Are those who fall from faith still saved?

[puritan lad]

Led,

You may want to do a study on Calvinism in general, since you obviously haven't a clue what it teaches concerning salvation, obedience, and the final Perserverence of the Saints. You seem to be equating Calvinism with the heresy of Hyper-Calvinism.

In any case, I agree with August. We've killed this horse several times over and are getting nowhere. There is more than enough information on these threads concerning the subject that a reader can look up and learn.

Of course, if Jac wants to finally address Romans 9:10-24, I'll look forward to reading it. I just don't hold out hope that he ever will.

[Jac3510]

Jac, I have to take issue here with you.

You decry Calvinism, yet you present a doctrinal position that insists a person can depart from the faith, deny Christ totally, persist in sin, stop being a believer, deny all the fundamentals of the faith, mock the gospel, and yet still be counted among those who are truly saved.

In your efforts to support your doctrinal position, you assume the truth of your position in your exegesis. I don't think that is intellectually honest, and in the process you do the same thing that you accuse PL of doing.

Maybe it is time to bring this discussion to an end, there seems to be no logical conclusion in sight.

So far as SALVATION goes, August, I assert that a works have ABSOLUTEYL NO BEARING WHATSOEVER. Now, since that is the very purpoes of this discussion, it's hardly inappropriate for me to argue from that perspective. I'm not assuming anything. I've argued with Scripture my positions in this thread and shown the fault in other lines of thinking as I see it. If someone has a problem with my interpretation of Scripture, they can offer a counter exegesis. I don't expect PL to do that. He never has, with exception to Rev. 20:11-15. We've both stated our case on that, and it is up to the reader to decide who has presented a case more in line with biblical thought.

Now, I'm not the one who's bringing a system to my exegesis. I take Scripture to mean exactly what it says. It is the Calvinists who have insisted on doctrines like Perseverance, and yet, none of that has been defended. If anyone is "assuming the truth of [their] position", it's them, not me. I assume the truth of my EXEGESIS. That, my friend, is a different matter entirely.

[August]

So far as SALVATION goes, August, I assert that a works have ABSOLUTEYL NO BEARING WHATSOEVER. Now, since that is the very purpoes of this discussion, it's hardly inappropriate for me to argue from that perspective.

And to present that Calvinism does is to misrepresent Calvinism.

Now, I'm not the one who's bringing a system to my exegesis. I take Scripture to mean exactly what it says. It is the Calvinists who have insisted on doctrines like Perseverance, and yet, none of that has been defended. If anyone is "assuming the truth of [their] position", it's them, not me. I assume the truth of my EXEGESIS. That, my friend, is a different matter entirely.

So what makes your exegesis true, and that of others not?

As for not bringing a system, you said this earlier...

I've recently come a full 180 degrees in one area of my theology. There was a time when, based on Romans 10:9 (among other verses), I believed that a commitment to the Lordship of Christ was necessary to salvation. In other words, it wasn't mere belief in the promise of Christ, but it was rather one's commitment to Christ as Lord (which flowed from his or her belief) that resulted in salvation. This is the position held by John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Stott, and almost every other major Reformed Theologian. In short, it has been labeled Lordship Salvation.

Against this, we have men such as Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges arguing for what has been called Free Grace Salvation. The most simplistic way to state the belief is this: "Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, and as such it is not predicated on any commitment to obedience nor sustained faith of any kind."

This is a position I hold to the utmost firmness.

That is bringing the "Free Grace" position to your exegesis, by your own admission, or do you wish to posit that your positon that you hold with utmost firmness has no role in your exegesis?

[Jac3510]

And to present that Calvinism does is to misrepresent Calvinism.

No, it is not. True or false: "Where there is no works, there is no salvation."

Notice that I did NOT say that the Calvinist doctrine is a works-based salvation, although for the record I believe that it is, which is why I consider it a heresy. But, so far as this conversation and this thread goes, I am saying that works have no bearing at ALL on salvation, as a basis or not. The Calvinist most certainly disagrees.

So what makes your exegesis true, and that of others not?

The same thing that makes any exegesis true. Have I been true to the Word of God? Obviously, I believe I have. If I have mishandled a passage, you, or someone, should demonstrate my flaws. What you cannot deny is that I have attempted to do this repeatedly as it relates to what little exegesis has been presented to me. I've discussed your positions and why I don't believe they line up with Scripture. I've not gotten, from most people, that same line of thought. Now, in the other thread, you have posted an exegesis of a passage. I have countered to show why I believe it is false. You either have to show why I am mistaken or alter your exegesis. That's just the way these things work.

That is bringing the "Free Grace" position to your exegesis, by your own admission, or do you wish to posit that your positon that you hold with utmost firmness has no role in your exegesis?

I do and am making that claim. You have to understand something, August. I wasn't brought to Free Grace willingly. And I wasn't brought to it by a systematic presentation of an argument. I was brought to it by an extended exegesis of several passages that contradicted what I had previously believed. Now, I must submit my thinking to Scripture, and I submitted.

As has been admited on these boards, as well as at the seminary I attend, the Lordship Salvation position cannot be argued by Scriptural exegesis. You have to take "theology as a whole." I'm sorry, but I reject that type of thinking. Exegesis informs my theology, not the other way around.

Now, if in my interpretation of a passage you ever see me import ideas that are not in the text itself, call me out on it. That is bad exegesis. That's why I was Lordship in the past, and thankfully, it is why I no longer am today.

[August]

And to present that Calvinism does is to misrepresent Calvinism.

No, it is not. True or false: "Where there is no works, there is no salvation."

Notice that I did NOT say that the Calvinist doctrine is a works-based salvation, although for the record I believe that it is, which is why I consider it a heresy. But, so far as this conversation and this thread goes, I am saying that works have no bearing at ALL on salvation, as a basis or not. The Calvinist most certainly disagrees.

No, you are building a strawman. There is no Calvinist position that holds a causal relationship between works and salvation. The fact that we are not saved by works does not mean that we should not do them, and it also does not mean that God will not use us for His purpose, and do those things that your theology wishes to reject. I will address this more in the James text you posted elsewhere.

The same thing that makes any exegesis true. Have I been true to the Word of God? Obviously, I believe I have. If I have mishandled a passage, you, or someone, should demonstrate my flaws. What you cannot deny is that I have attempted to do this repeatedly as it relates to what little exegesis has been presented to me. I've discussed your positions and why I don't believe they line up with Scripture.

And my point earlier was that both you and PL believe that your exegesis is the correct one. PL has shown numerous times why he believes your exegesis is flawed, and you believe you have done the same.

As somewhat of an outsider to this discussion, I stated that there is no logical conclusion, since you both believe you are right. When what is perceived to be flaws is pointed by one side, it is simply denied by the other.

I do and am making that claim. You have to understand something, August. I wasn't brought to Free Grace willingly. And I wasn't brought to it by a systematic presentation of an argument. I was brought to it by an extended exegesis of several passages that contradicted what I had previously believed. Now, I must submit my thinking to Scripture, and I submitted.

And what was the source or cause of the extended exegesis? You already mentioned that you studied Ryrie, Hodges, Wilkin et al. You also said that one of your professors was instrumental in bringing you to the "Free Grace" position. If you were so dead set on exegesis being your determinant, why do you then hold to any theological position? You can just hold to the clear truths presented by your exegesis, and have no need to study any other scholars.

This has been my observation....you hold to a theological position that you will defend, even if it means misrepresenting other theologies, or choose to ignore centuries of Christian scholarship in favor of what I described above, the no-effect faith.

Now, if in my interpretation of a passage you ever see me import ideas that are not in the text itself, call me out on it. That is bad exegesis.

I sure will, but somehow I don't hold high hopes of you changing your position.

Overall, the discussion leads to growth, it has for me, at least, and confirmed my beliefs to me.

[Jac3510]

No, you are building a strawman. There is no Calvinist position that holds a causal relationship between works and salvation. The fact that we are not saved by works does not mean that we should not do them, and it also does not mean that God will not use us for His purpose, and do those things that your theology wishes to reject. I will address this more in the James text you posted elsewhere.

No, I am not building a strawman. Again, consider the question, August: True or false: "Where there is no works there is no salvation."

Calvinism clearly teaches that if a person has absolutely no works and is not a disciple then he is not regenerate. Thus, works are necessary result of regeneration. Therefore, there IS a causal relationship between the two, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

And my point earlier was that both you and PL believe that your exegesis is the correct one. PL has shown numerous times why he believes your exegesis is flawed, and you believe you have done the same.

As somewhat of an outsider to this discussion, I stated that there is no logical conclusion, since you both believe you are right. When what is perceived to be flaws is pointed by one side, it is simply denied by the other.

PL has dealt with the Scriptures I've presented? Really? Perhaps I am simply blind, but I've missed them. Minus his interpretation of Rev. 20:11-15, I've not seen him address anything. He's not addressed my ORIGINAL arguments relating to Christ dying for ALL men. He's not addressed my arguments about being "in Christ" as per Eph. 1. He's not addressed my arguments relating to faith preceding regeneration as per Titus. He's not addressed my arguments relating to the responsiveness of a "totally depraved" man, with the numerous Scriptures posted there. He's not addressed my arguments relating to verses on repentance, good works, or belief, as per John and 1 Cor. These are just off of the top of my head.

The same cannot be said about me. Every proof text he offers I have dealt with and explained what, in my view, it actually means, often in support of my own position. He has certainly never returned that favor. There is very little exegesis coming from your side of the fense from anyone, August.

So, it does absolutely no good to simply claim that my exegesis is flawed. If you have a problem with it, then explain the problem.

And what was the source or cause of the extended exegesis? You already mentioned that you studied Ryrie, Hodges, Wilkin et al. You also said that one of your professors was instrumental in bringing you to the "Free Grace" position. If you were so dead set on exegesis being your determinant, why do you then hold to any theological position? You can just hold to the clear truths presented by your exegesis, and have no need to study any other scholars.

This has been my observation....you hold to a theological position that you will defend, even if it means misrepresenting other theologies, or choose to ignore centuries of Christian scholarship in favor of what I described above, the no-effect faith.

You really don't think I've laid out an exhausitive history of my conversion to Free Grace, do you? I rejected all five points of Calvinism years ago. In the OSAS thread on this board, while I was still Lordship, I made that very claim. I had come to the conclusion that a person can TOTALLY reject their faith and still be saved by my own personal study of Hebrews back in 2003 or so. I've been an anti-Calvinist for a long, long time, August.

The Free Grace position, however, is something I only recently came to. I held, based on my misunderstanding of James 2 and Romand 10 that a person had to make a commitment of life to Jesus Christ to be saved. If you made that commitment, you were showing you really believed. When I saw those passages thoroughly exegeted, however, I came to see the error in my thinking. When I was then presented with the gospel truth as presented by John--and the fact that this is the only book written for the express purpose of conversion--I was forced to acknowledge that I was entirely wrong on the subject of Lordship as it relates to salvation. My further studies of Hodges, Ryrie, and Wilkin have deepened those convictions, but they were not basis of my conversion.

And yes, one of my professors was instrumental in my conversion. One year ago, about six months before I came to this position, he explained teh concept I've been so big on here. I was, at one point, an Unlimited Atonement guy. I agreed with the Calvinist AND Arminian that Atonement=Salvation. However, again, by simple exegesis, Mr. Haller demonstrated that ALL sin of EVERY person had been atoned for, and the issue was unbelief/death. I should have made the connection at that moment, but I didn't. I was forced to concede that he was right, although at first I argued. However, I still believed for the next six months that to obtain life you had to believe, which actually meant "to commit your life and repent of your sins."

So, again, for me, it's all about exegesis. The Bible informs my theology, not the other way around. To this day I am still finding ideas that are purely theological that are, quite literally, not rooted in Scripture. I'm having to get rid of them.

One of these days I hope to write a systematic theology, but until that day comes, I'll be content with doing what I am now. Studying my theology piece by piece and holding up to the light of Scripture. If it's not rooted there and proven by it, the idea will be rejected.

I'm sorry that you can't say the same, August. You are forced to import ideas into texts. We all know that Calvinism is ultimately a logical/theological position moreso than a Scriptural one. You start by assuming the Total Depravity of man means that he is unresponsive. Thus, regeneration must precede faith, which is nowhere taught by Scripture. You are foced into a litany of beliefs, including Limited Atonement and Perseverance, neither of which are taught by Scripture, but are actually contradicted by it.

See, August . . . your ideas are logical outflows of what I perceive to be a flawed premise. Sorry if I don't want to build my theology on logical necessities.

So show me where I have misrepresented a theology. I've given every position I argue the credit it deserves. My Greek professor--the Calvinist I keep referring to--is continually surprised when I bring him pro-Calvinist arguments, which I do on a regular basis. Why? Because (1) I agree with Calvinist reasoning; I just disagree with the premise you begin from, and (2), intellectual honesty is important above all. It's a waste of time to use false arguments. Thus, if I've presented one, by all means, show me.

I sure will, but somehow I don't hold high hopes of you changing your position.

Overall, the discussion leads to growth, it has for me, at least, and confirmed my beliefs to me.

I can say this with the utmost honesty. If your exposition is biblical, then I'll submit my thinking completely. But, I don't believe it will be, because you will have to import ideas into the text given your presuppositions. Therefore, the chances of you changing my mind are next to nill.

But, August, I know I'm not going to change yours, either. That's not why I have these discussions. I have them for the people who are reading this, and they are out there? Some will agree with me, and others with you. Many are undecided, and if I can help them understand the simple gospel of faith alone in Christ alone, then so much the better! If I can help steer them away from Calvinism, then so much the better.

As far as confirming beliefs, I'm glad you are more convinced than ever. That's the point of these things. It should go without saying that I am as well. In the end, like we discussed, you don't know if you are saved. The more you become convinced of that, the more clearly you'll be able to present Calvinism. That's a beautiful thing, because most people, I believe, are smart enough to recognize the foolishness in that line of thought.

It's not the educated Calvinist I fear. It's the one who doesn't understand his own position.

God bless

[August]

No, I am not building a strawman. Again, consider the question, August: True or false: "Where there is no works there is no salvation."

Calvinism clearly teaches that if a person has absolutely no works and is not a disciple then he is not regenerate. Thus, works are necessary result of regeneration. Therefore, there IS a causal relationship between the two, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Oh brother. No, that is not what Calvinism teaches, but it seems you really want it to.

What Calvinism teaches, and I would agree is 100% opposite to what you believe, is that faith is a response, shaped by that which is trusted namely God himself, God's promises, and Jesus Christ, all as set forth in the Scriptures. That faith is a response from the whole soul, through regeneration the old person is dead, the new person born, with personal dependence on the grace of Father, Son, and Spirit for salvation, with thankful cessation of all attempts to save oneself by establishing one's own righteousness. The witnessing of the Spirit, to the person, is the measure of conscious assurance of salvation, the result of God's gift of faith and the resultant illumination. Calvin himself said:"Faith is...a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor towards us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds and sealed on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.” Justification is by faith only.

Where you build a strawman is to equate the fruits that result from the new birth, and the preceding regeneration, with works that somehow play a role in justification. That is simply not what Calvinism teaches, what it does is reflect straight out of Galatians 5:6, that regeneration produces a fruit of love, further expounded in the other character traits that believers exhibit from 5:22. Those are the signs that the flesh has been crucified, those are the signs of walking with the Spirit, as we live by the Spirit. If you wish to call those character traits "works", then so be it, but let the record show that you believe regeneration has no effect whatsoever on the recipient of grace.

You wish to make salvation an experience that is extrinsic to the life experience of the individual, a mere legal transaction, or a judicial pronouncement. Even though you draw a chart that shows sanctification etc, you do not seem to believe that any of those are vitally related to the existential level of the human experience. More clearly put, you do not believe that regeneration has a supernatural effect, or has any particular reality associated with it, you explicitly deny the concept of the witness of the Spirit. Your position strips the Christian from a relationship with God, because you reduce faith to brute mental assent to facts, not a person.

PL has dealt with the Scriptures I've presented? Really? Perhaps I am simply blind, but I've missed them....The same cannot be said about me. Every proof text he offers I have dealt with and explained what, in my view, it actually means, often in support of my own position. He has certainly never returned that favor. There is very little exegesis coming from your side of the fense from anyone, August.

I am not here to defend PL, he is quite capable of doing that himself. From my vantage point, he has raised many points in answer to your positions. It seems that you want to contend that exegesis must be of a certain length to have value. Furthermore, you cannot honestly think that there is a lack of exegesis to support Calvinism? The fact that it is not posted here does not in any way invalidate it.

You really don't think I've laid out an exhausitive history of my conversion to Free Grace, do you? I rejected all five points of Calvinism years ago. In the OSAS thread on this board, while I was still Lordship, I made that very claim. I had come to the conclusion that a person can TOTALLY reject their faith and still be saved by my own personal study of Hebrews back in 2003 or so. I've been an anti-Calvinist for a long, long time, August.

The Free Grace position, however, is something I only recently came to. I held, based on my misunderstanding of James 2 and Romand 10 that a person had to make a commitment of life to Jesus Christ to be saved. If you made that commitment, you were showing you really believed. When I saw those passages thoroughly exegeted, however, I came to see the error in my thinking. When I was then presented with the gospel truth as presented by John--and the fact that this is the only book written for the express purpose of conversion--I was forced to acknowledge that I was entirely wrong on the subject of Lordship as it relates to salvation. My further studies of Hodges, Ryrie, and Wilkin have deepened those convictions, but they were not basis of my conversion.

And yes, one of my professors was instrumental in my conversion. One year ago, about six months before I came to this position, he explained teh concept I've been so big on here. I was, at one point, an Unlimited Atonement guy. I agreed with the Calvinist AND Arminian that Atonement=Salvation. However, again, by simple exegesis, Mr. Haller demonstrated that ALL sin of EVERY person had been atoned for, and the issue was unbelief/death. I should have made the connection at that moment, but I didn't. I was forced to concede that he was right, although at first I argued. However, I still believed for the next six months that to obtain life you had to believe, which actually meant "to commit your life and repent of your sins."

So, again, for me, it's all about exegesis. The Bible informs my theology, not the other way around. To this day I am still finding ideas that are purely theological that are, quite literally, not rooted in Scripture. I'm having to get rid of them.

Fair enough. You do however, still refer to "properly exegeted", "simple exegesis" etc so as to infer that you and your professor have the exclusive wisdom to "proper exegesis" and the correct understanding of Scripture.

I'm sorry that you can't say the same, August. You are forced to import ideas into texts. We all know that Calvinism is ultimately a logical/theological position moreso than a Scriptural one. You start by assuming the Total Depravity of man means that he is unresponsive. Thus, regeneration must precede faith, which is nowhere taught by Scripture. You are foced into a litany of beliefs, including Limited Atonement and Perseverance, neither of which are taught by Scripture, but are actually contradicted by it.

I must say, I am actually surprised that you resort to an ad-hominem attack on me. You basically accuse me of being unscriptural, without basis, by assuming that you know everyting there is to know about me and about Calvinism. I am not forced into any "litany of beliefs", that is just how you wish to personally attack me. How do you know how I came to believe in what I believe? I do not recall discussing that with you.

I will address your assertions about Calvinism later on.

So show me where I have misrepresented a theology. I've given every position I argue the credit it deserves. My Greek professor--the Calvinist I keep referring to--is continually surprised when I bring him pro-Calvinist arguments, which I do on a regular basis. Why? Because (1) I agree with Calvinist reasoning; I just disagree with the premise you begin from, and (2), intellectual honesty is important above all. It's a waste of time to use false arguments. Thus, if I've presented one, by all means, show me.

See above.

I can say this with the utmost honesty. If your exposition is biblical, then I'll submit my thinking completely. But, I don't believe it will be, because you will have to import ideas into the text given your presuppositions. Therefore, the chances of you changing my mind are next to nill.

So ultimately you get to decide whether my exposition is biblical or not. What gives you that right? Since you already put the caveat of me having to "import ideas" in there, it has to be your own presuppositions...

In the end, like we discussed, you don't know if you are saved.

How dare you? Who do you think you are to question my salvation? Your arrogance is astounding.

That is the most blatant lie. Our discussion around assurance of salvation was around your false assertion that works will show whether one is saved or not. I recall my response clearly, I said that my assurance of salvation is from the testimony of the Spirit, and nothing else. If you want to ascribe your assurance to an impersonal set of facts, feel free to do so, but do not ever again patronize me by questioning my salvation. My salvation is down to God alone.

The more you become convinced of that, the more clearly you'll be able to present Calvinism. That's a beautiful thing, because most people, I believe, are smart enough to recognize the foolishness in that line of thought.

Ah, so now I am not smart enough to be as enlightened as you are, to realize the foolishness of my beliefs?

It's not the educated Calvinist I fear. It's the one who doesn't understand his own position.

So is it your assertion that I do not understand my own position?

[led]

PL, no, I do not want to study Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism or any other view on the Word. I care about the truth of the Word and not someone's view of it.

I have not looked down on you or your position or how you study and yet you consistantly attack me as if I know nothing or very little....sounds like the love of God to me!

Funny how you just avoid the question...again!

Led

[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.

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."

Actually, you did not answer my question. When sozo is used in conjunction with pistis, in the context of psuche, as it is in James 1:21, it refers to the saving of the eternal soul. There is nothing here to indicate that we should read it any different.

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!

No, that is not what it says. James is not contradicting what Paul teaches in Romans 3, for example. Paul and James meet each other in Galatians 5:6:

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

The whole introduction in James 1 is an exhortation to remains steadfast in Christian love, given by God. James 1:25 is not referring to the Mosaic law, but to the perfect law of liberty, the free gifts that God gives (verse 17), more specifically the liberation from sin and damnation, through the implanted word, not the word that is read or seen. That can only refer to the imputation of righteousness through the death of Christ.

James continues in the same vein in 2:1, talking about holding the faith in Jesus, and then demonstrating what the love as described in Gal 5 could mean, being that we should not commit the sin of prosōpolēpsia, the respect of persons, or being partial.

This is the context in which we should read James, and not as a flatout contradiction to Paul which neccesitates the changing of the meaning of words in this context.

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.

I do not see how that is necessarily in line. James 1:13-15 states:

Jam 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Jam 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jam 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Starting from 13, that means that God is not the origin of any man's sin. God cannot be charged with causing people to sin. Like God cannot be tempted with evil, neither can He tempt others with evil. In 14, we see what the source of the temptation is, man is tempted by his own desires. Evil here is kakos, meaning depraved or wicked, so man's own wickedness will tempt him. In 15, that depraved desire gives the impetus for further sin, and for the growth of sin into habit, which, when you habitually live an unrepentant life, leads to death, as in the wages of sin is death. Verses 16, 17 and 18 then proceeds to show that all gifts are from God, and is followed by the rest of James.

I know that you propose to translate death here as a physical death, not the death that brings eternal damnation, but ultimately that does not matter. Physical death results in being presented for judgment, and if you are wicked or depraved, a friend of the world (James 4:4), you are an enemy of God. Unless you believe an enemy of God is saved, then the conclusion here is that whether you read it as physical or spiritual death, the causes are the same, and the result is that you are an enemy of God. Enemy here is echthros, a very strong word normally used to denote Satan, so there can be no doubt that this is ultimately related to eternal death.

How should we then read James 2, and the apparent meaning that we need works to be saved? We need to read it in the context of the personal change that happens in someone when they are regenerated. As described elsewhere, that rebirth has the effect of producing new character traits, necessary so that those who are reborn can be used for God's purpose to become part of the body of Christ and live in love and gentleness with other Christians.

Starting from 2:14:

Jam 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

The core of the question is contained in the first part of the sentence, what someone says. Anyone can profess to have faith, and it can be true or untrue, it is a matter between that perosn and God. However, James continues here to ask that in light of the things pointed out earlier in chapter 1 and 2, those sins that we should not commit, and being that those sins are visible, how likely is it that those who continue to commit these sins actually possess a saving faith? Continuing with verses 15 thru 18:

Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jam 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
Jam 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jam 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

It further expands on what Christian love means, not only preaching and comforting, but also physically assisting the needy. Very important, nowhere does James say that these "works" are needed for salvation, instead, in verse 18, he states that these works are a witness to others as a justification of our faith before them. This proceeds though the rest of James 2, showing that even in the case of Abraham, people could see that that due to his willingness to sacrifice his son, he demonstrated his righteousness to other people, but the reason he was held righteous by God was faith/belief, pisteuō :

Jam 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.

So in the end James is talking about the manifestation of God's love through a reborn believer, that is visible to others. Should that not be visible, he leaves one with the question as to whether such a person is merely saying that he has faith, or whether that faith is dead.

That is my reading of the passages. I realize that my exposition will not fit with your beliefs, but hopefully it brings another perspective to the passage, and a clearer understanding that we need not read it to mean that works are needed for salvation.

[Jac3510]

I expected more from you, August . . . PL, I can understand. But I've seen enough of you and your posts that this reaction totally shocked me.

1. As for what Calvinism teaches, where did I say that justification in Calvinism is built on works. I said nothing of the sort. If you can't show me one place where I said that, I expect an apology. I am thoroughly aware that in Calvinism:

a) Regeneration precedes faith
b) One is regenerated so that he may believe,
c) This regeneration necessarily results in good works/continued faith.

For all of these reasons, good works and continued faith are the fruits of one's assurance. I am very aware of Calvin's idea of what assurance is. But are you aware that modern Calvinism has actually claimed that he was in error in that belief? Allow me to quote a few well respected men:

It is necessary that we do these good works (as Christians in all ages have), for unless we do, we have no assurance that we are really Christ's followers" (Boice, Christ's Call to Discipleship, p. 166)

Only when God is loved supremely and the spirit of the law kept has a man any reason to believe that he has been truly born of God. (Chantry, Today's Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic, p. 74)

The Bible teaches clearly that the evidence of God's work in a life is the inevitable fruit of transformed behavior. Faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save. Professing Christians utterly lacking the fruit of true righteousness will find no biblical basis for the assurance they are saved. (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p.23)

The fruit of one's life reveals whether that person is a believer or an unbeliever. There is no middle ground. (ibid., p.178)

One of John Owen's major concerns in the writing of his Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit was to help people make sure they really believed (The Works of John Owen, 16 vol., vol. 3, A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit: Banner of Truth and Trust, 1965; p. 45-47; 226-28). But these ideas are definitely not from Calvin himself. He defined faith as "a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolance toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts." (Institutes, III.ii.7). And again:

He alone is truly a believer who, convinced by the firm conviction that God is a kindly and well-disposed Father toward him, promises himself all things on the basis of his generosit; who, relying upon the promises of divine benevolance toward him, lays hold on an undoubted expectation of salvation. (ibid., III.ii.16)

To continue, this idea has been rejected by modern Calvinism. The "tests" for eternal life, as implied above and expressly taught by men such as MacArthur (see The Security of Salvation: Why You Can't Lose It: Study Guide of Romans 5.1-11, pp.55-88, where he lists 12 tests of salvation). Calvin expressly warned AGAINST this, though, saying that "conscience feels more fear and consternation than assurance." (Institutes, III.xiv.20).

Many a good Reformed Theologians have taken Calvin to task over this. Consider R. L. Dabney who said:

The source of this error is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome . . . These noble Reformers . . . asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his commentary, "My faith is a divine and spiritual belief that God has pardoned and accepted me." (Dabney, Discussios of Robert L. Dabney. D.D., LL.D., Volume I: Theological and Evangelical; p. 173)

And again,

[Calvin] requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me. Amidst all Calvin's verbal variations, this is always his meaning; for he is consistent in his error . . . for as sure as truth is in history, Luther and Calvin did fall into this error, which the Reformed Churches, led by the Westminster Confession, have since corrected. (ibid., 215-16)

Now, August . . . again. I am aware of what Calvinism teaches, and I hold to absolutely every word I have said previously. The simple fact is that, MODERN CALVINISM denies assurance because, according to the doctrine of Perseverance, you CANNOT know that you are saved unless you persevere until the end. Now, if YOU want to reject Modern Calvinism, be my guest. I'd love to see it. Better to follow John Calvin that Westminster. But don't tell me that I'm presenting a strawman. I know exactly what I am presenting.

So, before I leave off this point, and I'm sorry for being so harsh here, but show me where I equated JUSTIFICATION with works. I said that, for you, works are a NECESSARY result of justification. Again, I know your teachings, and I know what I believe to be the logical outflow of them.

2. You claim that I don't believe that regeneration has any supernatural effect. You want to talk about arrogance now? Let me quote myself in another discussion i am having:

Let me say that, contrary to what we've been sparring about, the issue is not really the effects of regeneration. In reality, your position is really that saving faith is such that regeneration has the effect of producing good works. But I don't disagree with you as much as you might think. Yes, it should produce a change in behavior. In all likelihood, it will. There will certainly be internal changes that we may or may not see, i.e., the convicting work of the Holy Spirit in regards to personal sin.

I believe that regeneration has a ton of effect, August. I believe that the reason the church in America is so ineffectual is because we have a bunch of unregenerate people running around trying to "do Christianity." Why are they unregenerate? Because the gate is narrow. They're trusting in their works and their commitment rather than the simple work of Jesus Christ. If you don't believe me, check the stats at http://www.barna.org. I'm in the minority.

3. As for your comments relating to PL's and my discussion, I have two problems with what you said. The first is the idea that he has raised any valid points "in answer" to my objection. I said it before, I'll say it again: WHERE? In the previous post I listed more than a few arguments, complete with Scripture, that he's never even commented on. But, my bigger problem is the ad hominem you've thrown at me. I'm sorry that I feel it is important to thoroughly explain what a text means. I didn't realize length was a bad thing. And I don't think that something has to be long for it to be valid. But, do you realize that no one has yet to provide me, with exception to Fortigurn, that I can remember, with any serious exegesis of any passages? No, I lied . . . PL did post a very good exegesis of the Olivet Discourse, which I responded to line by line, pointing out 16 separate problems. How many did he deal with? Go check the count yourself: next to none. But, the issue I have with YOU is that, rather than deal with the exegesis that I've worked hard to put forward so that you could give what I am saying serious consideration, you would rather ridicule me for the length. Thanks, man. I appreciate that.

3. As for the exegesis out there to support Calvinism, of course I am aware it exists. But, if you take the time to read through my explanations of Scripture, you'll see that, as I explain passages, I take the Calvinistic arguments into account. It's not my job to put a positive case forward for the position. However, if you are PL are going to asssert that Calvinism is true, then it is YOUR responsibility to defend your position. It's standard rules of logic. If you make an assertion, you have to defend it. As it is, no such exegesis has been forth coming, and what little I have seen has not even considered my positions.

4. As for the those in the Free Grace camp having "exclusive wisdom to 'proper exegesis'", that's silly, August. You have access to the same Scriptures that I do. When you exegete a text, you are doing what you believe is right. I am following the standard procedures of logic. I am making an assertion and backing it with exegeted Scripture. If you, then, disagree with my assertion, you have to deal with my arguments. If, on the other hand, you make your own assertions, then you have to provide your own exegesis. That's the way it works, and you know that. Now, in the end, one of us is right and one of us is wrong (or both are wrong). We can't both be right. Therefore, someone has, to use your pithy remarks "exclusive wisdom."

Tell me, August, if I were advocating Tritheism and using Scripture to support my position, and then you came along and explained, from Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, what would your respones be if I said, "Yeah, but what makes YOUR understanding right?" The answers to that scenario are obvious. We are dealing with EXACTLY the same thing.

5. As for ad hominem attacks on you, I'm sorry if you took them that way. They weren't meant to be in that vein. What I said was absolutely true. You cannot make the same claim that I can and do. You willingly interpret Scripture through a theological grid.

Perhaps I've gone too far. I confess that I don't know your position on Limited Atonement. I can say that PL does, and I assume, since you are a Calvinist, that you are in the same boat. If you reject his hermeneutics, tell me now. Otherwise, it is logical for me to assume that you employ the same methods, since you claim to be in the same camp.

And, forgive me if I am mistaken, but we have discussed what you believe. You believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. You believe in Total Depravity. You thus believe that regeneration precedes faith. Now, you may not admit it now, but you CANNOT logically be sure of your salvation. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that's the logical truth of the matter. At least MacArthur has the guts to come out and say it. You nearly admitted as much to me. When I asked you about Perseverance, your response was, "Well you have the same problem, too." And, of course, I don't, because I believe that ONE TIME FAITH is all that it takes. I may be wrong on that, but my being wrong doesn't change the fact that, in MY belief system, you can be 100% sure (though admittedly wrong, in this hypothetical scenario) that you are saved. Not so with you. So, yes sir, you are forced into a litany of beliefs. No ad hominem. It's not an attack on you personally, sir. It is an attack on your belief system.

So, as I leave off this point, let me answer your question, which was, "How dare you?" How dare I??? It's simple, August. It is the logicla outflow of what you profess to believe. Now, do you reject Perseverance of the Saints? Do you reject that good works and continued faith are inevidable results of salvation? Have I read your wrong? If so, then I've read you wrong, so tell me. But I don't believe I have. If this is what you believe, then YOU DON'T KNOW. You could fall away tomorrow. How do you know you are REALLY part of the Elect? How do you know that you won't fall away tomorrow, proving that you only thought you were part of that group? Don't people fall away all the time? And weren't they convinced they were saved? But didn't their apostasy prove they weren't? How can you be so sure it's different with you? You say you believed, but yet you say they didn't. How can you be sure you are any different from them?

You can't. I'm sorry, August. Show me where I'm wrong, because every Calvinist I know around these parts agrees with me, including the above mentioned authors.

6. Lastly, as for the idea that you aren't smart enough to understand your beliefs, I never said as much. I said I was afraid of the uneducated Calvinist. I know lots of those. Are you one? I don't know. I don't claim to know. If you aren't aware of the facts I've presented above, then you are, but that says nothing of your intelligence level. It simply says that you've not studied this area yet.

I made the comment because there are those Calvinists that teach the doctrine of salvation and perseverance you do, and yet they genuinely don't recognize the implications. My uncle is a great example. He's a Ph.D. Southern Baptist preacher. The past two Sundays in a row, due completely to our disagreement on this issue, he's preached messages on Lordship Salvation and Perseverance. He actually said from the pulpit that if you don't live your life like a Christian, then it's evident that you aren't one! Do you know what that does, August? By definition, it robs people of assurance. And it's a false gospel, because it teaches people that simple faith is not enough to save.

Now, let's pretend--JUST PRETEND--that I'm right. Let's say that "simple faith" IS all it takes to save. That means that Tony has just given a false gospel. Jesus said, "Simple faith is all it takes." And Tony said, "No, commitment of life is what it takes." See the problem?

Tony is an uneducated Calvinist. He gave this huge tirade against Free Grace from the pulpit. He said that we believe to be saved, all you have to do is just sort of believe there is a God and that Jesus died for your sins. Now, you should know well enough that I don't believe that at all. But, he doesn't know any better, not because he is stupid . . . he is very educated . . . but because he hasn't looked it up. And I fear him, because he's teaching people incorrectly.

So, do you fit that boat? I don't know. You tell me, but don't take things personally that I don't intend that way.

August . . .

Like I said, I expected more from you. PL, I can understand. You, sir, I cannot. You should both know me and my belief system well enough that the garbage you just accused me of is just that: garbage. I've never asked for an apology online before EVER. I've never asked for one in person. But I'm asking for one now.

God bless

[Jac3510]

You apparently posted on James 2 while I was typing the above response. I'll read through that and reply to it later.

[August]

I expected more from you, August . . . PL, I can understand. But I've seen enough of you and your posts that this reaction totally shocked me.

Like I said, I expected more from you. PL, I can understand. You, sir, I cannot. You should both know me and my belief system well enough that the garbage you just accused me of is just that: garbage. I've never asked for an apology online before EVER. I've never asked for one in person. But I'm asking for one now.

Likewise, I was shocked that you would question my salvation, and continue to do so.

Now, you may not admit it now, but you CANNOT logically be sure of your salvation. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that's the logical truth of the matter.

And then you are asking me for an apology, after you have just insulted me as a Christian and servant of God in the most vulgar manner possible? I have never, anywhere, ever proposed to question your salvation, even in light of our theological differences.

In light of that, I see no point in continuing any discussion with you.

[Jac3510]

I didn't question your salvation, August. I don't believe the same things you do. If you have trusted Christ alone, apart from your commitment of life and/or repentence of sin, then you are a born again believer and nothing you can do will ever change that. If you have never trusted in the simple message of Christ, then you are lost in your sins. I find it hard to believe you've never done that, although you've not told me of your conversion, so I don't really know. But, what I do know of you is enough that I would wager you are regenerate.

What I DID say was that in YOUR theological system, YOU can't know. That's the nature of Calvinism, August. How do YOU know you will continue in the faith? You said to me, "I believe, based on where I am at, that it is impossible for me to fall from the faith?" But based on what? In my "system" you may fall, but you are still saved. If iin your system you fall, you aren't. So how do you know you won't?

I'm not questioning your salvation. I'm questioning your basis of assurance.

Now, if you want to break fellowship because I have a genuine concern for your assurance, and even more so for the people you teach, then I suppose there is nothing I can do about that. Bet let me say this: I have seen the effects of your belief system in the lives of people. I have watched mothers literally cry themselves to sleep because their children were away from the faith. They weren't persevering, and thus, that was evidence they weren't saved. I have personally lived under the bondage of Lordship Salvation. I have prayed, "Lord, if there is ANY way I'm not saved, please take care of that now." I have lived in fear of hell.

You may be sure of your destination and not have to live with that, August. You may be sure even though your belief system doesn't allow it, as I've tried to demonstrate above. But what about the people you teach? Will they be sure, or will they live in fear of Hell?

I can't think of anything else to say or to do. I'm sorry, August . . . I really am. I believe that all it takes to be saved is to trust Jesus for my salvation, and that nothing I do or don't do will ever change that. I'm sorry, but I believe that Jesus loves people enough to save them even if they refuse to live for them. I believe tht Jesus loves people enough to save them even if the spend the rest of their lives in utter rebellion. And I'm sorry, but it gives me such confidence and freedom! My Christian life is more powerful than ever before, and I find myself in tears thinking about it, and that for the first time in my life. And I'm sorry, but I believe it's wrong to deny anyone that assurance.

[Jbuza]

AMEN

Neither Heaven nor Hell not Angels nor Powers nor anything that is, nor anyhting that is to come can seperate me from my savior's Love. Bless the Lamb of God, Jesus.

Romans 4:5 (Whole Chapter)
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

[puritan lad]

Led,

I haven't attacked you at all. You keep claiming that Calvinist don't care how a person lives or care about spreading the gospel. You've tried to equate Calvinism with some sort of fatalism. In that sense, you obviously have no clue about Calvinism.

Again, your biggest problem is your pet doctrines, not me.