temporal effects of sin are a matter of reward and punishment... and that there are no eternal effects of sin for the redeemed.
>> To learn that Paul is merely opposing Torah observance by chr*stians seems disappointing and hypocritical. What was the point of a new religion? <<
Well, for one, Christianity started out as a reform movement OF Judaism, until they were expelled from the synagogues for accepting converts. What Christ did was: harrow hell, allowing for spiritual resurrection into Heaven; initiate the conversion of all nations, to prepare for the second coming; justify those who believe in him in spite of their sinfulness; sanctify those who believe in him. The notion that this somehow pales in comparison to the abolition of certain rituals and dietary restrictions seems well... odd.
>> Prior to the crucifixion, ALL Jews (including The Son of God there with them) were under the Mosaic law, thus the directions to the ‘rich young ruler’ were consistent with the law up to then. In perhaps what is another rendition of that scene, Jesus tells his disciples who want to run after the turning away young man, “Let the dead go bury the dead.” The Jews were still under the law of sin and death. <<
So, all things said by Jesus prior to the crucifixion can be dismissed because he was talking to the Jews before the abolition of the law? Well, that removes nearly everything Jesus ever said. How convenient. Now, would you care to demonstrate how anything, anywhere in the bible establishes that salvation can happen through faith, in spite of an absence of works? See, there’s a reason that Luther argued that James was un-Christian and likely a forgery: Once one admits the authenticity of the statement that man is not saved through faith alone, it’s pretty hard to come up with evidence strong enough to overwhelm that evidence. So, we’re left with these tortured excuses.
>> Paul taught salvation by ‘faithing’ ... action, based upon belief, <<
YES! ACTION, based on belief! We all accept that faith is a means by which mankind is saved! But what good is faith if it isn’t acted apon? If I tell you your home is burning, and you believe me, does that matter, if you refuse to leave?
"So, all things said by Jesus prior to the crucifixion can be dismissed because he was talking to the Jews before the abolition of the law?" Point to where anyone has inferred that anything Jesus taught can or should be dismissed? I'm sorry for your deep hole and the lack of good sunshine down there, but I'm not bringing any more ladders if you're not going to stop digging.
But those rituals were written in the Torah and spoken by G-d's Own Mouth. If they are abolished (chas vechalilah!), why should there by any rituals or dietary restrictions (such as lenten fasts, eg)? What kind of messiah abolishes Torah laws but not post-Torah laws?
If human activity is of any meaning, then the chr*stian interpretation of the messiah is deeply flawed. And if it is not, logic would seem to dictate that rituals and ritual commandments, not just those of the Torah, would have been done away with.
“The Holy Spirit cannot enter us until we have been purged and purified. That sometimes takes years after we are ‘saved’ when our heart of stone can be replaced with a heart of flesh.”
If you said cannot “fully posses us” it migt work, but Scripture is very clear that the Spirit enters into a soul at conversion, which is when they are washed, sanctified and justified (1 Cor. 6:11), even though, like the Corinthians, they lack degrees of maturity.
(Acts 2:38) “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
(Acts 10:43-45) “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. {44} While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. {45} And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
(Acts 15:8-9) “And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; {9} And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”
(Rom 8:9) “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
(1 Cor 6:19) “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”
(Gal 4:6) “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”
***Discussion won’t get us anywhere, since we would rely on the inerrant Bible as our authority***
You wouldn’t be able to post a copy of your inerrant Bible would you?
***Glad God doesn’t!***
Are you speaking for someone else again?
***My name is already written in the Book of Life...***
How do you know?
“The Good Thief’s [criminal] rebuking of the other’s mocking was a work, a work born from his faith in Christ.”
True, as any human response can be considered as a “work” in the strictest sense, but Biblically it is an outwardly confessional faith which testifies of the possession of saving faith. The key aspect is that it is not on account of any merit of such works that one is justified by, but by imputed righteousness, appropriated by God-given faith, which rests in Christ as his Savior and follows Him as his Lord. To God be all the glory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.