What's the faith in "faith only"?

Greetings

Gasp! Greek reveals so much that a translation cannot in any easy way duplicate. The Perfect TEnse is the best example.

Additionally, English hides the voice. One guy on this forum appealed to Rom 5:1 as a proof that an active faith that leads to justification. Ignorance of Greek and reliance only on English by itself leads to this sort of error.

But with respect to justification, using Greek it is easy to see that justification is active only with respect to God Himself and passive with respect to humans.

This easy Greek fact by itself demolishes process salvation where justification depends on sanctification (your view). Humans cannot actively contribute anything to the event of justification (my view). Hence we have the biblical word IMPUTE not earn or impart.

Really, it isn't Greek versus English. It is Christ-centered versus human-centered presuppositions.

But I understand that you could make such a cavalier statement since it is likely that you have not pursued this aspect of studying God's Word. I understand - but you are really really wrong.

Lloyd

 

Is there a denomination of Christians who claim to have worked their way into a guaranteed salvation?

 

The original question has yet to be answered satisfactorily, or, Biblically.

Did you not read my original post on page 1?

 

Lloyd:
This article is from Winford Claiborne a Christian brother of mine. He is well versed in Greek. I do not know if he would consider himself a scholar. Personally, I believe humility would prevent him from making such a claim. His contention is the Osas doctrine is false. He uses the Greek to make his argument. While I admit the original languages can shed some light on passages. They also contain language we can not easily accomodate or understand. ie. middle passive voice.

Many of the translations in the King James Version and in other versions introduce Calvinism into the Bible. I could give you many examples, but one will have to suffice today. Luke records Peter's command to the Jewish people he addressed on Solomon's porch of the Jewish temple. "Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19). The Calvinists who translated the King James Version used the expression, "be converted" when it should be rendered "turn." That may not seem important, but I assure you it is very important. The Calvinists wanted people to believe that God does the turning for us. So they used the passive voice—"be converted." They should have used the active voice—"repent and turn." Most of the other versions I have in my study translate the Greek either "turn," "return" or "turn again." In his great set of books, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Seminary, 1930), Dr. A.T. Robertson, a professor in a Calvinist theological seminary, translates the Greek "turn again"—not "be converted" (volume 3, p. 45). The King James Version makes the same mistake every time the expression appears in the New Testament. I urge you to study carefully Matthew 13:15; Mark 4:12: Luke 22:32; John 12:40 and Acts 28:27. In every one of these verses the verb should be rendered "turn" or "turn again"—not "be converted."

I use the Greek because it helps me to understand many passages that have been misused to teach false doctrine. One of the most misunderstood and misused verses in the Bible is Matthew 16:19. Our Lord said to Peter: "And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Some religions interpret-.that verse somewhat as follows: Peter had the authority to bind and to loose. God was sitting up in heaven, figuratively speaking, and what he saw Peter bind and loose, he bound and loosed. That is close to what the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New Revised Standard Version and some other versions teach. There are two notable exceptions to that—Charles Williams' translation and Dr. Hugo McCord's translation. Charles Williams renders the Greek: "Whatever you forbid on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth must be whatever is already permitted in heaven." Dr. McCord translates the verse: "What you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and what you release on earth will have been released in heaven." Dr. A. T. Robertson says the verbs—bind and loose—are future perfect indicatives. That means the verbs outline a state of completion—"shall have been bound" and "shall have been loosed." Is our understanding of what Jesus said in this verse important? It shows that no one— absolutely no one—has a right to bind or to loose what God has not already bound and loosed. When I took Greek in college, this one example convinced me of the great importance of knowing the Greek of the New Testament.

In his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter used the expression, "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Hundreds of debates have been conducted on the meaning of the term. The Greek of the verse should end the debate once for all. Why would I make such an observation? The exact same expression appears in Matthew's account of Christ's institution of the Lord's supper. Jesus informed his disciples: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mt. 26:28). Did Jesus shed his blood in order that our sins may be forgiven or because they were already forgiven? If our sins were already forgiven, it was cruel for Christ to have to shed his blood. So what does "for the remission of sins" mean in reference to baptism? It means we must be baptized in order to have our sins remitted. Does one have to know the Greek in order to come to that conclusion? No, but knowing that the Greek is the same in both passages reinforces the significance of the English translation.

The apostle John wrote -five New Testament books—John, 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation. The tenses of the verbs are very significant in all of John's writings. The word "tense" refers to the time element in a verb. We speak of past, present and future tenses. The tenses of verbs are important in any language, but they are especially significant in the .Greek. I shall use a number of examples from 1 John. The following verse is a very comforting and inspiring message to Christians. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). All the verbs in this sentence are in the present tense. Present tense in the Greek involves continuous action. With that simple explanation, please listen to a literal translation of the Greek. "If we continually walk in the light, as he is in the light, we continually have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son continually cleanses us from all sin." The literal translation may seem a little awkward, but it shows conclusively that no one is saved by grace alone. If we have to continually walk in the light as Christ is in the light in order to receive the continual cleansing of our sins, we are not saved by grace alone. Charles Williams renders the verse: "But if we continue to walk in the light, just as he is in the light, we have an unbroken fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son continues to cleanse us from all sin."

The apostle John emphasizes the absolute necessity of keeping God's commandments. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says, I know him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keeps his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him" (1 John 2:3-5). According to Dr. A. T. Robertson's scholarly set of books, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1933), every one of the verbs in these verses, except the verb "perfected," is in the present tense (volume 6, pp. 210-211). That means all of the present tense verbs involve continuous action. -Charles Williams translates those verses as follows: "By this we can be sure that we know Him—if we practice obedience to His commandments. Whoever says, 'I know him,' but does not practice obedience to His commands is a liar, and there is no truth in his heart; but whoever practices obedience to His message really has a perfect love of God in his heart." These verses are absolutely devastating to the Calvinistic doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Anyone who thinks he can prove otherwise is hereby challenged to do so.

For years our Calvinist friends have attempted to prove from 1 John 3:6-10 that a child of God cannot fall from grace. Please listen to these verses. "Whosoever abides in him sins not: whosoever sins has not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he who does not do righteousness is not righteous, even as he is righteous. He who commits sin is of the devil: for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin: for the seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not do righteousness is not of God, neither he who does not love his brother."

The present tense verbs in this passage make it impossible for the Calvinists to use this passage to prove the doctrine of "once in grace, always in grace." So I shall read the passage with due recognition of the tenses of the verbs. "Whosoever keeps on abiding in him does not practice sin: whosoever keeps on sinning has not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man keep on deceiving you: he who practices righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who keeps on committing sin is of the devil: for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God does not practice sinning; for his seed remains in him, and he cannot practice sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifested, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, neither he who does not continually love his brother."

While it is vital to study the tenses of the verbs in this passage, the purpose of the passage is not to refute the Calvinistic doctrine of "once saved, always saved." The Holy Spirit wanted Christians to know that they must continually practice God's will. We are saved from our alien sins when we believe the gospel and obey it from the heart (Rom. 6:17-18), but we must continue to practice righteousness. Surely no one believes God will save us eternally if we do not practice righteousness or maintain holiness, or do they? The inexplicable answer is "Yes." Ron Rhodes's book, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), includes the heading, "Maintaining Holiness Is Not a Condition of Salvation" (pp. 274-275). These are Dr. Rhodes' exact words: "The view that one must maintain holiness to sustain one's salvation goes against God's gospel of grace as clearly delineated in scripture, for example Eph. 2:8-9" (pp. 274-275). Dr. Rhodes argues that "a life of holiness is important, but it follows salvation; it does not cause it" (p. 275).

I wonder if Dr. Rhodes has ever read Hebrews 12:14. The author of Hebrews demands of his readers: "Seek peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." Charles Williams takes the tenses of the verbs into consideration in his translation of that verse. "Continue to live in peace with everybody and strive for that consecration without which no man can see the Lord." How can a scholar, such as Dr. Ron Rhodes, overlook the tense of the verb in Hebrews 12:14? Is it because he has committed himself to a defense of Calvinism, even if it means twisting scripture to do it? But one does not have to know the tense of the verb to understand that Dr. Rhodes has missed the teaching of this and similar verses.

 

Lloyd:
The passive voice does not preclude our active participation. For example, the boy will undergo baptism tomorrow. While it appears to be passive, the idea is the boy will submit to the riutal and allow someone to immerse him. My contention is not that God does the justifying with me meriting the justification, only that man responds to the work of the cross through is submission in obedience of faith.ie. The boy will undergo baptism tomorrow. By the way, this simple sentence was provided by C.W Conrad of Washington University discussing passive, middle passive, active voices in Greek. My post on Romans 5:1,2 was in harmony with the rest of the scriptures posted. Gal. 3:26,27.You are trying so hard to stay out of the right hand ditch; you are falling into the left hand ditch.

 

That is interesting, I never heard this before. Can you point me to some supportive writings by the KJV translators that conclude they were Calvinist?

Thank You! God Bless!

 

Greetings Frank

You pose a worthy question.

While it is true that the person being baptised in water is a willing passive participant, I have the following objections.

First, the boy actively seeks the water baptism and is only passive during a small part of the ceremony.

Second, water baptism requires HUMAN HANDS. Saving baptism is done by the operation of God without human hands (Col. 2:11-12).

Third, baptism into Christ is the activity of God's Spirit alone (I Cor 12:13). You are confusing spiritual baptism with water baptism. They are NOT synonyms.

Fourth, if you can see the baptism, then know for certain that it is only temporal and not eternal (2 Cor 4:18).

Fifth, why should my eternal life depend on another person's faithfulness? The boy who needed baptism depended on the faithfulness of another person, a supply of water be it a tank, pond or stream, and time to orchestrate these events. What about the fox hole conversion? Seriously, what about it! Is this a special dispensation of grace on God's part? Or will you condemn this believer to hell?

Your question was indeed worthy but alas - far short of the biblical teaching of grace, mercy and redemption. Water baptism has no part in the gospel message. Instead, it is part of the post gospel message of sanctification. Will you not now see that justification is in parallel with - yet distinct from - sanctification?

Shālôm
Lloyd

 

Greetings Frank

Your referenced writing certainly is scholarly. The presentation of the Greek in Matthew 16:19 is accurate. Alas - I take exceptions to the section on tense. Action is a better way to understand the tense. The present tense can refer to either a continuous action, a snapshot of action, some timeless gnomic truth, or a perfective enduring action. Past/present/future is what is taught to first year students. You can't drop the whole load at once. Action is a refinement taught to second year students (However, Mounce includes this in his first year text). Your reference to I John 1:7 could also be correctly translated as an overarching gnomic description of one's lifewalk. Thus, particular sins are not the focus. This puts a vital distinction between the cleansing of 1:7 and the cleansing of 1:9. Why would John speak twice of the same cleansing? A continuous present might be right - but so also might a gnomic or perfective present. It is certainly wrong to translate every present as a continuous present.

I take vigorous exception to the following:

These verses have two different contexts. It is violently wrong to take the definition of a word from one context and thrust it upon the same word in another context.

Consider these two sentences.
1. I run a race.
2. My nose is running.

It is violently wrong to take the definition of the word "run" from sentence 1 and thrust it upon the word "run" in sentence 2.

This is the error of your presentation of this section. The context of Matt 26 is for the entire world in general. The context of Acts 2 is national Israel alone. Matt 26 requires baptism as a sign of faith in the risen Jesus. Acts 2 requires national Israelites to be baptised as a prelude to national acceptance of the rejected Jesus before judgment falls on that "untoward generation."

It is violently wrong to force a concept point designed for national Israel upon Gentiles. It is a most serious linguistics violation to assume that "remission of sins" means the same thing in these two dramatically different contexts. Context rules!

The same approach can be used on 1 John 3:6-10. But this post is already to long.

Peace (a poor substitute for shālôm)
Lloyd

 

Dear ascund,


God commands us to do certain things. If we are ABLE to do it then He expect us to do it. If we are incapable of doing it then He does not expect us to do something we are unable to do.

2Cor:8:12: For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

Because some may be unable to be baptised or t do other things that God commands, such as the thief on the cross, is no excuse for those who are ABLE to do it.

 

Greetings

Yes. I've wondered that myself - in fact, am still amazed. But recall that these same Jews had botched common sense preaching and crucified their Messiah. Even the apostles had not yet gotten into the mode of being an apostles. This is the first time they've done anything but cower in fear. They haven't yet got around to their own - much less the world.

Not everyone there was a full fledged Jew. YOu forget that these Jews are very egotistical and have a lot of sinful national pride. This pride infects the apostle too. In Acts 9, Paul was commissioned to be the apostle to the Gentiles. In Acts 10, Peter cracked the "gentile barrier" - but needed a special divine dream to slap the national pride out of him. Thus, those so-called gentiles in Acts 2 were "mere" Jewish prosyletes. The distinction is made because they were still secondary Jewish citizens.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

Well, yes - - - but I already showed (and you agreed) that these were prosylites. The thrust of the context is Jews and Jews only.

Recall, Paul won't be commissioned to the Gentiles until chapter 9. Peter doesn't make it to Cornelius until chapter 10.

So the thrust of these first few chapters is the historic failure of the apostles to go to the Gentiles. Acts 2 is in the midst of Jewish only context.

Even in Acts 1:6, the disciples asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?" In Acts 3:19, Peter’s second sermon, he preaches, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the TIMES OF REFRESHING shall come from the presence of the Lord."

If Peter is looking for the restoration of national Israel BEFORE and AFTER Acts 2, then he is IN Acts 2. With proper context in mind Peter first shows his fellow countrymen that they have crucified their Messiah (2:23). Jesus rose from the dead, will return, and execute Messianic vengeance upon His enemies (2:35; Psa 110:1-2; Isa 61:1-2;l; Jer 46:10). He reminds them that they are the ones who crucified the One (2:36) Who is both “Lord and Christ." These quips are only applicable to rebellious national Israel.


So, repent and be baptized (2:38). Save yourselves “from this untoward generation” (2:40). Who is the UNTOWARD GENERATION if it isn't Israel? Context undermines your appeal to a generic gospel of water baptism. Hence while the exhortation to water baptism was peculiar to Israelites still needing to receive their national Messiah. We Gentiles don't have this right.

I agree! But what does context tell us about Paul's message that was not changed by "these pillars?"

Gal 2:16a: not justified by works.
Gal 2:16b: justified by faith. Even the testimony of the disciples was that they were saved by believing in Jesus Christ - no mention of water baptism but a flat denial of works.

Gal 2:20: I live by the faith of the Son of God. Where in here is any mention of water baptism. Check the whole book!

Then in Gal 3:3 Paul shows that salvation began by the Spirit and should continue by the Spirit. This denies works and denies water baptism.

In Gal 3:5 he specifically mentions the HEARING of faith. This pointedly omits obedience to anything - especially water baptism.

Gal 3:11 justified by faith.

Gal 3:14 we receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Gal 3:22 all is condemned to sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Where is water baptism?

Gal 3:24 justified by faith.

Over and over it is by faith alone without reference to water baptism and a specific denial of obedience.

I must reject any move that converts national Israel's message to any/every Gentile. I must affirm that Paul's message was the same message as given by Peter: justification by faith without obedience and no mention of water baptism.

The sheer weight of this message must be noted.

I also ask that you would eventually respond to Isaiah 64:6 and its ramifications. I have stated several times that this is my biggest theological plank.

Shalom
LLoyd

 

greetings

Not at all. Peter preached baptism for the remission of national sins. It is not the gospel message per se. Now people can get saved with even a secondary message when they realize their huge error in killing their own Messiah. But His message was for national repentance. This is not the gospel.


So - Yes! There is but one Gospel. It is the gospel illustrated through the murmuring Israelites and the brazen serpant. Look and live. He who believes shall be saved. No water associated with the serpant. No water associated with believe either.

Just one gospel. Peter preached the gospel - but not in Acts 1, 2, or 3.

Lloyd

 

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Would you say that Paul was disobedient to the Great Commission??

 

Greetings

You stick to your process salvation theology pretty good! Nice well written post with that assumption.

I especially liked your comment:

So many of your view hope that their good works will somehow outweight their bad and they will "squeeze" into heaven. Congrats! This is a big step away from the darkness.

But you yet haven't got it completely straight for you now turn to Acts 10:35 and contradict yourself ...

Here, you show that you are still a works-in-process theologian.

Why is it that I can articulate your view - but you can't mine?

YOU HOLD that one receives initial justification by faith. The believer receives the indwelling Spirit and infused grace to conform unto the image of Jesus Christ. When the believer achieves a certain (undefined) level of perfection, God will reward that soul with final justification. Salvation depends on both justification and a process of sanctification.

I HOLD that one is justified by faith (as do you). However, justification is total and complete at that moment. The believer is immersed into Christ, sealed by God's Spirit, translated into the heavenlies, indwelt by God's Spirit, and equipped with all spiritual gifts. There is nothing more to be done with respect to justification. Justification opens the door to sanctification. Sanctification is a process of conforming the beleiver into the image of Jesus Christ. The believer receives rewards for this process. Sanctification depends on justification.


So when you say

you see this as the process of sanctification that leads to final justification.

Since I hold that justification is complete at the moment of faith, I see your blending of justification and sanctification as a gross error. Works are part of sanctification (as you even should admit). For me sanctification leads only to rewards because justification is primal. For you, since sanctification is primal, works leads to final justification.

I don't expect you at this point to believe my system. But it would be nice if you could articulate it as I do yours.

There is no work that a man can do to be acceptable with God. Galatians is full of passages that declare justification APART FROM WORKS. Gal 2:16; 3:2-5, 11, 5:4

Do you remember my 100% survey of the word justify? Should I pull that out again?? No where is justification linked with works. It is always and solely linked to faith in Christ.

With all those words, can you not now see Acts 10:35?

He that feareth [God] is already justified. The "worketh righteousness" is sanctification. You blend them together. I hold them distinct.

Your blending puts human works on par with Christ's Cross. My distinction only depends on Christ. That quite a difference!

Shalom
Lloyd