ECT Works of Law and Works of Grace, Is That Biblical?

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber

That's a correct answer but it goes deeper than that.
The tendency toward legalism has to do with our fallen nature. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the first manesfestation of the law and what we refer to now as "the law" is an outworking ofthe Tree's ministry (i.e. the fruit of the Tree of the Knoweldge of Good and Evil) and both the Tree and the law have what the bible calls a "ministry of death". And so, being descendants of Adam, we all have this tendency toward legalism. But, just as the Tree was the alternative to God in the Garden, so also is the law the alternative to Christ living in us (i.e. grace).
 

Right Divider

Body part
That's a correct answer but it goes deeper than that.
The tendency toward legalism has to do with our fallen nature. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the first manesfestation of the law and what we refer to now as "the law" is an outworking ofthe Tree's ministry (i.e. the fruit of the Tree of the Knoweldge of Good and Evil) and both the Tree and the law have what the bible calls a "ministry of death". And so, being descendants of Adam, we all have this tendency toward legalism. But, just as the Tree was the alternative to God in the Garden, so also is the law the alternative to Christ living in us (i.e. grace).
I think that we agree, but pride is what underlies that.

The serpent played into their pride in the garden.

Gen 3:5 KJV For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
 

turbosixx

New member
Answer your own question.

What do you say happens to such a person?

I suggest to you that to believe is to obey. So the person that does not walk in the Spirit is not a believer. We know the fate of unbelievers.

Does grace require nothing of us?
 

Right Divider

Body part
I suggest to you that to believe is to obey. So the person that does not walk in the Spirit is not a believer. We know the fate of unbelievers.

Does grace require nothing of us?
It requires you to quit trying to save yourself.

Eph 2:8-10 KJV For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I suggest to you that to believe is to obey. So the person that does not walk in the Spirit is not a believer. We know the fate of unbelievers.
I just love double talk. Why is it that you legalists can't just give a straight answer?

It doesn't matter, I get the point.

You doctrine is law, not grace. There is functionally no difference, in your doctrine, between the two. You've made law and grace synonyms.

Does grace require nothing of us?
Belief. We are saved by faith. We walk the same way.

You want to believe that we are saved by grace and walk according to the flesh.
 

turbosixx

New member
You doctrine is law, not grace. There is functionally no difference, in your doctrine, between the two. You've made law and grace synonyms.

Since the creation of man we please God by following His will. I don't believe that has changed.
Paul said we are under the law of Christ.
1 Cor. 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
Gal. 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Is the law of Christ empty?
What does it mean to you to "obey the gospel"?

Belief. We are saved by faith. We walk the same way.
Belief is walking in obedience to Christ.

You want to believe that we are saved by grace and walk according to the flesh.
That's what I understand from others so I asked RD this: So what you're saying is that once a person believes, how they live their life afterwards has zero impact on their salvation?
And he said:
That's what the Bible says.... I just believe it.

What else am I supposed to think?
 

Right Divider

Body part
What else am I supposed to think?
RD has shown you that, according to the apostle Paul, we are saved (past tense) by grace through faith and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES.

RD has also shown you that rewards are NOT a gift, but that salvation by grace through faith IS THE GIFT of GOD.

Why are these so hard for you to understand?

--- PRIDE --- your pride has you in a death trap.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Since the creation of man we please God by following His will. I don't believe that has changed.
Paul said we are under the law of Christ.
1 Cor. 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
Gal. 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Is the law of Christ empty?
What does it mean to you to "obey the gospel"?
It means to believe the biblical facts concerning my position in Christ, to believe that I am hidden in Him; that I am perfect and cannot be improved upon in Him; that it is no longer I who live but Christ lives His life through me BY FAITH, not by my strength or my effort or my obedience but rather by the obedience of Christ who was obedient in my stead even unto death on the cross.


“The Proper Attitude of Man Under Grace:

“To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
“To refuse to make ‘resolutions’ and ‘vows’; for that is to trust in the flesh.
“To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth…
“To rely on God’s chastening [child training] hand as a mark of His kindness…

“Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:

“To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
“To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
“To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.
“To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
“The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…
To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure.

- Romans, Verse by Verse, Wm. R. Newell (Emphasis added)​

Belief is walking in obedience to Christ.
You'd have made a good Jew.

That's what I understand from others so I asked RD this: So what you're saying is that once a person believes, how they live their life afterwards has zero impact on their salvation?
And he said:


What else am I supposed to think?
Right Divider is absolutely correct. You cannot improve upon nor add to the righteousness of Christ. Your standing is in Him and in Him only. Your job is not to work but to rest in His finished work.

This is the very gospel of grace itself. Until you accept it, your so called good works will amount to nothing on judgement day as they will all be the fruit of your flesh rather than the fruit of the Spirit. You works, as a result, will be burned up as just so much chaff.

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Right Divider

Body part
It means to believe the biblical facts concerning my position in Christ, to believe that I am hidden in Him, that I am perfect and cannot be improved in Him; that it is no longer I who lives but Christ lives His life through me BY FAITH, not by my strength or my effort or my obedience. It isn't about my obedience but rather the obedience of Christ who was obedient in my stead even unto death on the cross.
I'm always reminded of this when people talk about their obedience.

Rom 5:19 KJV For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Walk me through the context and explain Paul's thoughts on why he says this.

No.

Just read it. It means what it says. If you're somehow confused by what Paul says, find any random 3rd grader and read him the passage and ask him what it means. He'll get it right.

You can dance through "context" and make it into whatever you like but as for me, I done with you ingnoring 90% of what I say while attempting to bait me into tacitly accepting your way of doing biblical "interpretation".

When (if) you become more responsive, so will I.
 

turbosixx

New member
bait me into tacitly accepting your way of doing biblical "interpretation".

I fail to see how considering the context is unsound. I've read it time and time again and I cannot ignore the context. I find that pulling the example of Abraham out of context and using it to support OSAS is illogical and your refusal to explain the context speaks volumes.

What you are suggesting is that someone earns salvation the moment they believe. So someone can continue in sin, let’s say sexual immorality, and God will owe them eternal life. No matter what they do after believing, good or bad, has any effect on their eternal security.

Gal. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Gal. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
You are nothing but a "proof texter". You show exactly what Clete described. You are have your idea and you will darn well find the scripture to prove it... even if you have to take it out of context.

Read the WHOLE thing... Paul is making a CONTRAST between worldly living by the flesh and living by the Spirit.
Gal 5:22-26 KJV But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (26) Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Paul is NOT talking about salvation there.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I fail to see how considering the context is unsound.
Because the verse is the context. The verse is the point that Paul is making. You want to use "the context" to remove all meaning from the verse and turn it into it's opposite.

I've read it time and time again and I cannot ignore the context.
You do so every time you read it.

I find that pulling the example of Abraham out of context and using it to support OSAS is illogical and your refusal to explain the context speaks volumes.
I couldn't care less what you find to be illogical. You are incapable of reading the bible and taking for what it plainly states.

In addition to that, you ignore most of what anyone says to you.

What you are suggesting is that someone earns salvation the moment they believe.
No one earns salvation under grace. It is a gift.

So someone can continue in sin, let’s say sexual immorality, and God will owe them eternal life.
Paul was accused of preaching the same.

Romans 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their [c]condemnation is just.
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not!

Have you ever, even one single time in your whole life been accused of preaching this?

Further and once again, YOU IGNORE WHAT I HAVE ALREADY POSTED!!!

You are inches away from my ignore list.

No matter what they do after believing, good or bad, has any effect on their eternal security.
Exactly right! My righteousness is filth and cannot be improved no matter what I do or how hard I try. I deserve death and have, in fact, been crucified in Christ.

How many good works does a dead man do?

How much credit does a dead man get for paying his tithe or feeding the poor or giving away his possessions?

What does a dead man have to offer God?

But just as I was crucified in Christ I was also raised from the dead in Him and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives His life through me by faith.

I WILL NOT, no matter what you say, ever set aside the grace by which I was saved and through which I have been hidden in Christ. Nothing you could ever say to me will ever convince me that its a good idea to resurrect my flesh and start following some list of rules where by I am to do this and not do that. I, in my flesh, am utterly and totally incapable of doing any righteous act and will make actly zero attempt to do so. My righteousness is Christ's and His only. I deserve no credit and I will make no effort to deserve any credit. To do so, cheapens Christ's sacrifice and is tantimount to blasphemy.

Gal. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Exactly!

How can you not see that you preach against yourself! By what meathod do you propose to do right in you flesh? By what power do you expect your flesh to produce anything but evil, filth, injustice and unrighteousness?

Romans 7: 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

8 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit​
 
Last edited:

turbosixx

New member
Because the verse is the context.

This does not explain the context. Why can you not walk me through the context as you see it?

I agree Paul's is making a point by using Abraham as an example but I suggest it's not the point you see. The context is by faith apart from works of the law He is laying the ground work for his Abraham example. The works he is talking about is works"of the law".

He is not talking about just ANY works but works of the law of Moses. Abraham was not under them that's why he says 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works Again he laid the ground work before calling the law of Moses a law of works. in 3:27 By what kind of law? By a law of works? That is the context.

The Jews were relying on being circumcised and having the law. 2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

Paul's point is Abraham was found righteous outside of circumcision and the law. 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Those are the works he is talking about.

Up to chapter 11 Paul is explaining to the Jews they are not under law.
7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
That is the context.

If you won't walk me through how you see the context, go ahead and put me on ignore.

I'll probably just quit because you are the main one I valued talking to.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This does not explain the context. Why can you not walk me through the context as you see it?
Because to do so tacitly accepts your premise.

The verse means what it says. All anyone has to do is read it. It isn't written in code. It isn't hard to understand or to follow Paul's point. Paul didn't use any big words that any normal 3rd grade child wouldn't be able to fully understand. It's just written in plain, easy to understand language that only requires that it be read to be understood.

I agree Paul's is making a point by using Abraham as an example but I suggest it's not the point you see.
I do not need your help to read and understand it. If you think it means something other than what it flatly states then you're the one with the reading comprehension problem, not me.

More importantly, the passages is so clear that the only reason anyone might think it means something other than what it plainly states is if they bring their doctrine to it and allow their doctrine to dictate the meaning of scripture rather than allowing scripture to do the dictating.

The context is by faith apart from works of the law He is laying the ground work for his Abraham example. The works he is talking about is works"of the law".
Stupidity.

How many centuries was circumcision instituted before the Law was given to Moses? It's something like 430 years I think. (Galatians 3:17)

Further, the first covenant God made with Abraham was in Genesis 15 where it states bluntly, "And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." There was no action Abraham had taken at that point and in the next few verses where God literally "cut a deal" with him, Abraham wasn't even conscious!

Abraham was declared rigteous, not because he obeyed but because he believed - period.

He is not talking about just ANY works but works of the law of Moses.
So says your doctrine. Not that it would matter anyway because there is no list of dos and don'ts that would be superior to the law. Guess where we learn that from - it might be the Apostle Paul! (Gal. 3:21)

You want to pretend that the law of Moses was simply replaced with a superior law! It wasn't! The Law of Christ is not some set of rules that we must obey in order to be saved! That's so completely wrong that's it's nearly blasphemous! If that were the case then why didn't God just give the Law of Christ to Moses to begin with and save His Son from a gruesomely painful execution, not to mention separation from the Father?!

Abraham was not under them that's why he says 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works Again he laid the ground work before calling the law of Moses a law of works. in 3:27 By what kind of law? By a law of works? That is the context.

The Jews were relying on being circumcised and having the law. 2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

Paul's point is Abraham was found righteous outside of circumcision and the law. 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Those are the works he is talking about.
Abraham was unconscious when God made His covenant with Abraham and prior to that Abraham had done nothing at all other than simply believe it when God said that he would have an heir from his own body.

The law was centuries away and there were no works involved of any sort, other than the work of God Himself. No command to obey, no nothing other than "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness."

Up to chapter 11 Paul is explaining to the Jews they are not under law.
7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
That is the context.
And it does nothing but prove MY DOCTRINE!!!!!!

Which of course you will disagree with and think it proves yours!

That's precisely the reason your way of doing doctrine is entirely useless and a total waste of time in any discussion of this sort.

What you legalists think is context, is nothing at all but a rationalization of your preconceived doctrine. What you want is to think that you play some role in your salvation beyond merely accepting it as a free gift and you will turn anything upside down and backwards in order to prevent yourself from SOUNDING like your condoning sin so that grace may abound. - A point I made in my last post which you completely ignored.

If you won't walk me through how you see the context, go ahead and put me on ignore.
It has been my years long policy to instantly put anyone on my PERMANENT ignore list if they ever dare me to do so.
You'll be my first and probably only exception because I don't think that you're trying to be a jerk.

Don't push it again or will indeed find yourself discussing this and anything else with anyone else other than me.

I'll probably just quit because you are the main one I valued talking to.
Instead of quitting why don't you try to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying?

Have you EVER encountered ANYONE - EVER - that was able to discuss this topic at this level with you who openly refused to discuss the context?

I'm here to tell you that your way of doing doctrine is useless. Well, not useless but very nearly so. It's great for teaching someone else YOUR doctrine but it's entirely useless for giving someone the tools needed to read the bible and learn doctrine for themselves. All your way of doing things accomplishes is perpetuating your own doctrine. It does NOT prove your doctrine is right nor can it because the premises upon which it is built is your doctrine! The proof of this is that those who disagree with do exactly the same sort of thing you do but end up with conflicting conclusions and you can bang heads together until everyone is bloody and half conscious and neither side will have moved an inch toward being convinced away from what they believed before the head-butting started. If this website is anything, it is proof of that!

There is a superior way that you haven't come within a mile of seeing yet.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have a little time this morning and no posts to respond to directly and so I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify something that I think might be prone to misunderstanding.

I do not object to exploring and understanding the context of any passage of scripture. On the contrary, whether your reading the bible or your car's owner's manual, understanding the context of anything you're reading is necessary for a proper understanding of it. I have, however, refused to go down that path with Turbosixx because, as I've tried to communicate in my previous posts, he isn't really wanting to explore the context, although that is what he thinks he's doing.

The accusation, "You're taking the passage out of context." is the nearly universal trump card that all Christians use when confronted with a verse that conflicts with their doctrine. I've even seen Christians claim that John 3:16 is taken out of context when quoted to the random unbeliever. If John 3:16 doesn't mean what it appears to mean by having simply read that one verse then there isn't any passage anywhere that does and yet there have been prolonged threads on this website where the meaning of John 3:16 is debated for weeks on end. This happens because it isn't the context that most Christians are arguing but rather the context argument is usually just a presentation of their doctrine and how that doctrine interprets the passage in question.

And it is this doctrinal interpretation that Trubosixx was/is interested in doing. I know this because this is not the first time he and I have had this discussion and so I know where he was wanting to take the discussion (and did so in his last post). In fact, Turbosixx isn't really interested in debating at all but rather is simply looking for opportunities to present his doctrine pet doctrines. I also know because I've been were he is. I strongly believed what he's defending for years and years. The church I attended as a teenager and young adult had many sermons preached on the dangers of "greasy grace" and I was literally indoctrinated with the "lordship salvation" doctrine as taught by John McArthur and other famous theologians. I know what Turbosixx is going to say before he says it because I've heard it all literally thousands of times before.

I not only know and fully understand his position but I know that he is wrong and why. I've been trying my level best to get him to see and accept the possibility that there is a better way of doing doctrine but so far have failed to break through. The most salient points I make in hopes of making it click get ignored. How, for example, can anything be required of Abraham when he wasn't even conscious when God made a covenant with him? There was no affirmation to give, never mind any obligations to agree to take on because he was asleep! That's a pretty amazingly strong argument if you ask me but it'll likely be just so many spit balls against a battle ship. It will almost certainly have exactly zero effect and Turbosixx is as likely as not to just move right on past it like I never said it. Indeed, he may not even understand the point. Not that he's stupid but simply that his doctrinal paradigm won't let him see the point. Indeed, he may actually think that it's somehow a point in his own favor.

Oh how I wish there were words that I could say that just made people see it! Words that just cut through the curtain of their current paradigm and allowed them to see that there is no need to jump through all sort of theological hoops and go through so much effort to understand the bible. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the bible is very simple and easy to understand and all you need do is have the courage to read it and to take it to mean what is seems to mean.

Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I have a little time this morning and no posts to respond to directly and so I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify something that I think might be prone to misunderstanding.

I do not object to exploring and understanding the context of any passage of scripture. On the contrary, whether your reading the bible or your car's owner's manual, understanding the context of anything you're reading is necessary for a proper understanding of it. I have, however, refused to go down that path with Turbosixx because, as I've tried to communicate in my previous posts, he isn't really wanting to explore the context, although that is what he thinks he's doing.

The accusation, "You're taking the passage out of context." is the nearly universal trump card that all Christians use when confronted with a verse that conflicts with their doctrine. I've even seen Christians claim that John 3:16 is taken out of context when quoted to the random unbeliever. If John 3:16 doesn't mean what it appears to mean by having simply read that one verse then there isn't any passage anywhere that does and yet there have been prolonged threads on this website where the meaning of John 3:16 is debated for weeks on end. This happens because it isn't the context that most Christians are arguing but rather the context argument is usually just a presentation of their doctrine and how that doctrine interprets the passage in question.

And it is this doctrinal interpretation that Trubosixx was/is interested in doing. I know this because this is not the first time he and I have had this discussion and so I know where he was wanting to take the discussion (and did so in his last post). In fact, Turbosixx isn't really interested in debating at all but rather is simply looking for opportunities to present his doctrine pet doctrines. I also know because I've been were he is. I strongly believed what he's defending for years and years. The church I attended as a teenager and young adult had many sermons preached on the dangers of "greasy grace" and I was literally indoctrinated with the "lordship salvation" doctrine as taught by John McArthur and other famous theologians. I know what Turbosixx is going to say before he says it because I've heard it all literally thousands of times before.

I not only know and fully understand his position but I know that he is wrong and why. I've been trying my level best to get him to see and accept the possibility that there is a better way of doing doctrine but so far have failed to break through. The most salient points I make in hopes of making it click get ignored. How, for example, can anything be required of Abraham when he wasn't even conscious when God made a covenant with him? There was no affirmation to give, never mind any obligations to agree to take on because he was asleep! That's a pretty amazingly strong argument if you ask me but it'll likely be just so many spit balls against a battle ship. It will almost certainly have exactly zero effect and Turbosixx is as likely as not to just move right on past it like I never said it. Indeed, he may not even understand the point. Not that he's stupid but simply that his doctrinal paradigm won't let him see the point. Indeed, he may actually think that it's somehow a point in his own favor.

Oh how I wish there were words that I could say that just made people see it! Words that just cut through the curtain of their current paradigm and allowed them to see that there is no need to jump through all sort of theological hoops and go through so much effort to understand the bible. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the bible is very simple and easy to understand and all you need do is have the courage to read it and to take it to mean what is seems to mean.

Clete
It took Bob an entire book to condense, what, 25-30 years of study into something that is easily readable, but it just takes time and and effort to go through all that information. I mean, it even took him five whole seminars of varying lengths spanning multiple days each just to go through the book.

It's not going to be done on a text based forum in a couple of posts.
 
Top