Lordship vs. Free Grace Salvation

[Jac3510]

Yes that's correct. That is what I am saying.

I'm looking forward to posting my exegesis of James 2:14ff next week, because that is the primary verse for the "faith without works is dead" doctrine. Before getting into that text, I'll just say that passage has nothing to do with salvation by grace through faith alone. "Salvation" there refers to deliverance from temporal death and not from eternal damnation (c.f. Proverbs 23:13-15).

Thus, as you stated, you agree with the idea that, "Where there are no works there is no salvation," granted the qualification that works are a result of and not the cause of salvation. Before I try to demonstrate the flaw in your thinking here, let me deal with your verses:

• Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will recognize them by their fruit. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven—only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. (Matt. 7:15-24)

This passage is often cited to prove that salvation necessarily produces good fruit, but that is not at all what Jesus said. He says explicitly who He is talking about: false prophets. How will you know who the false prophet is? It won't be by his words, but it will be by his actions. The evil tree bears evil fruit, while the good tree bears good fruit. To avoid confusion, Jesus qualifies this. The bad tree is not capable of producing good fruit, nor the good bad. Therefore, if you see evil fruit, you know the tree is not good. This person must be false prophet.

He then takes the message even further. The false prophets are those who claim to be disciples, for they cry "Lord, Lord!" Therefore, it is entirely inappropriate to apply this to the believer in general. This is a passage that deals very specifically with true discipleship. The evil "disciple" will be known by his fruit, for it will be evil. The "good" disciple will be known by his fruit, for it will be good. This has nothing to do with the general believer nor the general non-believer.

I do find it interesting that you quoted verse 24 but not the rest of the parable, for it is in the same context. What do the winds and rain represent in this passage? Is it "the storms of life"? Certainly not, for the context does not allow it. It is an eschatological passage. The winds and the rain refer to the judgment seat of Christ. Are you building your works on the words of Christ or not? So, yet again, this has nothing to do with the general believer, but it has everything to do with discipleship.

And yes, I agree that there is much, much more where that came from.

As far as your verses pertaining to repentance, none of them have anything to do with final salvation. If you do not repent of sin, the result will be physical death. Eternal death is only dependant on repentance if it is defined as "a changing of the mind," that is, changing from trusting in yourself for salvation to trusting in Christ for salvation. But, again every single one of those passages can better be read in light of physical death more so that spiritual death.

With that out of the way:

It is very dangerous to hold your view that "a faith that does not work does not save." As Zane Hodges puts it in his book, Absolutely Free, that which is a necessary result of something is also a condition of that something (paraphrased). In other words, if event A necessarily results in event B, then where there is no event B, it can be concluded without doubt there was no event A. Therefore, we can actually say that event A--at least the realilty of it--is predicated on the existence of event B.

This is easy to see in regards to salvation. You have effectively bought into a works-based salvation, whether you intend to or not, for a salvation that necessarily produces works is no different from a salvation based on works. In either case, where there is no works, there is no salvation. To argue otherwise is a matter of pure semantics. In the end, the practical difference is zero.

The second problem is that you destory any doctrine of assurance. Who can say that tomorrow they will not fall away from their faith? I know of people who have claimed to have been converted and then totally and completely lost their faith. Well, there is now no works--quite further, in fact, there are "anti-works"--so we must conclude there is no salvation. Thus, they were either never saved or they have lost their salvation, or, if you hold to an extreme doctrine of perseverance, then God will bring them back to the faith whether they like it or not.

Here's the problem, though: if it is possible that they were not saved, then it is possible that you are not saved. You may say that you will not fall away because you truly have been saved, but these people would have said the same thing. Thus, your "assurance" is based on nothing more than your own conviction. I pity such a belief. That is the kind of belief that keeps mothers up at night crying over their children who accepted Christ at a young age but have now lost their way. "Perhaps he was never saved at all," she cries. And you cannot console her, but you rather must confirm her worst fear, saying, "You may be right, but if he was, God will bring him back." And if that child dies while being out "in the world." Well, now the pour soul is convinced that she is a terrible mother and that her child is in hell. And all this says nothing of the young man himself who had long ago convinced himself that he obviously was not saved, otherwise, he wouldn't "want to do these kinds of things." Nevermind the fact that he's "asked Jesus into his heart" at least a dozen times. He has no assurance, because he has no works.

So, again, tying assurance to works is a VERY dangerous doctrine. It, I believe, is downright heretical.

I agree. God judgeth by everything done in our bodies wether it is good or bad. Ultimatley I agree we must have faith that Jesus is who he says he is, and that God raised him from the dead.

It seems like if that is true it must have some impact on causing Glory to God and showing love and chriaty in the name of Jesus.

And aren't those the works that will survive a fiery trial and result in our crowns? At the very minimum we must show the work of open identification with Jesus Christ.

God does judge us by our works. These works will determine our rewards in heaven or our punishment in hell. Those works that were done in truth will stand, as per Matt. 7:24-27. As for your last statement in the above quotation, I strongly disagree. Mark 8:38 says otherwise: "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." This was spoken to the disciples in the context of discipleship. In other words, it applies to Christians and not non-believers. Therefore, it is clear that there are some Christians who Jesus will be ashamed of . . . those who openly deny Him.

We can agree that it does not merely mean belief. Satan also believes in Christ, yet he is not saved. The you start adding to belief, and you add trust. That's right, we have to trust as part of our faith. But be trusting, you are also being obedient, since we are instructed to trust God, like Abraham did. (Rom 4, off the top of my head) So if we are to be obedient in respect of trust, why should we not be obedient in other areas of our faith? The great commandments clearly are that we should love God and our fellow man, why is obedience to that not part of a saving faith?

No, we cannot agree that faith does not merely mean belief. That is exactly my point. You use Satan as an example, but he in no way fits the belief that I claimed one must have. To quote myself, I said that saving faith is "simple trust that Jesus Christ can and will save because He said He would." Satan does not have this simple trust, because He has not believed in this basic promise of Christ.

Jesus said in John 3:36, " Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." And again, He said to Martha: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" It is BELIEF that saves--trust in the promise of God. The moment you trust, you HAVE, not will have, eternal life. Period. Satan has never trusted Christ for His salvation, therefore, he does not have eternal life. Again, salvation is not a mere recognition of facts, which Satan has. Salvation is trusting Christ to do for you what He said He would, plain and simple.

Your examples of government and your fiancee don't work for me, neither one can reasonably be compared with a saving faith in a loving God. The whole reason for Jesus dying for our sins is exactly what you said, we can never love, trust or do enough good deeds to be saved. But we also believe that when we are saved, we are born again, a new creature through the power of God, and that new creature reflects the characteristics of the family of God. So while there is no standard by which deeds or works show salvation, that to me is a completely false dilemma. Deeds and works are done because we are part of God's family, and we do His will because we love Him, not to boast of our measure of salvation.

Both can be reasonably compared. Actually, I agree more than you would expect with your statements, but for reasons I won't get into here as they have no bearing on our discussion. The point is that there is a difference in trust and love. You can trust someone and not love them, or you can love someone and not trust them. You can also not love someone and not love them, just as you can trust someone and love them. My examples prove that. Now, you would insist that genuine trust in Christ necessarily produces genuine love because a new nature is in us. I would agree under extreme qualifications. However, what we are talking about is the initial trust. Unless you take the position that regeneration preceeds faith, you cannot hold that trust and love are the same thing and at the same time applied to Jesus and thus producing salvation. Trust (that is, faith or believe) is the means by which God applies grace. It is because of that grace that we come to love God. It is in that order.

Therefore, yet again, trust and love are different issues entirely. There can be one without the other. In this case, the only thing that is needed for salvation is trust, not love. You cannot say that where there is no love there is no trust, because then you have made love a necessary condition for trust, and thus have made it a requirement for salvation. You cannot even view it as a proof, because if we grow to love someone, then it follows that different people grow at different rates. There is absolutely nothing to say that within X number of days your "love guage" should read at a certain level.

Besides all that, and this is my last point, if we are only capable of loving God in our regenerate state, then it follows that every Jew ever prior to Christ went to Hell, because no Jew was ever indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Too bad for them . . .

God bless

(no spell check)

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Fortigurn]

Was Just reading James 2, and this verse is there 24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

This seems to indicate that works are required. I don't think that it means, especially in light of all the scripture that says so, works are neccesary for salvation, but it is easy to say I have faith, I have faith. If we say we have faith, but we do nothing perhaps we are just saying we have faith, when in fact we do not have faith.

While I think the answer to the issue of works and salvation is answered in one aspect. We are saved without works, I think that is clear.

But can we be saved and show no work at all? I think it is clear that good works can be done outside of salvation, but can they not be done within salvation?

I agree. We are not saved by works, but we cannot be saved without them.

[Jac3510]

Jbuza, look at the verses you just quoted, particularly 4: "Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Salvation comes through faith ALONE. It is mere belief. There is no identification necessary, and if you argue there is, then you have to explain several verses, not the least of which is the already referenced Mark 8 passage.

As for James 2:

It is commonly asserted that this verse proves that a genuine faith necessarily produces works. However, that is not at all what this passage is teaching. Just the opposite, in fact! Let's look at the entire passage in question:

• What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-26, NASB)

Can faith without works save? The answer is no. If anyone teaches otherwise, they are teaching something contrary to Scripture, for this passage clearly teaches otherwise. In fact, this passage does more than teach that faith must produce works, but this passage does, in fact, teach that works are necessary for salvation. If anyone teaches anything different, they are contradicting this passage of Scripture. It takes an awful lot of theological gymnastics to explain away this text. The obvious meaning is that faith plus works saves. You may wish to argue that it is not works that saves, but faith that saves; however, a necessary result of genuine faith is works. But, this passage does not support this view, for it clearly says, "you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." You can't get much clearer than that!

So, this text DOES teach salvation by works. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we can get on with it. But, let's make our apparent problem even worse. In the preceding chapter, James has already made this assertion . . . that is, that works save. Again in the NASB, James 1:21-22 reads, "Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves." Notice in this verse that the word implanted saves your soul only if you prove yourself a doer of it, for those who do not do (work) are deluded. They have not received the word and are not saved.

Now, feel free to do as many commentators do and try to explain away these passages, if it helps you sleep at night with a comfortable theology. But, before you go and decide out of the gate that there is an obvious contradiction with Paul's salvation by grace through faith alone without works, let me offer this very simple solution:

James is not referring to eternal salvation in these verses. Verse 21, while seeming to contribute to the problem, actually offer us the solution and put chapter two in its proper context. Notice that it says the word implanted is "able to save your souls." This word "soul" is psuche. It can mean either "soul" or "life." And guess what? In this passage, it should be rendered "life," thus saying, "receive the word implanted, which is able to save your lives." I'll post specific evidence for this claim at a later time. Right, now, I just want you to see how the proper interpretation of these passages helps the whole of theology come together much more neatly without our being forced to "explain away" the texts.

Now, in this context, we see that the word implanted saves the life. This word "save" is the same word for "save" in chapter two. It is soze, and means either "to save" or "to deliver." Thus, both verses 1:21 and 2:14 are "deliver your life from death." This passage, again, is NOT referring to final, eternal salvation by grace through faith alone. What this passage IS addressing is the ability of the Christian life to deliver a person from physical destruction!

This, in fact, is the theme of the entire epistle of James. The book has been properly noted to be the wisdom literature of the NT. If you follow the advice in this book, your life will be much easier. If you ignore it, you will find yourself being destroyed and ultimately dead, or worse.

So, with this idea, look back at chapter two. James asks what good is it for a man to say he has faith, but doesn't DO anything with it? The answer is that it isn't any good at all. Faith, by itself, doesn't do anything. We then have the controversial phrase, "Can that faith save him?" Guess what? Bad rendering. Sorry. The word "that" isn't in the Greek. It is put there in sheer translator bias. In this case the KJV has it right. It should read, "Can faith save him?" The reason the "that" is provided is because the Greek article ho immediately precedes and modifies "faith" (gk. pistos). It is true that the article CAN be translated a weak demonstrative pronoun, but not in this case. Actually, the article has many uses, one of which is to talk about proper abstract nouns. We do this in English by capitalizing the word. For example, we may say, "What is Truth?"

So, James is actually asking: Can faith save a person? The answer is no. FAITH CANNOT SAVE. For the record, this is true even in the eternal sense of salvation, for faith doesn't save a man from Hell anyway. Grace does that. Faith is just a channel. So, either way, the traditional argument doesn't hold up.

Now James proceeds to give an example. A brother is in need, and you in your "faith" say good things, but you don't DO anything. What is the result? Death. The brother will die in his need because you did not help him. Faith alone did not save. Thus, James is right in that faith without works is dead. It can deliver no one from anything.

At this point, an objector interrupts, saying, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." Now, this isn't the way we normally look at this. We usually put the closing quotation and "by my works," and we have James' response begin at "You believe." Again, this is just bad translation. This is what is called a diatribe, and it was a very common form of argument in the first century. It, in fact, is found on three separate occasions in the NT. Basically, a diatribe consists of "You will say . . ." followed by a "But can't you see that . . ." in whatever phrasing the author wishes to use.

So, the objector puts forward this argument: "Ok, James. Let's play your game. You are telling me that my faith alone isn't enough, so let's run with that idea. Let's say that I have these works that you insist I have, and you have faith. Now, here's my challenge to you, James. Without your works, show me your faith. Oh, you can't do it? Well, before you go and start saying you are right, let's see if I can show you my faith by the works that you say I have to have. Well, look at the demons. James, you have faith . . . you believe in God. Congratulations. But even the demons believe, and not only that, but they shudder! So it is obvious that true faith doesn't necessarily result in works, because the demons have no works. In fact, their true faith results in the opposite of works. Therefore, even if I do the works you are asking me to do, that doesn't prove anything at all. So see, James, you aren't any more right than I am. Leave me alone and quit telling me how to live."

The objector maintains that works do not prove faith, and faith does not necessarily produce works. To this, James does not argue that the objector is wrong, but he says, "But don't you see that faith without works is useless!?!" This argument totally short circuits the objector's position. We are no longer talking about genuine faith verses works as a proof of faith. Now we are talking about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of a workless-faith. To prove his point, James goes to Scripture (always a good idea). Abraham was justified by works and not by faith alone when he offered up Isaac.

Now, let's stop here just a second. If anyone still wants to argue that James is not talking about a works based salvation, this verse kills that idea. If you take this passage to be salvation from Hell, you have a MAJOR problem here, because it says that Abraham was "justified." This doesn't merely mean delivered. This is that judicial term that refers to the crediting of righteousness. So, again, if you want to hold the traditional view, I suggest you look into Catholicism, because at least it is consistent in its view of this passage.

How was Abe justified by works? Because his faith was working with his works, and his works perfected his faith. Therefore, the Scripture was fulfilled that Abraham believed and was justified. Thus, we "see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." As an aside, this word "alone" is interesting. This is really bad grammar--not necessarily a bad translation--and as such it gives a terrible idea. Suppose I say to you, "I have a bike, and not a car only." ("Alone" could be rendered "only" in this passage). What would I be telling you I owned? I would be saying that I have BOTH a car and a bike.

The same applies here. James is NOT saying that faith plus works justifies. No, he is saying that a man is justified by works, and he is ALSO justified by faith . . . not by one alone only.

So, we see that James is referring to TWO justifications: one is the justification before men, and the other is the justification before God. The former is by works, the latter is by faith. The former fulfills the latter because it can be seen by men. Remember the heart of the objector's argument was that true faith cannot be proven by works. Here, James is saying that, while that may be so, a person of true faith can justify--or vindicate--his righteousness before men! And what is the result? A perfected faith. You could also render it "a mature faith."

James isn't done, though. He continues to press his point. In verse 25 he gives the example of Rahab. It is absolutely the perfect illustration of his point. If you remember the story, Rahab helped the spies out of Jericho. Why did she do that? Because she had BELIEVED in their words. That faith resulted in her righteousness--that is, her justification by grace through faith alone, which is the justification before God. However, she then perfected, or matured, or vindicated that justification by helping the spies. And what was the result? HER LIFE WAS SAVED! Mere faith alone would not have saved her. She would have died with the rest of the city, even while she went to heaven. But, because her faith was working with works, she was justified before men, and thus, she was saved.

And thus, James concludes the matter for the time being with the summary statement that faith without works is dead. Works animate faith. Faith is the body. Works are the spirit, so to speak.

For the record, this is the same idea found in James 5:19-20. I would challenge anyone who still believes that James is referring to salvation by grace through faith alone to explain those verses. It is VERY easy to see how it works in the interpretation I am offering. Replace "soul" with "life" and "save" with "deliver", and you get a wonderful theological truth, but also a stern warning. Otherwise, you get a terrible conundrum, such that even Martin Luther hated the book.

Once again, it is FAITH ALONE, that is MERE BELIEF, that saves. Works do not save. They have no portion in salvation. They are not evidence of salvation. They do not indicate salvation or a lack-there-of. They are not a necessary result of salvation. Absolutely no where is such an abominable doctrine taught in Scripture, but again, as demonstrated above, just the opposite is true. Just because you are saved does NOT mean that you will produce. That is a choice, and it is one that we have to make. If you don't make that choice, the results will be disastrous, but here and in the hereafter.

And with all that, I refer you to my previous post concerning the terrible dangers in the doctrines you have been espousing.

God bless

[Jbuza]

gone

[Fortigurn]

So, this text DOES teach salvation by works. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we can get on with it. But, let's make our apparent problem even worse. In the preceding chapter, James has already made this assertion . . . that is, that works save. Again in the NASB, James 1:21-22 reads, "Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves." Notice in this verse that the word implanted saves your soul only if you prove yourself a doer of it, for those who do not do (work) are deluded. They have not received the word and are not saved.

It doesn't actually teach 'salvation by works', only that works are an essential part of the salvic process, together with faith.

But, before you go and decide out of the gate that there is an obvious contradiction with Paul's salvation by grace through faith alone without works, let me offer this very simple solution:

James is not referring to eternal salvation in these verses. Verse 21, while seeming to contribute to the problem, actually offer us the solution and put chapter two in its proper context. Notice that it says the word implanted is "able to save your souls." This word "soul" is psuche. It can mean either "soul" or "life." And guess what? In this passage, it should be rendered "life," thus saying, "receive the word implanted, which is able to save your lives." I'll post specific evidence for this claim at a later time. Right, now, I just want you to see how the proper interpretation of these passages helps the whole of theology come together much more neatly without our being forced to "explain away" the texts.

There is no contradiction between James and Paul, because Paul was speaking specifically of works of the Law (of Moses). Both Paul and James speak of salvation by faith and works (see Romans 6-8).

I see no evidence that 'salvation' here does not refer to eschatological salvation.

So, James is actually asking: Can faith save a person? The answer is no. FAITH CANNOT SAVE. For the record, this is true even in the eternal sense of salvation, for faith doesn't save a man from Hell anyway. Grace does that. Faith is just a channel.

Excellent, so you need faith and works.

Now James proceeds to give an example. A brother is in need, and you in your "faith" say good things, but you don't DO anything. What is the result? Death. The brother will die in his need because you did not help him. Faith alone did not save. Thus, James is right in that faith without works is dead. It can deliver no one from anything.

This says nothing about the brother dying, or your works saving others from physical death.

So it is obvious that true faith doesn't necessarily result in works, because the demons have no works. In fact, their true faith results in the opposite of works. Therefore, even if I do the works you are asking me to do, that doesn't prove anything at all. So see, James, you aren't any more right than I am. Leave me alone and quit telling me how to live."

The objector maintains that works do not prove faith, and faith does not necessarily produce works. To this, James does not argue that the objector is wrong, but he says, "But don't you see that faith without works is useless!?!" This argument totally short circuits the objector's position. We are no longer talking about genuine faith verses works as a proof of faith. Now we are talking about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of a workless-faith.

I believe this argument is overly complicated.

How was Abe justified by works? Because his faith was working with his works, and his works perfected his faith. Therefore, the Scripture was fulfilled that Abraham believed and was justified. Thus, we "see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Yes, 100%.

As an aside, this word "alone" is interesting. This is really bad grammar--not necessarily a bad translation--and as such it gives a terrible idea. Suppose I say to you, "I have a bike, and not a car only." ("Alone" could be rendered "only" in this passage). What would I be telling you I owned? I would be saying that I have BOTH a car and a bike.

The same applies here. James is NOT saying that faith plus works justifies. No, he is saying that a man is justified by works, and he is ALSO justified by faith . . . not by one alone only.

So, we see that James is referring to TWO justifications: one is the justification before men, and the other is the justification before God. The former is by works, the latter is by faith. The former fulfills the latter because it can be seen by men.

He can't be saying that, firstly because he says something else, and secondly because God was the one before whom Abraham was justified (not Isaac).

Once again, it is FAITH ALONE, that is MERE BELIEF, that saves. Works do not save. They have no portion in salvation. They are not evidence of salvation. They do not indicate salvation or a lack-there-of. They are not a necessary result of salvation.

That is a direct contradiction of what James says.

Look at what he says:

James 2:
20 But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

22 You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

The whole point of verse 23 is that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness because he acted on it. Faith went hand in hand with works, which is precisely why he was justified. If he hadn't acted, then that faith would have been a dead faith.

The example of Rahab is identical.

[Jac3510]

Jbuza:

The danger in the belief system that works are a necessary result of salvation (or, more extreme, of straigut up "Lordship salvation") is twofold. First, if you hold to the idea that "If Christ is not Lord over all, then He is not Lord at all," then you are adhering to a works-based salvation, and thus, a heresy. The reasoning is simple. To make Christ Lord over your whole is to to pledge complete obedience to Him. If, though, salvation is a result of a pledge of obedience, then you have a contract salvation. God saves us in exchange for our obedience. Now, even if you hold to eternal security and perseverance, you are still making the initial salvation works based in the sense that it is a bilateral contract. This is not at all the Gospel. It is one of Satan's greatest lies!

The second danger is that it completely rules out any possibility of assurance. How many people have claimed to have been saved and then later on rejected their faith? How many have claimed to be saved but lived horrible lives? Lordship proponents, and Calvinists in general, talk about "backslidden" Christians and the guarantee that "if they are saved, God will bring them back into the fold." No return equates with no salvation, because, as has been demonstrated, "Where there is no works there is no salvation."

Thus, the basis for assurance is no longer the Scriptural promise of salvation by grace through faith, but the basis of assurance is by works. This is because anyone can CLAIM to belief, but to know whether or not you REALLY believed, you have to look to your works. But, who are you to say that your faith won't be rocked or shattered at some point? Are all you so much more sure of your salvation, of your faith, then all the countless souls who have walked away from Christianity or who have lived in a backslidden position? I sincerely hope you are not so arrogant!

As for the question of whether or not works would come naturally to the saved person, considering the fact that he is indwelt by the HS, see my reply to Fortigurn. In the meantime, though, keep in mind that if a non-indwelt person can do good works (i.e., the OT saints), then there is we cannot say that that the HS is necessary for them. Thus, the purpose of the HS's indwelling cannot be to lead us to good works. It would be superfluous. To assert that we would be more apt to do good works is simply ungrounded, given the warnings in every single book of the NT.

Now, Fortigurn:

Your entire post is irrelavant because you did not deal with the most basic claim in my argument, which is the psuche does not refer to the soul but to the physical life. I have demonstrated in three different verses how it fits the context of both the book and theology as a whole far better. Further, given the genre of the book, as well as other arguments I will post in the next day or so when I get back to my sources (I am currently away visiting my mother), "life" is by far the better translation.

If this is the case, then "salvation" is salvation in the sense of deliverance, and justification is not referring to the justification before God by faith. However, I will point out one simply illogical point in your post, for it needs correcting. The rest, again, is simply irrelevant.

As an aside, this word "alone" is interesting. This is really bad grammar--not necessarily a bad translation--and as such it gives a terrible idea. Suppose I say to you, "I have a bike, and not a car only." ("Alone" could be rendered "only" in this passage). What would I be telling you I owned? I would be saying that I have BOTH a car and a bike.

The same applies here. James is NOT saying that faith plus works justifies. No, he is saying that a man is justified by works, and he is ALSO justified by faith . . . not by one alone only.

So, we see that James is referring to TWO justifications: one is the justification before men, and the other is the justification before God. The former is by works, the latter is by faith. The former fulfills the latter because it can be seen by men.

He can't be saying that, firstly because he says something else, and secondly because God was the one before whom Abraham was justified (not Isaac).

Once again, it is FAITH ALONE, that is MERE BELIEF, that saves. Works do not save. They have no portion in salvation. They are not evidence of salvation. They do not indicate salvation or a lack-there-of. They are not a necessary result of salvation.

That is a direct contradiction of what James says.

Look at what he says:

James 2:
20 But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

22 You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

The whole point of verse 23 is that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness because he acted on it. Faith went hand in hand with works, which is precisely why he was justified. If he hadn't acted, then that faith would have been a dead faith.

The example of Rahab is identical.

Now, in this whole section you clearly missed the point, beginning with "alone." You say that "He can't be saying that." I don't care, to be honest, what you say. We are dealing with straight Scripture. The idea behind the verse, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" is "Yes, a man is justified by faith alone, but he is also justified by works alone." Now, you can disagree all you want, but this is a matter of grammar.

James does NOT teach of a "faith plus works" salvation. He teaches of a salvation by faith. He also teaches of a salvation by works. NOWHERE do you see a salvation by faith plus works. The salvation by faith is an eschatological salvation. The salvation by works is a temporal salvation.

Now, if you still insist on holding to an eschatological salvation, then you have this unsolvable problem: a man is justified by works (and not by faith alone). Now, when we set James and Paul besides each other, we have:

"You are saved by grace through faith alone . . . not of works."~Paul
"A man is justified by works and not by faith alone."~James

Now, do you want to be the one who tries to explain away Scripture? Do you want to be the one who looks the Holy Spirit in His eye and say to him, "Well, what you REALLY meant was . . ."? After all, it was James himself who said, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brothers, for as such you will incur a stricter judgement."

Take the text for what it says at face value. In the name of Christ, do that. Don't twist it to fit your own preconceptions. Salvation in these verses refers to deliverance. That is a simple matter of translation. Life in these verses refers to the physical life, not the spiritual life. That is simply a matter of translation. Justification in these verses refers to a declaration of vindication. That is a matter of fact. There are two justifications, one before men and one before God. That is a matter of fact. These issues taken together clearly teach that works are not the necessary by-product of faith.

The great irony, Fortigurn, is that you are teaching THE VERY THING JAMES WROTE AGAINST. Works have been relegated to the unimportant, to a mere byproduct of salvation. The entire epistle of James teaches that works are important, and that they must be consciously observed for THEY DO NOT COME NATURALLY EVEN TO THE SAVED. That is the very point of the entire letter. You have lost that, and you have taught something different.

For the record, Jbuza, there's a nother danger of this doctrine . . .

Now, I have shown the flaw in your exegesis. How about rather than simply reasserting yours and dismissing mine, you show me where I am incorrect. Oh, and while you are at it, do explain the previously mentioned James 5:19-20.

Scripture, man . . . keep it to Scripture. While I'm waiting, I'll get together more positive evidence that my renderings are the correct renderings. Have fun, btw, because James is only a starting point. Both the Gospel of John, 1 John, both letters to the Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Hebrews, and the Revelation all strongly support the view I am suggesting here as well. We'll get to those passages in due time. To be honest, James is really some of the weakest Scriptural evidence we have. There are some pretty bold statements in the other books that you will be forced to explain away

God (continue to) bless

[Kurieuo]

Leaving aside uncomfortable passages in Scripture which warn the faithful of the dangers of apostasy or consequences of those who deliberately fall from grace (e.g., Romans 11:17-24; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Galatians 5:4; Colossians 1:22-23; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; 1 Timothy 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 2:17-18; 2 Peter 2:20-22)... I'd be interested to know what you make of the following passages:

Matthew 6:12,14-15:
"Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors... For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Matthew 18:23-35:
23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

Concerning Matthew 6:12, 14-15:

"Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors... For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

This will apply to Matt. 18 as well, but I believe is a common misunderstanding that it is the lack of forgiveness of sin that condemns a person to eternal damnation. (It is not. It is unbelief. Notice the basis of condemnation is Rev. 20.) So, we come to a passage like this, and it appears to say that if we don't forgive one another, we go to Hell, because we are not forgiven.

Now, the short answer I would provide is exactly what the text says. If we do not forgive one another, God does not forgive us of our sins, regardless how much we ask. I mean, that's pretty clearly what Jesus is saying, and when you again start arguing, "Yes, but what He really meant was . . . " you had better be really, really sure of yourself.

This naturally leads to us to question forgiveness in general. If God doesn't forgive us our sins if we don't forgive others, doesn't that make forgiveness of others conditional to salvation? The answer is no. The reason is that salvation, again, is based on belief alone. Fellowship, however, is based on works, one of which being forgiveness. John's first epistle has a lot to say about this. If you read my discussion of the first four verses (I'll have the rest of chapter one up this week), you'll see the purpose of the letter is one of fellowship. This can be broken. Salvation cannot.

Now, concerning the parable in Matthew 18 (not quoted for space):

Again, let's work from the premise of not trying to explain away anything. The king is obviously God. He forgives a servant. Because this is a kingdom parable, the servant is obviously represents a Christian. I suppose you could debate whether or not the forgiveness of the debt represents original salvation (that is, justification, which would be my own position) or some part of the sanctification process . . . I don't think we should push the parable to say more than it does. What we know is that God has forgiven a Christian of his sins.

Now, this Christian goes out and refuses to forgive a fellow Christian a much smaller debt than the one he was forgiven. We know intuitively this is evil. The parable assumes this. So we have a forgiven Christian who refuses to forgive. What is his punishment? He is "turned . . over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." Is this an obvious reference to eternal condemnation? I don't believe it is at all. I would not take this as the servant being thrown into Hell. There is no reference of outer darkness or weeping or gnashing of teeth. In fact, there is the clear implication that the servant can be redeemed from his punishment by paying back what he owes. Of course, it is impractical and highly unlikely such could happen, but we also know the king to be a gracious king. The forgiveness of his brother would likely suffice! Still, if you want to avoid pushing the text, what can be agreed on is that this is not a necessarily permanent condition, because Jesus said, "until he should pay back all he owed." Hell, of course, is permanent.

So what is the torture? It is exactly what Jesus says it is. It is torture. Who is the jailor? I take it as a reference to the evil one. Now, again, does Satan "rule" Hell? Of course not, so we can't, again, say that this is a reference to Hell. This parable illustrates the horrible truth that unforgiveness causes God to turn us over to Satan "for the destruction of our flesh, that [we] might learn not to blaspheme." In other words, our fellowship is broken with God, and we are severely chastised (tortured) as children of God, until we should repent and return to Him.

Therefore, for me, neither of these passages teach that salvation is dependant on anything other than belief. They do teach, though, that fellowship is strongly dependant on works--the justification before men James so adamantly teaches on.

Your thoughts?

[Felgar]

Hi Jac; been a while. Glad to see you're back and it's too bad I've not had the time to be around lately.

I need a point of clarity here from you... How does this relate to our discussion in the past of OSAS and your thoughts on Justification vs. Salvation vs. Sanctification? Have you changed your mind on the nature of these things or do they fit into what you have been saying here?

My initial thought is to assume that the eschatological salvation you refer to is nothing more than Justifcation before God as you've previously explained it. When we believe and trust God, accepting Jesus as our saviour, then we are deemed - or eternally declared - righteous by God because of His grace; we are Justified. That assures eternity with God but does not assure good works, reward in heaven, nor a blessed life. For those, love and works become necessary, as we begin to live in God's service and are then sanctified.

If my understanding above is correct then I agree with your position. If something is missing then I need more info; please fill in the gaps.

[Kurieuo]

Your thoughts?

I will hopefully post more indepth on my own thoughts later, although I think there is perhaps much we differ on in understanding justification, sanctification, salvation, application of forgiveness, and the like as they are defined and related to each other. Yet, there is one thing I can heartily agree with you on, and that is that the grace of God is gratis (freely) given. Only I would say this grace is forgiveness of sins, and is applied to all regardless of belief. However, rejection of it insults Christ's sacrifice and so to those who outrightly reject God's grace, to such persons there is no sacrifice for sins left and so they will incur God's wrath. In addition, I believe God abhors those who are unforgiving and merciless towards others, and that by His strength afforded to us He expects us to be willing vessels in forgiving and showing mercy to those who sin against us. (James 2:12-13) Otherwise we face the situation offered in the Matthew 18 parable of the wicked servant, and the consequences Christ's talks of in Matthew 6:15.

I have also come to disagree with the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS), but maintain that this in no way swings open the door to one being saved by a sinless perseverance of works. I also do not believe rejecting OSAS entails one can't be secure in their faith. That time ago when we discussed this topic, I was more throwing up passages and toying with ideas to test and prod what I would accept and reject regarding the OSAS doctrine. I just thought clarifying my beliefs here would be in order to give you a clearer idea of my beliefs.

Please note that I do not wish to debate my theology although I would be open to having passages in Scripture brought to my attention, or further thoughts to consider. There is one passage in particular I would like your thoughts upon—Hebrews 10:26-27 which reads: "For if we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." A surface-level reading of this passage would appear to say that sinning after knowing the Gospel incurs God's wrath. Since I don't believe there is any Christian who has not sinned in a diliberate manner after knowing (and even accepting) the Gospel, this would mean noone is saved from God's wrath. I have some ideas on how to reconcile this passage to my beliefs, which I have perhaps touched on a little in my first paragraph, but I'd be interested to hear your own insight on how you reconcile this passage to your own beliefs.

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

Felgar: heya--I was wondering if you were following this and what your thoughts would be . You'll be happy to know that I've not changed my position on OSAS or the nature of justifcation, sanctification, or glorification (a better word for simple "salvation" in this sense). I will say that I have refined my understanding in regards to Justification, though, which is far from changing. I actually am more committed to OSAS than ever before.

As far as your summarization, I agree with every word you said, and I don't see any gaps, per se. I've not set out a systematic presentation of this particular idea I've been putting forward, because, to be honest, it is very difficult to do so . I didn't come to it by way of a systematic argument, and I doubt anyone here will, either. It is found my exegesis of Scripture, passage by passage. The end result is still the same: salvation is by grace through faith ALONE. He who believes has eternal life. Belief is simple trust, that is, to take Christ at His word that He can save because of 1) who He is, and 2) what He did. Thus, when we "believe on Christ" we have eternal life, even in the present. This salvation comes from a one time commitment of trust, for it is here that one is declared righteous (justified) as we have previously discussed. I do believe it is possible for a person to later fall away, completely and totally, even, but that this does NOT result in the loss of salvation by any stretch of the imagination. It results in the loss of fellowship with God (temporally) and the loss of rewards (eschatologically).

As far as my refinement of justification, and Kurieuo, you'll be interested in this as well, I have come to the realization that justification is not a mere forgiveness of sins. That may be entailed, but that entire phrase is far to impricise and is the root of many of our disagreements. We know, again, the justification is a judicial declaration of righteousness. Paul said it best when he said that righteousness was credited to Abraham. That, ultimately, is what justification is. Is is more closely associated with the imputation of righteousness than with the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins is more closely associated with sanctification.

One area that I have deeply refined by theology lies in the extent of the atonement. I'll cover this when I get to 1 John 2 shortly after Christmas, but in the meantime, I will say that I believe that the Atonement is universal. I do NOT mean that it is "suffecient for all, effectual for those who believe." I believe it to be effectual for ALL. As such, the wrath of God has been removed from ALL, thus making it possible to credit one with the righteousness of His son. This, also, I believe, goes a good way in solving issues related to TAOA. It is not God's wrath against sin the condemns a person to hell, but it is a person's state of unrighteousness (that is, his "deadness") that does that. There is but one thing that separates a man from God for all of eternity, and that is his UNBELIEF in Christ, for with that rejection comes his willful separation from Eternal Life, and thus, his physical death seals him in his state of spiritual death.

I referenced this before, but again, see Rev. 20, and read closely the passages relating to the GWT Judgment. You'll find those people are not condemned for their sin, but for the fact that they are not in the Book of Life.

I hope that helps to clear things up . . . again, we'll get more into the Atonement at the first of the year.

K: I'll get to your post more in detail later. If you don't feel like debating the issue, that is totally fine with me. I will say that I have what I believe to be a very solid understanding of all three warning passages in Hebrews, of which the one you quoted is the third. All three relate to the apostate Christian and the discipline that results from his willful fall, but in no way imply the loss of his salvation. More later.

In the meantime, I see you didn't respond to my interpretation of the passages you cited . . . is this to avoid a debate? The biggest issue, especially in relationship to the parable, is whether or not the "torture" refers to Hell. To be fair, I think I've shown convincingly that it does not, and if this is the case, then my is very solid.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

K: I'll get to your post more in detail later. If you don't feel like debating the issue, that is totally fine with me. I will say that I have what I believe to be a very solid understanding of all three warning passages in Hebrews, of which the one you quoted is the third. All three relate to the apostate Christian and the discipline that results from his willful fall, but in no way imply the loss of his salvation. More later.

This is the reason why I do not wish to debate, since it would be impractical of me to take a stance on something I feel I'm still refining, while you feel you have come to some solid resolutions. There is a time for debate, and then a time when it is better to listen and dialogue.

In the meantime, I see you didn't respond to my interpretation of the passages you cited . . . is this to avoid a debate? The biggest issue, especially in relationship to the parable, is whether or not the "torture" refers to Hell. To be fair, I think I've shown convincingly that it does not, and if this is the case, then my is very solid.

I was more hoping to lay out my current beliefs more fully, but I guess I can comment on this now...

With Matthew 6:12,14-15 I believe our being forgiven is a necessary condition of God, who is entirely holy, being able to accept us into His kingdom. Bear in mind that whereas you believe salvation is freely given, I think forgiveness is freely given; however, I'd be open to viewing Scripture for the former. So if we remain in our sins, then I believe we are lost. Special attention should be paid though to the confines of what I said in the first (and to some extent second) paragraphs of my last post. Doing so will steer between the idea that our forgiving others is a necessary work we perform to earn forgiveness, and that not forgiving others necessarily means God won't forgive us. What I believe Christ is endorsing is that we be openly forgiving as much as is dependant upon us and God working within us; not that we be all-forgiving or else and that such forgiveness be a sole work of our own effort. It is by God's grace afforded to us.

As for Matthew 18:23-35, since the kingdom of heaven is being referred to in v.23, I believe this passage pertains to the afterlife and not anything that can be accomplished in this life (e.g., being able to reconsider forgiving one's brother in this life, which I think would actually be motivated reasons other than love anyway [like wanting the torturing by the jailers to stop ]).

Now, this Christian goes out and refuses to forgive a fellow Christian a much smaller debt than the one he was forgiven. We know intuitively this is evil. The parable assumes this. So we have a forgiven Christian who refuses to forgive. What is his punishment? He is "turned . . over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." Is this an obvious reference to eternal condemnation? I don't believe it is at all. I would not take this as the servant being thrown into Hell. There is no reference of outer darkness or weeping or gnashing of teeth. In fact, there is the clear implication that the servant can be redeemed from his punishment by paying back what he owes. Of course, it is impractical and highly unlikely such could happen, but we also know the king to be a gracious king. The forgiveness of his brother would likely suffice! Still, if you want to avoid pushing the text, what can be agreed on is that this is not a necessarily permanent condition, because Jesus said, "until he should pay back all he owed." Hell, of course, is permanent.

To pose a question: If Christ did not pay for our sin, then what is the price we would pay? Would it not be the same as those without Christ—2 Thessalonians 1:9: "These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power"? Thus, there is a very clear implication that the servant will pay for all that he owes as you say, but when such an analogy is applied to the spiritual kingdom(s), such a payment may be of everlasting significance.

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

Heya, just wanted to briefly comment to say that let's hold off on this discussion until after the new year. The reason is that I totally understand your position, although I must say I'm a bit surprised by it. The basic difference we have is going to relate to the tension between atonement and forgiveness, and how these in turn relate to grace, and thus (as I indicated in my response to Felgar), this will strongly affect the way we view justification and sanctification. All of these together will change our view on such issues as OSAS.

All that is better held in a thread dedicated to those issues, and really, while they are related, are only on the periphary of the Lordship vs. Free Grace position. Let me ask you, so far as this thread goes, would you hold to a Lordship salvation (one must make a commitment to obedience to be saved) or to Free Grace ("mere trust" in Christ's person and work)? I suspect that you would claim the latter with the disclaimer that true faith would bring about change, and thus, that works (specifically, a commitment of obedience) would flow as a result of salvation, and not form a basis of it. That's Lordship, and NOT Free Grace, albeit it is not entirely consistent with either position.