DHK said:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).