Question re; Your definition/understanding of "Works" and "Grace"

You haven't demonstrated anything, except that you haven't read the thread, and haven't looked at the topic. Your comments have nothing to do with the topic, and your definitions are way off topic.

We are dealing with the Biblical topic of grace vs. works.

Your statement:

is not correct.
Neither are the statements in your former post.
We are speaking of a Biblical subject, not "showing grace one to another; but rather is salvation by grace or by works.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

 

HP: Maybe, maybe not, but you certainly have demonstrated something, i.e., what 'grace' is 'not.'

 

Here is a question DHK has done nothing but avoid and is right on target and in line with the OP.

Is healing a gift from God and was Naamam healed by 'works?'

 

I believe this was answered by some here already and correctly so. That is it is always "faith" that moves God to act. God gives us many opportunities to exercise faith. James refers to Abraham's test and concludes that true faith is expressed in good works and obedience. Yet it is still faith apart from the works that saves.

Naamam's healing was a gift from God. Naamam's 'works' proves his faith in God.

:jesus:

 

You make me laugh.
What grace is not???
Grace is not every other word in the dictionary except for the word "grace."
Duh.
I have already defined it for you.

 

I was answering your questions. If the answers were off-topic then the questons were off-topic.

Can not grace and works be intertwined? Are they always separate?

Are you saying there is no grace shown between any individuals in the entire Bible?

"Faith without works is dead." In other words, show me your works and I will show you your faith. This does not say that works saves, but it does say that your works show what your real faith is all about. Christ, in the way he treated others, is our example here.

Steaver wrote:

Your statement makes a lot of sense. I believe you are right.

 

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

 

What about grace shown by one person to another ... as in the Amish who were so kind and tried to help the wife of the man who had shot and killed some of their children and seriously injured others?

 

What about it? Grace is unmerited favor. The family of that murderer had done nothing to earn the favor of the Amish family. That is why it's called grace.

If we have to do anything to earn God's favor, then we would not be saved by GRACE.

Works nullify grace.

 

Here is your original statement that started this conversation:

"Your works are the grace you bestow on others."

Works and grace are at antipodes with each other. Works are not grace. That is an impossibility. It does not make sense. Look again at the verse that has been posted twice already.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

If there is grace there is no works.
If there is works there is no grace.
The two don't go together. Your statement is totally unscriptural and defies any scriptural definition of grace.

 

My second post was in response to your questions.

hmmm, so you pull out one proof text to form a whole doctrine. That is always a very dangerous thing to do.

Are you equating grace to salvation? to forgiveness?

Why is it that you are so afraid of showing grace to others in your daily activities.

Are we not told that others will "know we are Christians by our love?"

Are we to treat each other with love? Is this not grace, at least one form of grace.

 

Only God can forgive sins. Whether salvation or forgiveness grace comes from God.

All of the above are moot in light of the OP. They have nothing to do with this discussion but are simply red herrings. What is the OP

Treating others with grace has nothing to do with Naaman's forgiveness, or our forgiveness or his healing, or God's work of grace in any of us. You are way off topic. Stick to the OP.

You didn't like the verse I quoted for you (Rom.11:6). I don't know why. Here is another then.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

That is absolutely correct as far as salvation goes.

However, can and are you supposed to forgive those who sin against you?

Shall we start a new thread and discuss this topic more broadly?

Same question, shall we start a new thread?

You didn't like the verse I quoted for you (Rom.11:6). I don't know why. Here is another then.

I have read that Eph. 2:8 as translated treats us more kindly than the Greek we deserve.

The verse is fine, both verses are fine. However the do not take into account the following verses:

# James 2:18
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.
James 2:17-19 (in Context) James 2 (Whole Chapter)

# James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:19-21 (in Context) James 2 (Whole Chapter)

# James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

These must also be taken into consideration and fit into the interpretation of grace, faith and works.

As I said before, works does not save ... but show me your works and I will show you your faith and the way in which you carry out that faith in your relations with other people. Christ is our example of how we are to treat others.

 

Yes, if you want to explore those aspects you should start another thread.

The verses are taken in context of the chapter but not of the book. One must consider not simply the context of the passage, or the chapter, but in this case the entire book. The context of the book of James was that he was writing to Christians about practical Christian living. He was addressing problems that everyday Christians face in their life: trials, persecution, giving to the poor, the use of the tongue (speech), the problems of the rich in their treatment of the poor, the problems of the sick, etc. In most chapters he begins, "my brethren..."
Thus he is not speaking of salvation. He is not speaking of being made righteous. They were already righteous. He was speaking of the result of the righteous person. The fruit of the righteous person is his works. It is not a requirement to his salvation; it is a result of his salvation. This is made quite obvious when James says:

James 2:18 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.

His works were the result, the evidence of his salvation; not a requirement thereof.

 

Were the 'works' of dipping seven times in a particular river required for Naaman to be healed? By the way, is healing a gift?

 

HP: Excellent question. :thumbs:

According to Scripture, no amount of ‘faith alone’ will cover for a lack of the ‘work’ of forgiveness on our part.

Mr 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

 

Nu 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Nu 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Here is yet another example that plainly sets forth the distinction between grounds and conditions. It dovetails nicely with the OP and the notions of grace and works.

This is a test for some of you that have been following this thread.
What is the grounds of the healing for the people, and what condition must they complete (a work for them to do) 'without which' they will not receive their healing?

Again, were they healed by works or by grace? Would they have been healed if they said they had faith, yet refused to look? Would faith alone save them, or did it take obedience on their part as well as faith?

 

You ask; "Were they healed by works or by grace?"

Here are the possible answers;

A) they were healed by works.
B) they were healed by grace.
C) they were healed by grace and works

I would answer B.

What would you answer HP?

:jesus:

 

HP: I would answer that the grounds of their healing was ‘B’ by grace, and the condition of their healing was the ‘work’ of forming an intent if obedience in looking. They were not healed by the condition itself, but neither would they have been healed apart from their obedience. There was not the slightest indication that merely forming an intent to look was meritorious in any way, neither could have it been. None the less it was required by God as a condition of their healing, without which they would not received that gift of healing. They were NOT healed by works although works were required as a condition in order to be healed.

Of a truth, gifts often have stated conditions, whether healing as in the case pointed out here, or salvation as pointed out by the conditions of repentance, faith, and continued obedience.

 

You just cannot understand can you? If there are "grounds", there is no grace. Grace is unmerited favor.

If works are required, there is no grace.

Grace is grace and works are works.


Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.



Do you deny scripture?