 Work of the law and works of love or Christ. One of Satan's biggest lies exposed. There are no shortage of verses that say that salvation or the justification of righteousness onto eternal life is by grace or by faith and not works. So one of our most highly quoted and loved examples is Ephesians 2.8 and 9 for by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast. Another great example Galatians 2.16 in 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. Romans 3.28 is another clear example therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law and deeds being synonymous with works. And there are many other examples we could use that don't use this exact language but still support the same idea like Romans 10 verses 4 and 5. Hebrew 6 verse 1 Galatians 3 verses 21 to 26. There are many other passages we could turn to of course notwithstanding the logical inference that Jesus and the apostles told many people to believe for eternal life without telling them to do works for that life and when they did preach repentance they were talking about Jesus not about your works. This is a major discrepancy and a huge inconvenience for many Christians who have a workspace salvation whether that's front loaded or back loaded especially for the ones where James 2 is their favourite part of the whole Bible. So even with the multitude of verses from Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, John, Philippines that show that salvation or justification unto righteousness is without works they use this one chapter in James 2 to completely reinterpret, reject and overturn those multitudes of other verses instead of reinterpreting what they believe about James 2 in light of the multitude and they're wrong about what James 2 means by the way. A detailed breakdown of James 2 is outside of the subject of this video but even James himself said in that same chapter that makes legalists drool with excitement. For whosoever shall keep the whole law yet offend in one point he is guilty of all. Even their work salvation porn passage verifies what Paul says that justification cannot be attained by the law if you mess it up even once and everybody has. So given that so many Christians are just so desperate to merit their salvation boasting their works they have this little disclaimer or clause if you will that enables them to preach works salvation in some fashion while still claiming to be consistent with these multitudes of scriptures that say it's by grace or faith without works. So how they do this typically what I've seen them do is they'll say something along the lines of when Paul says we are saved or justified without works this is just referring to works of the old covenant law, the rituals, the cleansings, the sacrifices and circumcision particularly. But in order to be saved or justified we must have works referring to the law of Christ they sometimes call it or the law of love or the works of a saving faith. Which they would argue is just another way of saying doing his will to enter the kingdom as per Matthew 7 or keeping his commandments as per John 14 15 or doing works by faith as per Hebrews 11. So for example I'll show you how they substantiate this they might use Galatians 5 6 where it says that circumcision does not avail anything so this is Paul's faith without works for justification it's the mosaic law that doesn't avail. But then describes faith as working by love and they'll say that this is James's faith with works if you like and they sometimes call this something like Christ's new law of love or words to that effect. And so likewise we go to James 2 and they'll say that verse 10 is the mosaic law yes we can't keep the whole of that law but we do have to do works of love or the works of Christ as per later in the chapter. And to give you another example of how they argue this so if we take a verse like Romans 3 8 it specifically calls these works of the law but then when we read Ephesians 2 10 it says we are created onto good works and it doesn't mention the law so that's not about the mosaic law it's the new law of love as it was. I've handpicked two very specific individuals and I want to show you video clips of them saying this because it will lead us into something important later. There's places all over the Bible says we're saved by faith apart from works and it's always works of the law. The old covenant of the Jews their rituals their cleansings and all those Old Testament works yeah we're not saved by those but Christ commands us he ordained us to do good works. I mean meaning we have to do good works. Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law he's talking about he specifies what type of works he's not talking about the works of obedience like James 2 is talking about. He says exactly what works he's talking about he makes this very very plain he says a person is not justified by works of the law. So to the unlearned Christian who doesn't know the Bible very well this seems like they've got their doctrine locked they've solved it right. Well yes we're not saved by works of the law but faith does have to produce works of love according to this new law of Christ. But when you study the implications of this you realise that this teaching has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. And I'll barely scratch the surface in this video of what they all are but let's start with the inconsistency so I showed you two clips. One person is a Roman Catholic the other is a Sinless Perfectionist so we've got works tarred from completely different denominations who were copying and pasting this same boring argument. So the first hole in this Swiss cheese if you like is that everybody who proclaims salvation by works in some form or another has their own often borderline unique list of pet works that they think you should be doing. So for example Greg at Bible Flockbox is a seventh day Adventist he believes that Sabbath keeping on Saturday is an essential component of salvation. Now I understand there is some irony in making rest day a work for your salvation but there you go. When it comes to your lifestyle he is looking for a vaguely defined observable change in your behaviour. Mike Rikowski believes that we need to learn to test the spirits and overcome our sicknesses and sins until we learn to become sanctified in truth disciples of Christ. Yet he says that Sabbath keeping does not apply in the New Testament. Now interestingly you don't have to do any actual work in his framework like preaching the gospel to every creature. You should only preach the gospel if you are a sanctified and truth disciple of Christ like Mike Rikowski although apparently he is the only one who has reached this status on the whole planet of 8 billion people but God hasn't commanded him to preach the gospel yet so we're all off the hook for that particular commandment. Mike Schmitz at Ascension Presents is a Roman Catholic so he reckons we should be doing the Catholic sacraments like confessing sins in his Confedional Booth but you don't need to obey the commandment to preach the gospel to every creature or call no man upon earth father. Catholics don't obey these anyway so you're off the hook for these. Mikaela Cooper tells you that the key to life is a surrender. This means getting on your knees and seeking the Lord every single day in prayer until you've reached full surrender. I can only assume this is a trauma induced gospel revelation she received while being held hostage at gunpoint. Mormons ironically do try to fulfil the Great Commission being made to go door to door to evangelise their religion. This is a work you have to do for salvation under their model to fulfil the commandment to preach the gospel to every creature. You don't have to obey the commandment not to lie though apparently in white man's Islam you can lie if it helps promote the religion apparently. Of course JWs and Mormons are not the only Christians who say that a saving faith must be preaching the gospel but for other Christians the correct method apparently is screaming at people in the streets and provoking them to anger. Not going door to door and having a sensible one to one conversation that wouldn't incite the minimum level of persecution needed to achieve or maintain salvation. There's far more examples I could give but I'm sure you get the point. Different individuals or groups of Christians will have different lists of their pet works and pet commandments that they like to obsess about. This is because if you try throughout the Bible to read works into salvation passages or you try to read salvation into works passages well then you're not going to get consistent instructions because basically Jesus just told this random group of Jews in John 6 for some bizarre reason to do communion for everlasting life which doesn't even exist as an ordinance yet the disciples don't even know what this is. But nobody else apparently and then in John chapter 3 he told one random individual in very poetic in direct language apparently to be baptised for everlasting life but he didn't tell anybody else in John's gospel for some weird reason. When Jesus spoke specifically to Peter it was deny himself take up the cross and follow me apparently but you know what false prophets are always wrong about what that means of course as I've demonstrated in other videos. Herein lies the problem. There is no unanimous agreement or biblical definition of what the appropriate saving works of love or Christ produced by a saving faith are. The Jews had the same problem in Jesus' time. In Mark 7 Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for enforcing commandments that weren't even in the Bible yet not following commandments that were in the Bible. They often explained away commandments like the law's requirements about divorce for instance. And so this leads me on to the second hole in the Swiss cheese and you may have actually already noticed this in the slides but what they do is they arbitrarily changed the definition of works either within the same verse or passage so they pick and choose when they decide that works are of the mosaic law and when they decide that works are of a saving faith as it suits them to do so. Or as an extension of this what they might do is cherry pick specific verses where works are described as being of the law and ignore the verses where it doesn't specifically say of the law. So let's tackle the cherry picking. Well actually not too long ago Honorato Diamante released a video very similar to the subject I'm covering in this video actually so I would encourage you to go on his channel and check it out I'll put a link in the description. And in his video he shows a Catholic channel and it's called How to be a Christian and he uses several verses to justify this argument that it's only works of the law that we're not justified by because but because of James too we are still justified by works just not of the law. And the summary of his argument was that all the works of the law are works but not all works are works of the law if that makes sense. But what he did was he specifically cherry picked the verses that do say of the law. He declined to include verses that say works not being justified or saved without directly mentioning the law like our classic favorite Ephesians 2 8 and 9. There is no mention of the law in this passage it just says works. Paul even takes it a step further and says not of yourselves if we were saved by any kind of works this statement would not be true. In fact the word law is only ever mentioned once in the entire book of Ephesians just a few verses later actually and it's in reference to Christ not your works and that's in verse 15. There is no indication that Ephesians 2 8 and 9 refers to of the law works only. So then when using this same passage that he conveniently left out watch the other Roman Catholic who I showed you earlier watch him change the definition of what works are in this passage. But Christ commands us in Ephesians 2 10 he ordained us to do good works. I mean meaning we have to do good works. Now false prophets rely on your stupidity. They think you're stupid. They think you're intellectually retarded. So they're counting on you not knowing what they're doing here. If Ephesians 2 is saying in verses 8 and 9 that we are not saved by works of the Mosaic Old Covenant Law but we must do works of the new covenant for salvation in verse 10 then the definition of works has suddenly changed. Brian Mercy has changed the definition of works between verses 9 and 10 in the hope that you won't catch him out for doing this. So let's look at verses 8 to 10 on the screen here. Okay, so we're not saved by works but we are created on two good works. Has Paul inserted a clause between verses 9 and 10 to say that the definition of works has suddenly changed from one sentence to the next? Has Paul added any categories after the word works in either verse as in works of the law or works of love? Now Brian Mercy knows that most Catholics are intellectually and spiritually challenged. So he knows that they're just going to clap and say, wow brother you explain things so great, you know how can anybody stand against the Roman Catholic Church? Of course the only Catholics who actually bother to study the Bible and stay Catholic are the ones who complete a doctorate in how to parrot Catholic talking points and quote early church fathers ad nauseam. Now again people try these little tricks and say, well it says good works so we're not saved by works but we are saved by doing good works. Well the thing is Jesus said there's none good but God. Okay, Paul said there's none that does good. Okay, so good works or works it's still the same category. Either we're saved by works or we're not. So what are these New Testament works of love as it were? The Ephesians 2.10 is telling us that we should walk in. Well it doesn't strictly say in chapter 2 itself so let's just fast forward to later in the book of Ephesians. So it says in chapter 5 verses 1 to 3, be you therefore followers of Christ as dear children and walk in love as Christ has also loved us and has given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling Saviour. But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness let it not be once named among you as becomes saints. Now then, is abstaining from fornication a radical New Testament concept according to the law of love? It is based on Old Testament commandments. Is abstaining from covetousness a radical New Testament concept according to the law of love? It is also from the Old Testament. Even the Ten Commandments it comes from the Mosaic Law. Ephesians is not the only example of the New Testament commanding free and Christ believers to observe commandments from the Old Testament Mosaic Law even while saying we cannot be justified onto righteousness by said law. Paul repeatedly told us to observe commandments from the Mosaic Law in the same books where he also said there is no justification by works. James said if you fulfill the royal law and he's citing an Old Testament law when he says this, you do well in the same chapter as where he said that by offending one law you do so to the whole law. And all of this leads us to the next big hole in this nonsense. Jesus himself preached the law. So if we have to observe all of Christ's commandments and moral instructions under this New Testament Law of Love, then by definition we have to obey at least some of the Old Testament Mosaic Law. So I showed you a clip from Adam from Abide in the Word saying that we're not saved by the Old Testament Law. Now let's look at this double talking hypocritical politician say that we do have to keep the law because he uses Jesus' dialogue with the lawyer tempting him as an argument for the things that we have to do for eternal life when Jesus is quoting the Old Testament Law. There was a lawyer that came up to Jesus and he asked him, teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And this is a great question. He said to him, what is written in the law? How do you read it? And he answered, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and your neighbor is yourself. And he said to him, this is absolutely insulting. You cannot earn your salvation. Who do you think you are? No, he actually said you have answered correctly. This is the right answer. So you see how the people that preach this they just make up their own rules, change them when it suits them. They tell you to turn from your sins to be saved when they're a bunch of scripture twisting sinful wicked reprobates. An honest assessment of biblical language leads you to believe that works and law pretty much amount to the same thing. If salvation requires works of any kind then inevitably it requires keeping of the law. When Jesus told his disciples to love one another this is not some crazy New Testament concept that didn't exist before. The Old Testament commanded believers to love your neighbor as yourself and there were various laws that the Israelites actually had to do acts of loving towards each other in action. It wasn't just passively or in thought. They had to do something like for example being witnesses to crimes. Don't turn a blind eye to justice. Helping the poor and when your brother is in need and so on and so on. These are not crazy New Testament ideas. They were always there from the Mosaic law in the first place. In fact with maybe one or two exceptions or a handful at most almost all commandments in the New Testament specifically on moral issues at least come from the Old Testament Mosaic law either directly or building on the same ideas. Not only did Jesus himself preach the law he made the law even more difficult to follow than it was already perceived to be before. The Sermon on the Mount epitomises this. In Matthew 5 Jesus said that you have heard that it was said of them of old time you shall not kill but who so ever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you that who so ever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And who so ever shall say to his brother Raker shall be in danger of the council but who so ever shall say you fool shall be in danger of hellfire. And just a few verses later he goes on to say you have heard it said of them of all time you shall not commit adultery but I say unto you that who so ever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. To follow Jesus New Testament commandments you inevitably must follow Old Testament Mosaic law for which the Sermon on the Mount holds you to a higher standard than Old Testament Saints. Furthermore this same chapter tells you to be perfect so if you're going to follow his commandments according to this structure you must do so perfectly. As we already saw from every false prophet's favourite chapter in the Bible James said if you offend the Lorat to one point you are guilty of all so why should that be any different for this so-called new law of love when Christ is telling you to be perfect. Now at this point this is where the servants of Satan start to get desperate and they say things like Actually the works of the law that we don't follow are just ceremonial things like ordinances like circumcision and washings we still have to follow all the moral laws. Well this just exposes another whole in their Swiss cheese. So this whole is basically the false separation between moral laws and commandments and non-moral laws and commandments arguing that we are still obliged to do works of the former just not the latter. Now the book of Hebrews does explain that certain things are done away with. Because some things were a sign of their testament or the covenant. Furthermore Christians are commanded to do certain works that do set us apart from the unbelieving world and that's a whole video in itself we don't have time to go into it now. If anybody ever tries to use this argument ask them to confirm whether or not they believe that baptism and the Lord's Supper and the preaching of the gospel are required works for salvation. Because once again these false prophets talk out of both sides of their mouth and I've heard them do this. They say that we still have to follow these moral laws but then they impose non-moral issues as salvific requirements just saying that the Old Testament ones are done away with but the New Testament ones still apply. Well what has baptism got to do with fleshly sins? Does being baptised prove that anybody lives their life any differently? Likewise what has taking the Lord's Supper got to do with fleshly sins? Nothing. Preaching the gospel is a bit unique here isn't it? It's a somewhat unique commandment to the New Testament but preaching the gospel is not in of itself prove that you will live your life any differently. And these screaming bozos that scream repent of your sins, they're filthy wicked sinners themselves. But again another video for another day. But my point is that it's not just moral works and turning from fleshly sins is it? It obviously needs closer inspection than that when you start investigating everything that we have to do according to these people. One of the tricks that they will employ here is to point out that when Paul talked about not being justified by the law he was pointing to the circumcision issue particularly. Therefore they will say he was getting at not being circumcised for salvation justification, not other works which we still have to do for our salvation including those pertaining to moral issues and sins of the flesh and so on. Well in the book of Galatians you could sort of make this case insofar as Paul was tackling some of the Galatian members that were trying to bring circumcision into the churches and so yes in Galatians it was in response to that issue. In Ephesians very much like of the law it only mentions circumcision once but Paul doesn't apply it to the definition of works he's just saying that the Gentiles were of the uncircumcision but now have the promises and hope. I think Romans is the best book to completely dispel this fraudulent argument. So Romans 225 is the first mention of circumcision in the book of Romans. It starts with the word for which means it is a continuation to support an argument he was making prior to this so let's rewind. So he opens the chapter saying that you judge but are inexcusable because you do the same things and this is a continuation of Romans 1 where he just finished talking about the reprobate mind and the evil things that reprobates do and he was pointing to moral fleshly sin issues. As a side note the same false prophets that use this circumcision trick use Romans 2 6-8 to argue that we still have to do works to be safe so remember they themselves are using this passage to argue for work salvation. Carry on reading and Paul says that we who have sinned in the law will be judged by it because to be justified by the law you must do it obviously all of it. He then goes on to target the Jew specifically who rests in the law. A few verses later Paul challenges the hypothetical Jewish reader for judging and teaching others asking hypothetically if they do these things these are moral issues. And then after establishing these points he uses his comment on circumcision to justify what he just said regarding the moral law. After chapter 2 Paul will go on to explain in chapter 3 that everybody is guilty according to the law or have sinned according to the law. If he was only talking about circumcision specifically chapter 3 would be utterly ridiculous because almost every Jewish male in existence at least at Paul's time was by definition not sinning against this law and has not fallen short of the glory of God. Paul could have described the reprobate mind chapter 1 or the judgmental Jews in chapter 2 or the sinful men in chapter 3 as those who fail to meet the sacrificial requirements and fail to do the other cardinal ordinances like the washings etc. But Paul dealt specifically with moral laws, sins of the flesh adultery, stealing, wickedness etc. Romans 1 explained that it is these things that bring about the wrath of God. Therefore it is because of these wicked works that we cannot be justified by the law, not because of the circumcision issue. Paul did not use circumcision here to make a distinction between justifying works and non-justifying works. Instead he used circumcision to illustrate the futility of works justification for righteousness, specifically because we failed the moral aspects of the law, not the covenantal aspects. So when Paul says we're not justified by works of the law he's not stating that the reason we're not justified is because circumcision is pointless for righteousness. Rather he's saying that circumcision is pointless for righteousness because we are not justified by the works of the law and the reason we are not justified by the works of the law is because we failed the moral aspects of it abstaining from fornication, abstaining from stealing, not hating your brother and so on and so on. These are the reasons why we cannot be justified by our works. Watching the same way that Paul said that we cannot be justified by the law, Peter also said that the mosaic law was unbearable. Acts 15 documents a dispute among Christians over circumcision debating whether Gentiles ought to be circumcised. There was a certain sect of believing Pharisees verse 5 arguing that they needed to keep the whole law of Moses. Peter answers them affirming the Gospel is by believing in verse 7 and that both Jews and Gentiles were saved through grace verse 11 and he also says in verse 10 now therefore why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. So let's try to put this into perspective. Circumcision is a one time act. You do it once and it's over with and only the men have to do it the women don't even have to do it. Now I do recall the story in Genesis where circumcision was made some grown men saw for a few days which I'm sure was very difficult for them but obviously not impossible and anybody who is circumcised as a baby has already met this requirement of the law. If we are supposed to buy this argument we are not justified onto righteousness by the works of the law such as circumcision, the unbearable law but we are justified onto righteousness by the law of Christ works which apparently includes all of the moral things and turning away from the sins of the flesh. So these people are trying to tell me that the one time act of circumcision which you don't even have to do if you're a woman that's too difficult, that's an unbearable law that nobody can seem to meet even though they've been circumcised but an 18 year old testosterone filled red blooded unmarried male who lives in a society where he's surrounded by women dressing in skimpy outfits and yoga pants. He should be able by the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome the sin of looking upon a woman to lust after that's not too unbearable for him but heaven forbid he get circumcised and I'd be asking the impossible. Is that what these fools are trying to tell us seriously? And I can already imagine their talking points here. Well the Old Testament law was impossible because you couldn't possibly present all the sacrifices Well actually if you turned from all of your sins and obeyed all of the moral requirements of Christ it wouldn't be that difficult because you wouldn't need to keep giving these sacrifices they would be easy laws to keep. Well what about the cleanliness rituals you couldn't possibly keep all of those could you? Well actually only unhygienic people have a problem with cleanliness and there are plenty of Christians who would find it easy to stay away from the congregation. Well John says his commandments are not grievous or burdensome. Well actually he wasn't talking about the mosaic law or keeping moral statutes of salvation you unlearned idiot. He only mentioned two commandments believing and loving one another only believing was directly coupled with eternal life. Well Galatian says faith works by love you have to do the works of love well actually you're a moron who can't read because it says faith works by love it doesn't say faith works love who's love? God's love as it is written for God so love the world it's God's love that works faith therefore faith works by his love well Jesus gives you the power to overcome your sins well actually if God could give us the power in the new testament why didn't he just give the old testament Jews the power to do circumcision they didn't even need this power they succeeded at fulfilling circumcision yet Peter says this law was unbearable and look this thing that God gives you the power to overcome your sins quote unquote first of all the bible does not state that that's the Holy Spirit's role for a start the people who teach this haven't overcome their own sins and it's amazing to me how some of the most wicked evil lazy derelict hypocrites teach work salvation it's incredible and look up the word overcoming the King James concordance look it up in the present tense overcome the ongoing tense overcomeeth or the past tense overcame you will never find this terminology overcome your sins in the bible now sinless perfectionist of all kinds of varieties love to bang on about this concept every single day the bible never uses this terminology it's as simple as that and they use other sensational terms like the power of grace to overcome your sins overcoming the power of sin but again the bible does not use these terms they're just using the swelling words of man's wisdom and they've got this one verse in Titus that they use but again if they would actually learn to read that's not what it actually says it was the moral law where we failed Peter says that nobody was able to bear this yw because if you have to keep circumcision you have to keep the whole law including the moral law but it was the moral law where we all sinned and fell short of the glory of God on top of this Jesus made the moral law even more difficult than it already was in the Old Testament as we've just seen the new testament describes grace justification unto righteousness by faith as liberty if we are not obliged to the mosaic law but we have to keep moral commandments under the law of love to God's perfect standard by the way for righteousness then we are not at liberty rather we are under a heavier weightier more unbearable law than we already would have been under the old mosaic law so look this law of Christ versus law of Moses argument it's a complete fraud invented by the servants of Satan to preach work salvation but instead of just being polite and considerate and pissing off to Judaism with the Talmud or pissing off to Islam with the Quran or pissing off to Mormonism with the Book of Mormon they have to creep into Christianity an hour by but like little cockroaches and ruin it for everybody else this is no nonsense Christianity reminding you that it's by grace through faith that you saved and not of yourselves