It's my pleasure to talk to someone who is really interested in finding out. I appreciate that. I talk to a lot of people who just want to argue or ridicule, so I'm glad that your questions are honest ones. That makes dialogue much more enjoyable.

My purpose in referring you to James 1.14-26 was to substantiate what you were surmising: that faith to be true faith must be acted upon—that only he or she who is obedient truly has faith, because faith must by necessity play itself out in life. While a person is not justified by works—they are not the root of salvation (Rom. 3.21-5.2)—, works will issue from a faith that is genuine. As John Calvin said, "Faith alone justifies, but faith that justifies is not alone." It shows itself in how we live.

Rahab is brought up as an example. She's at the opposite end of the religious, social, and moral spectrum from Abraham (James mentions him in the previous verses), but she, just as well as he, can act on what she believes. And that's James's point: If you believe it, live it. Then James just pulls in another analogy: just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. A life of good works is the practical and obvious response to being saved by grace.

You're right that Eph. 2.8-9 is probably the clearest expression of the thought in a single sentence. Rom. 3.21-5.2 says it well also, but in more of a treatise rather than a sound bite.

I wasn't using 2 Cor. 5.10 to connect to the idea of "actions outside of faith don't work towards one's salvation," but to the idea that works (the way we live our lives) still matters. It DOES matter how we live, though HOW we live doesn't play into whether we're saved or not. No one is saved by works, but we shall all be judged according to our works. There are degrees of reward in heaven and degrees of punishment in hell (not to be confused with Dante's *Inferno*). And so works matter, but we are not saved by them. That was my point in bringing up 2 Cor. 5.

And, to follow with your following question, the "body" in 2 Cor. 5.1-10 is our physical body, not a metaphor of the Church.

You have an interesting question about "Wouldn't a non-believer be turned into a believer when he or she sees Christ?" I think not, and for several reasons:
- The demons know God exists, and what he is like (James 2.19), but that doesn't motivate them to commence a loving relationship with him.
- The point is not whether or not someone believes God exists, but whether they choose to love him. Love for God (Dt. 6.5) motivates one to know him (Phil. 3.7-9) and "receive him" (Jn. 1.12)—to be born again (Jn. 3.3) with the nature of Jesus himself. Demons don't desire that, and neither will people who see him (Rev. 6.16; Heb. 10.31).
- We have plenty of examples in the Bible of people who saw the wonderful things of God and yet didn't turn to him in love.
- Decisions about God and eternity are not like ice cream cones. They are deep decisions we make about the evidence we see, the state of our minds, the convictions of our deepest heart and soul, the weight of values, and the direction of our very beings. They are both intellectual and visceral, both academic and mysterious, based on both faith and sight. They are not cavalier. I happen to think it's naive to think that being confronted with the realities of eternity will effect any change in anyone. Right here in this life we are confronted with—pounded with—information from every side, evidences, world views, philosophies and theologies, to the point that not only do we make decisions, but we shape our beings on the basis of them. And on occasion there are powerful forces that motivate us to change our positions on matters of eternity. But our worldviews become settled, and part of our being, to the point where they are who we are, and not subject to change. Jesus said, "Even if someone came back from the dead, they wouldn't believe." At some point evidence gets filtered by the worldview rather than vice versa.

But why, you ask, would not our good works count for SOMETHING? "Is there a specific reason God would ignore them?" Yeah, because the point is a love relationship, not earning anything. I don't know your relationship status, but I'll try this analogy: Let's say a guy completely ignores his wife day after day. No conversation, no affection, no attention, but once a week he buys her flowers. You know what? Those flowers don't count for diddly-squat, because there's no LOVE. What she wants is conversation, affection, and attention—she wants a love relationship, not a good deed. Cards on Valentine's Day are meaningless without the love relationship the rest of the year. God wants love. Good deeds are good deeds, and they're good things, but what he wants is conversation, affection, and attention. Without the love relationship, the good works are just, um, good works. Big deal. A husband isn't trying to earn his way into his wife's affections; he needs to LOVE his way there.

> Is it correct to understand 'eternal life' as being intrinsically linked to 'spending it with God'?

Absolutely. Over and over in the Bible the point is not religious practice, but a love relationship with God. The point is not to achieve heaven, but to love God with our heart, soul, mind and strength. What's the use of religious practice if your heart isn't in it (Isa. 1.11-17; 29.13; Jer. 12.2; Micah 6.8 and others)? I don't turn to God to escape hell—that's just a "fire" insurance policy. I turn to God in love and to know him.

> What if I come from another religion...

It's an interesting question, and one that is variously answered. Romans 5.13 says, "for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." In other words, people cannot be held accountable for what they could not possibly have known. Romans 1.20 lets us know that they will be held accountable for what they DO know. Theologians talk about in terms of "common revelation" (what everybody can see and have a knowledge of [things such as order, uniformity, purpose, function, cause and effect, the validity of sense perception, beauty, reason, personality, knowledge, the benefits of moral responsibility, will, and love; as well as a conscience inside of them]) and "special revelation" (the knowledge of things in particular, such as Jesus). Those are different accountability standards, and the Bible teaches that God is just and will be fair with people, considering what they knew and what they did with it.

For instance, we are told that the young people during the wilderness wanderings got a free pass to the Promised Land when others were punished for their rebellion, because they didn't know any better (Dt. 1.37-40: God's people are being judged for their rebellion, but the young ones who didn't have the mental capacity to make a reasoned and moral decision like that don't get judged). Scripture teaches that anyone who is not capable of making a deliberate, reasoned decision is not held accountable as the people who are. Don't get me wrong: they're still accountable, but in a different way and based on a different standard.

Based on Romans 5.13, I think it's fair to say that people who died before Christ was on the scene will not be judged on whether they believed in Christ or not. That doesn't make any sense. So what about people who lived in Asia, or on Papua New Guinea, or South Africa, or Alaska, who never heard of Jesus but lived and died? They will be judged fairly given their own motivations and actions. People will be judged according to the information they had, what they did with it, and their motives behind it. Every judgment will be fair based on what information people had, what they knew, what their motives were, and how they behaved given what they had access to. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair. So if someone hasn't heard of Christianity, they can't be held accountable for Christianity. But they will be held accountable for what they do know. As C.S. Lewis said, "We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ (Jn. 14.6); we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him."

Feel free to talk more, ask more, dialogue more. This is good.

First, thank you for taking the time to answer, and then to such extend and depth.

I was reading James 2:14-26, and it seems it mostly focuses on faith without deeds being dead, but I seem to miss the reference to Rahab and how this explains that the body without spirit is dead.

After reading the next references you posted, it seems Ephesians 2:8-9 clarifies most the idea of grace, and how we cannot save ourselves. However, how does 2 Corinthians 5:10 then connect to the idea that "actions outside of faith don't work towards one's salvation"?

This is a twofold question; 1st: is with "body" meant 'the church' so the body of Christ, all believers, or our material body? In both cases, but especially the second; if we all are judged by Christ, would a non-believer not be turned anyway into a believer when he 'sees'/meets Christ, and his actions would judge him? I understand that it says that his actions were all 'outside faith' but why would they not count? Is there a specific reason why God would ignore them?

It seems like your conclusion to that paragraph is also the answer to my above question: "They can't, because there's always a point of failure, so no one is truly deserving." How does this 'point of failure' relate to this?

Isa 64:6 seems to further strengthen then the idea that ultimately it is grace and mercy that redeems us.

Regarding your last two paragraphs: Is it correct to understand 'eternal life' as being intrinsically linked to 'spending it with God'? That seems a new nuance to my understand that is quite significant.

What if I come from another religion, believed into another God, must find out mine wasn't real: I desired it all along, but prayed to a 'false God'? Would my actions, and let's assume they were good, done in faith, but just for the wrong God, not be able to be converted?

In both cases, the only thing differencing 'me' from a Christian is that I had no faith into Christ, after that we are both sinners. This then connects again to my point about fairness: I could have been better than a Christian in the goodness of my works, but I would not be able to go through Christ to heaven because I did not believe. Couldn't I simply not have had sufficient evidence, in my opinion, for believing?

Summa summarum I believe the key-point I take from your answer is that 'heaven' and the following resurrection is about wanting to be with God for eternity. To me it was always more a question of avoiding hell, which seems to be the worst punishment, or an eternity of agony. (Is there not also something about hell being experiences of agony until the resurrection, at which point the souls, and by so the existence, of those in hell would simple cease to exist?) Now it seems to be more about doing works in the name of faith, and someone outside Christianity, even in his good deeds, not actually wanting to be 'saved' then in the first place. Is this an accurate understanding of heaven and the resurrection?

I am sorry for the many different new questions that popped up here, but I realise that there are so many details I have yet to understand to be able to fully follow the argumentation.

My biggest question is then relied to the 'point of failure' that makes actions outside of the context of faith not contribute to our potential salvation. (that would solve the 'fairness'-question)

Thank you for your time; this is quite fascinating to me, and I appreciate your effort greatly.

You're right about many things. Obviously you want to understand better, so thank you for that.

Faith alone IS enough, but acting on it validates it. The one who believes is obedient (Mt. 7.21-23; Jn. 14.15, 23). If our faith doesn't play itself out in real life, it isn't worth much (James 2.14-26). But works is not the foundation or the necessary element that makes faith authentic (Eph. 2.8-9). It can't possibly be. Where works falls short as the basis of faith is that it excludes all of us from the set of "possibility". As Romans 3 says, none of us fits that picture. All of us flub up somewhere, somehow, some time. Have you ever lied? Have you ever been unjustifiably angry? Have you ever been greedy, proud, even slightly dishonest? Sure you have. We ALL have, and that's the issue. If the requirement is my acts, I'm out. I'm less than perfect. As We're ALL out. We all have an inclination to mess things up, to act unbecomingly at times, and to break stuff: moods, promises, relationship, and even our own well-being. But for us to attain heaven by works, such slips can't be overlooked with impunity. Maybe you're not as guilty as the next person, but you're still guilty. You still lied, or whatever. As James says (James 2.10), if you're guilty of only one point, you still carry guilt.

It's not that our actions are meaningless outside of the context of faith, because goodness is still goodness, and we will all be judged according to our works (2 Cor. 5.10 and others). After all, there are degrees of punishment for those who are not in Christ Jesus. But actions outside of faith don't work towards one's salvation. They can't, because there's always a point of failure, so no one is truly deserving. Isa. 64.6 says our righteousness is like filthy rags. Even in a system by works there would have to be some grace and mercy.

Instead, God came to earth and lived a perfect life and took our punishment in our place. Now he can offer us a place in heaven based on his perfect work, not our imperfect ones. But this is a gesture of grace. If we will accept the gift, we can be saved (Eph. 2.8-9; Rom. 11.6). And out of that salvation by grace through faith our works blossom as we show our love for God and faith in him with the fruit of a renewed life.

> can I question the bible/God on why I can't be a good person, and not ascend to heaven/resurrection because I did not believe?

Yes, you can always question God and the Bible. Learning and understanding come from questioning. Why can't the good person still ascend to heaven, even though they don't believe? First of all, it's because eternal life is based on a love relationship with God with whom we want to spend eternity. Someone who doesn't believe would hardly desire that. Someone who doesn't believe certainly doesn't love. And unless they are absolutely perfect in their goodness, then they don't deserve it. Let me put it this way: Did that person EVER tell a lie? Rev. 21.8 says liars go to hell. Did that person EVER disobey their parents? Rom. 1.30-32 says they don't DESERVE life. Would his lack of faith still stop him from absolution? Of course. Romans 5.1 says we are justified by faith. Believing in God’s promise counts as righteousness (Rom. 4.5).

What's unfair about it? Heaven is for the righteous. No matter how good a person is, they're not righteous (holy, pure; without fault). So if you want fair, none of us go to heaven. But God wants us there, so he provided the way. He lived the perfect life, and took the hit for us (Isa. 53.5) so that we could be saved. Now it's fair. Justice has been served, grace has been offered, we can receive it as a gift and be justified by faith. I know it's a little bit of a read (though no much longer than a magazine article), but if you are truly interested, you may want to read the book of Romans.

Feel free to ask more. This could be a very enjoyable exchange.

Why can we only be saved as a believer, not solely on our acts (as an unbeliever)?

I talked to a protestant friend earlier and had my troubles wrapping my head around the concept of being saved by sola gratia/sola fide.

What I understood is: faith alone is not enough, one has to act on it. But this seems to also go the other way around: "the body without the spirit is dead".

The conclusion was that I can only ascend to heaven/hope for resurrection if I believe. This leads me to my question: do I have to see this from the belief-framework and see meaning given to action only when in the context of faith, and all other actions done without faith as context are in vain, or can I question the bible/God on why I can't be a good person, and not ascend to heaven/resurrection because I did not believe?

If the greatest man to have ever lived in terms of doing good did not believe, would his lack of faith still stop him from absolution? Because that is how I understand this right now, and I feel this is 'unfair'.

I would love to understand this better within the context of this faith. Thank you very much in advance!