only belief is required for salvation

[email]

"Salvation is a work of God for man, rather than a work of man for God." No aspect of salvation is made to depend on human merit or works no matter how slight they may be. The word "gospel," both noun and verb occurs 132 times in the New Testament. The word "repent," with its noun and verb occurs only 58 times. But the word "faith," both noun and verb forms occurs 492 times.

Faith assumes knowledge or recognition of some information. Before we can believe or have faith in anything we must know about it.

Romans 10:14 says, ""How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?" Again, in Acts 18:8; Eph. 1:13; the Bible put hearing before believing. So faith presupposes knowledge.

If faith then presupposes knowledge, what must a person need to know? If one were to look up all the times "believe" and "faith" are used in the New Testament to see what a person must know about Christ, you will find four things:

1. Jesus Christ is God, John 20:31.
2. He is a real man, 1John 4:2.
3. He died for mans sins, Rom. 3:25.
4. He rose from the dead, Rom. 10:9.

The New Testament declares the last two facts as the gospel and the one believing it will be saved.

This one word "believe" represents all that a sinner must have to be saved. It is believing the record that God has given to us about His Son. God could have chosen any word in any language he wished to express what a person must do to be saved. He chose the Greek word pisteuo, "believe," and pistis, "faith," and he used them emphatically. The Gospel of John, the one New Testament book written to get people saved, pisteuo occures ninety-nine times while the word metauoeo, repent does not occur at all.

Also, in Romans, Paul's most extensive work on salvation, he used only one word faith. The 4th chapter of Romans is given to the subject. There are other words used for what a sinner must do to be saved. "Look," "come," "call," and others are employed, but these are used as synonyms for faith.

If a person does not understand what it is to believe then they are not ready to be saved. In Matt. 13:13-16 Jesus taught that if people did not understand they could not be saved.

Many presentations of the gospel are thus misstated in various in subtle ways. Here is a list of just a few:

1. It is a most serious error to add any kind of human works as a requirement to be saved (Eph. 2:8-10).
2. It is also wrong to give the unsaved the impression that there is any saving virtue in promising to "lead the Christian life."
3. A person is not saved because he prays. Many people pray who are not saved. In no scripture is salvation conditioned on asking or praying. Faith in the Savior and His finished work on the cross is all that is required.
4. No person is saved by seeking the Lord. In Isaiah 55:6 it is said to Israel "Seek ye the Lord while He may be found," but in the New Testament we are told to believe only for salvation. It is the Son who came to "seek and save that which is lost".
5. It is wrong to require repentance for sin as a preliminary act preceding or separate from personal faith in Christ. Repentance is included in believing and can not be separate from it. Repentance and faith are married like husband and wife or Siamese twins. When repentance occurs alone it includes faith. When faith occurs alone it implies repentance. They cannot be separate.
6. No scripture requires confession of sin as a condition of salvation. 1 John 1:8-9 is given to the believer only and is the condition for the restoration of the fellowship that has been lost with God because of sin.
7. No passage states or even implies that a sinner is saved by asking Jesus to come into his heart or life. Frequently Revelation 3:20 is used to support this ides of asking. But the context of the verse show otherwise. The passage is from the letter written to the church of Laodicea. Verses 15-17 the Lord talks about their condition. Verses 18-20 He offers His counsel. Their condition is that they are lukewarm verse 17. To be lukewarm is to be half-hearted Christians. Note very carefully that the subject is not their salvation but works or service. Also, note carefully that the letter is written to believers.

[sledford]

A simple question. Is belief a work?

John 6:28-29
28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"?
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

[Marc]

The Lord Jesus did not literally mean that belief is a work for that would contradict Romans 4:5. The people were asking Him what "works" (plural) they must do that God requires. Rather than directly correcting them with the fact that works are not required for salvation the Lord Jesus incorporated their misunderstanding in His answer. For example, He does the same thing in Luke 18 to the rich young ruler. The man asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Instead of mentioning anything at all concerning beleif in Him the Lord Jesus lists some of the commandments. What this should have done is made the man truthfully admit that "No, I haven't kept the commandments you listed. I am guilty." Thus necessitating that these commandments would lead him to believe in Christ (Galatians 3:24). That being the case in John 6:28, 29 the Lord Jesus was basically saying, "Fine, since you believe that one must do works that God requires even though they will not justify you here is the one work that will - beleif." It was simply a play on words.

- Marc

[sledford]

Romans 4:1-5
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? ?Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.?
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

The definition of "works" used by Paul in this context goes back to Romans 3:20

Romans 3:20
20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

If anyone sought to be justified by God under the Old Law, then they had to keep the Law perfectly. But as Paul continues in Rom 3:23, all have sinned which means no one can possibly stand righteous in the eyes of God through the "works of the Law". Paul then contrasts the "works of the Law" with what is now available through Christ

Romans 3:21-23
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

To the point, the "works" spoken of by Jesus in John 6 and by Paul in Romans 3,4 are two very different definitions of "works". In Romans it is the "works of the Law" and in John 6 it is the "works of God".

I truly am stunned that you take the plain words of Jesus and discard the simple meaning. I urge you to evaluate how you have defined "works" in your understanding and interpretation of Romans 3,4 and John 6. It appears to me that you have chosen to super-impose a view of "works" that is not, and cannot, be harmonized in scripture.

[Marc]

You are stunned that I take the words of the Lord Jesus and discard the simple meaning? So did the Lord Jesus really mean that in order to inherit eternal life one must keep the commandments He listed in Luke 18 or did He have something else in mind?
Concerning works in Romans 4 Paul is talking about "all works" for he uses Abraham as his example and Abraham was many years before the law.

- Marc

[sledford]

Luke 18:18-23
18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, ?Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life??
19 So Jesus said to him, ?Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
20 You know the commandments: ?Do not commit adultery,? ?Do not murder,? ?Do not steal,? ?Do not bear false witness,? ?Honor your father and your mother.??
21 And he said, ?All these things I have kept from my youth.?
22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, ?You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.?
23 But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.

This young man was still under the Old Law. As Jesus himself had told people before, he did not come to destroy the Old Law but to fulfill. And Jesus' fulfillment of the Old Law was not yet complete at the time of this conversation with the young man. I have emphasized one statement Jesus made at the end of his instruction: "come and follow me". There is a necessary, implied component to this instruction: belief in Jesus.

The young man has already approached him and called him "Good Teacher". In the parallel context of Mark 10:17-22,

Mark 10:17-22
17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, ?Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life??
18 So Jesus said to him, ?Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
19 You know the commandments: ?Do not commit adultery,? ?Do not murder,? ?Do not steal,? ?Do not bear false witness,? ?Do not defraud,? ?Honor your father and your mother.??
20 And he answered and said to Him, ?Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.?
21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ?One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.?
22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

after the young man responds he has kept all the commandments listed, it reveals that Jesus loved him. Based on that insight, this young man is already quite far along in his genuineness, belief, and looking to Jesus for true instruction, not just hypocritical questioning as the Pharisees had done many times. His attachement to his great possessions prevented him from acting on his belief in Jesus and to follow him. Which really is the crux of the matter for this discussion of belief: belief REQUIRES action. Not self-serving action to merit anything but action as the "works of God" in service, dedication, and outporing of your belief.

Returning to Romans 4:

Romans4:1-3
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? ?Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.?

Paul uses Abraham as the exact proof of why "works of the Law" do not jusitfy a person. Abraham was pronounced righteous by God long before the Old Law was even given. Therefore, righteousness can be achieved apart from "works of the Law". Again, to define works, you must do so in context and the context establishes the definition used in Romans 4 back in Romans 3:20: "works of the Law". It is not "all works", that is not the definition in context.

[Marc]

In the Old Law or the new one does one have to sell "all" that they have?
Works in Romans 4 does include all works for Abraham was not even under the works of the Law. Paul is saying that no works he did "at that time" (which was before the Law) could justify him. Romans 4:10-12 shows that his circumcision was not necessary in justifying him. As extremely important as circumcision was Paul is saying then that no works that Abraham did justified him.

- Marc

[sledford]

You are introducing a non-sequitur into the discussion of John 6:28-29. Your super-imposed view of Romans 4 has forced you to change Jesus' words and meaning that the "works of God" is belief in Jesus (John 6:29). Your explanation of John 6 is based on an unfounded defintion that cannot be logically drawn from the context.

As added dimension, the root word for work in John 6:28-29 is "ergo", where we get energy. I can tell you for me personally that belief does require energy on my part. I must seek the evidence that establishes my belief: "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God". Hearing takes effort, energy.....work. But there is more to it than that.

Consider something very basic about the defintion of faith in Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There are two traits of faith defined here that are the result of expended energy (work):
a) Substance
b) Evidence

Only work, effort, energy, can produce those two products. And this is the product of the faith of an individual. This is in harmony with the statements made by James:

James 2:14-26
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
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.
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.
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.
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
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.

And here is the case study of Abraham again. Paul used it in Romans 4 as evidence of why "works of the Law" do not justify and now James uses it to prove how Abraham's faith REQUIRED him to act, work. The context of James also supports the definition for Romans 3,4 as established by Paul in Romans 3:20: "works of the Law" vs "works of God" (John 6:29, and James 2:14-26)

[Marc]

Paul is not talking about "works of the Law" in regards to Abraham in Romans 4 for he mentions circumcision and circumcion took place "before" the Law. Thus Paul is referring then to all works. Despite the extremely high value of circumcision to the Jews Abraham was justified before he was circumcised.
James 2 is not even talking about eternal salvation (justification in the eyes of God) but is in reference to physical life and being justified in the eyes of people.

- Marc

[sledford]

James 2 is not even talking about eternal salvation (justification in the eyes of God) but is in reference to physical life and being justified in the eyes of people.

You have again completely discarded the context with a super-imposed view of "works". James begins the context with the question:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

Save him from what? Applying your contextual rendering of James makes no sense, save him from being justified in the eyes of people? That renders the context non-sense.

James' introduction clearly defines faith in this context as working towards Eternal salvation.

Now let's close on this discussion of Abraham in Romans 4:

9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

As Paul noted earlier in the context of Romans 4, and James does as well, Abraham was considered righteous before he was circumcised. Again, he is righteous separate from the "works of the Law" as defined in context in Romans 3:20. Paul is expanding his explanation now to also demonstrate that righteousness can be obtained without even circumcision because circumcision was part of the Old Law as well (Lev 12:3). Note his question that he adds to the discussion: "Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also?" And Paul logically lays out the argument why righteousness is available to all because of the example of Abraham.

Paul answers the question in Romans 4:13 by using a contrasting construct of language: not/but construct:

For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

The use of this language places the emphasis on the statement made after the "but": through the righteousness of faith. Which is completing the contrast with the defintion Paul established in Romans 3:20 for works as "works of the Law" because, again, circumcision was part of the Old Law as well (Lev 12:3). The critical element in the example of Abraham is that each time his faith is discussed he acted on his faith, every time. Not to earn anything but because he believed God and acted in accordance with his faith.

There is a phrase used commonly: "acted in good faith". It is used all the time in reference to a business transaction, what a person did for another, etc. To remove the "acted" from that statement would make no sense at all. Action and faith are so conceptually connected that we use the idea daily. But put it in a Biblical context and all of sudden the basic use of faith and belief are changed? That makes no sense what so ever. It is not supported in a Biblical exegesis and harmonization of scripture and it is not supported using even basic common sense.

[Marc]

Saved from what?
A premature physical death which sin causes (James 1:15). James goes on to use Rahab and Abraham as examples. By hiding the spies her physical life was preserved (saved). So too with Abraham, if he didn't offer his son Isaac up the Lord would have taken his physical life just like He was going to take the physical life of Moses for not offering his son up in circumcision (Exodus 4:24-26).

Circumcision was part of the Old Law but still existed prior to it (Genesis 17:11). And since Paul is talking about "Abraham's case" he is making it clear that this important deed that was done by him and before the Law still had no value in regards to his salvation.

- Marc

[sledford]

I'll say this as gently as I can. You are completely incorrect that James 1:15 is referring to a physical death.

13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

This is a spiritual context established by James discussion of temptation. Temptation is a process that begins in the mind and soul of an individual. Sin and the soul and spiritual death are connected in other passages such as Ezekiel:

20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

and also in Colossians is a clear connection between sin and spiritual death, and spiritual restoration of the soul through forgiveness:

13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

You are twisting and rending scripture to force fit it to your definition of works. This is not the way of a Truth seeker.

[Marc]

Let's see who is twisting Scripture. The context of James 1 is referring to physical life. This is seen in 1:21 where it refers to physical preservation not eternal salvation. In virtually everytime in the LXX (Geneis 32:30; 1 Samuel 19:11; Psalms 72:13; 109:3) and the NT when "save the soul" is used it refers to physical life not eternal salvation (Matthew 20:28 with 27:42; Mark 3:4; 10:45 with 15:30; Luke 6:9; 9:56; Acts 27:22 with v. 31 and 1 Peter 3:20). In fact, when the Lord Jesus spoke of laying down His life to save us He used "soul" (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11, 15, 17). Furthermore James is already referring to saved people in his use of my beloved brethren (16-18). Receiving the word does not refer to initial belief but is speaking of being a doer of the word not simply a hearer to counter the physical deadly effetcs of sin.

[sledford]

The context of James 1 is referring to physical life. This is seen in 1:21 where it refers to physical preservation not eternal salvation.

James 1:21 reads as:

21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

My friend, you have a rather serious issue with how you read the Word of God. I would say that more gently if it were not for the simple fact that there is a repeated pattern of illogical thinking that is borne out in your repsonses on a wide range of subjects you have posted to these Forums. For instance take the word "soul" that you have defined as I quoted at the beginning of my response. The definition you site is only one of several possibilities for the root word "psuche" (which is where we derive the English word psyche from, a very definite, non-physical idea). Thayer provides a complete defintion as follows:

1. breath
a. the breath of life
i. the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing 1a
b. of animals 1a

2. of men
a. life
b. that in which there is life
i. a living being, a living soul

3. the soul
a. the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
b. the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
c. the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)

You have chosen one definition regardless of context and are now applying it to all cases where the word is used, again regardless of context. That is not a scriptural, contextual exegesis for James 1 and the continuing thoughts into James 2. Here is a very simple context to demonstrate my point:

28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Here again we have the root word "psuche" used for "soul" side by side with the word body. There really is only one clear defintion that fits Matt 10:28 - that as defined by Thayer as option (3) and is spiritual in nature. Clearly there is a very Biblically correct interpretation for the definition and use of the word "soul" as a spiritual application.

Again, I will ask, save what? This and the earlier context say to save the soul. The only logical, contextually consistent defintion for James 1:21 is option (3) as defined by Thayer. Why? Because the entire context is talking about the inward process of temptation and how to overcome it. That is all a matter of the will of man choosing to do what is right and turn away from the flesh, the body.

So, yes, you are twisting scripture and rather badly at that. Why have you still not acknowledged the simple but profound flaw that in a daily, very sectarian, context, we use the phrase "acted in good faith" and have no problems understanding and applying that concept? What conclusion is it that you are seeking to avoid?

I am going to be virtually out of touch for the next 2 weeks and unable to respond for that period of time, if you choose to respond further.

[Marc]

Now that it has been made clear that salvation is by faith alone in Romans 4 I will address your misunderstanding of James.
Only two times in his book is "save" and "soul" together in a passage. They are in 1:21 and 5:20. So in order to understand what 1:21 entails 5:20 is the place to be.
James 5:19, 20 - My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.
James says if there are any "among you" so he is referring to Christians and as shown from my other posting a Christian can not lose their salvation. So what James is referring to is the premature death of a Christian because of sin. This is a real possibility. Paul wrote that it occurred in 1 Corinthians 11:30. Paul also has this in mind in Galatians 6:1. He is telling Christians to come to the aid of their brethren who have sinned. He doesn't warn them that they will lose their salvation. Both he and James are not even talking about that. It's talking about restoring fellow Christians from the physical consequences of sin.
You wrote, "...there is a repeated pattern of illogical thinking that is borne out in your responses on a wide range of subjects you have posted to these Forums." I'd like to know what they are. He that asserts must prove. And if you can back up your confident claim then go to a thread where I have something posted and challenge it. It's laughable you write that when you totally dodged Romans 4:5. Circumcision was given "before" the Law and Abraham was justified before this pre-Law command. So Paul is not simply speaking of the Law of Moses when he refers to works in Romans 4:5. This you have not because you can not refute. But I guess its easier to go on believing a lie rather than accept the fact that you are wrong. Myths die hard.

- Marc

[sledford]

Now that it has been made clear that salvation is by faith alone in Romans 4 I will address your misunderstanding of James.

Let me be even more clear: no it has not been "made clear" at all. You continue to twist and rend scripture, mis-state and misquote me.

I have addressed this issue in an earlier response. Circumcision was part of the Old Law, (Lev 12:3) and had roots that went all the way back to Abaraham. Circumcision and it's abuse as a practice by the Jewish Christians as a requirement for salvation under the New Covenant was addressed by Paul on multiple occassions. To complete the argument that Paul has made starting in Romans 3 and continues in Romans 4, it is necessary to show that circumcision was a "work of the Law" and would not lead to justification. The context is established in Rom 3:20 that Paul is still addressing "works of the Law" of which circumcision is one of them. The statement that Abraham was declared to be righteous separate from his circumcision demonstrates that circumcision would not justify. Now, this begs the hypothetical question: "If Abraham refused to be circumcised would he have been righteous?" I find the answer to this to be self-evident since Abraham ALWAYS acted on his faith, witout exception, which is James point in James 2.

But returning to the core question: Does faith require action? You still can't address the basic common sense issue with our every day saying of "acted in good faith"? You seem to be using basic Debating skills and tactics that frankly are intellectually dishonest. What do you hope to "win"? It is not me that you stand against, but God.

[Marc]

You wrote, "It is not me you stand against but God". Let's stop this I am right because I agree with God but you are wrong because you don't agree with me therefore you don't agree with God garbage.

Was circumcision a "command" before the Law (Geneis 17:11)?

I see you didn't address at all what I wrote about James 5:20 being related to James 1:21. More proof that James 5:20 is referring to physical life (thus proving James 1:21 is as well). Beginning in 5:13 he talks about those who are sick and that if they have committed sins God will heal them. He urges them to pray for one another. This coincides with the action of turning them back from their error - pray for them and if need be approach them (v.16, 19). It is talking about a deliverance from physical death. In fact, the same Greek word for "save" as found in 5:15 is also the one used in James 5:20. I submit therefore that the last several passages of the book of James is referring to being restored to physical life not eternal damnation. Since that is the case then James 5:20 like its counterpart James 1:21 is also referring to physical life.

- Marc

[sledford]

Your "point" of James 5:20 is frankly a complete non sequitur, an unrelated thought. But the sake of silent readers here is the quote of the context of James 5:20:

19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back,
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

Now, a question especially since you have a very serious issue with defining words: is this death a physical death or a spiritual death? To this thought consider again the context of Colossians:

13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

In this context we have a before and after condition described of the spiritual state of an individual: dead in trespasses vs. alive in forgiveness. The only logical defintion for being "dead" in trespasses and uncircumcision of their flesh is a statement regarding their spiritual condition, a spiritual death, and then a spiritual "alive"-ness through forgiveness. This harmonizes well with the context of James 5:20 whereby someone that turns from sin will be forgiven, a change to their spiritual condition from being being "dead in trespasses" and "alive in forgiveness" (Col 2:13). James 5:19 talks of a person that "wanders from the truth". (Which, parenthetically, is another issue in your "Once saved, always saved" thread demonstrating I can remove myself from a saving relationship with God)

And finally, your actions are what continue to indict yourself and your motives. As Paul told Timothy:

1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:
2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Where do you find yourself in this exhortation from Paul?

I am leaving in the next few hours. I have continued to respond quickly since last night out of a sense of urgency to hopefully reach your heart through the Word of God. It is now in your hands. Hopefully some one else may be able to engage while I am gone. I pray that you will allow the Word of God to work on your heart.

[Marc]

You quoted Colossians 2 but did not address that I mentioned Galatians 6:1. In Colossians 2 Paul is talking about their "former" state. In the Galatian passage he is talking about their "current" state. That is what James is talking about in James 5. Oh and by the way I couldn't help but notice you totally dodged what I wrote about James 5:14-16 and in particlar James' use of "save" in 5:15. Does the "save" in James 5:15 refer to eternal salvation or of physical life.
Anytime you want to go to the Once Saved Always Saved thread to try to refute how I used those passages...

- Marc

[JSM17]

If Salvation is by only faith, then one does not need to repent or to confess right?

Who's faith saves us ours? Is this apart from all conditions commanded by God?


To make the false claim that someone is saved by faith alone is not warranted by scripture, if one is saved by faith alone then by no other means can one be saved, such as love, the blood of Christ, Grace, confession, repentance, baptism, hope, and so on. To claim that our faith alone saves us apart form conditions stated by God is to deny the written things God has called us to do, there is a strong command for repentance, with the condition if you do not then you will be condemned. What do we do with these things that are conditions of salvation. To stand in the left and declare faith alone is to deny God. What is repentance if you declare that it is not essential to salvation, is it something we do only after one is saved? Maybe some have the wrong understanding of it, such as the two sided coin theory that faith and repentance are the same and are joined evenly and cannot be seperated, but this is false or else God would have given these things the same name.

The statement that salvation is by faith alone is a false doctrine.

[Marc]

Your last sentence read, "The statement that salvation is by faith alone is a false doctrine." I noticed you didn't refute the passage(s) I based the belief that we are saved by faith alone. He that asserts must prove.

In terms of repentance being necessary for salvation it is necessary for salvation. Belief is a synecdoche for this repentance. It encompasses repentance. The same would hold true concerning confession. Those being baptized in Acts 18:8 simply were said to have "believed". This belief encompasses the fact that they both repented and had confessed.

- Marc

[JSM17]

"Fine, since you believe that one must do works that God requires even though they will not justify you here is the one work that will - beleif."

Here is the one work that will- belief, this is what you said, so you understand belief to be a work!

Therefore faith is a work JOhn 6:26-30, does faith save us? yes, therefore logically there are works that lead to salvation!

John 6:26-30

Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." 28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
NASU

Jesus never indicates that they were mistaken about works but about there motivation to do the works, that it not be for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life. Was Jesus misleading them to believe somethng false, did He lie? No He didn't. There are times in the Gospels that faith is seen as work before they recieved salvation, and it was given to those who worked, by our Lord.

Going back to the original post:

To say that Repentance and faith are the same and cannot be seperated is then to say that one is saved by faith and repentance, therfore one is not saved by faith alone. If repentance were the same thing as faith then they wouldn't be two different words.

What are the passages that define these two items as being the same.

And as for the original post, in which the statement was made that confession is not required for salvation:

Rom 10:8-10
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
NASU

Notice the big "IF" in verse 9, then notice that it is by confession and by faith resulting in salvation, if it is by confession and by faith then it is not by faith alone. Of course then most will say that confession is the same thing as faith, and now we have repentance confession and faith all being the same thing right? Wrong

Those who believed yet did not confess were condemned, but you will say that they never had true faith, well then Christ lied again and really did not mean that they believed.

So you have Belief, repentance, confession, baptism, faithful unto death for salvation which all comes way of the blessing of God upon us that we could even obey his Gospel.

2 Thess 1:8
8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
NASU

What is the Gospel how does one obey? Just by believing, is believing obedience to the gospel, certainly it cannot be our faith, because there is nothing that we can do to receive salvation, it just hits us up side the head when we least excpect it.

And since all the reformers run from any idea of conditional statements in the N.T. having to do with salvation you will never see the signifigants of obedience to Jesus.

[Marc]

Belief being a work is simply a play on words.
Repentance and confession are synecdoches for belief. In Acts 18:8 did they confess?
I noticed you (as in typical fashion) totally dodged Romans 4:5.

[JSM17]

Fine, since you believe that one must do works that God requires even though they will not justify you here is the one work that will - beleif."

This is your statement not mine, belief is something that we do, it is work, are you a puppet that God pulls the strings for you and believes for you. You make the choice it is called free will to choose obedience to work out your salvation with fear and trembling! Phil. 2:12

[Marc]

Are you always this deceitful when you correspond with someone? You left out the last sentence of the quote - it was simply a play on words. The Lord didn't always correct people's misunderstanding but would incorporate their misunderstanding in His answer.

Another dodge rides again (Romans 4:5).

[JSM17]

NICE TRY "IT IS ONLY A PLAY ON WORDS"

WORK IS WHAT GOD CALLS US TO DO, IF YOU HAVE FAITH AND NO WORKS YOUR FAITH IS DEAD, WHO HAS A DEAD FAITH ? THOSE WHO WILL NOT GO BEYOND JUST BELIEF, WHICH ACCORDING TO YOU IS THE SAME THING AS REPENTANCE AND CONFESSION. WHICH I AM SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE READING THIS DO NT REALLY BELIEVE.

ACTS 2:38 AND ALL THE OTHER CONVERSIONS IN THE N.T. SHOULD BE IN PARALLEL, GOD DID NOT BRING SALVATION TO THE JEWS ONE WAY (FAITH REPENTANCE CONFESSION BAPTISM, GIFT OF THE H.S.) AND THEN OFFER SALVATION TO THE GENTILES ANOTHER WAY ( FAITH ALONE), WHEN DID GOD SHOW PARTIALITY?

SALVATION IN aCTS 2 IS THE SAME FOR US TODAY!

[Marc]

Why can't it be a play on words?

"Faith without works is dead" (James 2:17) but notice what it doesn't say - "faith without works in not faith".
The nearest syntactical parallel to James 2:17 is found in Romans 7:8. It reads "apart from the Law sin is dead". Does that mean that it was "false sin" before the Law? No, what it is saying is that sin was comparably dormant until the Law came and rejuvenated it. The same thing with faith. It exists as real faith but works empower it.

I have already addresed Acts 2:38 in other posts. Show me just one Gentile given to us by Luke who was ever told to be baptized for the forgiveness/washing away of sins.


"The gift of the Holy Spirit" demonstrates one has "the forgiveness of sins" (salvation)

Acts 2:38 - Jews - be baptized - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit(salvation)
Acts 10:45, 48 - Gentiles - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit(salvation) - be baptized

That's the same order?

Romans 4:5......???

[JSM17]

That is a good point concerning a Gentile who is told directly to be baptized for the remission of sin. I could not think of one, but show me one passage that tells you that either a Jew or Gentile to believe for the remission of sin only.

[Marc]

Acts 10:43 and Romans 4:5.

[JSM17]

Rom 4:5-6

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
NKJV

So you think that this passage teaches that one is saved by faith alone without any other acts of obedience towards God? Where is the remission of sins, how is it connected to the blood of Christ, is there a passage that teaches that one believes into the blood of Christ?

Acts 10:42-43
43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
NKJV

Well we already know that when Luke says "believes" he really means that repentance and confession are also included with this right, so we can also say that whoever believes, repents and confesses will recieve the remission of sins. Of course repentance is something we do so that can't be right, and confession is something that we do with our months so that cannot be right.

[Marc]

When you believe on Christ you believe that He shed His blood for the forgiveness of your sins. Romans 4:5 is clear that no works are involved.
Since confession and repentance are required to be saved that necessitates that they are not works.

Zero works can save.

[JSM17]

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
NKJV

Answer the question for James, can that faith save Him?

Yes or No? It is a closed question it deserves a yes or a no, you will not answer it no without an explaination doing away with your answer.

Most will try to say that it is for those who are already saved and if that is thet case if you answer no then those who are saved yet do not work will not be saved, so it seems to me that between your workless salvation and your OSAS theory you may put yourself in an uncomfortable spot.

If you answer yes then why did James say this.

James is talking to those brethren that would not work yet had faith, would that faith save them ?

James is talking about unsaved people who come to faith yet would not work, would that faith save them?

[Marc]

No, for James 2 is talking about physical life.

I find it almost laughable that you demand a direct answer but then dodge Romans 4:5.

[Marc]

"My" workless salvation?

To the one who "does not work" (Romans 4:5).

[JSM17]

Faith and Works

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


Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:24).


Are we saved by grace? Absolutely. Can we in any way earn or merit our salvation?

Absolutely not!!! Does this mean then that obedience is not necessary for man's

salvation? Does this mean that one can remain disobedient to God and be saved?

Absolutely not!! What does Paul mean when he says works don't save? What does

James mean when he says works do save?


When we speak about "works", it is needful to define what kind of works we are talking

about. We know that the Bible does not contradict itself. Paul and James were both

inspired, therefore we know they were not teaching conflicting doctrines. Let us consider

some of the "works" in the Bible:


Works of the flesh, Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,

fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Gal 5:19.

Works that enable one to boast, Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of

grace, but of debt. Rom 4:4.


Work of God, Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye

believe on him whom he hath sent. Jn 6:29.


Works of righteousness, But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh

righteousness, is accepted with him. Acts 10:35.


Works of faith, Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and

patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 1 Thess 1:3.

What do we conclude from this short list? Some works are to be included, others are to

be excluded from our lives. Our final judgment will be based upon our works: . . .Who

will render to every man according to his deeds (Romans 2:5-6). Going back to those

statements of Paul and James, it is obvious they are using "works" in a different way.

Paul is speaking of the works of the Law of Moses--where we think we can be saved by

our goodness or righteousness; where we think, "I kept the law, look how good I am--God

owes me my salvation." There is none that can be saved on the merits of his goodness,

hence Paul says faith saves by grace.


James agrees to this but shows us what faith is. Faith is not a mere statement of faith, but

being obedient to what God requires. Hence James says we are saved by works.

You see Marc not all works are excluded from salvation, it is just that since you follow the teachings of a man by the name of Luther whether directly or in directly. He couldn't see that there are different works found in the bible, not all works are bad, incilding ones found in way of salvation, the focus should be why we do them is it for our boast that we are obedient to Him.

You keep proclaiming that it is by faith your are saevd and not by works at all.

But isn't interesting that nobody is complaining that you say that it is YOUR faith that saves you, how is it that nobody cries at the shout of YOUR faith saving you, it is something that YOU do isn't it.

Work is anything that you must do, do YOU believe Marc.

I am chastised because I proclaim the truth about obedience to our Lord in Faith, Repentance , Confession, baptism, which are all things we are COMMANDED to do in order for us to be pleasing to God, but YOU can say well just believe but do no works, because salvation has nothing to do with what we do, well then YOU better not believe because thats something YOU do.

Romans 4:5 does not exlude works of obedience unto GOD which include YOUR faith that YOU do!

[JSM17]

Here are some examples of Abrahams workless faith:

Careful study of verses Romans 4:1-8 reveals that Paul discusses the Justification of Abraham as referred to in Genesis 15:6. At the time this statement was made Abraham was already (and hadbeen for many years) a devouted believer in God and follower of His instructions.

God appeared unto Abraham even in Mesotopia, before he went to Haran (Acts 7:2). By faith Abraham obeyed divineinstruction to go into "the land which I will show thee" (Acts 7:3; Heb. 11:8). God appeared to him again at Haran and promised to bless him (Gen. 12:1-3). He was seventy- five years old when he left Haran. Abraham built an altarunto Jehovah at Shechem (Gen. 12:7). He built an alter between Bethel and Ai (Gen. 12:4-8).

When Abraham returned from Egypt to the place of the altar between Bethal an Ai, he "called on the name of Jehovah" (Gen 13:4). When Abraham had been visited by Jehovah, and when God had referred in detail to the land of promise, Abraham "bulit an altar unto Jehovah" by the oaks of Mamre ( Gen. 13:18). Melchizedek said, "Blessed be Abram of God most High..." (Gen. 14:19).

God said to Abram, "I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward" (Gen 15:2). Then, in Gen. 15:6, when God had promised Abram a son, the record says: "And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness." This is the passage which Paul quotes in Romans 4 in connection with Abraham as an illusion of the kind of faith which God requires, it doesn't look like faith is dead or workless does it!



A faith that is workless is a dead faith, you have to make a connection with those Paul is talking to which are saved Roman Christians, who struggled with the law, the fact that they could not be justified by the works of the law is there, but Paul does not say that Abraham did nothing in faith, in fact the righteousness that Paul refers to here depends on the fact that Abraham believed to the point of obedience, which is righteousness.

More on Romans 4 soon

Salvation is not unconditional, not all works are excluded from salvation.

[luke1]

When Jesus was on the cross, there was also two other men beside him, being cruxified. Both men heard what the crowds were shouting to Jesus. One man elected to believed in Jesus, and asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus said, (paraphasing) Verily I say unto you, this day you will be with me in paradise.

[grand_puba]

When Jesus was on the cross, there was also two other men beside him, being cruxified. Both men heard what the crowds were shouting to Jesus. One man elected to believed in Jesus, and asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus said, (paraphasing) Verily I say unto you, this day you will be with me in paradise.

This particular point is addressed in the following article:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/thief.html

If you would like to discuss the implications of crucified thief's slavation in more detail, please start another thread. Of course, I would be happy to do it for you too, just let me know.

[JWB8]

This is a hard one. There are two conditions nessary to an accurte and comlete statement of any Bible doctrine. First, it must harmonize with every other statement in the Bible on the same subject. This is necessary to accuracy. Second, it must provide for a reconciliation of all Bible statements on the subject with each other. This is necessary to completeness. These two conditions will sugest the true method of ascertaining the teaching of the Bible on any given subject. Too often, however, instead of using this method, men have formed their doctrines as a result of opposing some error, or by deducing them from some preconceived notion. Thus, the doctrine of the miraculous operation of the Spirit in conversion is derived, not from any plain statement in the Bible, but from the previously held theory of total depravity. The popularly taught idea that baptism is merly an outward sign of an inward grace and therefore has nothing to do with salvation, is the result of extreme opposition to the Catholic doctrine of "baptismal regenertion." The theory of justification by faith-only arose from opposition to the Catholic doctrine of meritorious works. Such a route to a doctrine is always a dangerous one, and usually leads to incorrect conclusions, conclusions which have just enough truth in them to give the appearance of being Biblical.
The point is to round out our study of the "faith" that saves, while at the same time putting the theory of "faith-only" to the test, and likewise answering a few of the popular objections to the position set forth earlier in this study that the faith that saves is an obedient faith.
To get a clear perspective of the problem, let us put side by side the statements of Paul and James on the subject.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

(Romans3:28 )

You see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

(James 2:24, ASV)
At first sight thewre is a striking contradiction between these two statements. They both admit that man is justified by faith; but Paul adds "without works of the Law," and James adds "not without works." If the terms "justified," "faith," and "works" are used alike in both propositions, then there is a real and irreconcilable contradiction. But if either of these leading terms is used in a different sense, then the statements my both be true. Because we believe both books to be inspired, we cannot do as Luther did, and discard the book of James simply because it contradicted his doctrine of "faith-only." What we must do is find out which of the terms is ambiguous and used in a different sense.
Some have suggestede the ambiguity is the word "faith." The faith of which James speaks requires accompanying works, while that of Paul does not. Or the aqmbiguity may be in the term "justified." Perhaps one speaks of initial salvation, and the other speaks of coninuing justification after after one is first saqved. Or perhaps the ambiguity is in the word "works." The works of which James speaks are necesary to justification, while those of Paul are not.
The first alternative gets the faith-only advocates in deep trouble. The moment they admit that James teches there is a faith (an obedient faith) that justifies, they have lost their whole case for salvation by faith-only (knowledge, assent, and trust).
An elaborate argument is given by some faith-only advocates to show that the word "justification" is used in two different senses. Paul uses the word of Abraham's initial salvation, they affirm, while James uses it of a justification that happened many years later, at the time he offered his son Isaaac. This is true; and if it were all James says on the matter of justificaton, the argument could be sabstantiated. But notice that James uses two examples of people who were justified by works, and Ruhab's in no way can be anything other than initial salvation (justification). So it is evident that Paul and Jame are using "justified" in the same sense.
The third alternative is resorted to by many writers, as they would explain this apparent contradiction between Paul and James. Paul and James use "works" in two different senses. The works that Paul speaks of are works that "make faith void" (Romans 4:14). The works that James speaks about are works that "make faith perfect" (James 2:21, 22). Actually, Paul and James are saying the same things. Paul is arguing against the "meritorious works" system. James is arguing against the "faith-only" idea. In the Romans passage, the contrast is between an "obedient faith" and meritorious works. In the James passage, the contrast is between an "obedient faith" and "faith-only." Both insist that an obedient faith is the condition of justification, rather than meritorious works being the condition, or faith-only being the condition.
As it was in Abraham's life, so it is in ours - justifiction was a continuing thing. He was justified several times, as a harmony of all passages that speak of his justification clearly show. The condition of this justification is an obedient faith. For the alien sinner, immersion is one of the acts of obedience that is required for forgiveness. For the erring saint, confession of his sin is one of the acts of obedience that is required. As James and Paul both insist, the faith that saves, whether it be initial or continuing justification, is an obedient faith!
Sorry, if this is LONG, some times it is hard to make just a "yes" or "no" answer, as a lawyer asked the person on the stand, "Did you ever quit hitting your mother?" Either way the one on the stand must have been hitting their mother.

[JWB8]

The faith that saves is made up of four constituent elements - Knowledge, assent, confidence, and obedience. It is further maintained that only if "faith" is so defined is it possible to harmonize all the passages in the Word that have to do with salvation. I suggest once more that Paul's own conversion is a perfect illustration of the thesis I am proposing. Writing in the fifth chapter of Romans, he says, "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." He includes himself in this statement. Now let us remember the record of his conversion. His trip to Damascus to persecute the Christians was interrupted by the risen Lord appearing to him. He came to see himself as the chief of sinners, desperately in need of forgiveness and peace with God. In submission to Jesus, he says, "Lord, what will you have me to do?" and passes the next three days in prayer and fasting. It would be idle to search for an example of more undoubting faith and heart-broken repentance than praying, fasting Paul. If saving faith includes but three elements (as faith-only advocates affirm), Paul ought to already be justified and have peace with God. But he doesn't! Can there be found a clearer demonstration of the impotency of "faith-only" to secure justification and peace? Not till after Ananias the preacher comes and explains to him about the need for immersion and having sins washed away, and he complies with this command, does he find peace with God! Only when his faith became an obedient faith waw he justified! And thus it is through the whole book of Acts, and through the whole Christian dispensation.

[Marc]

Those who are not saved by faith alone are not saved at all. Romans 4:5 and Titus 3:5, 6 are clear on this. Romans 4 the works include all works and the same holds true in Titus 3:5, 6.

[JSM17]

Please go to the post titled James vs. Paul and read it to see where Marcs comments lead to.