Are those who fall from faith still saved?

[WingZero0]

This question is posed to Jac:

I have read in your posts you believe that even if a Christian falls from the faith and becomes, say, Muslim he or she is still saved. Is this correct? If so, why?

[Jac3510]

Yes, I believe that to be true. Rather than give a massive defense, let me just my beliefs very simply, and then you or anyone else can ask questions as necessary:

John 6:47 says, "He who believes in me has everlasting life." Notice the present tense. Life is gained the moment one trusts Christ for it. This life is everlasting. That means that if a person were to later lose this life, say from future unbelief, then the life he had was not really "everlasting." Jesus should have said, "He who keeps on believing in me will have everlasting life," if that were the case.

I believe in the eternal security of the believer. Once saved, always saved.

Needless to say, I could write for pages and pages on this, but I think that offers a pretty direct answer to your question.

God bless

[YLTYLT]

2 Tim 2:10-13 seems to show an indication that although one does not continue to believe they are still saved.

Youngs literal translation has an interesting take on 2 Tim 2:10-13.

10because of this all things do I endure, because of the choice ones, that they also salvation may obtain that [is] in Christ Jesus, with glory age-during.

11Stedfast [is] the word: For if we died together -- we also shall live together;

12if we do endure together -- we shall also reign together; if we deny [him], he also shall deny us;

13if we are not stedfast, he remaineth stedfast; to deny himself he is not able.

The word stedfast in verse 13 is translated as "believe" in KJV. I am not convinced that Youngs literal is always correct. But neither am I convinced that KJV is always correct either. Although I think KJV is mostly correct sometimes the tense of voice may not be as accurate as it could be. Thats when I like to look at YLT.

And many of the newer versions use the word endure here instead of believe. I don't have my interlinear Greek NT with me. Do we know what this word should be translated as? I have suspicions that is will translate as "continuing to believe". In which case endure or stedfast may be more correct for understanding in English.

But I would like to here what Jac has to say as well.

[Jac3510]

I think the phrase your talking about is "If we are unfaithful, that One continues to be faithful", right?

The word here for "unfaithful" (or not steadfast) is apisteumen. It roughly means, "We do not believe." It is in the present tense, but don't make too much of that. The present CAN have a continuous sense, but it is not necessary.

I would support the rendering, "If we are not faithful." The reason is that the next phrase says, ekeinos pistos menei: "That one remains faithful." The word pisteuo is found in both of these. In this phrase, it clearly means "faithful," and is contrasted against the previous "faithful." So, to bring out the contrast, we should translate it as above.

This is good support for my position. A good rendering is, "If we are unfaithful, He remains faithful." A good paraphrase would be, "If we fall away from Him, He does not fall away from us."

God bless

[WingZero0]

On this I must disagree with you.

Jesus tells us clearly many times that He is the only way to heaven. The only way to heaven is through belief in HIm.

Ephesian 2:8-9 tells us we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH. We must have faith in order to be saved. If that faith is gone then the grace is gone.

You are reading too much into John 6:47. Jesus is reaffirming that one can only be saved by faith in Him. He is saying that if one believes in Christ as Lord and Savior they will get salvation (everlasting life). It doesn't mean that the gift of salvation will be everlasting if one rejects Christ.

The other verse that talks about God being faithful even if we aren't is a reiteration of the verse "God is patient and longsuffering not wishing for anyone to perish but to have eternal life." The verse is saying that even though we may not have faith in Christ, He still has faith in us. However, once judgement comes that faith in us is run out. God is good, but He is also Just.

Think of it this way: like a dog. A dog comes running at us licking and kissing and cuddling with us. However, if we ignore the dog its tail will come a wack us in the face. God loves us in this life and wants us the believe in Him. However, once that time runs out then God must pass judgement and if you are in unbelief you will be punished.

[IRQ Conflict]

Jac, what do you make of the "parable of the sower"?

[Jac3510]

Wing:

You are reading too much into John 6:47. Jesus is reaffirming that one can only be saved by faith in Him. He is saying that if one believes in Christ as Lord and Savior they will get salvation (everlasting life). It doesn't mean that the gift of salvation will be everlasting if one rejects Christ.

You can't just make a blanket statement. You have to show HOW I've read too much into this. Now, I laid out very clearly why it is that everlasting life must be everlasting. You need to examine my exegesis and show where it is you disagree.

As for your own statements, I don't see anywhere in that passage about believing in Him "as Lord." It simply says, "He who believes in Me . . ." It does NOT say, "He who keeps on believing in Me," as your understanding would require. In fact, it's an impossible rendering, because Christ clearly says the believer HAS everlasting life. He repeats this same present tense claim in John 5:24. Of course, we shouldn't forget the famous John 3:16, either! All these make present tense claims. The moment you believe, you HAVE everlasting life. This is absolutely impossible if sustained faith is necessary.

The other verse that talks about God being faithful even if we aren't is a reiteration of the verse "God is patient and longsuffering not wishing for anyone to perish but to have eternal life." The verse is saying that even though we may not have faith in Christ, He still has faith in us. However, once judgement comes that faith in us is run out. God is good, but He is also Just.

I don't see a single verse in the Bible that says that God has faith in us. Tell me, Wing, what is your understanding of "faith"?

I can fairly easily show that if something is "faithful" then it is "reliable or trustworthy." Thus, to have faith in something is "to consider something reliable or trustworthy." Therefore, we say that to have faith is "to be convinced that something is TRUE."

Where in the Bible does God consider man trustworthy, faithful, or true? It seems very obvious to me that exactly the opposite is the case! When we are faithless . . . that is, when we stop believing, God is STILL faithful. What does that mean? It means He STILL keeps His promise, which is to save us!

Now, it's up to you to demostrate that a person must die in a state of belief to avoid judgment. I think if you look into the doctrines of justification, regeneration, and positional sanctification, you'll find that, broadly speaking, that position has absolutely zero biblical support.

God bless

[Jac3510]

Jac, what do you make of the "parable of the sower"?

IRQ:

Very simply, I take it to mean that there are four basic responses to the gospel. First, there are people who hear it and do not believe because Satan blinds them. Second, there are people who believe and are faithful for a while, but then fall away. Third, there are people who believe but never grow, and eventually stagnate. Finally, there are people who believe and produce fruit.

Now, notice that three of these BELIEVE. Jesus Himself says that they believe! Jesus Himself ALSO said that if you believe, you are saved . . . you HAVE everlasting life. So, quite simply, I take this to mean that the last three are saved. The first is not.

That's a basic overview of the position I would hold.

[IRQ Conflict]

What this say's to me is after knowing the truth we backslide into our old way's and do not repent there is no more forgivness for sins and we will suffer "judgment and fiery indignation"

Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Heb 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

[puritan lad]

Now, notice that three of these BELIEVE. Jesus Himself says that they believe! Jesus Himself ALSO said that if you believe, you are saved . . . you HAVE everlasting life. So, quite simply, I take this to mean that the last three are saved. The first is not.

That's a basic overview of the position I would hold.

Oh Brother. I wonder is Demons know that they are saved, since they believe in Jesus

James 2:14-26
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

Faith, a gift from God, results in good works. Otherwise, it is dead.

What about the "lawless" believers in Matthew 7:21-23? Are they saved?

[Jac3510]

I've already dealt extensively with both of those passages, PL. James is not referring to eschatological salvation in his letter. He uses the word sozo five times . . . none of them in the sense of justification before God.

Secondly, the demons have not trusted Christ for their salvation.

Thirdly, salvation is not offered to the demons. We have nowhere in Scripture such an offer. In fact, it has been well established by theologians that man is redeemable precisely because he is made in the image of God, or would you care to disagree? But are angels made in the image of God? It doesn't appear that way!

Where in Scripture is faith presented as a gift?

As for Matt. 7, I'll link you to Bob Wilkin's sermon, "Why I Don't Believe in Lordship Salvation." The message is primarily composed of a verse-by-verse exposition of this passage.

God bless

[puritan lad]

Thirdly, salvation is not offered to the demons. We have nowhere in Scripture such an offer.

Whoa Jac. That sounds like predestination to me. I guess it is OK with you if God predestines angels, but when He does it to men (and He does, according to the scriptures), then you view Him as unjust. A little biased, eh?

By the way, God doesn't "offer" salvation to men either. He saves them. That is the main difference between Calvinism and free-willers.

Where in Scripture is faith presented as a gift?

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,"

1 John 5:1
"...everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (Regeneration precedes faith)

Philippians 2:13
"...for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."

John 6:63,65
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life... Therefore have I told you that no man can come to me, unless it be given to him by my Father."

Ezekiel gives us the theology of salvation in a nutshell.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
“A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.”

It is all of God Jac. Man cannot give himself a new heart. This is the work of God alone (See Proverbs 21:1). And when this happens, we will "walk in [HIS] statutes and be careful to observe [HIS] ordinances.

As for Matt. 7, I'll link you to Bob Wilkin's sermon, "Why I Don't Believe in Lordship Salvation." The message is primarily composed of a verse-by-verse exposition of this passage.

This passage isn't really hard to exposit. It is pretty clear what happens to those who claim to believe Christ but practice lawlessness. Don't have time to listen to this, but what will you do with 1 John 2:3-4. If one say that he knows Jesus, and does not keep His commandments, that person is a liar. (Not my words, but His). Either Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior, or He is neither. For the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit are evident. There is no such thing as a "carnal" Christian.

By the way Jac, you still haven't dealt with Romans 9:10-24 or Pharoah, but I don't hold out any hope that you will. Please explain to me why God hated Esau. You keep avoiding this passage of scripture, for obvious reasons.

As for Lordship Jac, what you believe in is not "free grace", but rather "cheap grace". There is a difference. Grace frees us from sin. It does not free us to sin.

[August]

I've already dealt extensively with both of those passages, PL. James is not referring to eschatological salvation in his letter. He uses the word sozo five times . . . none of them in the sense of justification before God.

What is James referring to then? Faith here is 'pistis', the same as elsewhere in the NT.

[Jac3510]

Whoa Jac. That sounds like predestination to me. I guess it is OK with you if God predestines angels, but when He does it to men (and He does, according to the scriptures), then you view Him as unjust. A little biased, eh?

By the way, God doesn't "offer" salvation to men either. He saves them. That is the main difference between Calvinism and free-willers.

Where could you possibly get predestination from that? I swear . . . it will never cease to be amazed at the depth that our presuppositions affect our understanding of arguments. If I strongly reject Calvinistic predestination, and yet you see it in my posts, is it any wonder you find it in Scripture?!?

The angels were created in a state of unconfirmed righteousness, just like men. They had a test, just like men. They chose to rebel against God, just like men. Men are offered redemption, angels are not. Why? The Bible doesn't specifically say, but as I noted earlier, it would seem to me that redemption is related to the fact that men are created in the image of God. That's not the case with angels. At least . . . the Bible doesn't teach it!

As for God not "offering" salvation, yes He does. Whoever believes is saved. WHOEVER, Puritan. WHOEVER believes is saved. But, let's be more specific, shall we?

1 Chron 21:10 - "Go and speak to David, saying, 'Thus says the LORD, "I offer you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I will do to you."'"

Is. 55:1-3 - "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk. Without money and without cost. Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And delight yourself in abundance. Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David."

1 Cor. 9:18 - "What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel."

Further, you cannot reject what is not offered. However:

1 Sam 10:19 "But you have today rejected your God, who delivers you from all your calamities and your distresses; yet you have said, 'No, but set a king over us!' Now therefore, present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your clans."

Matt. 21:42 - "Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,' THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD,AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'?"

Mark 8:31 - "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Finally, salvation is repeatedly called a gift in Scripture, and yet a gift must be offered. If a gift is not offered, then it indeed is no gift. And yet, TULIP proves this, because, for you, the elect MUST accept the gift because of Irresistable Grace. But Irresistable Grace also teaches us that the non-elect CANNOT reject the gift of salvation, because it is not offered to them.

Thus, God DOES offer salvation, even if your system.

As for the verses you cite:

• Ephesians 2:8
  "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,"

I'm sure you are educated enough to know that "faith" grammatically be the "gift" in this passage. Do I really need to explain this one? Here is an article that deals specifically with this verse and the question of whether or not faith is the gift.

• 1 John 5:1
  "...everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (Regeneration precedes faith)

LOLOLOLOL. Let me show you something. "Eisegesis" is defined as "the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas." Now, this verse does NOT say that faith is a gift. The only way to do that is to read INTO it that regeneration precedes faith! This is a textbook case of eisegesis. This passage teaches one thing and one thing only: that EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES has been born of God. Now, let's go back to one of the MANY arguments you didn't answer in our Calvinism discussion. I'll just quote myself:

In fact, I submit that no where in Scripture do we find the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith, but in fact, just the opposite! Titus 3:5 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (NASB) God saves us by regeneration, but we are told in Eph. 2:8-10 that we are saved by grace, and that grace comes through faith. Therefore, it must be that regeneration comes through faith. Even if you assume that the “gift” in Eph 2 is both grace and faith, it still must follow that regeneration is through faith. Now, you can say that God gives us the faith, and through that faith, God applies the grace of regeneration, but you STILL cannot say that God regenerates us so that we might believe. That is simply contrary to Scripture.

Moving on . . .

• Philippians 2:13
  "...for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."

Hmm . . . I'm not seeing how this relates to faith as a gift. Would you care to exound on it?

• John 6:63,65
  "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life... Therefore have I told you that no man can come to me, unless it be given to him by my Father."

I LOVE the fact that you left verse 64 out of this. Let's quote the whole thing in context, shall we?

• On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:60-66, NIV)

Jesus is talking to DISCIPLES in this passage . . . this is a broader group than just the twelve. Now, Jesus had just told them about the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. So, in general, that backs my entire theology, that a person can be a disciple and NOT a believer. Second, let's just state the obvious fact. This doesn't say that faith is a gift. It says the the Spirit gives live. Who does it give life to? Those who believe? In verse 63, Jesus says that HIS WORD is both spirit and life. And then comes 64, but, He says, many don't believe. What are they not believing? His word! As such, they are rejecting the Spirit and Life!

A simple but important teaching that Calvinists miss is that God draws all men through revelation. You cannot reject what has not been revealed to you. Through general revelation, man rejects God. However, those who accept general revelation are given more revelation . . . God draws us through it. To the extent that you hear the Word of God, either general or special, you are drawn. Thus, no man can come unless he is drawn, but all men may come because all are drawn.

• Ezekiel 36:26-27
  “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.”

Yes, this refers to regeneration. This is, of course, a work of God. Too bad it doesn't say that this precedes faith.

Besides this, you are assuming this refers to the Church, which it doesn't. If you notice WHY God says He will restore Israel, it is for His own name's sake. In verses 16-23, God notes that Israel was disobedient, so He had to punish them and send them into exile. And yet, that caused His name to be profaned among the nations, because they said, "These are the LORD's people, and yet they had to leave his land." (v. 20). Verse 21 tells us that BECAUSE of His concern for His name . . . BECAUSE of this charge, He is going to do something about it. Notice the "therefore" in verse 22. God tells Israel what He is going to do about it. He will take them out from the nations and restore them, that they may no longer walk in disobedience! And further, they will look on their previous sins . . . that is, the disobedience they walked in that caused them to be exiled, and they will dispise themselves for it and feel great shame.

Now, this can't refer to the Church for a couple of reasons. First, the Church didn't revile God and reject Him, resulting in the dispersion! We don't feel shame for what the Jews did, and yet, the people God restores WILL experience this. Second, the charge that this demonstration of God's power is aimed at setting aside relates to the Jews being "Yahweh's people." People were profaning--disrespecting--God's name, because of the Jews. If, then, God does NOT restore them as a people, then the nations were absolutely correct and justified in their blasphemy. But, God will not be mocked, right? Thus, the coming restoration, which has not yet come.

t is all of God Jac. Man cannot give himself a new heart. This is the work of God alone (See Proverbs 21:1). And when this happens, we will "walk in [HIS] statutes and be careful to observe [HIS] ordinances.

I agree that regeneration is the work of God. I'm not the synergist here. You are. The Calvinist believes that he has to persevere in good works and faith until death to really be saved. Some have recognized this and started using the term "preservation," but in this case, God's children become puppets. That theology raises more question that answers. If God can keep us in the faith, why can He not remove every doubt every second of our lives? And if He can keep us from habitual sin, why not from sin entirely? Is the work of God incomplete or ineffectual? Is the will of man stronger than the will of God? But, we are in fact COMMANDED to persevere in the faith. Since you tie that to eschatological salvation, that means you are working with God for it. Good job, buddy

As for me, salvation is COMPLETELY the work of God. Those who believe in Christ for salvation, God regenerates, justifes, santifices, glorifies, etc. And, if later on, I reject my faith, that doesn't change what GOD DID.

This passage isn't really hard to exposit. It is pretty clear what happens to those who claim to believe Christ but practice lawlessness. Don't have time to listen to this, but what will you do with 1 John 2:3-4. If one say that he knows Jesus, and does not keep His commandments, that person is a liar. (Not my words, but His). Either Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior, or He is neither. For the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit are evident. There is no such thing as a "carnal" Christian.

Take the time to listen to it, PL. I'm sure you can find thirty minutes at some point. In the mean time, 1 John 2:3-4 I take in the absolute sense. If a person claims to know God and doesn't walk in His commandments, then he is a liar. Too bad, for you, this doesn't say anything about salvation. This is a book on fellowship. See 1 John 1:3, "We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."

Now, the occasion for the writing of 1 John was that certain teachers had come in and began teaching a false gospel. They taught that it didn't matter how you lived. You didn't have to keep the commands of Christ. Go live how you want, because you know God! These people were claiming to have a deep fellowship with the Lord. Notice the three heresies they promoted:

1. You can have fellowship with God and yet walk in darkness (v.6)

2. Believers are sinless, so we can act however we choose and it is not sin (v.

3. They claimed they had never sinned. (v. 10)

So, again, John is writing to show that sin breaks a Christian's fellowship with God. These teachers did NOT know God. And yet further, no believer knows God who walks in sin (see 6,7). This passage has absolutely no bearing on eschatological salvation.

By the way Jac, you still haven't dealt with Romans 9:10-24 or Pharoah, but I don't hold out any hope that you will. Please explain to me why God hated Esau. You keep avoiding this passage of scripture, for obvious reasons.

God hated Esau because, in His foreknowledge, He knew what kind of man Esau was. This was a man who would reject the birthright. He would be the man who would reject the Covenant. So God loved Jacob, instead, who desired that birthright and Covenant. Secondly, I did deal with Pharoah in our discussion on Calvinism. You asserted that he was a "free moral agent," which was quite laughable.

As for Romans 9, I told you I'd deal with it when you dealt with my arguments. To date, I've posted better than thirty, maybe fourty, arguments, against your positions that you have simply left unanswered. If you feel like answering my arguments, I'll return the same favor.

Oh wait . . . by the looks of this post, I'm already doing that . . .

As for Lordship Jac, what you believe in is not "free grace", but rather "cheap grace". There is a difference. Grace frees us from sin. It does not free us to sin.

It's most certainly not cheap. It was VERY, VERY expensive. It cost the life of God Himself. It cost the suffering of an infinite God! This grace was so expensive that only God could afford it.

Now, He bought it. I didn't buy it. You don't buy it. He bought it. Because it is HIS, He has the right to do whatever with it HE chooses. And He has chosen to GIVE it to us. And we can have it, so long as we accept it for what it is: a FREE GIFT. God will be no man's debtor. He will not allow a person to say that they earned their salvation when He paid such a high price for it. You either take it on His terms--freely--or you don't take it at all. So, there is absolutely no grounds on saying it is cheap. That word has two connotations, both of which are false. The first is that it is common. The fact that you treat the true Gospel as common is horrifying. That you would even insinuate that the thing God worked so hard to obtain is worthless is absolutely reprehensible. The second connotation is that it doesn't cost much, but it does cost something. This is, again, false on two levels. As noted, it cost VERY much. But God paid that cost. For us, it costs NOTHING. We need only to accept it from Him absolutely free of charge.

I love the fact that you seem to think that Free Grace gives me the right to live a licentious, sinful life. You are giving the same objections that John and Paul both got. It only further proves my case.

God bless

[Jac3510]

I've already dealt extensively with both of those passages, PL. James is not referring to eschatological salvation in his letter. He uses the word sozo five times . . . none of them in the sense of justification before God.

What is James referring to then? Faith here is 'pistis', the same as elsewhere in the NT.

August,

The word sozo simply means "to deliver or rescue from danger." Of course, that can, and sometimes does, refer to danger from Hellfire. But you absolutely cannot argue that it always means that. That would be flat wrong. My Greek professor, and strong Calvinist, wrote his dissertation on the use of the word in Mark's gospel. He noted that the word very often simply means "to heal" or "to rescue" or "to make well."

When we come to James, we see it used in five places. They are as follows:

• James 1:21
  Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
  
  James 2:14
  What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
  
  James 4:12
  There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?
  
  James 5:15
  and the prayer offered in faith will restore (save) the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him
  
  James 5:20
  let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. (All quotations NASB)

Now, the first of these says that the word implanted is able to save the soul. The word "soul" here is psuche, which means "soul or life." As a good comparison, see Mark 8:34-38. The words "soul" and "life" are both the same in the Greek. Now, the problem is that if we take this word to refer to "soul," then we are forced to teach that, in order to be saved, you must keep God's commandments. Thus, salvation is dependant on obedience. Thus, salvation is dependant on works. Notice that James is not saying that if we receive the word we will be doers of it. He is saying that if we are not doers of it, then we are not saved! (see context for more)

Now, the best understanding of this passage, as I see it, is that psuche here refers to the physical life. If we put aside filthiness, then we avoid DEATH, which is exactly in line with James 1:13-15.

In James 4:12, the judge is said to be able to "save and destroy." The word for "destroy" here is not a technical word. It can be rendered "kill," and is in other places. The context of the verse is about Christian brothers who are slandering one another, and thus sitting in judgment on each other. So, James says that they can't do that, becaues that means they are sitting in judgment on the Law itself. But only One can do that . . . only One has the right to judge, and He will judge these Christians for their sins! Again, we have the idea of salvation from or subjection to wrath.

In 5:15, absolutely no case can be made that this refers to eschatological salvation. That is enough to really put the kabosh on the whole argument, because if James is using sozo in a specialized sense, he's really botched it here!

And then we come to 5:20. I dare you to take "save" and "soul" as having eschatological properties . You would be teaching that salvation can be lost, or that we are the givers of salvation! No, the clearest meaning of the text, especially given the usage of the word five verses earlier, is that if we turn a sinning brother from his wicked ways, we have saved his life, for he was near being judged.

So, we see that sozo in James refers always to deliverance from judgment. Taking this concept to James 2, we have the question, "Can that faith save him?"

It should be obvious that the quesiton is not referring to final salvation. Before I make an even stronger case for this, let me point out that the word "that" is not required by the Greek. The word they are translating is the Greek article, and one of its very common uses is to focus on abstract nouns. We do this in English by capitalizing words. "What is Truth?" In Greek, they would have said, "What is ho truth?"

It is true that the article can be used as a weak demonstrative pronoun, but that hardly seems appropriate here. The word "that" here is very strong. And, as it is, the Greeks had a word that meant exactly that! (For the record, the word is ekeinos).

But notice further . . . the illustration James uses to prove that faith cannot save is not referring to eschatological salvation. It is referring to salvation from death. Faith alone does not deliver a person from death, but rather being "a doer of the word" does, as per the context in Jmes 1!

What we have to understand when reading James verses Paul is that, for Paul, Justification is related to the heavenly court and comes by faith alone. But, for James, justification comes in the earthly court and is by works. The former is before God, while the latter is before men.

I've offered a fairly detailed exposition of this passage here.

Hope this helps.

God bless