Well, let me ask... who "wrote down / recorded" what we now have in Scripture, and... since Isaac "experienced" the whole deal, I imagine he didn't come back down and never mention it at all to anyone around them. [??]
Recall, I also (like you) do not believe the [position/stance presented by proponents of] "Lordship Salvation".
Consider the following (not sure if it will be helpful toward your question / request):
[in this post, keep in mind that the Corinthians in 1Cor3:1-4 are indeed "SAVED" persons, but Paul calls them "babes in Christ," "carnal," "walking as [mere] men," and that he could not speak unto them as "spiritual" (like the 1:6-16 things is speaking about), yet in chpt 15 of the same epistle, he also says to these same ppl, "WE shall ALL be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the...")]
Lybrand wrote a book
basically covering the "discussion" out there (for lack of a better term at the moment [sorry, brain is fried presently
])
as to just how many verses in this text/context are being "spoken" by the "questioner" (<--my term, not his...
he uses the term "the objector" [person])... as in, James is presenting what a "questioner / 'objector'" is/would be saying ...
and some see more verses than others see, as to that point.
A blurb (by another) on the back cover of the book says, "Lybrand reiterates 'faith alone in Christ alone,' and works accompanying salvation are 'normal but not necessary' while cogently requiring the reader to reexamine theological traditions."
A tagline on the front cover says,
"Does faith guarantee works?
SAVED BY FAITH ALONE
FAITH THAT SAVES IS NOT ALONE
So-->Justification
≠ Sanctification"
Inside the front cover, one who is endorsing the book (Dr Robert Dean Jr) writes [excerpted here], "[...] The cliche that 'we are saved by grace alone, but the faith that saves is never alone' is another of the most subtle and egregious attacks on grace. The statement may sound solid at first blush, but Dr. Lybrand's thorough research exposes the multi-level fallacies hidden in this statement. The pure gospel of God's grace excludes all human works as the basis or validation of God's work which makes the sinner right with him. [...]"
On pages 96-97, Lybrand writes,
"
Neither of these traditional options with regard to the quote marks in James 2:18 can make any rational sense of the text, and simply frames James as both the confused and the confusor. A simple and obvious solution appears when James, rather than the translators, is given the responsibility to let the reader know where the quote [by the "objector"] begins and ends. If James is in charge of telling the reader the beginning and end of a quote, then would not the entirety of verses 18 and 19 belong to the objector (see Table 11 [here he provides vv.18-19 as the objector's quote; and then supplies v.20 as responding to the objector: "Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?"])?
"It stands to reason, and structurally matches, that the objector is saying something with the entire quote, moving from verse 18 through the entirety of verse 19. If the entire quote involves verses 18 and 19, then not only does the passage unfold in a fresh way that can make sense to the flow of the passage, but it clearly destroys the very foundation of the cliche since the whole argument, "I will show you my faith by my works," is the assumption behind, "It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone." When the quote is seen in its entirety [the 'objector' in vv.18 & 19], the meaning becomes evident that the objector is asserting that works and faith have no connection to one another at all."
[bold mine]
[then in the following sections/paragraphs, Lybrands lays out the examples James had supplied:
Abraham ("his walk with God and the testing of his faith rather than his salvation by faith alone" [in that spans of some 20-30 YEARS I was talking about in my last post]--where "justification," which has a breadth of meanings, "could include the idea of Abraham's justification or works proving faith, before others (vindication)."... or, "The word can also carry the flavor of righteousness itself. [...]. In this sense, the word justified would carry the flavor of being made righteous or upright (James) rather than declared righteous (Paul).");
...etc...]
He concludes, on pages 106-107, saying,
"Therefore, following James's logic, it is works that give life and animation to faith and not the other way around.[...(references the cliche again)...]
"James is speaking about sanctification, or spiritual growth, or being made righteous [in one's walk] and showing it outwardly to others, by a powerful relationship that is found between faith and works. [...] is concerned with the way in which the believer grows spiritually. Believers, who have faith but take no action based on their faith, render their faith useless [inanimate] and provide the opportunity for it, in all practical ways to be dead [present, but rendered "useless," or "inanimate" (laying on the shelf, basically)]. On the other hand, the emphasis of James 2:14-26 is that those believers who have faith, and further add works to their faith, are those who see maturation, completion, and growth in their lives. They are indeed not only hearers of the word, but they are doers as well (James 1:22)."
[end quoting about Lybrand's book on James 2]
____________
[another author... elsewhere]
"Darryl L. DelHousaye, President of Phoenix Seminary, holds the 'sanctification-not-salvation' view of James 2"
____________
Hope that helps you sorta see my perspective. = )
I do think
"SEE" is a key factor in this text (along with v.23b / 2Chron20:7 called "the friend of God"
by OTHER MEN). No one can "SEE" faith (
though it exists in a believer) if one is acting, say, like the Corinthians (1Cor3:1-4). lol
1
