Focus of Arguments
Faith and works debates can be framed in a number of ways. Most today try to frame the argument around someone trying to make themselves righteous.
Since this is a narrow view of the question, it blinds you to the other directions the debate can go. Grace only proponents tend to blind us to other possibilities through a narrow focus.
It also begins the argument by judging others, can't a person be sincere about wanting to know how works fit into the picture?
It is possible works can be used for other reasons than self justification.God can use our works in justification while our entire focus is on him, not us.
I was at church recently and works were brought up, a person sitting near by said "God made us for good works, so we can't give ourselves credit, God made us with the ability to have good works. God should get the credit for making us with the ability.
I agreed, but I couldn't help notice all the conversation swung to refuting self-righteousness.
Again, the person's focus was in accusing others of self - righteousness and they submitted an argument to refute it.
The truth is, God presented as many arguments to say we are saved by works thru following his word as he submitted evidence against self-righteousness.
Obedience by nature means you have given up self to follow instructions, so obedience is usually apart from self-righteousness, it is normally self-denial. Why bring it up except to change focus to hide elements within an argument?
We shouldn't narrow the focus one way or the other. We should admit we are justified by works while also admitting God had to impute our faith.
Both are true and do not exclude the other, unless man in his doctrines excludes the others.
So, let's assume the person's motive isn't self-righteousness, isn't there a place for works in God justifying us, especially when connected to obedience, that is closer to worship than self-righteousness?
James 2:21-24
Abraham was justified by works without a hint of self-righteousness.
Jesus said the rich guy had to keep the commands, without saying he was good.
Faith only groups have over 17,000 people with psychology degrees, men like Dobson have long pushed for such certification. As behavioral psychologists they know the importance of framing the argument around your own self-righteousness, thus getting you to pass judgment on your own motives, even if not true.
They simply frame the argument to manipulate us.
Their ministers are trained in the elements of psychological manipulation.
What is the difference between Christ's teaching on self-righteousness and modern faith only groups?
1. Christ's teaching addressed disobedient people, because their self-righteousness led them to be less obedient. They were deviating from God's commands.
2. Faith only uses self-righteousness to cause less commandment keeping. Jesus never used it that way.
3. The self-righteousness of the Pharisees led them to reject God's commandments for their own traditions.
Matthew 15:1-10
In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Anyone falsely accusing you of self-righteousness for keeping God's traditions isn't from God.
It isn't that being a counselor is wrong, it is a good endeavor if used for good, but often degrees are used for influence, position, legal standing,or power.
In some Rebublican states school curriculum may be based upon theistic evolution because "christian psycologists", who have used their degrees to gain access to writing curriculum, have accepted the doctrine and implemented it.
Job
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Evidence large creatures were made in the same age as man. It doesn't fit into theistic evolution.
Some dismiss this as an elephant but he focuses on the tail, which large creatures today have small tails, Elephant, Giraffe, Rhino, Hippo, etc
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
In other words a christian psychology degree shouldn't guarantee you the legal standing to influence youth.