Saved by faith alone?

[Blue155]

A lot of people have a misunderstanding of the book of James.

It seems to me, according to James, faith and works go "hand in glove.” One is useless without the other. (Jms. 2:14-17, 24-26). I believe a good biblical example of that is Naaman when he went and dipped 7x in the Jordan River to be healed of his leprosy (2 Kings 5:14). God’s amazing grace was in the healing. It was a gift. Naaman was not so good that God owed him a way to be cleansed. The offer was made by God, but Naaman had to express his faith in having a faith that worked/obeyed.

Another example is when God told Noah to build an ark..that required action/work on Noah’s part, but it wasn’t of him in the sense he earned or invented the ark. It was of God who gave Noah grace to be saved, which would be building an ark, which was approved by God. Thus, it was by God’s grace.

Works of our own righteousness does not justify (Titus 3:5). Good works do not justify (2 Tim. 1:9). Works of the flesh do not justify (Gal. 5:19-21). Works of the law do not justify (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:9). Yet there are a certain kind of works that do justify (Jms. 2:21-25). Since good works, works of our own righteousness, works of the flesh, or of the law do not justify, then there must be a kind that do. That’s the point that James is making.

James 2 is about being justified in the sight of God by having an obedient faith that submits to His will. In verses 15-17, James points out that a faith that just pays lips service but doesn’t act, is dead (v15-17). He then goes on to bring up two Old Testament examples so that we can learn what kind of faith and works justifies/saves (Gen. 22:1-12; Jos. 2:15-21; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11).

Abraham expressed his faith and trust in God with his works/actions in obeying God by having a faith that worked through love (Gal. 5:6). He didn’t have a dead faith. A faith that doesn’t trust God is useless and won’t save, as it is not centered on doing God’s will, and by doing the will of God, works [works of obedience in having an active faith in God that worked through love, centered on God’s will] Abraham’s faith was made perfect.

For Rahab, she was justified by works when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way (v25).

And “just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (V26). Meaning, had Abraham and Rahab not had a faith that works (obeys), their faith would have been dead, and a dead faith can’t save nobody, just like someone has a body without a spirit. Someone who doesn’t have a body without a spirit is lifeless. Dead.

James’ saying a faith that is a living faith will work (obey). It will have action. Not just lip service (v16-17).

Both Abraham and Rahab’s faith worked through/by love (Gal. 5:6).

In contrast, a dead faith that is not centered on doing the will of God cannot and will not save.

Now, what kind of works justified them? It would not be works of the law (Eph. 2:9; Gal. 2:16). It would not be works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). It would not be works of their own righteousness (Titus 3:5). It would not be works of darkness (Rom. 13:12; Eph. 5:11), etc etc.

So, what other works would be left to justify someone?

The only other kind of works left that would be able to do such would have to be works (obedience) of faith, centered on doing the will of God. In other words, when Abraham offered Isaac on the altar, he did so by faith, and he was obeying God, thus being justified by works, as he had a faith that obeyed of what God required of him. And never does obedience earn anything, as obedience is the ultimate supreme test of faith in God.

Same goes for Rahab with her situation as well. She expressed her faith in her actions, being justified by works. What kind of works? It would undoubtedly have to be the same kind as Abraham was said to be justified by, as in v25, James says “Likewise also”.

Works isn’t always referring to the same kind of works. Jesus says “keepeth my works” (Rev. 2:26), which a lot of people believe that’s referring back to when He said “keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). Jesus would be saying keep my works (commandments). The works/commandments were not of man’s devising, but of God’s.

as learned earlier, it wasn’t works of their own devising that justified them, as no works of our own ingenuity can justify. So, those works that justified them had to be centered on the will of God by faith. Their faith worked (obeyed) in submitting to the grace of God that provided them the way to be justified.

Man submits in humble obedience.

That is how a biblical faith works!

 

[LightBearer316]

Although based upon the "because..." statement I might find a way to agree with the premise that "faith alone must be carefully understood", at this point I think we may be long past working with this slogan other than to go back to where it began and realize the context in which it was originally used.

I do find some agreement with what's stated in this "because..." statement. Biblical Pistis is a concept that is entangled with several other words that become facets of pistis apart from which pistis is not "true faith". Obedience and repentance are attached to pistis. Repentance may well be a part of it, but maybe more in a lexically and logically sequential way. Obedience on the other hand is absolutely entangled with pistis to such a degree that it is essentially used synonymously with pistis in the Text. They are used as co-defining responses to the Gospel - the Gospel is believed and the Gospel is obeyed. They are not sequential. They are co-instantiated and mutually defining expressions.

This is the beginning issue with faith-alone soteriology. It has isolated pistis from other words that define and explain it - words that are facets of pistis and integral parts of it. Then we also have to deal with the multiple expressions of the soteriological system. What's the point? We have the Text.

I'll try to continue when I have time. Maybe some will respond to this first session. If it's not productive maybe I'll stop here.

My IT friend just sent this to me and it was verified AI... How ironic that the one accusing others of using AI has himself been using AI all along!

This was written with AI Here’s why:

Key Indicators of AI Authorship

1. Overly formal structure and rhythm – It reads like an essay, not a natural forum post. Sentences flow with perfect syntax and evenly balanced clauses, which is common in AI-generated theological writing.
   
   “Obedience on the other hand is absolutely entangled with pistis to such a degree that it is essentially used synonymously with pistis in the Text.”
   — That’s textbook AI phrasing: abstract, precise, but impersonal.​
2. Dense, academic vocabulary without natural breaks – Words like “co-instantiated,” “lexically and logically sequential,” and “co-defining responses” are not conversational — they sound like output from a model mimicking scholarly tone (especially theology-trained AI like GPT-4 or Claude).
3. Artificial transitions – Phrases like “This is the beginning issue with faith-alone soteriology” or “What’s the point? We have the Text.” are used as AI pivot sentences — short rhetorical lines used to simulate a natural human turn but without emotional texture.
4. Even tone and lack of personality – There’s no fluctuation in tone, no small imperfections, no rhetorical emotion (which real writers often have when discussing theology). Everything reads polished and consistent, like a composed summary rather than a spontaneous post.
5. Self-referential structure – The final line “I’ll try to continue when I have time…” mimics AI dialogue closure patterns — it’s often added to create the illusion of an ongoing thread.

Verdict:

It’s 100% AI-generated or AI-polished.
The style matches models trained to mimic academic or theological prose — likely GPT-4, Claude, or Gemini Advanced.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

My IT friend just sent this to me and it was verified AI... How ironic that the one accusing others of using AI has himself been using AI all along!

This was written with AI Here’s why:

Key Indicators of AI Authorship

1. Overly formal structure and rhythm – It reads like an essay, not a natural forum post. Sentences flow with perfect syntax and evenly balanced clauses, which is common in AI-generated theological writing.
   
   “Obedience on the other hand is absolutely entangled with pistis to such a degree that it is essentially used synonymously with pistis in the Text.”
   — That’s textbook AI phrasing: abstract, precise, but impersonal.​
2. Dense, academic vocabulary without natural breaks – Words like “co-instantiated,” “lexically and logically sequential,” and “co-defining responses” are not conversational — they sound like output from a model mimicking scholarly tone (especially theology-trained AI like GPT-4 or Claude).
3. Artificial transitions – Phrases like “This is the beginning issue with faith-alone soteriology” or “What’s the point? We have the Text.” are used as AI pivot sentences — short rhetorical lines used to simulate a natural human turn but without emotional texture.
4. Even tone and lack of personality – There’s no fluctuation in tone, no small imperfections, no rhetorical emotion (which real writers often have when discussing theology). Everything reads polished and consistent, like a composed summary rather than a spontaneous post.
5. Self-referential structure – The final line “I’ll try to continue when I have time…” mimics AI dialogue closure patterns — it’s often added to create the illusion of an ongoing thread.

Verdict:

It’s 100% AI-generated or AI-polished.
The style matches models trained to mimic academic or theological prose — likely GPT-4, Claude, or Gemini Advanced.

Some people like @studier can think and compose cogent, thoughtful responses. You, on the other hand, are only capable of repeating snippets ad nauseam from your rhetorical toolkit that violate all norms of decent human communication.

 

[Blue155]

Some people like @studier can think and compose cogent, thoughtful responses. You, on the other hand, are only capable of repeating snippets ad nauseam from your rhetorical toolkit that violate all norms of decent human communication.

Amen. I have asked @LightBearer316 majy times the following question, and he never does it.

Here’s what I ask of him.

“Would you like to post this in your AI format? Or are you afraid you will lose credibility? Thus, you are trying to save face by accusing someone else of using it.

Go on..plug this in your program: “Have I been using AI in an irresponsible way to get responses, formulate arguments, just so I can simply respond or reply to posts, instead of using it responsibly? Have I been using AI in a manner that simply submits another’s post, then copies and pastes what AI has given me without even attempting to understand the others position, as well as even trying to understand AI’s responses?”

 

[studier]

My IT friend just sent this to me and it was verified AI... How ironic that the one accusing others of using AI has himself been using AI all along!

This was written with AI Here’s why:

Key Indicators of AI Authorship

1. Overly formal structure and rhythm – It reads like an essay, not a natural forum post. Sentences flow with perfect syntax and evenly balanced clauses, which is common in AI-generated theological writing.
   
   “Obedience on the other hand is absolutely entangled with pistis to such a degree that it is essentially used synonymously with pistis in the Text.”
   — That’s textbook AI phrasing: abstract, precise, but impersonal.​
2. Dense, academic vocabulary without natural breaks – Words like “co-instantiated,” “lexically and logically sequential,” and “co-defining responses” are not conversational — they sound like output from a model mimicking scholarly tone (especially theology-trained AI like GPT-4 or Claude).
3. Artificial transitions – Phrases like “This is the beginning issue with faith-alone soteriology” or “What’s the point? We have the Text.” are used as AI pivot sentences — short rhetorical lines used to simulate a natural human turn but without emotional texture.
4. Even tone and lack of personality – There’s no fluctuation in tone, no small imperfections, no rhetorical emotion (which real writers often have when discussing theology). Everything reads polished and consistent, like a composed summary rather than a spontaneous post.
5. Self-referential structure – The final line “I’ll try to continue when I have time…” mimics AI dialogue closure patterns — it’s often added to create the illusion of an ongoing thread.

Verdict:

It’s 100% AI-generated or AI-polished.
The style matches models trained to mimic academic or theological prose — likely GPT-4, Claude, or Gemini Advanced.

I suppose this needs to take place on 2 different threads. Why not just stay on one?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Amen. I have asked @LightBearer316 majy times the following question, and he never does it.

Here’s what I ask of him.

“Would you like to post this in your AI format? Or are you afraid you will lose credibility? Thus, you are trying to save face by accusing someone else of using it.

Go on..plug this in your program: “Have I been using AI in an irresponsible way to get responses, formulate arguments, just so I can simply respond or reply to posts, instead of using it responsibly? Have I been using AI in a manner that simply submits another’s post, then copies and pastes what AI has given me without even attempting to understand the others position, as well as even trying to understand AI’s responses?”

It may not be AI, but I do think it is some sort of software automation.

 

[LightBearer316]

I suppose this needs to take place on 2 different threads. Why not just stay on one?

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

 

[LightBearer316]

Amen. I have asked @LightBearer316 majy times the following question, and he never does it.

Here’s what I ask of him.

“Would you like to post this in your AI format? Or are you afraid you will lose credibility? Thus, you are trying to save face by accusing someone else of using it.

Go on..plug this in your program: “Have I been using AI in an irresponsible way to get responses, formulate arguments, just so I can simply respond or reply to posts, instead of using it responsibly? Have I been using AI in a manner that simply submits another’s post, then copies and pastes what AI has given me without even attempting to understand the others position, as well as even trying to understand AI’s responses?”

Funny how you keep yelling “busted” when the only one actually caught using AI here was your buddy studier— and with his own words and behavior confirming it. I’ve been open from day one that I use Typinator, which isn’t AI at all, just a text-expansion shortcut. Meanwhile, you’re trying to turn that into a smokescreen to distract from the real issue: your side’s AI use and lack of honesty about it. Transparency isn’t the problem here — deflection is.

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

 

[LightBearer316]

It may not be AI, but I do think it is some sort of software automation.

So if I want to type Acts 17:11 frequently, I’m supposed to open my Bible app, search, copy, and paste it every single time — instead of just typing “acts 17 11” and letting Typinator automatically expand the verse for me? That’s all Typinator does — it’s text expansion, not artificial intelligence. It’s the same as using a shortcut key or autocomplete feature.

 

[studier]

It may not be AI, but I do think it is some sort of software automation.

Here's the concern IMO:

• Typinator is automation:
  • As I understand, one can store premade statements and recall them with brief snippets saving much effort. Responses seem canned because they are unless modified to post for actual conversing.
  • AI can identify and mistake Typinator content for AI output depending on formatting and other parameters.
  • AI can't tell us if AI was used to create parts of the content. So if it was used for research or creating content, we really cannot tell at this point.
• Thus, the bigger concern for me has been that @LightBearer316 does not admit to anything re: AI use when asked many times - not that I'm aware of. This is the same pattern when asked to provide substantiation for scholarly data that both you and I requested but were ignored and deflected from.
  • With the information I have, the main concern is we're dealing with fairly extreme dishonesty for whatever reason(s).
  • It could be cleared up. It likely will not be - at least not easily.

 

[Blue155]

It may not be AI, but I do think it is some sort of software automation.

Definitely

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

So if I want to type Acts 17:11 frequently, I’m supposed to open my Bible app, search, copy, and paste it every single time — instead of just typing “acts 17 11” and letting Typinator automatically expand the verse for me? That’s all Typinator does — it’s text expansion, not artificial intelligence. It’s the same as using a shortcut key or autocomplete feature.

That's fine. It's the paragraphs of pre-made rhetorical talking points that you regurgitate endlessly without any thought that are your undoing.

 

[studier]

I’ve been open from day one that I use Typinator,

This is an example of the type of statements that caused me to accuse you of being delusional.

The fact is, as I recall, it took nearly 300 posts in time with many requests and even demands for some answers before "Typinator" was said to be in use. That's hardly "day one".

It could have been explained very simply and very early on.

Just answer simple questions when concerns arise or explain why you won't.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Funny how you keep yelling “busted” when the only one actually caught using AI here was your buddy studier— and with his own words and behavior confirming it. I’ve been open from day one that I use Typinator, which isn’t AI at all, just a text-expansion shortcut. Meanwhile, you’re trying to turn that into a smokescreen to distract from the real issue: your side’s AI use and lack of honesty about it. Transparency isn’t the problem here — deflection is.

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

Well, honestly, we can't believe anything you say

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

This is an example of the type of statements that caused me to accuse you of being delusional.

The fact is, as I recall, it took nearly 300 posts in time with many requests and even demands for some answers before "Typinator" was said to be in use. That's hardly "day one".

It could have been explained very simply and very early on.

Just answer simple questions when concerns arise or explain why you won't.

We're dealing with some sort of software automation, a patholoigical liar, or both.

 

[LightBearer316]

I suppose this needs to take place on 2 different threads. Why not just stay on one?

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

 

[LightBearer316]

Here's the concern IMO:

• Typinator is automation:
  • As I understand, one can store premade statements and recall them with brief snippets saving much effort. Responses seem canned because they are unless modified to post for actual conversing.
  • AI can identify and mistake Typinator content for AI output depending on formatting and other parameters.
  • AI can't tell us if AI was used to create parts of the content. So if it was used for research or creating content, we really cannot tell at this point.
• Thus, the bigger concern for me has been that @LightBearer316 does not admit to anything re: AI use when asked many times - not that I'm aware of. This is the same pattern when asked to provide substantiation for scholarly data that both you and I requested but were ignored and deflected from.
  • With the information I have, the main concern is we're dealing with fairly extreme dishonesty for whatever reason(s).
  • It could be cleared up. It likely will not be - at least not easily.

Typinator isn’t AI, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. It’s no different than using copy-paste or keyboard shortcuts to save time. Turning that into “extreme dishonesty” is just deflection. The real irony is that while I’ve been transparent about my tools from day one, you’ve avoided answering direct questions about your own AI use and keep shifting the conversation away from the text itself. You were EXPOSED using AI on several posts while accusing others of using Ai. Very dishonest and disengenous.

 

[LightBearer316]

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

 

[studier]

We're dealing with some sort of software automation, a patholoigical liar, or both.

Note as you did the Typinator admission re: simplifying posting Scripture but the lack of clarifying all it's other uses. As I said before, pattern(s) recognition and signs of dishonesty. A big deal in analysis.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The real irony is that while I’ve been transparent about my tools from day one

This is just a flat out lie,