Saved by faith alone?

[TruthDefender]

Abraham was saved BEFORE he obeyed him.

Abraham also sinned many grave sins after he was saved.

If you say we are saved by grace plus works. you are in error..

-“Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
-You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
-For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭22‬, ‭24‬, ‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[TruthDefender]

-“Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

-You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

-For as the body without the spirit is dead, sofaith without works is dead also.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭22‬, ‭24‬, ‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

-“Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
-You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
-For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭22‬, ‭24‬, ‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

So your saying Abraham, Who God decliared rightious in Gen 15. Was not truly saved until decades later until he offered his son up?

Yes. My faith is perfected in works

But faith of a mustard seed saved me, as it did abraham, LONG before he did any work

 

[Cameron143]

You are not dealing with the linguistic grammatical argument I have presented to you. Peter denied Jesus three times. If we apply your interpretation of "aorist subjunctive .... future indicative" that you insist must be applied to the unforgiven sin in Matt. 12:33 (i.e. Someone commits slander against the Holy Spirit and there can be no subsequent forgiveness in perpetuity for that sin), then after Peter denied Jesus once before men, Jesus promised to deny Peter before the Father in perpetuity.... if you are correct about Matt. 12:32.

If you do not think the Greek of Matt. 10:33 supports Peter being perpetually denied by Jesus before the Father, then you must concede equally that the Greek of Matt 12:33, does not support a slanderer of the Holy Spirit being unforgiven in perpetuity in Matt. 12:32.

As a Christian, one is no longer under condemnation. Peter was a Christian. There was no chance he could be denied by Christ in peperpetuity. His sins were already forgiven. He wasn't even denied by Jesus after denying Him.
So...when we know certain things to be true, there is no need to torture language. When forming doctrine, we don't dismiss other things we know.
Further, the Bible never says that denying Jesus cannot be forgiven. When the Bible declares that a sin will not be forgiven in this age or the next, unless you know of an additional age, that sin has no time when it can be forgiven. This is said of blasphemy of the Spirit, but not of denying Christ.
So...no, I don't have to believe as you said, and simply because of what the scripture plainly teaches.

 

[mailmandan]

-“Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

-You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

-For as the body without the spirit is dead, sofaith without works is dead also.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭22‬, ‭24‬, ‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Do you interpret "justified by works" in James 2:24 to mean saved by works? If so, how do you reconcile that with Romans 4:2-3?

 

[studier]

You are not dealing with the linguistic grammatical argument I have presented to you.

@Cameron143 I'm repeating this just to point out agreement. FWIW, if anything, your statement came across as a pivot from the discussion just as is pointed out here. PT's #2,117 made some good points that we all should agree or explicably disagree with if the goal is to know Truth.

 

[Cameron143]

@Cameron143 I'm repeating this just to point out agreement. FWIW, if anything, your statement came across as a pivot from the discussion just as is pointed out here. PT's #2,117 made some good points that we all should agree or explicably disagree with if the goal is to know Truth.

As I have pointed out, my disagreement has nothing to do with language. Instead, it has to do with what scripture teaches. I don't deny the parallel construction of the passages, but the limitation scripture places on the one passage but not the other. In other words, it's not the grammar that limits the one and not the other. Instead, it is the words of the passage itself. One sin can be forgiven; the other will not be forgiven.

 

[GWH]

As a Christian, one is no longer under condemnation. Peter was a Christian. There was no chance he could be denied by Christ in peperpetuity. His sins were already forgiven. He wasn't even denied by Jesus after denying Him.
So...when we know certain things to be true, there is no need to torture language. When forming doctrine, we don't dismiss other things we know.
Further, the Bible never says that denying Jesus cannot be forgiven. When the Bible declares that a sin will not be forgiven in this age or the next, unless you know of an additional age, that sin has no time when it can be forgiven. This is said of blasphemy of the Spirit, but not of denying Christ.
So...no, I don't have to believe as you said, and simply because of what the scripture plainly teaches.

Yes, denying Jesus because of fear is different from repudiating one’s saving faith without good excuse.

 

[TruthDefender]

So your saying Abraham, Who God decliared rightious in Gen 15. Was not truly saved until decades later until he offered his son up?

Yes. My faith is perfected in works

But faith of a mustard seed saved me, as it did abraham, LONG before he did any work

Just so you know, I said nothing. That was a c&p from Scripture.

 

[GWH]

Do you interpret "justified by works" in James 2:24 to mean saved by works? If so, how do you reconcile that with Romans 4:2-3?

I reconcile James with Paul via Galatians 5:7.

 

[GWH]

Do you interpret "justified by works" in James 2:24 to mean saved by works? If so, how do you reconcile that with Romans 4:2-3?

I reconcile James with Paul via Galatians 5.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Just so you know, I said nothing. That was a c&p from Scripture.

Just so you know. You did say something,

If your interpretation of James means that Abraham was not saved until he offered his son.

then you have miserably failed to interpret James correctly.

and have failed to reconcile james 2 with Romans 4

 

[TruthDefender]

Just so you know. You did say something,

If your interpretation of James means that Abraham was not saved until he offered his son.

then you have miserably failed to interpret James correctly.

and have failed to reconcile james 2 with Romans 4

You’re already failing by arguing essentially with God…..

 

[PaulThomson]

As a Christian, one is no longer under condemnation. Peter was a Christian. There was no chance he could be denied by Christ in peperpetuity. His sins were already forgiven. He wasn't even denied by Jesus after denying Him.
So...when we know certain things to be true, there is no need to torture language. When forming doctrine, we don't dismiss other things we know.
Further, the Bible never says that denying Jesus cannot be forgiven. When the Bible declares that a sin will not be forgiven in this age or the next, unless you know of an additional age, that sin has no time when it can be forgiven. This is said of blasphemy of the Spirit, but not of denying Christ.
So...no, I don't have to believe as you said, and simply because of what the scripture plainly teaches.

I explained it well enough, I think. I don't think you are open to any perspective other than your present indoctrination on this. But hopefully, others who have been worried about the implications of believing in an unforgivable sin, will be able to see that there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

You’re already failing by arguing essentially with God…..

Yet you can not explain why your interpretation of James 2 and Romans 4 do not add up.

So in essence. I am not arguing with anyone.. I am just exposing a fraud

 

[Cameron143]

I explained it well enough, I think. I don't think you are open to any perspective other than your present indoctrination on this. But hopefully, others who have been worried about the implications of believing in an unforgivable sin, will be able to see that there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible.

Sure, you have done an excellent job of explaining your position. And I was plenty open to understanding your position. I even asked for and received clarification. I simply disagree with your position based on what scripture teaches. If there is no age in which a sin is forgiven, what term would you employ for that sin?

 

[studier]

I explained it well enough, I think. I don't think you are open to any perspective other than your present indoctrination on this. But hopefully, others who have been worried about the implications of believing in an unforgivable sin, will be able to see that there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible.

FWIW, IMO your #2,117 made the issue clearer as a misinterpretation of the aorist subjunctive > future indicative. I think one of the main issues with that aorist subjunctive is of many seeing it as a type of one-and-done statement, when the aorist subjunctive there is aspectual and not saying that.

It would be nice to have seen some understanding and agreement reached, but IMO that's extremely difficult to find here. Pivots to theology at the expense of the lexical and logical analysis of the Word seem to be the general rule for various reasons.

 

[mailmandan]

I reconcile James with Paul via Galatians 5:7.

I reconcile James with Paul via Galatians 5.

Why did you jump to Galatians 5 to reconcile them? You could not reconcile them from the context of James 2 and from Romans 4:2-6?

 

[PaulThomson]

Sure, you have done an excellent job of explaining your position. And I was plenty open to understanding your position. I even asked for and received clarification. I simply disagree with your position based on what scripture teaches. If there is no age in which a sin is forgiven, what term would you employ for that sin?

I believe the examples I gave in English, where I used "either in this month or the next" instead of "either in this age or the next" made it clear enough. The rule Jesus is stating will apply both in what remains of this age and also in the next age, the 1000 year reign of Christ and saints on earth. The rule being that whoever slanders the Holy Spirit in this age, and whoever slanders the Holy Spirit in the next age, will not have Jesus' sacrifice applied to that sin in the same way that it applies preemptively to all other sins (1 John2:2); other than the sin not believing in Jesus, which Jesus says leaves a person already condemned under the New Covenant (John 3:18).

 

[GWH]

Why did you jump to Galatians 5 to reconcile them? You could not reconcile them from the context of James 2 and from Romans 4:2-6?

Actually the reason is because I am on my phone and hate looking up Scripture with it plus I don’t know how to refresh so it will turn blue. I also had a senior moment and forgot the verse in chapter five that I sometimes have in mind.
Anything else you want to know?