Knowing for sure one is going to heaven

[Obsidian]

@KingsGambit

How can a faith exist, but not be "genuine"? James never says that the faith is not genuine. The term "genuine faith" is an extrabiblical term. And in the context of James 2, the word genuine has no relevance. If you walked into a funeral and witnessed a corpse lying dead, would the corpse be genuine? Or would the corpse simply be make-believe, since it wasn't walking around? The only real problem with a corpse is that it has no spirit. Similarly, if a person has faith but is not continuously filled with the Holy Spirit, his lifestyle will be consistent with the old man of the flesh.

Once it is conceded that faith can exist but still be dead, it invalidates the view that faith automatically produces a good lifestyle. Of course, one can always do what the Roman Catholics do, and just argue that faith is insufficient for eternal life. But that blatantly contradicts other clear scriptures. James definitively eliminates the possibility that all faith automatically produces good works.

[One Bad Pig]

I give up.

[Obsidian]

Faith which is not dead inevitably produces works. Is that so hard to understand?

In describing how to gain eternal life, no where in the Bible does Jesus (or the apostles) distinguish between "faith" and "dead faith." To place additional restrictions on Jesus's promise, after the fact, would make him a liar.

[KingsGambit]

@KingsGambit

How can a faith exist, but not be "genuine"? James never says that the faith is not genuine. The term "genuine faith" is an extrabiblical term. And in the context of James 2, the word genuine has no relevance. If you walked into a funeral and witnessed a corpse lying dead, would the corpse be genuine? Or would the corpse simply be make-believe, since it wasn't walking around? The only real problem with a corpse is that it has no spirit. Similarly, if a person has faith but is not continuously filled with the Holy Spirit, his lifestyle will be consistent with the old man of the flesh.

Once it is conceded that faith can exist but still be dead, it invalidates the view that faith automatically produces a good lifestyle. Of course, one can always do what the Roman Catholics do, and just argue that faith is insufficient for eternal life. But that blatantly contradicts other clear scriptures. James definitively eliminates the possibility that all faith automatically produces good works.

Or perhaps James is simply saying that some people improperly define faith as mere mental assent, rather than the true definition which can only be understood in terms of the Semitic Totality Concept. http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.php

[One Bad Pig]

In describing how to gain eternal life, no where in the Bible does Jesus (or the apostles) distinguish between "faith" and "dead faith." To place additional restrictions on Jesus's promise, after the fact, would make him a liar.

In the context of saving faith (2:14), James says three times (vv. 17, 20, 26) that faith without works is dead. Is James placing additional restrictions on Jesus' promise?

[Obsidian]

If he were describing how to gain eternal life, then yes he would be making Jesus a liar. That is my point. But he is not describing how to gain eternal life. He is describing how to be judged under the law, and how to have an active faith.

Or perhaps James is simply saying that some people improperly define faith as mere mental assent

He uses the word "faith" himself. And he applies the word "faith" to someone who has no works. That doesn't sound whatsoever like he is employing a totality concept. If he were employing a totality concept, he would say, "The person who has no works has no faith" (which is what the Calvinists wish that he said).

No, it doesn't [say that we will be judged by the law]. It says we should act as if we are.

James 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

[KingsGambit]

If he were describing how to gain eternal life, then yes he would be making Jesus a liar. That is my point. But he is not describing how to gain eternal life. He is describing how to be judged under the law, and how to have an active faith.



He uses the word "faith" himself. And he applies the word "faith" to someone who has no works. That doesn't sound whatsoever like he is employing a totality concept. If he were employing a totality concept, he would say, "The person who has no works has no faith" (which is what the Calvinists wish that he said).



James 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

First of all, he doesn't use the word "faith", he isn't speaking in English, so we need to be careful not to import any connotations from our own language into the meaning.

[Obsidian]

If you want to amend your argument to say that bad translation is causing the confusion, or that bad translation somehow alters my analysis, then please explain what about the translation is wrong. James says that faith without works is dead. He does not say that faith without works is non-faith.

[37818]

It looks like you misunderstood my post. "Which does" refers back to "faith," not "works."

You phrased it, ". . . it is the faith that drives our works which does." Our "works which does?" Could you clarify this? Did you mean our "works which does faith?" James in his example the works which does faith (Genesis 15:6) came years latter (Genesis 22:). I agree that dead faith can save no one. Yet it is that faith which produces the works of God, without those works by which one is saved and justified. Would you not agree?

[KingsGambit]

If you want to amend your argument to say that bad translation is causing the confusion, or that bad translation somehow alters my analysis, then please explain what about the translation is wrong. James says that faith without works is dead. He does not say that faith without works is non-faith.

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can state my stance - that the word for "faith", while accurately translated, in the original language had a meaning closer to that in the article I linked above, and that James is refuting a false understanding of what that word means when he uses it.

[37818]

I give up.

Ask what is meant by what is said. Set the apparent two differing understandings side by said. Then ask an appropriate question for clarification as what is meant. If there cannot be an agreement on what is to be believed, there should be at the very minimum an agreement on what is disagreed.

[37818]

It appears this thread has completely derailed from the opening post.

The opening post gives my personal reason for the poll. And I think it is good to discuss what we agree and disagree on, this matter and why. What we believe about our own salvation is important to one's own belief in that matter.

The lost that perish, from my understanding were never actually saved. If they thought they were, I for one, would like them to truly in this life find salvation, and not be of those who perish. ". . . if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: . . ."

[Teallaura]

It appears this thread has completely derailed from the opening post.

Which makes it a pretty normal thread for this place...

[Teallaura]

Faith without works is only good for keeping the pew warm.

[The Remonstrant]

Faith without works is only good for keeping the pew warm.

Done.