Salvation by Faith

[Melanie]

Let me use BobRyan (Sorry, Bob!) as an example. He uses page after page of Scriptures (something which is lacking in this thread) to show that we can become unsaved.

Although I disagree with his final conclusion, he shows, using Scriptures, over and over, that saved people have to fear losing something.

What is that something?

If we have nothing to lose, why all the warnings that are given to saved individuals, all throughout the Scriptures?

What can we lose, HP?

.....a good point....something to bear in mind ...even Lucifer has faith, he certainly believes in God but he lost his salvation......

 

[DHK]

.....a good point....something to bear in mind ...even Lucifer has faith, he certainly believes in God but he lost his salvation......

Did he? Did he lose "salvation?" Perhaps you better go back to what the word "salvation" means. What was Lucifer originally saved from before he lost that which he was saved from? How could he lose salvation if he never had it in the first place?
What he lost was his place of holy standing before God in heaven. The angels that did not follow Lucifer in his rebellion against God were "confirmed in their holiness." They neither gained salvation or lost salvation. Salvation has nothing to do with the Lucifer or the angels. You are quite off the mark here.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I agree with what DHK says here.

Also, we are not told that the demons have the opportunity to be saved now or not. Therefore, when the demons believed, did it make a difference?

 

[BobRyan]

I agree with what DHK says here.

Also, we are not told that the demons have the opportunity to be saved now or not. Therefore, when the demons believed, did it make a difference?

When James uses them as an example of failure and charges that they are among the examples proving that faith (belief in this case) without works is dead -- we conclude that fallen Angels DID have a choice and COULD have chosen to believe and ACT in accordance with that belief or could simply choose to engage in rebellion even while knowing the truth.

James argues that it is "significant" when it comes to arguing FOR faith that has works.

Should we doubt him?

In 1 John 2 we are told that an active claim to a saving knowledge of Christ that does not show up in the life as "keeping His Commandments" is a false claim.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

The reason it applies is because you are saying one can only be called a "saint" when that one has reached a certain level of obedience/faithfulness, etc.

I certainly don't want to speak for HoG and I'm sure he will probably address this, but I would be quite surprised if HoG was suggesting what you have said here.

There are not levels of obedience and faithfulness as you have said here. You either are obedient and faithful or you are not. If you are a non-overcoming, disobedient, unfaithful saved person do you really think that one can be called a saint practically? Now for eternal purposes yes that person would be a saint because their spirit has been passed out of the darkness into the light.

However we will not be judged on that day on the basis of whether we have been saved or not. That judgment is already taken care of in this lifetime.

The judgment seat of Christ is for what you have done or not done AFTER the moment of eternal salvation has become settled.

Therefore the Judge, which is Christ, will be looking at our works and whether or not we were obedient and faithful and overcoming or whether we were rebellious, unfaithful and overcome by the enemy, the world and/or our old man.

If we are found to be rebellious, unfaithful and overcomed there are consequences for that.

When Scripture speaks to saints it is speaking to those as you have said previously that are Christians (Christ-like). They are the ones that are faithful and obedient and are overcoming the flesh, the enemy and the world.

Eternity is a done deal the moment we believe, but God's focus is not on eternity because that is a done deal. God's focus and what should be our focus is on the coming kingdom of Christ. We must go through that age before we ever step into eternity. And our desination during that age is not part of a package deal with eternal salvation as most of Christendom would have us believe.

Hope that helps.

 

[J. Jump]

Should we doubt him?

Certainly we should not doubt what James has penned, as they are actually the words of God Himself so they are faithful and true. However what we should doubt is the conclusion that you are drawing from these words.

You see the word faith and automatically assume that it is speaking of eternal saving faith. But contextually that is not what James is speaking about because James is talking to saved individuals in a present tense, therefore he can not be talking about eternal saving faith, because that was an already settled matter for those folks.

Notice how Paul speaks about eternal salvation to already saved folks (Eph. 2:8-9). He speaks of it in the past tense. It was already taken care of for them, so it was in the past.

James is speaking of a present reality not a past action.

The words of Scripture are Truth if we will let them speak for themselves .

 

[DHK]

The words of Scripture are Truth if we will let them speak for themselves .

I think you mean: "The words of Scripture are Truth if we let them speak for themselves according to our own presuppositions."

 

[J. Jump]

I think you mean: "The words of Scripture are Truth if we let them speak for themselves according to our own presuppositions."

No if that's what I meant that's what I would have said :laugh:.

Presuppositions can be very dangerous and very misleading. We've got to go to Scripture and let Scripture tell us what's there not the other way around.

 

[Hope of Glory]

BobRyan, to add to what J. Jump has said, think about this: We are doing well because we believe there is one God. (An interesting study is to look at the different manuscripts that have the definite article against those that don't, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)

Because we believe there is one God, we do well.

If you knew that there was on God, and you knew about him, and you didn't have the opportunity to be saved or even the opportunity to repent and be forgiven, and you knew it, wouldn't you shudder or tremble?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: You see the word faith and automatically assume that it is speaking of eternal saving faith. But contextually that is not what James is speaking about because James is talking to saved individuals in a present tense, therefore he can not be talking about eternal saving faith, because that was an already settled matter for those folks.

HP: Do you honestly fail to see an unfounded presupposition in this paragraph that you are using to filter everything through?

 

[Hope of Glory]

HP: Do you honestly fail to see an unfounded presupposition in this paragraph that you are using to filter everything through?

Grammar is very foundational. Without it, understanding of the written word has no foundation.

Context is very foundational. Any text out of context is a pretext. Without proper context, the written word has no foundation, and the context will never contradict the grammar, else what is written is not Truth.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture is foundational. It's our basis for understanding all Scripture. If we simply turn a blind ear (that's my Algorism) to verses that contradict others, the written word has no foundation. Scripture with Scripture will never contradict context, nor will it contradict grammar, nor will grammar or context contradict Scripture.

What J. Jump has demonstrated is not a presupposition, but looking at the actual written words in the actual context and comparing Scripture to Scripture.

We believe in the aorist to get spiritually saved; we're then in the family. No works involved on our parts at all.

We believe in the present tense (faith) for the salvation of our souls. Works are involved with being faithful and obedient and entering in through the strait gate.

Grammar. Context. Compare.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Sorry to interrupt, my first party-breaking on this thread, but I've just noticed, "Salvation by faith". Scripture?

Didn't mean to ignore you. I thought this had already been answered, but it must have been the last time this was brought up. (Although it does sound good to say it, doesn't it?)

No one is saved by faith; they are saved by grace through faith. There is a "saving faith", but it's by grace.

There's the definite article with it: For by (in) the grace you are being saved. What is the grace? It's the grace of God that is referred to back in verses 4 and 5, which says, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved"

Grace is his part, faith is our part.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HOG: We believe in the aorist to get spiritually saved; we're then in the family. No works involved on our parts at all.

HP: So God grants to us positional righteousness after all. Nothing on our part equates to pure unadulterated positional righteousness. I thought you did not believe in that? Have I misunderstood you?

HOG: We believe in the present tense (faith) for the salvation of our souls. Works are involved with being faithful and obedient and entering in through the strait gate.

HP: How can something be ‘present tense’ if we have nothing to do with it? You mean we were not chosen from the foundations of the world apart from any action of ours? How can one that is dead have faith, unless it is positionally granted by God? We sure do not want to give man the ability to exercise faith, or we will end up with man doing something for his salvation, salvation by works, correct? Faith has to be imputed positionally to avoid man working for his salvation, for as you state, “NO works involved on our part at all.”

 

[J. Jump]

Do you honestly fail to see an unfounded presupposition in this paragraph that you are using to filter everything through?

The same question could be asked of you, BobRyan and all the others in Christendom that come to that text with the presupposition that faith ALWAYS means eternally saving faith.

I would say that your presupposition has clouded your minds because you aren't seeing what the text says, but you are seeing a word in the text and then automatically assuming what it says and going from there.

Again when comparing Scripture with Scripture, taking the immediate context, the context of the book and Scriptural context this faith that James is speaking of can not be eternally saving faith. It's impossible.

So no I do not see a presupposition there. I see going to the text and searching out what it is telling me instead of me telling the text what it is speaking about.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: I see going to the text and searching out what it is telling me instead of me telling the text what it is speaking about.

HP: I can only say that it sure tells you alot more than what is actually in there.:laugh:

You know that the problems with my friends JJ and HOG is not about their ignorance, but rather that they know so much that just isn't true!:laugh: :wavey:

(I have to admit that it was Ronald Reagan that said something similiar to that concerning his liberal friends)

 

[J. Jump]

I can only say that it sure tells you alot more than what is actually in there.

You know that the problems with my friends JJ and HOG is not about their ignorance, but rather that they know so much that just isn't true!

And yet as always in the end all you are left with are wise cracks to prove your point, which actually prove a lot, but your "point" they do nothing for.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The same question could be asked of you, BobRyan and all the others in Christendom that come to that text with the presupposition that faith ALWAYS means eternally saving faith.

I'm interested to know where you and your buddies came up with the idea (presupposition) that when passages speak of "faith" connected with "salvation" (and "justification") they are speaking of something other than saving faith and eternal salvation.

I would say that your presupposition has clouded your minds because you aren't seeing what the text says, but you are seeing a word in the text and then automatically assuming what it says and going from there.

Or it could be that your presuppositions regarding your ideas of "faith" and eternal salvation have clouded your minds so that you create false unbiblical dichotomies to explain away several passages which disagree with your presuppositions.

Again when comparing Scripture with Scripture, taking the immediate context, the context of the book and Scriptural context this faith that James is speaking of can not be eternally saving faith.

So let me get this straight: a dead, work-less faith--even the kind demons can have--can avail for eternal salvation--just not for the (allegedly) different kind of 'salvation' James is describing here?

It's impossible.

It's not impossible at all for those of us that take many other Scriptures (comparing Scripture with Scripture) at face value, and who look at the immediate context of James 2 (and the entire Epistle), to recognize that James is speaking of eternally saving faith. On the contrary, it's very difficult (and strained to say the least) to see how he can be describing anything else---especially some alleged non-saving faith, some alleged non-eternal salvation, and some alleged justification that's allegedly not related to salvation.

 

[J. Jump]

I'm interested to know where you and your buddies came up with the idea (presupposition) that when passages speak of "faith" connected with "salvation" (and "justification") they are speaking of something other than saving faith and eternal salvation.

I'm interested to know where you and your buddies came up with the idea (presupposition) that when passages speak of "faith" connected with "salvation" (and "justification"). they are always speaking of eternal salvation. My aren't these games fun :tonofbricks:. Same old tired sayings that can be just as easily reversed back unto yourself.

Or it could be that your presuppositions regarding your ideas of "faith" and eternal salvation have clouded your minds so that you create false unbiblical dichotomies to explain away several passages which disagree with your presuppositions.

Could be but it's not. See I used to believe the same ole way the majority of Christendom believed. I didn't come to these texts with a presupposition. I actually changed my views a little over a year ago now, because I finally realized that folks that had been teaching me the same ole song and dance no matter what Baptist church I went to were actually the presuppositions and not in line with Scripture.

Please show me in Scripture where it says faith and salvation is always talking about eternal salvation. I will await your response, as it should be very interesting.

So let me get this straight: a dead, work-less faith--even the kind demons can have--can avail for eternal salvation--just not for the (allegedly) different kind of 'salvation' James is describing here?

Where did I ever say that? That's right I didn't. Again same ole song and dance of putting words into people's mouths instead of just proving your point to be correct.

A dead, work-less faith can not avail itself for eternal salvation anymore than an alive, working faith can. Eternal salvation is not the context of the passage.

It's not impossible at all for those of us that take many other Scriptures (comparing Scripture with Scripture) at face value, and who look at the immediate context of James 2 (and the entire Epistle), to recognize that James is speaking of eternally saving faith.

You can write that you compare Scripture with Scripture all you want to, but it doesn't make it so. In fact the very position that you are adovcating creates contradictions in Scripture so there is no way possible you are comparing correct Scripture with correct Scripture. Scripture will never contradict itself, but in your view it does. Therefore your theory is just that - man-made theory, not because I or anyone else says so, but because Scripture itself says so.

So again I will take Scripture over man every day of the week and twice on Sunday as the old saying goes.

Now if you can show me in Scripture where it says that when the words "faith" and "salvation" are present it is ALWAYS talking about eternal salvation then we can have a discussion. Outside of that you are merely spouting opinion.

On the contrary, it's very difficult (and strained to say the least) to see how he can be describing anything else---especially some alleged non-saving faith, some alleged non-eternal salvation, and some alleged justification that's allegedly not related to salvation.

Of course it's difficult to see when it goes against the grain of what you have always been taught. But when the rubber meets the road we can either conform to Scripture or conform Scripture to ourselves. I prefer the first.

James plainly tells us that he is talking about having or not having a faith in the present. That is not eternal salvation. Eternal salvation is a past action that is COMPLETED, never to be repeated. Therefore if saved people are in view and faith is being discussed in the present or future tense it is not talking about eternal salvation or Scripture lies, and that is not possible. Now we can either believe that or we can hold on to man-made tradition. That's just the simple facts of the matter. Whether you see it or not, or whether you agree with it or not, or whether its easy or difficult to see all of those things don't mean a hill of beans. What does Scripture say? That's the ONLY thing that matters.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: Please show me in Scripture where it says faith and salvation is always talking about eternal salvation. I will await your response, as it should be very interesting.

HP: Help me out here JJ. Pick a Scripture, any Scripture. Show us how the CONTEXT, in and of itself, establishes ‘faith’ to be speaking of something other than as it applies to eternal salvation. Prove to the list once for all that it is CONTEXT alone that establishes your assumptions. Don’t tell us what the context in light of a presupposition you have. Show us the context by the Scripture itself. If you cannot, tell us the magical formula (or be honest and admit to your presuppositions) in determining context.

JJ: James plainly tells us that he is talking about having or not having a faith in the present. That is not eternal salvation. Eternal salvation is a past action that is COMPLETED, never to be repeated

.

HP: Being the nice guy that I am, I will give you a hint. Your last sentence is a presupposition, and one you cannot prove by Scripture. Beating on the pulpit or even highlighting the word ‘complete,’ will not magically change your presupposition from unproven and undocumented theory, to contextual evidence. Possibly you could just cut out the passages in opposition to your presuppositions, sort of like some do with the doxology.

 

[J. Jump]

Help me out here JJ. Pick a Scripture, any Scripture. Show us how the CONTEXT, in and of itself, establishes ‘faith’ to be speaking of something other than as it applies to eternal salvation.

That has already been done. I showed you exactly through Scriptural context how James can not be talking about eternal salvation because it contradicts Scripture in at least two other places if it is. Therefore it is upon you or Doubting Thomas or anyone else to pony up to the plate and prove your presuppositions aren't just that - presuppositions. I'll await your response.

Let's just use the James text for example. You show me in Scripture how that is speaking of eternally saving faith.

If you cannot, tell us the magical formula (or be honest and admit to your presuppositions) in determining context.

There is no magical formula. You just compare like Scripture with like Scripture. It's that plain and simple. But you can't compare apples and oranges and create some new fruit twist.

Your last sentence is a presupposition, and one you cannot prove by Scripture.

No that is your opinion. Ephesians 2:8-9 proves that out. The text says "have been saved" that is past action. When you go to the original language you see that the verb is a perfect tense verb, which means the action is completed in the past and never to be repeated again as the results of that action carry out into the future.

Eternal salvation is by God's grace through faith. Once a person believes (Acts 16:30-31) eternal salvation is completed. There is no presupposition there that is just the plain jane facts about what Scripture says. Now we can either believe that or we can continue to toy with the Scriptures, because we don't like what it says and it messes up what we "want" to believe about Scripture.

There's no way of getting around it. It simply is what it is.