Is our belief in who Jesus is, necessary for salvation

[Guest]

I do not know what Jay T would say, but I would say that the capitalization of the letter g in your quote is incorrect.

The NASB says: "... and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I do not know what Jay T would say, but I would say that the capitalization of the letter g in your quote is incorrect.

The NASB says: "... and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"

Hmmm. I couldn't help but notice that there was an 's' on the end of your word, aLoneVoice.

 

[Guest]

Yes - it was not a mistake, that is how it is translated in the NASB.

Remember it was the officials of Nebichadnezzar that said this - they would not necessarily have a concept of our God, but rather their gods.

 

[Solo]

Who was the fourth person in the fire? This question must be answered. Is he a pagan god or son of pagan gods? Or is he the Son of God, the Word? What would the inspiration of the Holy Spirit be to the author Daniel when writing this portion of Scripture be? I suspect that He would inspire the writer to write who the one actually was in the fire with the three whom He was protecting. Don't you?!


"The Son of God," or "A son of the gods" (Daniel 3:25)?

By Doug Kutilek

[Reprinted from “As I See It,†vol. 3, no. 11, November 2000]

One verse that has been repeatedly summoned into service by those who hold to the “King James Only†position as proof positive that modern English versions are in reality perversions is Daniel 3:25. In the KJV, the fourth man in the furnace is identified as “the Son of God†(or, “sonne of God,†as spelled in the original 1611 edition). In contrast, the American Standard Version of 1901 identifies him as “a son of the gods.†The New American Standard Version and the New International Version agree with the ASV here (the New King James Bible follows the KJV in the text, but has the ASV rendering in the margin).

The accusation made against the rendering in the ASV et al. is that they have removed a clear reference to the second person of the Trinity and have substituted for it a flabby, vague reference to a mere son of the (pagan) gods, thereby debasing this proof text of the pre-incarnate existence of Christ, as well as his Deity. (This all assumes that the fourth man in the furnace was a theophany, an interpretation rather more generally assumed than proved).

Rather than ‘dogmatize peremptorily,’ I prefer to ask, “But what are the facts in the case? Have the ASV et al. mistranslated the original text, and thereby fallen into error, or did in fact the KJV mistranslate the passage, and the ASV set it right in English?†We shall seek to answer this question intelligently, rather than be carried away with judgment-blinding prejudice and unsupported presupposition.

This particular verse in Daniel, along with the whole section 2:4b-7:28 is in the Aramaic language, rather than in Hebrew like most of the rest of the Old Testament. Aramaic (also sometimes called Chaldee and Syriac) and Hebrew are sister Semitic languages (the family also includes Arabic, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Ethiopic, Phoenecian and a few even more obscure tongues). As a result, Aramaic and Hebrew have a number of related words and also have similar, but not identical, grammar. One of their differences is crucial at this point.

In the Aramaic original of Daniel 3:25, the phrase represented in English by “the Son of God/a son of the gods†is bar-elahin. Bar is a singular noun, meaning “son†and is commonly found in the New Testament, for example, in proper names: Barnabas, Barabbas, Bar-Jonah, etc., literally meaning “the son of X.†Its equivalent in Hebrew is ben, as in Benjamin, Ben-Hur, and Ben Gurion. Bar is here in the construct state, meaning it is grammatically joined to the word that follows it, and therefore means “son of.†So far, no problem.

Elahin is a masculine plural noun, denoting “godsâ€Â; the singular form is elah, or, with the definite article attached, elaha. The Arabic equivalent in allah. The Hebrew equivalent of elahin is elohim. But just here, usage in Hebrew and in Aramaic diverge. In Hebrew, though plural in form, the word elohim is the usual word for God (as in Genesis 1:1 and thousands of other places). Less commonly, it (that is the plural form) is also used of false gods (plural), and of human civil authorities. There is in Hebrew a singular counterpart to elohim, namely eloah, but it is comparatively rare in the OT, occurring just 57 times, with all but 15 of these being in Job, which displays numerous dialectic and linguistic peculiarities. Nearly all the rest are in poetic parts of the OT, or in passages influenced by Aramaic.

When we examine the Aramaic portion of the OT (besides Daniel 2:4b-7:28, Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Jeremiah 10:11 are also in Aramaic), we discover that there is a clear distinction between the use of the plural form elahin and the singular elaha. When the true God is spoken of, the singular elaha is invariably used (the singular is also used of false gods when referred to individually, as in Daniel 3:14; 4:5; etc.). The plural form elahin is used only of false gods, especially in the phrase, “the spirit of the holy gods†(4:5; 4:6; 5:11; etc.), words spoken by pagan polytheists from their perspective. The use of the plural form with reference to the one true God does not occur in the Aramaic portion of the OT. It must also be noted that the phrase bar-elahin in Daniel 3:25 does not have the definite article in the original Aramaic; that would be bar-elahayya.

Taken together, these facts--namely, that elahin is plural, and has no definite article here--combine to show that to translate bar-elahin as “the Son of God†is to overtranslate the words, indeed to mistranslate them. The precise, literal English equivalent of bar-elahin is “a son of the gods,†as the ASV, NASB and NIV have it. It should not surprise us to find a pagan king who acknowledged and worshipped many gods speaking of the appearance of a supernatural person as “a son of the gods.†Nebuchadnezzar was yet a pagan (he had just erected an idol of gold and compelled his subjects to worship it). In Daniel 3:28, the king refers once again to the fourth man in the furnace, this time by the designation “angel,†which suggests that the two terms, “angel†and “a son of the gods,†were synonymous designations.

Let us consider briefly how this phrase was handled in pre-KJV translations.

There exist two major pre-Christian Greek versions of Daniel (several others exist only in fragmentary quotes), that of the Septuagint (now preserved in only two manuscripts and a Syriac version; it was early on abandoned by the Christians in favor of the other Greek version). The other is ascribed to Theodotion, though it precedes his time by at least 2 centuries (it is this version which is found in virtually all extant manuscripts of the “Septuagintâ€Â).

The Septuagint, apparently under the influence of v. 28, translates bar-elahin as aggelou theou, which in English could be either “an angel/messenger of God,†or “an angel of a god,†(the Greek here has no definite article, and since the Greek language lacks an indefinite article, whether to supply it or leave it out in translation is a matter of interpretation and English style). Theodotion reads huio theou, which would correspond to either “a son of God,†or “a son of a god.†In both Greek versions, the Aramaic plural noun elahin is translated as though it were a singular.

There is no Jewish Aramaic Targum of Daniel (or of Ezra) since the book was originally in part in Aramaic already. There is however an ancient Syriac version of Daniel (translating the Aramaic of Daniel into Syriac would be roughly equivalent to “translating†Shakespeare’s early 17th century British English in “Hamlet†into late 20th century American English. It is rather more “up-dating†than translating). The Syriac version simply reproduces the bar-elahin of the original.

The Latin Vulgate of Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) was the dominant Bible translation in all of Western Europe throughout the Middle Ages. All the vernacular versions made there during the Middle Ages were made from it (including Wycliffe’s English version), and all the Reformation-era versions including and especially the KJV show the unmistakable influence of the Vulgate on every page. Jerome reads in Daniel 3:25 “filio Dei†which, due to Latin’s complete absence of articles definite and indefinite, might be understood as either “a son of God†or “the son of God.†[Whether Jerome had a mastery of Aramaic (as he had of Hebrew and Greek) is an open question, as far as I know. I’ve never seen any reference to his knowing Aramaic.] Because of the pervasive influence of the Vulgate on the KJV, it is not unlikely that the KJV’s “the Son of God†translation was a mimicking of the Vulgate’s rendering.

Besides the Vulgate, Jerome also wrote a commentary on Daniel which appeared some years before his Vulgate translation. His remarks cast some light on his understanding of the passage before us, and so we reproduce it here (following Gleason Archer’s English translation)--

“As for the appearance of the fourth man, which he asserts to be like that of a son of God, either we must take him to be an angel, as the Septuagint has rendered it, or indeed, as the majority think, the Lord our Savior. Yet I do not know how an ungodly king could have merited a vision of the Son of God. For that reasoning one should follow Symmachus [a 2nd century A.D. Ebionite who made a revised translation of the Septuagint], who has thus interpreted it: ‘But the appearance of the fourth is like unto the sons,’ not unto the sons of God but unto gods themselves. We are to think of angels here, who after all are very frequently called gods as well as sons of God. . . . But as for its typical significance, this angel or son of God foreshadows our Lord Jesus Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell, . . . .â€Â

Advancing to the Reformation era, we find that Martin Luther’s German translation of the words is “ein Son der Goetter,†that is, “a son of the gods,†corresponding precisely to the English ASV, etc.

John Calvin commented on v. 25: “the son of a god. No doubt God here sent one of his angels, to support by his presence the minds of his saints, lest they should faint . . . . A single angel was sent to these three men; Nebuchadnezzar calls him a son of God; not because he thought him to be Christ, but according to the common opinion among all people, that angels are sons of God, since a certain divinty is resplendent in them; and hence they call angels generally sons of God. According to this usual custom, Nebuchadnezzar says, the fourth man is like a son of a god. For he could not recognize the only-begotten Son of God, since, as we have already seen, he was blinded by so many depraved errors.â€Â

It merits noting that Scripture itself refers to angels as sons of God in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and also, so I think, Genesis 6:2, 4.

Of English versions antedating the KJV, the one most closely followed by the KJV is the Geneva Bible of 1560. At Daniel 3:25, we find “the sonne of God.†The KJV, apparently, merely reproduced the Geneva Bible unaltered. The Geneva Bible here has a significant marginal note: “For the Angels were called the sonnes of God, because of their excellencies; therefore the King called this Angel, whome God sent to comfort his in these great torments, the sonne of God.†These remarks clearly indicate that they did not consider the fourth man to be a theophany/Christophany. Their opinion here as commonly elsewhere, is in harmony with the published opinion of Calvin.

As long ago as the first quarter of the 19th century, Methodist commentator Adam Clarke addressed the issue of how Daniel 3:25 should be translated. After quoting the KJV, he remarks: “A most improper translation. What notion could this idolatrous king have of the Lord Jesus Christ? For so the place is understood by thousands. Bar-elahin signifies a son of the gods, that is, a Divine person or angel; and so the king calls him in ver. 28: “God hath sent his ANGEL, and delivered his servants.†And though even from this some still contend that it was the Angel of the covenant, yet the Babylonish king knew just as much of the one as he did of the other. No other ministration was necessary; a single angel from heaven was quite sufficient to answer the purpose, as that which stopped the mouths of the lions when Daniel was cast into their den.â€Â

I myself have long assumed--without prior detailed investigation--that Daniel 3:25 was a theophany, even while acknowledging the superior accuracy of the ASV over the KJV at this point. However, upon closer consideration, I must now agree with our friend the Methodist. It was an unnamed angel, a created being and not the Creator Himself, who appeared in the fiery furnace, just as it was an angel and not God Himself who appeared in the den of lions with Daniel (in the 6th chapter of Daniel, there is little dispute about this matter).

Let us hear the end of the matter: the ASV, NASB, NIV and NKJB margin give a literal English translation of the inerrant Aramaic original. Their interpretation of the text exactly corresponds with that of Luther some 400-plus years earlier. It is certainly not some new “higher critical†attack on the Scriptures. Rather, it is a precisely accurate English rendering of the original, and thereby acknowledges and honors the infallible nature and absolute authority of the inspired original text. The KJV merely reproduced the reading of its great predecessor, the Geneva Bible, which in turn precisely followed the Latin Vulgate, which in its turn literally followed the Greek translation of Theodotion. While precedent for the KJV’s translation can therefore be cited, nevertheless, the ASV et al., are squarely based on the ultimate and sole infallible authority, the Scriptures as originally written. That settles the matter for the individual who genuinely accepts that authority.

As for who the fourth man in the furnace was: while the view that it was a theophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity is the prevailing view (no doubt in part due to the incorrect renderings o Theodotion, Jerome, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV), that it was a created angel has been long-held by devout and doctrinally orthodox scholars, from Calvin to the Geneva Puritans to Adam Clarke, and no doubt many others before and after them. One’s interpretation of this passage is certainly not a test of orthodoxy. And rather than being a reason for condemnation, the translation “a son of the gods†as found in the aforementioned English versions is a mark in their favor, rather than a cause for reviling them.

Retrieved from http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_son_of_god.htm

 

[Imagican]

So, you would argue this point that Solo has offered over a 'translational' difference? You would contend that the KJV has it 'wrong' and opt for a 'different' translation that more closely aligns with your desired results?

Nice one Solo. I have stated and believe SINCERELY that Christ HAS ALWAYS been The Son of God. PREVIOUS to the 'creation of man'. There ARE other books that are NOT contained in The Holy Bible. There is MUCH that points to Christ having ALWAYS been The Son PREVIOUS to His 'taking on the flesh'.

Funny that there are so many different interpretations of Christ BEING the 'firstborn of EVERY CREATURE. And some have to 'stretch' it PRETTY hard to even 'think up' their offerings. I simply accept it 'as offered' and choose NOT to try to 'make up' what I would 'like' for it to mean.

And PLEASE note that this is NOT in reference to MAN ONLY, but SPECIFICALLY states 'CREATURE'. The FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE. NOT the firstborn of man. So, OBVIOUSLY your interpretation is nothing more than 'wishful thinking'. For the statement offered in The Word says NOTHING of resurrection or ANYTHING else. It simply states that Christ IS the Firstborn of EVERY CREATURE'.

Thanks for the 'fable' though. I can appreciate a 'good story' just like anyone else. But you should in all fairness let those that don't know any better that you are simply offering an 'opinion' and even then, MORE like 'speculation' that has nothing other than opinion backing it up. Otherwise there is the chance that someone may indeed accept your offering as 'fact' and be just as confused as you are.

If what I state is in error, PLEASE offer some EVIDENCE of what you state. Otherwise, I contend that what I offer has more evidential validity than the statement that; 'well........it doesn't REALLY mean what it says.......you know, it's like..........something else entirely.........like......ah...........you know,,,,,,,,,,you know? Just because it 'says' one thing doesn't really mean, you know, like what it says........... is the same as what it means....right.?'

And it's kind of funny.........There are those that are SO intent on Jesus BEING God, that they will try ANYTHING to 'alter' the truth that points in a 'different direction'. Such as the statement in question. This CLEARLY points to a 'time' when Christ may not have existed. That BEFORE there was ANYTHING living created upon this planet, (by Chirst Himself), that HE WAS FIRST. And we all know that there cannot be 'a son' without there FIRST being a FATHER. And if the FATHER IS FIRST, that means that there HAD to be a time BEFORE the son.

MEC

 

[Guest]

Solo and MEC - my point was not to argue that Christ is the SON.

Rather, my point is that the verse offered by Solo does not disprove Jay T's original claim.

Yes I believe that the fourth person was a theophany - however, the verse from Daniel that Solo quotes is a recording of what King Nebuchadnezzar's official, or the king himself.

The king would not have recognized the fourth person to be Christ.

Therefore, this passage from Daniel does not refute Jay T's claim that Jesus was only called SON after He was born.

Jesus can still be the "son" but he wasn't referred to as such in the OT.

 

[jgredline]

I see this thread getting side tracked, so I bring this back into the mix....

I noted a question asked of a forum member - and it it the same question asked of me in times past which I would like to throw open to all in this forum.

Now I'm not wanting to debate the trinity, but to establish whether or not we think that our understanding of who Jesus is, is necessary for 'salvation'.

I'm also not wanting to debate salvation, since there are varied understandings of this also. So for the sake of this thread, let's say that salvation is attained at the point at which we hear Jesus say, 'well done thou good and faithful servant'.

Jesus is God and the knowledge or understanding of this fact is not necessary for one to become saved, but after one is saved, the understanding that Jesus is God is evidence of one's salvation.

 

[mutzrein]

Thankyou JG :D

 

[Imagican]

Ok,

I KNOW God yet I DON'T know that Jesus Christ IS God. I KNOW what has been changed in MY HEART. And I KNOW 'who' Satan is and MANY of his guises.

And these things that I KNOW are NOT dependant upon a 'belief' that Jesus IS God Himself. And these things are NOT things that I 'made up' or imagine.

And how do you suppose that I AM able to understand what it is that God wants MOST for us? Do you honestly think that I am 'smart enough' to understand the 'wisdom' that God has offered by living AGAINST His Word?

I believe that there are MANY out there that MUST recognize The Spirit when they 'fellowship' with It. There MUST be. Other than this 'Jesus is God' thing, is there not a single member out there that recognizes what I have to offer is 'straight from The Word'? Yet I 'cant' be 'saved' until I accept that Jesus IS God. I CAN'T develope a relationship with God UNTIL I accept that He and His Son ARE THE SAME?

I say, 'shame, shame' on those that are so 'limited' in their ability to love and accept what God has offered. Remember. there ARE 'parts MANY' of the Body. And a 'unity' of these parts is how the body functions at it's BEST. Doctrines that 'force' separation DO NOT encourage 'unity' but JUST THE OPOSITE.

fran offered something on another thread that kinda 'hit home' in a way. If God chooses to 'do his work' through an organization or church, WHO are we to deny this over 'doctrinal issues'? Are we SO sure in our 'understanding' that we ARE able to judge the heart of another? Are we SO secure in 'our walk' that we are able to discern that of 'another'?

MEC

MEC

 

[jgredline]

Ok,



And how do you suppose that I AM able to understand what it is that God wants MOST for us? Do you honestly think that I am 'smart enough' to understand the 'wisdom' that God has offered by living AGAINST His Word?

James 2:19
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble!

 

[mutzrein]

James 2:19
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble!

Wow - is this a concession on your part then JG?

 

[jgredline]

Wow - is this a concession on your part then JG?

Nope, quite the contrary....

 

[Easyrider]

Part 1 of 2

To understand Salvation in Christ, I think one needs to have a good understanding of Justification (being declared totally righteous, which is the condition God requires in order to be saved). I'll go into this more to clarify:

JUSTIFICATION

Justification: "1: the act, process, or state of being justified by God; 2. the act or an instance of justifying." (Webster 628)

Justification: "To justify or make just, by which sanctification is included under justification; to set right; correct a wrong thing done; to deem right or approve. Justification is, in Pauline language, synonymous with reconciliation. God is not imputing to men their trespasses, but declaring them righteous. The means (of justification) is the vicarious expiatory death of Jesus Christ. The sole condition is faith ... in Jesus Christ." (Hastings 510)

Justification: "To prove or show to be just; to vindicate as right; to declare free from guilt or blame; to absolve, to clear; to pardon or clear from guilt; to acquit; declare righteous; pronounce sentence of acceptance." (Kevin Conner 269) Conner goes on to quote J.R. Gregory ("The Theological Student"), who defines justification as, 'That act of God by which He accepts as righteous the penitent sinner who believes on Christ for salvation."

With the above definitions and quotes as our starting point, we can now delve into one of the most dynamic and unselfish works in the history of creation - the work of Jesus Christ, who became our righteousness because we had none of our own. Christian Author Kevin Conner explains it this way:

"When Adam sinned, all that he was and all that he did was 'imputed' to the whole, unborn human race. Sin left a debit on the books (Genesis 3:1-16; 2:17; Romans 5:12; 6:23). In Adam all sinned, and all died, spiritually and physically (I Corinthians 15:22). When Christ died on Calvary, the sin of Adam and the whole human race was 'imputed,' or put to Christs' account. And because God imputed our sin to Christ, He suffered our penalty, which was death. All our liabilities were transferred to Him....(and) Christ's righteousness was 'imputed' to us. His righteousness is credited to us, put to our account (Psalm 32:8; Romans 4:8). Justification pronounces the sinner legally innocent, freeing him from condemnation." (Conner 272)

Romans chapters 3-4 contain the magnificent statements of justification for those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 3:21-22 states:

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from (observing) the
law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets
testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in
Jesus Christ to all who believe."

A few sentences later, Paul declares, "For we maintain that a man is justified (righteous in the eyes of God) by faith apart from observing the law." (Romans 3:28)

In reviewing the tenets of covenant theology, we again go back to the hopeless condition of man after Adam's fall in the garden of Eden. Mankind had fallen into sin, and any meaningful, eternal communion with the Lord was gone. Not only was man mired in his sin with no means of extrication, but his normal, carnal disposition precluded his even desiring to seek after God (Romans 3:11). Only God had the power to set man right, and He chose to do it through the Mediator of the New Covenant, His Son, Jesus Christ.

In Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem makes the point that, "the word 'justify' in the Bible indicates that justification is a legal declaration by God. Paul says, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?" (Romans 8:33-34). Grudem continues, "In God's legal declaration of justification, He specifically declares that we are just in His sight. This (legal) declaration involves two aspects. First, it means that we have no penalty to pay for sin, including past, present, and future sins. The second part of justification is that God must declare us not to be merely natural in His sight but actually to be righteous in His sight. In fact, He must declare us to have the merits of perfect righteousness before Him." (Grudem 724-25)

When considering the implications of legal declarations, we have to acknowledge that there is a substantial body of judicial law which was given to us by God. I'm speaking, of course, not only of the Ten Commandments, which comprises the moral law, but also the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. This 'weighty' and seemingly inflexible array of commandments can surely be viewed as a burdensome yoke of oppression for humanity. In Old and even New Testament times, man considered his salvation as being inexorably linked to his 'keeping' of the law. To the degree that he kept the Lord's rules and regulations, that was the degree to which he calculated his chances of salvation. Yet the keeping of the law was and is an exercise in futility. No one can do it. In Galatians 3:10-11, Paul addresses this contentious issue:

"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is
written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do every-
thing written in the Book of the Law.' Clearly, no one is justified
before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by
faith."

The law was powerless to justify anyone righteous in the eyes of God for the simple reason that no mortal human was able to keep the law.

"There is no one righteous, not even one...no one who seeks God.
There is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-11)

"I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he
is obligated to obey the whole law." (Galatians 5:3)

One might sweat out an entire lifetime trying to keep only one of God's laws, much less all of them. No, keeping the law was not the way to justification. The law had four major purposes:

1. It shows us the moral character of God
2. It defines what sin is and serves as a tutor to lead us to Christ for salvation.
3. It is a guide for Christian living.
4. Knowing the law can keep us from suffering the adverse consequences of sin.

SELF- JUSTIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE

It seems clear from scripture that there are only two possible sources of obtaining justification: from one's own self, or from an outside source. Mark chapter 10 gives us an illustration of one man's attempt to justify himself before God (before Jesus). A rich young man is asking Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. In verse 18 Jesus responded by stating, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." Jesus goes on to list a number of the Ten Commandments as the standard by which the young man must measure his actions. The young man remarked, "Teacher, all these I have kept since I was a boy." To which Jesus then said, "One thing you lack. God, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The story ends when the young man's face fell and he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

There are a number of lessons in this story. One of these was that the young man was trying to justify himself before Jesus by indicating he was "keeping the law," when in reality he was in violation of the commandment not to make for one's self any idols. Money was the young man's idol, and thus he had already broken the law. Perhaps some other young man might have listened to Jesus reciting the commandments and come to realize that not only could he not keep them in the future, but he had already broken many of them in the past. The conversation might well have then taken a different turn. He might have said something like, "Teacher, I confess that I have not kept the whole law, and I guess I need to be truthful and tell you that I don't think I can keep it in the future either. What then can I do?" I'm fairly sure that Jesus would have told him to believe in Him, and then he will receive eternal life. The crux of the message was that it is impossible for a rich man to justify himself, especially when he is engaging in idol worship. Though man might possess great wealth, and achieve tremendous influence in the worldly system, he still has two major problems: one, he still is unable to keep the law; and two, he is completely helpless in justifying himself before God - he needs divine assistance. Only God can justify a person righteous. And it's not by the works of man that this is achieved, but by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Two other examples of men seeking to justify themselves before God can be found in Luke 16:15 and 18:11. It is from these types of Biblical references that the Bible paints an exceedingly clear picture that man, of himself, has no means of self-justification. Only God is able to perform that work.

(continued)

 

[Easyrider]

Justification / Salvation - part 2 of 2

PAUL AND JAMES - Are they in agreement with each other?

Much has been said over the years about salvation, justification, and works, and their relationship to each other. I think it is best to look at this from a chronological perspective, starting with the words of the apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this
not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that
no one can boast."

Paul makes the following points:

1. You are saved by (God's) grace through faith (in Jesus Christ).
2. This salvation did not originate from yourselves.
3. It is the gift of God (therefore it cannot be earned).
4. This salvation is not by any type of works that a man can perform.

Back in Romans chapter 4, Paul gave an illustration from Genesis 15:6 concerning Abraham's justification:

"If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something
to boast about - but not before God. What does the scripture
say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness." (Romans 4:2-3)

Now, going forward to James chapter 2 we read:

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but
has no deeds (works)? Can such faith save him? Faith, by
itself, if it is not accompanied by action (works - KJV), is dead.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds
is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous
for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You
see, a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

James is clearly referring to Genesis chapter 22 as the point where Abraham was justified righteous. What we see here is an illustration that James uses to answer those people who are claiming to have saving faith but no works. Specifically, he states, "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 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? (what good is that man's faith?)" In effect, James is saying, "You claim to have faith? You claim that God has saved you, put His Holy Spirit in you, and sealed you for redemption? You claim all these things and yet you let the poor go without food or clothes? What kind of a faith is that? I, James, will tell you quite frankly that if you possess the kind of saving faith that results in regeneration and changes a person's life, the Holy Spirit will do a work in you and cause you to follow the Lord's decrees (Ezekiel 36:27) and feed and clothe the poor."

Well, what then does Paul state about works as proof that a person's life is changed? Perhaps not surprisingly, he agrees with James:

"I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove
their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)


So why did Paul state in Ephesians that a person is saved by grace through faith, and not by works? And why did he refer to Genesis 15:6 as the point of Abraham's justification and not Genesis 22?

Initial saving faith is the precursor to works. Abraham was not saved (justified righteous - Genesis 15:6) by performing works, he was performing works (later in Genesis 22) because he first was saved and regenerated. The works of God are the result of our regeneration and salvation, not the cause of it. Faith by grace is the antecedent of works. It chronologically occurs first. Once the Holy Spirit indwells a believer at the point of salvation, He starts the process of progressive sanctification, and one of the effects of the indwelling Spirit is that of causing, or compelling a person, by a change of heart and mind, to perform works of a Christian nature. James' argument addresses that time period of a person's life, following true salvation and regeneration, when good works is supposed to be in evidence. He is saying, "Now that you claim to be saved, we should be seeing some good works out of you. However, if these good works are not apparent, then your initial faith was probably not genuine, and you were never, either in the eyes of God, nor in the eyes of man, justified righteous."

Another way to illustrate this is to consider the thief on the cross next to Jesus - the one who stated, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Then Jesus responded by saying, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:42-43). It was at this particular moment that the repentant thief received his salvation, and was justified righteous in the eyes of God. This particular moment would also coincide with Genesis 15:6, when Abraham believed God and it was credited (imputed to his account) as righteousness, and would also coincide with what Paul stated in Ephesians 2:8-9. Note that there is no evidence that the thief had performed any good works in his life. To the contrary, his works were more of a criminal nature than a Godly nature. That was the very reason he was being crucified. Even as he initially hung from his cross, he heaped insults on the Lord (Mark 15:32). But then the sky darkened, his pain and suffering magnified, and the words Jesus spoke on the cross hit their appointed target, and the thief had a change of heart and believed on the Lord. At that point, the thief received his salvation and justification.

Now, if by some means the thief could have come down from the cross, prior to death, and continued on with his life, then eventually his saving faith would have produced good works (corresponding to Abraham in Genesis 22 and James chapter 2). There is a progression whereby salvation leads to good works. In the eyes of God (who Christ is), Abraham was genuinely justified righteous in Genesis 15:6. Because his faith was genuine, it produced his works in Genesis 22, whereby he was seen as being justified righteous in the eyes of men. James and Paul, though they approach the issue of justification from two different points in time and two different perspectives (the perspective of God and the perspective of man), nevertheless are in total agreement with each other.

DEAD FAITH, SAVING FAITH

Still another issue that coincides with James 2:14-26 involves the issue of faith. James' contention is that for faith to be real, it must at some point result in works of a Godly nature. James is therefore speaking of the type of faith that justifies a man righteous, and the type of faith that doesn't. These are sometimes referred to as "living" faith, and "dead" faith. First, we will examine the issue of "dead" faith. Scripture records a number of verses that speak of this kind of faith:

"Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead faith."
(James 2:17)

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel (of Jesus
Christ)...by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what
I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain."
(I Corinthians 15:1-2)

"You believe (have faith) that there is one God? Good! Even the
demons believe that - and shudder."

A man may claim to have faith. He may have intellectually (as opposed to heart-felt) declared his faith in Jesus Christ, been confirmed in the church, been baptized, and even attends church regularly. But a man with dead faith has no Spirit-wrought love for his fellow man - his works, if any, are born out of the human spirit as opposed to having been generated by the Holy Spirit. His faith is hollow, empty, and dead. It may just have been more of an intellectual assent that Jesus Christ is real, rather than a heart-felt belief and surrender to His will. For example, you might find those in academia who investigate historical documents for encyclopedias, and who, through exhaustive research, have determined in their minds and writings that Jesus Christ was a real person. They might even say, "Yes, I believe in Jesus Christ." Yet they have not accepted Him as their savior, nor surrendered their life to Him, so their "faith" is more of an intellectual acceptance than a heart-felt conversion. Their faith is more a matter of statement than a matter of behavior. They still reside on the thrones of their lives, rather than surrendering all to Jesus. In Luke 9:23 Jesus states,

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and
take up his cross daily and follow me."

The man with dead faith is one who, day in and day out, does his own will, and lives for himself: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). Dead faith cannot result in eternal salvation.

Living faith, on the other hand, is a life-changing faith. Man is "born again," regenerated into the likeness of Christ. Man will no longer have a continued fascination with materialism, carnality, and worldly pursuits. A living faith involves the process of progressive sanctification, where the pursuit of God takes on supreme importance in the person's life, and the refiner's fire starts to purge the earthly influence from the believer's life. As time progresses, the believer surrenders more and more of his life to Christ, daily discovering new areas that previously had not been surrendered. His faith in God grows. The more he reads the Bible, the greater revelation of Christ he sees. He becomes more cognizant of any sin there many be in his life. He starts loving the things God loves, and hating the things God hates. He has a burden for saving souls, and can't wait to talk about Christ. He seeks after Biblical literature - he's consumed with the word of God. He seeks out God's will for his life, wondering what his spiritual gifts are, and what his ultimate calling is. He is irritated by his human, sinful nature, and would like to be quite rid of it. His eyes open up to spiritual truths, slowly at first, then more and more. The more he gets the more he wants. He feels compelled to seek after God, and he wishes everyone could know the truth. His friends and family think him strange, and watch him to see if this might be a fad. But day in and day out he continues - stumbling here and there, but ever so slowly progressing in the grace and love of God until he thinks at times he just might fly away to be with the Lord. He is fascinated by the movings of the Holy Spirit, and wants a triple-portion of whatever anyone else has received. He can't understand why no one wants to talk about Christ.

In concluding this posting, I think it best to place in proper context the significance of works as it relates to salvation (justification), which is most clearly expressed in I Corinthians 3:11-15:

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."


The Full Life Study Bible provides these remarks on the above passage:

"HE WILL SUFFER LOSS: There is a future judgment for believers (I John 4:17) as to the degree of their faithfulness to God and the grace given to them during this life on earth (v.10; 4:2-5; 2 Cor.5:10). In that judgment there is the possibility that a believer, although receiving salvation, may experience great loss (Greek zemloo, meaning 'to suffer loss or damage'). The careless believer is in danger of suffering loss or damage in the following ways: (1) a feeling of shame at Christ's coming (2 Ti. 2:15; 1 John 2:28); (2) loss of his or her life's work for God (vv. 12-15); (3) loss of glory and honor before God (cf. Romans 2:7); (4) loss of opportunity for service and authority in heaven (Mt. 25:14-30); (5) a low position in heaven (Mt. 25:14-30); (6) loss of rewards (cf. v. 14-15); and (7) repayment for the wrong done to others (Col. 3:24-25).

AS ONE ESCAPING THROUGH THE FLAMES: 'Escaping through the flames' is probably an expression meaning 'barely saved.' God will evaluate the quality of life, influence, teaching, and work in the church of each person. If his work is judged unworthy, he will lose his (heavenly) reward, yet he himself will be saved." ( Full Life 1755-56)

Godly works do not result in justification, but are directed towards the edification and salvation of others, and eventually result in some type of heavenly rewards. For those who may have been saved just prior to death (the thief on the cross), there may not be any works to reward, yet their salvation is yet assured. It is my contention that once a person is regenerated, eventually, if they live long enough, there should be some sort of Godly works in their life (James chapter 2).

 

[mutzrein]

Easyrider - That's a comprehensive post. Is that your own words or taken from someone / somewhere else? If so, it might pay to give credit to the author.

 

[mutzrein]

This is the way I see it JG.

MEC says he believes in Christ – not the way you say he has to. But to him it is sufficient because this is what God has revealed to him. He hasn’t shown him otherwise – and neither has he showed me - as you know.

Now there was a man in scripture whom Jesus asked, “Do you believe in the son of Man?†"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."
Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."
Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Now isn’t that interesting. Those to whom Jesus revealed himself to, believed in Him. And this is what I say of myself. I (and I believe MEC also) can only say that we stand on what has been revealed to us. Nothing more and nothing less. We don’t claim to know everything – but what has been revealed to us, we KNOW.

We don’t have to add (by virtue of what others tell us) to what has been revealed to us by the Lord. Our relationship is (directly) with Him and not by means of academic assent to what someone us tells us is necessary for that relationship.

But even more interesting is the fact that there were those who claimed to see, but in fact they were blind. Why? Because they were self righteous. After all, they had the law (doctrine) which put them in right stead with God. How dare someone claim to be God’s son, who didn’t keep the law!

It would appear to me that the tradition of the Pharisees has not changed much.

 

[Jay T]

What would you say concerning this verse in Daniel occured prior to Jesus Christ being born a man?


He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Daniel 3:25

You got me, Solo....I really don't know the answer to that question.

 

[Easyrider]

Easyrider - That's a comprehensive post. Is that your own words or taken from someone / somewhere else? If so, it might pay to give credit to the author.

It was a paper I did on Justification. Cheers...

 

[Solo]

It was a paper I did on Justification. Cheers...

Nice paper.

 

[Easyrider]

Thanks, Solo! Blessings...