Not all born-again Christians make it through the sanctification process!

[francisdesales]

Nor is it an assurance that anyone cannot return to sin.
There are plenty of examples of pastors or priests, men who were saved and loved God for a long time. And then they committed a grievous sin. What happened? They never were saved? That's a ridiculous assertion. Oh, they were once saved, but they fell away, just as God said could happen.

Why would you consider this to be a ridiculous assertion? Just as there are those lay persons in the church who are not saved, there can be pastors and priests who were never saved. We tend to think because they are in the positions they are in and God may even be blessings their ministries, that they must be saved.

Well, perhaps "ridiculous" is an overstatement. However, keep in mind that a pastor/priest is discerning their calling for practically a decade. They SHOULD know what they are getting into and what a life of service will entail. They are continuing in it because they love the Lord. I find it very unlikely that someone is "faking it" for 10 years and THEN, their "true colors" come out and we find "he was never saved"...

What is MORE likely is that some sin reared its ugly head and they could not fight the temptations (for whatever reason). Lust, for example. During discernment, they think they have it under control. Like some here. "oh, if some girl flirted with me, I would remain faithful no matter what and I couldn't turn from God". We JUST DON'T KNOW until we are subjected to that. The temptation does not mean we were "never saved to begin with". What happens is that one turned from the Lord. They WERE followers of Christ in every way, but subject to temptation, they caved in. The Lord said this would happen, it is not surprising. What is clear is that Jesus DID say that such people DID have faith. Not 'fake' faith or "dead" faith.

The idea "you were never saved" is ridiculous to me because it offers NO security, if such as above fail. How would I know that I, ME, were "not faking it" but just didn't know it?

If I fail - it is my fault that I faltered and willingly turned from Him. It is not God's fault that He tricked me into thinking I was saved with some emotional feeling and then pulled the rug out from me later in life...

So we see that this argument can go either way. In truth, only God knows the truth and maybe the person (they may not be sure themselves, if they were to search the arguments from each side).

Which is true, only God knows. Thus, the "never saved" argument is pointless. We WERE saved!!! YES. Let's not doubt it. Let's not question whether God was "really" there when I falter. HEAVENS NO! Call upon Him and He will aid us. Do not doubt that He will aid us. Do not think "well, why bother, I wasn't saved anyway. It was all a farce".

Regards

 

[Deborah13]

The idea "you were never saved" is ridiculous to me because it offers NO security, if such as above fail. How would I know that I, ME, were "not faking it" but just didn't know it?

Oh, you are so speaking my very thoughts on the subject. But most of those who believe that if one seriously fails that they were never saved, also believe that they have no free will to make the choice to accept the gift to start with. We do and sometimes we fail by our own free will, even seriously fail.

However, I can see much the same dangers of just giving up when one believes they can lose their salvation because of a sin (other than total rejection). This person may see that something they willfully did and would not change if they could, as losing their salvation for sure. Knowing that one cannot be born again, again, they give up and believe they are no longer saved.

So too, I see that as in most extremes, people lose sight of the truth and in this case the Truth is that the God who cares for us is filled with grace and mercy, we just need to turn back to Him and let Him be the judge and the Savior.

Which is true, only God knows. Thus, the "never saved" argument is pointless. We WERE saved!!! YES. Let's not doubt it. Let's not question whether God was "really" there when I falter. HEAVENS NO! Call upon Him and He will aid us. Do not doubt that He will aid us. Do not think "well, why bother, I wasn't saved anyway. It was all a farce".

I agree. Of coarse this is just how I see things, there was a time I did not.

 

[Danus]

I apologize if I have offended you. I am not diagnosing him. The story is well known about Luther and his conversion to "the gospel" as he saw it, esp. when he read Romans and "the righteousnes of God". HE tells us that he was scrupulous. Mr. Luther did posit his own issues onto Paul, which included thinking that first century Judaism was similar to his idea of Roman Catholicism in the 16th century ("works" salvation...).

No offense taken, I just expect better from francisdesales. I mean, usually you have a better take.

The OP, I thought, opened this thread very well in talking about the meaning of "faith", essentially. There where some good points used about definitions of belief.

If anything should be offensive, it's the title of the thread, but that's how someone who feels they are moving towards being saved would think, VS someone understanding their salvation in a moment at time and growing from there; which, despite what anyone wants to say about Luther, is what Luther, and many others, understood about their salvation.

We don't need to beat up on Luther the man, or call out anything that is too presumptuous on on our part, beyond what he's said publicaly. Everyone have the bible at hand and let's use that.

I bring this up because it appears too many people have whittled down the gospel to "faith v works", when it is about the Risen Lord and participation in the divine nature - being MADE righteous by the indwelling Holy Spirit. The "faith v works" argument is a truncated version of what God wants to give us. The source of "faith v works", of course, we know who. But I do find it interesting that many non-Catholics are writing about this in what is called the "NPP", or the "new perspectives in Paul". Wright and Dunn makes some good points, and it is based on Sanders' work to re-evaluate the first century Judaism, which has been tortured beyond what it really was.

OK, back to the OP.

Regards

Well, it's an argument that is often part of a hidden agenda about anyone vs the person making it. That's what waters it down.

One camp can't claim it's an argument that belongs to the other, or that it was started "by" someone.

It's a fair subject, but it's chicken or the egg type logic. Or that's often where it stops.

 

[mondar]

Where did I mention "merit" or earning salvation or anything else concerning working to earn a "pay check"? You are misunderstanding me.

Here are two threads where the OP is "Works".

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44354&page=46

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48641&page=67

If you want to discuss "merit" or "works for wages", I would be more than happy to, over there. The point of my last post was simple. If you hold faith alone, why not ACT AS IF good deeds really get you to Heaven? What have you got to lose?

Do you not recall making this statement?
Don't we all agree that "good deeds" are necessary for salvation, either they must accompany "saving faith" or the actual works themselves effect salvation?
Why do you suddenly say differently?<SNIP>

Yes, I do. Do you disagree that our good deeds "show" or "display" our "saving faith"? If you do (disagree, I mean), please explain James 2 to me.

Actually, in the context of James 2, showing faith is exactly what the context is about.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

Danus,
If I can throw a comment in here to you also.... I appreciated the post you made all the way back on the first page of posts when you worked on defining "faith." You hit the nail on the head when you intimated that not all faith is equal. If I can state an opinion, the demon in James 2:19 is a good illustrtion.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.
The word "believest" is merely the verbal form of the word faith. The demon in this passage never lost is salvation, he never had it. So also is the faith of the persons in John 2...
Joh 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he did.
Joh 2:24 But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men,
Joh 2:25 and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man. Again the word is "believed" but that faith did not change what was in man. This is the cheap faith that never saved in the first place.
While I know it can be silly to be a mere cheerleader, can I at least tip my hat? Well done.

 

[dadof10]

Actually, in the context of James 2, showing faith is exactly what the context is about.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

Well, you know I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose you're right. If it's possible to "show" or "display" or "prove" a person's "true, saving faith" by his deeds, then it's also possible to know when a person is truly justified, right? He "shows" his true faith (however you want to qualify "show") and he can rest assured that he is saved.

I have known some people who have "shown" their true faith by ANYONE'S qualification. These people lived their entire lives for Jesus through good deeds, prayer, sacrifice, Scripture study, charity, etc., yet, as the years went by, they slowly moved away from God and back into their previous lives.

My assertion is that you can't hold your interpretation of James and OSAS at the same time. When a person who is "born again" reverts back to his previous life in sin, the standard Reformed position is "he was never saved in the first place". Well, you think James teaches that you can SHOW YOUR TRUE FAITH, therefore, anyone who meets James' qualifications (which seem to be simply NOT walking by someone in need) can NEVER REVERT BACK or OSAS is false. If OSAS is true and a person who reverts back "was never saved in the first place", then, all those deeds he did never really "proved" or "showed" anything, therefore you are misinterpreting James 2.

You can't have it both ways...

 

[By Grace]

What I'm trying to convey is that if we believe that we must add something to the equation of in Christ alone then we are mistaken.

You have the gospel in a nutshell! Good post

That is NOT the Gospel of the NT or Paul. The Gospel is about Jesus being risen from the dead. VICTORY OVER DEATH. And OUR participation in the "career" of the Christ through baptism - we are buried with Him and a new "man" takes form in us. Prior to his conversion, Paul does not notice any "lacking" in the law that would require one to look for some other means of fulfilling the Law. He was quite satisfied with his following the Law, UNTIL he experienced the Risen Lord. NOT because Paul analyzed that he was falling woefully short of "perfect law keeping" and was in dire straits...

Paul hardly mentions "works v faith" (which is a faulty argument, anyway), except when he is talking about the discontinuance of the cultural markers of the Jews, which erected a fence between Jew and Gentile. Once Paul makes this argument, he drops it and moves onto the heart - HE IS RISEN - and WE can participate in that!

That is the concern of Paul, not "adding works to Christ". You are echoing Martin Luther, who sadly misunderstood Paul because of his own personal scrupulosity.

Hello, Francis

It seems that the crux of this discussion is really Roman Catholic understanding of Scripture versus the protestant understanding of Scripture. At the outset, I will proclaim that I am a protestant, and I believe that Reformed Theology best explains Scripture. From what I can gather from dealing with Roman Catholics they have two pillars of authority, which they believe to be infallible: the Church with its traditions and popes; the other is Scripture. In the combining of those as being authoritative, it is the Scripture that does the bending so it can support the church. In that respect, the RC church is syncretic in the fact that they are trying to meld the infallibility of god with the purported infallibility of humans who lead the Roman Catholic Church. The formal term for that is syncretisism, meaning the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles

Because Protestante do not exalt humans to the degree that the RC church does, and they believe that men can and sometimes do err,Protestants have one authority, and that is the Bible, hence one doctrine of the Reformation is "sola scriptura". The bible -believing Protestants take that doctrine further (due to higher criticism and liberalism) and adhere to the inerrancy of Scripture in the Autographa, and adopt the Five Historic Fundamentals:

[FONT=&quot]1) Divinely inspired scriptures which were inerrant in the original writing;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 2) Christ's virgin birth and deity;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 3) Christ's substitutionary atonement;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 4) Christ's resurrection, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 5) Christ's personal pre-millennial and imminent second coming[/FONT]
​

That is the original meaning of the term, and I go no further than to state it as a foundation of Bible-based Protestantism.

As a result of the syncretic nature of the RC church there has developed a false dichotomy of Paul versus Luther, as stated in the post I respond to.

It is my position and I believe the Bible (and James too) supports the position that faith proceeds works, and that works are a fruit of faith. therefore there is no mixture or confusion in the Bible, but there is a false syncretism in those who wish (or want to) place the RC church and the Bible on equal footing.

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
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.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
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.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
​

Notice that in ALL the verses, excepting vs 24 that faith precedes works, not vice versa. That is because of the human tendency to place self effort highly, and thus dray God's attention so that He can save us. That is a lie. if it were so that works would save us, then heaven would be a "pay check" and it would nullify the nature and scope of the Atonement of Jesus Christ No longer could there be a merciful God who saves solely on the basis of unmerited grace, but we would have a god who counts our merit badges. That also raises the question of some merit badges are more important than others, or are there some "double point merit badges" etc..

So what James says in verse 24 is not about placing the cart before the horse, he is saying that works are an expectation of those having faith.

You will see the same thing stated by Paul in Titus

Titus 3: 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works
​

Paul places faith first, and in verse 8 clearly states that works are an expectation of faith.

4 Facts about God’s Salvation

1. Salvation is always by innocent blood. Hebrews 9:22
2. Salvation is always through a person. John. 2:9; Acts 4:12; 1 Thessalonians. 5:9; Hebrews 5:9
3. Salvation is always by grace. Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 2:11
4. Salvation is always through faith. Romans 5:1; Hebrews 11:6
​

Willmington, H. (1987). Willmington’s book of Bible lists (298). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.

Then we have the phrase in Philippians 2 "workout your salvation", which IS NOT meaning that works is salvific in any way.

Philippians 2: 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure

Notice that Paul clearly says that any good works that redeemed humans can do is PLACED THERE BY GOD (vs 13). Therefore it is works are a fruit not a foundation of salvation.

Paul states the first duty he had in mind with these words: ‘… work out your own salvation with fear and trembling …’ (v. 12).

The apostle is not asking the Philippians to work for their salvation. If we are in doubt about this, we only have to read a bit further. He will soon give details of his own futile efforts to earn the favour of God ( Philippians 3:1–11 ).
​

Those who advocate salvation by works do so only because they fail to understand that God demands perfect righteousness of us. When this point hits home, it is obvious to us that we cannot be saved by works, because, no matter how many good works we do, they cannot elevate us to the level of perfect righteousness.

Paul tells his readers to ‘work out’ their salvation. His meaning becomes clearer when we look at his next phrase: ‘… for it is God who works in you …’ (v. 13).

We noted earlier that salvation is God’s work. We cannot save ourselves. Only God can enlighten our minds to see the truth and move our wills to accept the truth. The very faith with which we receive his work of salvation is not something we can produce. It is rather God’s gift to us. He gives us both the salvation to receive by faith and the faith to receive the salvation ( Ephesians 2:8–9 ). No one who finally enters eternal glory will have one shred of credit to claim. God will not share his glory with another.

Paul was calling the Philippians, therefore, to work out what God had worked in. They were to live in such a way as to manifest that God had done his saving work within them. They were to show outwardly what God had done inwardly.

While we must not believe in salvation by works, we must most certainly believe in a salvation that works. In other words, we must not fall for that lie of the devil which suggests that one can truly be saved and not manifest it by good works.
​

Ellsworth, R. (2004). Opening up Philippians. Opening Up Commentary (42–43). Leominster: Day One Publications.

So if you please, I do not want to discuss Luther, or Callvin or Servetus etc. I want to discuss the Bible, and I believe that this presents a foundation on which the Bible teaches: Salvation by grace or salvation by works.

 

[francisdesales]

What I'm trying to convey is that if we believe that we must add something to the equation of in Christ alone then we are mistaken.

You have the gospel in a nutshell! Good post

That is NOT the Gospel of the NT or Paul. The Gospel is about Jesus being risen from the dead. VICTORY OVER DEATH. And OUR participation in the "career" of the Christ through baptism - we are buried with Him and a new "man" takes form in us. Prior to his conversion, Paul does not notice any "lacking" in the law that would require one to look for some other means of fulfilling the Law. He was quite satisfied with his following the Law, UNTIL he experienced the Risen Lord. NOT because Paul analyzed that he was falling woefully short of "perfect law keeping" and was in dire straits...

Paul hardly mentions "works v faith" (which is a faulty argument, anyway), except when he is talking about the discontinuance of the cultural markers of the Jews, which erected a fence between Jew and Gentile. Once Paul makes this argument, he drops it and moves onto the heart - HE IS RISEN - and WE can participate in that!

That is the concern of Paul, not "adding works to Christ". You are echoing Martin Luther, who sadly misunderstood Paul because of his own personal scrupulosity.

Hello, Francis

It seems that the crux of this discussion is really Roman Catholic understanding of Scripture versus the protestant understanding of Scripture. At the outset, I will proclaim that I am a protestant, and I believe that Reformed Theology best explains Scripture. From what I can gather from dealing with Roman Catholics they have two pillars of authority, which they believe to be infallible: the Church with its traditions and popes; the other is Scripture. In the combining of those as being authoritative, it is the Scripture that does the bending so it can support the church. In that respect, the RC church is syncretic in the fact that they are trying to meld the infallibility of god with the purported infallibility of humans who lead the Roman Catholic Church. The formal term for that is syncretisism, meaning the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles

Because Protestante do not exalt humans to the degree that the RC church does, and they believe that men can and sometimes do err,Protestants have one authority, and that is the Bible, hence one doctrine of the Reformation is "sola scriptura". The bible -believing Protestants take that doctrine further (due to higher criticism and liberalism) and adhere to the inerrancy of Scripture in the Autographa, and adopt the Five Historic Fundamentals:

[FONT=&quot]1) Divinely inspired scriptures which were inerrant in the original writing;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) Christ's virgin birth and deity;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) Christ's substitutionary atonement;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) Christ's resurrection, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5) Christ's personal pre-millennial and imminent second coming[/FONT]
​

That is the original meaning of the term, and I go no further than to state it as a foundation of Bible-based Protestantism.

As a result of the syncretic nature of the RC church there has developed a false dichotomy of Paul versus Luther, as stated in the post I respond to.

It is my position and I believe the Bible (and James too) supports the position that faith proceeds works, and that works are a fruit of faith. therefore there is no mixture or confusion in the Bible, but there is a false syncretism in those who wish (or want to) place the RC church and the Bible on equal footing.

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
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.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
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.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
​

Notice that in ALL the verses, excepting vs 24 that faith precedes works, not vice versa. That is because of the human tendency to place self effort highly, and thus dray God's attention so that He can save us. That is a lie. if it were so that works would save us, then heaven would be a "pay check" and it would nullify the nature and scope of the Atonement of Jesus Christ No longer could there be a merciful God who saves solely on the basis of unmerited grace, but we would have a god who counts our merit badges. That also raises the question of some merit badges are more important than others, or are there some "double point merit badges" etc..

So what James says in verse 24 is not about placing the cart before the horse, he is saying that works are an expectation of those having faith.

You will see the same thing stated by Paul in Titus

Titus 3: 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works
​

Paul places faith first, and in verse 8 clearly states that works are an expectation of faith.

4 Facts about God’s Salvation

1. Salvation is always by innocent blood. Hebrews 9:22
2. Salvation is always through a person. John. 2:9; Acts 4:12; 1 Thessalonians. 5:9; Hebrews 5:9
3. Salvation is always by grace. Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 2:11
4. Salvation is always through faith. Romans 5:1; Hebrews 11:6
​

Willmington, H. (1987). Willmington’s book of Bible lists (298). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.

Then we have the phrase in Philippians 2 "workout your salvation", which IS NOT meaning that works is salvific in any way.

Philippians 2: 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure

Notice that Paul clearly says that any good works that redeemed humans can do is PLACED THERE BY GOD (vs 13). Therefore it is works are a fruit not a foundation of salvation.

Paul states the first duty he had in mind with these words: ‘… work out your own salvation with fear and trembling …’ (v. 12).

The apostle is not asking the Philippians to work for their salvation. If we are in doubt about this, we only have to read a bit further. He will soon give details of his own futile efforts to earn the favour of God ( Philippians 3:1–11 ).
​

Those who advocate salvation by works do so only because they fail to understand that God demands perfect righteousness of us. When this point hits home, it is obvious to us that we cannot be saved by works, because, no matter how many good works we do, they cannot elevate us to the level of perfect righteousness.

Paul tells his readers to ‘work out’ their salvation. His meaning becomes clearer when we look at his next phrase: ‘… for it is God who works in you …’ (v. 13).

We noted earlier that salvation is God’s work. We cannot save ourselves. Only God can enlighten our minds to see the truth and move our wills to accept the truth. The very faith with which we receive his work of salvation is not something we can produce. It is rather God’s gift to us. He gives us both the salvation to receive by faith and the faith to receive the salvation ( Ephesians 2:8–9 ). No one who finally enters eternal glory will have one shred of credit to claim. God will not share his glory with another.

Paul was calling the Philippians, therefore, to work out what God had worked in. They were to live in such a way as to manifest that God had done his saving work within them. They were to show outwardly what God had done inwardly.

While we must not believe in salvation by works, we must most certainly believe in a salvation that works. In other words, we must not fall for that lie of the devil which suggests that one can truly be saved and not manifest it by good works.
​

Ellsworth, R. (2004). Opening up Philippians. Opening Up Commentary (42–43). Leominster: Day One Publications.

So if you please, I do not want to discuss Luther, or Callvin or Servetus etc. I want to discuss the Bible, and I believe that this presents a foundation on which the Bible teaches: Salvation by grace or salvation by works.

You want to discuss the Bible, not Luther or Calvin, but the first half of your post is about the Catholic Church and its supposed "syncretic" nature... I don't see how your intepretation of the supposed "two pillars of authority" has anything to do with this subject on "all born agains go to heaven". Somehow, that eliminates Luther's self-acknowledged issues with scrupulosity, transfering his problems onto Paul, who CERTAINLY did not have such regards on his fulfilling the Law before God (Phil 3)?

But OK, let's leave that for now.

Well, first, it may please you to know that the Catholic Church does not teach "works" salvation. That notion was condemned officially nearly 1000 years before Luther posted his "disagreements" with the Catholic Church. The Second Council of Orange and the Council of Trent makes this clear, for those who are interested in reading it. While Orange was not an ecumenical council, Trent was and added nothing essential to the idea of justification.

Here is example of the Decree on Justification:

Canon 2: If anyone says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the Law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

We teach the same thing, man's initial justification is through faith, not by any human effort without God's grace.

What exactly did you want to discuss? The content of the Gospel was my intent on posting, not on the entire teaching on works and faith in the process of justification and salvation. Paul's arguments against "works" are improperly understood - they are not an argument against human participation in or cooperation with God's saving purpose (that would toss out the majority of Scriptures that command men to obey God and His commandments), but rather, arguments against the Jews and their pride that sought to define membership in the covenant community by referencing to cultural markers, such as dietary rules, holidays and circumcision. These things were not necessary when one had faith in Jesus Christ. The focus on "faith v works" misses the mark, as Paul is concerned with Christ being risen and the believer being immersed in that event. Paul is not saying human effort is unnecessary, but that God was the God of Jews AND Gentiles - and obedience to God was a necessary part of "BELIEVING" in Christ.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Actually, in the context of James 2, showing faith is exactly what the context is about.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

Well, you know I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose you're right. If it's possible to "show" or "display" or "prove" a person's "true, saving faith" by his deeds, then it's also possible to know when a person is truly justified, right? He "shows" his true faith (however you want to qualify "show") and he can rest assured that he is saved.

I have known some people who have "shown" their true faith by ANYONE'S qualification. These people lived their entire lives for Jesus through good deeds, prayer, sacrifice, Scripture study, charity, etc., yet, as the years went by, they slowly moved away from God and back into their previous lives.

My assertion is that you can't hold your interpretation of James and OSAS at the same time. When a person who is "born again" reverts back to his previous life in sin, the standard Reformed position is "he was never saved in the first place". Well, you think James teaches that you can SHOW YOUR TRUE FAITH, therefore, anyone who meets James' qualifications (which seem to be simply NOT walking by someone in need) can NEVER REVERT BACK or OSAS is false. If OSAS is true and a person who reverts back "was never saved in the first place", then, all those deeds he did never really "proved" or "showed" anything, therefore you are misinterpreting James 2.

You can't have it both ways...

In your post, you rely on some anecdotal knowledge of people who once claimed to be a Christian and then left the faith. Of course that is not a contextual issue. What you are saying is not exegetical in any way and has nothing to do with the context of James. I quoted verse 18 to demonstrate the context, and your reply ignored any discussion of the context. Therefore, even if I am "misinterpreting James 2," you are making no effort to look at the context at all.

Also, when you say that "the person who reverts back" ... "never really proved or showed anything." That would be correct. While this is a different context, 1 John says exactly that...
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.
John agrees with James 2. An antiChrist might be among us, and look like us for a time, but eventually, it will be "shown" (James) or "manifest" (John) that they were never really of us. in fact, works do function to "show me your faith."

But we should be discussing the context of the passage to determine its meaning. The whole context repetetively demonstrates that James is talking about "show me your faith." The first verse in the context begins that way.
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
James says it is totally insufficient for a person to merely "say he has faith." Is merely "saying he has faith" sufficient to save? Of course not.
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
This person that merely "says he has faith" and has no works flow from that faith, has a faith that is "dead in itself." Such faith never saves in the first place.

Then the first I quoted demonstrates the value of works. James does not say works assist in salvation, but that by works you can show your faith.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?
In verse 20 James talks about a barren faith. Would you say that James is saying that a "barren, empty, or vain" faith saves? Really?

I do not see the question as being one of you as having some superior moral position. In fact your position is morally much lower. You are the one that accepts that a person who has a barren, vain, or dead faith is saved. In Catholic Theology, does not a person have to merely be baptized as an infant for initial justification? So then it is not even the works of the infant, but his parents? And faith does not even have to be present in the infant? So then, in Catholic Theology, is not that infant saved without any of his own faith or works?

Well, in any case, no anecdotal situation will change the context of James.

 

[mondar]

The difference between the concepts in this thread, more then just dadof10 and myself, but the whole of the discussion seems to me to be summed up in James 2:14.
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
The person in James 2:14 "say he hath faith." But it is the kind of faith that does not produce works. There is the question. Can that kind of faith save. Some say yes, but that the person looses his salvation. I do not see how you can assume that the faith mentioned in James 2:14 saves.

This who issue goes back to the post made by Danus on the first page. He talked about faith there and that not every time the NT uses the word faith or believe (noun or verb in greek) does it speak of saving faith.

 

[francisdesales]

The difference between the concepts in this thread, more then just dadof10 and myself, but the whole of the discussion seems to me to be summed up in James 2:14.
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
The person in James 2:14 "say he hath faith." But it is the kind of faith that does not produce works. There is the question. Can that kind of faith save. Some say yes, but that the person looses his salvation. I do not see how you can assume that the faith mentioned in James 2:14 saves.

This who issue goes back to the post made by Danus on the first page. He talked about faith there and that not every time the NT uses the word faith or believe (noun or verb in greek) does it speak of saving faith.

Mondar,

To some here, the content or value of the faith NOW has nothing to do with whether one is eschatologically saved or not. All one has to have to their "credit" is a one time act of saving faith in their past. Once they have that on their resume, they are children of God and all the promises given to them are inherited and cannot be lost. Momentary or temporary "dead" faith notwithstanding. Naturally, if this saving faith turns to a temporary dead faith, and then further turns more permanent, that "must" prove that the original saving faith from 10 years ago was fake.

It seems we agree, saving faith is ongoing and is necessary. How can one claim to be 'saved' if they are living in the slavery to sin, when, by definition, being saved = being FREED from sin? I am just not sure that James 2 is the key point for OSAS people.

Regards

 

[mondar]

The difference between the concepts in this thread, more then just dadof10 and myself, but the whole of the discussion seems to me to be summed up in James 2:14.
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
The person in James 2:14 "say he hath faith." But it is the kind of faith that does not produce works. There is the question. Can that kind of faith save. Some say yes, but that the person looses his salvation. I do not see how you can assume that the faith mentioned in James 2:14 saves.

This who issue goes back to the post made by Danus on the first page. He talked about faith there and that not every time the NT uses the word faith or believe (noun or verb in greek) does it speak of saving faith.

Mondar,

To some here, the content or value of the faith NOW has nothing to do with whether one is eschatologically saved or not. All one has to have to their "credit" is a one time act of saving faith in their past. Once they have that on their resume, they are children of God and all the promises given to them are inherited and cannot be lost. Momentary or temporary "dead" faith notwithstanding. Naturally, if this saving faith turns to a temporary dead faith, and then further turns more permanent, that "must" prove that the original saving faith from 10 years ago was fake.

It seems we agree, saving faith is ongoing and is necessary. How can one claim to be 'saved' if they are living in the slavery to sin, when, by definition, being saved = being FREED from sin? I am just not sure that James 2 is the key point for OSAS people.

Regards

Francis, I am glad we agree that "saving faith is ongoing and necessary." I would also agree with the sentence where you say that "How can one claim to be "saved" if they are living in slavery to sin, when, by definition, being saved = being FREED from sin?" Romans 6 speaks of that freedom.

Concerning James 2 and the question of is it the "Key point." I did not bring up that passage, Dadof10 was the one to raise the issue of James 2. The reason I spoke of James 2 was because the passage in fact does not speak of a saving faith that was lost.

Nevertheless, I do think the way we answer the question of James 2:14 has much to do with how we address the question of our growth in faith. James has an issue with a false starting point. James asks in James 2:14 "can that faith save? For those on the other side of the fence, the question needs to be asked, of there is such a thing as a "false starting point," can that person loose his salvation? Or as James 2:14 asks, can that faith save?

For those who believe James speaks of a faith lost, can you answer the question of verse 2:14? Does that faith save? This might not be the end all of the discussion, but the question needs to be answered.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, I am glad we agree that "saving faith is ongoing and necessary." I would also agree with the sentence where you say that "How can one claim to be "saved" if they are living in slavery to sin, when, by definition, being saved = being FREED from sin?" Romans 6 speaks of that freedom.

LOL, yea, I would rather agree with you, also...

Concerning James 2 and the question of is it the "Key point." I did not bring up that passage, Dadof10 was the one to raise the issue of James 2. The reason I spoke of James 2 was because the passage in fact does not speak of a saving faith that was lost.

Perhaps not lost, but would you consider that James is worried about that possibility that some were losing "saving faith" by how they were acting in the verses immediately preceding James 2:14? The very question "does that faith save" speaks to a problematic line of thought among the community that thought "If I believed in Jesus years ago and still believe at the level of intellectual assent, I am good to go". James is saying even the devil has that level of assent. I think as a good pastor, James is warning his flock of the POTENTIAL of not having ones faith working in love...

Nevertheless, I do think the way we answer the question of James 2:14 has much to do with how we address the question of our growth in faith. James has an issue with a false starting point. James asks in James 2:14 "can that faith save? For those on the other side of the fence, the question needs to be asked, of there is such a thing as a "false starting point," can that person loose his salvation? Or as James 2:14 asks, can that faith save?

For those who believe James speaks of a faith lost, can you answer the question of verse 2:14? Does that faith save? This might not be the end all of the discussion, but the question needs to be answered.

I think James 2:14 is a rhetorical question, with the answer being "no". I am thinking that even the OSAS would agree, but their salvation does not rest on CONTINUING in their saving faith. One moment of saving faith appears to be sufficient to these people...

Regards

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Once saved, always saved!

I believe his response in James 2:18-19 is that the person who has faith without works is not saved.

Therefore, the person never had salvation to begin with.

The person who has faith only is the popular, intellectual idea, and it can be combined with evil as the reference points to demons.

 

[By Grace]

You want to discuss the Bible, not Luther or Calvin, but the first half of your post is about the Catholic Church and its supposed "syncretic" nature...

Actually, I an attempting to discuss salvation vis-a-vis the OP, and sanctification. Surely you can not disagree that there aree some here who believe in a works-generated sanctification, and that sanctification leads to salvation. Or you perhaps objecting to my usage of "syncretism" to define Roman theology in the fact that it simultaneously attempts to mainitain of both church traditions and the Bible as being inerrant?

<SNIP>

Well, first, it may please you to know that the Catholic Church does not teach "works" salvation. That notion was condemned officially nearly 1000 years before Luther posted his "disagreements" with the Catholic Church. The Second Council of Orange and the Council of Trent makes this clear, for those who are interested in reading it. While Orange was not an ecumenical council, Trent was and added nothing essential to the idea of justification. Here is example of the Decree on Justification: Canon 2: If anyone says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the Law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. We teach the same thing, man's initial justification is through faith, not by any human effort without God's grace. What exactly did you want to discuss?

WOW!! That did surprise me! Unfortunately, as you said that was not an Ecumenical Council, and it seems to be buried, and even contradicted by Trent, which I shall get to later. Having studied the Ecumenical Councils, of which there were 7:

1. First Council of Nicaea (325)
2. First Council of Constantinople (381)
3. Council of Ephesus (431)
4. Council of Chalcedon (451)
5. Second Council of Constantinople (553)
6. Third Council of Constantinople (680)
7. Second Council of Nicaea (787)

Because both sessions of the Councils were split by Chalcedon, it was Chalcedon which rose to prominence, and it was also Ecumenical. That made Orange non-binding. That is most important when Trent came along, and actually reversed the Canons which you cited.
From Wikipedia comes this:

Justification (sixth session) was declared to be offered upon the basis of human cooperation with divine grace as opposed to the Protestant doctrine of passive reception of grace. Understanding the Protestant "faith alone" doctrine to be one of simple human confidence in divine mercy, the Council rejected the "vain confidence" of the Protestants, stating that no one can know who has received the grace of God. Furthermore the Council affirmed against Protestant doctrine that the grace of God can be forfeited through mortal sin.
​

The greatest weight in the Council's decrees is given to the sacraments. The seven sacraments were reaffirmed and the Eucharist pronounced to be a true propitiatory sacrifice as well as a sacrament, in which the bread and wine were consecrated into the Eucharist (thirteenth and twenty-second sessions). The term transubstantiation was used by the Council, but the specific Aristotelian explanation given by Scholasticism was not cited as dogmatic. Instead, the decree states that Christ is "really, truly, substantially present" in the consecrated forms. The sacrifice of the Mass was to be offered for dead and living alike and in giving to the apostles the command "do this in remembrance of me," Christ conferred upon them a sacerdotal power. The practice of withholding the cup from the laity was confirmed (twenty-first session) as one which the Church Fathers had commanded for good and sufficient reasons; yet in certain cases the Pope was made the supreme arbiter as to whether the rule should be strictly maintained
​

Since this is the current practice today, in the RC church, I can not comprehend how the claim that "We teach the same thing, man's initial justification is through faith, not by any human effort without God's grace." is an accurate representation of current RC theology. If indeed the practice is as you say I have yet to hear it on ETWN or anything else.

The content of the Gospel was my intent on posting, not on the entire teaching on works and faith in the process of justification and salvation. Paul's arguments against "works" are improperly understood - they are not an argument against human participation in or cooperation with God's saving purpose (that would toss out the majority of Scriptures that command men to obey God and His commandments), but rather, arguments against the Jews and their pride that sought to define membership in the covenant community by referencing to cultural markers, such as dietary rules, holidays and circumcision. These things were not necessary when one had faith in Jesus Christ. The focus on "faith v works" misses the mark, as Paul is concerned with Christ being risen and the believer being immersed in that event. Paul is not saying human effort is unnecessary, but that God was the God of Jews AND Gentiles - and obedience to God was a necessary part of "BELIEVING" in Christ. Regards

You are referencing the Galatians Heresy.

From what I read of your post, you are more Protestant than Catholic. IMHO that is a good thing. However my understanding of the RC church is that it fancies itself as a "gatekeeper of salvation" especially since the general Council of Orange is so very much Protestant, and was essentially repudiated by Trent, and you can see that from what I posted from Trent.

Seems that we are on the way to having a good discussion!

 

[dadof10]

Actually, in the context of James 2, showing faith is exactly what the context is about.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

Well, you know I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose you're right. If it's possible to "show" or "display" or "prove" a person's "true, saving faith" by his deeds, then it's also possible to know when a person is truly justified, right? He "shows" his true faith (however you want to qualify "show") and he can rest assured that he is saved.

I have known some people who have "shown" their true faith by ANYONE'S qualification. These people lived their entire lives for Jesus through good deeds, prayer, sacrifice, Scripture study, charity, etc., yet, as the years went by, they slowly moved away from God and back into their previous lives.

My assertion is that you can't hold your interpretation of James and OSAS at the same time. When a person who is "born again" reverts back to his previous life in sin, the standard Reformed position is "he was never saved in the first place". Well, you think James teaches that you can SHOW YOUR TRUE FAITH, therefore, anyone who meets James' qualifications (which seem to be simply NOT walking by someone in need) can NEVER REVERT BACK or OSAS is false. If OSAS is true and a person who reverts back "was never saved in the first place", then, all those deeds he did never really "proved" or "showed" anything, therefore you are misinterpreting James 2.

You can't have it both ways...

In your post, you rely on some anecdotal knowledge of people who once claimed to be a Christian and then left the faith.

No, sorry. It's not anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is "Obama won the election. Most people I know voted for Romney, therefore the election was rigged". All I'm doing is giving you a real life example of real life people, people who I personally knew. They didn't just "claim" to be Christian, they were Christian, in every sense of the word. They met my criteria for "shown to be righteous", anyway. Yours might be different than mine, though.

Of course that is not a contextual issue. What you are saying is not exegetical in any way and has nothing to do with the context of James. I quoted verse 18 to demonstrate the context, and your reply ignored any discussion of the context. Therefore, even if I am "misinterpreting James 2," you are making no effort to look at the context at all.

Mondar, read the first line of my post again. "Well, you know I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose you're right."

Why would I argue a point I've already granted? Why would you?

Also, when you say that "the person who reverts back" ... "never really proved or showed anything." That would be correct.
While this is a different context, 1 John says exactly that...
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.
John agrees with James 2. An antiChrist might be among us, and look like us for a time, but eventually, it will be "shown" (James) or "manifest" (John) that they were never really of us. in fact, works do function to "show me your faith."

We agree. You in reality, me for the sake of argument. My premise is James teaches that a person can "show" or "prove" or display" his "true faith" by his deeds. At some point in time, a person "shows his true faith" by his works, he shows that he is justified. If, after "showing" this justification, he EVER reverts back to his previous life of sin, OSAS is necessarily false.

Here are my questions.

1) James says we show our justification by our deeds. What does this look like to you? Please qualify or quantify "shown to be righteous".

2) Have you ever met anyone who meets this criteria?

3) Have you ever met anyone who has met this criteria, who has reverted back to his life of sin?

I do not see the question as being one of you as having some superior moral position. In fact your position is morally much lower.

Am I coming across as morally superior? If so, it is not intentional.

You are the one that accepts that a person who has a barren, vain, or dead faith is saved.

LOL...Are you serious? Where are you getting this silly notion?

In Catholic Theology, does not a person have to merely be baptized as an infant for initial justification?

Yes.

So then it is not even the works of the infant, but his parents?

It is the "works" of neither. It is strictly the Work of God.

And faith does not even have to be present in the infant?

Correct. The infant does not have to earn initial justification by HAVING faith. That is your theology, not mine

So then, in Catholic Theology, is not that infant saved without any of his own faith or works?

Yes. He is saved by Grace alone.

 

[By Grace]

Once saved, always saved! I believe his response in James 2:18-19 is that the person who has faith without works is not saved. Therefore, the person never had salvation to begin with. The person who has faith only is the popular, intellectual idea, and it can be combined with evil as the reference points to demons.

What I fiind very interesting in this thread is that no one ('cept good ole' me) has bothered to look at the steps that happen in order when a person is saved. Here are the steps:

2Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway 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:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle
​

In verse 13, we have the first three essential ingredients: ELECTION, SANCTIFICATION JUSTIFICATION

In verse 14 we have EFFECTUAL CALLING , GLORIFICATION

In verse 15, we have PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS or FAITHFULNESS

These are all in order in what Paul wrote, and it is a precise summary of the Gospel I am aware that there are some who will get up set about Calvinism, but it is not. Properly labeled, it is Pauline theology. That is because Paul first wrote it, and Calvin systematized it.

Here it is in greater detail:

Election (v. 13)

Paul speaks of those who are ‘chosen’ for salvation (v. 13), and this raises the issue of the doctrine of election. In view of the misunderstanding and widespread confusion on this fundamental teaching, it is vital that this doctrine be understood. The teaching of election throws up two seemingly irreconcilable truths, namely, the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. On the one hand, the Scriptures clearly teach God’s overruling providence in the affairs of men and nations, as nothing in the universe is outside his plan (Proverbs 16:33; Isa. 45:1–3; Acts 2:23); on the other hand, it is the individual’s responsibility to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ or be lost for ever (Matt. 11:28; Acts 18:6; 20:21). It is important that this theme of election is set in the context of the nature and personality of God himself, for God is love (1 John 4:8). When God chose Jacob before Esau his brother, it was an act of love (Romans 9:13). Those who oppose the truth of election often do so because they misunderstand it and want to cling on to a wrong view of man’s free will. Yet the doctrine of election is clearly taught in the New Testament (1 Thessalonians 1:4; John 1:12–13; Romans 9:11–13; Ephesians 1:5–14; 2 Peter 1:10).

Sanctification (v. 13)

Paul continues to reveal the way of salvation, saying that God chose them ‘for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit’ (v. 13). Election does not save the sinner, as it is merely a divinely allotted step in the way to forgiveness. It is by righteousness imputed (justification) and righteousness imparted (sanctification) that the sinner is saved. This act of sanctification flows from the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart and sets apart the sinner to needed repentance and faith (Ezek. 36:26; John 3:3; Titus 3:5). As used here, the term does not embrace all the work of sanctification taught in the Scriptures. The emphasis here is on positional sanctification, not progressive sanctification: the former being the setting aside of the believer in Christ for salvation, while the latter is growth in grace and improvement in practical holiness (1 Thes. 5:23; Jude 24).

Justification (v. 13)

Paul now mentions ‘truth’. What is truth? Pilate asked the Saviour this question before his crucifixion (John 18:38); Jesus gave him no reply but he had previously taught his apostles that God’s Word (the Bible) ‘is truth’ (John 17:17; compare Psalm 119:160). When the gospel truth of Christ crucified and risen on the third day is believed, sinners are declared righteous before God and by this they are justified. Faith brings them into a right and good standing with God, whose laws they have broken. Now, in Christ, they are accepted, forgiven and granted peace with God. Paul teaches clearly in the epistle to the Romans that salvation is by faith alone through grace alone, not by keeping the law (Romans 1:17; 3:10–21; 4:3; 5:1; 10:4; compare Galatians 3:22–26; Eph. 2:8–10; Philippians 3:9).

Effectual calling (v. 14)

‘Election’ is an objective reality: it is God making a choice, and God’s will is what matters. Election is his sovereign act in eternity past. ‘Calling’ is a subjective reality: it is personal; we respond to it and we hear it. It comes when we hear the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit (Jonah 2:9; 2 Peter 1:10). When the elect hear the gospel, it is accompanied with God’s grace to bring them to conversion. Election says that we are chosen in Christ from before the beginning of the world (Ephesians 1:4); effectual calling, therefore, is the grace and power of God irresistibly drawing sinners to Christ (Romans 8:30).

These are not abstract ideas; rather, they are very glorious and practical. There are two types of call found in the New Testament: the universal call and the effectual call. The truth of the universal call was demonstrated when the Saviour said, ‘For many are called, but few are chosen’ (Matthew 22:14). The effectual call comprise six things:

• a summons (to the elect sinner) into fellowship with Christ (1 Corinthians 1:26–27)
• a call out of darkness into God’s light, new nationhood and special sonship (1 Peter 2:9–10)
• a call into eternal life (Hebrews 3:1)
• a call to the ‘fight of faith’ (1 Timothy 6:12)
• a call to holiness (1 Thessalonians. 4:7)
• a call to glorification (1 Peter 5:10; Revelation. 19:9).
​

This powerful calling is the first initiatory act in the ordo salutis; by it we are summoned to faith in Christ and to repentance of our sins.

Glorification (v. 14)

Glorification is the final link in the chain of salvation (Rom. 8:30). Paul sees it as something flowing from the other essential elements in salvation, saying, ‘He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 14). When the gospel is preached, the call to come to Christ is given. This phrase ‘the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ’ reminds the Thesssalonians that, apart from Jesus Christ, there is no salvation and no eternal life. The church has no splendour or beauty other than in its union with Jesus Christ. With him as its King, it will share in the glory of heaven at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7–9).

Faithfulness (v. 15)

The privilege and blessing of being chosen in Christ leads to the fruit of steadfastness: ‘Therefore … stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.’ It is only as we count our blessings that we remember how much we owe Christ Jesus and therefore how much we should love him (Titus 2:14).

Count your blessings, name them one by one,
And it will surprise you what the Lord has done.
(Johnson Oatman, Jr.)

The teaching of the Bible must govern all that the Christian believes and holds dear, even in times of apostasy (Jude 17–20). Paul’s exhortation to them to ‘stand fast’ is a call to faithfulness and perseverance. ‘We cannot seek anything from God unless we seek it in Christ himself.’
​

McNaughton, I. (2008). Opening up 2 Thessalonians. Opening Up Commentary (54–58). Leominster: Day One Publications.

I also took the time to write out the names of the books so that those who wish to "tell me I am wrong" can go to the verses that support the position first before they attempt doing that.

 

[mondar]

Concerning James 2 and the question of is it the "Key point." I did not bring up that passage, Dadof10 was the one to raise the issue of James 2. The reason I spoke of James 2 was because the passage in fact does not speak of a saving faith that was lost.

Perhaps not lost, but would you consider that James is worried about that possibility that some were losing "saving faith" by how they were acting in the verses immediately preceding James 2:14? The very question "does that faith save" speaks to a problematic line of thought among the community that thought "If I believed in Jesus years ago and still believe at the level of intellectual assent, I am good to go". James is saying even the devil has that level of assent. I think as a good pastor, James is warning his flock of the POTENTIAL of not having ones faith working in love...

Certainly the contexts are related, but I am not sure that I can agree with the way you relate the two contexts. When James "Can that faith save" that part of the sentence does not go back to the preceding context (1-13) but merely it is the grammatical antecedent of the first part of the sentence in verse 14. So then, the faith he is talking about is the faith of the first part of verse 14.

Also, if you just observe where the word "faith" is used, it links verse 14 with the 14-26 context and not the 1-13 context.

In saying this, I do not mean to say that the two contexts are not related. In 1-13, the context is about respect of persons as a sin that violates the whole law. That subject matter would be related to 14-26 and the fact that saving faith is something that is manifest in works. So then, the person who does not have a respect of the rich man is manifesting his faith. So there is a logical tie between 1-13 and 14-26, but that should not obscure the fact that verse 14 is a part of 14 to 26.

Nevertheless, I do think the way we answer the question of James 2:14 has much to do with how we address the question of our growth in faith. James has an issue with a false starting point. James asks in James 2:14 "can that faith save? For those on the other side of the fence, the question needs to be asked, of there is such a thing as a "false starting point," can that person loose his salvation? Or as James 2:14 asks, can that faith save?

For those who believe James speaks of a faith lost, can you answer the question of verse 2:14? Does that faith save? This might not be the end all of the discussion, but the question needs to be answered.

I think James 2:14 is a rhetorical question, with the answer being "no". I am thinking that even the OSAS would agree, but their salvation does not rest on CONTINUING in their saving faith. One moment of saving faith appears to be sufficient to these people...

Regards

Certainly I would agree that faith is continuous. The difference between us is not to be found in the continuous aspect of faith. The difference would be found in the source of faith. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the free will doctrine, you see faith as the work of man for God. I would see faith as the work of God in man. God regenerates and changes mans nature so that man might believe.

Tit 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
No man can come to Christ until the Father draws him. One part of this drawing is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. So then, our faith is not dependent upon our own righteous nature, but upon the power of God. This faith cannot fail.

I would agree with you in that there is faith that is not generated by the work of God in man in regeneration. That faith will always fail. There is no salvation for such an individual. It is the faith of demons.. (James 2:19). It is the faith that does not manifest works (James 2:14 & 18).

 

[francisdesales]

WOW!! That did surprise me! Unfortunately, as you said that was not an Ecumenical Council, and it seems to be buried, and even contradicted by Trent, which I shall get to later. Having studied the Ecumenical Councils, of which there were 7:

1. First Council of Nicaea (325)
2. First Council of Constantinople (381)
3. Council of Ephesus (431)
4. Council of Chalcedon (451)
5. Second Council of Constantinople (553)
6. Third Council of Constantinople (680)
7. Second Council of Nicaea (787)

I'm afraid you are mistaken, Vatican 2 was the most recent of ecumenical councils, and there were some 15 in between.

Trent did not contradict Orange.

That is most important when Trent came along, and actually reversed the Canons which you cited.

I cited from Trent... Trent didn't reverse Trent.

I think you should consider reading Catholic sources to get a better handle on Catholic Councils.

The practice of withholding the cup from the laity was confirmed (twenty-first session) as one which the Church Fathers had commanded for good and sufficient reasons; yet in certain cases the Pope was made the supreme arbiter as to whether the rule should be strictly maintained[/FONT]
[/INDENT]Since this is the current practice today, in the RC church, I can not comprehend how the claim that "We teach the same thing, man's initial justification is through faith, not by any human effort without God's grace." is an accurate representation of current RC theology. If indeed the practice is as you say I have yet to hear it on ETWN or anything else.

By Grace - where are you getting your information? The cup is being withheld??? I received the cup Tuesday of this week and receive it on practically every Sunday and Tuesday. I find it amazing that someone is telling me what the Catholic Church teaches to me that is so wrong. Same old misinformation. It gives no credence to what you said about councils (which is also wrong).

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Certainly the contexts are related, but I am not sure that I can agree with the way you relate the two contexts. When James "Can that faith save" that part of the sentence does not go back to the preceding context (1-13) but merely it is the grammatical antecedent of the first part of the sentence in verse 14. So then, the faith he is talking about is the faith of the first part of verse 14.

I am not sure why you think that:

My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? James 2:1

James continues speaking about how their actions - works - towards the rich/poor are not in line with what is expected of people in Christ, moving into the discussion about "saving faith". I see the entire chapter as a related teaching. "That (James 2:1) faith cannot save, can it" fits in well and forms the background context for his discussion beginning with James 2:14.

Certainly I would agree that faith is continuous. The difference between us is not to be found in the continuous aspect of faith. The difference would be found in the source of faith. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the free will doctrine, you see faith as the work of man for God. I would see faith as the work of God in man. God regenerates and changes mans nature so that man might believe.

We have had this discussion before, and you must recall that we spoke of the idea of synergy. There is no "work of man" for the one in Christ. It is a work of a united man within the Body of Christ. We participate, abide in, live for, etc.. IN Christ. Thus, any good that I do is from God, it is a united act guided by God.

As such, there is no need to establish a false dichotomy between what I do and what God does, or making any sort of mathematical equation of what I do and what God does. I cannot take credit for any good act that I do, for I can do nothing (good) without Christ.

No man can come to Christ until the Father draws him. One part of this drawing is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. So then, our faith is not dependent upon our own righteous nature, but upon the power of God. This faith cannot fail.

But here is the problem - you are discounting the unity of God and man in an act. And we do retain the power to negate the grace God grants us to do any good thing, to include having faith.

Yes, faith can fail. Although it is a free gift entirely given to man, there is also a human response involved with this gift before becoming efficacious. Sufficient grace is given to all - the seed of the parable of the sower - but all do not bear fruit.

I would agree with you in that there is faith that is not generated by the work of God in man in regeneration. That faith will always fail. There is no salvation for such an individual. It is the faith of demons.. (James 2:19). It is the faith that does not manifest works (James 2:14 & 18).

Clearly, we are not saved by faith alone, for even the devils believe... For faith to be alive, there must be works involved. Both are graces from God, neither are entirely from man.

Regards

 

[John Zain]

2Thessalonians 2:
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification
of (BY) the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word, or our epistle

What, MORE wasted words! ... the By Grace doesn't need to stand fast!

He is OSAS, and that's the end of it ... Absolutely NO need to think about standing fast, etc.!

Now may we get back to reality?

It should be obvious, especially in light of ALL of the MANY NEGATIVE Scriptures, that ...

Billy being called and chosen before the foundation of the world ...
does NOT mean that Billy will accept the call and co-operate with the Holy Spirit.

GOD DID NOT CREATE A BUNCH OF ROBOTS ... neither angels nor humans!
He desired only free-will worship, nothing else!