[Tj3]

If it's the same word in Greek, then where are you getting the distinction in English? Sounds like you're foisting onto Scripture a distinction that it doesn't make (otherwise, it would use *two* words instead of one, yes?).

What distinction are you referring to?

[N0help4u]

What I get out of what Akoue is saying is
Faith without works is a dead faith.
You can't have faith and not have the evidence of your faith resulting in works.

[Tj3]

What could this even mean? A contradiction is asserting p and not-p.

Scripture says that if I believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour, I am saved.

You are saying that if you believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour you are not saved. You must also have works. You are saying that the scripture gospel does not save us.

[Akoue]

"if I believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour, I am saved."

Now who's conflating faith and belief?

[Tj3]

What I get out of what Akoue is saying is
faith without works is a dead faith.
You can't have faith and not have the evidence of your faith resulting in works.

If so, then why does he not stop the arguing and simple agree with that. Every time I point that out he tells us that work is essential for us to be saved.

Akoue please clarify. Do you believe that we must we first have works to be saved?

Or

Do you believe that the works follow salvation?

[Akoue]

Again: Works are a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, CONDITION for salvation. No salvation without works and faith.

So, no, works do not "follow" salvation, anymore than faith "follows" salvation.

BTW: Works aren't for show, we don't do them so that others will think we have faith (as you have intimated). If works aren't undertaken with the right intention they are not right sort of works. So, yes, works must be undertaken faithfully; they must be acts performed in a spirit of humility.

[arcura]

artlady's.
Hi Michele.
I'm much older than you at 75, 76 coming in February but that is not what counts in forgiveness.
Not forgiving people keeps a person loaded with junk that must be carried.
Dump the junk. Forgive them 7 times 70 times if necessary more.
I forgive a constant bigot and liar that I deal with almost daily so he is little more than an irritant.
I forgive everyone who has sinned against me via thought, word or deed whether I know about it or not.
That way I let the Lord handle it and I dump it.
"Let Go. Let God!!!"
After doing that for awhile it becomes easy.
Now I realize that forgiving people does not change them.
They are the only ones who can change themselves.
So I pray that the Holy Spirit works with them to help them change.
Sometimes that works quite well.
In others if the sinner is dead set in his/her ways it's like trying to break down a mountain with a feather.
BUT then also keep in mind that the weather, over time, can and has broken down mountains. It just takes a lot of weather and time.
I thank the Lord for His inspirational help.
You should think about asking for that help.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

I note that those who quote this in support of the erroneous works gospel fail to deal with either the Greek or the context. Keep in mind that in the original Greek of the NT, the word use for faith is the same as faithfulness, so if one has faith, then the natural consequence is that one will act on that faith. For example, if you have a child and you love that child, you will provide for that child and do what you can to make the child healthy and happy - but it is not to prove to others that you love the child, but it is a natural consequence of the love that you have for the child. It is the evidence of that love. The same is true with faith and faithfulness. Thus if you were a person who was reading this in Koine Greek, it would read to you like:

"Faithfulness without works is dead"

This means that having been saved, having faith, having received grace, the expectation is that your faithfulness is evidenced by works.

Let's look at James 2 for a minute. You tell us to look at the context. The context, reading from James 2.14: We get the question, "What good is it, my brothers, is someone says he has faith [pistin] but does not have works [erga]? CAN THAT FAITH SAVE HIM [me dunatai he pistis sosai auton]?" Then, in vv.16-17 we are given an example: If someone has nothing to wear and has no food, "and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace'" without providing for their needs, "what good is it"? Now verse 17: "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead [houtos hai he pistis, ean me eche erga, nekra estin kath' heauten]"--it is not a living faith.

Now v.20: "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless [Theleis de gnonai, ho anthrope kene, hoti he pistis choris ton ergon arge estin]?"

Now v.21: "Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS [ex ergon] when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. <22> You see that faith [he pistis] was active along with his works [tois ergois autou], and faith [he pistis] was completed by the works [ek ton ergon]."

It looks to me like what's required is both faith and works together, as I've been saying, so that neither alone (i.e., in the absence of the other) is sufficient.

Where on earth are you getting this bizzaro faith/faithfulness business? The word is "pistis"--faith. If the NT were making a distinction between "faith" and "faithfulness" wouldn't you expect it to have been made in the Gk? But what you find in the Gk. is just "pistis". So you are trying to read a distinction drawn in English--faith/faithfulness--into the NT, which has only the word "pistis".

[arcura]

Akoue,
Right again!!
But don't expect your excellent argument to be accepted.
Very often it won't be by those who a stuck in the faith only heresy.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[Tj3]

Again: Works are a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, CONDITION for salvation. No salvation without works and faith.

So YOU say. I take my doctrine from scripture.

[Tj3]

Let's look at James 2 for a minute. You tell us to look at the context. The context, reading from James 2.14: We get the question, "What good is it, my brothers, is someone says he has faith [pistin] but does not have works [erga]? CAN THAT FAITH SAVE HIM [me dunatai he pistis sosai auton]?" Then, in vv.16-17 we are given an example: If someone has nothing to wear and has no food, "and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace'" without providing for their needs, "what good is it"? Now verse 17: "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead [houtos hai he pistis, ean me eche erga, nekra estin kath' heauten]"--it is not a living faith.

Exactly what I am saying. If you do not have faithfuless / faith which has evidence of works, then why should we believe that that person's faith is real, or that it is in the one true God. If you do NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and claim to have faith, this may exhibit itself in the lack of works.

Now v.20: "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless [Theleis de gnonai, ho anthrope kene, hoti he pistis choris ton ergon arge estin]?"

Now v.21: "Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS [ex ergon] when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. <22> You see that faith [he pistis] was active along with his works [tois ergois autou], and faith [he pistis] was completed by the works [ek ton ergon]."

I trust that you know that the word that you have put in capitals which is translated as "justified" is daikoo which is Greek means to "render" or to "show". Thus this is saying that the works were a display, show or evidence of his faith. The context of the surrounding verses helped to show that this is in fact the context. Even verse 22 says that faith was teleioo which means consummated or made perfect. For that to happen, the faith had to be there is the first place.

Where on earth are you getting this bizzaro faith/faithfulness business? The word is "pistis"--faith.

You need to speak to a Greek expert or a better lexicon. Do me a favour, will you? Grab a KJV Bible and a NKJV or NIV and compare the KJV translation with one of the others. Post your findings here.

If the NT were making a distinction between "faith" and "faithfulness" wouldn't you expect it to have been made in the Gk? But what you find in the Gk. Is just "pistis". So you are trying to read a distinction drawn in English--faith/faithfulness--into the NT, which has only the word "pistis".

That is my point. I did not make a distinction - it appears that you are. I was pointing out to you that the Greek has no such distinction. Speak to someone who understands linguistics. Translation between languages sometimes results in one word translated into 2 or more depending upon context, or several words translated into one. The English translators, depending upon when and who did it it translate pistis into different words in English, predominantly faith and faithfulness. Thus when you read "faith" in an English Bible, you must always be aware that the word in Greek carries with it the sense of "faithfulness.

Do your research.

[Tj3]

Akoue,

I note that you keep avoiding questions asked of you. The latest is:

If so, then why does he not stop the arguing and simple agree with that. Every time I point that out he tells us that work is essential for us to be saved.

Akoue please clarify. Do you believe that we must we first have works to be saved?

Or

Do you believe that the works follow salvation?

Please answer. I am sure that you have no reason not to be clear about what you believe.

[Akoue]

Akoue,

I note that you keep avoiding questions asked of you. The latest is:

If so, then why does he not stop the arguing and simple agree with that. Every time I point that out he tells us that work is essential for us to be saved.

Akoue please clarify. Do you believe that we must we first have works to be saved?

Or

Do you believe that the works follow salvation?

Please answer. I am sure that you have no reason not to be clear about what you believe.

Well, Tj, did you read my #46 above? I know you did, because you quoted part of it at #50. Here it is again:

Again: Works are a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, CONDITION for salvation. No salvation without works and faith.

So, no, works do not "follow" salvation, anymore than faith "follows" salvation.

BTW: Works aren't for show, we don't do them so that others will think we have faith (as you have intimated). If works aren't undertaken with the right intention they are not right sort of works. So, yes, works must be undertaken faithfully; they must be acts performed in a spirit of humility.

[JoeT777]

Leaving to one side the other exchange in which I'm embroiled on this thread, I'd like to take up artlady's very nice post.

Like you, many of us find distressing the idea that one can claim to be saved in spite of performing heinous actions. God's mercy is infinite, to be sure, but so is his justice. If someone who has lived badly comes to God... well, that's all to the good, of course. But it makes me terribly uncomfortable for people to claim on their own behalf that they are saved, that they are going to heaven, what have you. This just sounds profoundly arrogant to my ears: Who am I, who are any of us, to say that we are saved? Where's the "fear and trembling" in that? Where's the humility? Judgment is God's prerogative, and I'm not to arrogate that to myself. Tell me that you have faith, tell me that you are striving to be better, tell me that you long for heaven, and I'm all ears. Tell me that it's a done deal and all I can do is shake my head.

This doesn't speak to Fred's question, I know, except in a roundabout way. But I found artlady's remarks thoughtful and thought-provoking, and I wanted to acknowledge that

Some people just have so much faith it feels like gold in the bank.
Sure some people are arrogant that they are going to heaven but some proclaim it because their faith is soooo overwhelming they have enough faith to claim they are going to heaven.

Yes, isn't it good that salvation is not based upon our merit, our works (good or bad), but upon God's grace?

Hmmm....Are you saying that the speaker here was profoundly arrogant?

Titus 3:4-7
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

2 Tim 1:8-9
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,
NKJV

.

All:

As I see it, this does speak to Fred's question; although from a somewhat obtuse angle, and at times somewhat negatively.

“Where's the humanity?” Where is it said that the will of men can conjure God's salvation? We are asked by Christ himself to love God first among all things. This was a proclamation to the entire nation of God, “Hear, O' Israel”. This isn't a declaration to a few, but to all, universally. That love is to be consuming of the whole heart and whole soul (Cf. Mark 12:29).

How can taking ownership, like the ownership of a precious metal, manifest this love? Isn't such love really a self-love, as it were, putting God in a box; bringing Him out only to fawn over us. At judgment, we'll be unable present our little bag of love nuggets. There's little salvation within one's slef.

So we find that to love God is to know God; to know God is to love. To know God is to know that which is good. And putting these things together, to be good is to be saintly (Cf. 1 John 4:7; Romans 8:28). The arrogance is to boast of possessing god, to demand his merciful graces as one demands payment for services rendered. In my opinion, this consuming form of love is hard; it demands an abandonment of the will. Opposed to this is a self-serving justification is a debased reciprocal love. The reason is that to surrender to God's love is to surrender control of our will to Him. Consequently, our love is given reluctantly, with strings, with expectations. Therefore it is frequently given ONLY because we fear the loss of heaven. This way we can “box-up” God extending our love in return for salvation by merely proclaiming His sovereignty. Instead it is with fear and trembling that we want to be obedient to God's love, to surrender our will.

I can't give a direct answer to Fed's question. However, it would be safe to say that those found in heaven will be those who selflessly love God with fear and trembling. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fear (From a Moral Standpoint)

JoeT

[Akoue]

Exactly what I am saying. If you do not have faithfuless / faith which has evidence of works, then why should we believe that that person's faith is real, or that it is in the one true God. If you do NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and claim to have faith, this may exhibit itself in the lack of works.



I trust that you know that the word that you have put in capitals which is translated as "justified" is daikoo which is Greek means to "render" or to "show". Thus this is saying that the works were a display, show or evidence of his faith. The context of the surrounding verses helped to show that this is in fact the context. Even verse 22 says that faith was teleioo which means consummated or made perfect. For that to happen, the faith had to be there is the first place.



You need to speak to a Greek expert or a better lexicon. Do me a favour, will you? Grab a KJV Bible and a NKJV or NIV and compare the KJV translation with one of the others. Post your findings here.



That is my point. I did not make a distinction - it appears that you are. I was pointing out to you that the Greek has no such distinction. Speak to someone who understands linguistics. Translation between languages sometimes results in one word translated into 2 or more depending upon context, or several words translated into one. The English translators, depending upon when and who did it it translate pistis into different words in English, predominantly faith and faithfulness. Thus when you read "faith" in an English Bible, you must always be aware that the word in Greek carries with it the sense of "faithfulness.

Do your research.

"Dikaioo" means (1) to make right, (2) to judge, condemn, or punish, (3) to make just, bold, or justify (Greek-English Lexicon, edd. Liddell & Scott, Oxford University Press, p.173). Now the word that occurs in James 2.21 is "edikaiothe", from "dikaioo", which is also the root of the word "dikaion" (translated typically as "righteous" or "justified") throughout the rest of the NT. I don't see how your remark about v.22 disagrees with what I've said.

I actually am a Gk expert: I've been teaching university courses on this stuff for years. I've even published on it (and not on-line but in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses and stuff--you know, where other experts review what I write). And I don't typically read translations of the NT. I prefer to read it in the original. Sorry.

Your "faith"/"faithfulness" stuff makes no sense. How on earth does making this distinction in English vitiate anything that Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians believe? They believe, as James 2 says, that faith (pistis) and works (erga) are both required for salvation.

[Akoue]

Well, Joe, I'd have given you the last word, but your post appeared while I was writing my last one. So I'd like to second the spirit of your post and leave it there.

Nicely put.

[Tj3]

Well, Tj, did you read my #46 above? I know you did, because you quoted part of it at #50. Here it is again:

Again: Works are a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, CONDITION for salvation. No salvation without works and faith.

So, no, works do not "follow" salvation, anymore than faith "follows" salvation.

Good - I just wanted you to clearly differentiate between your position and the Biblical view because Nohelp4u appeared to think that you were in agreement with us who stand on the Biblical position.

[JoeT777]

Well, Joe, I'd have given you the last word, but your post appeared while I was writing my last one. So I'd like to second the spirit of your post and leave it there.

Nicely put.

Thanks, but actually it wasn’t intended as the last word. I had let this sit for some hours and simply didn’t know the conversation was moving forward without me. The jokes on me.

I’m curious, what’s the significance, if any, of the screen name “Akoue”?

JoeT

[Tj3]

"Dikaioo" means (1) to make right, (2) to judge, condemn, or punish, (3) to make just, bold, or justify (Greek-English Lexicon, edd. Liddell & Scott, Oxford University Press, p.173).

I wonder if you gave the complete definition. If so it leaves out what others seem to include. However even if you have found one lexicon to agree with you, that is not a proper way to translate. You cannot take a single verse out of context to try to argue it against the rest of the context of scripture, both local and elsewhere. So, finding a single lexicon does not allow you to escape the problem.

I don't see how your remark about v.22 disagrees with what I've said.

Then you agree with me? Why then do you keep arguing?

I actually am a Gk expert: I've been teaching university courses on this stuff for years.

I am quite surprised to hear you say that. What you have presented in our discussions certainly does not appear to reflect that expertise. You have been in disagreement with other sources by known Greek experts. Since I don't know you, nor can validate your claims, I will have to go along with the known and recognized Greek experts.

Your "faith"/"faithfulness" stuff makes no sense.

See if you do not understand these basics of linguistics, it makes me hard pressed to believe your claim to be a language expert.

How on earth does making this distinction in English vitiate anything that Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians believe?

Again, as I said before these strawman arguments also do not help your credibility. You keep claiming that I am making a distinction which I not only am NOT making but which has been explained to you a number of times.

Please do not misrepresent what I am saying. When you do so, it comes across that you have no answer so you try to change what I am saying so that you can claim that you are you right and I am wrong. I have seen you use that approach 3 times ion this thread. Again that argues against your claims to be an expert.

They believe, as James 2 says, that faith (pistis) and works (erga) are both required for salvation.

They can believe what they want, but the Bible says that scripture is of no private interpretation.

[Akoue]

Howdy, Joe. (I just like the way that sounds!)

"Akoue" is the imperative form of the Gk. Word for to hear or to listen. There's no real significance other than that, though. When I registered and needed to come up with a username I had the Shepherd of Hermas sitting open next to me. I glanced over the and first sentence of Mand.6.2.1 caught my eye: "Akoue nun peri tes pisteos" or "Hear now concerning faith". So, what the hell, I went with the first word.