Evidence for God from Science

In this post I have stepped back to analyse the main issues, and the underlying causes for differences in our positions. The main issue being discussed in this thread is the nature of faith. A closely related issue of high importance is that of assurance. So I am going to address these two issues, and perhaps later as time allows, directly respond to your post where a response may still be required.

For starters I want to begin with your statements on faith. You say: “Faith is belief. It is trust. It is assurance. It is being persuaded that something is true.” I want to closely examine what all these descriptions of “faith” actually mean to each of us.

To get to basics, a dictionary definition of “belief” has something along the lines of a conviction, a confidence or “trust” in something. A dictionary definition defines “trust” as 1) hope and a confident expectation of something; and 2) a person on whom or thing on which one relies. Thus, belief and trust appear to be compatible with each other, that is, there is no contradiction between having belief and faith. "Assurance" on the other hand may not be so, as I will cover below.

With this foundation laid I will discuss what I see as being two important issues:

1. From your responses throughout our discussion I have the understanding that you believe one need only “trust” in God's promise. And this “trust in God's promise” is for you equivalent to “trust in Christ”. To make a distinction with my own belief, I see trust in Christ as a deeper and more personal experience involving relation change and reliance upon Christ. This reliance upon Christ I see leads to a trust in God's promise.
   
   Now a repercussion of my position is that for me "trust in Christ" in intimately tied to the nature of a person. Such trust is contingent upon the who a person is, and who a person is, is a dynamic person developing and ever-changing in this world until the day they die. After considering whether you may be deliberately avoiding this anthropology of mine—that who a person is changes throughout their life (which I have stated in many varying ways)—I have come to think it is rather you do not understand the full repercussions of this. For, if my anthropology is correct, then the obvious conclusion as I see it is that the nature of faith is continual since it is based on a dynamic person who continually develops until death. This logic of mine is quite straight forward.
   
   So a question I asked myself is why is this not so obvious to you? My reasoning does not seem clear to you at all, and I give you greater respect than to assume you are deliberately ignoring link between faith and who a person is. After scratching my head for some time I came to see that the lack of comprehension might actually be due to the fact you do not see the nature of faith—belief and trust—as anything more than an intellectual acceptance of a promise. Unlike my own understanding of “belief” and “trust” being a deeper personal change, it is unclear whether your understanding of these terms as being anything more than rational assent requires any change in relational response to Christ. In fact, the bare acceptance of a promise perhaps does not matter to anything personally at all for it is not about us—it is about the promise and ones acceptance of it whether they like Christ who offers it or not.
   
   Thus, I see the core of our disagreement as to whether faith in Christ is continual or once off comes down more to what comprises “belief” and “trust”, and secondly what the target of our belief and trust is—a promise, or Christ Himself. If my belief of “trust in Christ” being a personal and relational affair is correct, then my idea of faith being a personal and continual affair follows. On the other hand, if your idea of faith being a mere acceptance of Christ's promise is correct, then I can certainly understand why you do not comprehend the importance of the nature of a person in having faith. “Who” a person is perhaps matters little to the nature of faith as you understand it, since it is unclear whether a person's belief and trust in a promise (your understanding of “faith”) has any bearing on who they really are as a person.
   
   Now I see several absurdities arise when separating faith from who a person is in such a manner. For example, consider the following scenarios:
   
   1. One absurdity which you have embraced is the scenario of a person who once believing in God's promise, develops into a person who is repulsed by Christ and wants nothing to do with God. When they die, you still see such a person as being “saved” because they had intellectually affirmed Christ's promise at one point in their life. (I see this as a perfect illustration that for you, a person's faith has nothing to do with who they are in response to Christ)
   2. Another absurdity I see is that you would have to embrace the conclusion that a person who hates Christ and yet believes in Christ's promise, that such a person is saved because they believed and had faith is Christ's promise although they never wanted any part of it!
   3. A final absurdity I see can be found in looking to the angelic hosts who turned against God (i.e., demons). Surely they know of Christ's promise and even believe it to be true!? Yet, I feel confident in stating that they are not saved. This absurdity is perhaps easy to deal with if you say Christ's forgiveness or promise is only limited to humanity, but then reasons need to be presented as to why this is so.
   My position on the other hand suffers none of these absurdities for as described above, faith in Christ for my position is intimately tied to who we are and requires a personal change. It is not merely believing or trusting in a certain promise. Perhaps you see these "absurdities" as more reason to embrace your own position since it could highlight salvation as somehow being more secure if it is divorced from “who” we are. I on the other hand see them as reason to reject your position.
   
   Furthermore, I see Scripture does not support the idea of faith, at least a saving faith, being a matter divorced from who we are and a mere an acceptance of a promise to be true. Jesus Himself stated:
   
   • 21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
     22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
     23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
   Surely these people Christ rejects in this passage believed in His promise if they are prophesying in His name, casting out demons and performing many miracles? Yet, Christ never knew them. Such people no doubt affirm Christ and take hold of His promise, but who they were on a more intimate and personal level in relation to Christ was obviously lacking. You see, these false teachers trusted in Christ's promise, but did not trust in Christ Himself. Their belief and trust was intellectual assent, but such was not a deeper heartfelt belief and trust in Christ. This passage contradicts any soteriological position which attempts to separate faith from being rooted in the substance of who we are in response to Christ.
2. Now my second response to your definition of faith relates to where you added “assurance”. The meaning of “assurance” when I look up a dictionary is:
   
   1. to be free from doubt or have full confidence in something, or
   2. a positive declaration to be received from someone which is intended to give confidence.
   Now I see the use of “assurance” in our discussion needs clear defining, for I see it is being used in many varying ways. For example, it is being used to mean:
   
   1. being persuaded of something as being true;
   2. positively knowing something to be true without any possibility of being wrong; and
   3. receiving assurance of a promise.
   Now I agree “assurance” is necessary to the essence of faith in Christ, particularly (1) and (3), however (2) is by no means necessary. Indeed an assurance of having complete knowledge of something (2) is impossible for us to have since we cannot see or know things outside of ourselves in a direct, immediate and objective manner. I see that only God would have such privileged access to certain knowledge.
   
   Now it seems you are holding my position to the criterion of assurance (2), which is impossible to be met on my position, your position or any other position. Yet, then when talking of your own position, you set the bar for assurance much lower to simply being a matter faith and belief which naturally encompasses being persuaded of something. This lower level “assurance” I too see as necessarily bound to faith, and my position fully supports it. On the other hand, a complete assurance of knowing is impossible to have. In the end, it comes down to faith, and by faith I do not necessarily a blind faith, but a faith where we fill in the blanks to absolutely believe what we cannot objectively know. I cannot know objectively that I am saved any more than you can. But we can absolutely believe we are saved without any doubt because we invoke faith to leap the small gap in our knowledge to the most plausible conclusion. This is the full extent of the type of assurance we can have.
   
   Now if you wish to declare my position fails to have a type of “assurance” which provides complete certainty with no possibility of being wrong, then I freely admit that it fails (as I believe every position would fail). Yet, saying this type of assurance is required causes a contradiction if “faith” is also “trust”. For trust involves not having all the answers or solutions, and giving ourselves over to belief in someone or something. To trust in God's promise means to hope in such a promise. While we do have 100% certainty that such a promise really exists (since we do not have a privileged access to be certain of knowledge), despite this, we can still have complete trust in Christ's words and believe them to be true. And if one trusts in Christ's promise, then they cannot have assurance #2 above in Christ's promise for trust is incompatible with assurance #2. A person can be assured of Christ's promise, but they cannot have assurance of Christ's promise (since they lack a privileged direct access to verify such knowledge). The distinction is subtle, but makes a load of difference!
   
   So to summarise what I have said here, to say that “faith” is belief, trust and assurance (in the strict sense of #2 above which you appear to be holding my position to) is contradictory. As I see it, faith can involve having belief and trust, but not assurance (strictly defined) for trust and assurance (strictly defined) do not mix. Again, in trust there is an element of letting go of something we are not fully aware to, but assurance destroys trust for one already knows what they are meant to trust. Thus, it is not possible to trust in Christ and having positive knowledge of what we are meant to trust Christ for.
   
   Now reflecting upon my own position, I see that one can be completely persuaded and justified in the belief that they are saved, even if there is the possibility they are wrong. This type of assurance is the most assurance we can have, and it is furthermore consistent with belief and trust. And I see that my position satisfies this criterion.

Jac3510 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:My objection is that both are needed for salvation, so it's meaningless to say that they are 'alone' in any sense. Grace is as much the means as faith. The whole phrase smacks of jingoistic hair splitting. It doesn't appear anywhere in Scripture. The closest you'll find is 'For by grace you are saved by faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God'. Of course the phrase under question is based on the faulty KJV rendering, so it sounds very different.

Then your objection is misguided. You didn't even reply to the logic of my post. The statement does not say, nor does it even imply, that grace is the only thing that saves, AND faith is the only thing that saves, AND Christ is the only thing that saves. The statement says that the SOLE BASIS of salvation is grace. Faith, Fortigurn, is not the basis of salvation. Jesus is not the basis of salvation. Grace is. Grace only. Unmerited favor. Salvation comes by NOTHING ELSE except by grace ALONE. So, in the words of one man I highly respect, "God saves by grace or not at all."

I'm going to suggest respectfully that you read what I wrote again. The Bible does not say that grace is the sole basis of salvation. If that were true then faith would be utterly unnecessary, and so would Christ. In fact we should become Universalists.

Second, the SOLE MEANS by which that grace is appropriated is faith. Grace cannot be appropriated by faith plus anything else.

If the Bible actually said this, I would agree with you.

Now, there is absolutely nothing contradictory with the statement I said above. Suppose I have a flat tire. I want to fill it up. So, I say that I want ONLY air in the tire. The ONLY way to get it into the tire, though, is through the air valve. So we can say the tire is filled by air alone through the valve alone. I shouldn't need to belabor the point to explain how this works with "in Christ alone."

This is simple grammar, and you are simply wrong.

I've explained why this is grammatically a hairsplit. I haven't claimed that your grammar is wrong, only that it's a hairsplit. I've also pointed out that it leads to the very contradiction you want to avoid. I went through this in my last post, but this example might be more accessible. Let grace be 'air', and faith be 'the valve'. Since you're a person who also believes we are saved 'by faith alone', then you have just told me this:

* We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by faith alone

So in other words you've told me this:

* The tyre is filled by air alone, through the valve alone, by the valve alone

That simply doesn't make any sense.

But as I said previously, you haven't responded to my actual objection. My objection is that the text simply doesn't say that grace is the 'by' faith is the 'through', and nor does it say we are saved 'by grace alone, through faith alone'. That's the point. This has nothing to do with a theological preconception, it has to do with me simply reading the text, which says we are saved by grace, by faith. That's two uses of the word 'by'.

More to the point, it's obvious that you are objecting because you have some preconceived theological notion you want to get in. So rather than argue the grammar of the sentence, then explain why it is that you don't agree that salvation is by grace alone.

As I've explained this has nothing to do with any preconceived theological notion. I object to the claim that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, because the Bible says no such thing. The words simply aren't in the book. This is a twisting of what Ephesians 2:8 actually says. It's taking a phrase which exists in the Bible, and rephrasing it so that it says something else.

Now, as it happens, let's look at your statement to Canuckster:

You wrote:The Bible says 'For by grace you are saved by faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God'. It says nothing about us being saved by grace but through faith, and it certainly doesn't say anything about us being saved by grace alone and through faith alone. Nor of course does it say anything about us being saved by faith alone.

Again, you are simply incorrect. If you read Greek, then you know you are wrong. Of course, we all know the verse in question is Ephesians 2:8.

I do read Greek, and I do not believe I am wrong. On the contrary, I see this instead:

My translation: "For by grace you are saved through faith."

I think the modern translations have Eph 2:8 wrong here.

With respect, you're asking me to accept that your translation skills are superior to those responsible for 'the modern translations'. To put it politely, I see no evidence for this. You are telling me 'If you read Greek, then you know you are wrong', yet professional Bible translators with years of proficiency in Greek do not agree with your translation, and do not seem to know that they are wrong. I suggest your quarrel is with them not me. I suggest you take this to a professional Bible translation and/or Biblical Greek list. The two premier lists are B-Greek and B-Trans. I have been a member of these lists for some years. I suggest you post your translation and see if it stands up to professional scrutiny. When you have done so, get back to me.

Again, you are simply factually incorrect to say that the Bible does not teach that we are saved by grace (alone) THROUGH faith (alone).

Just give me chapter and verse please, that's all I ask for. Even if I accept your translation of Ephesians 2:8, it says nothing about grace or faith being alone.

Further, James 2:24 contrasts are justification before men, which is by works alone, with our justification before God, which is by faith alone.

Where does James 2:24 say that Abraham was justified before men? When I read the Bible I don't find a single verse which says that. I find that Abraham was justified before God. God is the one recorded as justifying him. Far from 'faith alone' being the way we are saved, James says that faith alone is the way to death.

Kurieuo wrote:My position on the other hand suffers none of these absurdities for as described above, faith in Christ for my position is intimately tied to who we are and requires a personal change. It is not merely believing or trusting in a certain promise. Perhaps you see these "absurdities" as more reason to embrace your own position since it could highlight salvation as somehow being more secure if it is divorced from “who” we are. I on the other hand see them as reason to reject your position.

Furthermore, I see Scripture does not support the idea of faith, at least a saving faith, being a matter divorced from who we are and a mere an acceptance of a promise to be true. Jesus Himself stated:

• 21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
  22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
  23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Surely these people Christ rejects in this passage believed in His promise if they are prophesying in His name, casting out demons and performing many miracles? Yet, Christ never knew them. Such people no doubt affirm Christ and take hold of His promise, but who they were on a more intimate and personal level in relation to Christ was obviously lacking. You see, these false teachers trusted in Christ's promise, but did not trust in Christ Himself. Their belief and trust was intellectual assent, but such was not a deeper heartfelt belief and trust in Christ. This passage contradicts any soteriological position which attempts to separate faith from being rooted in the substance of who we are in response to Christ.[/list]

Now reflecting upon my own position, I see that one can be completely persuaded and justified in the belief that they are saved, even if there is the possibility they are wrong. This type of assurance is the most assurance we can have, and it is furthermore consistent with belief and trust. And I see that my position satisfies this criterion.

A few highlights from a very good post.

Fortigurn wrote:A few highlights from a very good post.

Thanks. I will take all positive comments I can get since they may be few a far between...

K - I was going to wait a while to reply to yours, but unfortunately, my schedule for the next three days is going to be hectic, so I'm going to try to get you, Fortigurn, and ttoews all in now

First off, outstanding post in general. The layout was even very pretty I'll reply by sticking with the two topics we've been talking about, and I'll do what I can to follow up on your thought process here.

1. Regarding the nature of faith, let me say that I think you have a pretty good understanding of my position. You may have the object of faith a little bit confused, but for what it is worth, that's debated even in my own circles. The nature, though, I believe you have rightly understood. Secondly, I believe that I have understood the nature of faith as you have described it. I have just not been offering my critiques in a very clear fashion. It is not that I have been avoiding your claim that faith is directly tied to the nature of a person. Far from it, in discussing your position, I have tried to assume it is true, especially with regard to the doctrine of assurance. In fact, it is precisely your on view that I have based my entire argument regarding assurance.

But, so as not to assume anything, you are saying that faith in Christ is actually a change in orientation towards Him. That is, it is the establishment of a relationship--a positive one, at that--and it is through that relationship that Christ saves us. From that perspective, if a person develops into the type of person who wants nothing to do with Christ, then it logically follows that they never had a "real" relationship with Jesus in the first place. Psychologically, if I can extrapolate a bit from your view, it would be that they had a "relationship" with a "Jesus" of their own creation. In any case, the point is the same. "Faith" is not intellectual assent. It is a personal relationship. So when the Bible says that we are saved by grace through faith, you see the relationship as the means by which God saves.

Again, that has been my understanding of your position for some time. I suppose I should have articulated that more clearly. Further, it is obvious that you and I have very different definitions of faith! Since for me faith is the conviction something is true, it logically follows that their must be a proposition that we may regard as true. Since for you faith is more about the relationship, it follows that I must believe that Jesus is trustworthy. "Who" I am matters a great deal, then, in your scheme of things. It obviously has absolutely no bearing on my own.

Let me, then, deal with the absurdities you suggested in my position. I'll then offer what I see to be problems with your own.

• One absurdity which you have embraced is the scenario of a person who once believing in God's promise, develops into a person who is repulsed by Christ and wants nothing to do with God. When they die, you still see such a person as being “saved” because they had intellectually affirmed Christ's promise at one point in their life. (I see this as a perfect illustration that for you, a person's faith has nothing to do with who they are in response to Christ)

This is exactly what I believe. Now, from your vantage point, this is, of course, an absurdity. But if I may remind you of your own words, "positions ought to be judged on their own consistency and merit and not on whether or not they lead to a more desirable conclusion." Let me demonstrate on two grounds that it is anything but absurd in my own view of things.

First, as I have already said, I do not see salvation as something effected by my own desires. I am not saved because I want to be, nor am I not saved because I do not want to be. I am saved because God wanted to, or didn't want to, save me. Said still differently, my choice has absolutely no bearing on my own salvation. What matters is God's choice. Now, I see that from your side of the aisle, that's silly, because salvation is about the relationship. But let's entertain the idea that salvation is not about the relationship. Allow me to suggest that salvation is solely the work of God, and that we have no part in it. Do note that I do not believe that we are saved because we believe. The moment we believe, we have not "paid the requested price" so to speak and in some way purchased our salvation. God has simply decided, in His own sovereignty, that He will save those who believe Him.

Let's use a Scriptural example to back this up. Genesis 15:6 says that Abraham was saved because He believed God. Now, the text does NOT say that Abraham believed in God for everlasting life. It does NOT say that Abraham was even aware that God had justified him. It's like the story of Job. For all we know, and in fact most likely, Job died completely ignorant of Satan's role in his calamities. All God asked of Job was for Job to trust Him. All God asked of Abraham was for Abraham to trust Him. All God asks of us is that we trust Him. What He does with that trust is His business, not ours. It so happens that He justifies those who believe Him. Further, it so happens that by His grace, He has chosen to let us know that is the case.

The second reason this is not absurd in my position is still more theological. I believe that when a person believes God told the truth about His Son Jesus Christ, then they are "born again." Again, just as I did not decide to be born physically, it was not my decision to be born spiritually. My parents made the first choice. God made the second. Still, when I was born physically, I received something--a life. I received a body and a nature. Sadly, that body and nature I received are those of Adam. I have a fallen, cursed body, with a nature bent to the self. I have no inherent desire to please God, and any desire to please Him in my fallen condition is in reality a desire to please myself. I am depraved. A beautiful thing happened, though, when I was saved. When I believed God told the truth about Jesus, I had a second birth, this one spiritual. Just as before, not by my own will, I received a nature. A further consequence of this birth is that I will receive a body consistent with that nature, but that will be at my glorification (or "adoption" as Paul puts it in Rom 8:23.

It is important to note that this new nature did not eradicate the old nature. That is what progressive sanctification is all about. Indeed, it could not, because my old nature is directly tied to this old body. So long as I have this body, I will have this sinful nature. But there resides within me a man who is not of this body, who is "born from above," and he has no desire to please the self. His desire is the same as that of Christ - it is only to please God.

I now have two natures at war within myself. Paul recounts this struggle in Rom 7:14ff. John talks about it in 1 John 3:6, 9. The sad truth is that this new nature is not guaranteed to win control of my life on this side of the grave. I may actually decide not to put off the old man and instead walk in the flesh. The flesh hates God, so I see no reason that the flesh may not go to its grave hating God. Without progressive sanctification, I may well die in a state of apostasy. But the good news is that the only thing that died is my old man, my old body. I will still stand in Jesus' presence as the new man, albeit in shame for allowing the old man to dominate me throughout my life. He will wipe away my tears and embrace me. I am truly saved. So then in my view there is absolutely no reason to talk of a person being with God who does not want to be there.

• Another absurdity I see is that you would have to embrace the conclusion that a person who hates Christ and yet believes in Christ's promise, that such a person is saved because they believed and had faith is Christ's promise although they never wanted any part of it!

It should clear from the above discussion that this, too, is not an absurdity in my position, but only from your own vantage point. If it is not clear, let me know and I will elaborate.

• A final absurdity I see can be found in looking to the angelic hosts who turned against God (i.e., demons). Surely they know of Christ's promise and even believe it to be true!? Yet, I feel confident in stating that they are not saved. This absurdity is perhaps easy to deal with if you say Christ's forgiveness or promise is only limited to humanity, but then reasons need to be presented as to why this is so.

You are right that I believe that salvation is not offered to the demons. Scripturally, this goes back to my eschatology. I am very open about the fact that I believe that eschatology comes first, not last, in systematic theology. The Bible is not a book on how to be saved, nor even on how to live a good life. It is, first and foremost, a book that details God's plan concerning His Kingdom.

Briefly, God created the universe, and specifically earth, to rule over it. That ruling, though, has two aspects. There is the absolute sovereign rule that He maintains even today, which is demonstrated in the fact that He is Elohim and Theos. There is also, however, what I call His "Covenantal Kingdom," by which He wishes to rule the earth through His covenant with mankind. This was first set in place in Gen 1:26-28. Sadly, it was broken at the Fall, and from that time on, Satan has had possession of the Covenantal Kingdom while God has maintained His position has the Universal King. Jesus Christ came to remedy that. Through the long history of the Old Testament, God prepared a way to realign the Universal and Covenantal Kingdoms, which required the redemption of mankind. Jesus came, first and foremost, as that King. One of His tasks was to make atonement for sin, but that was not His only, nor even primary, job. Jesus exists--and has always existed--to rule and to reign. Thus, as a human being, God has reestablished the Covenental Kingdom and the Universal Kingdom. Therefore, Jesus guarantees that everyone believes in Him, He will raise them up on the last day. It is here that I believe most people have their idea of salvation very wrong.

Salvation, in the Christian sense of the word, is directly tied to the final resurrection of the saints into the eternal, Covenantal Kingdom. That is why belief in the Resurrection of Jesus is necessary for salvation (something I've only recently come to see is required by my own position). When we believe that God has risen Jesus from the dead (Rom 10:9-10, in the sense Paul has described in chapters 1-9), we are actually affirming the reality of the final resurrection. Jesus is that resurrection. He is the first to take part in it. Therefore, by His promise, we know that we, too, will take part in it.

Thus, at the last day, we see that Jesus returns and sets up His final, earthly Kingdom, from which He will fulfill the will of God first set foreword in Gen 1:26. God desires to reign through man. It is immediately obvious that while angels may have a role in the Kingdom, their role is not that of rulership. And since rulership is what we are redeemed for--indeed, that is what the resurrection is about--then this salvation cannot be offered to angels or demons. Their own "salvation," as best we can tell, was rooted in a test very similar to Adam's. Either they chose to follow God or rebel against Him. If they chose the former, they were sealed in righteousness, just as Adam would have been. If they chose the latter, they fell. Sadly, for them, no redemption is possible.

So, it should again be clear that none of the absurdities you see in my position are there. Of course, in accepting my position you would have to accept several other ideas, but I am totally ok with that. I don't see salvation as the central theme of the Bible. The Kingdom is, and salvation, for me, is defined as our entrance into it.

Finally, before I move on to my own problems with your view, I'll answer to your exegesis of Matthew 7.

You say that "urely these people Christ rejects in this passage believed in His promise if they are prophesying in His name, casting out demons and performing many miracles? Yet, Christ never knew them." I would argue this is exactly not the case. Do remember that Jesus is talking to Pharisees who believed you had to work for you salvation. If I am good enough, if I keep the law, then I will be justified before God. The people in this passage have the same problem. Notice that they refer to Jesus as "Lord." They are, as you seem to note, professing believers. The problem is this: "What have they believed?" They tell us in that passage. They want to be justified because they did many great works in the name of Christ, but He rejects them. Why? Because you can live your life for Jesus all you want, and living your life for Him has no bearing on your eternal destiny. As I say very often to my church, "What bearing does your behavior have on your salvation?"

In fact, these people never believed the simple promise of Jesus. And because of that, they stand condemned before Him on judgment day.

I then see two problems with your view of faith. The first I'll discuss here, and the second I'll discuss under assurance below. The first problem is simply that I do not see how a fallen person can establish a relationship with Jesus Christ. Calvinists are exactly right to point out that man, in our current condition, are both incapable of and uninterested in submission to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Such a relationship cannot be established except by God's own will. Their solution is to make faith a gift. My solution is that God chooses to establish such a relationship with those who believe He told the truth. But you would have me believe that I, myself--that is, my fallen man--would have to develop in such a way that I long for that relationship. Through progressive sanctification, the end result would be that I am trusting in Jesus' person. To me, that is both absurd and dangerous. But from your vantage point, I just don't see how it works theologically. How can you say that a fallen, depraved man is capable of being in a relationship with Jesus Christ? I don't see how your position doesn't result in the Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness rather than the protestant (and dare I say biblical) doctrine of imputed righteousness.

In fact, this seems to go right to the core of our issue. I believe that righteousness is imputed all at one time regardless of my past, present, or future behavior. Yet you seem to believe that a person must somehow, in someway, die in a "righteous" state, as the type of person who loves Jesus. I assume you recognize the reality of the Fall and progressive sanctification, so I can see no distinction between your view of salvation and the doctrine of infused righteousness, especially considering your appeal to one's personal relationship with God through Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------

2. Assurance - I was going to handle this now, but I've run out of time. I know the length is more than needed, but I want to be very clear on all of these issues. I'll explain my view of assurance more clearly probably late tonight. In the meantime, can you tell me how it is that you have assurance (in your own context) but that Barker did not? Of if yours and Barker's assurance were the same, how is it that you can say that you are certain you are saved? That's what I keep getting hung up on.

Thanks

Furthermore, I see Scripture does not support the idea of faith, at least a saving faith, being a matter divorced from who we are and a mere an acceptance of a promise to be true. Jesus Himself stated:


21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'


Surely these people Christ rejects in this passage believed in His promise if they are prophesying in His name, casting out demons and performing many miracles? Yet, Christ never knew them. Such people no doubt affirm Christ and take hold of His promise, but who they were on a more intimate and personal level in relation to Christ was obviously lacking. You see, these false teachers trusted in Christ's promise, but did not trust in Christ Himself. Their belief and trust was intellectual assent, but such was not a deeper heartfelt belief and trust in Christ. This passage contradicts any soteriological position which attempts to separate faith from being rooted in the substance of who we are in response to Christ.

First I would not necessarily say that they believed in his promise. It seems to me they were relying on their works (prophesying, casting out demons, miracles,etc...)to get them to heaven.

Second, if you look at the context of the scripture in the verses above Jesus was referring to false prophets. These were people that were teaching incorrect doctrine (PRACTICING LAWLESSNESS).

Third, the phrase "but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." Identifies who will enter heaven. SO, what is the will of the father? It is defined in John 6:38-40

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of HIM that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And just a few verses later.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

And I do not believe I have taken these verses out of context. I read through the whole chapter again just to make sure.

Fortigurn,
I think it is obvious throughout scripture that we are saved by grace and we have access to this grace through faith. Romans 5:1 even comes more to the point saying that we are justified by faith.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

And what is Therefore, there for from the end of Romans 4:

Romans 4:20-25
20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Although you seem to agree with Kurieuo, I would think that he believes that we are saved by grace through faith, and that we cannot add anything to this. The discussion that He and Jac are having are about what does faith consist of.
We cannot add anything to that faith. I think the real question being discussed in this thread is whether saving faith always necessarily produces some type of action. And if so what would that action be. And is it always the same with every person. Can that act of faith be something as simple as a prayer or an internal revelation of understanding? And where does repentance fit into the scheme of faith?

But, by all means, it is only faith in Christ through which we have access to the grace of God that saves us.

The only possible verses that I see could possibly be interpreted as having to add something to faith for salvation would be James 2:14-20. But if you look at these verse closely you will notice that he call the people he is speaking to "Brethren". These are saved people. Even at the beginning of the epistle, he states the purpose of his letter: his focus is on the perfecting of their faith.

2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

These verses are all about sanctification, not justification.

But then of course you might state that all who are justified are being sanctified and will be glorified.
Then you might say if one is not being sanctified then he must have never been justified. And this is where there is great confusion. What does it mean to be sanctified? How many different ways does God sanctify his people?

But Romans 8:29-30
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Of course it does not specifically use the word "sanctified" here.
But lets assume that the phrase "to be conformed to the image of his Son" is equivalent to being sanctified. I personally believe it is more in line to being "glorified". But for the sake of argument I'll go with the meaning as being sanctified.

Sanctification is part of the salvation process, so Sanctification is also by grace through faith. And faith is taking the word of God over our own and obeying it. But some people's faith are more mature than others. Some people never get out of the infant stage and are only thirsty for milk, and never move into the meat of scripture, because they haven't been weaned off of the milk. They may still live in the world. God is sanctifying them by allowing the reaping of their sinful actions to move them to a closer relationship with Christ, so it may not necessarily be an enjoyable sanctification. And it may be that they go to church and serve, but there service will be tried by fire and burned up because it was not done with the correct motive. But they will still be saved. I think 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 speaks of this specifically. These people may even come to the point where God will take them "out of service" (so to speak). It could be that God will just no longer work through them or God may allow them to die because they are no longer serving His purpose. I think John calls this the "sin unto death" in 1 John 5:15-16.

1 Corinthians 3
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

And logically speaking, it would make sense that if a man's work abides for him to receive a reward, then it must be that some are sanctified with a different temporal result than others, or else all people would receive the same reward. And there are several references to some being greater in the kingdom of heaven. And scripture also compares us to stars of which some will shine brighter than others.

So if we try to look at ones degree of sanctification to determine salvation, we will only start confusing ourselves and become depressed and start doubting if we were ever justified in the first place. But if we always look to Christ and know that we have trusted Him, we have no doubt that we are justified. And if we are maturing by having studied scripture enough, then we know that we are being sanctified. But the really cool part of this is that when you start actually looking to Christ and focusing on Christ, then you are beginning to mature as a Christian and you will see God working through you in the most glorious ways that you thought you could never do. And you would be right (that you could never do them), because it is not you doing anything, it is God.

Simply: The maturing Christian mostly enjoys his sanctification process and God works through him. The immature Christian does not realize he is being sanctified and may not enjoy it. He may just think it is bad luck, until he starts maturing by learning scripture and then he can look back on his life and see how God was moving in his life. Sadly, though many Christians never start maturing before they die. And I think convention wisdom would agree that no Christian fully matures during this life. They will always be continually maturing.

I did not intend to go so long, but it helped me to write it all out.

In Christ,
Jeff

Excellent post, Jeff. Very nicely put.

Question:

Has anyone heard of the difference between static faith and living faith?

Next Question:

We talk much about Grace being a Gift - what therefore is the Gift?
-
-
-

YLTYLT wrote:

Furthermore, I see Scripture does not support the idea of faith, at least a saving faith, being a matter divorced from who we are and a mere an acceptance of a promise to be true. Jesus Himself stated:


21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'


Surely these people Christ rejects in this passage believed in His promise if they are prophesying in His name, casting out demons and performing many miracles? Yet, Christ never knew them. Such people no doubt affirm Christ and take hold of His promise, but who they were on a more intimate and personal level in relation to Christ was obviously lacking. You see, these false teachers trusted in Christ's promise, but did not trust in Christ Himself. Their belief and trust was intellectual assent, but such was not a deeper heartfelt belief and trust in Christ. This passage contradicts any soteriological position which attempts to separate faith from being rooted in the substance of who we are in response to Christ.

First I would not necessarily say that they believed in his promise. It seems to me they were relying on their works (prophesying, casting out demons, miracles,etc...)to get them to heaven.

Second, if you look at the context of the scripture in the verses above Jesus was referring to false prophets. These were people that were teaching incorrect doctrine (PRACTICING LAWLESSNESS).

Third, the phrase "but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." Identifies who will enter heaven. SO, what is the will of the father? It is defined in John 6:38-40

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of HIM that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And just a few verses later.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

And I do not believe I have taken these verses out of context. I read through the whole chapter again just to make sure.

Perhaps I was going too far "left" or "right" (depending on which side one is looking from ), but I think it is good you put some alignment to my words as this allows me to clarify the core issue. I do not believe the issue is what you identify here of something extra being added to belief. Rather the issue is what belief itself entails, and secondly the object of such belief (a promise, or Christ).

I think it is extremely important to recognise that there is a difference between what Jac sees as belief with regards to "faith in Christ" and what I see as belief in regards to "faith in Christ"(unless he has made corrections in how I perceive his position in his last post which I am yet to read). Jac has written that "faith, for [him], is believing a proposition is true." Given this, it could still be the case that although they may be false prophets and practicing lawlessness, that they still believe Christ's promise to be true. I mean the "false prophets" in the passage I quoted are even portrayed as being surprised when Christ denies them access to His promise of salvation. So when I say "surely these people believed in Christ's promise" I am simply saying surely they believed it to be true. And so according to Jac's understanding of belief, these people ought to still be saved. Yet, Christ gives a different take which I see is more aligned with my understanding of a deeper heart-felt belief.

My idea of belief is not simply intellectual assent to Christ's promise, or for that matter intellectual assent to any truths taught by Christ. Rather belief (and trust) involves a deeper personal change - a relational change in response to Christ. The difference can be highlighted where I explain an absurd belief (as I see it) which follows from Jac's idea of belief:

the conclusion [would need to be embraced] that a person who hates Christ and yet believes in Christ's promise, that such a person is saved because they believed and had faith is Christ's promise although they never wanted any part of it!

For me on the other hand, belief and trust (faith) in Christ is also a heart response and so runs much deeper. If one has faith in Christ, such to me means they not only accept His promise, but that they love Christ. Who a person is in response to Christ changes. Their heart no longer finds Christ distasteful or unimportant, but rather desires to be in relations with and partake of Christ.

It is an important issue you raise, but hopefully I have here clarified any miscommunication on my own part.

B. W. wrote:Question:

Has anyone heard of the difference between static faith and living faith?

Next Question:

We talk much about Grace being a Gift - what therefore is the Gift?
-
-
-

Eternal life?

Romans 3:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Just want to deal with the first part of your post as I am happy that although we may not be agreeing with each other, that we have been able to strike at the core of our differences behind our beliefs and reasoning.

Jac3510 wrote:Regarding the nature of faith, let me say that I think you have a pretty good understanding of my position. You may have the object of faith a little bit confused, but for what it is worth, that's debated even in my own circles. The nature, though, I believe you have rightly understood.

Phew. I hate to misportray positions, and thought I may have been setting up a strawman. So I am glad I portrayed your position fairly accurately (acknowledging I may have got the object of faith confused in your postion, albeit this is debated in your own camp as I can certainly understand it would be).

Jac3510 wrote:Further, it is obvious that you and I have very different definitions of faith! Since for me faith is the conviction something is true, it logically follows that their must be a proposition that we may regard as true. Since for you faith is more about the relationship, it follows that I must believe that Jesus is trustworthy. "Who" I am matters a great deal, then, in your scheme of things. It obviously has absolutely no bearing on my own.

I think this then pretty much wraps of our differences.

If you are correct in faith having no bearing on who we are, then I would agree that faith (and belief) is a once off event and essentially all the other conclusions you draw make entire sense! On the other hand, if I am correct that belief runs much deeper to have a bearing on who we are, then faith is a continual affair since our development of who we are is a continual affair in this temporal world we live within.

I would be happy to leave this particular topic at that, but it would be good to tie up any related discussions so I will get to the rest of your post later.

Jac3510 wrote:2. Assurance - I was going to handle this now, but I've run out of time. I know the length is more than needed, but I want to be very clear on all of these issues. I'll explain my view of assurance more clearly probably late tonight. In the meantime, can you tell me how it is that you have assurance (in your own context) but that Barker did not? Of if yours and Barker's assurance were the same, how is it that you can say that you are certain you are saved? That's what I keep getting hung up on.

Feel free to leave this until I respond - I have run out of time too.

YLTYLT wrote:First I would not necessarily say that they believed in his promise. It seems to me they were relying on their works (prophesying, casting out demons, miracles,etc...)to get them to heaven.

Non-believers are given the power to prophesy, cast out demons, and perform miracles?

Second, if you look at the context of the scripture in the verses above Jesus was referring to false prophets. These were people that were teaching incorrect doctrine (PRACTICING LAWLESSNESS).

It doesn't say that these people are false prophets. Sometimes the verse just before a verse under discussion is actually talking about a different subject. Since when did God give power to false prophets to prophesy, cast out demons, and perform miracles?

Third, the phrase "but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." Identifies who will enter heaven. SO, what is the will of the father? It is defined in John 6:38-40

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of HIM that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And just a few verses later.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

And I do not believe I have taken these verses out of context. I read through the whole chapter again just to make sure.

I don't believe you've taken them out of the context of the chapter, I believe you've just chosen them whilst dismissing every other passage which speaks of salvation.

Fortigurn,
I think it is obvious throughout scripture that we are saved by grace and we have access to this grace through faith.

That faith is necessary is not under dispute. That only faith is necessary, is under dispute.

Although you seem to agree with Kurieuo, I would think that he believes that we are saved by grace through faith, and that we cannot add anything to this. The discussion that He and Jac are having are about what does faith consist of.

The way I read Kurieuo, he is saying that we are saved by grace through faith, not by our works. I agree with that. But he is also saying that this faith constitutes a response from us which involves a change of our ways, which I also agree with and which others here deny.

We cannot add anything to that faith. I think the real question being discussed in this thread is whether saving faith always necessarily produces some type of action. And if so what would that action be. And is it always the same with every person. Can that act of faith be something as simple as a prayer or an internal revelation of understanding? And where does repentance fit into the scheme of faith?

According to Scripture, true faith is discernable by works. Those without works are dead.

The only possible verses that I see could possibly be interpreted as having to add something to faith for salvation would be James 2:14-20. But if you look at these verse closely you will notice that he call the people he is speaking to "Brethren". These are saved people. Even at the beginning of the epistle, he states the purpose of his letter: his focus is on the perfecting of their faith.

Of course he's speaking to saved people. That doesn't change the fact that faith alone is dead.

These verses are all about sanctification, not justification.

But chapter 2 isn't just about 'sanctification', it's about justification. The rest of the argument over 'sanctification' and 'justification' is an unfortunate product of the legalistic thinking of the Reformers, who wanted to write down a formal set of rules for how people were saved, a strict step-by-step process which had to be followed, but which had to be described in a way which made it different to the Roman Catholic method. I don't have time for legalistic wranglings and hairsplits such as those.

It's a lot simpler, according to the apostles. What must I do to be saved? Repent and be baptized.

Fortigurn wrote:According to Scripture, true faith is discernable by works. Those without works are dead.

First, It seems the way you have describe this scripture, it sounds like you are saying that the people are dead. It only says their faith is dead. I am sure thats not what you meant. Right?

Second, I will agree works can be a possible indication of salvation. But it seems to me you are saying that we must have faith plus something. Any good work that we do is the result of faith, not something we add to it. But faith comes from hearing the Word. If you have not heard (or read) the all the scriptures, you can act in faith on those things which you have heard. A new Christian, has heard the Gospel, believes it is true, and only knows that to be saved he must call upon the name of the LORD (Romans 10:13), trusting Christ to save him. This may be all he knows of scripture. And until he is saved he does not have the Holy Spirit within him to even discern the meaning of other scriptures that teach the deeper doctrines.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So you cannot look at the life of a professed believer, and determine just because they are living like the world they must not be saved. It could very well be that they are just not mature in their faith because they have not studied the Word, and so not having heard the word, they could not possibly receive faith so that they could take the word of God over their own and obey it.

Thirdly, It cannot be a definite indication of salvation. There are many people out there that do many great, wonderful, unselfish and caring deeds, that have a very different concept of how salvation is obtained.

Fourth, If you are to say that we must add works to our faith or even that faith always necessarily must result in works, then which works? How much is enough? Have you ever known a Christian that obeyed every precept of the Bible all the time? Of course not. I highly suspect that most, if not all Christians, do not always do what they know from scripture that they are supposed to do. So when this happens, their faith has no life, but this does not mean non existent. This only means that it is not being used or is unprofitable. When we realize that we have sinned, we can confess our sins to God and get back into fellowship. I believe that it is very likely that the Holy Spirit will not work through us again until we get back into fellowship through this confession.

2 Corinthians 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Finally, Grace is all we need. The reason we do good works is because the grace we receive through faith. Works is not something we add to faith. It is initial faith only that justifies us. There could be a simple action, which can be different for every person it might be baptism, a prayer, just humbling yourself before God, The Act the Abraham did, the act of Rahab), that shows evidence of your initial faith. But it is only through the initial faith in the Gospel message (death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) being true that we received the grace to be saved and were justified. To say otherwise would completely reject too many other verses in scripture. Even though James could be interpreted as you have claimed, in light of the rest of scripture, I believe the interpretation you describe for James must be discounted.

It is the by grace we are sanctified through our Growth in faith.

YLTYLT wrote:First, It seems the way you have describe this scripture, it sounds like you are saying that the people are dead. It only says their faith is dead. I am sure thats not what you meant. Right?

I am saying that since their faith is dead, they are dead. You can't live with dead faith.

Second, I will agree works can be a possible indication of salvation.

That's a generous concession.

But it seems to me you are saying that we must have faith plus something.

And? Is this a problem?

Any good work that we do is the result of faith, not something we add to it.

I agree. So 'faith alone' is meaningless. True faith is never alone.

But faith comes from hearing the Word. If you have not heard (or read) the all the scriptures, you can act in faith on those things which you have heard. A new Christian, has heard the Gospel, believes it is true, and only knows that to be saved he must call upon the name of the LORD (Romans 10:13), trusting Christ to save him. This may be all he knows of scripture.

If that is all he knows of Scripture, then he does not know the gospel. Read through Romans 10, and you'll find Paul's point is that unless the person knows who they are supposed to be calling on, they can't call on them. And they won't know who they're supposed to be calling on unless someone preaches the gospel.

And until he is saved he does not have the Holy Spirit within him to even discern the meaning of other scriptures that teach the deeper doctrines.

Where in the Bible are we told that this secret knowledge is available only to those who have the Holy Spirit? I don't read that anywhere. I read in the Bible that people repented and were baptized without the Holy Spirit. They heard the gospel, they searched the Scriptures, they converted, that was it.

So you cannot look at the life of a professed believer, and determine just because they are living like the world they must not be saved.

Really? Let's see what Paul has to say:

Galatians 5:
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

Agree or disagree?

Again:

Ephesians 2:
1 And although you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
2 in which you formerly lived according to this world's present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience,
3 among whom all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest…

Agree or disagree?

Again:

1 Peter 4:
1 So, since Christ suffered in the flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same attitude, because the one who has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin,
2 in that he spends the rest of his time on earth concerned about the will of God and not human desires.
3 For the time that has passed was sufficient for you to do what the non-Christians desire. You lived then in debauchery, evil desires, drunkenness, carousing, drinking bouts, and wanton idolatries.
4 So they are astonished when you do not rush with them into the same flood of wickedness, and they vilify you.

Agree or disagree?

It's quite clear. Paul identifies these as non-Christian practices. Those who indulge in them will not enter the Kingdom of God. Sure, you can try to front up to Jesus and say 'Well I had faith alone, so yeah, basically a free pass to do all this stuff and get into heaven, step aside you're in my way', but I don't think you'll get very far.

It could very well be that they are just not mature in their faith because they have not studied the Word, and so not having heard the word, they could not possibly receive faith so that they could take the word of God over their own and obey it.

Unless they are producing fruit, the seed in them is barren. Unless they have changed, there has been no repentance. Unless their faith is manifested by works, it is dead. There are no two ways about it. True Christians are identified by the new life.

Thirdly, It cannot be a definite indication of salvation. There are many people out there that do many great, wonderful, unselfish and caring deeds, that have a very different concept of how salvation is obtained.

I agree. Christ makes that point very well when he says there will be many who have done great works in his name and yet will not be saved. So the presence of good works is not necessarily an indication of salvation. But the complete absence of good works is necessarily an indication of damnation.

Fourth, If you are to say that we must add works to our faith or even that faith always necessarily must result in works, then which works? How much is enough? Have you ever known a Christian that obeyed every precept of the Bible all the time? Of course not.

These are questions only a legalist would ask. They are in fact almost word for word what the Pharisees asked Christ. They asked him 'Which works?', and they asked him 'How much is enough?'. The simple answer to 'Which works?' is 'Jesus', and the simple answer to 'How much is enough?' is 'Whatever you can bring'.

Christians do not have to obey every precept of the Bible all the time to be saved. God knows we can't do that. That's what grace is for. This is what I find time and time again, that people who believe in salvation by faith alone, without the necessity for repentance and good works, do not understand grace. They always speak in legalistic terms of working and earning. That's the unfortunate legacy of the environment in which the doctrine was first invented.

I highly suspect that most, if not all Christians, do not always do what they know from scripture that they are supposed to do. So when this happens, their faith has no life, but this does not mean non existent. This only means that it is not being used or is unprofitable.

Scripture please. James says that their faith is dead. Exactly how that could possibly means 'They still have the faith they always had' is difficult to understand.

When we realize that we have sinned, we can confess our sins to God and get back into fellowship. I believe that it is very likely that the Holy Spirit will not work through us again until we get back into fellowship through this confession.

Well at least you believe in confession and repentance. Though why you think this is necessary since you believe we are saved by faith alone, I'm not sure.

Finally, Grace is all we need.

Scripture please. If grace is all we need, there would be no need to preach or learn the gospel.

The reason we do good works is because the grace we receive through faith.

If you mean that the grace of God inspires us to good works as a product of our faith, I agree.

Works is not something we add to faith. It is initial faith only that justifies us. There could be a simple action, which can be different for every person it might be baptism, a prayer, just humbling yourself before God, The Act the Abraham did, the act of Rahab), that shows evidence of your initial faith.

You come very close to agreeing with James and Paul here, but swerve away at the last minute. The fact is that true faith has works. It always has works. Not just an indication of 'initial faith', but a living faith which continues.

But it is only through the initial faith in the Gospel message (death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) being true that we received the grace to be saved and were justified.

Only through the initial faith, and not through anything we did to show our faith?

To say otherwise would completely reject too many other verses in scripture.

Such as?

Even though James could be interpreted as you have claimed, in light of the rest of scripture, I believe the interpretation you describe for James must be discounted.

How can you do that when that's clearly what James is saying? Which passages of Scripture do you believe contradict that interpretation? Do you believe we will be judged by our works or not?