Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

That's not what Galatians says. Paul spends all of Galatians 1 arguing that he didn't get his gospel from men, wasn't taught it by the apostles, and didn't immediately consult Jerusalem. Yet, you claim Galatians proves he submitted his gospel for approval? Oy vey.

Paul didn't go to Jerusalem to find out whether his gospel was correct. The leaders in Jerusalem didn't correct him or add to his message; they recognized it. If anything, Galatians is one of the worst texts to use for the claim that Paul's authority depended on institutional approval.

When you try to contort scripture to fit your narrative, we aren't going to find much common ground here.

As for your claim I was taught to hate Orthodoxy, this is where you're projecting. Disagreeing with Orthodox theology is not the same thing as hating Orthodox Christians. I can reject Marian dogmas, the veneration of icons, and other Orthodox teachings without "despising" Orthodox people. Those are theological disagreements, not personal attacks.

The irony is that you're the one throwing around assumptions about Protestants and Calvinists instead of addressing the arguments. You seem very comfortable attributing bad motives to people who disagree with you, while demanding that everyone carefully understand your position.

I reject Marian dogmas, the veneration of icons, and other Orthodox teachings because I don't see them taught in Scripture, and I don't see those doctrines clearly present in the earliest descriptions of the Church. You may disagree with that assessment, but that's a theological and historical disagreementnot hatred.

Disagreement is not prejudice. If I say a doctrine is wrong, that doesn't mean I despise the people who hold it.
So let's skip the mind-reading. Rather than telling me why I supposedly disagree, explain why the doctrine is true. That's a much stronger argument than psychoanalyzing people who remain unconvinced.

---

Gal 2:2 - "lay before" isn't Paul stopping by to say hi. Read the actual line: "lest I be running or had run in vain." That's not a guy who thinks his gospel stands on its own regardless of what Jerusalem says. If it didn't matter whether they agreed, why would his whole mission be at risk over it? He needed one gospel, recognized as one gospel, or the thing falls apart. You can spin "recognition not correction" but the fact he needed the recognition already gives up your point.

Either the church stayed visible and taught this stuff (which means it's not paganism, it's literally what the guys who sat under the apostles believed), or it went invisible (1 Tim 3:15 kills that, "pillar and ground of truth" isn't a description of an underground remnant), or the whole thing apostatized in one generation and somehow Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Justin all missed it and wrote zero protests. Three doors. Walk through one instead of just restating that you don't like Mary and icons.

James 2 - you're the one with the perspicuity problem now. If "faith alone" meant mental assent and that was the plain reading, James doesn't need a whole chapter saying "you see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." He uses your exact phrase and shoots it down. Every Reformed answer to that is a workaround. Fine, workarounds can be right. But perspicuity was supposed to mean you don't need the workaround.

I didn't say you hate Orthodox people, I said you were raised to think the practices are pagan idol worship and you despise it. You guys have been calling these doctrines "pagan" and it isn't neutral theological vocabulary, it's a loaded framing you inherited, and it's part of why you can't answer the apostasy question honestly: if it's pagan, you have to explain how everyone within a generation of the apostles fell into paganism and nobody wrote a word against it. I've already walked you through the scriptural basis for icon veneration and Marian typology more than once, Ark of the Covenant typology from Luke 1 and 2 Samuel 6, Nicaea II's grounding in the Incarnation itself. You haven't engaged that case, you've just restated "I don't see it in Scripture" like repeating the objection makes the argument disappear.

---

Your reading of Galatians 2 makes zero sense. Paul's entire point is that his gospel came from Christ, not Jerusalem (Gal. 1:11-12). When he finally met the apostles, they "added nothing" to him; they recognized the gospel he was already preaching. If Gal. 2:2 means Paul needed doctrinal approval, then Galatians 1 and 2 contradict themselves.

Will respond to the other erroneous arguments later.

---

You're wrong. Period.

Gal 1 answers "where did the content come from," and Paul's answer is Christ, not men, fine, granted, never disputed. Gal 2 answers a completely different question, "is my gospel in fellowship and agreement with the Jerusalem church," and the answer there is yes, confirmed, right hand of fellowship. Those aren't competing claims. "I didn't get it from you" and "you and I are preaching the same thing, confirmed" can both be true at once.

And "added nothing to me" actually proves my point, not yours. Read what it's doing in context, Gal 2:6 is Paul dismissing the false brethren's demand that he needs Judaizing add-ons, circumcision, law-keeping, tacked onto his gospel. That's what gets rejected. It's not Paul saying "Jerusalem's opinion is irrelevant to me," it's Paul saying "Jerusalem didn't need to add anything because what I already preach is what they already hold." That's agreement, not independence. If they'd found something to correct or add, sure, that's a different story, but the text says they didn't need to because he was already in step with them. That's confirmation, that's the mechanism, and it's why he immediately gets the right hand of fellowship in verse 9. If his gospel didn't need to line up with theirs at all, there's nothing to confirm and no reason for that scene to exist.

---

You're assuming Galatians 2 is about doctrinal approval when Paul says it's about recognition. If "lest I had run in vain" means "Jerusalem might determine whether my gospel is true," then Galatians 1 collapses. Paul just spent an entire chapter arguing that his gospel came from Christ, not from Jerusalem.

Paul didn't go to get a ruling on his gospel. He went because of a revelation, presented the gospel he was already preaching, Titus wasn't forced to be circumcised, and the apostles "added nothing" to him. The whole point is that they recognized his gospel-they didn't authorize it.

The risk wasn't that Paul's gospel was false. The risk was division between the Gentile mission and Jerusalem.
And Galatians 2 ends with Paul publicly rebuking Peter for being out of step with the gospel. That only makes sense if the gospel judges apostles-not the other way around.

I think we've reached a point in this conversation where we are now rehashing the same arguments, and it's no longer productive. Respectfully, you don't make logical or convincing arguments, and it appears at this point you're just projecting your own disdain for Protestantism based on whatever negative experience you once had at the local megachurch. I get that you need the security and comfort that comes from a bearded man in a costume telling you what to think and believe, and are not an independent thinker. I am just not in your position, and hope never to have that kind of insecurity. So perhaps it would be best if this conversation ends.

Grace and peace to you.

---

And what are you protesting again?

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

That's not what Galatians says. Paul spends all of Galatians 1 arguing that he didn't get his gospel from men, wasn't taught it by the apostles, and didn't immediately consult Jerusalem. Yet, you claim Galatians proves he submitted his gospel for approval? Oy vey.

Paul didn't go to Jerusalem to find out whether his gospel was correct. The leaders in Jerusalem didn't correct him or add to his message; they recognized it. If anything, Galatians is one of the worst texts to use for the claim that Paul's authority depended on institutional approval.

When you try to contort scripture to fit your narrative, we aren't going to find much common ground here.

As for your claim I was taught to hate Orthodoxy, this is where you're projecting. Disagreeing with Orthodox theology is not the same thing as hating Orthodox Christians. I can reject Marian dogmas, the veneration of icons, and other Orthodox teachings without "despising" Orthodox people. Those are theological disagreements, not personal attacks.

The irony is that you're the one throwing around assumptions about Protestants and Calvinists instead of addressing the arguments. You seem very comfortable attributing bad motives to people who disagree with you, while demanding that everyone carefully understand your position.

I reject Marian dogmas, the veneration of icons, and other Orthodox teachings because I don't see them taught in Scripture, and I don't see those doctrines clearly present in the earliest descriptions of the Church. You may disagree with that assessment, but that's a theological and historical disagreementnot hatred.

Disagreement is not prejudice. If I say a doctrine is wrong, that doesn't mean I despise the people who hold it.
So let's skip the mind-reading. Rather than telling me why I supposedly disagree, explain why the doctrine is true. That's a much stronger argument than psychoanalyzing people who remain unconvinced.

---

Gal 2:2 - "lay before" isn't Paul stopping by to say hi. Read the actual line: "lest I be running or had run in vain." That's not a guy who thinks his gospel stands on its own regardless of what Jerusalem says. If it didn't matter whether they agreed, why would his whole mission be at risk over it? He needed one gospel, recognized as one gospel, or the thing falls apart. You can spin "recognition not correction" but the fact he needed the recognition already gives up your point.

Either the church stayed visible and taught this stuff (which means it's not paganism, it's literally what the guys who sat under the apostles believed), or it went invisible (1 Tim 3:15 kills that, "pillar and ground of truth" isn't a description of an underground remnant), or the whole thing apostatized in one generation and somehow Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Justin all missed it and wrote zero protests. Three doors. Walk through one instead of just restating that you don't like Mary and icons.

James 2 - you're the one with the perspicuity problem now. If "faith alone" meant mental assent and that was the plain reading, James doesn't need a whole chapter saying "you see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." He uses your exact phrase and shoots it down. Every Reformed answer to that is a workaround. Fine, workarounds can be right. But perspicuity was supposed to mean you don't need the workaround.

I didn't say you hate Orthodox people, I said you were raised to think the practices are pagan idol worship and you despise it. You guys have been calling these doctrines "pagan" and it isn't neutral theological vocabulary, it's a loaded framing you inherited, and it's part of why you can't answer the apostasy question honestly: if it's pagan, you have to explain how everyone within a generation of the apostles fell into paganism and nobody wrote a word against it. I've already walked you through the scriptural basis for icon veneration and Marian typology more than once, Ark of the Covenant typology from Luke 1 and 2 Samuel 6, Nicaea II's grounding in the Incarnation itself. You haven't engaged that case, you've just restated "I don't see it in Scripture" like repeating the objection makes the argument disappear.

---

Your reading of Galatians 2 makes zero sense. Paul's entire point is that his gospel came from Christ, not Jerusalem (Gal. 1:11-12). When he finally met the apostles, they "added nothing" to him; they recognized the gospel he was already preaching. If Gal. 2:2 means Paul needed doctrinal approval, then Galatians 1 and 2 contradict themselves.

Will respond to the other erroneous arguments later.

---

You're wrong. Period.

Gal 1 answers "where did the content come from," and Paul's answer is Christ, not men, fine, granted, never disputed. Gal 2 answers a completely different question, "is my gospel in fellowship and agreement with the Jerusalem church," and the answer there is yes, confirmed, right hand of fellowship. Those aren't competing claims. "I didn't get it from you" and "you and I are preaching the same thing, confirmed" can both be true at once.

And "added nothing to me" actually proves my point, not yours. Read what it's doing in context, Gal 2:6 is Paul dismissing the false brethren's demand that he needs Judaizing add-ons, circumcision, law-keeping, tacked onto his gospel. That's what gets rejected. It's not Paul saying "Jerusalem's opinion is irrelevant to me," it's Paul saying "Jerusalem didn't need to add anything because what I already preach is what they already hold." That's agreement, not independence. If they'd found something to correct or add, sure, that's a different story, but the text says they didn't need to because he was already in step with them. That's confirmation, that's the mechanism, and it's why he immediately gets the right hand of fellowship in verse 9. If his gospel didn't need to line up with theirs at all, there's nothing to confirm and no reason for that scene to exist.

---

You're assuming Galatians 2 is about doctrinal approval when Paul says it's about recognition. If "lest I had run in vain" means "Jerusalem might determine whether my gospel is true," then Galatians 1 collapses. Paul just spent an entire chapter arguing that his gospel came from Christ, not from Jerusalem.

Paul didn't go to get a ruling on his gospel. He went because of a revelation, presented the gospel he was already preaching, Titus wasn't forced to be circumcised, and the apostles "added nothing" to him. The whole point is that they recognized his gospel-they didn't authorize it.

The risk wasn't that Paul's gospel was false. The risk was division between the Gentile mission and Jerusalem.
And Galatians 2 ends with Paul publicly rebuking Peter for being out of step with the gospel. That only makes sense if the gospel judges apostles-not the other way around.

I think we've reached a point in this conversation where we are now rehashing the same arguments, and it's no longer productive. Respectfully, you don't make logical or convincing arguments, and it appears at this point you're just projecting your own disdain for Protestantism based on whatever negative experience you once had at the local megachurch. I get that you need the security and comfort that comes from a bearded man in a costume telling you what to think and believe, and are not an independent thinker. I am just not in your position, and hope never to have that kind of insecurity. So perhaps it would be best if this conversation ends.

Grace and peace to you.

---

"Division" wasn't a scheduling problem, it was whether Gentiles had to get circumcised to be in the covenant. That's doctrine, not logistics, same question Acts 15 settles later in council. Titus not being forced to circumcise isn't some random side note either, that's the result of the meeting. If nothing was on the line, that detail doesn't matter at all.

And the Peter rebuke proves my point. Paul's not calling out false teaching, he's calling out hypocrisy, being out of step with a gospel they already had agreed on two verses earlier. Can't be out of step with something that doesn't bind you both. That's two guys holding each other to a shared, confirmed gospel, not two guys running their own show independent of each other.

Kind of rich mocking me for having a priest when you show up every Sunday and let a guy in a polo and skinny jeans tell you what the text means too. y'all love to act like it's just "me and my Bible," no man made anything, meanwhile you've got denominational statements of faith, seminary trained pastors, membership covenants, elder boards, whole confessions like Westminster or the London Baptist Confession functioning exactly like a magisterium in practice. Just without the honesty to call it one.

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

Nobody in the "works matter" camp is saying works save you or that man vetoes God's grace. The real question is how you're defining faith, and how free will fits into sanctification.

An example helps. Say an attractive woman walks by half dressed. You feel the pull to look, to entertain the thought, maybe fantasize. If you don't actively turn to Christ in that moment, you'll probably fall.

That turning is an act of your will. Nobody, thinks you hear the gospel and instantly become incapable of sin, or that the Holy Spirit just overrides your will (calvinists) and makes you act right with zero participation on your part. Grace works with the will, not around it.

So picture two guys in that moment:

Guy #1 turns to Christ to resist the lust. Or if he fails, he repents and gets back up. He's in the fight, he's struggling.

Guy #2 falls into it, feels a flicker of guilt, but stays unrepentant. In the back of his mind: "I believe the gospel, my ticket to heaven is punched, I'm covered." No urgency to actually turn or change. This guy also genuinely believes the gospel.

I'd call Guy #2's faith dead, James 2:17, faith without works. And some strands of sola fide (once saved always saved, hyper grace, Calvinism), taken to their logical end, give guys like him permission to think that way. Honestly, I think most self identified Christians default to Guy #2 without realizing it.

It truly is the narrow gate.

Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

The confusion between Orthodox/Catholics vs Protestants is how we're defining works too. You guys hear works and think we're referring to like actually going out of our way to give a homeless person money or something to impress God. Thats not it. What we mean by works is like asking how do you maintain being guy #1? You'd have to pray, read the gospel, go to Church, involve your heart, forgive and work your butt off or you'll become guy #2. You've got to wake up and use your free will to do those things. That's what we mean by faith + works.

" Kind of rich mocking me for having a priest when you show up every Sunday and let a guy in a polo and skinny jeans tell you what the text means too."

Sounds like you believe a person doesn't believe unless he meets your dress code?

For the record, I dress up for church out of respect, but never looked down my nose at someone casually dressed. It's about being there, not looking important, and that applies to the ministers as well.

I seem to recall that Jesus didn't even have any special outfits for the synagogue or temple.

The problem I see, is that you assume what is going on in someone's mind and heart. God certainly knows our hearts and minds, and no one I know claims that you can use a profession of faith like a magic charm.

Keep in mind that One Saved Always Saved (OSAS) is only a theory, not official doctrine of any denomination I know, and certainly not a requirement for Protestant Christians.

Now with that said, every believer I know works to resist sin and focus on following Christ, in thought as well as deed. This is why the RC/Ortho obsession with works rings wrong. It sounds like you are implying that some works are meritorious, or that God will not save someone unless that person meets a work requirement. Your problem is that there are a number of incidents in Scripture where God clearly acted on His own decision. I posted on that point just a couple days ago.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, is that you assume what is going on in someone's mind and heart. God certainly knows our hearts and minds, and no one I know claims that you can use a profession of faith like a magic charm.

Keep in mind that One Saved Always Saved (OSAS) is only a theory, not official doctrine of any denomination I know, and certainly not a requirement for Protestant Christians.

Now with that said, every believer I know works to resist sin and focus on following Christ, in thought as well as deed. This is why the RC/Ortho obsession with works rings wrong. It sounds like you are implying that some works are meritorious, or that God will not save someone unless that person meets a work requirement. Your problem is that there are a number of incidents in Scripture where God clearly acted on His own decision. I posted on that point just a couple days ago.

---

Faith without works is dead

Man is NOT saved by faith alone

Sola scriptura exists nowhere in the Bible

Youre missing 7 books

You don't partake in the Eucharist and believe as an admitted John 6:66er that walked away from Jesus' "hard words"

All these by your own admission so do with that as you will. Your free will

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Kind of rich mocking me for having a priest when you show up every Sunday and let a guy in a polo and skinny jeans tell you what the text means too."

Sounds like you believe a person doesn't believe unless he meets your dress code?

For the record, I dress up for church out of respect, but never looked down my nose at someone casually dressed. It's about being there, not looking important, and that applies to the ministers as well.

I seem to recall that Jesus didn't even have any special outfits for the synagogue or temple.

---

lol wut

Priestly vestments were literally commanded by God. Exodus 28 spends an entire chapter on the priest's garments, down to the colors of thread and the stones on the breastplate. Get things like that wrong and you die (see: Nadab and Abihu, Leviticus 10, offering "unauthorized fire" and dropping dead.

Temple worship had exact prescribed forms too, not just clothes. How to build the altar, what could touch it, who could enter which section, how sacrifices were offered. None of it was left to personal preference. "Right or wrong" wasn't some kind of vibe, it was literally the law.

Jesus himself wasn't dressed generically either. John 19:23 makes a point of noting his tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. That mirrors the high priest's garment (Josephus describes it the same way).

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Kind of rich mocking me for having a priest when you show up every Sunday and let a guy in a polo and skinny jeans tell you what the text means too."

Sounds like you believe a person doesn't believe unless he meets your dress code?

For the record, I dress up for church out of respect, but never looked down my nose at someone casually dressed. It's about being there, not looking important, and that applies to the ministers as well.

I seem to recall that Jesus didn't even have any special outfits for the synagogue or temple.

---

lol wut

Priestly vestments were literally commanded by God. Exodus 28 spends an entire chapter on the priest's garments, down to the colors of thread and the stones on the breastplate. Get things like that wrong and you die (see: Nadab and Abihu, Leviticus 10, offering "unauthorized fire" and dropping dead.

Temple worship had exact prescribed forms too, not just clothes. How to build the altar, what could touch it, who could enter which section, how sacrifices were offered. None of it was left to personal preference. "Right or wrong" wasn't some kind of vibe, it was literally the law.

Jesus himself wasn't dressed generically either. John 19:23 makes a point of noting his tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. That mirrors the high priest's garment (Josephus describes it the same way).

---

No Christian is a Levite, so you seem to have missed the target, barn and immediate area.

But telling that you obsess on the appearance, rather than the substance, of the minister.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, is that you assume what is going on in someone's mind and heart. God certainly knows our hearts and minds, and no one I know claims that you can use a profession of faith like a magic charm.

Keep in mind that One Saved Always Saved (OSAS) is only a theory, not official doctrine of any denomination I know, and certainly not a requirement for Protestant Christians.

Now with that said, every believer I know works to resist sin and focus on following Christ, in thought as well as deed. This is why the RC/Ortho obsession with works rings wrong. It sounds like you are implying that some works are meritorious, or that God will not save someone unless that person meets a work requirement. Your problem is that there are a number of incidents in Scripture where God clearly acted on His own decision. I posted on that point just a couple days ago.

---

You said every believer you know "works to resist sin and focus on following Christ, in thought as well as deed." Notice the immediate contradiction in your own argument. You are trying to push back against the Catholic/Orthodox focus on works, yet you are defending your position by stating that every believer literally works to resist sin. You're using the exact concept you are trying to argue against.

Also, no. Not every member of your Church is bothered by their own sin.

If a believer has to actively "work" to resist lust, pray, and guard their thoughts, then by definition, they are using their free will to cooperate with God's grace. In Catholic and Orthodox theology, this lifelong effort isn't a checklist of "meritorious works" to buy our way into heaven or meet a corporate quota. It is simply perseverance through free will, the daily, relational choice to stay attached to the Vine so we don't spiritually wither into Guy #2.

You're trying to have it both ways and its running right into the logical trap of monergism (the Reformation view that God alone performs the work of salvation, and the human will is entirely passive). If you hold to a strictly monergistic, "one-time event" view where salvation is an unalterable forensic contract, you logically have to make the claim that human behavior is ultimately irrelevant to eternal destiny. If the ticket is permanently punched, Guy #2 can completely stop fighting, live in unrepentant sin until death, and still wake up in paradise. His behavior didn't matter.

You don't have to defend this logical gymnastics just to stay Protestant. Millions of Protestants, like Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and Pentecostals, explicitly reject this Calvinist/Lutheran trap. They hold to the Arminian view, which openly admits that humans have free will, that we must actively cooperate with grace, and that a believer can genuinely walk away from God and lose their salvation through unrepentant sin.

Even Luther saw how dangerous his view was. The second he started preaching "faith alone," people instantly turned into Guy #2 and thought, "Awesome, my lifestyle doesn't affect my eternity, so I can live how I want." To stop that fire, Luther literally had to invent a new word, antinomian (anti law), just to blast the people who were using his own logic. He tried to scramble and argue that a real Christian will still follow the law even if it doesn't save them, but by doing that, he walked right into the exact same trap you're in. He created a system where your behavior doesn't actually effect the contract, but then had to turn around and yell at everyone to act right anyway so they didn't look like hypocrites.

" You said every believer you know "works to resist sin and focus on following Christ, in thought as well as deed." Notice the immediate contradiction in your own argument. You are trying to push back against the Catholic/Orthodox focus on works, yet you are defending your position by stating that every believer literally works to resist sin. You're using the exact concept you are trying to argue against."

No, I did not 'contradict' myself. You continue to push a false claim and seem annoyed when I go by Scriptural rules, not yours.

Resisting sin is not a work in terms of merit or some scoreboard in Heaven, anymore than not stealing is a productive move forward.

And yes, every believer I know does resist sin at multiple levels. Maybe the Orthos/RCs think they should be praised by the Father for it, I and the believers I know believe we are just doing our duty and trusting the Holy Spirit for enabling us to stay on course.

" Not every member of your Church is bothered by their own sin."

I wonder why you lie so smoothly! Yes, every member of the Church is bothered by sin they have committed, or they would not be a believer following Christ and therefore a member of His Church.

It certainly appears that you are, yet again, attacking believers who do not follow your opinion and orders, as if you are the gatekeeper who decides who is or is not part of Christ's Church.

That way lies great peril, brother.

" You're trying to have it both ways"

Wrong. I am explaining my understanding according to Scripture. You seem to love arguing against that, as if your tradition is greater than Scripture, something you have done before.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

Nobody in the "works matter" camp is saying works save you or that man vetoes God's grace. The real question is how you're defining faith, and how free will fits into sanctification.

An example helps. Say an attractive woman walks by half dressed. You feel the pull to look, to entertain the thought, maybe fantasize. If you don't actively turn to Christ in that moment, you'll probably fall.

That turning is an act of your will. Nobody, thinks you hear the gospel and instantly become incapable of sin, or that the Holy Spirit just overrides your will (calvinists) and makes you act right with zero participation on your part. Grace works with the will, not around it.

So picture two guys in that moment:

Guy #1 turns to Christ to resist the lust. Or if he fails, he repents and gets back up. He's in the fight, he's struggling.

Guy #2 falls into it, feels a flicker of guilt, but stays unrepentant. In the back of his mind: "I believe the gospel, my ticket to heaven is punched, I'm covered." No urgency to actually turn or change. This guy also genuinely believes the gospel.

I'd call Guy #2's faith dead, James 2:17, faith without works. And some strands of sola fide (once saved always saved, hyper grace, Calvinism), taken to their logical end, give guys like him permission to think that way. Honestly, I think most self identified Christians default to Guy #2 without realizing it.

It truly is the narrow gate.

Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

The confusion between Orthodox/Catholics vs Protestants is how we're defining works too. You guys hear works and think we're referring to like actually going out of our way to give a homeless person money or something to impress God. Thats not it. What we mean by works is like asking how do you maintain being guy #1? You'd have to pray, read the gospel, go to Church, involve your heart, forgive and work your butt off or you'll become guy #2. You've got to wake up and use your free will to do those things. That's what we mean by faith + works.

---

First of all, if Guy #2 really did believe the gospel, then he is saved and has the Holy Spirit, and thus would be repentant after sin, if not immediately, then eventually. He would not "stay unrepentant". You're creating a figure that doesn't exist in order to set up your argument, i.e. a straw man. You're essentially comparing Guy #1 who is a Christian against Guy #2 who is not in order to show..... that Guy #1 is Christian, while Guy #2 is not.

Ultimately, what you're saying is that man gets to heaven by his own will to achieve "good". That's NOT the gospel. That's an enemy to the true gospel. Man gets to heaven by faith in Jesus. Faith is defined in Scripture as having nothing to do with what we do, or how we "cooperate" - rather, it has to do with our disposition towards God's promise through Jesus, from our hearts - "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Also, "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified". Do you see anything about "cooperating" through your own will in those?

The person with this Scriptural-defined faith is the one who may win, may lose, definitely will struggle, and always remain repentant. Like your Guy #1, but there will be varying degrees, because we are not all at the same level of sanctification. Sanctification is where the free will and "cooperation" of the Christian comes in to play, and because it's from our own merit/achievement and free will obedience, it's the basis for the rewards Jesus will give to those already saved (which was NOT based on our merit and free will obedience).

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

The person with this Scriptural-defined faith is the one who may win, may lose, definitely will struggle, and always remain repentant. Like your Guy #1, but there will be varying degrees, because we are not all at the same level of sanctification. Sanctification is where the free will and "cooperation" of the Christian comes in to play, and because it's from our own merit/achievement and free will obedience, it's the basis for the rewards Jesus will give to those already saved (which was NOT based on our merit and free will obedience).

************************************************************

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

I've combined two posts here because they are virtually impossible to reconcile with your prior defense of OSAS.

Your reading of James renders it superfluous. If "true faith WILL always produce conviction", then fraternal correction is . . . not needed? What is the point of James railing on Jewish converts to Christianity to conform their behavior to Jesus's will if faith will always produce conviction? We also know that it is not necessarily true. Peter tried to stand in the way of Jesus's will and denied him three times. Thomas defiantly refused to believe in the resurrection until he could see it with his own eye and physically verify it for himself. So you seem to either (a) be using conviction in more nuanced way or (b) you believe Peter and Thomas did not have faith until after their acts of defiance? Please help me understand how you reconcile Peter and Thomas to your view.

Finally, this interpretation stretches the wording: James does not say that these people without works lack true faith, he says they have dead faith strongly implying that whatever is now dead was once living. (The temporal nature of the relationship between faith and works is something we agree on.)

Finally, finally, Catholics don't use James 2 to call for the Sacraments. Know thy opponent better. Catholics cite James to call Christians to pursue Christian virtues through their acts in the material world, in particular calling for the virtues of charity, justice and alms giving.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

The person with this Scriptural-defined faith is the one who may win, may lose, definitely will struggle, and always remain repentant. Like your Guy #1, but there will be varying degrees, because we are not all at the same level of sanctification. Sanctification is where the free will and "cooperation" of the Christian comes in to play, and because it's from our own merit/achievement and free will obedience, it's the basis for the rewards Jesus will give to those already saved (which was NOT based on our merit and free will obedience).

************************************************************

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

I've combined two posts here because they are virtually impossible to reconcile with your prior defense of OSAS.

Your reading of James renders it superfluous. If "true faith WILL always produce conviction", then fraternal correction is . . . not needed? What is the point of James railing on Jewish converts to Christianity to conform their behavior to Jesus's will if faith will always produce conviction? We also know that it is not necessarily true. Peter tried to stand in the way of Jesus's will and denied him three times. Thomas defiantly refused to believe in the resurrection until he could see it with his own eye and physically verify it for himself. So you seem to either (a) be using conviction in more nuanced way or (b) you believe Peter and Thomas did not have faith until after their acts of defiance? Please help me understand how you reconcile Peter and Thomas to your view.

Finally, this interpretation stretches the wording: James does not say that these people without works lack true faith, he says they have dead faith strongly implying that whatever is now dead was once living. (The temporal nature of the relationship between faith and works is something we agree on.)

Finally, finally, Catholics don't use James 2 to call for the Sacraments. Know thy opponent better. Catholics cite James to call Christians to pursue Christian virtues through their acts in the material world, in particular calling for the virtues of charity, justice and alms giving.

---

You started off making the claim that my statements can't be reconciled with OSAS - but left out your actual argument.

Your next paragraph wrongly assumes that "will always produce conviction" necessarily means that the conviction is totally generated from within a person without any initiating stimulus outside of themselves. A saved person will respond to correction with conviction. A non-saved person will not. We're seeing this unfold in these very threads - the Roman Catholics here are completely devoid of conviction when corrected for their plainly obvious heresy and idolatry.

You seem to have forgotten that Peter wept bitterly after his mistakes. And all we know is that Thomas said he wouldn't believe without physical verification. We don't actually know whether he would have eventually come to belief or not without it. If he was a true believer in Jesus, he would have, even without personal verification. And that's the whole point. You're making the mistake of believing that their "acts of defiance" meant their faith wasn't true.

The "dead faith" spoken of by James is not his implication that it was once a live faith which has died to nothing. He's speaking of a false faith, meaning it never was alive to begin with. He's speaking of faith that someone is merely saying they have, without it ever having actually been true.

Yes, Catholics use James 2 to support their view that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, though they might not realize that they're doing it. The argument usually goes like this: Catholic - "You need sacraments to be saved"... Christian - "No, salvation is by faith alone, not performative works"... Catholic - "But faith without works is dead!".

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Kind of rich mocking me for having a priest when you show up every Sunday and let a guy in a polo and skinny jeans tell you what the text means too."

Sounds like you believe a person doesn't believe unless he meets your dress code?

For the record, I dress up for church out of respect, but never looked down my nose at someone casually dressed. It's about being there, not looking important, and that applies to the ministers as well.

I seem to recall that Jesus didn't even have any special outfits for the synagogue or temple.

---

lol wut

Priestly vestments were literally commanded by God. Exodus 28 spends an entire chapter on the priest's garments, down to the colors of thread and the stones on the breastplate. Get things like that wrong and you die (see: Nadab and Abihu, Leviticus 10, offering "unauthorized fire" and dropping dead.

Temple worship had exact prescribed forms too, not just clothes. How to build the altar, what could touch it, who could enter which section, how sacrifices were offered. None of it was left to personal preference. "Right or wrong" wasn't some kind of vibe, it was literally the law.

Jesus himself wasn't dressed generically either. John 19:23 makes a point of noting his tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. That mirrors the high priest's garment (Josephus describes it the same way).

---

Leviticus 65:12 and the levites shall wear skinny jeans and tell good jokes. Altar call

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

The person with this Scriptural-defined faith is the one who may win, may lose, definitely will struggle, and always remain repentant. Like your Guy #1, but there will be varying degrees, because we are not all at the same level of sanctification. Sanctification is where the free will and "cooperation" of the Christian comes in to play, and because it's from our own merit/achievement and free will obedience, it's the basis for the rewards Jesus will give to those already saved (which was NOT based on our merit and free will obedience).

************************************************************

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

I've combined two posts here because they are virtually impossible to reconcile with your prior defense of OSAS.

Your reading of James renders it superfluous. If "true faith WILL always produce conviction", then fraternal correction is . . . not needed? What is the point of James railing on Jewish converts to Christianity to conform their behavior to Jesus's will if faith will always produce conviction? We also know that it is not necessarily true. Peter tried to stand in the way of Jesus's will and denied him three times. Thomas defiantly refused to believe in the resurrection until he could see it with his own eye and physically verify it for himself. So you seem to either (a) be using conviction in more nuanced way or (b) you believe Peter and Thomas did not have faith until after their acts of defiance? Please help me understand how you reconcile Peter and Thomas to your view.

Finally, this interpretation stretches the wording: James does not say that these people without works lack true faith, he says they have dead faith strongly implying that whatever is now dead was once living. (The temporal nature of the relationship between faith and works is something we agree on.)

Finally, finally, Catholics don't use James 2 to call for the Sacraments. Know thy opponent better. Catholics cite James to call Christians to pursue Christian virtues through their acts in the material world, in particular calling for the virtues of charity, justice and alms giving.

---

You started off making the claim that my statements can't be reconciled with OSAS - but left out your actual argument.

Your next paragraph wrongly assumes that "will always produce conviction" necessarily means that the conviction is totally generated from within a person without any initiating stimulus outside of themselves. A saved person will respond to correction with conviction. A non-saved person will not. We're seeing this unfold in these very threads - the Roman Catholics here are completely devoid of conviction when corrected for their plainly obvious heresy and idolatry.

You seem to have forgotten that Peter wept bitterly after his mistakes. And all we know is that Thomas said he wouldn't believe without physical verification. We don't actually know whether he would have eventually come to belief or not without it. If he was a true believer in Jesus, he would have, even without personal verification. And that's the whole point. You're making the mistake of believing that their "acts of defiance" meant their faith wasn't true.

The "dead faith" spoken of by James is not his implication that it was once a live faith which has died to nothing. He's speaking of a false faith, meaning it never was alive to begin with. He's speaking of faith that someone is merely saying they have, without it ever having actually been true.

Yes, Catholics use James 2 to support their view that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, though they might not realize that they're doing it. The argument usually goes like this: Catholic - "You need sacraments to be saved"... Christian - "No, salvation is by faith alone, not performative works"... Catholic - "But faith without works is dead!".

---

"Dead faith" really means "fake faith" or "not true faith" or "lack of faith" is a heck of a word choice three times, especially within the context of a letter that is 100% focused on the practical in the material world and calling for conscious action by addressing the behavior (deeds) and attitudes of the letter's intended audience in order to conform their behavior to Christ's will.

You're right that reading dead faith as once living is an implication, but it is a much better implication from the plain text then suggesting dead faith really implies lack of faith or not true faith; more so within the greater context of all five chapters of James.

Death is necessarily predicated on life. Stated differently, if James really believes this is all about the predestined elect, why in the world is he bothering to address these people at all (on a related note, why would you bother addressing us)? If the people James was addressing never had real faith to begin with, James's corrective letter is completely useless. There is no correction to a faith that is not real. The only way writing his letter is logical and rational is if James believes the addressees are in danger of losing their faith. You cannot correct that which was never real to begin with. But you can save something that is in danger of being lost.

So faith leading to conviction doesn't necessarily mean actions from within but it might mean "stimulus" emanating from the free will of another? Either way, you have a human mover exercising free will (deeds) in the form of self-correction or fraternal correction. You aren't solving your problem here. You are just moving the problem one derivative position away. If true faith always produces conviction, what is the point of fraternal correction (a deed)? You said it yourself, the "stimulus" (producing act) just comes from another person, but it is still originating from a person's free will.

If someone publicly denies Jesus three times or refuses to believe in the resurrection unless they can place their fingers in the wounds of Jesus's body how will you classify their faith in that moment?

" in that moment"

Kind of an important detail, or didn't you read Job or Jonah?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

Fight and struggle IS works. You're trying to split those into two categories, "internal fight" that's automatic and spiritual, and "external works" that's optional and about rewards. There's no daylight between them. When you resist a temptation, when you cry out to God in the moment, when you choose to turn instead of indulge, that IS an act of the will cooperating with grace. That's the work! I'm not talking about volunteering or performing sacraments, I already said that. Praying, resisting, repenting, turning, that's the works James and I are both talking about.

So your deathbed convert guy. If he spends his last days actually fighting his old life instead of just sitting on "I said the prayer, I'm good," he's not "faith with zero works." He's Guy #1 with barely any time on the clock. Still works. Just compressed. Its not about hitting a quota or earning rewards. It's about whether the will is engaged at all. Guy who fights for one day before he dies is nothing like the guy who believes the gospel and coasts for 40 years. They have the same faith on paper, totally different fruit, because one guy's will showed up and the other guy's didn't.

And James doesn't say "normally this produces works given enough time." He says faith without works is dead. Useless. Can't save (2:14, 17, 20). You're reading in an assumption because the plain text doesn't fit sola fide. Nobody is using this to sneak in "perform our sacraments or you're not saved," that's a different argument you're coming up with on your own. This is just: is faith that never engages the will, even a little, even for one day, the kind of faith James is calling alive? No.

My view is that we won't know, Lindsey Graham knows now, but the rest of us can only guess...

Question, if the Lord is forgiving and allows those that convert late or on their deathbed into heaven will you guys be pissed..

Sure seems like it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" in that moment"

Kind of an important detail, or didn't you read Job or Jonah?

---

Yes, it is a very important detail if you are going to claim ONCE saved ALWAYS saved. That's the whole point.

The Catholic view is that denial of Christ or rejection of the resurrection by a believer puts you outside of state of grace. Repentance gets you back onsides (Peter's tears, Thomas's exaltation of "My Lord").

Doc Holliday said:

---

You don't have to defend this logical gymnastics just to stay Protestant. Millions of Protestants, like Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and Pentecostals, explicitly reject this Calvinist/Lutheran trap. They hold to the Arminian view, which openly admits that humans have free will, that we must actively cooperate with grace, and that a believer can genuinely walk away from God and lose their salvation through unrepentant sin.

Even Luther saw how dangerous his view was. The second he started preaching "faith alone," people instantly turned into Guy #2 and thought, "Awesome, my lifestyle doesn't affect my eternity, so I can live how I want." To stop that fire, Luther literally had to invent a new word, antinomian (anti law), just to blast the people who were using his own logic. He tried to scramble and argue that a real Christian will still follow the law even if it doesn't save them, but by doing that, he walked right into the exact same trap you're in. He created a system where your behavior doesn't actually effect the contract, but then had to turn around and yell at everyone to act right anyway so they didn't look like hypocrites.

---

I don't know that we should completely bundle Lutheranism in with Calvinism on this. They have sort of a middle ground theology: monergistic justiification + synergistic damnation, but reject osas/eternal security of the believer. Calvinism might be summarized as monergistic justification + monergistic damnation + eternal security of the elect.

But yes, in general the problem of antinomianism arose with the "grace alone through faith alone" formulation of salvation which in turn arose as a response to the post schism "buy this indulgence and you're in like flynn" formulation.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

The person with this Scriptural-defined faith is the one who may win, may lose, definitely will struggle, and always remain repentant. Like your Guy #1, but there will be varying degrees, because we are not all at the same level of sanctification. Sanctification is where the free will and "cooperation" of the Christian comes in to play, and because it's from our own merit/achievement and free will obedience, it's the basis for the rewards Jesus will give to those already saved (which was NOT based on our merit and free will obedience).

************************************************************

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

I've combined two posts here because they are virtually impossible to reconcile with your prior defense of OSAS.

Your reading of James renders it superfluous. If "true faith WILL always produce conviction", then fraternal correction is . . . not needed? What is the point of James railing on Jewish converts to Christianity to conform their behavior to Jesus's will if faith will always produce conviction? We also know that it is not necessarily true. Peter tried to stand in the way of Jesus's will and denied him three times. Thomas defiantly refused to believe in the resurrection until he could see it with his own eye and physically verify it for himself. So you seem to either (a) be using conviction in more nuanced way or (b) you believe Peter and Thomas did not have faith until after their acts of defiance? Please help me understand how you reconcile Peter and Thomas to your view.

Finally, this interpretation stretches the wording: James does not say that these people without works lack true faith, he says they have dead faith strongly implying that whatever is now dead was once living. (The temporal nature of the relationship between faith and works is something we agree on.)

Finally, finally, Catholics don't use James 2 to call for the Sacraments. Know thy opponent better. Catholics cite James to call Christians to pursue Christian virtues through their acts in the material world, in particular calling for the virtues of charity, justice and alms giving.

---

You started off making the claim that my statements can't be reconciled with OSAS - but left out your actual argument.

Your next paragraph wrongly assumes that "will always produce conviction" necessarily means that the conviction is totally generated from within a person without any initiating stimulus outside of themselves. A saved person will respond to correction with conviction. A non-saved person will not. We're seeing this unfold in these very threads - the Roman Catholics here are completely devoid of conviction when corrected for their plainly obvious heresy and idolatry.

You seem to have forgotten that Peter wept bitterly after his mistakes. And all we know is that Thomas said he wouldn't believe without physical verification. We don't actually know whether he would have eventually come to belief or not without it. If he was a true believer in Jesus, he would have, even without personal verification. And that's the whole point. You're making the mistake of believing that their "acts of defiance" meant their faith wasn't true.

The "dead faith" spoken of by James is not his implication that it was once a live faith which has died to nothing. He's speaking of a false faith, meaning it never was alive to begin with. He's speaking of faith that someone is merely saying they have, without it ever having actually been true.

Yes, Catholics use James 2 to support their view that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, though they might not realize that they're doing it. The argument usually goes like this: Catholic - "You need sacraments to be saved"... Christian - "No, salvation is by faith alone, not performative works"... Catholic - "But faith without works is dead!".

---

"Dead faith" really means "fake faith" or "not true faith" or "lack of faith" is a heck of a word choice three times, especially within the context of a letter that is 100% focused on the practical in the material world and calling for conscious action by addressing the behavior (deeds) and attitudes of the letter's intended audience in order to conform their behavior to Christ's will.

You're right that reading dead faith as once living is an implication, but it is a much better implication from the plain text then suggesting dead faith really implies lack of faith or not true faith; more so within the greater context of all five chapters of James.

Death is necessarily predicated on life. Stated differently, if James really believes this is all about the predestined elect, why in the world is he bothering to address these people at all (on a related note, why would you bother addressing us)? If the people James was addressing never had real faith to begin with, James's corrective letter is completely useless. There is no correction to a faith that is not real. The only way writing his letter is logical and rational is if James believes the addressees are in danger of losing their faith. You cannot correct that which was never real to begin with. But you can save something that is in danger of being lost.

So faith leading to conviction doesn't necessarily mean actions from within but it might mean "stimulus" emanating from the free will of another? Either way, you have a human mover exercising free will (deeds) in the form of self-correction or fraternal correction. You aren't solving your problem here. You are just moving the problem one derivative position away. If true faith always produces conviction, what is the point of fraternal correction (a deed)? You said it yourself, the "stimulus" (producing act) just comes from another person, but it is still originating from a person's free will.

If someone publicly denies Jesus three times or refuses to believe in the resurrection unless they can place their fingers in the wounds of Jesus's body how will you classify their faith in that moment?

---

That "dead faith" is better interpreted to mean a once living faith that died to nothing based on the context of James is just your biased opinion. It doesn't make it true. Faith being "dead" in the sense that it was never alive can be just as fitting within the context of James, if not more so.

"Dead" as a descriptor or expression does NOT necessarily predicate on the fact there was once life. When we say "dead end" we don't mean there was once a pathway, but now it's gone. "Dead" can simply mean "lifeless". If you build a TV and the screen never turns on, you call it a "dead" screen, meaning it's function is to turn on and show pictures, but it doesn't and never did.

Correction/reproval from an authority is not "completely useless" for those already with faith and saved. If you had a young son or daughter, do you not correct them in order to shape their good, healthy habits and character? Do they ever stop being your son or daughter regardless? Once a son or daughter, always a son or daughter. They might be a "bad" son or daughter, but a son or daughter nevertheless. You, a sinner, would never disown them. So why would God?

I don't understand your trouble with understanding that conviction of sin as a product of true faith is always stimulated by the Holy Spirit, whether it comes from within by the Spirit's stimulus, or comes through a Spirit-led person who brings correction/reproval. The difference between a person with true faith and one without is that the one with true faith, when made aware of their sin by the Holy Spirit (whether from within or through another person), will be convicted of that sin while a person without true faith won't ever be.

I disagree with you that correction/reproval is from the "free will" of that correcting person, depending on how you define "free will".

You: "If someone publicly denies Jesus three times or refuses to believe in the resurrection unless they can place their fingers in the wounds of Jesus's body how will you classify their faith in that moment?" - I would call their faith a weak faith. Not a dead faith.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

Fight and struggle IS works. You're trying to split those into two categories, "internal fight" that's automatic and spiritual, and "external works" that's optional and about rewards. There's no daylight between them. When you resist a temptation, when you cry out to God in the moment, when you choose to turn instead of indulge, that IS an act of the will cooperating with grace. That's the work! I'm not talking about volunteering or performing sacraments, I already said that. Praying, resisting, repenting, turning, that's the works James and I are both talking about.

So your deathbed convert guy. If he spends his last days actually fighting his old life instead of just sitting on "I said the prayer, I'm good," he's not "faith with zero works." He's Guy #1 with barely any time on the clock. Still works. Just compressed. Its not about hitting a quota or earning rewards. It's about whether the will is engaged at all. Guy who fights for one day before he dies is nothing like the guy who believes the gospel and coasts for 40 years. They have the same faith on paper, totally different fruit, because one guy's will showed up and the other guy's didn't.

And James doesn't say "normally this produces works given enough time." He says faith without works is dead. Useless. Can't save (2:14, 17, 20). You're reading in an assumption because the plain text doesn't fit sola fide. Nobody is using this to sneak in "perform our sacraments or you're not saved," that's a different argument you're coming up with on your own. This is just: is faith that never engages the will, even a little, even for one day, the kind of faith James is calling alive? No.

---

Fight and struggle are works that arise during sanctification, not performed in order to obtain salvation.

Your second paragraph is just more of your straw manning. "I said the prayer, I'm good" - that's not what Protestants argue as true faith.

The difference between Guy #1 and the guy who "coasts", if they both are true believers, is that one is sanctified more than the other, NOT that one was saved while the other was not. Salvation is dependent on their having true faith, not whether they "cooperated" with their free will to a sufficient degree. The difference between those two believers will lead to differences in rewards in heaven. Can a true believer "coast" for years? Sure (and it depends on what you mean exactly by "coast"). But it will be because they are not responding to the Spirit within them. Eventually, though, with time and opportunity, a true believer becomes convicted about it.

So, if you take James as an absolute statement about salvation, then you have to believe that someone who hears the gospel and comes to genuine faith and trust in Jesus, but dies soon afterwards without having any works, is not saved but is in Hell. Is that correct?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" in that moment"

Kind of an important detail, or didn't you read Job or Jonah?

---

Yes, it is a very important detail if you are going to claim ONCE saved ALWAYS saved. That's the whole point.

The Catholic view is that denial of Christ or rejection of the resurrection by a believer puts you outside of state of grace. Repentance gets you back onsides (Peter's tears, Thomas's exaltation of "My Lord").

---

So, to be clear, you're saying that Peter lost his salvation when denied Jesus three times, thus the very foundation of the Church (by your view) was lost, and thus Jesus declaration that the "gates of Hell shall never overcome it" was wrong?

Also, that Jesus' declaration that "none that the Father has given me will be snatched away from my hand" was wrong too?

Scripture hardly teaches that Peter and Thomas lost their salvation in the moments you referenced.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

Fight and struggle IS works. You're trying to split those into two categories, "internal fight" that's automatic and spiritual, and "external works" that's optional and about rewards. There's no daylight between them. When you resist a temptation, when you cry out to God in the moment, when you choose to turn instead of indulge, that IS an act of the will cooperating with grace. That's the work! I'm not talking about volunteering or performing sacraments, I already said that. Praying, resisting, repenting, turning, that's the works James and I are both talking about.

So your deathbed convert guy. If he spends his last days actually fighting his old life instead of just sitting on "I said the prayer, I'm good," he's not "faith with zero works." He's Guy #1 with barely any time on the clock. Still works. Just compressed. Its not about hitting a quota or earning rewards. It's about whether the will is engaged at all. Guy who fights for one day before he dies is nothing like the guy who believes the gospel and coasts for 40 years. They have the same faith on paper, totally different fruit, because one guy's will showed up and the other guy's didn't.

And James doesn't say "normally this produces works given enough time." He says faith without works is dead. Useless. Can't save (2:14, 17, 20). You're reading in an assumption because the plain text doesn't fit sola fide. Nobody is using this to sneak in "perform our sacraments or you're not saved," that's a different argument you're coming up with on your own. This is just: is faith that never engages the will, even a little, even for one day, the kind of faith James is calling alive? No.

---

So, if you take James as an absolute statement about salvation, then you have to believe that someone who hears the gospel and comes to genuine faith and trust in Jesus, but dies soon afterwards without having any works, is not saved but is in Hell. Is that correct?

---

No. As Doc said, it's all about praying, resisting, repenting.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

Fight and struggle IS works. You're trying to split those into two categories, "internal fight" that's automatic and spiritual, and "external works" that's optional and about rewards. There's no daylight between them. When you resist a temptation, when you cry out to God in the moment, when you choose to turn instead of indulge, that IS an act of the will cooperating with grace. That's the work! I'm not talking about volunteering or performing sacraments, I already said that. Praying, resisting, repenting, turning, that's the works James and I are both talking about.

So your deathbed convert guy. If he spends his last days actually fighting his old life instead of just sitting on "I said the prayer, I'm good," he's not "faith with zero works." He's Guy #1 with barely any time on the clock. Still works. Just compressed. Its not about hitting a quota or earning rewards. It's about whether the will is engaged at all. Guy who fights for one day before he dies is nothing like the guy who believes the gospel and coasts for 40 years. They have the same faith on paper, totally different fruit, because one guy's will showed up and the other guy's didn't.

And James doesn't say "normally this produces works given enough time." He says faith without works is dead. Useless. Can't save (2:14, 17, 20). You're reading in an assumption because the plain text doesn't fit sola fide. Nobody is using this to sneak in "perform our sacraments or you're not saved," that's a different argument you're coming up with on your own. This is just: is faith that never engages the will, even a little, even for one day, the kind of faith James is calling alive? No.

---

Fight and struggle are works that arise during sanctification, not performed in order to obtain salvation.

Your second paragraph is just more of your straw manning. "I said the prayer, I'm good" - that's not what Protestants argue as true faith.

The difference between Guy #1 and the guy who "coasts", if they both are true believers, is that one is sanctified more than the other, NOT that one was saved while the other was not. Salvation is dependent on their having true faith, not whether they "cooperated" with their free will to a sufficient degree. The difference between those two believers will lead to differences in rewards in heaven. Can a true believer "coast" for years? Sure (and it depends on what you mean exactly by "coast"). But it will be because they are not responding to the Spirit within them. Eventually, though, with time and opportunity, a true believer becomes convicted about it.

So, if you take James as an absolute statement about salvation, then you have to believe that someone who hears the gospel and comes to genuine faith and trust in Jesus, but dies soon afterwards without having any works, is not saved but is in Hell. Is that correct?

---

I wouldn't even classify evangelicals as protestants. They basically are radical reformers that schismated away from mainlines. They're more far removed from Luther/Calvin than Luther/Calvin were removed from Catholic positions. You'd be shocked by what some evangelicals teach to millions of people.

The late Charles Stanley, one of the most famous Southern Baptist pastors in American history, wrote a book titled Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? Here's a quote from that book:

Quote:

---

"You can't lose your salvation... even if you cease to believe. Even if you turn away from Christ. Your salvation is secure." He argued that an atheist who once believed will still be in heaven, though they might sit in eternity with a sense of regret or loss of rewards.

---

Zane Hodge is a theologian at Dallas Theological Seminary who essentially founded the modern Free Grace movement. He argued that repentance is a work meant only for fellowship with God, not for salvation. He explicitly defended the idea that a "carnal Christian" (Guy #2) could live a completely wicked life after their moment of faith and still be 100% secure in their salvation.

Bob Wilkin is the executive director of the Grace Evangelical Society teaches that making a commitment to turn from sin or obey God is actually a "false gospel of works." He argues that salvation is purely an intellectual acceptance of a promise, and if a person lives like the devil afterward, it only affects their rewards at the judgment seat, never their entrance through the pearly gates.

These views are taught in thousands of independent Bible churches, Baptist churches, and megachurches across America. It is highly structured, deeply funded, and defended by massive publishing houses. I'm not fighting a straw man. I'm arguing against a massive, highly influential wing of modern American Protestantism. Some of your favorite pastors were strongly against this and they called it easy Believism: see John MacArthur. I don't think you realize this is the dominant American Christianity now statistically.

But to your other points, the Thief on the Cross couldn't do physical charity, but he used his free will to defend Jesus, confess his own guilt, and ask for mercy. Those are massive, internal acts of the will, which are exactly what we mean by works. God doesn't have a quota; He looks at whether the heart is cooperating with His grace. You're looking for a number, quota or clearly defined set...but that's for God to judge.

Look at the logical loop you built. You admit a believer can 'coast' but claim they will 'eventually become convicted.' What if they don't? What if a believer coasts, lives in unrepentant sin, never gets convicted, and dies that way? If you say they are still saved, then you're arguing that lifelong, unrepentant rebellion doesn't matter for salvation, which is what I'm worried out. If you say they aren't saved, then you agree with me that active, lifelong cooperation with God's grace is necessary to enter the narrow gate. Which is it?

I'm making the exact same argument that John MacArthur and Dietrich Bonhoeffer made.
Bonhoeffer literally called this 'Cheap Grace' and said it was the deadly enemy of the church. John MacArthur had to write an entire book, The Gospel According to Jesus, just to fight 'Easy Believism', because its becoming so rampant. MacArthur coined the phrase "Lordship Salvation." He argued that you can't accept Jesus as your Savior if you refuse to submit to Him as your Lord. If your life doesn't change, and you don't fight sin, your faith is a sham.

When the most famous Protestant pastors in history are openly warning that this theology creates a counterfeit faith, we can't claim that nobody teaches this or that it isn't a problem.

If your goal is to get 5,000 people through the doors every Sunday, you can't preach a message that requires intense self-examination, agonizing struggle against sin, or the necessity of using your free will to carry a cross. That drives people away. Instead, you offer a transaction: "Accept Jesus into your heart right now, your eternity is instantly locked in, and now let's talk about how God can give you a better marriage and a happier life." It turns salvation into a product. Real, lasting change requires looking in the mirror, denying yourself, and painfully uncovering the ways you are flawed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

Fight and struggle IS works. You're trying to split those into two categories, "internal fight" that's automatic and spiritual, and "external works" that's optional and about rewards. There's no daylight between them. When you resist a temptation, when you cry out to God in the moment, when you choose to turn instead of indulge, that IS an act of the will cooperating with grace. That's the work! I'm not talking about volunteering or performing sacraments, I already said that. Praying, resisting, repenting, turning, that's the works James and I are both talking about.

So your deathbed convert guy. If he spends his last days actually fighting his old life instead of just sitting on "I said the prayer, I'm good," he's not "faith with zero works." He's Guy #1 with barely any time on the clock. Still works. Just compressed. Its not about hitting a quota or earning rewards. It's about whether the will is engaged at all. Guy who fights for one day before he dies is nothing like the guy who believes the gospel and coasts for 40 years. They have the same faith on paper, totally different fruit, because one guy's will showed up and the other guy's didn't.

And James doesn't say "normally this produces works given enough time." He says faith without works is dead. Useless. Can't save (2:14, 17, 20). You're reading in an assumption because the plain text doesn't fit sola fide. Nobody is using this to sneak in "perform our sacraments or you're not saved," that's a different argument you're coming up with on your own. This is just: is faith that never engages the will, even a little, even for one day, the kind of faith James is calling alive? No.

---

So, if you take James as an absolute statement about salvation, then you have to believe that someone who hears the gospel and comes to genuine faith and trust in Jesus, but dies soon afterwards without having any works, is not saved but is in Hell. Is that correct?

---

No. As Doc said, it's all about praying, resisting, repenting.

---

You're not answering the question that was asked.

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You don't have to defend this logical gymnastics just to stay Protestant. Millions of Protestants, like Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and Pentecostals, explicitly reject this Calvinist/Lutheran trap. They hold to the Arminian view, which openly admits that humans have free will, that we must actively cooperate with grace, and that a believer can genuinely walk away from God and lose their salvation through unrepentant sin.

Even Luther saw how dangerous his view was. The second he started preaching "faith alone," people instantly turned into Guy #2 and thought, "Awesome, my lifestyle doesn't affect my eternity, so I can live how I want." To stop that fire, Luther literally had to invent a new word, antinomian (anti law), just to blast the people who were using his own logic. He tried to scramble and argue that a real Christian will still follow the law even if it doesn't save them, but by doing that, he walked right into the exact same trap you're in. He created a system where your behavior doesn't actually effect the contract, but then had to turn around and yell at everyone to act right anyway so they didn't look like hypocrites.

---

I don't know that we should completely bundle Lutheranism in with Calvinism on this. They have sort of a middle ground theology: monergistic justiification + synergistic damnation, but reject osas/eternal security of the believer. Calvinism might be summarized as monergistic justification + monergistic damnation + eternal security of the elect.

But yes, in general the problem of antinomianism arose with the "grace alone through faith alone" formulation of salvation which in turn arose as a response to the post schism "buy this indulgence and you're in like flynn" formulation.

---

Yep agreed.

Late medieval Catholics were literally telling people they could buy their deceased relatives out of Purgatory, or secure their own salvation through monetary contributions. It was extremely transactional. Sola fide was a response to that, but Luther overcorrected. He completely severed human behavior, cooperation, and the law from the "contract" of salvation and inadvertently created a massive vacuum. The second you tell people their actions have 0% bearing on their eternal destiny, human nature takes the path of least resistance.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

Fight and struggle IS works. You're trying to split those into two categories, "internal fight" that's automatic and spiritual, and "external works" that's optional and about rewards. There's no daylight between them. When you resist a temptation, when you cry out to God in the moment, when you choose to turn instead of indulge, that IS an act of the will cooperating with grace. That's the work! I'm not talking about volunteering or performing sacraments, I already said that. Praying, resisting, repenting, turning, that's the works James and I are both talking about.

So your deathbed convert guy. If he spends his last days actually fighting his old life instead of just sitting on "I said the prayer, I'm good," he's not "faith with zero works." He's Guy #1 with barely any time on the clock. Still works. Just compressed. Its not about hitting a quota or earning rewards. It's about whether the will is engaged at all. Guy who fights for one day before he dies is nothing like the guy who believes the gospel and coasts for 40 years. They have the same faith on paper, totally different fruit, because one guy's will showed up and the other guy's didn't.

And James doesn't say "normally this produces works given enough time." He says faith without works is dead. Useless. Can't save (2:14, 17, 20). You're reading in an assumption because the plain text doesn't fit sola fide. Nobody is using this to sneak in "perform our sacraments or you're not saved," that's a different argument you're coming up with on your own. This is just: is faith that never engages the will, even a little, even for one day, the kind of faith James is calling alive? No.

---

So, if you take James as an absolute statement about salvation, then you have to believe that someone who hears the gospel and comes to genuine faith and trust in Jesus, but dies soon afterwards without having any works, is not saved but is in Hell. Is that correct?

---

No. As Doc said, it's all about praying, resisting, repenting.

---

You're not answering the question that was asked.

---

All that's required is to avoid sin for however long or short a time. If you consider that a work, then that person has done the work. If you're talking about some quota of good deeds, you're not understanding what James means.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

Fight and struggle IS works. You're trying to split those into two categories, "internal fight" that's automatic and spiritual, and "external works" that's optional and about rewards. There's no daylight between them. When you resist a temptation, when you cry out to God in the moment, when you choose to turn instead of indulge, that IS an act of the will cooperating with grace. That's the work! I'm not talking about volunteering or performing sacraments, I already said that. Praying, resisting, repenting, turning, that's the works James and I are both talking about.

So your deathbed convert guy. If he spends his last days actually fighting his old life instead of just sitting on "I said the prayer, I'm good," he's not "faith with zero works." He's Guy #1 with barely any time on the clock. Still works. Just compressed. Its not about hitting a quota or earning rewards. It's about whether the will is engaged at all. Guy who fights for one day before he dies is nothing like the guy who believes the gospel and coasts for 40 years. They have the same faith on paper, totally different fruit, because one guy's will showed up and the other guy's didn't.

And James doesn't say "normally this produces works given enough time." He says faith without works is dead. Useless. Can't save (2:14, 17, 20). You're reading in an assumption because the plain text doesn't fit sola fide. Nobody is using this to sneak in "perform our sacraments or you're not saved," that's a different argument you're coming up with on your own. This is just: is faith that never engages the will, even a little, even for one day, the kind of faith James is calling alive? No.

---

Fight and struggle are works that arise during sanctification, not performed in order to obtain salvation.

Your second paragraph is just more of your straw manning. "I said the prayer, I'm good" - that's not what Protestants argue as true faith.

The difference between Guy #1 and the guy who "coasts", if they both are true believers, is that one is sanctified more than the other, NOT that one was saved while the other was not. Salvation is dependent on their having true faith, not whether they "cooperated" with their free will to a sufficient degree. The difference between those two believers will lead to differences in rewards in heaven. Can a true believer "coast" for years? Sure (and it depends on what you mean exactly by "coast"). But it will be because they are not responding to the Spirit within them. Eventually, though, with time and opportunity, a true believer becomes convicted about it.

So, if you take James as an absolute statement about salvation, then you have to believe that someone who hears the gospel and comes to genuine faith and trust in Jesus, but dies soon afterwards without having any works, is not saved but is in Hell. Is that correct?

---

I wouldn't even classify evangelicals as protestants. They basically are radical reformers that schismated away from mainlines. They're more far removed from Luther/Calvin than Luther/Calvin were removed from Catholic positions. You'd be shocked by what some evangelicals teach to millions of people.

The late Charles Stanley, one of the most famous Southern Baptist pastors in American history, wrote a book titled Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? Here's a quote from that book:

Quote:

---

"You can't lose your salvation... even if you cease to believe. Even if you turn away from Christ. Your salvation is secure." He argued that an atheist who once believed will still be in heaven, though they might sit in eternity with a sense of regret or loss of rewards.

---

Zane Hodge is a theologian at Dallas Theological Seminary who essentially founded the modern Free Grace movement. He argued that repentance is a work meant only for fellowship with God, not for salvation. He explicitly defended the idea that a "carnal Christian" (Guy #2) could live a completely wicked life after their moment of faith and still be 100% secure in their salvation.

Bob Wilkin is the executive director of the Grace Evangelical Society teaches that making a commitment to turn from sin or obey God is actually a "false gospel of works." He argues that salvation is purely an intellectual acceptance of a promise, and if a person lives like the devil afterward, it only affects their rewards at the judgment seat, never their entrance through the pearly gates.

These views are taught in thousands of independent Bible churches, Baptist churches, and megachurches across America. It is highly structured, deeply funded, and defended by massive publishing houses. I'm not fighting a straw man. I'm arguing against a massive, highly influential wing of modern American Protestantism. Some of your favorite pastors were strongly against this and they called it easy Believism: see John MacArthur. I don't think you realize this is the dominant American Christianity now statistically.

But to your other points, the Thief on the Cross couldn't do physical charity, but he used his free will to defend Jesus, confess his own guilt, and ask for mercy. Those are massive, internal acts of the will, which are exactly what we mean by works. God doesn't have a quota; He looks at whether the heart is cooperating with His grace.

Look at the logical loop you built. You admit a believer can 'coast' but claim they will 'eventually become convicted.' What if they don't? What if a believer coasts, lives in unrepentant sin, never gets convicted, and dies that way? If you say they are still saved, then you're arguing that lifelong, unrepentant rebellion doesn't matter for salvation, which is what I'm worried out. If you say they aren't saved, then you agree with me that active, lifelong cooperation with God's grace is necessary to enter the narrow gate. Which is it?

---

But none of them say to just say a prayer, and you're saved. So yes, it is a straw man.

So, according to your view about the thief on the cross - if he just believed Jesus and knew his own guilt silently but truly in his heart, and did NOT vocally defend him or confess his guilt and ask for mercy out loud... then he would NOT have been saved and would have gone to Hell. Is this your view?

You know my view - if a "believer" lives a long life of unrepentant sin and never gets convicted, then that person is likely NOT a true believer. But yes, it IS possible for a person to hear the gospel, believe and trust Jesus with all their heart... but not know that their lifestyle is a sin in time to repent before they die soon after. In that example, technically they were in "lifelong" unrepentant sin. Yet they are still saved because their faith was true. What I don't believe, is that someone who continues in unrepentant sin and doesn't even recognize it as sin and is without any conviction for a long time, is a true believer. A pure example of that is someone who continues to bow and pray to/through images and statues and credit Mary for their salvation their whole life without ever sensing that it is wrong.

And why does that "worry" you? Why are you worried about those who aren't true believers not being true believers?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You don't have to defend this logical gymnastics just to stay Protestant. Millions of Protestants, like Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and Pentecostals, explicitly reject this Calvinist/Lutheran trap. They hold to the Arminian view, which openly admits that humans have free will, that we must actively cooperate with grace, and that a believer can genuinely walk away from God and lose their salvation through unrepentant sin.

Even Luther saw how dangerous his view was. The second he started preaching "faith alone," people instantly turned into Guy #2 and thought, "Awesome, my lifestyle doesn't affect my eternity, so I can live how I want." To stop that fire, Luther literally had to invent a new word, antinomian (anti law), just to blast the people who were using his own logic. He tried to scramble and argue that a real Christian will still follow the law even if it doesn't save them, but by doing that, he walked right into the exact same trap you're in. He created a system where your behavior doesn't actually effect the contract, but then had to turn around and yell at everyone to act right anyway so they didn't look like hypocrites.

---

I don't know that we should completely bundle Lutheranism in with Calvinism on this. They have sort of a middle ground theology: monergistic justiification + synergistic damnation, but reject osas/eternal security of the believer. Calvinism might be summarized as monergistic justification + monergistic damnation + eternal security of the elect.

But yes, in general the problem of antinomianism arose with the "grace alone through faith alone" formulation of salvation which in turn arose as a response to the post schism "buy this indulgence and you're in like flynn" formulation.

---

Late medieval Catholics were literally telling people they could buy their deceased relatives out of Purgatory, or secure their own salvation through monetary contributions.

---

It might have been misunderstood that way, but securing salvation through monetary contributions was never taught by the Church.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A popular claim made here by some members, is that no one can be saved without doing some good works. While those members protest that this does not equate salvation by merit, the works-necessary claim logically claims that God cannot save someone unless that person chooses to be saved by doing some good work. In essence, allowing man to veto God's will, which I cannot accept.

Scripture has quite a few cases where people were saved from destruction and death without doing works. Adam and Eve, for example, disobeyed God but He did not abandon them after their expulsion from Eden (Genesis Chapter 3). In fact, God's whole plan of redemption for Humanity is built completely from God's mercy and grace, not human actions.

In Genesis Chapter 32, God makes Jacob the patriarch of Israel, despite Jacob having done nothing to deserve such kindness from God. Jacob received undeserved mercy from God before he ever did any service for God.

In Genesis Chapter 50, God uses Joseph to save his entire family, including his brothers the same ones who sold him in to slavery in the first place and are not recorded as doing any good works.

That's just in Genesis. In the New Testament, Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John Chapter 8) despite no works by her to deserve such. The Prodigal Son in Luke Chapter 15 is welcomed back by his father without deserving it. And of course there is the Thief on the cross; zero evidence of works by him.
Paul explained it concisely in Romans 5:68: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It was always about God's Will, God's Grace, God's Mercy.

If we do works which serve God, we receive the reward of God's pleasure, which is real and significant, but is not about Salvation. We certainly should rejoice at the opportunity to serve the Lord, reflecting the Holy Spirit at work in us, but the works flow from being aligned with the Lord; they do not play any role in God's Salvation of us.

---

.....Guy #1 is the one actually striving to enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). He's for real about it, but not because his effort earns anything, but because living faith always produces the fight. That's the difference between faith that justifies and faith that's dead.

---

"...living faith always produces the fight."

That's what I've always been saying. True faith WILL always produce conviction, and hence the fight or struggle, but not necessarily the works for some people. Some people may struggle for the rest of their life and the works they have to show for their faith is very little to none. Especially in the case of someone who dies shortly after coming to faith. They may spend the rest of their life struggling against their old life, and then die, having no works at all, but only their naked faith. Yet, they are saved because their faith is enough. They might not receive many rewards in heaven, but they are saved. So even though they had no works, it doesn't mean that their faith was "dead". Their faith was alive, but they struggled through sanctification. This is why James chapter 2 needs to be understood not as an absolute statement on salvivic doctrine concerning faith and works, but rather as a statement on the normative relationship between the two in someone with real faith, given enough time and opportunity. Roman Catholics and Orthodox are always using James chapter 2 to say "See? Faith without works is dead. That obviously means you have to perform our sacraments or your faith is "dead" and you won't be saved." A complete misuse of James.

---

Fight and struggle IS works. You're trying to split those into two categories, "internal fight" that's automatic and spiritual, and "external works" that's optional and about rewards. There's no daylight between them. When you resist a temptation, when you cry out to God in the moment, when you choose to turn instead of indulge, that IS an act of the will cooperating with grace. That's the work! I'm not talking about volunteering or performing sacraments, I already said that. Praying, resisting, repenting, turning, that's the works James and I are both talking about.

So your deathbed convert guy. If he spends his last days actually fighting his old life instead of just sitting on "I said the prayer, I'm good," he's not "faith with zero works." He's Guy #1 with barely any time on the clock. Still works. Just compressed. Its not about hitting a quota or earning rewards. It's about whether the will is engaged at all. Guy who fights for one day before he dies is nothing like the guy who believes the gospel and coasts for 40 years. They have the same faith on paper, totally different fruit, because one guy's will showed up and the other guy's didn't.

And James doesn't say "normally this produces works given enough time." He says faith without works is dead. Useless. Can't save (2:14, 17, 20). You're reading in an assumption because the plain text doesn't fit sola fide. Nobody is using this to sneak in "perform our sacraments or you're not saved," that's a different argument you're coming up with on your own. This is just: is faith that never engages the will, even a little, even for one day, the kind of faith James is calling alive? No.

---

So, if you take James as an absolute statement about salvation, then you have to believe that someone who hears the gospel and comes to genuine faith and trust in Jesus, but dies soon afterwards without having any works, is not saved but is in Hell. Is that correct?

---

No. As Doc said, it's all about praying, resisting, repenting.

---

You're not answering the question that was asked.

---

All that's required is to avoid sin for however long or short a time. If you consider that a work, then that person has done the work. If you're talking about some quota of good deeds, you're not understanding what James means.

---

No. "Avoiding sin" in the sense that someone doesn't sin simply they weren't doing anything, is not a work. If someone doesn't sin for eight hours because they were sleeping, that isn't a work.

The "quota of good deeds" is exactly the question that you, a Roman Catholic, has to answer.