Good Works Essential

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Since God's word does not contradict itself, how do you reconcile this verse with James 2:24?

 

You fail to see there are two types of works in regard to grace. There is the finished work of Jesus Christ that He has performed alone WITHOUT YOU or YOUR PARTICIPATION which justifies the sinner completely and eternally when received by faith and there is YOUR GOOD WORKS that are prompted and empowered by the indwelling new man and Spirit of God.

The former justifies you SINLESSLY before God while the latter never santifies you sinlessly before God or man.

 

This is the danger of what your pushing...For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
For Christ IS THE END of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

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.

Tell me where in the above verse does Paul differentiate? He does not. You speak like the RCC who divide worship into dulia, latria, etc., only because they want to avoid the fact that praying to Mary and other dead "saints" is indeed idolatry. Just redefine the word.
That is all you are doing--redefining words to make them fit your own theology. Works are works. Works nullify grace no matter what kind of works they are.

For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of works
The verse is plain enough along with Romans 11:6

It doesn't matter what kind of works. Works and justification, works and faith, works and grace, works and salvation--they don't mix.

Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
There are no works involved in one's justification.

 

As I have repeated over and over, there is the work of God IN CHRIST provided FOR you that justifies you before God and there is the work of God IN YOU performed THROUGH you. The former justifies you while the latter sanctifies you. The former is the object of faith while the latter is produced by faith.

 

You contradict yourself. All works are meritorious. What other kind are there?
Baptism is a meritorious work, not much different than confirmation in the RCC, just a different rite. One is commanded by the Bible and one is not.
Love is a work. Did it work for Mother Theresa? Do you deny that she had works of love. Did they get her to heaven?
Works do not save; not any kind of works. You remind me so much of the Catholics I have witnessed to.

 

You do not address my posts for two clear reasons:

1. These brethren are new meat for you and they don't know where you are going and how you are leading them into a trap of mental gynastics behind your redefinitions but I do.

2. You cannot answer my posts because they expose your error

3. God's grace FOR US and God's grace THROUGH US are not the same. The former is WITHOUT YOUR PARTICIPATION while the latter is WITH YOUR PARTICIPATION. The former JUSTIFIES because it is the finished work of Christ FOR US while the latter sanctifies as it is the unfinished work of Christ THROUGH US. The former is COMPLETED JUSTIFICATION because it is based solely on a SINLESS life and a FINISHED sin payment while the latter is never completed in this life but is the PROGRESSIVE process completed only in glorification.

 

Let's remind us what you have said.
One does not receive forgiveness of sins until after they have been baptized. (You said that to me personally).
--Thus baptism is the work here. You believe in works salvation. Baptism is a work. Works are works are works. You make a good Roman Catholic.

The reason you said that I was not saved for two years, the two years after I had professed faith in Christ, after I was born again, the two years before I was baptized, is because I had not been baptized which is a work. Someone had to do the work of baptizing me. This is a works salvation that you are advocating.

 

Which is no salvation at all.

 

Just because Grace is the cause behind some of a Christians works does not change their character from works to grace. They are still works and as such we are "rewarded according to our works" whereas salvation is "the gift of God."

We are not saved by our works at all but by grace and in particular the grace that is provided in the finished works of Jesus Christ.

 

Salvation is finished this side of our grave, and inside the grave of Jesus when He resurrected from the dead and we in Him. What awaits us is not salvation, but resurrection of the body and glorification, and that, will be without works --- even without the work of faith, and by grace which is the power of His Resurrection only.


The sanctification without which no one shall see God is Christ’s completely.

 

:laugh:
Because I believe this is the tense which the term in scriptures is used. Which is why Paul interchangeably use it in describing justification and later performing works or James can say faith without works is dead. Or Hebrews can give you a listing of the actions caused by faith in the "hall of faith". Or Paul in 2 timothy can say that he has (past tense) endured until the end and is therefore is awarded a crown of righteousness:

To me disecting seems too complicated.
And I'm glad you finally understand what I've been trying to say.

 

If the scriptures dissect one aspect from another or distinguish between things that differ under the unbrella term "salvation" wouldn't it be to your own peril if you didn't as well?

For example, IF satisfaction of God's law is obtained by the Person and work of Christ being the object of your faith (Rom. 3:24-26) instead of your own person and works produced by faith (Rom. 6-8) would that not be a serious error if you did not distinguish between the two? Wouldn't you be guilty of claiming or sharing credit that belongs to Christ (1 Cor. 1:29-31)?

For example, if Christ completely denies that believers will come into judgement but will be raised to the resurrection of life because they have already passed from the sentence of death unto life (Jn. 5:24-28) wouldn't it be a serious error to deny that by claiming they must come into judgement (Rom. 2:6)?

Finally, when is it our perogative to refuse to distinguish what the Scriptures distinguish even if it is more complicated? Isn't that the difference between the diet of "milk" versus "meat"?

Heb. 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

No. The OP is correct. Paul makes it clear in Romans 2 and Romans 8 that good works are indeed required for ultimate salvation.

What Jesus says in John 6, including all the stuff about "tenses of verbs" is entirely consistent with the following view of ultimate salvation:

When a person places faith in Christ, their ultimate salvation is indeed assured, but not because good works are not required for ultimate salvation. It is instead assured because that person is given the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit ensure that the good works that are indeed required for ultimate salvation (Romans 2, Romans 8) are generated in that person's life.

 

Romans 4:2 is not a statement targeted at someone who might think that Abraham is boasting in good works.

It is instead directed at someone who might believe that Abraham might think He gets justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. In other words, this is not a "good works" issue at all, it is a racial issue.

True, the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time - all the more reason to believe that Abraham could not have been justified by doing it works. Paul is denying justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses and not justification by good works. Those who argue otherwise have severe problems with Romans 2:6-7.:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

Paul's argument is basically directed at the Jew, telling him that salvation is not limited to Jews and Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Note that Paul has written these words just a couple of sentences back from Romans 4:2.

The problem with seeing Romans 4:2 as anything other than a reference to the Law of Moses makes Paul into a scattered incoherent thinker. In Romans 3, he has just told us how justification is not based on doing the Law of Moses. Then throughout the first 17 or so verse of chapter 4, Paul is still making the same argument – salvation is not limited to Jews.

The argument is about how Abraham was not justified in virtue of being Jewish and, by extension therefore, justification is not for Jews only:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

The case makes itself – Paul is bending over backwards to make it clear that his topic here is the availability of justification to both Jew and Gentile alike. And this is precisely why it makes sense to assert, in 4:2, that the Jew (of whom Abraham is genetic father) is not justified by the works of the Law of Moses. Yes, the law of Moses was not around in Abraham’s time. But Paul is really making a broader argument about justification not being limited to the Jew.

And what is the ethnic delimiter of the Jew? The law of Moses, of course.