"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

Oh, come on, DHK, you really can't have it both ways!

Either there is no condition precedent for salvation, in which case it is unconditional and applies universally regardless of the action or inaction of the recipient, or there is a condition precedent, in which case that condition must be fulfilled by the recipient of salvation.

I ask again: which is it?

 

That was a non sequitor. Not once in my entire post did I refer to James 2:24, which of course you took out of its context. Tell me, is it really necessary for you to have James 2:24 in front of you in order to understand either Romans 5:1 or Eph.2:8,9? If it is then you are in a sad state of affairs. Paul did not have James in mind when he wrote his epistles. The one has nothing to do with the other. And yes you are being very childish. I gave you a clear presentation of how these Scriptures teach "faith alone," and like a little child you give the predictable response: "But what about James 2:24; but what abou James 2:24!"

And no, the word "alone" does not have to be in the verse. These passages are so clear, you are just making up silly arguments for arguments sake. That is very clear for all the readers to see.
There is but one desk in an office. A man comes in with a computer. Which desk do you want me to put the computer on? he asks. You are like that man. Unless it is spelled out to you, you will not believe. Unless faith has its qualifer as "alone" and not any other phrase, you will not believe. The man with the computer will not set it on the only desk in the office. He must be told "on that desk alone. You are the same way. If "alone" isn't in the equation you will not believe. And that is really sad.

When the shoe fits wear it. I get tired of: "But it doesn't say "alone"; but it doesn't say "alone"; but it doesn't say "alone"; but you neglected James 2:24; rant, rant, rant. I call that childish.

I wasn't discussing the clear unamgibuous statement of James to those who don't disregard the overall context his epistle, and do know what he is speaking about. Therefore I chose not to mention it. It would only cause confusion to those who can't seem to get by the simplicity of Paul's writings.
I spent a lengthy post on exegeting Eph.2:8,9. Now you spend the same amount of time going phrase by phrase through the same Scripture and show how I should have come to a different conclusion. There was nothing read into it. There was nothing taken out of context.

The guiding principle running all throughout Scripture regarding salvation is that it is by faith and by faith alone. This is shown to be true in almost every book of the Bible.

 

Now you have set yourself up as God. You are telling God that he must do things one of two ways--one of your two ways. He cannot do things the way He has already set them up because it goes against your sense of human logic. But God is the God of the impossible, the God of love; the God of the merciful; and the God who saves.
He loves us enough to love us unconditionally, and unconditionally pay the penalty for our sins. He only desires that we, by faith alone, accept the free gift of that salvation provided by His Son. You have the choice: to accept by faith or to reject it. No one forces you to believe. It is a free gift with no strings attached. But you still have to receive the gift. Receiving the gift is not a work.

 

I’ve been happy with his book thus far; it’s been a good introduction.

By chance Matt and DT, if you’ve never heard of Eight Day Books look them up on the net. EDB’s is an Orthodox Book store here in Wichita, KS, tons of books, some even hard to find books. It’s a neat store.

My wife and I both are taking a Catechesis class at the Orthodox Cathedral we attend

The Methodist Church will allow children and I’ve even noticed infants from time to time take the elements. John Wesley believed that both Baptism and Communion were a means of grace and all, regardless of age should be allowed to come to Christ. The EOC regards the Church as a family and an infant is baptized and chrismated at the same time. Confession in the EOC is done when a child reaches the age of accountability, not sure when that age is, it may differ from child to child.

You are right regarding the Catholic Church’s confirmation classes for kids before their first communion. The Orthodox Church does have “Church School”, if that’s equivalent to confirmation classes, I’m not sure.

Then again, my wife and I never let our son, who was baptized in a Methodist Church as an infant; partake in Communion when we were Methodist, b/c we felt he need to “understand”.

I had to catch myself and remember that I didn’t have to “understand” the intellectual sense for God to work in our lives, regardless the age. To do so is Gnosticism and a heresy.

Am I correct in that the EOC doesn’t see God the Father as a “ticked off” Father at the world, b/c of Adam and thus demanded His Sons blood as payment?

Seems the West looks at this in more of a courtroom type legalistic theology. Which makes sense, after all Rome did perfect the Judiciary system.
-

 

You make a couple different assertions above (in addition to your persistent childish namecalling), including:
1. I took James 2:24 out of context
2. You somehow proved Eph 2:8.9 teaches "faith alone" (despite the absense of the word "alone") through "exegesis" and taking "nothing out of context"
3. That I must somehow deal with Eph 2:8,9 without invoking James' clear statement since the latter (supposedly) "has nothing to do with" the former.

Okay, to hopefully avoid the continued charge of being "childish", I'll deal with these in reverse order.

First, you submit that despite the absence of the word "alone", Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9 somehow obviously teaches "justification by faith alone".
In reaching this conclusion, I submit you are making two fundamental erroneous assumptions:
1. That Paul is teaching that an individual's salvation is a once-for-all irrevocable event, and...
2. That Paul is excluding any and all kinds of "works" from consideration in an individual's ultimate salvation

Assumptions 1 & 2 overlap somewhat, but I'll look at each in turn with evidence from Paul's other writings which disconfirm DHK's assumptions before turning to Ephesians 2 itself.

First, Paul teaches elsewhere in several places that salvation is not an irrevocable event, but that our ultimate salvation is contingent on our continuing in Christ or continuing in the faith. Paul instructs that we (gentile Chrisians) must continue in the goodness of God or we too will be cut off (Romans 11:22); we are saved if we hold fast the word (if not, we've believed in "vain") (1 Cor 15:2); and that we will be presented holy and blameles in His sight if we continue in the faith and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel (Col 1:22-23). Paul himself did not consider his final salvation yet assured or attained (Phil 3:12-13), stating he disciplined his body lest he should become disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:27). Of course, I'm sure that DHK will dispute that Paul really meant that one has to continue in His goodness and continue in the faith to remain in Christ and be presented pure and blameless in his sight--despite what Paul actually clearly stated. The point is that the burden of proof is on DHK to "explain away" these clear statements, as they are contrary to the underlying assumptions he employs in interpreting Ephesians to mean one is saved by faith "alone"

Secondly, as I've stated elswhere in this thread, Paul's main concern is contrasting faith with "works of the Law" rather than works in general--particularly works of love. This can be seen succinctly in the epistle to the Galatians in which Paul states that "In Christ neither circumcision or uncircumcision avails anything but faith working through love" (Gal 5:6)

Of course, dissecting Paul's sustained argument in the epistle to the Romans (for instance) would take a long time indeed, but this distinction--between "works of the law" and "works of loving obedience"--can be detected just from reading the book from start to finish, especially in context of his entire corpus. Particularly this distinction should be evident early in Paul's epistle where he does teach that God will grant eternal life (or its opposite) in accordance with our works:

"[God] who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'; eternal life to do those who by patient continuence in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 2:6-10)

So here's a clear statement from Paul himself that salvation (ETERNAL LIFE) will be given to those who work what is good. (So unless you want to propose that since Paul didn't have ROMANS in front of him when he wrote to the Ephesians that this statement in ROMANS can have no bearing on the meaning of "the other" (in EPHESIANS), then I suggest we must keep this passage in mind when turning to Ephesians 2).

Now looking at Ephesians 2, knowing that Paul teaches elsewhere that one's salvation is simply not a once-for-all irrevocable event, what is Paul referring to when he says we "have been saved"? Looking back a couple of verses Paul states that God "made us [past tense] alive when we were dead in trespasses and sins" (2:1)..."made us [past tense] alive together with Christ" (2:5) and "and raised us [past tense] up together, and made us [past tense] to sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (2:6). Paul's "have been saved" [perfect tense], therefore, refers back to this initial moment of salvation (as described by Paul) for the Ephesian Christians which they (like he) had already experienced, the effects of which were extending into the present. Paul is addressing GENTILE Ephesians which is evident in verse 11 where he states that they (the same folks addressed in v.1-10) were "once (again past tense) Gentiles in the flesh--who are called [present tense] Uncircumcision by what is called [present tense] Circumcision ([ie, the Jews]". This gives us a context to what kind of "works" Paul has in mind when he is telling the Gentile Ephesian Christians it's "not of works" that they "have been saved"--namely a meritorious system of works, as exemplified by the works of the Torah, which one could boast about. However, Paul goes on to state that the Ephesians were "created [past tense] in Christ Jesus for good works" and we already have seen in Romans 2 that Paul teaches that God will render eternal life to those who actually do good works.

So putting this together, in the immediate context and in the wider context of the Pauline corpus of writings, one can safely say that the teaching in Ephesians 2:8-9 is that one's intial moment of salvation--of being made alive in Christ--has nothing to to with the works of the Torah (or by extension, any system of works where one seeks to earn or obligate God to give them salvation about which they can therefore boast) but is rather a gratuitous gift received by faith. To assert that it teaches more than that is to ignore the grammar and immediate context of the passage, and to disregard other statements Paul made in his writings which teach we must continue in the faith to remain in Christ and that God will render to each one according to his deeds (Romans 2:6) and would thereby introduce serious contradictions into the teachings of Paul.

So having said that it's an easy logical step to demonstrate that DHK has not "proven" that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches one is ultimately justified or saved by faith alone. This is particularly true when one considers "salvation" and "faith" and "works" in not only the wider Pauline context, but in the even wider NT context as a whole. So at this point we turn to the verse in James which DHK accuses me of taking out of context. The verse again:
"You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). That James is referring in context to SALVATION is clear in this rhetorical question in verse 14: "What does it profit, my brethren, if one says he has faith but does not have works. Can faith SAVE him?" So now the burden of proof is on DHK to try to prove that when James says "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" that he is somehow not referring to that man's salvation.

The "faith alone" part clearly has not been proven, and in fact has been falsified by both Paul (Romans 2) and James (James 2) along with Peter, John, and Christ Himself (which I can likewise demonstrate if I really need to).

 

DHK, What does belief entail? Does it entail an act of the will or is it simply a gift from God? Does man have to do something to believe, or again is it just the necessitated response of a coercive gift of God?

You say that all is accomplished on the cross. Can Christ die and pay for the sins of one in vain? Can man, by His voluntary will, forfeit the payment already made on his or her behalf? If all is done on the cross, how can something be made of no effect or undone that has already been accomplished by God Himself? Can man, of his own will, stand up and say. "It doesn't matter to me what God has acomplished in relationship to my sins." Can man declare what God accomplished null and void?"

 

Heavenly Pilgrim,

I dont believe DHK was out of line at all. He was being descriptive, not insulting. Those whom "the shoe fits" were indeed being childish.

To look right smack dab into the face of scores of scriptures that are incredibly clear...CRYSTAL clear...regarding the truth that we are justified through faith ALONE, and then come up with the silly argument that because the word alone wasnt used it doesnt teach that truth is comically absurd. The person using such silly tactics immedietly lose all credibility. Adults usually dont sink to that level. Children do. They havent matured yet.

As DHK correctly pointed out, its as silly as cultists who claim the triune nature of God is false because the word "Trinity" is never found in the scriptures.

Can we all keep the discussion on an ADULT level and forsake such nonsense?

Mike

 

Nope, just trying to set the record straight on how Christians have consistently seen His grace operating through the centuries.

Oh, but He does,

Agree completely. But what has that to do with the case in hand?

So it's unconditional, then.

So it's conditional, then.

So now it's unconditional again.

Ah. A condition again.

Then what on earth is it?!

To quote the late Douglas Adams, if I were you I'd "disappear in a puff of logic" and start over...This conversation is getting ever more crazy...

[ETA - oh, and DT, another excellent post and so Biblical!]

 

Here is an excellant treatment regarding the foundational truth of justification through FAITH ALONE. That truth is so very important, and God has given this truth to us with such overwhelming clarity.

(by the way, NOWHERE in this excellant bit of wisdon will you find the words "faith" and "alone" together!)

Justification through faith and faith ALONE:

It is just so very very clear.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Matt,

You posted, quoting DHK then responding...

Matt, i say this with all due respect.

You my friend, are one...very...very...confused...puppy.

And you have been prayed for.

Concerned,

Mike

 

No confusion here. I'm just asking a very simple question: is salvation conditional upon a precedent (and/or indeed a subsequent) act(s) on our part - yes or no? The confusion appears to be with the answer I'm being given, which appears to be pretty equivocal. Are you able to give me a straight answer, Mike?

 

Matt,

Sure.

The same straight answer DHK gave you. We are justified through faith in Christ alone.

The same straight answer God gives you from His scriptures. We are justified through faith in Christ alone

Mike

 

Define 'faith'.

 

What is your meaning for "define"?

 

Faith is confidence in the word of another.
You exercise faith everyday. I have faith that when I put my key into the ignition of my vehicle, turn it, that according to the manual that Ford has written, my car will start. 99% of the time it does. What about the one percent that it doesn't? Does that mean I have lost my faith? Not at all. It means that the object of my faith (the word of the Ford motor Co.) is fallible, not perfect, has made a vehicle that is not perfect and at some time in history is bound to fail. All things are subject to degeneration.

But I can put my faith in the perfect promises of a perfect God who will never never fail me. Man fails; God never. Faith is confidence in the word of another.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
The more I hear the Word of God; the more faith (confidence) I will have. That is because faith (confidence) always has an object, and that object is a person--the person of Jesus Christ.

I have a relationship with my wife. If I never listen to her; never have a conversation with her; never walk with her; etc., what kind of relationship would it be? Not much. The same is true with the Lord Jesus Christ. When saved, we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and have a relationship with Christ. Do you develop that relationship with him through listening to him through his word; by talking to him through prayer, by spending time with him on a daily basis? How much of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ do you have?
My confidence (faith) has grown each subsequent year that I have been married to my wife. I know that she will never leave me. In fact she will follow me where ever God calls me. When I ask her to do something that needs to be done I have faith (confidence) that she will do it. Faith is confidence in the word of another. Faith or confidence grows as one's relationship with that person grows.

My confidence or faith grows the more I develop my relationship with Christ. This is seen in the example of Abraham:

Romans 4:20-21 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

There is faith. Abraham was fully persuaded that what God had promised he was going to do. He was confident in the word of another, the word of God. That is being strong in faith. He walked with God, had a strong relationship with God, and knew that whatever God said, God would do. Faith is confidence in the word of another.

Biblical faith always has an object. The object of our faith is Christ. What is the object of your faith?

 

HP: And here is the biblical response to your answer.

You say you have faith. Show mw your faith without thy works but I will show you my faith by my works, for faith without works is dead being alone.

 

.

HP: I like everything you said in you post.:thumbs: .

In regards to the relationship you have with your wife, what would it be like if you said you loved her and had faith in your relationship, yet lived selfishly in lust and sinful pleasures that violated that trust upon which faith is founded. Would your ‘faith’ in your marriage keep it sound and in tact?

I had asked you, as I recall, whether or not your will was active in faith, or passive. Do you have to exercise your will in the forming of intents or are you simply coercively receiving a gift from God that you have nothing to do with? I cannot ascertain from your post a direct answer to that question.

I agree with you that faith must have an object. The object of my faith is in Christ as well. The question is how do you know that it is in Christ? You say you have faith. Prove it. How do you know you are simply not deceived into believing your faith is in Christ? Does not Scripture state that many will stand before God believing in their faith when in fact they were deceived? Have you seen your name in the Lamb’s Book of Life or heard those words “well done thou good and faithful servant?” Where is the proof that your faith is well founded and will find you as part of the redeemed on that day of judgment?

 

Heavenly Pilgrim,

I agree completly. When someone is born again, through FAITH ALONE in Christ...there is no other way to be born again...a miracle happens. Jesus Christ Himself comes alive in that person, through the Holy Spirit. And as a result, their will inevitably be a changed life following. The believer receives new wants and desires. The sin they once loved they will now know is wrong. The things of God, which they once considered foolishness, will become attractive to them.

If someone says they have been born again, but there is no change, they havent been born again. They have made a verbal profession. They have paid "lip service" for any number of reasons, but they have not been born again.

They had no interest in the things of God before...and they still dont.

They loved sin and worldliness...and they still do

They sinned freely and openly...and they still do.

etc etc etc.

If someone has truly been born again, they will show it by CHANGE. It will be evident to others.

But all of that has (((ZERO))) to do with their being justified.(born again)

It is an overflow of the new birth, but has NOTHING to do with being saved.

We are saved...justified...through FAITH ALONE in CHRIST ALONE.

Thats the most foundational truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Mike

 

HP: Do you believe in sinless perfection? I thought nothing we do has anything to do with gaining salvation, and nothing we do has anything to with keeping our salvation. I have been told on this list by men of the cloth that we are all liars. Are you saying something different? Are you telling me that Christians ‘don’t sin openly?’ (whatever that means to you)

Now one thing is apparent to me from the many conversations I have had with some on this list. I would certainly be in agreement to saying that if some are indeed justified it certainly does not (or should I say could not) have anything at all to do with their 'stated' actions.:tonofbricks:

 

Heavenly Pilgrim,

I said...

And you responded...

Its really frustrating when professing christians are confused by things so elementary. This ought not be.

Regardless, I'll use myself as an example.

When I was lost I flaunted my sin. The reefer, drugs, drinking, out of wedlock sex with girls, etc. I thought it was living "cool". Part of the good life. And I had no interest in the things of God, or His people.

When I sin now I am not happy about it. I wish I wouldnt, but I do somethimes. I'm not joyfull about it like before being born of the Spirit, and I try not to. And now I love the things of God, and being with His people.

I would think you would understand these things and not be confused by them, but obviously not.

Hope that helps.

Mike