ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by aharvey

I'm curious. How do you know Paul was "saved"?
:think:
Umm...
Every read the book of Acts? Reading the whole thing would be good but starting in chapter 9 would yeild an answer to this question rather quickly.

How do you know he was saved "by grace plus nothing," and that he was the first so saved?
  • Ephesians 3:3 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles-- 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.
    8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him. 13 Therefore I ask that you do not lose heart at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
    14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father *of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height-- 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
    20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

I remember when Christopher Reeves died, someone at TOL asked something to the effect of "I'm almost afraid to ask, but does anyone here know if he was saved?" How is this arguably most personal of interactions between God and one person recognized by another person?
This is idotic. What manner of insanity does it take to formulate a question which attempts to draw a parallel of this sort between Christopher Reeves and THE APOSTLE Paul? :kookoo:

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I do not see James teaching faith + works/law for salvation. This is the Judaizer's heresy in Galatians. Even the Old Covenant did not teach faith + works. Paul in Romans makes this clear about Abraham. James would teach salvation is by faith in Christ alone, apart from works. Believer's baptism, OSAS, etc. are issues that are not necessarily resolved by Mid-Acts. Thank you for your thoughtful post. I still think it uses circular reasoning and begs the question (assume what try to prove). Did James, Peter, John eventually preach Paul's gospel in your view? When?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by godrulz

I do not see James teaching faith + works/law for salvation.
That's because you are not reading it and taking it for what it seems to say. You are used to reading grace into the law message and law into the grace message. (Although I do not think you do this intentionally, it's a paradigm thing.)

This is the Judaizer's heresy in Galatians.
You're right!

Even the Old Covenant did not teach faith + works.
Yes it did!
What was Jesus' answer to the rich man's question about how to gain eternal life?

[JESUS]"...if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."[/JESUS]

Paul in Romans makes this clear about Abraham.
Paul only makes this point correctly because Abraham was the father of two groups. He was under two covenants one of law (circumcision) the other of promise.

James would teach salvation is by faith in Christ alone, apart from works.
On the contrary, he said explicitly that "a man is justified by works."

Believer's baptism, OSAS, etc. are issues that are not necessarily resolved by Mid-Acts.

You'd be amazed how easy the details become when you understand the big picture (i.e. the plot of the Bible).

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I still think it uses circular reasoning and begs the question (assume what try to prove).
I'd be curious to know where you see circularity. :confused:

Did James, Peter, John eventually preach Paul's gospel in your view? When?
No.
Never.

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

The twelve were saved under the dispensation of circumcision and they remained under it until they died. Their ministry was limited to their converts ("the circumcision" Gal. 2:6-8) Their writings in the New Testament were written to those who had come to faith under their ministry and must not be applied directly to those in the Body of Christ (Paul's converts) any more than say the book of Exodus should be.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Godrulz,
Again I ask, please explain why you invented some third group when no one but you believes or has suggested that there are three groups over this two dispensation overlap issue, and why do you tend to equate the two groups when God says that we are not a part of the other group and that we can not decide which group we are in?

The nature of the teaching
for our current dispensation
of Mystery and Grace
Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles——
2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),
5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.
8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God
who created all things through Jesus Christ;
1 Corinthians 9:17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with an administration.
Dby
Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,
Paul was the first in this dispensation to be saved as we are.
1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ. He was the one who was given the administration of our current dispensation to give it to us.
 

God_Is_Truth

New member
Originally posted by 1Way


Paul was the first in this dispensation to be saved as we are.

1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ. He was the one who was given the administration of our current dispensation to give it to us.

NIV
1 Timothy 1:16
But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.

NASB
Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

KJV
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.


i think it's worth noting that the only version that translates it as "in me first" is the king james version. am i wrong or is this the only version that dispensationalists ascribe to? basing a doctrinal statement on a translation of two words that only the kjv has seems unwise to me, to say the least.

in my understanding, Paul was the "foremost", the "worst of sinners", not the first of something, but the first in the sense of being foremost, and worst.

neither the nasb or the niv seem to support (at least from this verse) what you are using the kjv to say. now you could perhaps argue from other verses the point you are arguing, but i don't think you have much ground based on the kjv translation on this verse.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by 1Way
1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

Paul was the first in this dispensation to be saved as we are. Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ. He was the one who was given the administration of our current dispensation to give it to us.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I couldn't find this verse earlier! I knew it was in there somewhere!
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Godrulz,
Let's be honest here, you are responding in line with what about any typical Christian says, you are not dwelling on what God says on the matter. Consider again what God said on that matter, and then please YOU respond to THAT.
  • James 2:14 What [does it] profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
James plainly asked if "faith alone", that is, "faith without works" can be save someone or not.
  • 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
    16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
    17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
First unambiguous answer, faith without works is dead, faith alone can not save a person.
  • 18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Here he compares not just faith and works, but "faith alone" and "faith PLUS WORKS"! James practically ties faith to works as though they are one side of a two sided coin (Faith plus works)
  • 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe——and tremble!
    20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
    22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
    23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.
Isn't that funny, here the circumcision writer uses Abraham as their model for justification, but not as Paul did! Paul said, remember Abraham and how it was that God blessed him PRIOR to receiving circumcision, so that he could be the father of both groups, the circ and the uncirc. Yet here we do not see the fullness of that teaching in that Paul shows that the promise was given to him prior to circumcision because our dispensation is about being justified by faith only and not of works, instead of that, we see James saying that after Abraham was blessed because of believing God, then he demonstrated that belief with his works and so from his perspective, all that was necessary, faith and works in order to get justified.
  • 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Notice that this justification is synonymous with verse 14. Sometimes salvation is spoken of by one of it's characteristics, like redemption, justification, sanctification, etc. Again, he repeats the answer to his question, can faith alone same someone, and James says no, faith alone is not enough to get justified.
  • 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
FAITH without works is dead!!!

That is a serious teaching. You are saved by faith, right, everyone here seems to agree on that much, but James says that faith alone without works is DEAD, it's NOT life imparting (salvation), it's death! It just doesn't get any plainer than that. James requires that it's faith and works together if you want to be saved.
Focus on God and His word and respond to what God plainly says instead of turning to manmade reference works. If we want to read what other people believe, we'll go to a library or ask them ourselves. We are asking you about these things because we want to know what YOU believe.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
i think it's worth noting that the only version that translates it as "in me first" is the king james version. am i wrong or is this the only version that dispensationalists ascribe to? basing a doctrinal statement on a translation of two words that only the kjv has seems unwise to me, to say the least.

in my understanding, Paul was the "foremost", the "worst of sinners", not the first of something, but the first in the sense of being foremost, and worst.

neither the nasb or the niv seem to support (at least from this verse) what you are using the kjv to say. now you could perhaps argue from other verses the point you are arguing, but i don't think you have much ground based on the kjv translation on this verse.

I am not a King James only guy myself and I know that Bob Enyart is not either nor do I believe Knight, Turbo or any other open theist or Acts 9 Dispensationalist on this site (including Jim Hilston) to be. The King James version is an excellent translation and some people believe (and are able to make quite good arguments) that it is the best english translation but it is not necessary to read only the King James in oder to arrive at Acts 9 Dispensationalism or Open Theism either one.

Do you have some good reason to believe that the KJV got it wrong in the translation of this text? I don't know anything about Greek but I'd still be willing to bet they got it right and that the other, more modern translators read their theology into their translations. I could be wrong though. Perhaps someone who knows something about New Testament Greek will give us some insight.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

I just looked it up and it seems the word translated "first" is the Greek word "protos" (Stong's #4413) meaning...

  • 1) first in time or place
    a) in any succession of things or persons

    2) first in rank
    a) influence, honour
    b) chief
    c) principal

    3) first, at the first

It seems that Paul is our PROTOtype!

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Three words!!! Context, context, context!!!

Three words!!! Context, context, context!!!

God_Is_Truth,
Glad you asked that. My quote was from the NKJV, not the KJV.

Meanings from a word or phrase
Meanings from the wider context
Consider not a word or phrasing. Instead, consider the context involved! The teaching is that Paul was given a special gracing from God, for what? ... as a pattern for those who would become saved! If Paul was to be given a special treatment as a pattern for others, it was not for those who were "before" him, it's for those who would believe "after" him and then get saved. Obviously those before his special treatment could not follow that pattern unless that pattern given to Paul was somehow already the pattern that was previously given to someone else, and if that was the case, why call attention to Paul as being "the" pattern if Paul's pattern didn't add some distinctive or clarification, like he's the first one, or he's the best one.

KJV says, "should believe hereafter", and the rest of the translations seem to show the same basic verb tense meaning, it's those who would believe (after) Paul's pattern.

So who cares if most bible translations since the KJV have been shown to have a Calvinistic slant in them? Calvinists, which are covenantalists and they tend to dislike us dispensationalists because it makes their covenentalism look not as important. So I do not find it unusual for translations and scholarship to slight Paul's unique message.

Clete,
Anytime!
:eek:
 
Last edited:

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
God_Is_Truth,
You said
in my understanding, Paul was the "foremost", the "worst of sinners", not the first of something, but the first in the sense of being foremost, and worst.
And that is my understanding too, only it's for the previous verse.
1 Timothy 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
I just compared the Strong's numbers for both words, and found them to be the same (#4413), chief and first are both "protos". Which can mean first in time or place, or chief, first in rank, etc.

But when we consider the wider context, like that God specifically gave Paul our dispensation's teachings to give to us (and not before that time), and even says that Paul was the "prototype" or "first-pattern" for our faith unto salvation for those who would end up becoming saved, then such a thing is a tremendous teaching of significant consequence and it all points to Paul being the first in our dispensation.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
My initial observations about "The Plot" are that some of the footnotes rely on NKJV as proof texts. When other translations or original Greek are used, their impact is diminished, if not contradicted. We must guard against finding a translation that agrees with us, but will not stand up to grammatical or contextual scrutiny. I Tim. 1:16 is being read into with a Mid-Acts mindset.

Jesus did not stop with telling the rich man to keep commandments. It was implicit that He was making a point and that salvation would entail rejecting his selfishness and gods to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Jesus preached salvific truth, as did John, Peter, and Paul. There messages were Christocentric. Faith, not faith + works has always been the criteria for salvation (you are not following Paul's arguments in Romans).
 

servent101

New member
Rolf
Your rejection of it is far from usual. It is very unusual.

My rejection of what? - you quote a verse and say that I reject it - AGAIN What did I post that lead you to assume that? - AND AGAIN - I suggest that your concept of the Word in which you accept a literal hell is responsible for your blinders - you seem unable to understand anything I aspire to communicate - you simply are in lock down moad - which is very usual for people such as yourself who try to follow a literal definative closed canon - it has it's effect on you. You claim to be a Christian, yet invite someone to be walloped if they say what they posted to you in person - you say Scripute is everything yet you quote Clint Eastwood... I think it is just an energy feed, you percieve what people are communicating in such a way that you can slander their remarks so that you can then be the mighty concourer.

But you still do not say anything as to where you get your ideas that I am saying this or that - what on earth ( I gave my hypotehsis) is wrong with you? You started out sincere, or at least appered sincere, so I coresponded to you.

Not likly to reply to you again unless you stop making your insane inuendously facticious interpretations of what I am saying.

With Christ's LOve

Servent101
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by godrulz

My initial observations about "The Plot" are that some of the footnotes rely on NKJV as proof texts. When other translations or original Greek are used, their impact is diminished, if not contradicted. We must guard against finding a translation that agrees with us, but will not stand up to grammatical or contextual scrutiny.
Bob uses the NKJV throughout the book. It's a funny thing about Bible translations; when you pick just one, people complain that you used the wrong one, and when you use more than one, people accuse you of cherry picking translations to suit your theology. It is truly a no win situation.
Could you give an example of what you are talking about in regards to a NKJV proof text and explain what it is that you find troubling about his use of that text?

I Tim. 1:16 is being read into with a Mid-Acts mindset.
Come on now godrulz! This isn't like you. We've already explained in more than one way why we think it is an appropriate use of the text and why we think that both the King James and the New King James got it right when they translated it the way they did. Instead of just basically repeating yourself, how about giving us a reason why we are wrong or at least why you disagree.

Jesus did not stop with telling the rich man to keep commandments. It was implicit that He was making a point and that salvation would entail rejecting his selfishness and gods to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
That isn't the point. The point is that Jesus taught that one must believe AND obey the law; belief alone was not enough.

Jesus preached salvific truth, as did John, Peter, and Paul. There messages were Christocentric. Faith, not faith + works has always been the criteria for salvation (you are not following Paul's arguments in Romans).
I don't really know what else to say on this. You've been shown explicit proof to the contrary and have done nothing to refute it except to simply restate your position.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

aharvey

New member
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is idotic. What manner of insanity does it take to formulate a question which attempts to draw a parallel of this sort between Christopher Reeves and THE APOSTLE Paul? :kookoo:
We know Paul was saved because he said so. Fair enough. I'm not here to argue about Paul's role in Christian theology. Are you saying it is idotic to ask this question about anyone else?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by aharvey

We know Paul was saved because he said so. Fair enough. I'm not here to argue about Paul's role in Christian theology. Are you saying it is idotic to ask this question about anyone else?

No not at all. That question should be asked about anyone whom the Bible doesn't directly attribute salvation too.

And "because he said so" is selling it a bit short, don't you think? The New Testament was penned by man but inspired by God Himself thus what it says is true, period.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

Rolf Ernst

New member
Servant101--I apologize for being unclear in what I was speaking of when i said "your rejection of it is far from usual.It is very unusual."

I was referring to an earlier post wherein I understood that you were rejecting the idea that the prohibition against adding to or taking from God's word applied to the whole bible as well as to Revelation. That seemed to be the gist of what you had earlier said.

Many times on forums such as this people talk past one another, one of the reasons being a tendency to assume that the other person still has an earlier part of aq conversation on the top burner, waiting for a response in regard to it. The verse I quoted, "...add not to His words..." I drew from the old testament to show that the prohibition applied way back when as well; and my statement "...far from usual, it is very unusual" was to say that the belief that God's prohibition against adding to or taking from His word applied only to Revelation was "unusual."

I certainly did not mean any ill or insult toward you, for you have certainly done nothing to deserve such treatment. So again, I apologize for speaking carelessly.

As for my speaking of Eastwood, I did not do so in the context of Scripture, nor did I try to make a scriptural point by quoting Eastwood. I don't even admire the man, and do not even know the film in which he made that statement. He has been quoted by others saying those words so frequently that I am not even certain I heard them from him.
 
Last edited:

Rolf Ernst

New member
Clete--Godrulz is right about James not preaching a faith + works salvation. James was talking not about works as a means of salvation, but about works always accompanying any faith that is genuine.

A faith that is without works is not genuine, and that kind of faith is false and can save no one. Works have no saving power in themselves, but they always accompany true faith.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--Godrulz is right about James not preaching a faith + works salvation.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Rolf.
Sorry!

James was talking not about works as a means of salvation, but about works always accompanying any faith that is genuine.
You are wrong. The whole theme of the book is salvation from beginning to end. Besides, I've quoted James several times already saying explicity that "a man is justified by works and not by faith only."

A faith that is without works is not genuine, and that kind of faith is false and can save no one. Works have no saving power in themselves, but they always accompany true faith.
Paul says otherwise...

  • Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Rolf Ernst,
You said
Clete--Godrulz is right about James not preaching a faith + works salvation. James was talking not about works as a means of salvation, but about works always accompanying any faith that is genuine.

A faith that is without works is not genuine, and that kind of faith is false and can save no one. Works have no saving power in themselves, but they always accompany true faith.
Scripture asks if faith alone without works is a saving faith. Of course our faith in God is a salvic issue, and we have scripture saying that faith alone is not saving, instead, it's a dead faith.

But then we have you trying to undo this teaching and effectively say that it is not saying what it says. But you neglect to say why we should trust and believe your ideas literally, but disbelieve God's word literally? What is wrong with a literal understanding of what God through James says?

Lets just assume your right in a general sense, then you have a very difficult problem. James brings up the issue of salvation, but it is debated as to the context of the proceeding passage, if it's about salvation or not. So here's the problem. If the passage I quoted from James does not have the idea of salvation in mind, then what do you do with that initial challenging question about salvation? If the rest does not have to do with salvation, then are we to assume that God started a thought progression that centered in on SALVATION, and then forget to make a point about it? Please explain.

Here's a copy of my thoughts in with that passage. Please respond about scripture's initial comment about faith alone being "saving" or not.
  • James 2:14 What [does it] profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
James plainly asked if "faith alone", that is, "faith without works" can be save someone or not.
  • 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
    16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
    17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
First unambiguous answer, faith without works is dead, faith alone can not save a person.
  • 18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Here he compares not just faith and works, but "faith alone" and "faith PLUS WORKS"! James practically ties faith to works as though they are one side of a two sided coin (Faith plus works)
  • 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe——and tremble!
    20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
    22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
    23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.
Isn't that funny, here the circumcision writer uses Abraham as their model for justification, but not as Paul did! Paul said, remember Abraham and how it was that God blessed him PRIOR to receiving circumcision, so that he could be the father of both groups, the circ and the uncirc. Yet here we do not see the fullness of that teaching in that Paul shows that the promise was given to him prior to circumcision because our dispensation is about being justified by faith only and not of works, instead of that, we see James saying that after Abraham was blessed because of believing God, then he demonstrated that belief with his works and so from his perspective, all that was necessary, faith and works in order to get justified.
  • 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Notice that this justification is synonymous with verse 14. Sometimes salvation is spoken of by one of it's characteristics, like redemption, justification, sanctification, etc. Again, he repeats the answer to his question, can faith alone same someone, and James says no, faith alone is not enough to get justified.
  • 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
FAITH without works is dead!!!

That is a serious teaching. You are saved by faith, right, everyone here seems to agree on that much, but James says that faith alone without works is DEAD, it's NOT life imparting (salvation), it's death! It just doesn't get any plainer than that. James requires that it's faith and works together if you want to be saved.
Lastly, when Paul teaching salvation through faith alone, do you have a consistent reason why you reject that idea and say that after one is saved, works are required if you have an authentic faith. Paul does not teach that you have to have so many good works, but we do get
  • Indwelling HS
  • Sanctification process
  • The mind of Christ
  • Sealed for the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit
  • We are made into a new creation, we are a new man
  • We get the guarantee of our inheritance in Jesus
    (among other things)
And we don't get...
  • That Christians stop sinning just because they are saved
  • That there is a list of sins that one can do to loose your salvation
  • There there is a number of sins that would mean you would loose your salvation
  • That if we want to rest assured that we are saved, that we see if we sin or not
Instead we are reminded that it is Christ's righteousness that saves us, not our own. If works are required after one is saved, then they are required to "be" saved (after the fact)! I say that it's God's work that happens in us that makes us into a new creature, so everyone who gets saved has a new life, a new identity, but if they sin and even if they sin terribly, that is not breaking a requisite for salvation in this dispensation of Mystery and Grace.
 
Top