I quote only the last part of your first entry above because that is the part I am responding to. I agree with your basic premise in the post that salvation is by faith in Christ and not by faith + works.! Absolutely!
My objection is small, but important. In trying to defend against those who use James to teach faith + works, you wind up doing backwards what those do.
For example: They (works salvationists) might say this: James spends a whole book teaching that you cannot be saved unless you have works, but then you are going to yank a couple of verses out context from Ephesians 2 just to make your pet doctrine that we are saved by faith alone.
(My plea is that we should not ever place one writer against another: they all teach the same thing, though at times from different angles.)
Those using James as a basis for teaching works have to add to what the text actually says to make their point. Many people do the same when using Ephesians 2:8-10 to say that we are saved by faith alone. But Paul does not say that here or anywhere else. We are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. There are other other places that say we are saved by faith, but nowhere does it say faith alone.
You wrote at one place: "have been regenerated solely on the basis of faith in Jesus and His Gospel (1Cor 15:1-4)?" If you take the word "solely" out of your statement, then you are Biblical. But with the word "solely" it would literally mean that God's grace has nothing to do with the process. Now you added the words "and His Gospel" and it could be argued that "grace" is included in the "Gospel" and that could be correct. OK.
But my point is this: In endeavoring to react to those who teach faith + works from James, do not do the same thing with Paul that they do with James.
Just teach what the Bible says: We are saved by grace through faith, not of works . . ."
My objection is small, but important. In trying to defend against those who use James to teach faith + works, you wind up doing backwards what those do.
For example: They (works salvationists) might say this: James spends a whole book teaching that you cannot be saved unless you have works, but then you are going to yank a couple of verses out context from Ephesians 2 just to make your pet doctrine that we are saved by faith alone.
(My plea is that we should not ever place one writer against another: they all teach the same thing, though at times from different angles.)
Those using James as a basis for teaching works have to add to what the text actually says to make their point. Many people do the same when using Ephesians 2:8-10 to say that we are saved by faith alone. But Paul does not say that here or anywhere else. We are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. There are other other places that say we are saved by faith, but nowhere does it say faith alone.
You wrote at one place: "have been regenerated solely on the basis of faith in Jesus and His Gospel (1Cor 15:1-4)?" If you take the word "solely" out of your statement, then you are Biblical. But with the word "solely" it would literally mean that God's grace has nothing to do with the process. Now you added the words "and His Gospel" and it could be argued that "grace" is included in the "Gospel" and that could be correct. OK.
But my point is this: In endeavoring to react to those who teach faith + works from James, do not do the same thing with Paul that they do with James.
Just teach what the Bible says: We are saved by grace through faith, not of works . . ."
Romans 4:6 NET
[6] So even David himself speaks regarding the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
If not faith ‘alone’ please answer, ‘what else must be added to faith in order to be justified/saved’?
I hope you realize that many theologically liberal denominations joined hands with Rome’s view of ‘justification by faith alone‘ because the word ‘alone’ was dropped. Is that where you stand?
- 1
- Show all