10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
Looks like confession is a condition of salvation I wonder if the thief did this? If he did he was not saved by faith alone, if he didn't it wouldn't make a difference he died before the New covenant, which you still have not taken up.
Romans 3:28 (KJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
"because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight".
Romans 5:1 (KJV) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Romans 4:3 (KJV) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:5 (KJV) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
I will say that James 2 does not contradict any of the scripture above, or any, that I may use in addition to these.
"The very heart and method of James' appeal in chapter 2 is to arouse acts of mercy from those who have already received the mercy of God." James does not question the fact that these are christians. He appeals to them based on that reality. We must take notice of the two fold useage of the word "justified".
Paul means by it, the gratiutous imputation of righteousness before God. Romans 5:1(above)
Ephesians 2:8-9(KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
And James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, AND THAT BEFORE MEN, as we can gather from the words of the assailant (a certain man), "SHOW TO ME THY FAITH"
Now, what we have here hanging in the balance is what saving grace (faith) really is. The intention, of James insuing responses, is focused on: If a brother or sister sees someone who is in need and sends him away only with comforting words , how did faith profit him, and/or physically help the one who is in need. The apparent view of this act as seen through the eyes of the assailant , as faith not being present because it was not made visible as it pertained to the needy person. Thus James asks, can faith save him? Comforting words do not supply the body with nourishment that it needs to survive.
James makes his responses based on the effect it had on the needy participant and on the doubting impact it had on the assailant. Can faith, (which is visible to God, but invisible to man) save him? Without any visible signs of faith working, the answer demanded is a no. However, to illustrate to the assilant, that faith thru visible works can be made apparent, James uses the illustration of one who is already saved thru faith, Abraham. Romans 4:3 (KJV) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Abraham was reckoned righteous before he was tested in his faith. As many as thirty five years had past before God tested righteous Abraham. Abraham proved by visible means that he was justified, "BUT NOT BEFORE GOD"
Romans 4:2 (KJV) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
And from The Living Bible: Romans 4: 1-3, " Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What were his experiences concerning this question of being saved by faith? Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? if so, then he would have something to boast about. But from Gods's point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride. For the Scriptures tell us Abraham believed God, and that is why God canceled his sins and declared him " not guilty".
The other issue concerning this topic is, that demons also believe. The passage reads, James 2:19 (KJV) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
The Jewish assailant is steep in the belief that God is one, and knowing that James is also Jewish and would be knowledgeable of this, uses this to further his cause. No where in scripture is found that there is saving grace in the knowledge that there is one God. Gods salvation for mankind has been provided through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Salvation is for fallen mankind through the lineage of Adam. There is no ransom given for the fallen angels. They lived with God. They have knowledge of God. The only outcome awaiting them is the lake of fire. It's no wonder they shudder and tremble.
The appeal of James is to the Christians who have received mercy. That they should do works that are pleasing to God. That their faith should mature, and be perfected even as Abrahams faith was perfected and justified by his work , BUT NOT BEFORE GOD, but in the eyes of mankind, for we read it even unto this day, and we through faith believe it, just as we believe through faith in Christ Jesus.
There is one name given under heaven by which we must be saved, then it naturally follows that anyone who has placed their faith in Jesus, fulfils the requirement of God for salvation, therefore must be saved.
The thief on the cross, called on the name of the Lord, and was saved.
Romans 5:1 (KJV) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
I would like to give credit to John F. Hart, on an article concerning this topic, from which I have made use. Scripture is of course Scripture.
Talking about the thief on the cross is like beating a dead horse , it will get you no where, move on into the New Covenant, won't you.
If I wanted to prove that we are saved by faith which we are I would keep repeating the scriptures that teach faith, but if I wanted to learn about repentance I wouldn't go to a scripture that teaches about faith. If I wanted to learn about confession I am not going to go to a scripture about faith or even repentance, I will go to a scripture that teaches about confession. If I want to know about baptism I am going to go to the scriptures that speak about it.
Know if I wanted to know about the thief on the cross I would go to the thief on the cross, but if I wanted to know about salvation under the New Covenant I would go to were that is. Just in case you were not sure it is not found with the THIEF!
You completly disregard all other aspects of obedience when you push this man made doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and you do not even go to a New Covenant scripture to prove it, hello?
And even if you by chance would admitt confession or repentance, you would be forced to place in the FAITH category or else salvation would not be by faith alone.
I wonder were you put love in the faith alone doctrine? What about grace? What about blood? Nope just faith, just our own subjective faith saves us nothing else right?
I will provide one observation that presents a very profound, and serious issue with Mr Hart's, and by virtue of that your, conclusion:
So, I will ask a question I have asked others before: Save him from what and to whom?James 2:14 wrote:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
If you apply the conclusion that James speaks of faith working to other people, and not God, well that doesn't make any sense because other people is not who we need to be saved from or saved towards. The laser beam focus of all of Scripture is pointed at one thing: salvation from sin and service to God. Based on this simple truth, your exegesis of James 2 does not fit or harmonize with the context itself. Quite clearly James 2 is speaking of "faith working" salvation specifically done before God and towards God.
Friend, this is re-hashing covered ground again. This is indeed a restatement of your assertion that started the thread. Can I ask what your thoughts are to my previous question from the text of James especially in light of your persistence in your conclusion? The two don't reconcile or harmonize at all.luke1 wrote:What did the thiefs' faith profit him? Can faith save him? YES
The bible says that we are saved by HOPE, may I ask what hope are we saved by. Were the Old Testament figures (people) saved by faith alone?
Here is a thought to ponder when dealing with any faith alone advocates: To say one is saved by faith alone is to say that you are not saved by anything else, nothing other than your subjective faith. So in declaring this , and they do, all other aspects of salvation as we know are obsolete, such as the blood of Christ, certainly when one says that he is in the room ALONE, there can be no other with him. But then you realize that there are others in the room with him yet he continues to say well Joe is in the room with me but I am in the room ALONE. Just as faith alone advocates will say that you are saved by faith alone, YET grace is there also, oh yeh and also the blood of Christ, oh and hope and love and all these other things, BUUUUUUUUUUUT remember we are in the room alone and we are saved by faith alone.
So lets look at this thief who was on the back side of the resurrection of Christ who are friend LUKE1 says was saved by faith ALONE. Did this thief have to have any hope in the Messiah? Did Abraham have to have any hope in the Messiah? Did Daivid have to have any hope in the Messiah? Did this gentilemen have to have any LOVE for God?
To declare salvation by faith alone is to declare a dead faith, because the one who advocates this really teaches that once you have faith there are no other acts of obedience that one is required to carry out!
1 Corinthians 3:11-15 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every 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. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
The thief for the many times it has been said had shown a change in his thoughts about Christ, which is evident in the fact that he goes from one attitude about Him to the next.
This easy believism is really getting the best of some or most of the evangelical world. Do you really think that one can go from insulting the Lord right into proclaiming that He is GOD?
The text demands substance, such as the change that occured upon the thief hearing or remembering things about Christ, why did the thief have a change of heart? Did he already know somethings of Christ and now he finally put things together? Did he hear someone talking about Him and some of the things that He did? Did Christ preach to Him and offer to Him personally the salvation that would come way of His future shed blood?
I think a few things are important to remember about not only the thief but also of Abraham and other OBEDIENT figures that lived and died before the shed blood of the messiah.
1. Abraham was never saved by faith alone! James 2
2. It was accounted to Abraham righteousness, why because true righteousness could not be recieved without the shed blood of Christ, remember that the blood went back and went forwards. Even if the thief would be in Paradise with Christ that day, it would not be done by faith alone, why?
BECAUSE ONE CANNOT BE SAVED BY FAITH (ONE ITEM OF OBEDIENCE) ALONE, IF THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENT FOR OBEDIENCE TO BE PROCURED!
Again the idea is so simple, why it is hard to understand is still beyond me, if we are saved by faith alone without any further acts of obedience then one can be saved apart from repentance and confession and even from obedience itself.
Being apart from others; solitary.
Being without anyone or anything else; only.
Considered separately from all others of the same class.
Being without equal; unique.
Without others: I was in the room alone without any others.
Without help: I was saved by my subjective faith alone, without help from God.
Exclusively; only: The burden of proof rests on the fact that I was saved by faith alone.
Here is the everlasting problem with salvation by faith alone:
1.How does you own subjective faith save you apart from any other acts of obedience, such as confession or repentance or even baptism?
2. Not as if that was not enough to convict someone of this truth what does one say about "Hope, or grace? I could go on adding more things in which we are saved by, but we have been over this time and time again.
3. Your subjective faith does not procure anything in and of itself and it never will without submittance to God in obedience. Even the thief on the cross would have come to this conclusion.
4. Lets say that I would like to argue the fact that the thiefs name was BOB, one would say why is this important, and I would say well my name is BOB and I want everyone named BOB to be saved , so I will assume that the thiefs name was BOB so I can fall into that catagory. Even though the text does not give us his name but I will assume that theory from that in which was written, of course if by some way it was implied that all men crucified were named Bob I might have something, but they are not all named Bob and it is not implied that they are all named Bob. Infact this illustration is rediculous, just like the concepts of faith alone for the thief on the cross.
5. Salvation by faith (one own subjectiveness) alone excludes all other points of God's grace, if the thief did not repent from not just the insults but from his past sins there could be no forgiveness. For without repentance one will perish, are we denying what Christ said before the cross, is Christ contradicting Himself before our very eyes and ears?
6. Why would Christ through His whole ministry preach repentance confession and baptism and then get the cross and grant salvation to someone who just had good old subjective faith alone? Please do not say that it was His grace because grace is not contradictive to truth, that for what ever reason Jeus bent the truth for this one man, this would not be becoming of our GOD.
7. I think it is rather arrogant on are part to think that our own subjectve faith alone can save us, while chastizing those who rightfully teach obedience to HIS word in which tells us it is impossible for a man to be saved apart from certain things. i.e. hearing, believing, repenting, love, grace, hope, blood, baptism, obedience, assurance, gospel.....
Finally I would like to give a few thought about "phelps" post comments reguarding baptism, I would encourage you to go to the post that I am about to make titled "Baptism, is it really an outward sign of an inward grace?" Because I cannot find that neither implied or explicitly stated in scripture.
And lastly and hopefully for the last time for a while, I will simply state that the thief is not our example of how we are saved on the other side of the cross in the NEW COVENANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I merly set out an arguement that deserves attention in regards to your bold statement concerning baptism and the thief.
Sometimes when one cannot answer an arguement they resort to pointing out the character of others, of course I am pretty sure that this does not pertain to you (Phelps), I am sure that you can refute my post with scripture and logic, I am patiently awaiting your response with a smile and with love, no anger
1. God will never saves someone outside of the truth in which He has put forth, God shows no partiality, no one is saved apart from the blood of Christ and no one is saved apart from the Gospel.If wants to save someone he can. If he said it then it will happen. Here is the important point I feel we need to make sure of. The new covanent was not in place until the death and ressurection of Jesus. The great commision tells us we must baptize. Every passage that deals with salvation and what one must do to be saved always mention baptism. What every the bible says saves us, saves us. Period. We are saved by the grace of God's love that he sent his son. We are saved by the faith that Jesus is the son of God and his blood cleanses us. Baptism is the acceptance of that gift. The water does nothing. The person baptizing does nothing. It is gesture that I have faith that God saved us and I will show this faith in an outward method. It is all three that saves us not just one
2. If the great commission tells that we must be baptized, then I can only assume that you believe it is essental for salvation. Yet you have stated that "baptism is an acceptance of that gift. Scripture?
3. You talk about the blood that saves us, when and how does one contact that blood. Scripture?
4. You said water does nothing, I agree if you mean it does nothing to merit our salvation, but certainly it serves the purpose of being immersed in it, for sprinkling and pouring do nothing.
5. You said it is gesture that I have faith that God saves us, and baptism is an outward sign of this salvation.
There are other post concerning these issues maybe you would like to vist them, you can try to prove your theories of baptism there.
It certainly is important to be baptized but not for a sign but for remission of sins Acts2:38; for putting one into Christ Romans 6:3-5; clothing yourselves with Christ Gal.3:27; immersed into the Holy Spirit Acts 19:1-5; It does now save us 1 peter 3:21 and ect........... I am just not sure that it is just a sign of salvation , apart from it you cannot be saved!
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!"
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. [c]"
43 Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
Like I have said in the first post. Jesus had the ability to save him and did. He has that right to choose. We don't. What ever the bible says saves us, saves us. Period. It is not one alone, but every thing. What good is baptism with out faith, grace, or hope. It is just getting wet. Do we need to be baptized, yes. I never said we didn't. The only thing I said was that the theif was saved because Jesus made it so and it was his perogitive to do it.
If the theif was not saved, then the bible is wrong and we are all wasting our time talking about it, because if one passage of scripture is false then the bible is worthless. I know you don't belive it and I for don't belive the bible is wrong. I belive we are having a missunderstanding of one of two things.
2. misscommunication in the post. I may not be getting my point across in the way that I mean it to.
YES OR NO
Actually the point that I really am at with all this is that no one, I mean no one including the thief on the cross was saved by faith ALONE!
If you answer yes then I have shown how the thief was not saved by his own subjective faith.
If the answer is no then I have shown implications of change, remorse love perhaps, confession.
I did this way of showing that Jesus HImselve said before the cross that unless you repent tou shall perish, so the thought that I had was "Did the thief have to repent or was Jesus changing His statement to really mean that some of you have to repent to be saved?
Taking the totality of scripture to understand an event not just one point or picture of salvation for one man but redemption for mankinf throughout history. Again even those of the Old Testament were not saved by faith ALONE, as no one has ever been. I get the whole Jesus can save who ever He wnat when ever He wants. The only point that I am trying to show is that Jesus will not contradict Himself in the process, wouldn,t you agree?
We still do not know enough about the thief to merit this much attention, and if there were other posts moving right now I would not continue with speculstion about a man that died before the death burial and resurrection of Christ.
I'd like to add some caution to your comments. While in a purely theoretical sense this is correct statement, it is just that theoretical. God, and by virtue of that Jesus being God in the flesh, operates and interacts with mankind on the basis of law. As the lawgiver He has complete control and of His own choosing to define and deliver His law. Paul makes this point abundantly clear throughout the first half of Romans (I can provide many quotes if it is helpful but I will save the space to make the conclusion very concise). But, if you are suggesting that Jesus created an "exception" to God's law and "suspended" the law in order to save the thief then God is not a Just rewarder but shows partiality, another conclusion that is not consistent with scripture.phelps wrote:Like I have said in the first post. Jesus had the ability to save him and did. He has that right to choose. We don't. What ever the bible says saves us, saves us. Period. It is not one alone, but every thing. What good is baptism with out faith, grace, or hope. It is just getting wet. Do we need to be baptized, yes. I never said we didn't. The only thing I said was that the theif was saved because Jesus made it so and it was his perogitive to do it.
So, the challenge of the thief story is this:
a) We know next to nothing about the thief or his past life. Was he baptized in John's baptism? We have no idea but it is a real possible explanation to him personally.
b) What does this say about the law God measured people by at the time? Here again there are limited choices the thief being a Jew it's either the Law of Moses or the New Covenant in Jesus. But again, the conclusion you reach will have to be harmonized with ALL of scripture. I believe the evidence to be quite compelling that the thief died under the Law of Moses.
So, I leave this with you all. Please be VERY cautious about establishing much of ANY conclusion regarding the thief and especially in isolation to what all of scripture harmonizes to tell us. Any conclusion in isolation is a very slippery slope that is likely to end where scripture does not lead.
If you go back to the original post you will se why it was so important to respond to the thoughts being given regarding the tief.
This event has always been a target for faith alone advocates, there is little evidence as to what the conditions were for the thief, yet they feel compelled to use it to their devise, which cannot go un answered.
And as Sledford has concluded there is no justice done in assuming anything other than what we see.
Certainly I can walk away from the discussion believing for sure that the thief was not saved by faith alone, and this is easily stated again with the fact that the thief showed change, which IMPLIES much more than one own subjective faith saving himself.
So the simple statement of "The thief on the cross was NOT saved by his own subjective faith alone!" is equired to close this thread.