There's a huge problem in the church where we base our understanding of God on our logic and the logic of people with "Th.d" after their name rather than what is said in the Bible.
Look at Acts 2:28, Peter states that the Holy Spirit will come after repentance (which doesn't mean "turn from sin" it actually means change of mind), belief and baptism. Then look at Acts 10 and elsewhere; if you look at the conversions in the Book of Acts, you see that there is no particular order in when the Holy Spirit comes. Does that mean belief can, but not always, come before regeneration? It certainly seems so.

What's telling is when Reformed preachers, especially of the hyper-Calvinist flavor, berate and condemn people in their own church for something they teach is not within the ability of a sinner to change. Yet those sinner are still there in their church. It's a huge contradiction in between what is said and what is done. It really says they really don't believe in predestination, or even grace through faith.
You've been caught up in the hyper-Calvinist contradiction. You want to believe but you are not sure you can. This is why Calvinism is vain philosophy, because Biblically you believe or you don't. What these popular Reformed guys end up telling people is to put your assurance of salvation on your works, which they claim is required for evidence of a regenerated heart, using James 2 as scripture for for this, correct?



Problem is, James wrote his letter to believers, who he calls his brethren 17 times! If works naturally follow faith then why bother? Are we going to judge a brother unsaved due to the lack of works (in contradiction to Romans 4:5 mind you), then preach a gospel of grace without works until he "turns from sin" (i.e. follows the Law) and we see works in his life. If not we'll preach grace until we see works! See the issue? Works are not evidence of faith...faith is evidence of faith. James was trying to motivate people to be good witnesses; his epistle has NOTHING to do with salvation, evidence or otherwise, since it was to the already saved.



So therefore, when we doubt our salvation, we shouldn't look lto our works, we should look to the cross and the finished work of Christ, sufficient to atone for all sin.

¹⁸ But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[/sup] works, and I will show you my faith by my[sup][/sup][/sup] works. [sup]19 [/sup]You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! [sup]20 [/sup]But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[sup][/sup][/sup] [sup]21 [/sup]Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? [sup]22 [/sup]Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? [sup]23 [/sup]And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[sup][/sup][/sup] And he was called the friend of God. [sup]24 [/sup]You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."





The thing about James is that he was talking to the already saved. He uses the word for "brethren" 17 times, quite a bit for such a short letter. His epistle actually has nothing to do with salvation, it's about Christian living and witness. He's motivating the already saved to get off their butts and go be a witness to the world, and not be idle. If works naturally followed "saving faith" (which is another error, since there is only one kind of faith in the Bible) then James is writing nonsense. For 'faith without works' to be dead there has to be a such thing as 'faith without works', or James is just talking nonsense. It'd be like me saying, "the heidneid is dead". What's a heidneid? Exactly.





The book of Romans is the Magna Carta of Christianity, and is about salvation, which Paul was revealing the logic of. It's actually a Jewish Midrash-style commentary on the Torah. So when Paul says we are imputed righteousness apart from works, you know it is about salvation.

No, you are actually trying to convince me that your personal interpretation is the correct one. There is a difference.

Romans 2:6 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. ⁶ He will render to each one according to his works: ⁷ to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; ⁸but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.





Read the context. He's addressing the idea that man can save himself by the virtue of his own good deed. He's pointing out the weaknesses of the Law in Chapter 2. Paul hasn't begun to address grace, which he does in Chapter 3"

4 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?[a]

2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[b]

4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. David Celebrates the Same Truth

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

6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”[c] Abraham Justified Before Circumcision

9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. The Promise Granted Through Faith

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,

15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

17 (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations”[d]) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;

18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, "So shall your descendants be.”[e]

19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb.

20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,

21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.

22 And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[f]

3 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him,

24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,

25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

And He also said, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."



See, the problem is that John told us we sin, (1 John 1:8) and James said if we break one part of the law, we break it all (2:10). Paul even admitted to sin in Romans 7. So this idea that you can do anything to attain salvation apart from grace makes no Biblical sense. It's all extra-biblical by people who ignore the Bible in favor of people's opinions.

Now Look at this in Greek (click on the verse and click the "Interlinear" tab at the top, then click on the blue "Parse" boxes to see the tense and gender of each word). Peter's literal Greek name is "Petros", but when Christ says "upon this rock", it is the feminine "petra" for rock. Greek grammar requires the subject of a verb to be the same gender as the subject, so Christ was actually excluding Peter from this pronouncement.

By context "upon this rock" was aimed at Peter's statement in verse 16: "you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", i.e. what they said He was.

As far as "binding and loosing", know that we are commanded to forgive, and in the very same context:





In Matthew 18:18 we see Christ repeat to all the disciples about binding and loosing, then goes into a parable:

Therefore, what Matthew 16 is and is not:

IT IS:


GOD makes the rules and our minister try to lead us to follow.





It IS NOT:


Man makes the rules and requires GOD to follow.





It is impossible that Jesus would give Peter total authority over his church or indeed any man in particular. Lets look at some of the reasons:

• Jesus didn't ask Peter only for his opinion as to who he thought Jesus was. He asked his disciples (Matthew 16:15). Peter was just first in answering.



• In the same chapter in verse 23 Jesus accuses Peter of being a stumbling block to the Lord for he didn't have in mind the things of God.



• In Matthew 18:1 we see his disciples asking Jesus who was to be the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. If Peter had been appointed the greatest, why would there be a doubt?.



• In chapter 19 when Jesus was talking to the young rich man and when Jesus let him go Peter asked, "We have forsaken all and followed you, what shall we have therefore?" Why would Peter ask that question if Jesus had given him not only supreme authority but also the keys of heaven?



• Jesus commanded his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations (the great commission Matthew 28) and yet in Acts 10 we find Peter unwilling to go to Cornelius house (the first gentile converted) because it was unlawful thing for a Jew to mix with gentiles (Acts 10:28). In fact Peter was astonished to see that the gentiles had also received the Holy Spirit (like at Pentecost, verses 45-46).



• In Acts 15:13-19 at the council of Jerusalem, the true leader was James, the Lords brother and not Peter.



• In Acts 9:15 we see the Lord choosing Paul for the ministry to the gentiles. Jesus also wanted Paul to go to Rome (Acts 23:11).



• In Galatians 2:7-9 we see that the Jerusalem leaders were James, Peter and John. Paul had the ministry to the gentiles and Peter the ministry of the circumcision (Jews).



• When Peter was at Antioch he was having fellowship with the gentiles but after the Jews came he stopped having fellowship for fear of the Jews ( verses 11-15).