Saved by Faith, or Faith + Works? [Archive]

Joseph Alward

February 22nd 2003, 05:58 PM

JOE ALWARD
I believe the Bible contradicts itself on the matter of salvation. Some parts of the Bible teach that faith with works may gain you salvation, but another part of the Bible teaches that the question of whether one will be saved was settled when God created the world.

According to the passages below, neither man's desire, nor his effort, can alter his fate. Those who will be saved, and those who won't be saved, were determined in advance by God, before the creation of the world.

The Bible explains below that just as the potter has the right to form a flawed pot and cast it unto the trash heap if that is his will, then so did God have the right purposely to mold humans who would be "common," and not saved, and "noble" ones, who would be saved. The list of those would would be common was made when the world was created, and no amount of faith or good works can change it.

God obviously had the power to predestine that all be saved, but he unmercifully and deliberately made flawed humans whom he would not save. Why did he do this?

As God explained to the Pharaoh, he does this for the purpose of demonstrating his power. Thus, some men would be saved, and some would be lost, but nothing man can do will change the outcome, for no one can prevent God's will from being done.

Here are the relevant passages:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. Ephesians 1:4-6

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:15-21)

jpholding

February 23rd 2003, 12:25 AM

Well Mr A,

I believe the Bible contradicts itself on the matter of salvation. Some parts of the Bible teach that faith with works may gain you salvation, but another part of the Bible teaches that the question of whether one will be saved was settled when God created the world.

I sure wouldn't mind your take, briefly, on my linked article above. :smile: May see if it's a possible debate topic. And perhaps also on:

http://www.tektonics.org/ulip.html

Gobs has been written on this over the years, so I don't assume you think it's all covered in one letter, no. *grin*

Good night.

Jaltus

February 23rd 2003, 12:57 AM

Personally, I think James is quoting ("Someone may well say...")the argument of the Jews who rejected Christ as the propitiation for man's sins, and this is their rebuttal to the Jews who had accepted Christ. "Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he offered up Issac on the altar?" The answer to that question is... no he wasn't! James concludes the unbeliving Jews statement with this... "Let not many become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment" Frankly, that is a load of hogwash.

James 2:14-17

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

James is clearly talking about what kind of faith one has. I am sure you have all heard the story of the guy who walks a tight-rope across Niagra Falls. He then takes a wheelbarrow across. He asks if the people think he could take a person across. They all say yes, they have faith in him. When he asks for volunteers, nobody is willing.

THAT is the kind of faith discrepensy James is talking about. Do you have verbal faith or do you have action faith?

A faith that is verbal assent with no actual change in life is not really faith. If you think verbal assent is all that is needed, then you have not read Paul either.

Oh, Sozo, there is no way James is quoting here other than in 15. The Greek does not allow it. (13 makes a strong break with 12, beginning with a γαρ, also 14 is a conditional sentence, making a strong break, add to the fact that the quotes are parallel statements in 11, and it is quite clear that 14ff are not quotes, except where I noted)

Joseph Alward

February 23rd 2003, 03:22 AM

JP HOLDING
I sure wouldn't mind your take, briefly, on my linked article above. May see if it's a possible debate topic.

JOE ALWARD
The "good works which come with faith" argument you advance seems not to address the problem of the writers' apparent lack of competence. If the writers who seem to teach that it is enough to believe with all your heart that Jesus is your savior really believed that God would reject their "faith" as inadequate if it didn't lead to good works, then they surely would have gone to the trouble of making sure that their readers knew this. All that would have been necessary is to add a few words to the verses in question. A few words is not too much to expect from those who are conveying the most important message since the dawn of time.

A similar remark could be made about those writers who seem to speak only of good works.

Since the writers didn't add these words, one should wonder whether they lacked insight into human nature: Wouldn't they have known that their words might be misunderstood? Haven't they indeed been misunderstood or misinterpreted for 2,000 years?

Thus, either the writers were not competent to pass along God's message, or else the various writers each had a differerent understanding of how salvation would be achieved. Either way, it would seem, the Bible cannot be relied on in matters relating to salvation from faith, or works, or faith with works.

That's the first big problem.

An even bigger problem, in my opinion, is the one I described earlier, the one caused by Romans 9. That passage seems clearly to imply that faith and works are meaningless, for God determined before the world was created which ones among us would be "common," and go unsaved, and which would be the "noble" ones who would be saved.

Thus, if Romans 9 can be trusted, it apparently matters not a bit how wonderful might be the good work done as the result of great faith: Your fate was sealed long before you were born. This teaching directly contradicts the many other statements relating to salvation, and so it would seem that the Christian cannot obtain from the Bible the answer to the question: What do I have to do to be saved?

Sozo

February 23rd 2003, 11:39 AM

02-22-2003 @ 10:57 PM
Jaltus:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed" but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

James is clearly talking about what kind of faith one has.

Yes he is! He is comparing a false faith "what good is it?"

Jesus made a similar statement about a man with the faith of a mustard seed and moving mountains. The fact is, that man has no faith apart from faith in Christ, and any attempt to add "deeds" to faith, is no faith at all.

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? The answer is... it is the only faith that can save him!

geebob

February 23rd 2003, 04:17 PM

If the writers who seem to teach that it is enough to believe with all your heart that Jesus is your savior really believed that God would reject their "faith" as inadequate if it didn't lead to good works, then they surely would have gone to the trouble of making sure that their readers knew this.

I could be making a leap here, I'm not exactly sure if the ancient writers made this connection but I don't see how they couldn't.

If you believe something that is true (lets skip justification for simplicities sake), then you know it.

That is the western definition of knowledge. It is not the Hebrew one though. Knowledge implies relationship in Hebrew thought. So I suggest (and I don't see why I can't make this connection) that to believe in Jesus implies knowledge of him so when the writers said that we are to believe in Jesus, they are implying as much as knowing him implies which is relationship. If you mere belief in Jesus but do not act in a loving way towards God (which is the case with demons) then you don't have the belief that the authors had in mind. Thus Jesus tells such people "away from me for I never knew you, for when I was hungry, you did not cloth me, when I was in prison, you did not visit me..."

An even bigger problem, in my opinion, is the one I described earlier, the one caused by Romans 9. That passage seems clearly to imply that faith and works are meaningless, for God determined before the world was created which ones among us would be "common," and go unsaved, and which would be the "noble" ones who would be saved.

many christians reject this reading of Romans and now the historical evidence is strongly on there side. The passage is not about how individuals attain an eternal destiny. The passage from Romans 9-11 is about the question about God's soverign rigtht to choose a standard and a people for his purposes and if he has been faithful to the Jews. Do not forget how the passage starts out "But it is not as though the word of God has failed."

You see, an issue that is frequently before Paul is how one becomes a member of the people of God and what marks the people of God. The Judaizers said that it was the works of the law, such as the circumcision and dietary laws. By their reconing, you can not become a christian until you become a Jew. So these people are under the impression that if God lets the gentiles into their kingdom, God is not being faithful to his people. Paul shows that God is in fact being consistent with the way that he works, for he has the right to decide on what basis to choose those who would follow him. And the first choice for a people was because one man, Abraham, was faithful to God. Thus God wants to make faith the primary criteria for entry and signfication of his choosen people.

Paul shows God's soverign ability in this in the issue of Jacob and Esau. You see, Calvinists and folks such as yourselves see this as choice for who gets a good eternal destiny and who doesn't. That is not what Paul has in mind. God choose Jacob not for a destiny but through which to draw the lineage of the choosen people. And it shows that God has a right to to select faith for the primary entry criteria because God is not ruled by our social norms.

You see, when it says that God choose Jacob over Esau, The crazy thing is not that he did so before either had done anything good or bad, the crazy thing is that he choose the younger brother over the older one, because ancient families ALWAYS choose which sons to favor before knowing anything good or bad about them. The older brother is properly to be the favored one. Not the younger. BUT God reverses this!

So if God has the right to go against our social norms, then he certianly has the right to let the Gentiles in to his choosen family without requiring them to be circumsized and without requiring them to follow the law, (the mosaic law that is, but now they have the law of Christ which is to know him).

Now we read, that God loved Jacob and Hated Esau. Note that this does not mean the vitriolic spite that we associate with hatred but rather preference for one over the other. After all, Jesus does not ask us to hate our parents in the sense of the modern term but rather asks us to love them less than himself.

A prima facia reading of Romans 9 does give one the sense of determinism, but once one examines the way the metaphores are used in that culture and examines pauls motives, that becomes far less clear and seems unnecessary.

jpholding

February 24th 2003, 12:59 PM

Yo Mr A,

The "good works which come with faith" argument you advance seems not to address the problem of the writers' apparent lack of competence.

Well, I take it then that you would agree that the initial problem itself is solved. :smile:

Mr A, we've actually been discussing this whole issue in the Contrived Gospels thread, but I'll sum it here. FTill and I have been through this several times. Logically there is simply no way any message can be perfectly rendered so that every person in every culture can understand it. The issue is not one of competence but logical impossibility.

Consider that in a certain South American native tongue, there are 26 different words that refer to carrying something -- this is an actual example I picked up from Wycliffe Bible translators. The words vary according to HOW you carry an item -- over a shoulder, ON a shoulder, by a corner, by holding it vertically -- now just to use that pedantic example, how in the world can you say that "writer competence" would be at issue if we have to relate an issue to this other culture? Would God need to inspire an equitable 26 words of equal meaning in Hebrew and/or Greek?

With due respect, I think your argument is far too demanding, to the point of being illogical. Beyond that it took me 20 minutes of reading to uncover the data I did -- isn't that more economical than trying to get a message together that will be understood by all, all at once? And isn't it rather less self-centered?

Your request for a "few words" isn't realistic at all. If anything it seems ethnocentric. How about more words needed to make it all understandable to every culture and person in time and over the globe?

An even bigger problem, in my opinion, is the one I described earlier, the one caused by Romans 9. That passage seems clearly to imply that faith and works are meaningless, for God determined before the world was created which ones among us would be "common," and go unsaved, and which would be the "noble" ones who would be saved.

I answer this in the second linked article I gave you. If you have time. Our destiny is only foreknown and not foredetermined in a fatalistic sense. If you want to talk about this more, you might want to check other threads as we have quite a few people with the interest; it would go off topic here.

Joseph Alward

February 24th 2003, 07:02 PM

JOE ALWARD
The "good works which come with faith" argument you advance seems not to address the problem of the writers' apparent lack of competence.

JP HOLDING
Well, I take it then that you would agree that the initial problem itself is solved.

JOE ALWARD
If you're referring to the harmonization of the faith versus works issues, I would have to say that I actually don't consider that problem solved. In too many places one has to assume that when the author says "faith alone," he really means "faith and the works that come naturally with faith," and wherever it says "good works alone," the writer really means "the good works that only comes with faith." The gospels were written perhaps by different people from different places, and in different times. It is much easier to believe that different authors had different ideas about how one could be saved, rather than that they all believed the same thing, but just expressed incompletely what they believed.

For example, Jesus told the ruler that if he kept the commandments and gave everything he had to the poor, he would have treasure in heaven. (Luke 18:18-22) There's no reference to faith. If Jesus really was all-knowing, and really did want readers to know that they had to have loving faith in Jesus and God to be saved, he would have known that for centuries some readers would think that all they have to do to be saved is obey the commandments and give their possessions away. Knowing this, he would have been wise enough to mention the loving faith, too. The fact that he didn't mention it is strong evidence that the writer of Luke 18 didn't think that faith was always necessary. Good works would be sufficient.

jpholding

February 24th 2003, 10:15 PM

Yo Mr A,

If you're referring to the harmonization of the faith versus works issues, I would have to say that I actually don't consider that problem solved. In too many places one has to assume that when the author says "faith alone," he really means "faith and the works that come naturally with faith," and wherever it says "good works alone," the writer really means "the good works that only comes with faith.

But Mr A, ya missed the point of my article. Under Semitic Totality, there is no distinction between faith and works. They go together like gravity and falling. "Faith" actually means loyalty and loyalty means you react a specific and certain way. I'll refer you also to http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html -- yes, this is stuff that opens a lot of eyes. Most of my readers have never heard of the client-patron relationship. I guess you may have, but check and see what I mean. In the Jewish mind and by definition of pistis, when an author says "faith" alone the product of that faith is inclusive.

It is much easier to believe that different authors had different ideas about how one could be saved, rather than that they all believed the same thing, but just expressed incompletely what they believed.

As I say, that's only if you read in your own low context. Read in their high context, and it's not incomplete -- but your/our knowledge is.

Gosh darn, I keep wanting to call you Doc. Are you a Dr. of anything?

he would have known that for centuries some readers would think that all they have to do to be saved is obey the commandments and give their possessions away. Knowing this, he would have been wise enough to mention the loving faith, too.

Mr A, I addressed this: You demand the irrational, coverage of every possible misunderstanding. How about the Zubuga tribe in Africa who wouldn't understand Col. 1:15? How about the Ainuwa in Thailand who think sandals are evil? (I'm being facetious of course, but to make a point.) The Bible you would produce would have to be sent around in a fleet of moving vans! :smile:

The fact that he didn't mention it is strong evidence that the writer of Luke 18 didn't think that faith was always necessary. Good works would be sufficient.

If to the writer of Luke, works could only be produced by faith -- as Semitic Totality and pistis as loyalty would tell us -- then he did say it, to his readers as plain as day. It runs back to that fundamental issue in the last message I posted.

Joseph Alward

February 24th 2003, 11:02 PM

JOE ALWARD
For example, Jesus told the ruler that if he kept the commandments and gave everything he had to the poor, he would have treasure in heaven. (Luke 18:18-22) There's no reference to faith. If Jesus really was all-knowing, and really did want readers to know that they had to have loving faith in Jesus and God to be saved, he would have known that for centuries some readers would think that all they have to do to be saved is obey the commandments and give their possessions away, and so he would have been wise enough to mention the loving faith, too. The fact that he didn't mention it is strong evidence that the writer of Luke 18 didn't think that faith was always necessary. Good works would be sufficient.

JP HOLDING
Gosh darn, I keep wanting to call you Doc. Are you a Dr. of anything?

Mr A, I addressed this: You demand the irrational, coverage of every possible misunderstanding. How about the Zubuga tribe in Africa who wouldn't understand Col. 1:15? How about the Ainuwa in Thailand who think sandals are evil? (I'm being facetious of course, but to make a point.) The Bible you would produce would have to be sent around in a fleet of moving vans!

JOE ALWARD
I have a doctorate in physics--a PhD. Now, about covering misunderstandings: I agree that it is unrealistic to expect that the gospel writers would make every verse understandable to every person, everywhere. However, if it's true that the writer of Luke 18 really understood that the ruler couldn't be saved merely by good works--such as obeying the commandments and giving up his possessions, then the writer would at least have made this clear to his intended audience, the Greeks and Hebrews of the first century.

All that would have been necessary was for the writer to have had Jesus say, "and love God with all your heart," or something of that nature. That is not too much to expect from a writer who is communicating to his readers the most important of all God's messages to man, in my opinion.

You have argued that papyrus in that time was expensive, and one had to keep words to a minimum, but we are talking about the most important message since the dawn of time. If the writer of Luke 18--and all the other writers I spoke of earlier--really believed that good works is not enough, or faith alone is not enough, then one certainly would have expected them to add the few words necessary to make this clear to the first century Greeks and Jews. How much extra expense would this have involved?

This does not mean that every message in the Bible has to be clear. It only means that the most important of all of the Bible's messages should be clear enough that it cannot be misinterpreted by the Greeks and Jews of the first century.

Now, imagine that you read only the Luke 18 passage, and were unaware the other messages about salvation: Wouldn't you think that the Luke writer was teaching that one needed only to obey the commandments and give up one's possessions in order to be saved?

If the answer is Yes, then perhaps you will see why I think there's a problem. The problem is, the writer of Luke--if he really believed that loving God with all your heart is necessary for salvation--would have known that we would misinterpret his passage, so he would have put in those extra few words that would have made his beliefs clear. The fact that he didn't do this is strong evidence that he didn't--in fact--think that one had to love God with all one's heart (have faith in God) to be saved. Good works alone was enough, he thought.

jpholding

February 25th 2003, 10:06 AM

Yo Doc A,

then the writer would at least have made this clear to his intended audience, the Greeks and Hebrews of the first century.

As far as I can see, it was perfectly clear to them at the time.

You have argued that papyrus in that time was expensive, and one had to keep words to a minimum, but we are talking about the most important message since the dawn of time.

How does the importance of the message solve the paper shortage?

If the writer of Luke 18--and all the other writers I spoke of earlier--really believed that good works is not enough, or faith alone is not enough, then one certainly would have expected them to add the few words necessary to make this clear to the first century Greeks and Jews.

I don't see any reason to think it wasn't clear to them, Doc. I do see some evidence in the Petrine Epistles that Peter had to correct some notions related to Semitic Totality, but as a whole I do not see any sort of overarching confusion.

This does not mean that every message in the Bible has to be clear. It only means that the most important of all of the Bible's messages should be clear enough that it cannot be misinterpreted by the Greeks and Jews of the first century.

I think you realize, though, that even the most clear message can be twisted and wrought by a person with an agenda. I assume you mean that it has to be clear to a reasonable person with no agenda in mind. And if that is so, then I maintain from my study that the message was perfectly clear to its intended audience -- though I would add as well that you seem to assume from your position that the Gospels and letters were "it". Much of the learning would take place orally, since 95% of the population was illiterate. Of course even today ANY text has to be "explained" with background understanding -- being able to read and understand the language, if nothing else.

Now, imagine that you read only the Luke 18 passage, and were unaware the other messages about salvation: Wouldn't you think that the Luke writer was teaching that one needed only to obey the commandments and give up one's possessions in order to be saved?

No. I would think (placing myself in a first century mind) that the particular person addressed (the rich young man) showed that his true pistis was still in his own possessions, and based as well on the aggressive compliment he gave Jesus (a serious challenge of honor which meant he expected a compliment in return) that he was trying to find an answer that would justify himself in what he was already doing. :smile: The challenge was to a particular man who had particular characteristics and was trying to get a particular answer that made his day.

There's more to this in the background, which I can bring to the fore if you like, having to do with current Jewish understandings of wealth as a sign of God's blessing. But it'll get down to that the message made sense in context and time, which means it satisified what you are asking for -- and it would never have told any reader of that day that one needed to give up possessions to be saved.

Joseph Alward

February 25th 2003, 02:00 PM

JOE ALWARD
I guess it comes down to a difference of opinion as to whether the disputed verses would have made sense to the Greeks and Jews of the first century. You believe that they would have made sense, because you assume that oral teachings would have made the Bible's verses clear. I completely agree that the vast majority of the teaching would have been done orally, but we have no way of knowing whether this oral teaching complemented and clarified what was in the Bible. It might have done so, but it also may have been that the oral teachings were just as apparently conflicting as those found in the Bible. Perhaps even more so. We cannot say one way or the other. Since all we have to go on, really, is what is found in the Bible, I would be forced to conclude without other evidence that the Bible's teachings on salvation are contradictory. You, however, are free to imagine that oral teaching made everything perfectly clear, and there is no way to say that this was not the case.

Note added: you may wish to go over to Religion 101 later today. I plan to introduce the thread, "Where Did Josiah Die?" Perhaps you will be able to harmonize what I see as an apparent contradiction between two accounts of Josiah's death.

jpholding

February 25th 2003, 03:04 PM

Hey Doc A,

Just some tech advice, you can edit old messages by hitting the button that says Edit under the message of yours you want to change. :smile:

I guess it comes down to a difference of opinion as to whether the disputed verses would have made sense to the Greeks and Jews of the first century.

Well, Doc, not just on oral teachings, but knowing the society as a whole and how it worked. :smile: But I guess we have our impasse.

Note added: you may wish to go over to Religion 101 later today. I plan to introduce the thread, "Where Did Josiah Die?" Perhaps you will be able to harmonize what I see as an apparent contradiction between two accounts of Josiah's death.

I got an article on it somewhere. I think it has something to do with Hellenistic histoiography practices by the time of Chronicles. I'll check my archives. Also planning to peruse your site today or tomorrow and give you five possible candidates for one on one discussion.

T.J. Maxx

February 26th 2003, 01:44 AM

Psychopath said:

== I have never heard a completely satisfying explanation of this passage from fellow faith alone adherents, though this may just be due to my lack of knowledge.

Consider yourself part of the majority. Evangelicals tend to be so anti-works because of a misunderstanding of Pauline passages that were aimed at those insisting on keeping the Law of Moses.

== I have heard the explanation that the justification James speaks of here is before man, as opposed to before God, and that since men can't see our hearts, works are necessary to display our salvation.

There is only one type of justification according to both James and Paul. However there are two types of righteousness.(Phil 3:9. Rom 1:17;3:21-22; 4:13;10:3 )

1) Our own righteousness - according to the Law of Moses
2) God's righteousness - according to the Law of Faith.

Now it is often argued by Evangelicals that the justification of Abraham was in reference to the former righteousness. Since the Law of faith is because of Christ, many assume that this law began with Christ's atonement. But we know from the Bible that justification before God took place with Abel and Abraham. The Law of Moses, which constitutes "our own righteousness", was not applicable to Abraham as chronology demands.

== Do you think good works are necessary for salvation,

Absolutely. The Bible makes this point emphatically enough.

== and if so, how do you explain verses such as Acts 16:31?

To believe is to obey. Believing in Christ is an action. Show me a verse referencing salvation or faith and I'll show you the context in reference to obedience.

== If you are a faith alone adherent, how do you explain this passage from James?

If someone sees faith and works in a black and white lens, then they will never be able to explain this because they see only one or the other.

Sozo said:

== Yes he is! He is comparing a false faith "what good is it?"

More accurately, he is comparing live faith with dead faith. One saves, the other doesn't.

== The fact is, that man has no faith apart from faith in Christ, and any attempt to add "deeds" to faith, is no faith at all.

On the contrary, James is emphasizing the fact that faith without deeds is dead.

Sozo

February 26th 2003, 01:48 AM

The only thing that is dead, are those who teach faith + works.

They have no life in them at all.

T.J. Maxx

February 26th 2003, 02:07 AM

== The only thing that is dead, are those who teach faith + works.

Well, I know at least one person who falls into this category. James is dead alright.

== They have no life in them at all.

Do you think it is wise to make such passing judgements on those who claim to be reading the Bible just as clearly as you do?

Faith+works is so biblical that I wouldn't even know where one would begin to argue against it. As JP stated before, the two were not considered separable. The Bible states emphatically that faith without works is dead. This is clear unambiguous teaching that allows no room for any serious argument for salvation without works.

Those who will be saved are those who obey Christ (Heb 5:9).

Sozo

February 26th 2003, 03:31 AM

02-26-2003 @ 12:07 AM
T.J. Maxx:

Those who will be saved are those who obey Christ (Heb 5:9).

To obey Christ, is to believe in Christ.

If you are going to quote Hebrews, try quoting it's context...

"And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief."

Salvation is...

Grace Alone
by
Faith alone
in
Christ Alone

People who add our works to Christ's sacrifice are teaching that we are co-redeemers, and they blaspheme the love of God.

T.J. Maxx

February 26th 2003, 10:41 AM

== To obey Christ, is to believe in Christ.

Exactly. Now show me how I can obey someone without doing works. You're breaking every rule of logic here. Works cannot be excluded no matter how many times you keep pounding this concept in your head (that the Bible is anti-works). It is totally unbiblical. It is an Evangelical innovation and nothing more. Read me the Bible and not Evangelical Soteriology ok?

== If you are going to quote Hebrews, try quoting it's context...

"And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief."

Are you actually trying to be funny? (Because it is working)

You're not going to sweep works away under the carpet of "belief." Your proof text above does absolutely nothing to nullify the necessity of works.

== People who add our works to Christ's sacrifice are teaching that we are co-redeemers, and they blaspheme the love of God

Hogwash! This is the problem with "once saved always saved" thinking. You've attacked the biblical concept of salvation so long that you've conditioned yourself to attack works no matter what form it comes. So keep repeating these thins in your head. ("no works, no works, grace alone, grace alone, I'm saved, I'm saved, Paul knows all, Paul knows all, James was an idiot..etc") Whatever helps you sleep at night bud. But your not going to sell me on this noworks salvation.

Sozo

February 26th 2003, 10:51 AM

02-26-2003 @ 08:41 AM
T.J. Maxx:
But your not going to sell me on this noworks salvation.

Neither will God. God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble. You are to proud to receive God's grace, because you desire to save yourself. Good luck!

T.J. Maxx

February 26th 2003, 11:09 AM

Keep ignoring your Bible son. Better your minister can get you into heaven with this nonsense.

Bill the Cat

February 26th 2003, 12:31 PM

I think you miss the point TJ. Works are not REQUIRED for salvation, but are a NATURAL PRODUCT of salvation. To quote JP, it's like gravity and falling. Or Exercise and sweat.

T.J. Maxx

February 26th 2003, 02:16 PM

== I think you miss the point TJ. Works are not REQUIRED for salvation, but are a NATURAL PRODUCT of salvation.

This common assertion flies in the face of many scriptures which encourage the already "saved" Christians to obey and serve if they want to stay on the path to salvation. The NT is filled with these sorts of exhortations, yet according this line of thought, the Christians will automatically obey and follow... so whats the point?

== To quote JP, it's like gravity and falling. Or Exercise and sweat.

They do go hand in hand, so why say works aren't required if faith is? You're contradicting yourself.

If certain Christians think that their current state of being constitutes "salvation", then what on earth is there to look forward to? Salvation is a process that endures our entire lives. Paul spoke of salvation in teh present, true. But it is sensible to say "I'm saved" when a savior comes. But when teh savior demands that you follow him yoru entire life, there is truly an ultimate salvation that awaits us.

Salvation requires faith. Faith requires works. Therefore works are required for salvation.

jpholding

February 26th 2003, 03:34 PM

02-26-2003 @ 06:16 PM
T.J. Maxx:

This common assertion flies in the face of many scriptures which encourage the already "saved" Christians to obey and serve if they want to stay on the path to salvation. The NT is filled with these sorts of exhortations, yet according this line of thought, the Christians will automatically obey and follow... so whats the point?

These exhortations fall into three categories:

1) They are moral instructions to people who do not know how to behave and obey. You can believe in Jesus forever but if you aren't told you need to be baptized, you won't be doing it strictly on speculation or by accident. :smile:

2) They are exhortations to realize their position in Christ and behave accordingly -- not admonitions to get with the program or lose your salvation. I.e., they are admonitions to be consistent. After all, the rest of the world is watching.

3) They are exhortation for didactic purposes, not aimed at any specific target.

To speak of works as "required" is semantically too demanding. To speak of them as "inevitable" is in accord with the social science perspectives I have laid out.

Enjoy your store. :smile:

Bill the Cat

February 26th 2003, 06:19 PM

02-26-2003 @ 01:16 PM
T.J. Maxx:

== I think you miss the point TJ. Works are not REQUIRED for salvation, but are a NATURAL PRODUCT of salvation.

This common assertion flies in the face of many scriptures which encourage the already "saved" Christians to obey and serve if they want to stay on the path to salvation. The NT is filled with these sorts of exhortations, yet according this line of thought, the Christians will automatically obey and follow... so whats the point?

@@ No, I disagree. We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling as Paul said in Phillipians. Or in other words, put your money where your mouth is. Salvation is obtained and then must be "worked out"

== To quote JP, it's like gravity and falling. Or Exercise and sweat.

They do go hand in hand, so why say works aren't required if faith is? You're contradicting yourself.

@@ Because you can have one without the other. It's like removing gravity. You won't fall.(inertia not withstanding) But you can have gravity without falling (we have it right now). You can have works without faith but not faith without works. The key element is faith.

If certain Christians think that their current state of being constitutes "salvation", then what on earth is there to look forward to? Salvation is a process that endures our entire lives. Paul spoke of salvation in teh present, true. But it is sensible to say "I'm saved" when a savior comes. But when teh savior demands that you follow him yoru entire life, there is truly an ultimate salvation that awaits us.

@@ Gordon Fee wrote a fantastic book called God's empowering presence" where he explains Paul's "already, but not yet" eschatology. You may want to read it. It is a bit thick, but well worth it.

Salvation requires faith. Faith requires works. Therefore works are required for salvation.

@@ See, you here are stuck on faith requiring works like a genuine faith could resist acting out on the magnificent change made in your life. As my pastor once said, "If you hit the lottery, you're gonna tell someone about it."

Sozo

February 26th 2003, 07:03 PM

02-26-2003 @ 04:19 PM
Bill the Cat:

@@ See, you here are stuck on faith requiring works like a genuine faith could resist acting out on the magnificent change made in your life. As my pastor once said, "If you hit the lottery, you're gonna tell someone about it."

That's right! And it's still yours, whether or not "some people" think you are telling enough people about it.

T.J. Maxx

February 27th 2003, 01:38 AM

== 1) They are moral instructions to people who do not know how to behave and obey. You can believe in Jesus forever but if you aren't told you need to be baptized, you won't be doing it strictly on speculation or by accident.

Which begs the question, are these instructions given to non-Christians?

== 2) They are exhortations to realize their position in Christ and behave accordingly -- not admonitions to get with the program or lose your salvation. I.e., they are admonitions to be consistent. After all, the rest of the world is watching.

I'm sure you can probably make several more categories, but you cannot escape the fact that salvation s described in past present and future tense. The vast majority of the time it is in future tense.

=== 3) They are exhortation for didactic purposes, not aimed at any specific target.

Agreed. But that target is the people already on teh path to salvation who need to be steered on that straight and narrow path. Without obedience one will fall away.

== To speak of works as "required" is semantically too demanding.

Why do you say that? Christ demanded obedience. James said works is required for true faith to apply. This seems to speak volumes. The concept of salvation first and obedience automatically following is a convenient out that seems completely alien to the NT text. The terms Evangelicals use like "works automatically follow" appear nowhere in the NT text. They appear to be theological loopholes that are read into the text.

@@ No, I disagree. We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling as Paul said in Phillipians. Or in other words, put your money where your mouth is. Salvation is obtained and then must be "worked out"

Again, this makes no sense of the passage. If I'm already safe and secure in salvation, why on earth would I need to "fear and tremble" anything?

@@ You can have works without faith but not faith without works. The key element is faith.

I agree. So works is required. I'm not sure why exactly we are bypassing each other on this. If faith is required, then works is also, by default since dead faith can't save.

@@ Gordon Fee wrote a fantastic book called God's empowering presence" where he explains Paul's "already, but not yet" eschatology. You may want to read it. It is a bit thick, but well worth it.

Evangelicals have had a few centuries to devise apologetic explanations for this innovation called "once saved always saved" but none seem too convincing.

@@ See, you here are stuck on faith requiring works like a genuine faith could resist acting out on the magnificent change made in your life.

Yes, genuine faith can resist works. Hence, the constant warning to the Christians that they must keep themselves in line. That is their sanctification. You are stuck on faith alone as if a faithful person couldn't possibly fall into temptation.

There is only one instance in the Bible where the savior was asked point blank, "How do I get into heaven?" Did he respond with an engimatic doctrine akin to the Evangelical flavor, of grace alone plus automatic works without actually requiring works? Of course not. He responded clearly and unambiguously: "Keep the commandments!" (Matt 19:16-23 ) He didn't say trust me to do it for you. The most Christ said in that regard was to follow Him since he was the light to follow; the path of righteousness. These metaphors describe a process of salvation. He also said his load was light, but he never said it was nonexistent.

1 Cor. 10:1-12 "I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ... Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."

Here we see Paul speaking to the already regenerated Corinthians. He warns them that they should not be thinking like so many modern Christians do today. "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall" (NIV) He said that the errors of their Fathers were given as INSTRUCTION for them. Now my first question would be, why would God ever give anyone instruction not to fall down, if it is something that cannot happen in the first place?

James 5:7-12, 19 "Be patient therefore, brethren , unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation ...Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

Here we see James referring to the "brethren" who are already saved. He said that it is possible for some of them to turn away towards sin and that it was also possible for them to be recoverted back. So this proves that someone can be regenerated again, but more importantly, it proves that some of the regenerated can fall.

Matt. 7:21-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 19:27-28 "Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Here we see the twelve apostles were promise to sit on twleve thrones by which they would be judges over the twelve tribes (One thrown for each apostle?) Guess who was among them, and who also recieved this promise? Judas Iscariot. Just because Jesus makes us a promise that "secures" our inheritance for us, this does NOT mean we are unable to break that promise with our own actions. Judas is proof against the idea of "once saved always saved" and the "God will do the work needed FOR ME and make sure I endure till the end" concepts. To argue that Judas was never saved in the first place is to beg the question. It is an argument based on the theological assumption of OSAS.

The rest of the scriptures are without commentary, but the bold text should emphasis the fact that nothingis guaranteed or else why mention what is highlighted?

Heb. 12:1,14-15"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us... Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many"

Heb. 6:15 "And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise."

Heb. 10:36 "For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise."

Er, huh? What is all this talk about MIGHT receive the promise, and furthermore, what is all this talk about AFTER we do works (will of God)? This makes no sense under the paradigm of OSAS.

Heb. 3:14 "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end "

Again, this makes no sense under an OSAS paradigm.

James 1:12 "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him"

Only if he first endures temptation.

Col 1:10 "That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;"

Col 1:22-29 "In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel , which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven;

1 John 2:24-25 "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life."

Again, this makes no sense under an OSAS paradigm. If we continue in the faith? I thought this continuation was supposed to be guaranteed?

2 Corinthians 5:9-10 Wherefore we labour, that , whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

2 Cor. 6:1 "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain."

2 Peter 1:4-10 "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;...But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall "

2 Peter 3:14-18 "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless ... Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness . But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

As you can see, there are far more verses that point against OSAS and salvation by faith alone than there are verses supporting these concepts. I know there are more, but this is a handful of some of the best.

Alrighty then. I don't think these can all be swept under the carpet of certain "categories" that provide loopholes for OSAS. For me it will take a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics to overcome the obvious conflict these verses have with the common Evangelical ssumption of OSAS.

But anyway, let the spin-doctoring begin.

PS: I had to delete some verses and cut the context of others in order to keep this post under 12000 .

jpholding

February 27th 2003, 10:57 AM

TJM,

From the looks of your latest reply, you have not at all dealt with the issue of Semitic Totality but haeve merely continued to assert an anachronistic reading based on the "plain English" in the text and your own modern dichotomy between thought and action. At any rate:

== 1) They are moral instructions to people who do not know how to behave and obey. You can believe in Jesus forever but if you aren't told you need to be baptized, you won't be doing it strictly on speculation or by accident.

Which begs the question, are these instructions given to non-Christians?

It does not matter who they are given to, and it does not beg the question as it begins with a known anthropological fact (Semitic Totality) and interprets the texts accordingly.

== 2) They are exhortations to realize their position in Christ and behave accordingly -- not admonitions to get with the program or lose your salvation. I.e., they are admonitions to be consistent. After all, the rest of the world is watching.

I'm sure you can probably make several more categories, but you cannot escape the fact that salvation s described in past present and future tense. The vast majority of the time it is in future tense.

That is rather too vague in context to address and at any rate makes little difference, as it does not address what I said. You are also oblivious to am important social factor at work beyond Semitic Totality. The following comes from a website on Japanese culture, but it applies just as well to the ancient Mediterranean:

The Japanese have few, if any, universal rules for behavior. Everything depends upon the context one is in: working with those with higher status, work with peers, meetings with mixed status participants, a client visit, after-hours drinking or communal bathing for men, etc.

This is the kind of world into which NT admonitions and exhortations are made. The admonitions are needed to counter the perception that one may behave differently in different contexts. Paul, et al had to correct the impression that Christianity was like the other religions of the day (other than Judaism, when it was not Hellenized) in that one could (as even today) just be a Christian when in church but do what they wished in other contexts. The admonitions tell them that their faith is a "lifestyle" for every context.

=== 3) They are exhortation for didactic purposes, not aimed at any specific target.

Agreed. But that target is the people already on teh path to salvation who need to be steered on that straight and narrow path. Without obedience one will fall away.

Here you beg the question and foist back your own interpretation. I have already said that there is no target; you may as well say that when Confucious taught, "The superior man makes demands on himself; the inferior man makes demands on others," there must have been an "inferior man" listening to him, because otherwise he could not have been making such a point. I will say that I think it is possible to throw away one's salvation through outright covenant rejection, but disobedience in such contexts is a symptom, not a cause, of loss of salvation. (Which means, I may agree with you on Judas, and possibly on Hebrews, but it's not clear.)

== To speak of works as "required" is semantically too demanding.

Why do you say that? Christ demanded obedience. James said works is required for true faith to apply.

I say that because of Semitic Totality, which is the context within which such demands were made. You continue in your argument to read the text as though it were written yesterday and for you personally. Until you get out of that loop, you are :argh:.

Phil. 2:12 Again, this makes no sense of the passage. If I'm already safe and secure in salvation, why on earth would I need to "fear and tremble" anything?

The word Paul uses for "salvation" is soteria and Paul uses the word in 1:28 also, not with reference to the social condition of the persons addressed but with reference to eschatological reality. Thus the reference is to working together as the body of Christ to bring about the eschatological reality of the Kingdom of God.

Evangelicals have had a few centuries to devise apologetic explanations for this innovation called "once saved always saved" but none seem too convincing.

My my, is everyone out to get you? I ought to introduce you to Wayne Harrington; the only thing you seem to be missing is the purple cloud vision.

There is only one instance in the Bible where the savior was asked point blank, "How do I get into heaven?" Did he respond with an engimatic doctrine akin to the Evangelical flavor, of grace alone plus automatic works without actually requiring works? Of course not. He responded clearly and unambiguously: "Keep the commandments!" (Matt 19:16-23 )

And what happened? He showed the truth of Paul's later statements: Gal. 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. No one can keep all the Commandments. Christ's words showed our own inadequacy and pointed to the need for trust in him.

Here we see Paul speaking to the already regenerated Corinthians. He warns them that they should not be thinking like so many modern Christians do today. "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall" (NIV) He said that the errors of their Fathers were given as INSTRUCTION for them. Now my first question would be, why would God ever give anyone instruction not to fall down, if it is something that cannot happen in the first place?

Excuse me, but the word "fall" (pipto) is not used to refer to loss of salvation anywhere in the NT. It means a person who falls down physically, an object that drops, or a moral failure, but it doesn't mean loss of salvation unless you want to fill it with meaning you need to justify from other contexts. You come closer with James 5, but there you fail on the meaning of another word:

swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation

Sorry, but "condemnation" here is a word that means dissimulation and hypocrisy. It is not a "salvation" matter.

...Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

This comes closest, in English, but the word "error" is plano which is used to refer to doctrinal or factual error, not moral error or sin (though obviously such error, if followed through, can lead to moral error, just as faith in the correct object, Christ, leads to moral uprightness).

Most of the verses you cite hereafter are compatible with apostasy, but there again sin is a by product and not a cause of salvation being thrown away. I see no justification for any idea that sin of any amount can cause one's salvation to be lost. One can throw it away, I think, via apostasy, which in turn will result in sin, but not lose it so gratuitously.

2 Peter 1:4-10...give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall "

The word "fall" means to give offense and does not say anything about loss of salvation.

2 Peter 3:14-18 "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless ... Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness

Also says nothing about loss of salvation, unless you read that into it. It would always be desirable to be found blameless and to be upright, with or without an OSAS doctrine. Even as one who believes most of the OSAS package (apart from apostasy) I would hardly want to be caught before the throne of grace with great sin on my account.

But anyway, let the spin-doctoring begin.

If you will insist on referring to scholarship in terms of spin-doctoring then you are not going to make this a productive exchange.

Bill the Cat

February 27th 2003, 11:25 AM

Just to clarify my position, I am not a OSAS proponent, because I believe we can apostacize

John Wesley's commentary states on Hebrews 6:6
Heb 6:6 - And have fallen away - Here is not a supposition, but a plain relation of fact. The apostle here describes the case of those who have cast away both the power and the form of godliness; who have lost both their faith, hope, and love, Heb_6:10, &c., and that wilfully, Heb_10:26. Of these wilful total apostates he declares, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. (though they were renewed once,) either to the foundation, or anything built thereon.

I am however a believer of Faith THROUGH grace only. To say faith only is to eliminate the grace given by our patron.

My denom's web page http://www.iphc.org/docs/theology/amp2.html#justbyfaith has listed this:

"We believe, teach and firmly maintain the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8, 9; Titus 3:4-7). We do not believe that any sort or degree of good works can procure or contribute toward our justification or salvation. This is accomplished solely and exclusively upon the basis of our faith in the shed blood, the resurrection and justifying righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 4:23-25; 5:1-11, 20; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). But we do believe in good works as a fruit or product of salvation. We are not saved by, but unto, good works (Ephesians 2:10). When we believe on Jesus Christ as our Savior, our sins are pardoned, we are justified and enter a state of righteousness, not our own, but His, both imputed and imparted (Romans 4:22, 25; 8:1-4)."

:read:

Sozo

February 27th 2003, 11:32 AM

02-27-2003 @ 09:25 AM
Bill the Cat:

When we believe on Jesus Christ as our Savior, our sins are pardoned, we are justified and enter a state of righteousness, not our own, but His, both imputed and imparted (Romans 4:22, 25; 8:1-4)."

:read:

Somebody truly gets it :yipee:

(even though I would have used the phrase "taken away" instead of "pardoned")

Also, Hebrews 6 is speaking directly to those who teach that one can lose salvation, not to teach that one can.

You can't re-repent.

T.J. Maxx

February 27th 2003, 12:35 PM

== From the looks of your latest reply, you have not at all dealt with the issue of Semitic Totality but haeve merely continued to assert an anachronistic reading based on the "plain English" in the text and your own modern dichotomy between thought and action. At any rate:

It is only anachronistic if we first assume Semitic Totality, as you describe it, take precedence. I agree that faith was implied to include works by concept, but the fact is, just because the two were thought of as one in the same does not mean people were bound by that rule and incapable of separating the two in reality. In reality is what I'm talking about. Can a person have faith and then later fall? The Bible makes it perfetly clear that this was the case.

== It does not matter who they are given to, and it does not beg the question as it begins with a known anthropological fact (Semitic Totality) and interprets the texts accordingly.

Please provide me the names of 5 scholars who have provided any amount of extensive debate on the Semitic Totality concept. I'd like to see who exactly believes this concept defines what is actually possible to occur. That isn't within the realm of concept , nor could it be in any real sense. Again, I don't have any doubt that the teachers of faith implied works would naturally follow. But the fact is, people are imperfect. The fact that they don't always follow is precisely why the NT is filled with teachings trying to get Christians back in line.

== Here you beg the question and foist back your own interpretation.

Not at all. I'm merely rejecting your interpretation and letting the text, along with common sense, speak for itself. You're giving far too much credit to the ST. Even more troubling is teh fact that the construct you've created demands that only a very small percentage of the world could possibly have a clue as to what the Bible was really saying. Doing a scan of the Semitic Totality concept, I've only been able to come across how many websites? TWO. And both of them belong to you.

== I will say that I think it is possible to throw away one's salvation through outright covenant rejection, but disobedience in such contexts is a symptom, not a cause, of loss of salvation. (Which means, I may agree with you on Judas, and possibly on Hebrews, but it's not clear.)

Great. Then we agree.

== I say that because of Semitic Totality, which is the context within which such demands were made. You continue in your argument to read the text as though it were written yesterday and for you personally. Until you get out of that loop, you are

JP, but not everyone puts so much stock into the STC as you do. Again, is there something more substantial on this issue other than your website? This appears to be something you borrowed from a obscure Evangelical book, but I don't see Evangelical scholarship placing this argument at the frontlines.

== The word Paul uses for "salvation" is soteria and Paul uses the word in 1:28 also, not with reference to the social condition of the persons addressed but with reference to eschatological reality. Thus the reference is to working together as the body of Christ to bring about the eschatological reality of the Kingdom of God.

And one would need to "fear and tremble"..... because? This is why I have trouble interpretiong it this way. If you're saved, there is no need to fear and tremble, even if the body of Christ doesn't happen to get along while on earth.

== My my, is everyone out to get you? I ought to introduce you to Wayne Harrington; the only thing you seem to be missing is the purple cloud vision.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

== And what happened? He showed the truth of Paul's later statements: Gal. 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. No one can keep all the Commandments. Christ's words showed our own inadequacy and pointed to the need for trust in him.

But you're letting your interpretation of Paul supercede what Christ says in context. Paul spoke against deeds in the context of the Law of Moses. He never spoke against the need for deeds from the Law of Faith. While Christ does allude to the Law of Moses in the beginning, he clearly tells this man what is reauired of him for salvation:

Matt 19:21-23 "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."

This is exactly what I've been saying. I agree that the Law of Faith constitutes following and trusting Christ, but the point I'm trying to pound home here is that Christ used the commandments of obedience at the forefront. Paul turned it the other way around and people have been misunderstanding him ever since. (This is why James had to make it clear that Paul was not against works or the requirement of works). Christ commanded the guy to drop his possessions and follow him. This means he was commanded to do something for his salvation. This command to do these things went way beyond the bounds of the Old Law of Moses.

== Excuse me, but the word "fall" (pipto) is not used to refer to loss of salvation anywhere in the NT. It means a person who falls down physically, an object that drops, or a moral failure, but it doesn't mean loss of salvation unless you want to fill it with meaning you need to justify from other contexts.

You're missing the trees for the forest. We are clearly dealing with metaphor here. And standing has direct reference to salvation as does falling.

Deut. 29:9-15 ("ye standeth before God")

Luke 21:34-36 ("Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy... to stand before the Son of man")

The concept of falling from salvation has its roots in Ezekiel 33:11-20. But, the context of 1 Cor 10 clearly defines a state of falling into spiritual sin. Somethintg that forbids salvation.

== You come closer with James 5, but there you fail on the meaning of another word:..Sorry, but "condemnation" here is a word that means dissimulation and hypocrisy. It is not a "salvation" matter.

Given the context of James 2, which clearly connects works and salvation, I'd say your interpretation is way off.

== This comes closest, in English, but the word "error" is plano which is used to refer to doctrinal or factual error, not moral error or sin (though obviously such error, if followed through, can lead to moral error, just as faith in the correct object, Christ, leads to moral uprightness).

You're splitting hairs now. Errors means error in Greek as well as English. You can't confine it to a certain type of error, but even this doesn't help your interpretation. It is the same word used in Matt 18:12 in reference to the man who went astray and left the flock entirely. See also 2 Pet 2:15 whereby the man follows Baalam. So James isn't talking about convincing a Christian on one doctrinal matter. He is talking about someone who has fallen away altogether. Someone that needs to be reconverted! 1 Cor 6:9, Paul lumps this word in with spiritual sinners.

== Most of the verses you cite hereafter are compatible with apostasy, but there again sin is a by product and not a cause of salvation being thrown away.

A loss of faith is the primary reason, but I'm not really arguing which comes first, I'm arguing whether or not it is possible for Christians to leave the faith and fall away.

== I see no justification for any idea that sin of any amount can cause one's salvation to be lost.

What about the unforgiveable sin? One would have to prove that those who were being regenerated were incapable of sinning in such a manner. But the Bible doesn't support these kinds of assumptions.

== One can throw it away, I think, via apostasy, which in turn will result in sin, but not lose it so gratuitously.

It only takes one sin to keep us from God. Unrepented sins are sin that are not forgiven. You seem to concede the point that OSAS is false, but refuse to acknowledge that sin can keep us from God. Perhaps you could clarify? I don't want to misrepresent your point of view.

== The word "fall" means to give offense and does not say anything about loss of salvation.

"Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

The context demands that falling means your calling and election isn't sure, and that you won't be welcomed into the eternal kingdom of Christ. The overall context demands such an interpretation, but you're going to deny it its meaning because it doesn't spell it out for you in unambiguous terms and avoid metaphor? I suppose when Christ told us to knock so he could open the door, he meant literally? Show me where this door is when and if you find it.

== Also says nothing about loss of salvation, unless you read that into it.

One doesn't need to. you can throw out that word entirely and the context will still speak for itself.

== It would always be desirable to be found blameless and to be upright, with or without an OSAS doctrine. Even as one who believes most of the OSAS package (apart from apostasy) I would hardly want to be caught before the throne of grace with great sin on my account.

You're kidding right? The only way one can attain salvation in Christ is to be blameless first!

1 Cor 1:8 "Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
1 Thess 5:23 "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
2 Pet 3:14 "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless."

== If you will insist on referring to scholarship in terms of spin-doctoring then you are not going to make this a productive exchange.

Not at all, my comment was directed towards Sozo. But I was unaware of your scholarship.

Thanks.

Bill:
== When we believe on Jesus Christ as our Savior, our sins are pardoned, we are justified and enter a state of righteousness, not our own, but His, both imputed and imparted (Romans 4:22, 25; 8:1-4)."

If this were true, then there'd be no reason for sanctification. You're missing the boat because justifcation only pertains to sins that are past, not every sin you commit in the future. Read the context please:

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God;" (Rom 3:25)

Sozo:
== Also, Hebrews 6 is speaking directly to those who teach that one can lose salvation, not to teach that one can.

Do you agree with this JP? This is the spin-doctoring I had anticipated. The wild excuses some people come up with never ceases to amaze me.

Thanks

Bill the Cat

February 27th 2003, 01:02 PM

== When we believe on Jesus Christ as our Savior, our sins are pardoned, we are justified and enter a state of righteousness, not our own, but His, both imputed and imparted (Romans 4:22, 25; 8:1-4)."

If this were true, then there'd be no reason for sanctification. You're missing the boat because justifcation only pertains to sins that are past, not every sin you commit in the future. Read the context please:

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God;" (Rom 3:25)

Salvation and sanctification are 2 entirely different things. As my denom's site says again:

"We believe in sanctification. While sanctification is initiated in regeneration and consummated in glorification, we believe that it includes a definite, instantaneous work of grace achieved by faith subsequent to regeneration (Acts 26:18; 1 John 1:9). Sanctification delivers from the power and dominion of sin. It is followed by life-long growth in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:16; 2 Peter 3:18).

But remember we must get into this grace before we can grow in it. It is not absolute perfection, not angelic perfection; not "sinless perfection," if the term is used to imply the impossibility of a sanctified person's falling into sin. We do not believe it is impossible for the sanctified to commit sin; but we do believe that it is possible for a sanctified person not to commit sin (Luke 1:73-75; Titus 2:11, 12; 1 John 1:7; 2:1, 6; 3:5-10; 5:18). We are aware of John's statement in 1 John 1:8, but these words apply to those who deny the need for cleansing, not to those who have experienced it and are living the sanctified life. This is Christian perfection-in which we love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:29-31); in which we love Christ and keep His commandments (john 14:15), among which is this, "Little children these things write I unto you, that ye sin not" (1 John 2:1). The sanctified life is one of separation from the world, a selfless life, a life of devotion to all the will of God, a life of holiness in accordance with Romans 6:22; 12:1, 2; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:7; 5:23; Hebrews 12:14; James 1:27; and 1 Peter 1:15, 16. It is a life controlled by "perfect love" which "casteth out fear" (1 John 4:18).

So it is a separate act.

Sozo

February 27th 2003, 02:04 PM

02-27-2003 @ 11:02 AM
Bill the Cat:

== When we believe on Jesus Christ as our Savior, our sins are pardoned, we are justified and enter a state of righteousness, not our own, but His, both imputed and imparted (Romans 4:22, 25; 8:1-4)."

If this were true, then there'd be no reason for sanctification. You're missing the boat because justifcation only pertains to sins that are past, not every sin you commit in the future. Read the context please:

Talk about your double-minded :huh:

Both of those quotes are from you, Bill :bonk:

In any case...

"For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified"

"...to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me."

"...to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours"

"And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

"For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren"

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all"

Bill the Cat

February 27th 2003, 02:17 PM

johnransom

February 27th 2003, 02:24 PM

02-22-2003 @ 09:03 AM
Sozo:

Wherever James came up with his conclusions, they are false ones.

Abraham was not justified by works (see all of Romans & Galatians). The word "justified" in James 2, does not mean "validated" or "testified to", it means to be found guiltless.

Abraham was "justified" when he believed!

Personally, I think James is quoting ("Someone may well say...")the argument of the Jews who rejected Christ as the propitiation for man's sins, and this is their rebuttal to the Jews who had accepted Christ. "Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he offered up Issac on the altar?" The answer to that question is... no he wasn't! James concludes the unbeliving Jews statement with this... "Let not many become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment"

All through the book of James we see quarrels among Jews who were in a position of wealth (unbelieving Jews), with those who were in their service (believing Jews). The ones who had wealth argued that they were blessed because they were in God's favor, and therefore they must be right! They were persecuting those who were in their service and argued against their acceptance of Christ by faith alone. James wanted them as brethern of Israel to get along, and to not be cursing one another over their differences.

I agree fully with Jaltus on this: the immediate context of James 2:21 implies a "yes" answer. I also agree with JP in that justification is from worls only in the sense that works are inseparable from faith.

This is verified in the case of Abraham when you consider that the crediting to him of righteousness because of his faith was made in Genesis 15:6, which is well before Isaac's birth, let alone the attempted sacrifice. Moreover, it deals with God's promise to give him innumerable descendants. So, when he later is ordered to sacrifice his only son - with no prospects of getting another one - he is showing considerable faith through his actions, because without a son obviously he cannot have descendants. So the assumption is that Abraham acted in the unlikely confidence that God would restore his son to him after the sacrifice - in other words he was ready to perform a supreme act of faith.

T.J. Maxx

February 27th 2003, 02:31 PM

== Salvation and sanctification are 2 entirely different things.

Technically, but not really. Salvation is composed of two parts: Justification and Sanctification. You cannot be saved without sanctification. Justifcation happens at the moment tru faith is put into effect. You are justifed through faith by the grace of Jesus. All of your past sins have been forgiven you. But then you wake up the next day in a world of temptation and sin. It is all around you. This is when sanctification comes into play. You have to actually strive and fight the good fight of faith to keep it. Sanctification involves abstaining from spiritual sin. In other words, to use a forbidden term, you have to do something. Paul explained the elements and process of sanctification in Titus 2:11-14:
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

We look forward to salvation as God purifies and redeems us "from all iniquity," until we become "a peculiar people, zealous of good works." This message from Paul explains that how we live our lives effects our sanctification. If sanctification is necessary for salvation, then by logical extension one’s salvation is also effected by how one lives his or her life. And God is not the only player in determining how we live our lives. The dual role of God and man in the sanctification process is illustrated in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 as follows:
For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.

This is an unambiguous, straight on, biblical definition for sanctification. It says that our sanctification is our nonparticipation in sinful life – particularly sexual immorality for the Thessalonians. This passage clearly places upon mankind the responsibility of maintaining a state of justification. That is why we are commanded throughout the Bible to repent and endure to the end, even after we have been justified. Paul further illustrates the relationship between salvation and the sanctification process in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as follows:
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth

== "We believe in sanctification. While sanctification is initiated in regeneration and consummated in glorification, we believe that it includes a definite, instantaneous work of grace achieved by faith subsequent to regeneration (Acts 26:18; 1 John 1:9).

Would they mind speaking English on this. Why do Evangelical statements of faith always tend to obfuscate the matter with such jargon? It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't insist on dragging proof texts into their creed as if it supported it. Acts 26:18 says some are sanctified by faith, but this doesn't negate the necessity of their works. Again, sanctification is something that requires works, as demonstrated above. 1 John 1:9 says nothing of sanctification, but instead repentance.

== Sanctification delivers from the power and dominion of sin. It is followed by life-long growth in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:16; 2 Peter 3:18).

"The inward man is renewed day by day." Exactly. 2 Peter 3:18 however says nothing of sanctfication. But 1 Peter 1:2 does. There, addressing believers as the “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” This means that men are saved by faith in Christ and numbered among the "elect" through sanctification. These passages also demonstrate that the purpose of sanctification is to learn obedience. To be fully sanctified is to arrive at a state of consistent obedience that, in conjunction with justification for past sins, will allow men to live in perfection with God. Men who have achieved this goal during their life on earth were referred to as "perfect" in the Bible.(Gen 6:9; 1 Kings 15:14; 2 Chron 15:17; 2 Kings 20:3; Job 1:1; 2:3; Ps 37:37; 1 Cor 2:6; Phil 3:15; 2 Tim 3:17) Even though they were not perfect from birth, as Christ was, they learned obedience through the process of sanctification and were justified with respect to their past sins through the grace of Christ.
The scriptures say that we are sanctified by God's truth (John 17:17), through Christ (1 Cor 1:2; Heb 10:10,13:12), by the Spirit of God (1 Cor 6:11), through the influence of others (1 Cor 7:14), by obedience to the ordinances of the Gospel, notably baptism (Eph 5:25-26), and by the word of God and prayer (1 Tim 4:5). It is clear, therefore, that a mutual effort between God and man is required for ultimate salvation, and that the prerequisite of sanctification clearly involves obedience on our part.

Bill the Cat

February 27th 2003, 03:19 PM

== Salvation and sanctification are 2 entirely different things.

Technically, but not really. Salvation is composed of two parts: Justification and Sanctification. You cannot be saved without sanctification. Justifcation happens at the moment tru faith is put into effect. You are justifed through faith by the grace of Jesus. All of your past sins have been forgiven you. But then you wake up the next day in a world of temptation and sin. It is all around you. This is when sanctification comes into play. You have to actually strive and fight the good fight of faith to keep it. Sanctification involves abstaining from spiritual sin. In other words, to use a forbidden term, you have to do something. Paul explained the elements and process of sanctification in Titus 2:11-14:

@@ Yes really. Webster's Bible Dictionary lists salvation as

Quote:
Appropriately in theology, the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness. This is the great salvation.

and sanctification as

Quote:
The act of making holy. In an evangelical sense, the act of God's grace by which the affections of men are purified or alienated from sin and the world, and exalted to a supreme love to God.

@@ see 2 different things.

== "We believe in sanctification. While sanctification is initiated in regeneration and consummated in glorification, we believe that it includes a definite, instantaneous work of grace achieved by faith subsequent to regeneration (Acts 26:18; 1 John 1:9).

Would they mind speaking English on this. Why do Evangelical statements of faith always tend to obfuscate the matter with such jargon? It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't insist on dragging proof texts into their creed as if it supported it. Acts 26:18 says some are sanctified by faith, but this doesn't negate the necessity of their works. Again, sanctification is something that requires works, as demonstrated above. 1 John 1:9 says nothing of sanctification, but instead repentance.

@@ It's plain to me. At salvation (regeneration), we are sanctified
but our total sanctification is not in place until we are in heaven. It is a separate act of grace apart from salvation. As far as Evangelicals confusing people, don't you think obfuscate would confuse the lay reader? That's why each article has an amplification page.

== Sanctification delivers from the power and dominion of sin. It is followed by life-long growth in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:16; 2 Peter 3:18).

"The inward man is renewed day by day." Exactly. 2 Peter 3:18 however says nothing of sanctfication.

@@ never said it did. It talks about growing in grace and knowledge.

But 1 Peter 1:2 does. There, addressing believers as the “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” This means that men are saved by faith in Christ and numbered among the "elect" through sanctification.

@@ not arguing there

These passages also demonstrate that the purpose of sanctification is to learn obedience. To be fully sanctified is to arrive at a state of consistent obedience that, in conjunction with justification for past sins, will allow men to live in perfection with God.

@@ which is the final eschatological salvation

Men who have achieved this goal during their life on earth were referred to as "perfect" in the Bible.(Gen 6:9; 1 Kings 15:14; 2 Chron 15:17; 2 Kings 20:3; Job 1:1; 2:3; Ps 37:37; 1 Cor 2:6; Phil 3:15; 2 Tim 3:17) Even though they were not perfect from birth, as Christ was, they learned obedience through the process of sanctification and were justified with respect to their past sins through the grace of Christ.
The scriptures say that we are sanctified by God's truth (John 17:17), through Christ (1 Cor 1:2; Heb 10:10,13:12), by the Spirit of God (1 Cor 6:11), through the influence of others (1 Cor 7:14), by obedience to the ordinances of the Gospel, notably baptism (Eph 5:25-26), and by the word of God and prayer (1 Tim 4:5). It is clear, therefore, that a mutual effort between God and man is required for ultimate salvation, and that the prerequisite of sanctification clearly involves obedience on our part.

@@ exactly. The process of sanctification does invovle obedience on our part, but as I showed from Noah Webster, they are two different words and things.

psychopath

February 27th 2003, 04:23 PM

Alright, I have been doing some research of my own, and have read the majority of the thread, and am ready to weigh in with some thoughts.

I first need to point out that my interpretation of the James passage stems from my firm adherence to Dispensationalism. God has had different plans for mankind at different times. I don't really want to go into detail on this subject, though, because I didn't begin this thread with the plan to debate Dispensationalism.

That being said, I believe that, throughout the Bible, man has gained salvation in one way: by God's grace, through faith in Him. What has differed, however, is the way in which God has had man MANIFEST this faith. For example, Noah manifested his faith in God by building the ark. The Israelites in the Old Testament manifested their faith by carrying out the deeds of the Law. In each case, faith in God is what saved them. The manifestation is what differs.

But, in reality, God does not NEED to see physical manifestation in order to know whether or not we have faith in him. He can see our souls, and read our minds - he KNOWS what we do and do not truly believe.

So this guy Paul comes along and ushers in the Dispensation of the Grace of God. Salvation is still gained by God's grace through faith in him. The difference now is that there is NO required physical manifestation of our faith. Why? Because Jesus Christ came down to Earth, took the form of a PHYSICAL Human being, and paid the perfect sacrifice for our sins. His death was the perfect physical manifestation of faith in God (the wording gets kinda tricky here, because he WAS God).

With this background, I think the James passage I originally quoted fits in quite nicely. James was, chronologically, the first book written in the New Testament, which means it preceded all of Paul's writings, and, therefore, the Dispensation of Grace. James wrote his book under the Dispensation of the Law - the Jews were God's chosen people, and salvation (though still by God's grace through faith in Him) came through the nation of Israel. Look at James 1:1 -

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting."

The book is obviously written specifically to the Israelites.

Now, under the Dispensation of the Law, the physical manifestation of one's faith was good works in accordance with the Law. Thus, it should come as no surprise that we find James putting such a stress on works in chapter 2. However, since we are now living under the Dispensation of Grace, we do not need to obey the tenets of the Law (though some of them certainly still apply). Our plan of salvation (still through faith) is found in the mystery which Paul presents in his Epistles - faith alone.

Anyway, that's a pretty rough sketch of how I think the James passage fits into the rest of the Bible. Please note that I was not trying to be completely exhaustive with my arguments here. If there are any questions or disagreements, feel free to speak up. :smile:

T.J. Maxx

February 27th 2003, 04:54 PM

@@ It's plain to me. At salvation (regeneration), we are sanctified but our total sanctification is not in place until we are in heaven.

As long as we keep in mind this: we won't go to heaven unless sanctification takes place on earth. i.e., we have to do something. So salvation in heaven, the final salvation, cannot come without our efforts. God will help us and guide us with his spirit, but this life if filled with one obstacle after another trying to divert our path. Narrow is the gate. Being justified once in no way guarantees our final salvation in heaven. It only guarantees our present state of justification for past sins. It cleans our slate with the blood of Christ. But we have to keep it clean through our sanctification.

@@exactly. The process of sanctification does invovle obedience on our part, but as I showed from Noah Webster, they are two different words and things.

And as I said before, technically they are different by definition, but Salvation does not exist without sanctification, Ergo, salvation doesn't exist without our actions, deeds, efforst, etc. All those words Evangelicals typically don't like.

Bill the Cat

February 27th 2003, 05:46 PM

I think we are coming together on our understanding of each others' position.

I agree that our "continued sanctification" requires effort on our part (however the sanctification comes from God and is based on our continued faith not works "...lest any man boast"), but the initial sanctification that accompanies initial justification only requires our total faith in Jesus Christ. Now, will initial justification guarantee our eschatological salvation? I don't think it will unless you die almost immediately after conversion (the thief on the cross)

I think the key to understanding our differences is "will your salvation be lost if you sin?" In my opinion, this causes a type of "hopscotch" faith... saved...unsaved because of sin...saved...unsaved...saved...etc. To me this is very disturbing to entertain.

T.J. Maxx

February 27th 2003, 06:11 PM

@@ I think we are coming together on our understanding of each others' position. I agree that our "continued sanctification" requires effort on our part (however the sanctification comes from God and is based on our continued faith not works "...lest any man boast"),

Whenever anyone says something like, "But it is faith not works" a red flag goes up automatically. What works are you talking about? Because the only works Paul demeand are those involved in the Law of Moses. And I thought we agreed that faith and works cannot be separated.

@@ but the initial sanctification that accompanies initial justification only requires our total faith in Jesus Christ.

Not sure exactly where you are getting the initial sanctification. Sanctification according to the Bible involves a process after justification. Being justified and being made holy are two separate things.

@@ Now, will initial justification guarantee our eschatological salvation? I don't think it will unless you die almost immediately after conversion (the thief on the cross)

I don't think the theif was guaranteed salvation either.

@@ I think the key to understanding our differences is "will your salvation be lost if you sin?" In my opinion, this causes a type of "hopscotch" faith... saved...unsaved because of sin...saved...unsaved...saved...etc. To me this is very disturbing to entertain.

The problem is obvious indeed. But the problem is easily solved the minute we realized that we don't have salvation in the literal fullest sense. Paul didn't consider himself guaranteed a spot in heaven and neither did the early Christians. So why do modern Evangelicals? They sometimes referred to themselves as saved, true. But this is understandable having witnesses the coming of the Savior. If you and a friend are swimming alone in the middle of the Pacific Ocean you'll probably consider yourself guppy food eventually. But if you come across a raft floating by, you might very well say, "we're saved." Yes, for the time being anyway. But you still have to get up on that raft and kick! This is why Paul talked about the hope of salvation that would come if we kept ourselves worthy. Teh only thing Christ guaranteed us is a chance at salvation. He died for teh entire world, but only those who follow him and obey His commandments will be saved.

But it has become commonplace today to guarantee oneself a spot in heaven by a careless reading of the Bible. After all, we are lazy by nature and everyone wants instant salvation without having to do anything. If one dissects the Bible and sets aside proof texts, one could devise just about any form of salvation concept. This need has been satisified by what has been called the easy believism movement. Words like commandments works, deeds, have become 4 letter words when they pertain to the formula of salvation. I had one fundamentalist yesterday tell me that all the commandments are over with. She has her guaranteed spot in heaven and that is that. Even if she killed her Mom tomorrow she is already forgiven she said. The fruits of this theology is what I find disturbing to entertain. And the most arrogant and snotty people I know are those who are the most secured in their salvation. Just look at Sozo and how he comes across to people he disagrees with for Pete's sake. Everyone is in a cult in his mind unless they accept his interpretation of the Bible.

Bill the Cat

February 27th 2003, 06:40 PM

Whenever anyone says something like, "But it is faith not works" a red flag goes up automatically. What works are you talking about? Because the only works Paul demeand are those involved in the Law of Moses. And I thought we agreed that faith and works cannot be separated.

@@ He also showed that circumcision was of no value and that was before the Law of Moses. Any attempt to merit favor with God is a work I am referring to. JP also agrees that faith and works can't be separated, but do you consider repentance a work? How about our placing our faith in Jesus? Is that considered a work too? It is an actionon our part, so it must be.

Not sure exactly where you are getting the initial sanctification. Sanctification according to the Bible involves a process after justification. Being justified and being made holy are two separate things.

@@ initial sanctification is an instantaneous, definite, second work of grace, obtainable by faith on the part of the fully-justified believer. (See Romans 5:1, 2: "... justified by faith ... peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice ...." Also see 1 John 1:9: "... to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Note also Titus 2:14: "... redeem from all iniquity and purify ... " and Acts 26:18: "... forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified." Also refer to the following Scriptures for those who "are sanctified": Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 6-11; Hebrews 2:11; 10:14; Jude 1). This is purity and dedication; it is not maturity, but the crisis experience that marks the beginning of the sanctified life

I don't think the theif was guaranteed salvation either.

@@ I beg to differ. Jesus guaranteed it.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

@@ Evangelicals agree we are saved because we have accepted the Savior as Lord of our life.

Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

At the minute of true belief salvation is granted. There is no losing it unless we apostacize.

T.J. Maxx

February 27th 2003, 07:31 PM

@@ He also showed that circumcision was of no value and that was before the Law of Moses. Any attempt to merit favor with God is a work I am referring to. JP also agrees that faith and works can't be separated, but do you consider repentance a work?

Not really, but it is something we have to do. but then again it can be stressful, and requires our effort. So it sure feels like work sometimes :)

@@ How about our placing our faith in Jesus? Is that considered a work too? It is an actionon our part, so it must be.

Kinda. Some people have a tuff time putting their faith in something. But they do it anyway. Its a struggle for some. And for others, its more of a struggle to keep the faith.

@@ initial sanctification is an instantaneous, definite, second work of grace, obtainable by faith on the part of the fully-justified believer. (See Romans 5:1, 2: "... justified by faith ... peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice ...."

But nothing here says anything about sanctification. It refers to justification, which really can be instantaneous. Sanctification, as I defines in teh previous posts, involes righteous deeds and living a life of godliness. Therefore it cannot be something that is instantaneous.

@@ Also see 1 John 1:9: "... to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Again, I assume you interpret unrighteousness to include all future unrighteousness. This is not supported by the text, and further questions the purpose of repentance. Also, being forgiven of sin is not synonymous with being sanctified. I've provided several verses that actually mention the word "sanctification." Why can't we deal with them first? They undermine what you're trying to say here.

@@ Note also Titus 2:14: "... redeem from all iniquity and purify ... "

What exactly are you trying to read from this verse: "who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." It says nothing of instantaneous sanctification. I don't doubt that it is He who is doing the purification. Maybe that was your point.

@@and Acts 26:18: "... forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified."

What are you getting at? You lost me.

@@ Also refer to the following Scriptures for those who "are sanctified": Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 6-11; Hebrews 2:11; 10:14; Jude 1). This is purity and dedication; it is not maturity, but the crisis experience that marks the beginning of the sanctified life

I looked them all up and still nothing about instantaneous sanctification. Remember, we are renewed each day, so the fact that sanctified is in the past tense should mean nothing towards a one time deal. If that is where you're going with this.

@@ I beg to differ. Jesus guaranteed it. Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Exactly. Paradise isn't heaven. Sorry. Christ said he didn't ascend to the father until the third day, yet here he says that "today" he was going to paradise.

@@ Evangelicals agree we are saved because we have accepted the Savior as Lord of our life.

Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

If you would continue reading then you would see that in verse 33 we are told that the jailer was baptized. This is an action which is clearly in harmony with Acts 2:37-38:
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Paul taught that converts should repent (doing something) and be baptized (doing something) before the atoning blood of Jesus would be effective. When he later refers to mere "belief" in Jesus, these necessary actions were already implied with that term, as evidenced in Acts 16:33. Paul stayed up all night singing hymns ('to Christ as to a God' is how the Roman official Pliny put it). This would have impressed the jailer. Secondly, and most important, after being told that believing on Christ would save the jailer, Paul then "spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." He then baptized the whole family. The jailer then took Paul and Silas to his house and fed them, and they "rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house" (Acts 16.31-34).

@@At the minute of true belief salvation is granted. There is no losing it unless we apostacize.

Of course. So there is losing it. This is like saying "I'll fly home tomorrow. I'll stay up in the air unless the plane comes down." How do you define apostasy?

jpholding

February 27th 2003, 07:34 PM

TJM,

It is only anachronistic if we first assume Semitic Totality, as you describe it, take precedence.

Which I must inform you, it does. It affected every thought the writers of the NT had and therefore must take precedence in exegesis, just as much as a dictionary of the Greek language must take precedence when trying to understand what the NT says.

I agree that faith was implied to include works by concept, but the fact is, just because the two were thought of as one in the same does not mean people were bound by that rule and incapable of separating the two in reality.

The separation of the two is a modern anachronism. They are not inseparable; we merely think they are because we obssess in a linear fashion and make a pretence of separating acts of faith and works by moments in time. In any event all you would have proved is that our thinking is different today and that we are doing something alien to the writers of the NT.

Please provide me the names of 5 scholars who have provided any amount of extensive debate on the Semitic Totality concept.

You may start with Dahl's Resurrection of the Body, Clark's Approach to a Theology of the Sacraments and Flemington's New Testament Doctrine of Baptism all of which have something to say on the subject. ST is fairly well taken for granted in NT scholarship, however.

But the fact is, people are imperfect. The fact that they don't always follow is precisely why the NT is filled with teachings trying to get Christians back in line.

Actually, people tend to deceive themselves or else waver in their loyalty. I have already explained the exhortations in context.

Not at all. I'm merely rejecting your interpretation and letting the text, along with common sense, speak for itself.

"Letting the text speak for itself" and "common sense" are the proclaimed hallmarks of many atheists I have encountered, as well as Mormons, JWs, etc who reject background context as irrelevant. Common sense and the text by itself will not get you into the minds of the writers of the NT any more than it would help you negotiate a successful business trip in Japan. You need to know the culture to do well there. The same is true of the Bible.

You're giving far too much credit to the ST. Even more troubling is teh fact that the construct you've created demands that only a very small percentage of the world could possibly have a clue as to what the Bible was really saying.

Actually much of the rest of the world remains more like the people of the Bible than we do here in America, even in this respect. But only a small percentage of the world knew the Gospel at first -- do you have somehting against discipleship? :smile:

Doing a scan of the Semitic Totality concept, I've only been able to come across how mny websites? TWO. And both of them belong to you.

Shrug. People don't read much these days and there aren't many TV shows on STC. It makes for lousy entertainment because it involves thinking differently.

JP, but not everyone puts so much stock into the STC as you do

They should. It would solve many problems.

This appears to be something you borrowed from a obscure Evangelical book, but I don't see Evangelical scholarship placing this argument at the frontlines.

Obscurity is of course irrelevant and contextual. I am not sure what you mean by "Evangelical scholarship" -- to what authors do you refer? Please name three.

And one would need to "fear and tremble"..... because?

Because you have a huge responsibility.

And what happened? He showed the truth of Paul's later statements: Gal. 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. No one can keep all the Commandments. Christ's words showed our own inadequacy and pointed to the need for trust in him.

But you're letting your interpretation of Paul supercede what Christ says in context. Paul spoke against deeds in the context of the Law of Moses. He never spoke against the need for deeds from the Law of Faith.

There is some enormous difference between these? No, you are inventing categories here to evade the implications of Paul's words. Christ asked if the man kept the commandments and there are no others known in this context but the Law of Moses.
While Christ does allude to the Law of Moses in the beginning, he clearly tells this man what is reauired of him for salvation:
Trusting in Christ? Yes. And faith is trust and loyalty; this is the meaning of pistis. And if you are loyal to Christ, your behavior will reflect that. You cannot be loyal to him in word and not in deed.

I'm trying to pound home here is that Christ used the commandments of obedience at the forefront. Paul turned it the other way around and people have been misunderstanding him ever since.

If you're utterly sure of that, then you can hardly deny that STC could be a missing link. Not that it matters. Christ and Paul did not put anything in a different order if faith and works are inseperable.

(This is why James had to make it clear that Paul was not against works or the requirement of works).

James did no such thing; he and Paul were addressing two different issues. http://www.tektonics.org/jamesvspaul.html if you are interested and since this is a tangent.

Christ commanded the guy to drop his possessions and follow him. This means he was commanded to do something for his salvation.

It means he could not be loyal to Christ unless he dropped his loyalties to his wealth. Faith, as properly defined.

You're missing the trees for the forest. We are clearly dealing with metaphor here. And standing has direct reference to salvation as does falling.

Your "clearly" begs the question and the reach to the word "stand" in other contexts, an absurd leap into exegetical fantasy. For your metaphorical parallel to even begin to be considered, "stand" must be used in the context of describing someone performing upright behavior. As it is Deuteronomy describes the physical presence of the Israelites in witness of their covenant and has nothing to do with moral behavior. Luke's "stand before" is the language of judicial appearance and has nothing to do with moral behavior.

Given the context of James 2, which clearly connects works and salvation, I'd say your interpretation is way off.

You'll have to do better than that to prove it. :smile:

You're splitting hairs now. Errors means error in Greek as well as English. You can't confine it to a certain type of error
That is little more than denial of the head in sand variety, my friend. There is no splitting of hairs here and this is the definition of plane.

It is the same word used in Matt 18:12 in reference to the man who went astray and left the flock entirely.

No, actually, that is planao which is related, and there is no sign that that means moral error there either -- not that the figure of sheep would allow for such a connotation to begin with.

See also 2 Pet 2:15 whereby the man follows Baalam.

Balaam. A purveyor of false prophecy. Not someone who taught people to sin.

What about the unforgiveable sin?

The unforgivable sin IS unbelief.

It only takes one sin to keep us from God. Unrepented sins are sin that are not forgiven.

Um. So if one sins, and then immediately is crushed by a roaming ox before getting a chance to even think about repentance, do they go to hell, tough luck?

but refuse to acknowledge that sin can keep us from God. Perhaps you could clarify? I don't want to misrepresent your point of view.

Sins keeps us from God inasmuch as it affects our daily relationship with him. That does not equate with a loss of salvation though it surely affects rewards in heaven. Thus what you quote next:

"Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Never falling is associated with a rich welcome -- not any welcome.

but you're going to deny it its meaning because it doesn't spell it out for you in unambiguous terms and avoid metaphor?

So far you have only shown metaphor where it is convenient, not where exegesis demands it.

One doesn't need to. you can throw out that word entirely and the context will still speak for itself.

Again only if read into it.

You're kidding right? The only way one can attain salvation in Christ is to be blameless first!

So therefore justification as indeed 1 Cor. 1:18 says. It does not say, "Behave so you may be blameless." It says Christ will confirm us so that we may be blameless. As an aside, what you noted earlier about salvation being reported in all tenses has a contextual meaning as well -- it is a pointed contrast to mystery cults of the day which offered "salvation" from specific ills in life, or in the afterlife only, and emphasizes that Christian salvation is the liberation of the whole person from sin and its effects.

Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

Really now. Atheists use this verse too -- against Romans 3:10. You may as well tie yourself up and surrender with decontextualizing exegesis like that. Tell me how you'd answer the atheists and I may have some more social science stuff for you.

1 Thess 5:23 "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Here and 2 Pete, a moral exhortation, which you mistake for a portended actuality. It no more means actualized sinlessness is in view than Cicero's comment that "a wise man never falls".

Back tomorrow.

Sozo

February 27th 2003, 07:49 PM

02-27-2003 @ 12:24 PM
johnransom:

I agree fully with Jaltus on this: the immediate context of James 2:21 implies a "yes" answer. I also agree with JP in that justification is from worls only in the sense that works are inseparable from faith.

This is verified in the case of Abraham when you consider that the crediting to him of righteousness because of his faith was made in Genesis 15:6, which is well before Isaac's birth, let alone the attempted sacrifice. Moreover, it deals with God's promise to give him innumerable descendants. So, when he later is ordered to sacrifice his only son - with no prospects of getting another one - he is showing considerable faith through his actions, because without a son obviously he cannot have descendants. So the assumption is that Abraham acted in the unlikely confidence that God would restore his son to him after the sacrifice - in other words he was ready to perform a supreme act of faith.

That isn't what James chapter 2 is claiming. Whomever is making the statement in James is clearly presenting an argument for justification. Abraham may have indeed had "works of faith", as did many in Hebrews 11, but none of those works justified them. We are "justified" by faith alone, or Paul is a liar.

ItalianGold

February 27th 2003, 08:54 PM

I have read this thread over from beginning to end...twice! The subject is endlessly fascinating. I am not a Biblical scholar. I am a seeker of Truth and a believer. (not in a narrow God) I have so much respect for most of the authors of comments on this thread because of their respectful attitudes and willingness to at least listen to another viewpoint. I have questions that I wish someone, from either or both sides would address.

1. I have observed that there are many "born again Christians" who become smug, self-righteous and highly judgmental. (And yes, there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are also.) But, I am puzzled by their fanatical insistance that OSAS requires no works; that there is only one sin which will keep one from heaven once saved - and that is unbelief. If that is truly what they believe in their hearts why do they point fingers at everyone else who offends their own personal sensitivities? Why the rants that people who "live in sin" (ie. unmarried) will burn in hell? Why spend so much time and effort and money NOT on spreading Christ's message, but on justifying their hatred of their pet sinners. (especially of a sexual nature)

2. Why are they not required to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, comfort the sick, etc. but they insist (often with red faces and finger wagging) that I must not believe that homosexuals may go to heaven? I must not listen to or have fellowship with those of a different faith? (sometimes preaching that the Protestant church down the street is heretical because it disagrees on some theological point or another and really, really believe that Catholics are not Christian and will all go straight to hell)

3. Why do they expect the world to see them as witnesses for Christ when their justification/sactification/baptism/belief has NOT had the effect of manifesting in good works? (which some maintain are not seperate from Faith) There is a great deal of evidence that populations with the most fundamentalists have the same or higher rates of crime, of violence, of spousal and child abuse and divorce than members of other/no faith.

4. Why do fundamentalists post threads maintaining that atheists have no moral code and can't know right from wrong if "right and wrong" are not important? (they don't say the only unforgivable sin is unbelief in these arguments) Why do many of them have a strong desire to post the Ten Commandments in public places and institute prayer in school if these things are not related to salvation? Why do others of them say the Commandments were the law of Moses and no longer apply?

I'm so confused.

Sozo

February 27th 2003, 09:02 PM

ItalianGold...

Those are all GREAT questions! But, perhaps should be addressed one at a time on the appropriate thread. If you would like to start with a specific concern, I would be happy to start the thread to address your question.

ItalianGold

February 27th 2003, 10:19 PM

Sozo
Those are all GREAT questions! But, perhaps should be addressed one at a time on the appropriate thread. If you would like to start with a specific concern, I would be happy to start the thread to address your question.

Yes, perhaps they ought to be taken one at a time. But I don't understand what you mean about "appropriate thread." I though this thread WAS the by faith alone or faith+works thread. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (as all 4 of my questions are directly related to that topic)

IG

T.J. Maxx

February 28th 2003, 12:35 AM

== Which I must inform you, it does. It affected every thought the writers of the NT had and therefore must take precedence in exegesis, just as much as a dictionary of the Greek language must take precedence when trying to understand what the NT says.

Sorry, but argument by assertion doesn't go far with me. You're going to have to offer up something more substantial than "take my word for it." This concept, or I should say, your interpretation of this concept, is so important to biblical exegesis throughout all the world of Christainity, yet it can be found only on your website? Forgive me if I need something more concrete. And keep in mind that I don't doubt the basic definition of the STC. Much of it I agree with. The part I disagree with is where you tell us that this means the people were incapable of dividing faith and works.

== The separation of the two is a modern anachronism. They are not inseparable; we merely think they are because we obssess in a linear fashion and make a pretence of separating acts of faith and works by moments in time. In any event all you would have proved is that our thinking is different today and that we are doing something alien to the writers of the NT.

I'm not talking about modes of thinking. i'm talking about teh fact that liek ourselves, the NT were not perfect. no concept imaginable could outweigh this fact. You're trying to sell me on the idea that someone who had been faithful, loyal, "saved" or whatever, could not have changed his or her mind and been unfaithful, disloyal (which I consider apostasy), because of a thought concept?

== You may start with Dahl's Resurrection of the Body, Clark's Approach to a Theology of the Sacraments and Flemington's New Testament Doctrine of Baptism all of which have something to say on the subject. ST is fairly well taken for granted in NT scholarship, however.

That is it? They all confirm your contention that the NT Christians were incapable of falling away spiritually because of a concept they adopted? Sorry, but I don't see how any scholar could argue such a thing.

== Actually, people tend to deceive themselves or else waver in their loyalty. I have already explained the exhortations in context.

You have offered your interpretation according to your own theological background. And I don't think you covered them all.

== "Letting the text speak for itself" and "common sense" are the proclaimed hallmarks of many atheists I have encountered, as well as Mormons, JWs, etc who reject background context as irrelevant.

I don't reject background context at all. Is it too much to expect suspicion when someone promotes an obscure "context" as the law, that can be found nowhere on the world wide web? But if the guilt by association fallacy helps your argument, knock yourself out. I also see that you ignore background context your upcoming dismissal of Paul's arguments against works, which clearly refer to the Law of Moses.

== Actually much of the rest of the world remains more like the people of the Bible than we do here in America, even in this respect. But only a small percentage of the world knew the Gospel at first -- do you have somehting against discipleship?

You're ignoring the impact and repercussions of what I just said. Allow me to rephrase: "only a very small percentage of Christianity could possibly have a clue as to what the Bible was really saying."

== They should. It would solve many problems.

They could also take the Bible for what it says instead of reading theological assumptions into the text.

== No, you are inventing categories here to evade the implications of Paul's words. Christ asked if the man kept the commandments and there are no others known in this context but the Law of Moses.

Right. But you're ignoring the fact that Christ added another commandment. A BIG ONE. One that had nothing to do with the Law of Moses. And as far as inventing categories, mine are supported by teh text. it cannot be mere coincidence that everytime Paul speaks against works, it involves the context of the Old Law, circumcision or whatever. He if the only NT writer that appears anti-works, and for this reason alone.

== Obscurity is of course irrelevant and contextual. I am not sure what you mean by "Evangelical scholarship" -- to what authors do you refer? Please name three.

Any of them. This is what I'm saying. It would be far more difficult to produce three who mention it then three who don't. That is why I asked you.

"And one would need to "fear and tremble"..... because?"

=== Because you have a huge responsibility.

Come on now. I may be an idiot, but even I know that being saved in the kigdom of God gives me no reason to "fear and tremble" anyway. Let alone responsibility. The context speaks for itself. We simply disagree.

== And what happened? He showed the truth of Paul's later statements: Gal. 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Rom. 3:20

Right. I don't have a problem with this since the law of Faith also involves commandments.

== Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. No one can keep all the Commandments. Christ's words showed our own inadequacy and pointed to the need for trust in him.

I agree that we need to trust him, but thsi doesn't change the fact that Christ added another commandment onto the old Law. He told the man to abandon his riches. Apparently that was his big sin (vanity), and it was a test of his faith or loyalty.

== There is some enormous difference between these?

Of course there is. Paul is constantly rejecting those who insist on trying to save themselves with the Law of Moses. this is why we see so many comments from him that appear anti-works. But this is not teh case. Romans mentions the Law of Moses in just about every vs in every chapter. That is the overwhelming context. But to those who are justified through faith, he constantly encourages them to do the works and obey the commandments that are involved with that particular law. The fulfilled Law. These can be found all throughout his letters to those already justified. They needed to work on their sanctification be being renewed every day. Fighting the good fight of faith as he does.

"While Christ does allude to the Law of Moses in the beginning, he clearly tells this man what is reauired of him for salvation"

== Trusting in Christ? Yes. And faith is trust and loyalty; this is the meaning of pistis. And if you are loyal to Christ, your behavior will reflect that. You cannot be loyal to him in word and not in deed.

Not to argue against what you're saying (I agree about faith), Christ made no mention of faith in his response. The closest thing we get about loyalty is "follow me." But the point I'm making is that Christ had a chance to answer the question unambiguously, and He said nothing about trust. He said to obey him. Not the Law of Moses, but Him!

"I'm trying to pound home here is that Christ used the commandments of obedience at the forefront. Paul turned it the other way around and people have been misunderstanding him ever since."

== If you're utterly sure of that, then you can hardly deny that STC could be a missing link.

I agree with the STC until it breaches free will. As far as a mode of thought goes, I can accept that they believes faith and works go hand and hand. But since this is true, how can anyone deny works is not necessary for salvation?

== It means he could not be loyal to Christ unless he dropped his loyalties to his wealth. Faith, as properly defined.

Ok. Good. So in this case, faith could not apply until obedience was applied first.

"Given the context of James 2, which clearly connects works and salvation, I'd say your interpretation is way off."

== You'll have to do better than that to prove it.

Hey, I was about to say the same thing. :) I'll give you the issue on falling, but I still think it has a direct reference to salvation. If not, then what? Take heed lest ye fall?

== Your "clearly" begs the question

Well if it isn't metaphor, then what? Are they falling down and tripping over themselves? Falling is in direct reference to idolatry. You'd have to explain how your fellow Christians could start worshipping a golden Ox, and still be saved.

== No, actually, that is planao which is related, and there is no sign that that means moral error there either -- not that the figure of sheep would allow for such a connotation to begin with.

It is in reference to someone who left the flock entirely, which is what we are talking about. Metaphor is involved again (sheep/flock), but it is clear that whatever the sheep's error was, it caused him to be broken off from the flock.

In any case, I see no reason why someone would need to be reconverted if all he had done was misundertand a theological tenet, as you interpret James.

"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

== The unforgivable sin IS unbelief.

Thats fine. So you're saying a believer cannot choose unbelief? This begs the question.

== Sins keeps us from God inasmuch as it affects our daily relationship with him. That does not equate with a loss of salvation though it surely affects rewards in heaven. Thus what you quote next:

That is a new one. Are you sure you're an Evangelical?

== Never falling is associated with a rich welcome -- not any welcome.

The focus appears to be on the entry itself, not the "richness" of it (whatever that means). I know this is obscured a bit with the very Evangelical NIV, but here are a couple more translations that better explain what was intended, although it is still unclear what it means to have an entry abundantly supplied.

"Thus there will be richly and abundantly provided for you entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (AMP)
"for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you." (NASB)
"for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."(NKJV)
"for thus shall the entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be richly furnished unto you."(DARBY)

Also, to make ones calling and election sure assumes one can make it unsure. All of this is the context which is wrapped around the phrase "if you do these things you'll never fall."

== So far you have only shown metaphor where it is convenient, not where exegesis demands it.

Likewise, you ignore context when convenient and recreate it at will.

"You're kidding right? The only way one can attain salvation in Christ is to be blameless first!"

== So therefore justification as indeed 1 Cor. 1:18 says. It does not say, "Behave so you may be blameless."

It doesn't need to. Justification is justification. Blamelesness is a product of both justification and sanctification.

== Really now. Atheists use this verse too -- against Romans 3:10.

I'm no atheist, and I agree with Rom 3:10 in context. The Bible mentions two types of righteousnesses. Ours and his. Ours is always referred to as obeying the Law of Moses and His righteousness involves the law of faith. It is accredited to us through faith. But attributing his righteousness doesn't negate the fact that it is attributed through live faith and not dead faith; meaning, works too.

== Tell me how you'd answer the atheists and I may have some more social science stuff for you.

What are they saying?

Anyway, you have your set interpretation and I have mine. But you seem entirely intolerant of any form of dissent.

johnransom

March 1st 2003, 10:43 PM

02-27-2003 @ 05:49 PM
Sozo:

That isn't what James chapter 2 is claiming. Whomever is making the statement in James is clearly presenting an argument for justification. Abraham may have indeed had "works of faith", as did many in Hebrews 11, but none of those works justified them. We are "justified" by faith alone, or Paul is a liar.

You're missing a HUGE point. James Chapter 2 is not about justification FROM GOD. It is about justification IN THE EYES OF MEN. When you make that very important and necessary distinction, it all fits together with Paul.

The proof is in verse 18 where James says "shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works". See? All about showing faith to each other, not to God.

Sozo

March 1st 2003, 10:49 PM

03-01-2003 @ 08:43 PM
johnransom:

You're missing a HUGE point. James Chapter 2 is not about justification FROM GOD. It is about justification IN THE EYES OF MEN. When you make that very important and necessary distinction, it all fits together with Paul.

The proof is in verse 18 where James says "shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works". See? All about showing faith to each other, not to God.

That's very interesting John, and I'll be honest, it is something I have never considered ( I love it when somebody tells me something I have never heard or studied).

Did you come up with this understanding through your own study, or is there a resource to support this view?

johnransom

March 1st 2003, 11:06 PM

03-01-2003 @ 08:49 PM
Sozo:

That's very interesting John, and I'll be honest, it is something I have never considered ( I love it when somebody tells me something I have never heard or studied).

Did you come up with this understanding through your own study, or is there a resource to support this view?

Well, I figured it out for myself, but I'm trained in a contextual hermeneutic, so it wasn't really that hard. And frankly, it seems fairly obvious to me. The only commentator I have to hand who makes this same point in a categorical fashion is Matthew Henry, who is, safe to say, pretty reliable.

Sozo

March 1st 2003, 11:12 PM

03-01-2003 @ 09:06 PM
johnransom:

Well, I figured it out for myself, but I'm trained in a contextual hermeneutic, so it wasn't really that hard. And frankly, it seems fairly obvious to me. The only commentator I have to hand who makes this same point in a categorical fashion is Matthew Henry, who is, safe to say, pretty reliable.

6 months after I became a Christian a purchased Matthew's Commentaries that was in several volumes. Even though I read a great deal of it, I would imagine very little of it actually stuck.

In any case, I will give it some serious consideration. So, thanks!

jpholding

March 2nd 2003, 04:48 PM

TJM,

Sorry, but argument by assertion doesn't go far with me. You're going to have to offer up something more substantial than "take my word for it." This concept, or I should say, your interpretation of this concept, is so important to biblical exegesis throughout all the world of Christainity, yet it can be found only on your website?

It is found in reputable Biblical scholarship and if that's your take on scholarship, so be it. :smile: I have cited reputable sources, and you have replied with nothing equitable and in fact will not even name names.

I'm not talking about modes of thinking. i'm talking about teh fact that liek ourselves, the NT were not perfect. no concept imaginable could outweigh this fact. You're trying to sell me on the idea that someone who had been faithful, loyal, "saved" or whatever, could not have changed his or her mind and been unfaithful, disloyal (which I consider apostasy), because of a thought concept?

I am trying to tell you, "As a man thinketh, so he is."

That is it? They all confirm your contention that the NT Christians were incapable of falling away spiritually because of a concept they adopted? Sorry, but I don't see how any scholar could argue such a thing.

And you won't, until you do some homework with them. :smile:

don't reject background context at all. Is it too much to expect suspicion when someone promotes an obscure "context" as the law, that can be found nowhere on the world wide web?

Yes, because the WWW is a glut of garbage for the most part and much of the best scholarly material is not and will never be on it (or commonly accessible) due to copyright restrictions. The lack of mention of STC on the Web means little. I suppose if it gets on 5 more websites you may think it more relevant.

You're ignoring the impact and repercussions of what I just said. Allow me to rephrase: "only a very small percentage of Christianity could possibly have a clue as to what the Bible was really saying."

Then they need to go out and learn. :smile: Discipleship is not sitting and eating potato chips.

They could also take the Bible for what it says instead of reading theological assumptions into the text.

I.e., they could stick their heads in the sand, plug their ears, sing hymns. It's not uncommon.

Right. But you're ignoring the fact that Christ added another commandment. A BIG ONE. One that had nothing to do with the Law of Moses

This will be interesting --

And as far as inventing categories, mine are supported by teh text. it cannot be mere coincidence that everytime Paul speaks against works, it involves the context of the Old Law, circumcision or whatever.

Vague generalization. Back it up with specifics.

Any of them. This is what I'm saying. It would be far more difficult to produce three who mention it then three who don't. That is why I asked you.

"Any of them." You apparently have none in your quiver.

Come on now. I may be an idiot, but even I know that being saved in the kigdom of God gives me no reason to "fear and tremble" anyway. Let alone responsibility.

Then you do not take your responsibilities seriously. Do you wish to stand before the White Throne saved yet having done a poor work in your life?

I agree that we need to trust him, but thsi doesn't change the fact that Christ added another commandment onto the old Law. He told the man to abandon his riches. Apparently that was his big sin (vanity), and it was a test of his faith or loyalty.

It was, but are you trying to suggest that giving up riches was a new and UNIVERSAL command?

Of course there is. Paul is constantly rejecting those who insist on trying to save themselves with the Law of Moses. this is why we see so many comments from him that appear anti-works. But this is not teh case. Romans mentions the Law of Moses in just about every vs in every chapter. That is the overwhelming context. But to those who are justified through faith, he constantly encourages them to do the works and obey the commandments that are involved with that particular law. The fulfilled Law.

Your argument fails on the point that beside the ceremonial law, the Law of Moses and the commands of your so-called "Law of Faith" are practically identical. Otherwise you are merely restating your case.

Not to argue against what you're saying (I agree about faith), Christ made no mention of faith in his response.

What? Do you object that the word is not there? It does not need to be. The concept is there for anyone who is willing to do a little social homework.

But the point I'm making is that Christ had a chance to answer the question unambiguously, and He said nothing about trust. He said to obey him. Not the Law of Moses, but Him!

Sigh, and obedience REQUIRES trust.

I agree with the STC until it breaches free will. As far as a mode of thought goes, I can accept that they believes faith and works go hand and hand. But since this is true, how can anyone deny works is not necessary for salvation?

Because the word "necessary" implies that works are somehow laid to your account in favor of salvation. STC however does not "breach" free will. It states that one's free choices determine one's actions.

Well if it isn't metaphor, then what? Are they falling down and tripping over themselves?

They are simply failing to meet a moral standard, with no reference to salvation.

Falling is in direct reference to idolatry. You'd have to explain how your fellow Christians could start worshipping a golden Ox, and still be saved.

"Falling" as a word has a variety of meanings; you are attempting to restrict it for your own purposes.

It is in reference to someone who left the flock entirely, which is what we are talking about. Metaphor is involved again (sheep/flock), but it is clear that whatever the sheep's error was, it caused him to be broken off from the flock.

I would agree. Apostasy. Not moral sin.

In any case, I see no reason why someone would need to be reconverted if all he had done was misundertand a theological tenet, as you interpret James.

He did far more than that. He spat in God's face and rejected His covenant.

Thats fine. So you're saying a believer cannot choose unbelief? This begs the question.

No, I am saying a believer can choose rejection of the covenant.

That is a new one. Are you sure you're an Evangelical?

I am far more in line with Evangelical scholarship and commentators than you thus far have shown. :smile:

The focus appears to be on the entry itself, not the "richness" of it (whatever that means).

"Appears to be"? How? Is the word "entry" in bold and the word "rich" in teeny tiny letters? Explain. None of the versions you quote gives any indication of prominence such as you argue.

Also, to make ones calling and election sure assumes one can make it unsure.

By utter disloyalty (apostasy) I certainly agree.

Likewise, you ignore context when convenient and recreate it at will.

Based on serious contextual study which you so far merely wave away.

It doesn't need to. Justification is justification. Blamelesness is a product of both justification and sanctification.

Hum. A product of it? You now sound like a Semitic Totalitarian. :smile:

I'm no atheist, and I agree with Rom 3:10 in context. The Bible mentions two types of righteousnesses. Ours and his. Ours is always referred to as obeying the Law of Moses and His righteousness involves the law of faith. It is accredited to us through faith. But attributing his righteousness doesn't negate the fact that it is attributed through live faith and not dead faith; meaning, works too.

With all of this you have still not answered my question about how you resolve the putative contradiction. Arbitarily designating "two kinds of righteousness" is mere verbal and argumentative trickery worthy of an amateur Mormon apologist.

Anyway, you have your set interpretation and I have mine. But you seem entirely intolerant of any form of dissent.

There is always good reason to be intolerant of error promulgated by those who think base readings are sufficient study. :smile: Don't play the politically correct game -- it doesn't work.

undead

March 3rd 2003, 09:02 AM

02-21-2003 @ 11:15 PM
psychopath:

I firmly believe that one gains salvation through faith alone in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Acts 16:31 seems very clear - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. There are other verses that further outline that faith gives one salvation, with no mention of works.

Faith includes the concept of works. Faith is "belief acted out in works". The bible admits of no belief apart from that which manifests itself in visible faith.

Simple isn't it?

Bill the Cat

March 3rd 2003, 01:08 PM

But I think the real question is are we justified by the things we do or by our total commitment (Faith) to Christ? In general, I believe If we try to stand before God and say, "I did this in your name... I did that in your name" it will be utterly useless. We are ALL sinners in need of grace.

My pastor described grace and mercy like this:

Grace is getting what you don't deserve
mercy is not getting what you do deserve.

Bill the Cat

March 3rd 2003, 05:49 PM

Just a bit of info on what keeps us saved from the Ancient Church

Didache 16:5
Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing, and many shall be offended and perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved by the Curse Himself.

Notice it didn't say in their works.

johnransom

March 3rd 2003, 06:15 PM

03-03-2003 @ 03:49 PM
Bill the Cat:

Just a bit of info on what keeps us saved from the Ancient Church

Didache 16:5
Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing, and many shall be offended and perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved by the Curse Himself.

Notice it didn't say in their works.

This seems to argue against your point, Bill. How else exactly is one expected to "endure", if not by works?

Bill the Cat

March 3rd 2003, 06:48 PM

"This seems to argue against your point, Bill. How else exactly is one expected to "endure", if not by works?"

Not at all. Keeping your faith means not to apostacize.

My point is that Our faith and grace from God is what saves us. enduring in the faith is what KEEPS us.

Apollos

March 8th 2003, 05:26 PM

I believe salvation has –2- parts: GOD’s part and MAN’s part.

God HAS DONE His part. God planned to save man before the foundation of the world in Christ, Eph 1:3. We have all we need to know because God saw to it, John 16:13, 2Tim 3:16, 2Pt1:3, and we can understand it, Eph 3:4, 5:17. The plan was executed at the right time, Gal 4:4. The cost of the plan was the blood of His son, John 1:29.

Then there is MAN’s part. Man does not deserve it, otherwise it could not include grace & mercy. Man can not merit it, otherwise he could boast he had earned it.
Salvation is provided by God through grace and mercy, but man has a part.

Unless you are a TRUE Calvinist and you are thinking that man must be “zapped” someday, somewhere by the Holy Spirit to obtain salvation… or a universalist, that thinks somehow, in someway all men will be saved in some unknown way, then you believe man has a part in his salvation!! If you disagree, I can prove it to you!

Man has to do something! But what?

What about WORKS? Works of merit or “boastful works” as in Ephesians 2:9, that would allow man to say he earned salvation & allow him to brag? No!

By works of the O.T (old law)? Romans 3:21&28. Not so, salvation is apart from these works of the law!

Works of the flesh? Galatians 5:19-21 – No, these works are the problem working against your salvation.

Then what can man do/perform/work for his part?? I suggest they will be “good” works. Allow me to qualify these “works”.

“Good” works –

John 6:29 – “This is the WORK of God, that you believe on him whom he sent.”
Ephesians 2:10 – (now read on past the “boastful” works) “For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS, which God afore prepared that we should WALK IN THEM.”

Friends, there are some GOOD WORKS prepared by God, that you and I are to be walking in (ei. doing)! Too many have heard for too long the unqualified statement, “We are not saved by works!”, that they do not know that “good” works are involved in their salvation. The proper works are good works, not works of merit, man, OT, or the flesh.

Man definitely has a part in obtaining his salvation from God. Get to “work !!

Bill the Cat

March 13th 2003, 12:19 AM

I heard a great reply to the works argument. God has no perogative to forgive us. He does so by His grace alone. So no matter what we do, God is in charge of salvation. We cn do all of the good works and believe, but salvation is God's gift. Our works, boiled down are selfish, to try to obtain salvation or favor with God. We can do nothing to obtain salvation works wise. It's God's to give to whom He will. Why do we get baptized? to seek God's favor. Why do we give alms and tithes? to seek His favor. All selfish. God knows our heart. We need to understand that we don't deserve His Grace, but we'll take it if He'll give it.

psychopath

March 13th 2003, 01:12 AM

Hi.:smile:

John 6:29 – “This is the WORK of God, that you believe on him whom he sent.”

This verse isn't talking about our good works, but the work of God. All it says we are to do is believe.

Ephesians 2:10 – (now read on past the “boastful” works) “For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS, which God afore prepared that we should WALK IN THEM.”

God obviously wants us to perform good works, but this verse doesn't seem to link them with salvation.

Too many have heard for too long the unqualified statement, “We are not saved by works!”, that they do not know that “good” works are involved in their salvation.

What about Acts 16:31? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." It doesn't seem conditionally based on doing good works. The only way I see you getting around this problem is by making the argument that good works inevitably come from he who has faith, but that wasn't the gist of your first post.

Apollos

March 13th 2003, 06:46 PM

Hello Psychopath –

Thank you for your post.

John 6:29 – “This is the WORK of God, that you believe on him whom he sent.”
This verse isn't talking about our good works, but the work of God. All it says we are to do is believe.You are correct, this verse is not talking about OUR good works, and that is just my point. This verse establishes that GOD has some works. The “works” WE are to DO are God’s works – the “works” God wants us to do. When we do these works, we do not EARN anything and we can not BOAST about anything, but we are, by the grace of God reckoned/accounted as righteous for our obedience.

Man must do something to appropriate salvation from God. It looks like you and I are just in disagreement about HOW MANY things we should do.

I hope you take notice that to “believe on Him” takes more than just a mental acknowledgement of Who He is. It requires one to “believe” all that He did and said!

Ephesians 2:10 – (now read on past the “boastful” works) “For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS, which God afore prepared that we should WALK IN THEM.”

God obviously wants us to perform good works, but this verse doesn't seem to link them with salvation.I think it does to this extent – in that it says “though faith”. Faith is something man “does” !! Faith is not just “mental” – see Hebrews 11 and read what all the “faithful” of old time DID to be called faithful !!
Faith is a comprehensive word for what we believe and then do!

(Extra: We read beginning in verse 8 that we are saved by the gift of God’s grace through our faith. We did not deserve that grace - it was not of ourselves – it was nothing we were. And that doing works that would allow one to “boast” played no part in obtaining His grace.

The saved are His workmanship (cf. Col. 2:12) created in Jesus (a new creature, 2 Cor. 5:17) to do “good works” (the works of God as depicted above – not works of man or even of the OT). These “works” were prepared by God for the “new creatures” to “walk” in !! – end of Extra.)

What about Acts 16:31? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." It doesn't seem conditionally based on doing good works. The only way I see you getting around this problem is by making the argument that good works inevitably come from he who has faith, but that wasn't the gist of your first post.First I would say that it is impossible to say one has “faith” before he is doing something. Can you show me ONE example from the scriptures where ANYONE was said to have FAITH before he/she did what God commanded or required?? You will search in vain because it does not exist! Again refer to Hebrews 11 and the “cloud of witnesses”. Shallow definitions of “faith” (mental ascent or recognition of Diety) are not the Bible definition.

So when Acts 16:31 reads, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…” Paul and Silas did not mean to “take note” about Jesus, they meant BELIEVE what He said and believe in what He did, and DO something about it. If indeed the jailor “believed” on the Lord, which the passage indicates he did, then this included the water baptism as seen in verse 33, and it was then they rejoiced – verse 34 !!

I want to ask you that IF you still disagree, please take the passage you offered – Acts 16:31 – and tell me what you think “Believe on the Lord…” means.

psychopath

March 14th 2003, 02:47 AM

Thank you for the intelligent and level-headed discussion. :thumb:

John 6:29 – “This is the WORK of God, that you believe on him whom he sent.”

You are correct, this verse is not talking about OUR good works, and that is just my point. This verse establishes that GOD has some works. The “works” WE are to DO are God’s works – the “works” God wants us to do. When we do these works, we do not EARN anything and we can not BOAST about anything, but we are, by the grace of God reckoned/accounted as righteous for our obedience.

We may have differing definitions of the word "work" in the verse. To me, the obvious implication from the verse is that "work" refers to "believ[ing] on him who he sent." Do you disagree with this? If you are considering this belief the "work" necessary for salvation, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. I also agree that, ultimately, it is only God's grace that saves us.

Man must do something to appropriate salvation from God. It looks like you and I are just in disagreement about HOW MANY things we should do.

This seems to be the case. In a nutshell, I believe one gains salvation by believing that the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and his resurrection was the perfect sacrifice for the sins that would justly cause us to be eternally separated from God following our physical death.

I think it does [i.e., link good works to salvation] to this extent – in that it says “though faith”. Faith is something man “does” !! Faith is not just “mental” – see Hebrews 11 and read what all the “faithful” of old time DID to be called faithful !!
Faith is a comprehensive word for what we believe and then do!

I am not trying to indicate that the faith that saves is purely mental. It involves a spiritual transformation, from a being dominated by man's inherent sin nature to one in which the Holy Spirit is now present.

I'm trying to get a better handle on your position. Are you saying that, if one has true saving faith, it will inevitably produce good works? Or are you saying that the good works are part of what actually saves? If it's the former, we are in no disagreement. If it's the latter, I do disagree.

I also slightly disagree with your interpretation of Hebrews 11. The first verse of the chapter is key:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

This defines the faith being talked about later in the chapter. Notice that the author does not indicate good works as a part of this faith; the faith he is describing seems to completely inward, i.e., wholly mental and spiritual, as opposed to physical.

Using this verse as the base, I think the rest of the chapter falls into place. The author describes actions and events CAUSED BY the faith of these great men. There is a clear distinction between the faith itself and the actions it produced. For example, verse 17:

"By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice."

Abraham's faith did not intrinsically include his offering of Isaac, but was the cause of it.

Extra: We read beginning in verse 8 that we are saved by the gift of God’s grace through our faith. We did not deserve that grace - it was not of ourselves – it was nothing we were. And that doing works that would allow one to “boast” played no part in obtaining His grace.

I completely agree.

The saved are His workmanship (cf. Col. 2:12) created in Jesus (a new creature, 2 Cor. 5:17) to do “good works” (the works of God as depicted above – not works of man or even of the OT). These “works” were prepared by God for the “new creatures” to “walk” in !! – end of Extra.)

But look closely - we are new creatures BEFORE we walk in these good works. Thus, the latter cannot be involved in making us new creatures; they only come into play AFTER we have been transformed.

First I would say that it is impossible to say one has “faith” before he is doing something. Can you show me ONE example from the scriptures where ANYONE was said to have FAITH before he/she did what God commanded or required??

What about the thief on the cross? He was the most wretched of human beings - but as soon as he acknowledged Jesus Christ for who he was, Jesus declared him to be saved. He didn't have the time or ability to do any good works, but his faith was counted as righteousness! This seems to show that the faith that saves is distinct from the works that are produced/caused by it.

So when Acts 16:31 reads, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…” Paul and Silas did not mean to “take note” about Jesus, they meant BELIEVE what He said and believe in what He did, and DO something about it. If indeed the jailor “believed” on the Lord, which the passage indicates he did, then this included the water baptism as seen in verse 33, and it was then they rejoiced – verse 34 !!

I want to ask you that IF you still disagree, please take the passage you offered – Acts 16:31 – and tell me what you think “Believe on the Lord…” means.

The original greek for the word "believe" in this verse is "pisteuson." Directly from Strong, here is what this greek word means:

"to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in of the thing believed to credit, have confidence in a moral or religious reference used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith 1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity to be intrusted with a thing"

I think this is pretty self-explanatory in affirming my position.

Peace.

Pilgrim

March 14th 2003, 12:15 PM

We are saved by a faith which is evidenced in our works.

Apollos

March 14th 2003, 07:01 PM

Psychopath –

Thank you once again for good discussion.
We may have differing definitions of the word "work" in the verse [John 6:29]. To me, the obvious implication from the verse is that "work" refers to "believ on him who he sent." Do you disagree with this? If you are considering this belief the "work" necessary for salvation, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. I also agree that, ultimately, it is only God's grace that saves us.I think we agree that man must do something to appropriate salvation from God, so I think we agree on the basic meaning of “work” in this verse. I agree that in this verse the “work” to be performed is “believe”. It appears we may have differing definitions of “believe”.

It seems to me the word “believe” indicates that one “believe” in ALL that was said and done by the One whom He sent. Anything less is to not “believe” in Him. It is in this sense of the
word “believe” – a comprehensive application to all Jesus said, did, & commanded – that it becomes a “work” that is necessary for one to receive salvation. We acknowledge, place confidence in, and take action on the information He provides us. Is any one part more important than another?

But whatever we know and do, however knowledgeable and obedient, it is by God’s grace that we are saved. Man must learn how to appropriate His grace because we know that not all will receive His grace to be saved !
Apollos said last time:[i]Man must do something to appropriate salvation from God. It looks like you and I are just in disagreement about HOW MANY things we should do.
Psychopth replied: This seems to be the case. In a nutshell, I believe one gains salvation by believing that the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and his resurrection was the perfect sacrifice for the sins that would justly cause us to be eternally separated from God following our physical death.I applaud you candor in reference to works !! There is a “point” at which one gains his salvation from God – a point at which he passes from death into life. Man’s coming to this “point” is accomplished by action on the part of man. God is offering salvation to ALL men by His grace and man has to go “get” it! God dictates how you “get it” !

In a nutshell, the “process” I believe that brings man to the “point” of salvation is:

- Man must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
– Man must repent of sin
– Man must confess, not his sins, but that Jesus is the Son and
- Man must be (water) baptized for the remission of his sins.

I believe it is at this “point” of water baptism that a man passes from death unto life. Man buries that old sinful man and he becomes the new creature in Christ. I “believe” this is what the scriptures teach.
I am not trying to indicate that the faith that saves is purely mental. It involves a spiritual transformation, from a being dominated by man's inherent sin nature to one in which the Holy Spirit is now present.Ignoring what man’s inherent nature is for now, I would agree that a “transformation” takes place in man’s conversion. How much does a man need to transform before he is saved? Or another way to put this is – At what point in this “transformation” does a man pass from death into life?

Are you saying that, if one has true saving faith, it will inevitably produce good works?Not exactly. What I am saying is that “faith” is a combination of what one believes and what one does. Allow me to use Hebrews 11 to exemplify this, even though you said you slightly disagree with my interpretation.

By faith – Abel offered / Enoch pleased / Noah prepared / Abraham went… etc.

God would command or direct. In response to His instruction, man had to believe God and then take action – the appropriate action. These –2- aspects having taken place, the Hebrew writer declares (after the fact) that the response was “by faith”. Let’s dissect one example.

By faith Abel offered a sacrifice. God’s requirement was a sacrifice. Abel’s response was to believe or acknowledge that God required a sacrifice AND to perform the sacrifice. Note that the Hebrew writer states “by which” (the sacrifice) “he obtained witness that he was righteous…”

Had Abel stopped anywhere prior to accomplishing the sacrifice in the appropriate manner (cf. Cain), I think we would both agree that the Hebrew writer could not have written that it was “by faith” these things took place and that Abel had obtained witness that “he was righteous”. Faith requires the action to take place and this is why no one in scripture has faith credited to them before they DID what God required !
Abraham's faith did not intrinsically include his offering of Isaac, but was the cause of it.God’s command was the cause of the sacrifice. Abraham’s response to that command (belief and action) is what the Hebrew writer says was “by faith” !
But look closely [at Eph. 2:10] - we are new creatures BEFORE we walk in these good works. Thus, the latter cannot be involved in making us new creatures; they only come into play AFTER we have been transformed.You are right! I am sorry I was not clear as to the exact point I attempted to make. I was attempting to only point out that there are “works” that God wants his people to perform – some “works” that God prepared for them to do. However, I hope I made some of my other points plain enough for you to recognize that I believe there are some works involved for man to obtain his salvation from God.
What about the thief on the cross?Yes, we should look at the world’s most popular thief. Was he ever baptized? We do not know. Even so, it could only have been John’s baptism. And then of course, he lived under the OT and not under Christ’s new covenant. But there is yet one consideration remaining.

The thief was forgiven by the personal authority of Jesus. (cf. Luke 5:24) Jesus’ forgiving the thief was no different than His forgiving the sins of the woman in Luke 7:47,48. The main point being, you and I are not going to have our sins forgiven in the same way the thief, the woman, or the man sick with palsy was forgiven. Jesus no longer walks the earth. So I consider the thief a moot point – a non-example for us today.

I appreciate your discussion !!! :thumb:

Alukard

March 17th 2003, 11:41 AM

I agree with those who say that James is discussing our standing in the eyes of men. Pretty much all of chapter deals with how one can objectively identify a Christian's faith, and James is pretty emphatic that it is by our works that will be able to identify us. I believe that works will inevitably flow from a genuine and sincere saving faith. Remember Jesus' words to his disciples in John 15? The branches connected to the vine bear much fruit for the Father's glory; Just like a branch attached to the vine can do nothing but bear fruit, likewise the believer in union with Christ will invariably produce good works.

Woman

March 17th 2003, 07:31 PM

How could one possibly have "faith" and "belief" and not DO (or try with all their heart) that which Christ commanded?

What would be the purpose of the doctrine of Love if it required nothing but self-love? "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me"...How can one love Christ and NOT also love and serve man?

I heard something the other day that brought me up short. Mind you, I'm NOT used to defending religion, but someome on II was saying that it was well known why evengelists had been able to "claim" so many souls for Christ...and that's because it's the easiest faith. It requires almost nothing except a few basic beliefs. This person also went on to say that popular modern Christianity is the easiest version yet, because they teach that after you have been "born again" you are guaranteed a place in heaven.

Now, that just p**sed me off! I have a couple of close friends who are devout Christians and they do not believe this. But, it seems like some of you do. When and how did this happen?

Sozo

March 18th 2003, 12:05 AM

Today @ 05:31 PM
Woman:

How could one possibly have "faith" and "belief" and not DO (or try with all their heart) that which Christ commanded?

When did somebody convince you of such a ridiculous idea that we are to "try with all our heart" to do what Christ commanded?

God demands nothing less than absolute perfection, and without it you have no hope of eternal life.

psychopath

March 19th 2003, 01:32 AM

It seems to me the word “believe” indicates that one “believe” in ALL that was said and done by the One whom He sent. Anything less is to not “believe” in Him. It is in this sense of the
word “believe” – a comprehensive application to all Jesus said, did, & commanded – that it becomes a “work” that is necessary for one to receive salvation. We acknowledge, place confidence in, and take action on the information He provides us. Is any one part more important than another?

I guess I just disagree. If one looks at the meaning of the original wording of verses such as Acts 16:31, the faith that saves is completely inward. Also, consider Romans 4:5 -

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

The same Greek word for "believe" is used here as in the Acts verse. Does God expect us to act in accordance with his commands, once we have been saved? Of Course. But I firmly believe that these actions come distinctly AFTER salvation is gained.

In a nutshell, the “process” I believe that brings man to the “point” of salvation is:

- Man must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
– Man must repent of sin
– Man must confess, not his sins, but that Jesus is the Son and
- Man must be (water) baptized for the remission of his sins.

I only disagree with the fourth point. There are a few reasons I do not see water baptism as necessary for salvation, one of which is the explanation I’ve already given regarding what kind of “faith” is saving.

By faith Abel offered a sacrifice. God’s requirement was a sacrifice. Abel’s response was to believe or acknowledge that God required a sacrifice AND to perform the sacrifice. Note that the Hebrew writer states “by which” (the sacrifice) “he obtained witness that he was righteous…”

Had Abel stopped anywhere prior to accomplishing the sacrifice in the appropriate manner (cf. Cain), I think we would both agree that the Hebrew writer could not have written that it was “by faith” these things took place and that Abel had obtained witness that “he was righteous”.

Let’s specifically look at the verse in question, Hebrews 11:4 –

“By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.”

The key phrase seems to be “through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous…”. The sacrifice was the outward SHOWING of his righteousness, the physical manifestation of his faith. It doesn’t seem to be indicating that the sacrifice is what saved him, but that it WITNESSED to his salvation.

Had Abel stopped anywhere prior to accomplishing the sacrifice in the appropriate manner (cf. Cain), I think we would both agree that the Hebrew writer could not have written that it was “by faith” these things took place and that Abel had obtained witness that “he was righteous”. Faith requires the action to take place and this is why no one in scripture has faith credited to them before they DID what God required !

But I don’t agree with the way you’re interpreting the phrase “by faith.” When the passage says “by faith He did X,” I think what the author means is “He did X because of his faith.” You seem to be interpreting it as meaning “Doing X is what made him faithful.” There are two reasons I think my view is correct:

1) The definition of faith given by the author in verse 1, the importance of which I’ve already explained.

2) Before actually acting, one has to choose to act. IOW, before Abel could provide the appropriate sacrifice, he had to decide to do so. But what else besides an already-present faith can be the source of a decision that accords with God’s will? Without the faith already being there, prior to deciding to act, there is no reason why Abel, Abraham, etc. should have been expected to do what God asked of them.

God’s command was the cause of the sacrifice. Abraham’s response to that command (belief and action) is what the Hebrew writer says was “by faith” !

I think I’ve sufficiently explained this above.

I am sorry I was not clear as to the exact point I attempted to make. I was attempting to only point out that there are “works” that God wants his people to perform – some “works” that God prepared for them to do. However, I hope I made some of my other points plain enough for you to recognize that I believe there are some works involved for man to obtain his salvation from God.

I absolutely agree with the first point; my disagreements with the second point have already been voiced.

Yes, we should look at the world’s most popular thief. Was he ever baptized? We do not know. Even so, it could only have been John’s baptism. And then of course, he lived under the OT and not under Christ’s new covenant. But there is yet one consideration remaining.

The thief was forgiven by the personal authority of Jesus. (cf. Luke 5:24) Jesus’ forgiving the thief was no different than His forgiving the sins of the woman in Luke 7:47,48. The main point being, you and I are not going to have our sins forgiven in the same way the thief, the woman, or the man sick with palsy was forgiven. Jesus no longer walks the earth. So I consider the thief a moot point – a non-example for us today.

Hmmm. It just seems a little inconsistent to consider the thief, etc. as non-examples for us today since they lived under a different covenant (I would probably use the word dispensation here), and then to produce examples that supposedly prove your point (Abel, etc.) from the same covenant. Maybe I’m missing something, though.

Peace.