Originally posted by Rajk999Would you say that the Gentile - who does not have the Law - but who does good works and is found to be justified in the day of judgment is not righteous?
What do you make of this passage?
[quote]Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
R ...[text shortened]... - but who does good works and is found to be justified in the day of judgment is not righteous?
----rajk------------------------
I can't judge anyone so how can I say? What I would say is that this Gentile would have done good works and lived a righteous life for a reason. He would have made a "faith choice" and decided that to live that way is the "right" or "best" way to live. Subtley could imply some kind of world view or "belief" that there is a moral aspect to the universe.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999We were all born in Adam. We sinners need to ask God to put us into Christ Jesus.
Your thread title "no faith = no righteousness" sounds like you are judging .
Paul told the Christians:
"But of Him [God] you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God: both righteousness and sanctification and redemption." (1 Cor. 1:30)
They did not just believe in Christ. They believed INTO Christ. Their belief in His resurrection caused God to put them INTO a divine and mystical union with Christ.
In this sphere of the living Person of Christ, Christ became to them righteousness and sanctification and redemption.
Christ became to them righteousness as to their past.
Christ became to them sanctification as to their present.
Christ became to them redemption as to their future.
Concerning their past, Christ is now their history.
Concerning their present Christ is becoming the one saturating them with His holy nature.
Concerning their future Christ is the one who will transfigure their bodies redeeming them from all corruption.
Paul says this is the true wisdom that man requires, the wisdom of God. Rather than to just know somthing it is to have God make Christ our rigtheousness, our sanctification, and our redemption.
Paul also says that he desired to be found in Christ. In that realm of abiding in the living presence of Christ Paul would have Christ as his righteousness.
" ... that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is out of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is out of God and based on faith." (Phil. 3:9)
Where ever Paul was, even if in prison chained, he wanted everyone to find him not in depression, not in anger, not in any mood, but in Christ. He wanted his visitors to find him in Christ, in the realm of the living Christ.
In Christ Paul would enjoy the rigtheousness which is based on faith. This righteousness is out of God and based on faith in his union with Christ. He did not want to have his own righteousness from law keeping though he lived his whole life that way previously. Now he gives that up for living in the sphere of a living Person Christ and possessing the righteousness which is out of the life of God and based on Paul's faith in Christ.
Originally posted by knightmeisterFine, I'll make a different point.
I'm sorry , you need to simplify your argument a bit more before I can understand it.
Do you actually have any point you want to make at all , or were you just firing from the hip?
I'd like to say that in fact faith destroys righteousness. A true righteous act is not bound by intention or expectation. To have faith is to have that intention "If I trust in God, I should do good things because X, Y, Z compels me so that I may be righteous." When the intention is there, it is a stroke of ego.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't believe you.
Re-read the post and you will see that it's very open to all kinds of "faith". I even quoted a non-christian , as an example of the point I was making.
I think you missed what I was saying.
Do you say that Gandis faith is equally good as the christian faith? And even muslim faith or voodoo faith?
Do you really say in the title that Only those who have (any) faith have righteousness?
No, you think otherwise. I think you're are religocentric.
Originally posted by knightmeisterNone of this rules out the fact that there can be other [highly plausible!] motivations for right acts, even under difficult conditions, than A) following a higher power or B) believing your cause will emerge triumphant.
don't see why the higher power part is necessary. Nor do I see why it is necessary that good and right win out in the end.
-----------------swiss------
Sometimes "behaving rightly", as you put it , is not easy at all. It might put you in danger . You might become highly unpopular. You may become despondent. You might be killed. You obviously didn' ...[text shortened]... se, all you had in mind was putting a few coins in a tin and picking up litter occasionally?
How about a person who confesses to a crime because their conscience troubles them?
Or, let's take a case from my locality, a few years back. A guy dies trying to save his girlfriend from gang rape. I don't know his religion, but let's imagine he was an atheist. Further, he probably knew it was a fight he couldn't win, outnumbered as he was, and without a weapon. Why did the guy try to save her, when he could have run away and saved himself?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI am not convinced.
Sometimes "behaving rightly", as you put it , is not easy at all. It might put you in danger . You might become highly unpopular. You may become despondent. You might be killed. You obviously didn't grasp why Ghandi said what he said. He faced enormous odds against him , but his faith saw him through.
Righteousness could be very costly for any ind ...[text shortened]... rse, all you had in mind was putting a few coins in a tin and picking up litter occasionally?
Is a belief in personal eventual benefit truly necessary for all our actions? Is selfishness the only motivator? I beg to differ.
I for one, would still do right even if I believe that Satan would win in the end. To be honest, I find what might or might happen in the distant future to be largely irrelevant to my day to day decisions.
What is far more important than faith is conviction ie it is more important to believe that what you are doing is right than to have faith in someone else who claims that what you are doing is right.
Your very argument betrays this fact. You know what is right, and you seek to persuade yourself to do what is right by various arguments (ie having faith etc). Self persuasion seems remarkably silly at face value but is surprisingly common. For example, you want to swim, but the water is cold, so you start making up the most ridiculous arguments and lies to persuade yourself to get in the water. Seems stupid, but we do it.
I had a friend once who was shocked that I was atheist, and couldn't figure out why wasn't therefore evil in my actions. She argued that she could never be atheist because then she would have no reason to do good, and she didn't want that - no way! She couldn't seem to see the contradiction in the argument.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitmmm, i think it may be argued, that there is a difference between a good person, or a valiant person or even in this case a self sacrificing person, and a righteous person. what it is at present i do not know, but i think it exists.
None of this rules out the fact that there can be other [highly plausible!] motivations for right acts, even under difficult conditions, than A) following a higher power or B) believing your cause will emerge triumphant.
How about a person who confesses to a crime because their conscience troubles them?
Or, let's take a case from my locality, a few ut a weapon. Why did the guy try to save her, when he could have run away and saved himself?
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999How about scriptures that say it is impossible to please God without faith? How about scriptures that say that whatever is not of faith is sin? How about scirptures that say that Abraham was justified by his good works? Just kidding, it really says he was justified by his faith. Case in point is when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac. Is this a "good work"? Nope. In fact, everyone would say it is the most wicked and vile act you could endorse, yet, Abraham obeyed the command via faith in a righteous God and a righteous God stopped him from doing so.
Your thread title "no faith = no righteousness" sounds like you are judging .
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIts either you dont know the Bible or you enjoy misleading people. There is a curse on those like you who try to mislead the uninformed on matters pertaining to their salvation. Read this:
How about scriptures that say it is impossible to please God without faith? How about scriptures that say that whatever is not of faith is sin? How about scirptures that say that Abraham was justified by his good works? Just kidding, it really says he was justified by his faith. Case in point is when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac. Is this obeyed the command via faith in a righteous God and a righteous God stopped him from doing so.
James 2:21-24 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
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.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Clearly there are some who are justified by their faith only.
Some who are justified by their works only.
Some who are justified by both faith and works.
There is no reason to pick one or the other. Christ will judge ALL mankind according to their works and their faith. According to Romans 2 he will judge and find just even those who never knew the Law.
Do you have an interpretation for the Romans 2 passage I quoted earlier? You dont. Becuase you choose to ignore passages which disagree with the teachings of the particular religious organisation to which you are loyal. Try being loyal to the teachings of the Bible. Forget the organisation.
Originally posted by Rajk999James here is trying to point out that faith without works is dead. So tell me, is kiilling your son a work that should be rewarded with being righteous? No. It is ONLY when it is combined with hearing from God and obeying his voice. If he hears and does not obey, his faith is void. If he kills his son independent of hearing from God, his faith is void. Likewise, doing "good works" can be detrimental to the will of God. Have you ever heard the expression, "Good intentions pave the road to hell"?
Its either you dont know the Bible or you enjoy misleading people. There is a curse on those like you who try to mislead the uninformed on matters pertaining to their salvation. Read this:
[quote]James 2:21-24 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, ...[text shortened]... to which you are loyal. Try being loyal to the teachings of the Bible. Forget the organisation.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI did. Your title is the conclusion of the content of the post, and Yes its judgemental.
Please tell me you did a bit more than just read the thread title and then respond to how it "sounded" to you.
And you really have to be seriously insane to imply as you did earlier that Christ does not have more authority than Paul.