Featured The Contextual definition of Faith in Romans 4:16-23

Justification before God is "without works" but regeneration is not without works (Eph. 2:10) and there is no such person who is justified that has not also be regenerated.

Paul is talking about the point of justificaiton of the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) while James is talking about the person already RECEIVED into the congregation (James 2:1-10) and is "one of you" (James 2:16) who has not merely made a profession of faith previously before the congregation but one who has claimed to be regenerated (James 1:18).

The difference between Paul and James is the difference between judicial justification (Rom. 4:5-6) and evidential justification (James 2:16). James is providing an evidence based approach to Justification while Paul is providing a theological approach to justification. James is speaking of justification observed by men ("shew me......shew you....do you see..) while Paul is speaking of justification "before God."

Paul is theologically distinguishing between justification (Rom. 3:24-5:2) and regeneration (Rom 6-8) while James is not making any theological distinction between justification and regeneration but is viewing the pragmatic evidence of that profession in relationship with others members who are in some kind of need.

Catholics and other works for salvation want to ignore these contextual indicators of the pragmatic approach of James to those already received as "one of you" and they completely refuse to deal fairly with the clear theological distinctions Paul makes in Romans 3:24-5:2 concerning "the ungodly" because they must maintain their sacramental salvation theory which Paul completely repudiates.

My exposition above completely dismantles Rome's false interpretation of Romans. They will scoff at it but they cannot provide any contextual based response that will stand up to the contextual evidences. That is precisely why TS will not engage me in the immediate context of Romans 3:24-5:2. Instead he flees the context to an external concept of "the faith" and tries to read it back into Romans 3:24-5:2. Complete failure to distinguish between different uses of "faith" in the book of Romans (e.g. Rom. 4:21; 12:3,6; 14:20-21). TS has to change the contextual definition of "faith" in Romans 3:24-5:2 which is spelled out in Romans 4:21 and completely different than his use of "the faith" which refers to the apostolic body of faith and practice.

 

TS thinks it is the "godly" who are justified by their own faithfulness which is God's righteousness imparted to them though sacraments.

However, it is the "UNGODLY" Paul says that are justified by the righteousness of God which is the object of faith and is imputed to the "ungodly" by faith (Rom. 3:24-28; 4:5). The ungodly" are "ungodly" when it comes to their own personal works and that is precisely why righteousness must be imputed because "the ungodly" are "without works."

Abiding in Christ has to do with EXPERIENTIAL salvation here and now in fruit productivity not entrance into heaven. It has to do with temporal consequences both good and bad here and now. If we abide in Christ we EXPERIENCE joy, peace, answered prayers, and the love of God in addition to production of fruit here and now. Likewise, if we do not abide in him we EXPERIENCE here an now the loss of these same things in addition our testimony is condemned by men.,

In contrast, being "in Christ" in regard to spiritual union is not something we can determine but it is a CREATIVE act of God (Eph. 2:10). Experiential union is something we can determine (Jn. 15) but spiritual union is something we have no power to control whatsoever.

 

At conversion a true child of God is both regenerated and justified. When they are received into membership they are received upon a professing of faith and baptism (Acts 2:40). This is all OBSERVATIONAL from the persepective of the congregation receiving them. James 2:1-10 refers to the congregational meeting and observational problems in the actual assembly. James 2:11-26 also deals with OBSERVATIONAL problems that conflict with the OBSERVED profession of those received into the congregation. James is dealing with stated problems of EVIDENTIAL profession of faith in relationship with other members in the same congregation "though a man may SAY....shew me....shew you......see....).

James is demanding a profession that is accompanied by evidential SPIRITUAL life. James is approaching it the very same way that Paul approaches it in Romans 6-8 where Paul begins by denying that the justified person can live in sin. Paul's argument against a justified person living in sin is not based merely upon the doctrine of justification by faith wherein we have judicially DIED to sin with Christ as visualized in the act of burial in baptism but we have also RISEN with regenerative life with Christ as also visualized in the act of baptism (Rom. 6:1-7). Just as in the visible expressioon of salvation (baptism) there is both a death and life so in the conversion of every true believer there is both justification and regeneration and NEVER can there be one without the other but yet without confusing one with the other as do Catholics and all sacramentalists confuse them.

Paul's argument in Romans 6-8 is the same argument of James 2 - there is no such thing as a justified man who is not also a regenerated man even though justification is without works (Rom. 4:5-6) while regeneration is unto "good works" (Eph. 2:10). Hence, the OBSERVATIONAL justification of any profession is "good works" which give EVIDENCE of regenerative life, thus vindicating the profession of faith as valid.

 

Rom. 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

In short, what is in view and what is defined as "faith" or "believing" in Romans 3:24-5:2 is not what Abraham can do ("the faith" apostolic doctrine and practice) but what Abraham CANNOT DO but must TRUST in God to do alone without his aide or assistance.

Here is the contextual definition of justifying "faith" or "believing" as used by Paul in Romans 3:24-5:2.

Romans 4:16 introduces the topic of faith - "It is of faith that it might be by grace."

Romans 4:17-22 introduces the illustration from Abraham's life to define the nature of justifying faith. Faith is the substance of things HOPED for and in Romans 4:21 Paul provides the substance of Abraham's hope. It was his full persuasion that what God promised God was able to perform and provide. His faith was in God and in God's promise with full and complete dependance upon God's power to perform what was promised.

Hence, this is not "the faith" or the doctrine and practice of the Apostles Paul has in view but the personal trust in God doing what Abraham CANNOT DO that is in veiw.

 

They will pick your words apart BUT that is precisely what they believe!

 

So you have only lied ONE TIME in your entire life and if you ever lie again you are eternally lost??????? Or did you really repent according to your definition of repentance above - "do it NO MORE"

We all know the mental gymnastics used by Rome to deny it is a re-sacrifice (but that is exactly what it is) by inserting the term "memorial" but when the continuing speaking of it they drop the term "memorial" and call it what it is:

"In the Eucharist SACRIFICE..." - #1359 CCC
"The Eucharist IS A SACRIFICE of thankgiving....." - 1360 CCC
"The Eucharist IS also a SACRIFICE of praise...." - 1361 CCC

If the Mass was merely a memorial there would be no LITERAL transformation of the materials into the actual blood and flesh of Christ.

Rome must resort to Greek philosophy in order to explain away its hocus pocus transubstantiation.

 

Amusing! So according to Tradition both are true and so one cancels out the other and Rome has found another way to be oxymoronic. Have you ever read the written traditions of the Jews? Rome responds to a problem exactly as the Pharisees of Christ's day - "rabbi........says but rabbi......says this"

That is simply a flat lie - none of the apostles or early apostolic churches believed such a doctrine - none!

I think you might be referring to 1 Corinthians 11 rather than Colossians. But that verse teaches the very opposite of what Rome teaches. The discernment has to do with the TYPOLOGY not any transformation of the substance.

Exactly! The Jews beleived it was salvic actually remitting sins when it could NEVER REMIT SINS (Heb. 10:1-4). Moreover, the Jews failed to comprehend that Christ and the cross REPLACED/FULFILLED the passover and any continuance of the passover is a rejection of the cross (heb. 10:5-17). Rome is continuing the same JEWISH ERROR and with the same JEWISH PREISTHOOD concept that has been completely abolished.

 

It makes no difference what you think! You have TWO conflicting teachings from your authority of "Sacred Traditions." That clearly demonstrates "Sacred Tradition" is no more reliable than Jewis Traditions and that is precisely why neither Christ or the Apostles quoted them as authority or as helps to interpret scriptures.

You defined repentance as doing that sin NO MORE! Now you claim one must only "continue to turn" from sin and that some sins need "practice" turning from them. Yes, I believe that and that is precisely what the Bible calls PROGRESSIVE sanctification or as one popular writers puts it "Three steps forward and two steps back."

I will take this challenge any time of the day - you just put up the scriptures you think teach that nonsense!

It most certainly does. Remember Moses and hitting the literal rock? He messed up the typology of progressive sanctification and turned it into a repeated salvation by his actions (just as Rome does) and he was refused to enter the promised land in perfect keeping with the messed up typology. God takes typology serious as the whole point of typology is the correct actions to convey the correct truth! If the actions are wrong error is conveyed and if the type is salvation than a false salvation is conveyed. Open and known sin and sinner partaking the supper violates the type of the Lord's Supper. Open division and known heresies in the partaking assembly violate the symbolism of the "one" bread.

Well, I can readily identify with a "senior moment" as I have had many.

You have stated the Romanist problem well!!!!!!! Jesus didn't symbolically sacrifice himself as the symbolism was in the OT passover and the FULFILLMENT is in the cross. What was forshadowed (Heb. 10:1-4) COULD NEVER REMIT SIN any more than the Lord's Supper can. What remits sin is the "real" and neither the passover or the supper are REAL but both EQUALLY symbols - one pointing forward to the real WITHOUT REMISSION REALITY and one point back to the real WITHOUT REMISSION REALITY as the only REALITY FOR REMISSION is the REAL not either symbols.