Saved by Faith, or Faith + Works?

[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.

However, the one passage that has given me trouble is James 2:17-26:

"2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

2:22
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

2:25
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. "

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. 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. But I've also seen repsonses (from mostly Catholics) to this interpretation that seemed to refute this position.

What are your thoughts? Do you think good works are necessary for salvation, and if so, how do you explain verses such as Acts 16:31? If you are a faith alone adherent, how do you explain this passage from James? All observations are welcome.

[jpholding]

Hey Psycho, :smile:

The solution lies in that we wrongly see faith and works as divisible entities. The ancients saw them as inseparable. Works follow faith inevitably ("faith" BTW means trust or loyalty) and are inevitable from a living faith. As a man thinks, so he is.

You may find helpful:

http://www.tektonics.org/baptismneed.html
http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html

[allie]

Heb 4:2
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
KJV

Belief is a redemptive work of Christ. Israel believed, but their belief was not mixed with His saving Faith (excluding the elect, that is).

There are required works of mankind such as feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked etc. These works are 'expected' of ALL mankind . To extend a cup of human kindness is understood in the heart of all of us.

Then there are what i call "spiritual works'. Those works done in us through Christ. As an example, obedience to the Word of God. The desire to be obedient is a gift and a good work performed in us by Christ. It is actually He in us who is making us desire to do His will, making us desire to love Him and know Him. He is the one doing the 'good work' in us to make us seek Him and beg Him to make us worthy to be worthy.

All of this, just to name a few, are good works which are pleasing to God because it is the Son in us glorifying the Father.

Are they necessary for salvation? They are the evidence of salvation.


2 Thess 1:11
11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
KJV

2 Thess 1:12
12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV

Phil 2:13
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
KJV

[GrayPilgrim]

02-22-2003 @ 12:58 AM
allie:

Israel believed, but their belief was not mixed with His saving Faith (excluding the elect, that is).



I object to this. The problem with Israel was that they did not have the Abrahamic Faith! They did not believe (trust) in Yahweh. They trusted in the traditions of the elders and halakhah to make them righteous before Yahweh. All the other covenants were predicated on the Abrahamic which means Abraham's Faith (Gebn 15). Those who did not believe may have had genetic descent from Abe, but they failed to be true sons of Abraham, as we are who believe in Christ.

BTW--To the discusion at hand I heard a quote in a sermon (can't remember who said it) "You are saved by Faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone." This means that is is solely on the redemptive work of Christ that you are saved, but true faith will bring forth fruit fitting of repentance.

GP

[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.

[geebob]

or the works that paul refers to is not to be understood as any active involvement that is not mere belief but rather the works of the Law and circumcision. In this case James would not be contradicting Paul as the works of the law and circumcision is not what he meant when he spoke of works. He meant faith without activity, active obedience to God, is dead.

[Sozo]

02-22-2003 @ 12:44 PM
geebob:

or the works that paul refers to is not to be understood as any active involvement that is not mere belief but rather the works of the Law and circumcision. In this case James would not be contradicting Paul as the works of the law and circumcision is not what he meant when he spoke of works. He meant faith without activity, active obedience to God, is dead.

Nevertheless, Abraham was not "justified" by any works or activity.

[Joseph Alward]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

They have no life in them at all.

[T.J. Maxx]

== 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]

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]

== 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]

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]

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

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

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]

== 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]

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:

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

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]

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]

== 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]

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.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

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]

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]

== 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

[Secretary of Education - Colin 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:

"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]

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"

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

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

Both of those quotes are from you, Bill



Actually, not really. I copied it from the reply that TJ MAXX sent at the bottom of his last post. The top response is mine, the second was TJ's

[johnransom]

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]

== 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.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

== 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]

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]

@@ 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.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

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]

@@ 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.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

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]

@@ 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.