How many gospels are there?

[npetreley]

1. But the object of our faith is Jesus Christ (Jas.2:1), without whom there is no gospel, the good news.

2. Because our faith is in Christ, it fleshes itself out in appropriate works.

3. The gospel produces our faith (Rom.10:17).

4. Though the word "gospel" does not appear in James, one cannot read James without "sensing" the gospel message.

Well, one can't read most or all of the NT without "sensing" the gospel message! But it isn't the focus of James. His message is one of quips from what Jesus taught, exhortations, warnings, and instruction about what true faith means. He's not presenting the gospel, and he certainly isn't talking about a different gospel of the kingdom by faith+works, as the ks people seem to believe.

 

[TCGreek]

Well, one can't read most or all of the NT without "sensing" the gospel message! But it isn't the focus of James. His message is one of quips from what Jesus taught, exhortations, warnings, and instruction about what true faith means. He's not presenting the gospel, and he certainly isn't talking about a different gospel of the kingdom by faith+works, as the ks people seem to believe.

1. I can live with that perspective.

2. I see James as the practical side of the gospel.

3. In the end we are on the same page.

4. Well, those KS people have their own problems to worry about.

 

[J. Jump]

I will like to see you demonstrate from the Greek the opposite.

I believe I have already addressed this, but in case I didn't . . . James is speaking of a present faith. Eternally saving faith is not something that is a constant in someone's life. You believe one time and you are done. It's over. The matter is closed for all eternity. There is no more need of eternally saving faith in the Substitute of Jesus the Lamb.

James is talking to saved people about a type of faith "they" are in need of in the present therefore it can not be eternally saving faith because that is a closed matter for those folks.

Once a person is saved you don't continue teaching them about something they already have. You move on. James wasn't addressing what had happened to them in the past. He was addressing their present needs.

 

[J. Jump]

1. In James 2:14 the we have the rhetorical question, μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; "Can this faith faith save him?" μὴ expects the negative.

2. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting of it. Yes, we are justified by faith alone, but justifying faith is never alone. That seems to be the import of James 2:14-26.

Again eternally saving faith is not a present faith. There is no need or no requirement for continual faith in the Substitute, else Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2:8-9 are not true.

This is talking about a faith that is needed AFTER eternal salvation is over and done with. And you are correct in that this is in the negative and it says that a faith that doesn't work will not save. But the question is save from what?

Most of Christendom says that if a person doesn't have a faith that works they are bound for the lake of fire for the endless ages (unsaved). But James never says that. The whole context of his message is the kingdom.

He's not talking about eternal salvation. They already had that. They didn't need that. And they certainly didn't need to learn more about what they already had. What they did need was to know how to be approved for the coming kingdom of Christ.

That's the context.

 

[TCGreek]

Again eternally saving faith is not a present faith. There is no need or no requirement for continual faith in the Substitute, else Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2:8-9 are not true.

This is talking about a faith that is needed AFTER eternal salvation is over and done with. And you are correct in that this is in the negative and it says that a faith that doesn't work will not save. But the question is save from what?

1. As far as saving faith is concern, Scripture only knows one. I agree that salvation is past reality through faith in the Substitute, but I am equally aware, that that faith I first exercised is the same faith that must be evident in my life.

2. Notice Paul's use of faith in Gal.2:16, 17. He moves from a past reality, to a future reality by the use of hina + aorist subj. He was not doubting his salvation, but he employed the Greek construction as a manner of speaking.

3. Paul spoke of Justification by Faith in Christ in two realities, but the same faith is at work.

4. Notice the context of Galatians 2:16. Peter was stepping out of line and question the very gospel, because of his prejudice (vv.11-14). It is precisely because it was an outworking of the gospel that Paul accosted him.

Most of Christendom says that if a person doesn't have a faith that works they are bound for the lake of fire for the endless ages (unsaved). But James never says that. The whole context of his message is the kingdom.

5. By the way, I am a five point Calvinist.

He's not talking about eternal salvation. They already had that. They didn't need that. And they certainly didn't need to learn more about what they already had. What they did need was to know how to be approved for the coming kingdom of Christ.

That's the context.

6. Our salvation always have an eschatological ring to it.

7. I grant that there is an eschatological element in this letter (5:7, 8).

8. But I am of the firm position that a faith that truly justifies is never alone, and that is what James is addressing (2:14-26).

9. And he is therefore not adding a second faith. But is speaking of that one faith that evidences itself by its works.

 

[J. Jump]

As far as saving faith is concern, Scripture only knows one. I agree that salvation is past reality through faith in the Substitute, but I am equally aware, that that faith I first exercised is the same faith that must be evident in my life.

Then Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2:8-9 can not possibly be true for you, because they say the exact opposite. There is not one indication that you must continually believe in the Substitute. And with all due respect that is where you are making your mistake with Scripture because faith in the Substitute and faith in the Christ are not the same thing. The first is a one-time faith and the second is a continual life long faith.

And that is where Christendom makes its mistakes as well, because they do the same thing. There are differences and until that is realized you will continue to mix Biblical messages that were never intended to be mixed.

8. But I am of the firm position that a faith that truly justifies is never alone, and that is what James is addressing (2:14-26).

9. And he is therefore not adding a second faith. But is speaking of that one faith that evidences itself by its works.

You have every right to believe that and you can be genuinely convinced of that, but it does not make it so. And I know you can say the same about my beliefs as well.

So the bottom line is this. You continue to believe that way if you want to. You have not convinced me that my view of Scripture is incorrect. So time will tell which one was correct. If you are correct I have nothing to fear and I'll have my slice of paradise pie along with everyone else. However if I'm right . . . well there's something to think about.

 

[TCGreek]

Then Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2:8-9 can not possibly be true for you, because they say the exact opposite.

1. Acts 16:31 in the Greek: οι δε ειπαν πιστευσον επι τον κυριον ιησουν και σωθηση συ και ο οικος σου . "Believe" is aorist imperative, without reference to time. It conveys the urgency of the moment.

2. He was baptized, signifying his act of obedience that sprang from his saving faith.

3. V. 34 uses the perfect tense πεπιστευκως τω θεω, "Having believed in God." The perfect tense refers to a complete act of believing with continuing results.

4. Precisely because Dr. Luke wish to highlight the type of faith the Jailor exercised to be saved, he uses to perfect tense here.

5. Notice the move: from aorist imperative, the urgency of the moment. But to capture his initiatial salvation of the fruits of saving faith, the perfect tense is used.

6. Eph 2:8-9, yes, but why stay at v. 9? How about v.10? Paul seems to think it is important.

7. In fact, Paul uses the Greek conjunction γαρ, which functions inferentially here. Precisely because we have saving faith, that faith will continue in the good works which God created beforehand in Christ Jesus that we should walk in.

8. Saving faith is simply not alone.

 

[J. Jump]

6. Eph 2:8-9, yes, but why stay at v. 9? How about v.10? Paul seems to think it is important.

I love it when folks want to look at verse 10. What does verse 10 say? It says we SHOULD do good works not we WILL do good works. There is a HUGE difference between those two. Works that follow after faith are NOT a guarantee.

I'm sure you are well aware that the verb is not an indicative meaning certainty, but relates a possibility. You all epouse a guarantee of works, but I wonder why Paul, who was moved by the Holy Spirit to pen a non-indicitive verb?

8. Saving faith is simply not alone.

It is alone, because that is ALL that is required. Nothing else is required. Faith plus NOTHING.

 

[TCGreek]

I love it when folks want to look at verse 10. What does verse 10 say? It says we SHOULD do good works not we WILL do good works. There is a HUGE difference between those two. Works that follow after faith are NOT a guarantee.

1. You appeal to Paul but you have ignored Paul's use of the conjunction gar, "for," which has an inferential function here. The conjunction says that we are saved unto good works.

I'm sure you are well aware that the verb is not an indicative meaning certainty, but relates a possibility. You all epouse a guarantee of works, but I wonder why Paul, who was moved by the Holy Spirit to pen a non-indicitive verb?

.

2. The verb under consideration is, περιπατησωμεν, an aorist subjunctive. But don't fall victim to just focusing on a verbs tense. A word is defined by its syntactical relation to other words and its context.

3. περιπατησωμεν is part of a hina clause, functioning resultantly.

4. Paul is therefore saying by the use of this hina clause and the conjunction gar, "for", which looks backward to vv.4-9, that we are saved unto good works, which are a result of our salvation.

5. That is what the Greek sentences at work look like. It is not me. It is Paul's choice of words and constructions.

 

[TCGreek]

1. You have made no attempt to respond to my argument from Acts 16:31-34.

2. You are the one who brought it up.

 

[J. Jump]

1. You appeal to Paul but you have ignored Paul's use of the conjunction gar, "for," which has an inferential function here. The conjunction says that we are saved unto good works.

We are saved unto good works, but that doesn't mean they are going to get done. Once again you focus in on one part of the text and ignore the part that disagrees with you. It's not indicitive. It's not a guarantee. There's no way you can get around that point. We can believe what the text says or we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't really say that.

Problem is it does. It's not a guarantee no matter how you slice it.

 

[J. Jump]

1. You have made no attempt to respond to my argument from Acts 16:31-34.

2. You are the one who brought it up.

You kind of have a thing for lists don't you .

And there is no need to respond to "your" argument from Acts 16:30-34, because it is exactly that "your" argument.

 

[TCGreek]

We are saved unto good works, but that doesn't mean they are going to get done. Once again you focus in on one part of the text and ignore the part that disagrees with you. It's not indicitive. It's not a guarantee. There's no way you can get around that point. We can believe what the text says or we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't really say that.

Problem is it does. It's not a guarantee no matter how you slice it.

1. I am sorry that you haven't notice why the verb is not indicative.

2. It is part of a hina clause, which expresses result.

3. Somehow you are not getting that.

4. Maybe you need to learn how the Greek language works.

5. Don't take my tone as an affront but rather as an observation.

 

[J. Jump]

1. I am sorry that you haven't notice why the verb is not indicative. 2. It is part of a hina clause, which expresses result.

The verb is not indicitive because the works are NOT a guarantee. You simply don't express certainty with a subjunctive.

 

[TCGreek]

The verb is not indicitive because the works are NOT a guarantee. You simply don't express certainty with a subjunctive.

1. I am hoping this quote will help: ειδοτες δε οτι ου δικαιουται ανθρωπος εξ εργων νομου εαν μη δια πιστεως χριστου ιησου και ημεις εις χριστον ιησουν επιστευσαμεν ινα δικαιωθωμεν εκ πιστεως χριστου και ουκ εξ εργων νομου οτι εξ εργων νομου ου δικαιωθησεται πασα σαρξ (Gal 2:16, emphasis added)

2. The bolded portion is translated: "So that we may be justified from faith in Christ and not from works of the Law, because from the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified."

3. "We may be justified" is an aorist passive subjunctive. But if I were to follow your argument from above, even you would not say that there's a possibility that Paul and others would not be justified in Christ by faith alone apart from works.

4. It is not indicative because it is part of a hina clause once again.

 

[TCGreek]

1. Here is another one to consider: and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6-7, ESV, emphasis added).

2. It is therefore a POSSIBILITY that God will not show forth his immeasurable riches of grace because the verb translated "he might show" is not indicative but rather subjunctive.

3. Again, it is subjunctive because it is part of a hina clause.

4. I really don't want to share your view at this point.

 

[npetreley]

1. I am hoping this quote will help: ειδοτες δε οτι ου δικαιουται ανθρωπος εξ εργων νομου εαν μη δια πιστεως χριστου ιησου και ημεις εις χριστον ιησουν επιστευσαμεν ινα δικαιωθωμεν εκ πιστεως χριστου και ουκ εξ εργων νομου οτι εξ εργων νομου ου δικαιωθησεται πασα σαρξ(Gal 2:16, emphasis added)

2. The bolded portion is translated: "So that we may be justified from faith in Christ and not from works of the Law, because from the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified."

3. "We may be justified" is an aorist passive subjunctive. But if I were to follow your argument from above, even you would not say that there's a possibility that Paul and others would not be justified in Christ by faith alone apart from works.

4. It is not indicative because it is part of a hina clause once again.

Owned. :laugh:

 

[J. Jump]

1. Here is another one to consider: and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6-7, ESV, emphasis added).

2. It is therefore a POSSIBILITY that God will not show forth his immeasurable riches of grace because the verb translated "he might show" is not indicative but rather subjunctive.

3. Again, it is subjunctive because it is part of a hina clause.

You just proved my whole point for me. It is a POSSIBILITY not a GUARANTEE.

We are saved "in order that" we "would" do good works. They are a POSSIBILITY not a GUARANTEE.

 

[TCGreek]

You just proved my whole point for me. It is a POSSIBILITY not a GUARANTEE.

We are saved "in order that" we "would" do good works. They are a POSSIBILITY not a GUARANTEE.

1. Before you think I am supporting your position, you should know that there's a typo involve.

2. Now, I don't know if you would want to build a solid position on someone's typo.

3. Rather my quote should read as a question: "Is it therefore a POSSIBILITY that God will not show forth his immeasurable riches of grace because the verb translated "he might show" is not indicative but rather subjunctive?"

4. You should have picked that up based on my caps on POSSIBILITY.

5. I intended no deceit.

6. What about Gal. 2:16? I don't think there's any typo there.

 

[J. Jump]

Rather my quote should read as a question: "Is it therefore a POSSIBILITY that God will not show forth his immeasurable riches of grace because the verb translated "he might show" is not indicative but rather subjunctive?"

Well I thought you might be seeing the Light . Wishful thinking I guess on my part.

And yes that is correct. It is a possibility, because we are not guaranteed a place with Christ in the coming age. We are not guaranteed to rule and reign with Him. That is something that is conditional.