The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits - Page 90

truthseeker3139 · #**891** 02-26-2007, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

OK Harmonize the text I have given with the rest of scripture.

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

So was James wrong in saying that Abraham was justified When he offered up Isaac? Note that it does not say that Abrahams faith was justified. You would have to add something in there that is not there.

Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Don't you see that when Abraham put actions to his faith, that his works made his faith complete?

Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Again, when Abraham believed God, he had corresponding actions to that faith, and when faith was perfected (completed) he received the imputation for righteousness

Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Do you see?? There is no way around these verses unless you misrepresent them, as BG does. A Man is justified by works of faith, and not merely faith alone.

Your intepretation of James 2 is in direct contradiction with Romans 4. This is no way to properly harmonize Paul's writing with that of James. What you have neglected to take into consideration is in whom's eyes the justification occurs. James is writing with the perspective of seeing justification through the eyes of men. We as men can only see actions and not the intent of the heart. God doesn't need to see because He knows that when He justifies solely on the basis of a man's faith that works will occur.

truthseeker3139 · #**892** 02-26-2007, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

This is the basis for his skipping over the book of James. It does not line up with what is plainly stated in James. NOWHERE does James imply that a persons faith is justified. It is a rediculous statement to begin with. Faith is not unjust, or in need of justification. Faith is in need of works to be perfected, or complete. Until a person has works, their faith is incomplete, and unable to bring justification into their lives.

Please harmonize this belief with the following teaching of Paul

Romans 4
Abraham Justified by Faith
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a]

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

truthseeker3139 · #**893** 02-26-2007, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

So without works no man can be justified. Because as James says "faith wrought with his (Abraham's) works, and by works was faith made perfect?"

Not according to Paul

Ephesians 2:8-10

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Whole Hearted · #**894** 02-26-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneAccord

A person attends a UPC church and hears, and reponds to, the Gospel and repents of their sins and is to be baptized on Sunday. He is tragically killed in a car accident on Friday night. He he lost?

A woman repents of her sins in an ALJC church and is baptized according to Acts 2:38. She has not yet recieved the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Is she lost?

My answer? No, No. No.

yes they are lost

Steve Epley · #**895** 02-26-2007, 10:09 AM

Bible Faith defined by Paul NOT Gillespie in the Faith Chapter
Heb. 11
BY FAITH:
Abel OFFERED
Noah PREPARED
Abraham WENT-LOOKED-OFFERED
Issac BLESSED
Jacob WORSHIPPED
Joseph MENTIONED
Moses REFUSED- CHOSE-ESTEEMED-FORSOOK-KEPT
Isreal PASSED
Rahab RECIEVED

Bible FAITH is a ACT not a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Faith-only teachers do NOT teach the faith of the Bible but strains of Calvin!!!!

Calvinism is the greatest enemy of the Apostolic movement clothed as a Pentecostal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whole Hearted · #**896** 02-26-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

The blood is not in the name of Jesus. The blood is in heaven. It is not applied, it is appropriated. The name of Jesus is the means by which we can appropriate the blood. We appropriate the blood the moment we call on the name of the Lord in faith and repentance. We appropriate the blood when we call on the name of the Lord in baptism. We continue to appropriate the blood whenever we confess our sins and God forgives us our sins as we walk as a child of God in this journey of faith.

Sin are not forgiven until on is baptized in Jesus name. We are baptized for the remission of sin , that is when the blood is applied.

Also the Word says that without the Spirit, the Holy Ghost we are none of His.

Barb · #**897** 02-26-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whole Hearted

Sin are not forgiven until on is baptized in Jesus name. We are baptized for the remission of sin , that is when the blood is applied.

Also the Word says that without the Spirit, the Holy Ghost we are none of His.

I am Apostolic to the very core and have heard the portion bolded above all of my life, however, I am respectfully asking, where is the scriptural proof that the blood is applied at all and not appropriated, and that this happens ONLY at baptism?!

And if sin is not forgiven until baptism, what is repentance for?!

Coonskinner · #**898** 02-26-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barb

I am Apostolic to the very core and have heard the portion bolded above all of my life, however, I am respectfully asking, where is the scriptural proof that the blood is applied at all and not appropriated, and that this happens ONLY at baptism?!

And if sin is not forgiven until baptism, what is repentance for?!

The Blood in the tabernacle began a journey at the brazen altar that was not culminated until it reached the mercy seat at the Holy of Holies.

If it had stopped at any place short of completion, there would have been no atonement.

Even so, we appropriate the benefits of the Blood when we complete our obedience to God's only plan of salvation--Acts 2:38.

If we stop short, no soap.

Steve Epley · #**899** 02-26-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

The Blood in the tabernacle began a journey at the brazen altar that was not culminated until it reached the mercy seat at the Holy of Holies.

If it had stopped at any place short of completion, there would have been no atonement.

Even so, we appropriate the benefits of the Blood when we complete our obedience to God's only plan of salvation--Acts 2:38.

If we stop short, no soap.

True.

However in the old Testament sins were forgiven but not TAKEN AWAY in the NT sins are not only forgiven but taken away or remitted.

SDG · #**900** 02-26-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

True.

However in the old Testament sins were forgiven but not TAKEN AWAY in the NT sins are not only forgiven but taken away or remitted.

Love this one ... EP ... please elaborate on the difference between remission and forgiveness ... please use scriputural support ... and you get to use one analogy.