Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote: I could go on and on. The fact is rather clear. The moment a person places their faith in Jesus, they have everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 20:30-31, etc.). That faith may or may not go on to produce good works. It certainly should, and it will do so if the person abides in Christ (John 15). But there is no necessary equation between the two, and the Bible is replete with examples of believers falling into grave sin or not having any works or even denying that they believe in Jesus at all. So we know for sure that:

1. True believers can deny Jesus;
2. True believers can commit heinous sin;
3. True believers can die in their heinous sin;
4. True believers may not abide in Christ, and thereby not produce good works.

There is a connection between faith and works, but it is only this: the same faith that saves, if we abide in it, is the same faith that produces the fruit of the Spirit (see Gal 3:1-6). If a person is saved through their faith but then attempts through works to become righteous, then they have believed a false gospel, because not only does God not justify by works, but He doesn't sanctify by works, either. God saves--which is every aspect of the process of redemption, from justification and regeneration all the way up through glorification--by grace (which is, by definition, unearned (and thus unearnable) favor)) through faith alone.

God bless

Again.. I have never said that you have to work for your salvation to become righteous.. You are simply trying to put words into my mouth. However, if someone claims to have faith their works from the Bible should follow.. As James clearly states.

James 2:17-24, “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.”

Repentance and obedience to G-d's commandments are clearly act's IN faith..

RickD wrote: I think you two are basically saying the same thing.

Gman is just talking about when a believer's good works and repentance(feeling sorry), are a natural result of a believer being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
The works a believer does are because God is sanctifying him. A believer doesn't show works in order to be sanctified.

Yes.. Correct Rick. Good works should follow because of your faith.. And as a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that teaches and corrects us in acts of HIS righteousness which foundation lays in the Holy Bible given by G-d.

We all agree on that..... So where is the problem? Jac and possibly a few others here think that G-d's laws in the Tanach (or OT) are now void and should NOT be followed because they think that since Jesus fulfilled them, He did away with them and nailed the laws to the cross... He believes that following G-d's commandments are legalism. This is where we disagree.

Clearer?

Kurieuo wrote:This sounds good. There is nothing I necessarily disagree with.

So let's see if I can stir something up. Just kidding, but just want to confirm some things.

From memory of our previous exchanges, what consists of "real" faith is that which differs between you and I. For you believe (correct me if mistaken) it is a intellectual assent to certain Christological truths alone, whereas I'm inclined to say "true" faith is conditioned upon a heart response to what God reveals of Himself.

So for you, one needs to understand the exact right truths and affirm them intellectually. If one does not bare fruit then this doesn't mean much at all about the security of a person's salvation -- they're saved although you believe they'll receive little reward in heaven. Whereas for me, I'd say they did not truly love God if they're directly opposing Him now (they never had a true heart for God), or otherwise because I can't see their heart I'd much rather remain silent and let God be judge since they could simply be undergoing a transformation internally that isn't open to external verification.

This also impacts upon the "once saved always saved" discussion. For, if one is saved based on a heart response, then this is intimately tied to who a person is. And who is a person is now, can be very different from the person 10 years from now. One might love God now and despise Him later. Yet, for me, one can be secure in their faith based on just knowing in the moment how they feel towards God and understanding their beliefs in a way that is immediate and requires no communication.

Whereas for you, if one ends up not saved, then they never had true faith (a true belief). For if they ever did believe truly, then they'd be saved once an for all. Someone who truly believes in Christ now, who then turns away 10 years later to become Christ's enemy and turn people against Him, is still saved according your beliefs.

Now that'll stir the discussion a little with all sorts of topics. Really, just interested to see whether my analysis is an accurate reflection of where you stand on the issues I've touched upon.

You have some things right and some language here I wouldn't endorse. For instance, it's not about having the "exact right truths" and "affirm[ing] them intellectually. "Faith" bears a connotation of trust. At the end of everything, the point is that we choose to rely on Jesus to save us from our sins. We certainly must believe a few facts to do that--we have to believe that He offers everlasting life, that He can save us, that He died and rose from the dead, that He is the Son of God, etc. But all of those facts do nothing more than present us with the gospel: knowing all of that, do you trust Him to save you, or are you trusting something else (e.g., your love for Jesus)?

You make a distinction between head knowledge and heart knowledge, which is something I wouldn't do. But it seems later in your post that distinction is meant to say that a "heart response" is a love for God/Jesus. I would just argue that the word love is different from the word believe/trust, and that one may believe or trust in Jesus without loving Him (cf. John 12:42). Jesus did not say that everyone who loves Him has everlasting life. He said that everyone who believes in Him has everlasting life, so if you deny the latter in favor of the former, you are changing the terms of the gospel, and thereby denying the gospel as Jesus preached it.

Beyond that, if a person trusts Jesus to save them, and then years later becomes a raving atheist, they are still saved, because Jesus is faithful even if we are faithless.

Gman wrote:Again.. I have never said that you have to work for your salvation to become righteous.. You are simply trying to put words into my mouth. However, if someone claims to have faith their works from the Bible should follow.. As James clearly states.

<a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="James 2.17-24" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/James%202.17-24">James 2:17-24</a>, “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.”

Repentance and obedience to G-d's commandments are clearly act's IN faith..

I never said that you did say that you have to work for you salvation to become righteous. I said that you said that faith is works and repentance (those were your words, after all). I said to Rick that you probably held to the idea that if a person has faith but that that faith doesn't produce works, then you would deny that they have faith at all on the basis that real faith necessarily produces works. Again, note that I said you PROBABLY hold to that view, and that based on your statement to cube (which was wrong, by the way: faith is not repentance and works).

Now, if you believe that faith necessarily (not that it normally should) result in works and repentance, then you and I are far apart on the gospel, and I would argue that you don't believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I don't need to restate the arguments as I've already made them clear here. If you do believe that faith does not necessarily produce works, but only that it should, then we have no quibble here, and you should simply clarify what you meant when you told cube that "faith IS works AND repentance." That is an incorrect statement.

Jac3510 wrote: I never said that you did say that you have to work for you salvation to become righteous. I said that you said that faith is works and repentance (those were your words, after all). I said to Rick that you probably held to the idea that if a person has faith but that that faith doesn't produce works, then you would deny that they have faith at all on the basis that real faith necessarily produces works. Again, note that I said you PROBABLY hold to that view, and that based on your statement to cube (which was wrong, by the way: faith is not repentance and works).

Like I said if we look at the book of James, works are indeed a necessary component of one's faith. I believe that they are intertwined, hence if you don't have any "faith works" you have an empty faith as James put's it. But true, you can argue that they are separate components. I phrased it that way because I believe works is a part of faith. Not separate.

Jac3510 wrote:Now, if you believe that faith necessarily (not that it normally should) result in works and repentance, then you and I are far apart on the gospel, and I would argue that you don't believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I don't need to restate the arguments as I've already made them clear here. If you do believe that faith does not necessarily produce works, but only that it should, then we have no quibble here, and you should simply clarify what you meant when you told cube that "faith IS works AND repentance." That is an incorrect statement.

Yes we are in COMPLETE disagreement. Repentance and obedience are most certainly a part of a result of a righteous faith, otherwise it is merely just words on the table. True faith is always followed by a righteous action.. However, it is G-d who is the recorder of this action, not us, AND it is the Holy Spirit that instructs us in righteousness, not us.. Grace is most certainly not a license to sin as Paul put's it.

Romans 6:1-2, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”

Romans 7:7, What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Gman wrote:Yes we are in COMPLETE disagreement. Repentance and obedience are most certainly a part of a result of a righteous faith, otherwise it is merely just words on the table. True faith is always followed by a righteous action.. However, it is G-d who is the recorder of this action, not us, AND it is the Holy Spirit that instructs us in righteousness, not us.. Grace is most certainly not a license to sin as Paul put's it.

Then you should be more honest in your posts. You said to Rick:

Yes.. Correct Rick. Good works should follow because of your faith.. And as a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that teaches and corrects us in acts of HIS righteousness which foundation lays in the Holy Bible given by G-d.

We all agree on that..... So where is the problem?

But we don't "all agree on that." We "are in COMPLETE disagreement."

The fact is, we preach different gospels. We both cannot be right. If I am right, then you are preaching a false gospel. If you are right, then I am preaching a false gospel. No reason playing nice around the edges here. Of course, we could both be wrong and preaching false gospels. But to sit around and sing kumbaya and pretend like we all believe the same thing about the gospel is just dishonest.

So, I go back to cube's question. He asked if the "faith plus" gospel is really works based. I say yes, you say no. You have your qualifiers for why you think it isn't. I've given my reasons. Let the reader decide.

Jac3510 wrote: But we don't "all agree on that." We "are in COMPLETE disagreement."

No.. Rick stated that he thought that he believed that we are basically saying the same thing.. Not exactly the same thing. We are basically agreeing that works cannot save you. Where we differ is that you think that repentance and obedience in following G-d's commandments are somehow works or a better word for it as you would say "legalism." As I said, this is where we disagree..

Jac3510 wrote:The fact is, we preach different gospels. We both cannot be right. If I am right, then you are preaching a false gospel. If you are right, then I am preaching a false gospel. No reason playing nice around the edges here. Of course, we could both be wrong and preaching false gospels. But to sit around and sing kumbaya and pretend like we all believe the same thing about the gospel is just dishonest.

So, I go back to cube's question. He asked if the "faith plus" gospel is really works based. I say yes, you say no. You have your qualifiers for why you think it isn't. I've given my reasons. Let the reader decide.

Sure let the reader decide.. Follow the cancerous doctrine of "free grace" where the believer is left defenseless to Satan's attacks or follow G-d's word and live..

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:This sounds good. There is nothing I necessarily disagree with.

So let's see if I can stir something up. Just kidding, but just want to confirm some things.

From memory of our previous exchanges, what consists of "real" faith is that which differs between you and I. For you believe (correct me if mistaken) it is a intellectual assent to certain Christological truths alone, whereas I'm inclined to say "true" faith is conditioned upon a heart response to what God reveals of Himself.

So for you, one needs to understand the exact right truths and affirm them intellectually. If one does not bare fruit then this doesn't mean much at all about the security of a person's salvation -- they're saved although you believe they'll receive little reward in heaven. Whereas for me, I'd say they did not truly love God if they're directly opposing Him now (they never had a true heart for God), or otherwise because I can't see their heart I'd much rather remain silent and let God be judge since they could simply be undergoing a transformation internally that isn't open to external verification.

This also impacts upon the "once saved always saved" discussion. For, if one is saved based on a heart response, then this is intimately tied to who a person is. And who is a person is now, can be very different from the person 10 years from now. One might love God now and despise Him later. Yet, for me, one can be secure in their faith based on just knowing in the moment how they feel towards God and understanding their beliefs in a way that is immediate and requires no communication.

Whereas for you, if one ends up not saved, then they never had true faith (a true belief). For if they ever did believe truly, then they'd be saved once an for all. Someone who truly believes in Christ now, who then turns away 10 years later to become Christ's enemy and turn people against Him, is still saved according your beliefs.

Now that'll stir the discussion a little with all sorts of topics. Really, just interested to see whether my analysis is an accurate reflection of where you stand on the issues I've touched upon.

You have some things right and some language here I wouldn't endorse. For instance, it's not about having the "exact right truths" and "affirm[ing] them intellectually. "Faith" bears a connotation of trust. At the end of everything, the point is that we choose to rely on Jesus to save us from our sins. We certainly must believe a few facts to do that--we have to believe that He offers everlasting life, that He can save us, that He died and rose from the dead, that He is the Son of God, etc. But all of those facts do nothing more than present us with the gospel: knowing all of that, do you trust Him to save you, or are you trusting something else (e.g., your love for Jesus)?

You make a distinction between head knowledge and heart knowledge, which is something I wouldn't do. But it seems later in your post that distinction is meant to say that a "heart response" is a love for God/Jesus. I would just argue that the word love is different from the word believe/trust, and that one may believe or trust in Jesus without loving Him (cf. John 12:42). Jesus did not say that everyone who loves Him has everlasting life. He said that everyone who believes in Him has everlasting life, so if you deny the latter in favor of the former, you are changing the terms of the gospel, and thereby denying the gospel as Jesus preached it.

Beyond that, if a person trusts Jesus to save them, and then years later becomes a raving atheist, they are still saved, because Jesus is faithful even if we are faithless.

Thanks Jac.

I pray you're right on that last point; just means more will be with God. I'd hate to have former Christian+now Atheist friends believe themselves saved regardless and risk condemnation.

One of my reservations with your beliefs here in the past, was that "intellectual assent" was a kind of work -- so your "free grace" wasn't so free afterall. But you now seem more careful to include something heartfelt trust in Christ. A response of the heart is kind of a more passive change. It is something that can't be forced; perhaps illustrated well through the non-Christian who says "I'd like to believe, but I can't force myself to." Because in their heart, it is impossible for them to change until a real change occurs.

Regarding my use of "love" -- I agree "love" is different from "believe/trust". Yet, I also don't equate "love" with "heart response". To hope and trust in Jesus I think one's heart must receive proper alignment, such that a love and fondness is simply part of the parcel and inevitable. I'd reason that the way belief works is a very "heart" oriented thing rather than intellectual. The intellect is obviously required to provide an understanding of subject matter e.g., the Gospel, but belief and change happens at our core -- what I call the heart. Without that, a love of God is not possible and neither is a belief or trust in Christ. But if you believe in Christ, then your heart has been properly aligned such that a love should also be inevitable.

Hey K,

I certainly hope I'm right, too, on that last point. I'll admit that beyond what I see to be the logical outworking of the whole idea of eternal life, it's emotionally comforting. I don't see God as looking for ways that He can get people on technicalities and send them to Hell. Rather, I see Him bending over backwards doing everything He can to save as many as He can. Shy of just declaring universalism, which is obviously false, I just believe it fits with the character of God that He wants to save His children.

Anyway, I'm not sure where I stood exactly during our last conversation about this. There is a lot of debate within FG circles on whether or not we are believing a proposition or trusting a person. I've come down pretty hard in favor of the latter, though there was a time that I wasn't sure. Anyway, people who hold to the former tend to put things just in terms of intellectual assent, whereas the side I'm on sees it more in terms of trust. All of this really just gets into a proper definition of pisteuo, and I think any really honest evaluation of that word leaves us concluding pretty strongly that it really and truly just means "to trust" or "entrust." So maybe what you are perceiving isn't so much a change in my position as it is a clarification of the language I'm using to describe my views.

Lastly, I would absolutely agree with you about the trusting thing being more passive in the main. I don't know where you are on this, but I don't believe that we can choose what we believe. I've argued elsewhere that beliefs are just really just sort of what they are . . . we just have to be honest with ourselves about what we do believe. Now, I think that the will can reject a proposition that the intellect puts forward and direct the intellect to continue deliberating, but the will cannot force the intellect to give assent to an idea that it doesn't find persuasive. In practical terms, this means that we can choose to keep studying something, but we can't just choose to believe this one day and that another. I do, though, think we have more freedom in terms of what we trust, because unlike assent, trust is an act of the will. We can choose, after deliberation, to say, "Okay, well you know what . . . that's good enough. I don't have it all figured out, but while I'm working on that, I'm going to take you at your word." And that, I think, gets to the heart of the meaning of pisteuo.

So an unbeliever can't force himself to believe. But if he has been given sufficient evidence where he's at a place where he is capable of choosing to trust or not (and not everyone is--if people just find the whole thing absurd, I don't think they can just trust in absolute blind faith), then they can honestly say, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief." That is, they can say, "Lord, I'm trusting you. And I'm trusting you to teach me to better rely on you in those places that I still have too many questions." The beauty of looking at it that way, in my opinion, is that it lets God do everything. We are just getting ourselves out of the way and taking God at His Word. We don't have to "get" everything. We just have to "get" enough that we can trust Him the best we know how. So when Jesus says that everyone who believes in Him has everlasting life, and He says that because He paid the price for my sins by dying and raising from the dead, then I can just trust Him. I can take Him at His Word. I may not have all the answers, but I can say, "You know what . . . Jesus knows this better than I do, so Dude--you said it. Let's see if you were telling the truth. Because if you were, I have eternal life!"

Seems pretty free to me, and I don't see any works in that at all. It's just faith, yes?

Gman wrote: No.. Rick stated that he thought that he believed that we are basically saying the same thing.. Not exactly the same thing. We are basically agreeing that works cannot save you. Where we differ is that you think that repentance and obedience in following G-d's commandments are somehow works or a better word for it as you would say "legalism." As I said, this is where we disagree..

G, I didn't read that in what Jac was saying. I believe Jac was saying that if a believer abides in Christ, he will produce fruit, repent(in the sense of turning from sin), and will naturally be obedient to Christ's law. G, I believe the difference between what you are saying, and what Jac is saying, is abiding. G, You are saying ALL believers will show fruit without any qualifiers. Jac is saying all believers who abide in Christ(trust in Christ for justification through glorification), will show fruit.

Jac, Gman, correct me if and where I'm not reading you correctly.

Gman wrote:Sure let the reader decide.. Follow the cancerous doctrine of "free grace" where the believer is left defenseless to Satan's attacks or follow G-d's word and live..

G, What is it that you see in "Free Grace" that makes it "cancerous".

IMO, the issue of "good works" is one of intent.
IF one does good works in order to be saved to to show that one is "worthy" then, are not those works "tainted" by the ulterior motive behind them?
Much like those that Jesus criticized, those that pray openly and loud so that ALL my see and hear them, Those that give openly and loud so all may see and admire their charity, those that "overdue" in their piety and devotion so all may say hoe pious and devoted they are.
The understanding of Christ sacrifice and love for us and the understanding that there is nothing we can do to EARN that love ( and salvation) is what, hopefully, drives a person to emulate Christ and to give and to love and to do good works with NO though to recompense and NO ulterior motive other than our of love for Christ and their fellow man.
We preach because we want all to know Christ's love,not because we want to, or he demands it of us.
We give because we love our fellow man and that love is from Christ, an unselfish love born of Christ and the HS.
We take care of those in need not because we are MORE than them or because we want CHrist to see, but because we love them and they need us.
In regards to repentance.
My understanding of repentance is not just admitting we sinned and not doing it and feeling bad about it.
Repentance comes from the knowledge of what we have done, how it hurts others and hurts God and the full understanding of the WEIGHT that bares.
Full repentance means accepting the consequences of our actions at the most personal level and baring the weight of those actions.
That is why repentance is so very hard for some and they would rather turn their back on God, because the sheer weight of their sins is just to vast for them.
Some say that Christianity is bad because all a person has to do is repent and they will be saved.
The obvious flaws in that view aside, these people to not understand they sheer magnitude of what repentance truly is in the eyes of God.

Hi Jac. I just have a few questions that may help me understand better what you're saying.

Jac wrote:
There is a huge difference in saying that works and repentance are the necessary result of faith and that they are the expected result of faith...

People who tie works necessarily to faith then have to argue that we are not saved by grace through faith, but that we are saved by grace through some particular type of faith, that just any old faith won't do. It has to be a "true" faith or a "mature" faith or a "real" faith, and we know faith is true or mature or real or whatever when it produces works.

Jac,
I'm of the belief that the same God who justifies a believer by His grace, through our faith(trust) in Christ, is the same God who will sanctify that believer. And, part of sanctification, is naturally good fruit produced in a believer's life. Much like a tree with a good root naturally produces good fruit, a believer will produce good fruit.
The same God who assures(positionally) a believer's salvation, will produce good works in a believer, through the HS. I use the terms "true believer", and maybe "true faith", to make the distinction between one who places his trust in Christ, and one who maybe places his trust in a false christ, or one who trusts in Christ plus something else. Now I noticed you said that a believer who abides in Christ will produce good works. My question to you is, don't you believe God will keep a believer abiding in Him, in the same way He has assured a believer of salvation?

And my other question is in regards to James 2:14-26. If you don't believe God will always produce good works in a believer, how do you interpret these verses in James 2:14-26? To me, it would seem you must conclude that one who doesn't "abide" in Christ, and produce good works, was never really saved to begin with, or has lost his salvation. Hopefully, you can explain what you believe.
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [a]that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 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? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is [c]dead, being by itself.

18 But someone [d]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.” 19 You believe that [e]God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and [f]as a result of the works, faith was [g]perfected; 23 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. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 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? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Thanks, Jac

First, I do think that the Catholic position is more sophisticated than it is often caricatured by Protestants as being. Second, while any Protestant you meet is likely to consider "works" as a dirty word (especially in connection with salvation), people intentionally or unintentionally add on to it all the time. Even in every day life, its a struggle to rest in Christ and know your identity rather than trying (and failing) to form a "good identity" on your own.

With all that said, I'm very wary about any addition to faith when you're talking about salvation. By repentance a person may just mean "turning to Christ", but people use so many of the same terms in different ways that I've learned to be more careful. I think it is just trust/belief/faith in Christ. I DO think that "other things" proceed or follow. For example, a person who hardens his own heart and hates God is NOT going to trust him, that's kinda common sense. I also lean toward believing that as a new creation you are naturally going to have "more holy desires" and want to be sanctified. That may not be the case in day to day life, but I believe that some changes necessarily take place upon salvation (they are NOT salvation itself or what saves, that is grace through faith)

RickD wrote: Now I noticed you said that a believer who abides in Christ will produce good works. My question to you is, don't you believe God will keep a believer abiding in Him, in the same way He has assured a believer of salvation?

No, God does not guarantee that a believer will continue to abide in Him through faith. The fact that the NT offers repeated exhortations to continue in the faith and abide in Christ is evidence of that. What He assures us is that if we abide, then we will bear fruit, and that by His power, not ours. In fact, part of abiding in Him is believing that. If we DON'T believe that, then when Jesus says, "If you abide in Me, you will bear fruit," then we are saying to Him, "No, Jesus, you are wrong. Let me correct you. What you should say is that if we bear fruit, then we are abiding in You. Now, get it right next time!"

And my other question is in regards to James 2:14-26. If you don't believe God will always produce good works in a believer, how do you interpret these verses in James 2:14-26? To me, it would seem you must conclude that one who doesn't "abide" in Christ, and produce good works, was never really saved to begin with, or has lost his salvation. Hopefully, you can explain what you believe.

James 2 just says that if a person doesn't produce fruit (because they aren't abiding in Christ, obviously), then they have a useless faith. It doesn't say they are not saved or that they were never saved. It says very plainly that they have faith, but that the faith is useless or dead. Now, since when is a dead faith a non-existent faith? Have you ever seen a dead body? As a hospital chaplain, I've seen a lot of them. No one has ever looked at a body and said, "There's not really a body there, you know." They acknowledge the body, but say that it is dead, and that the person they loved isn't there.

Just so with faith. If we aren't abiding in Christ and producing fruit, our faith is dead. But it is still there. Now, Jesus says that everyone who believes in Him (has faith--same words there) has everlasting life. He didn't say that everyone who has faith and abides in Him so that they produce fruit has everlasting life. He just says exactly what He means. Everyone who believes in Jesus has everlasting life. EVERYONE. And if some of those people don't keep abiding, then if their faith dies, that doesn't mean that they lose that their salvation or that they aren't saved. It just means that their faith won't do anything. It won't produce anything in this life.

Lastly, I would note that "save" in James 2:14 doesn't mean salvation from Hell. Go to blueletterbible and look up the five places that word "save" (sozo) is used in James. He doesn't use it in the sense of save from hell. He uses it in the way the Proverbs does -- salvation from death and corruption and a difficult life. It's just standard Jewish wisdom literature usage.

Jac wrote:

Lastly, I would note that "save" in James 2:14 doesn't mean salvation from Hell. Go to blueletterbible and look up the five places that word "save" (sozo) is used in James. He doesn't use it in the sense of save from hell. He uses it in the way the Proverbs does -- salvation from death and corruption and a difficult life. It's just standard Jewish wisdom literature usage.

Ok Jac. I see what you're saying with James 2:14. But what about James 2:21-26 When it talks about being justified by works? Here:

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar ? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected ; 23 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. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 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 ? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
From what I can see, justified is "dikaioo", which means:

Definition dikaioo

to render righteous or such he ought to be
to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

Aren't these verses saying that Abraham and Rahab were justified(made righteous) by works and not by faith alone?

The word "justify" in James doesn't mean "to make righteous." You are reading Paul into James, and even Paul used it in something of a technical sense. James uses it in the sense of "vindication." We even have a similar usage in English: to justify a claim is to show why it is valid. So Abraham's works justified his trust in God; they validated it, and in turn, showed it to be valid. The same held with Rahab. On the other hand, an unjustified, un-validated faith doesn't do anything for anybody.

Just for full disclosure, I'll add that there are those who see James' use of "justify" more in a sense of that which brings about uprightness and thus peace and prosperity. I am sympathetic to that view, too. Cf. Jas 3:18.