Board index ‹ Salvation

[You Go, Kareem]

Hey brother thanks for your time!

> v. 21: Abraham’s obedience didn't make him a righteous man,

Let's see verse 21 again: Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

If you say Abraham wasn't but james tells me that he was justified by his works who do I believe? I agree with Mr Robinson in almost all but this part "as proof of the faith", does this mean what you say? If it is I disagree as I said above, because James is talking that justification is not by faith alone that is why he talk about other event than Paul.

> James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of faith that brings us to salvation.

Let's see ver 24 again: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So when you say that it does not bring salvation you are not reading where is written "justified by works and not by faith alone", he explicitly says that you are justified by the two of them, but you are denying that saying is only a "proof".

> ver 25. She showed her belief by acting accordingly.

Indeed and she was justified by that work as James says " Rahab the prostitute justified by works ".

> 1) but with people too willing to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
> 2) some people distort the Bible to say that salvation is by works
> 3) that James and Paul disagree with each other

About 1 and 3 I agree, people think there is contradictory doctrine in the bible but that is wrong, that is why based on the "sola scriptura" thing they try to give meaning to the things that they don't understand and they do it changing the meaning of parts of the bible to try to make sense of it. About 2, see that my position (Catholic doctrine) is what James says again and again, justification is by faith AND works. Not just one of them, not by faith alone or by works alone.
​
> You'll have to clarify for me what you're getting at.

That we need to do what he says, because he is the way, the truth and the life. An example of why faith alone is a dangerous belief is that some people say that baptism does not play a role in salvation because we are justified only by faith but in Mark 16:16 you can find that is not true.

> Mark 16:16. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

"Believes AND is baptized" see this is the same case with James 2:24? the word "and" is inclusive, that means you need both faith and the work to be saved.
​
I would like to talk about the literal meaning of his flesh and blood and others things, but first we must finish this topic since it can get messy to talk about so many things at the same time. I might take some time to reply to your response, I will show biblically to a non denominational brother that Mary is virgin but I'll be waiting your reply. BTW what is your church bro? And thanks for your time you seem to read a lot about this topics this is a nice conversation.

[jimwalton]

> Let's see verse 21 again: Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

Great question. You don't like that Robertson said that Abraham's works were proof of the faith Abraham already had (you didn't like that Bob Walton said the same thing, and that Paul says the same thing), but Genesis 22.12 says the same thing: Abraham's prior faith had stood the test, and he was approved by God. In other words, the "sacrifice" of Isaac was a test of Abraham's faith that he already had (Gn. 22.1). After having passed the test, the promises were renewed.

Then James explains what he means (v. 22): faith and works act together as a package—the works show that the faith was real, just as it did with Abraham. If faith is real and taking its proper place in a person's life, it will result in works. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Only he who is obedient believes; only he who believes is obedient."

> v. 24

James concurs with what we learned from Abraham, Jesus, and Paul: what a person does shows that he has been justified. The last phrase ("and not by faith alone") brings it home: Faith must show itself in deeds as Abraham's and Rahab's did. It has been James’s point all along:

* 1.12. True faith allows you to persevere under trial. It’s a test, much like Abraham’s.
* 1.22, 25. It’s not just a matter of faith (because you listened), but faith that acts.
* 1.27. Real faith shows itself in practical matters.
* 2.1-4, 8. Real faith shows itself in the way we treat people.
* 2.14. Real faith is followed by appropriate godly deeds.
* 2.18. We show our faith by our deeds.

Catch the flow, bro. This is James's point: Faith has to show itself in practical goodness in real life. It's not about that works are part of salvation, but that works are one of the evidences of salvation.

> Mark 16.16

It is WIDELY recognized that Mark 16.9-20 is not authentic. It is known this was added later. We don't hang a hat on ANYTHING in those verses.

[Free Thinker]

Both of these analogies may be accurate. If you don’t follow the rules of football you won’t end up playing football and if the train doesn’t stay on the tracks it won’t move. In bit these situation there isn’t really freedom though. You aren’t free to play football how you choose. The rules were set for you. The closest you could get is agreeing to different rules at the start of a game, but once it starts you aren’t free to play however. It isn’t freedom, but at least you get a choice. The only real freedom would be the freedom to stop playing whenever you wish.

> Here the choice is whether you are going to be a slave to your sin nature or a slave to God, which is really freedom

Why is being a slave to God freedom, but being a slave to yourself not?

[jimwalton]

> In bit these situation there isn’t really freedom though. You aren’t free to play football how you choose.

This is a good discussion. Thanks.

There are obviously different ways to think of freedom. One way is total autonomy: I get to do whatever, whenever, however, wherever. I am my own god. And that is freedom. But I think there are other ways to think of freedom. In my thinking, freedom doesn't necessarily mean total autonomy. It can also mean properly focused autonomy. This is the analogy of football. In no sense am I free to play the game if there aren't rules and a group of players willing to abide by them. It's the analogy of the train: the train can't even move without tracks. In one sense, it's totally free (autonomous). In another sense, it is worthless and bound (can't even move). So which is more "free"?

Let me throw out two more. In America we are "free." That doesn't mean we're free to rape and kill. It doesn't mean we're free to steal, commit arson, or sexually abuse children. That would just be sheer anarchy and mayhem. If America were like that, most of us would be slaves to fear. Sheer terror every day, every place. Instead, we mean "freedom with restraint" (like the train, and like football). Freedom with responsibility. I understand that freedom could be used to describe both situations (totally unrestrained autonomy and properly focused autonomy). Yes, the rules were set for us (both in football and in America), but they were set by people seeking the sport and the thrill of the game (football), and by people seeking the pursuit of happiness, self-governing (autonomous) citizens with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I happen to think that properly focused autonomy is more like ideal freedom (because it works) than totally autonomy, which results in chaos, violence, and fear. I think that to be truly free (beneficial to the wellbeing of humanity), there must be restraint and responsibility. But I honestly do understanding that total autonomy can be another expression of "freedom."

> Why is being a slave to God freedom, but being a slave to yourself not?

This goes back to the previous answer. I believe (and my life experiences confirm i to met) that slavery to sin results in much more uncertainty, chaos, mayhem, and fear, while slavery to God results in much more fulfillment, happiness, purpose, and peace. That's been my experience. Possibly yours is different. Though I'll admit when I've seen anarchists (like a group prowling Washington, D.C., at Trump's inauguration), I saw a lot of destruction of property, injury of people, and uncivil attitudes. When I see Antifa in their marches, I also see violence and hatred (to be fair, a lot of violence and hatred coming from "Patriot Prayer" as well). I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced by experience that "total autonomy freedom" is the better way to go. "Properly focused freedom" seems to fit the bill of oriented to wellbeing, beneficial to a greater number of people, leading more to responsibility and peace, and allowing an environment not characterized by fear. But I'd love to hear your response.

[Free Thinker]

I, too, enjoy engaged, honest, and civil conversations, so thank you on your part.

On the subject of total autonomy there are a variety of views. Rousseau argues “man is born free, but is everywhere in chains.” Our self-placed restraints are necessary to live and thrive in society, as you pointed out. I also believe we are restrained from full freedom by our nature. Each of us is only able to achieve certain freedoms depending on some uncontrolled circumstances at birth such as health, SES, or culture. For example, if someone is born in North Korea, the freedoms accessible to them will differ from the ones Americans enjoy. I do agree that man’s choice to live in civilized society limits his freedom, but it can give someone at a disadvantage the right to freedoms as well, as Locke would argue.

> In one sense, it's totally free (autonomous). In another sense, it is worthless and bound (can't even move). So which is more "free"?
The train analogy is harder to apply since the train is not free without tracks. If the train could lay it’s own tracks then perhaps you could argue that while it is restrained to the tracks it is truly free to go its own way. I believe I have seen off road vehicle commercials which emphasize freedom. The football and social analogies are better. Much like in society, a football game would break down were a player to not follow the rules. This player is free to not play, which is true freedom, but if they wish to play they must either subjugate to the pre-established rules, or fight to change the rules. This is true in society as well. We see political parties each fighting to change the rules in the favor of themselves. But even if one could make the rules themselves, they would still be bound to them or risk hypocrisy. So true freedom would be the option to abandon society and live in isolation. Much like one can choose freedom from football rules one can choose freedom from society. If they choose to stay, then the rules apply or they must fight to change them. More importantly if they choose not to play, then the NFL doesn’t punish them, just lets them not play to live off the grid.

> That's been my experience. Possibly yours is different.

Do you believe that slavery to God is actually better or is it based on an individual’s experience? Is it equally possible someone can live a life with more fulfillment, happiness, purpose, and peace in slavery to god and without god?

[jimwalton]

> I do agree that man’s choice to live in civilized society limits his freedom, but it can give someone at a disadvantage the right to freedoms as well

Agreed. if I want to exercise true freedom of speech (total unstrained autonomy), then I should be allowed hate speech, racist speech, supremacist speech, and misogynistic speech. Others would argue that this kind of speech should not be allowed under the banner of "Free Speech." Justice Joseph Story, one of SCOTUS's most notable legal scholars, said, " 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.' That this Amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please without any responsibility, public or private, therefore, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would allow every citizen a right to destroy at his pleasure the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen." In a similar vein, a legal scholar of the late 18th-early 19th c. named James Kent, about the freedom of speech and freedom of the press said, "Every citizen might freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, [but is] responsible for the abuse of that liberty. Without such a check, the press, in the hands of evil and designing men, would become a most formidable engine as mighty for mischief as for good."

The "chains," as Rousseau speaks, are not only beneficial but necessary for the survival of the species. I still think that our freedom, no matter what country you live in, should not include murder, rape, child sexual abuse, arson, or theft. And it would seem to me, of course, that any civilized person would agree. Thus it would seem to me that we would all ultimately subscribe to focused responsible autonomy, rather than total unrestrained autonomy, and would merely otherwise need to negotiate where all the lines were to be drawn. But it seems that all would draw them somewhere. Otherwise, as Story averred, we would quickly devolve into a society of violence and evil.

> The train analogy is harder to apply since the train is not free without tracks. If the train could lay it’s own tracks then perhaps you could argue that while it is restrained to the tracks it is truly free to go its own way. I believe I have seen off road vehicle commercials which emphasize freedom. The football and social analogies are better. Much like in society, a football game would break down were a player to not follow the rules. This player is free to not play, which is true freedom, but if they wish to play they must either subjugate to the pre-established rules, or fight to change the rules. This is true in society as well. We see political parties each fighting to change the rules in the favor of themselves. But even if one could make the rules themselves, they would still be bound to them or risk hypocrisy. So true freedom would be the option to abandon society and live in isolation. Much like one can choose freedom from football rules one can choose freedom from society. If they choose to stay, then the rules apply or they must fight to change them. More importantly if they choose not to play, then the NFL doesn’t punish them, just lets them not play to live off the grid.

Great points. I like the way you're thinking, and agree with you. It confirms what I've been saying: there are different ways to look at freedom and to define it; "total unrestrained autonomy" is not the only way to be "free."

> Do you believe that slavery to God is actually better or is it based on an individual’s experience?

I would say it's obvious, since I'm a Christian, that I assess slavery to God as being better than slavery to sin. But that's not to claim that only Christians can be happy, purposeful, fulfilled, and peaceful. I would say that these words (and therefore concepts) can also be defined and viewed in various ways. There are different kinds of happiness, purpose, fulfillment, etc., and different degrees of them. In my experience, and in the experience of many Christians I've talked to, there is a qualitative difference that one experiences as a Christian. So I would say that someone can live a life with more fulfillment, happiness, purpose, and peace in slavery to God than one can without God.

[You Go, Kareem]

> It is WIDELY recognized that Mark 16.9-20 is not authentic. It is known this was added later. We don't hang a hat on ANYTHING in those verses.

I'm sorry I thought I was talking to a believer not an scholar but please tell me under what authority all christians should say that mark 16:9-20 is not the word of God? Since when this is known to know how much time christianity has been in the dark, are there any other parts of the bible that are wrong? Truly interesting this. But if you deny that Ill give you another one
​
John 6:53-54. So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Not going to talk about this until we finish this topic, but as baptism this is just as necessary.
​
> faith and works act together as a package

Oh I agree, that is why salvation comes from the two of them, that is indeed the message that James wants to tell that is not that clear in Paul's letters even though is also there. The problem is that you, as almost all protestants say: this first and then the other, but they are part of the same thing. Faith alone doesn't save, works alone doesn't save. That is all the flow James (and all the bible) is telling. You can quote all those faith passages and I agree, of course you need faith but saying works don't play a part in salvation is going against the apostolic teaching.

[jimwalton]

> I'm sorry I thought I was talking to a believer not an scholar

A person can be both. : )

> please tell me under what authority all christians should say that mark 16:9-20 is not the word of God?

The earliest Greek manuscripts, writings from the Apostolic and Church Fathers, and the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus ALL support the conclusion that Mark ends at 16.8. Verses 9-20 are also absent from the Old Latin MS *k*, the Sinaitic Syriac, several manuscripts of the Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts from the Ethiopic version. Eusebius says that Mark ended at 16.8. Jerome claims Mark ends at 16.8. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem show no awareness of any of verses 9-20. Every evidence points to the conclusion that Mark originally ended at 16.8, and that the extra 12 verses were a later addition.

> are there any other parts of the bible that are wrong?

John 7.59 - 8.11 are also a later addition.

> John 6.53-54

Celebrating the Eucharist was understood as a command and has been practiced by the Church from the very beginning, as has believer baptism. But we're not going to talk about this now.

> Oh I agree, that is why salvation comes from the two of them

Then you've missed the flow and point of James, as I gave evidence. James, throughout his entire book, is talking about the works that come from salvation, not the works that contribute to it. I laid this out for you, and you seem to have ignored it.

> but they are part of the same thing.

You're right, but the sequence matters. Eph. 2.8-9: For by grace we are saved through faith, not by works (though works are necessary [Eph. 2.10]). James is the same way: salvation first, works second, though works are necessary. James is writing to believers, and his outrage is at the great plague of Christianity: hypocrisy—people who say they believe, but then don't live it.

They use the words with different definitions. What Paul and James meant by "faith" and "works" are entirely different things. For Paul, people are justified by putting their "faith" in God (belief, trust, allegiance). For James, "faith" is not trust, belief, or allegiance, but instead what you put into practice. James is not talking about how one comes to Christ but rather what is appropriate after one comes to Christ. That's his whole treatise.

For Paul, "works" are works of the Law, thought by Jews to get them into heaven. Therefore, works to attain salvation are beyond worthless. For James, "works" are the manifestation of practical religion. Therefore, works as an expression of one's faith are priceless.

When Paul talks about justification, he's talking about how we come to Christ. When James talks about justification, he's talking about how one manifests Christ. Both Paul and James advocate living out your faith, and they both speak of good works as the result of faith and salvation, not the cause of it. They also both teach that justification (made right with God by grace through faith) results in sanctification (a changed life of good works).

[You Go, Kareem]

Hello! Sorry for the delay, bro. I have been busy! Have to say I have enjoyed our talk thanks for that.

> A person can be both. : )

Indeed but being a believer means we summit to the higher authority! Don't get me wrong, those kind of studies are interesting and necessary and we must use our brains to discern but when it comes to matters of faith, the apostles (and their successors) are the ones with the authority to interpret and guide the people that is why I asked with whom authority you can say that. I got two questions with this: 1-What is your church and 2) the people in your church also believes that the bible is wrong?

> James, throughout his entire book, is talking about the works that come from salvation, not the works that contribute to it.

James says one thing and you another, you gave explanations that go against what James is saying, he explicitly is saying that you are not justified by faith alone he is not saying that those works comes after, that is you saying that, remember: "justified by works and not by faith alone". Now that we have works that apply to salvation and works that apply to sanctification are two different things. An example of works that contribute to salvation can be found in Mt 25:31-35, sanctification for example 2Co 11:9 when Paul choose to not burden that cumunity when he easily could.
​
> They use the words with different definitions. What Paul and James meant by "faith" and "works" are entirely different things. For Paul, people are justified by putting their "faith" in God (belief, trust, allegiance). For James, "faith" is not trust, belief, or allegiance, but instead what you put into practice. James is not talking about how one comes to Christ but rather what is appropriate after one comes to Christ. That's his whole treatise.

I agree!
​
> For Paul, "works" are works of the Law, thought by Jews to get them into heaven. Therefore, works to attain salvation are beyond worthless. For James, "works" are the manifestation of practical religion. Therefore, works as an expression of one's faith are priceless.

Bro, you are the first evangelical to say this to me, you truly are a scholar! jaja but then it confuses me more your stance if you already know that Paul is talking about the jewish law. Works of salvation to christians are the ones that Christ told us to do (baptism etc).

If you say that is important to follow all of christ commands to salvation then I can agree about you saying that is all by faith, because then what Paul and James talk become the same.

[jimwalton]

> being a believer means we summit to the higher authority!

Of course we submit to a higher authority. We submit to God, to the Holy Spirit (who is guiding us into all truth), and to the Word of God, the authoritative revelation of God and guide for life.

> we must use our brains to discern but when it comes to matters of faith

Agreed. John said to test the spirits (1 Jn. 4.1). We see the Bereans checking up on the apostle Paul to make sure he was teaching it right (Acts 17.11). Our minds are key to discernment, knowledge, understanding, and testing for truth.

> 1-What is your church

I'm a Protestant. Not sure what this matters. We all acknowledge and submit to the authority of the Word of God. It is the revelation of God via the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1.20-21).

> the people in your church also believes that the bible is wrong?

No, no one in my church believes the Bible is wrong, nor do I. The Bible is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16).

> "justified by works and not by faith alone"

I've already covered this with you. Please don't just ignore what I say.

First I said this: "James concurs with what we learned from Abraham, Jesus, and Paul: what a person does shows that he has been justified. The last phrase ("and not by faith alone") brings it home: Faith must show itself in deeds as Abraham's and Rahab's did. It has been James’s point all along:

* 1.12. True faith allows you to persevere under trial. It’s a test, much like Abraham’s.
* 1.22, 25. It’s not just a matter of faith (because you listened), but faith that acts.
* 1.27. Real faith shows itself in practical matters.
* 2.1-4, 8. Real faith shows itself in the way we treat people.
* 2.14. Real faith is followed by appropriate godly deeds.
* 2.18. We show our faith by our deeds.

Catch the flow, bro. This is James's point: Faith has to show itself in practical goodness in real life. It's not about that works are part of salvation, but that works are one of the evidences of salvation."

Then I said this: "the sequence matters. Eph. 2.8-9: For by grace we are saved through faith, not by works (though works are necessary [Eph. 2.10]). James is the same way: salvation first, works second, though works are necessary. James is writing to believers, and his outrage is at the great plague of Christianity: hypocrisy—people who say they believe, but then don't live it.

They use the words with different definitions. What Paul and James meant by "faith" and "works" are entirely different things. For Paul, people are justified by putting their "faith" in God (belief, trust, allegiance). For James, "faith" is not trust, belief, or allegiance, but instead what you put into practice. James is not talking about how one comes to Christ but rather what is appropriate after one comes to Christ. That's his whole treatise.

For Paul, "works" are works of the Law, thought by Jews to get them into heaven. Therefore, works to attain salvation are beyond worthless. For James, "works" are the manifestation of practical religion. Therefore, works as an expression of one's faith are priceless.

When Paul talks about justification, he's talking about how we come to Christ. When James talks about justification, he's talking about how one manifests Christ. Both Paul and James advocate living out your faith, and they both speak of good works as the result of faith and salvation, not the cause of it. They also both teach that justification (made right with God by grace through faith) results in sanctification (a changed life of good works)."

You can't just read the words. First, it matters how James is using the words; second, it matters what he means by them. James is definitely not saying that works are how we get saved. You have to ignore his whole flow, how he defines those words, and what he means by them to distort them into saying that a person is saved by works in addition to grace.

> Matthew 25.31-35

The problem with your reference to this text is that Jesus is not talking about how one gets saved. Matthew 25 is about accountability for how we have lived. In the case of this particular piece, it's about compassion for others. God expects us to act with generosity and justice, and there are degrees of reward in heaven. Our love for others shows our faith is real (J. 13.35). You don't get to heaven because you've been good, but your degree of reward is based on how you live in this life (2 Cor. 5.10). And people who are not in heaven will receive punishments commensurate with their deeds as well (this text and ones like Rev. 20.13).

> 2 Cor. 11.9

I have no idea what this verse has anything to do with what we're discussing. You'll have to explain. There is absolutely nothing here about Paul claiming that his works are contributing to salvation.

> Paul is talking about the jewish law. Works of salvation to christians are the ones that Christ told us to do (baptism etc).

Paul is certainly talking about the Jewish law. No contention there. And there are certainly things that Christ told us to do (love for others, be baptized, serve one another, humility, communion [Eucharist], deny oneself, take up one's cross, follow him, follow God's example, etc.). But there are no works contributing to salvation. The work has been done by Jesus. Our call is to follow (in baptism, in love, in service, in humility, in remembrance, in suffering). And more.

* In baptism: Rom. 6.4
* In love: Jn. 13.34
* In service: Jn. 13.12-17
* In humility: Mt. 11.29
* In remembrance: Lk. 22.19
* In suffering: Mt. 24.9; Phil. 3.10

and more.

We are saved by belief (Acts 16.31; Rom. 10.10). We are saved by God's grace (Eph. 2.8-9). We are saved by following Jesus (Mt. 16.24). We are justified by grace (Rom. 3.24), apart from works of the law (Rom. 3.28).

James is clear: We prove our faith by our deeds (2.18). That's what he means by his words. Faith without works that result from it is a false faith (2.26). It is in that sense that James means works are necessary for faith (2.24).