Saved by faith alone?
- Thread starter Lamar
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The issue in James isn’t proving whether faith is real - it’s what living pistis is by nature. James says faith without works is dead kath’ heautēn — dead in itself. That’s not “unproven faith”; it is non-living faith. His analogy shows this: a body without breath isn’t waiting for evidence — it is dead, because breath is part of life’s essence. Likewise, works are part of the essence of living pistis, not just external proof. I keep pointing to the actual wording James uses, but if kath’ heautēn is simply ignored in favor of a theological tradition, there’s not much further progress possible.
I’ve noted before a repeated pattern in your responses: misrepresenting my argument, ad hominem remarks, and appeals to spiritual authority over careful exegesis. These are classic signs of a losing argument, because the discussion shifts away from the Text itself. To be clear, I never suggested that Heb11:1 teaches faith is works. The point was about consistent interpretation of “estin” across texts - Heb11:1 versus James2:17 - not about the nature of faith itself. Personal attacks don’t advance that discussion. I think there's some amazing depth in Heb11:1 not coming through in translation. It won't help your argument.
The core issue isn’t whether works demonstrate faith - I’ve never denied that they serve as evidence. The question is what James actually says about the nature of pistis. He repeatedly states that faith without works is dead kath’ heautēn - dead in itself. This is an ontological (relating to the nature or essence of something) statement about living faith, not a comment about external proof. Isolating phrases like “I will show you my faith by my works” (2:18) as merely evidential, while ignoring James’ repeated premise that faith is dead in itself (2:14, 17, 26), selectively interprets the text to fit a faith-alone framework. Works are not external add-ons to faith; they are part of the essence of living faith, just as breath is part of a living body.
This is a core disagreement: James repeatedly says faith without works is dead kath’ heautēn. That language points to works being part of the essence of living pistis, not merely its fruit - a point your responses ignore.
My point is strictly exegetical: Scripture does not define pistis by its object of trust, but by its relational grammar, commanded expressions, and living possession of works. Personal rhetoric about my beliefs is ad hominem and does not engage the textual argument, which far exceeds basic lexical definitions.
So, made alive together with Christ by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:5-8) means dead faith that needs to produce works in order to become alive?Illogical.
Misrepresents what I said, turning a statement about essence into a claim about temporal cause - a classic straw man fallacy. Several other fallacies are piling up here. The discussion continually ignores or redirects away from the essence of pistis, which is exactly the problem with the faith-alone tradition.
We agree that faith is necessary and works do not earn salvation, but we disagree on whether works are part of the essence of saving faith (James: living pistis) or merely external evidence of faith that is already saving.
That seems to be your go to label for folks who disagree with you.
You and I will never reach full agreement on this so any further discussion will just be a waste of time. Now, for the third time, I will ask, "WHERE DO YOU ATTEND CHURCH?"
Works are intrinsic to living pistis - they must and will occur by its very nature - and this does not mean anyone is doing works to earn initial salvation, despite the automatic assumption some make. Faith that is alive must and will produce works; they do not merely demonstrate living faith, they are part of the very nature of faith itself. If one does not produce good works, that person has not attained to genuine pistis, which inherently includes good works.
What your ears hear and your eyes read is filtered through training and preconceptions. You have yet to engage with the actual language of James I have repeatedly brought forward, which speaks explicitly about what is inherent in pistis. No matter how much effort is made to separate living essence from the definition of pistis, the original Text remains unchanged, and it builds a clear definition of faith.
You, for example - unlike some other faith-alone advocates - clearly see that pistis endures. This is because endurance is part of the essence of living pistis. You do not struggle with Luke 8:13 because you recognize that non-rooted, non-enduring believing that withdraws was never saving. It was never saving precisely because it did not endure; it did not endure because it was not genuine pistis, which by definition includes endurance as part of its essence.
We don’t have to resort to psychological phrases like “mental assent” - we simply observe what part of the essence of pistis is absent.
When I was trained in faith-alone systematic theology I had the same opinion.
Your question is not germane to the discussion of the essence of pistis.
Oxymoron.
Not inherent. Faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all would demonstrative there is no root.
Based on some of your smug remarks in post #2,543 I can tell that you are more interested in winning your argument at all costs than you are in seriously considering the truth.
Genuine faith endures because it is firmly rooted and established from the start.
You and I don't even speak the same language.
Well, if someone teaches that we are saved by faith plus works (even if it's only works in part) then they are a works-salvationist, which describes many.
I'm curious to see which church that your doctrinal beliefs line up with. As for me, I attend a non-denominational Christian church.
Yes, people do not realize this. Calvinism is good at tying up the loose ends but does not mean it is true.
No works, not saved >>> Calvinism.
Re "James says faith without works is dead": Notice that faith is mentioned first, which is why I now say we are saved by faith first,
rather than by faith alone. horse > cart
Trained by who?Do you reject salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone?
I disagree with your version of the essence of pistis. My focus is on what the Text actually says: faith that is alive inherently has works and obedience, endurance, and other essential qualities as part of its very nature. The simplicity for me is letting God define what is and is not merit-worthy works, rather than altering the definition of genuine pistis to fit an interpretive system.
No, it's my goto label when people express Calvinist ideology. Protestant culture is so imbued with the Calvinist way of thinking that many don't realize where their ideas come from.
What I see and hear revolves around reading scripture in context and properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. That has been my training. Folks who are thoroughly indoctrinated into their biased church doctrine see and hear filtered through training and preconceptions.