PART ONE

No the two verses you reference do not contradict.  Ephesians is contrasting grace and works saying that we are saved by grace not works.  It could just have easily said we are saved by grace and not faith.  The message is not a contrasting of faith and works it is a contrasting of the idea of salvation being a free gift and the idea that salvation can be earned.  James is talking about the proper method of accepting the free gift which is through faith (but what kind of faith is James’ question), a living faith one that is accompanied by works.  In fact one that if works are not present is a dead faith one that is of no use in acceptance of the gift.  Now we go back to Eph and put the idea of as living faith into the verse and we still see no conflict as that living faith through which we accept the free gift of grace is still not meriting us salvation.  No, these two verses (and no two verses in scripture are ever contradicting themselves).

      If we inject active faith into Ephesians, then that contradict the verse because doesn’t it say “not from you…not out of works?”  Living faith is works no matter how you word it and I think you know it because I said this over and over.
__________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________

Of course if you have read any of my posts in the thread on the logical error of the hermeneutics of the adherents of sola scriptura you would know that I feel no verse can be interpreted properly until you have looked at all verses together at once, so option number 2 above (though worded too simplistically) comes closest to the correct approach.  But when pushed to the extreme you find not that every man has his own interpretation but that no man is allowed his own interpretation because the job is just to big, so we are required to accept the Church’s interpretation and if your read the scriptures you find that is exactly why Christ established it on earth.

      Looking at all verses at once IS outweighing or mixing.  I understand that the context must be used but if one verse is problematic which seems to be very clear, not foggy, then there is a problem because that verse does not go away.  So if one verse says Salvation is free, only by faith alone and another says faith and works, then wouldn’t you say that we have a problem?
      About church authority, all I can say is that if the Bible contradicts the Church, then there is a serious problem yet the problem is not the Bible, but the church interpreting the Bible, wouldn’t you agree?  Remember that though the church produced the Bible, it was God that gave the word to the church to assemble.
__________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________

No.  Ephesians teaches salvation by grace alone – a free gift.  It goes on to say that we accept the gift through faith (but even here it does not say faith alone).  Finally it makes the point that the gift cannot be merited with works.  But when we look at the rest of scriptures….

      Remember, this problem does not go away.   Here in Ephesians, it is very clear that works aren’t present.  If Salvation is a free gift, then why do you have to do something to keep it?  What? Because the scriptures say so?  If scriptures do support it, fine, but then stop saying it’s free because in reality, you are lying to everyone including me whether you know it or not. __________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________

Yes.  It is not by faith alone as long as you understand James is defining faith as that belief that is without works (a dead faith).  James is quick to point out that once this dead faith has works accompanying it, it is perfected and made alive.  This living faith (which James sees as faith and works together, while Ephesians sees it in a holistic whole) is sufficient to properly accept the free gift.

      How then do you account for verses 15-17 where it gave an example of one that says He has faith but does not show it, and also, verse 18 where a person, not God saying “show me your faith without works and ill show you my faith by my works”
__________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________

Quote:
Quote:
Notice also it does not say that we are saved by faith.  It says we are saved by grace.  This saving by grace is through faith, not through works.  But Paul has led up to this in Ephesians by talking at length about what type of works do not save.  They are works of the letter of the law.  Works which try to make God our debtor.  Works that fulfill the law such that we merit salvation.  These are the works which Ephesians 2:8-9 is preaching against.  He is not preaching against works of love that make our faith a living faith and perfect it.  Paul is not preaching contrary to Jesus commandment to love one anther thus fulfilling the law.  In fact the faith that Paul says we are saved through must have those works of love or we are nothing.
 
       In Greek, “through” can also mean “by.”  In anycase, we received Grace through what?  Faith and works?  We both know that it does not say that.
__________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________

But works and merit are two different things.  We do works for our family not to merit their love but to show ours as a proper acceptance of their love.  That is how it is with our relationship wih God.  Through Christ’s sacrifice we hanged our relationship with God.  We are no longer being reviewed by a judge with fatherly tendencies, we are being judged by a father who is just.  The New Covenant makes us heirs and we are given a new way to satisfy the law.  Not a legalistic way to merit salvation through a strict adherence to the letter of the law, but a spousal or familial way to accept the free gift through a loving fulfillment of the spirit of the law.

      If we disobey, wouldn’t you say that we are endanger of Hellfire?  Why else do we abstain from sin and obey the commandments of Christ?  Working for family is one thing, because yes, not to earn their love, however, it cannot be denied that the parents work to earn money.   Here about salvation, if our salvation is on our hands, then you cannot deny that we are earning it.  If you say then that Salvation is in God’s hands then still you do have to agree with me because what determines His decision to give us Eternal life?  “Active faith” right?  Fulfilling the “Law of the Spirit,” correct?  There it is.
________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________

Yes before the new Covenant we were being judge under a strict adherence to the letter of the law which none but Christ could ever live up to.  But God hinted at what He really wanted from us.  He desires mercy not sacrifices.  (Mt 9:13, Mt 12:7) That is why the Gentiles, though they did not know the law, could still at times please God because they had the law in their hearts.  Now in the New Covenant we all understand that the letter of the law is death but the spirit is life (2 Cor 3:6) and we can fulfill the law through love (Rom 13:10).  This fulfillment of the law still does not merit us eternal life as it is far to great a reward to ever be earned but this new fulfillment of the law has been established by God as the proper way to accept the free gift.

      We are still endanger of Hellfire, how is that different than the OT covenant?  You said that we can fulfill the Law by love…you even referenced Romans 13.  However, you don’t have to be endanger of hell to fulfill the law, you can live as I, having already, Eternal Life and still fulfill the law by love.  After all, forgiven sinners still need to obey the law but not because we are endanger but because it is the right thing to do.  And from the looks of it, Paul never said that for us to fulfill the law to gain eternal life.

END OF PART ONE
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Trinity in the OT!

                Six months ago, my elder game me this book, "A Bird's Eye view of the Bible" and as I read the author;s beliefs oin the Trinity, I saw verses that suprised me, there are three Yahwehs but only one God.   Here they are:


16   Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17   Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
Isaiah 48:16-17

                     Here clearly, there are three persons, but One God.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is God.

and Jabez, when He was praying to God, He wasnt praying to himself, they are three distinct persons of the Godhead.  If it is only one person then yes, he is talking to himself but the Trinity in the Bible is three persons.  Can God talk to God?   Yes because remember, three persons.
           
agur

               NKJV ingores Textus Receptus?  I didn't know...that is troubling....  Hmmm...

Um - Thank you very much for that information Ambassedor4Christ

God bless'

agur

                Which one washes away sins?  Jesus on the cross or our willingness to be baptized or to finish being baptized to wash away our sins?  If it were to be Baptism, then why need Jesus?

agur

              I was a Catholic when I was young but from the time i was in highschool until I got saved, I've been reading the NIV.  That Bible changed my life, and made me a better person.  When I got saved, my mentor who led me to Christ, taught me how to defend the Trinity, Eternal Security, and the reliability of scripture used not the KJV but the New American Standard Bible or NASB.  It was not until I found my home church that i embraced the Authorized Verson, and strangely, I cant seem to read anything else but the KJV.  
              I looked at sites that supports the KJV and it has all these stories of how demonic the modern versions are and even stories that nearly led one person to heresy just because he read the NIV - wait a minute, I just read the NIV, and it hasnt lead me to anything other than just Bible in plain english.  We must be careful how we classify such version but I do understand that the numbers of Bible versions are growing, and that there are differences that makes the KJV unique to all bibles.  
              Personally, I think, particularly the NKJV, NASB, and ASV, they simply say the same thing.  All of them one way or another supports the Trinity, Salvation, Church, even though some words are missing.  In speaking about the missing words that is so called, "Omitted," I'd say it is due to the fact that they are based simply on the Oldest Manuscript.  It is like writing a draft which at first, simple, but with more revisons, it becomes clean, clear, and complete.  For the old manuscript, it is simple because at that time, things are not as well established but in time, the text improves, they are not necessarily adding to the bible as they are sharpening the meaning by adding "On Him" and others.
              The KJV is the most literal of all versions except the ASV but the NASB and NKJV is also the most literal but easier to read.  Speaking about easy reading, it reminds me about the people not understanding the priest because the mass is in Latin.  Like latin, the old english is hard to understand for most English readers, but thanks to the NASB, and NKJV, the Bible is more readable, so it is easier to understand.
              The debate over Bible version is growing but i have to say that it is also a dangerous thing because it can set believers apart and thats what satan wants.  Right now, I am divided over this, but I want to give my own thoughts on this issue.  Ill be asking people at my new church about it, they are also KJV only church but I welcome your thoughts on this matter

God Bless

agur

Dear Petro

              Reading lengthy works has always intimidated me but reading your piece drew me in.  This is very good information, a good read indeed, I look forward to reading some more.

God bless Brother!!!

agur

Dear Mr 5020

       No, we cannot lose our salvation.  In the Bible, Jesus made a promise that He would never lose us.  If we can somehow walk away from our salvation, then Jesus failed and if He denied us, then He lied.
       Eternal security is eternal life, a free gift to us bought for by blood.  He died once and for all, for our sins so that we can have this gift in which previously there was no grace but by the Law of Moses that must be kept perfectly and not fall once.  In John 1:17, it says it all:

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

agur

Dear Laisie

       I want to add to this by saying that if you go to any church, they won't save at all; that means going to the Catholic Church won't save you neither a Baptist Church - I am in full agreement with Tamara
       To deternine what is true and what is false, go only to the Word and read it because it is from God not from man:

6   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7   Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. - Psalm 12:6-7

16   All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17   That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

       All churches do not save but they do have messeges.  Dont pay attention to looks and feels of the church but test them to see if they pass the test.

What brings eternal life?
1.   Salvation by Faith Alone:

       This means that when you hear the "Good News" you made a decision in your heart - "I want you Jesus" as a response to the Gospel Messege, you place Faith in Him; but it is more than just faith that He will take care of you, it is Faith that He Saved you, that He alone have paid the penalty for all your sins so He  without fail will bring you to heaven.  This is true Faith that you have confidence that once you give your life to HIm, your eternity is secure, and that you will never lose it because He is faithful that He will never lose you.  That is faith alone because no works or deeds can ever help.

       That I shared is what many protestants believed.  That prespective I believed whole-heartedly because to me, that is clearly taught in scripture.  
       Now obviously, the Catholic prespective is different from ours that Faith and Works must go hand-in-hand unto salvation.  Faith, along with the sacraments, the follower must stay the course keeping the commandments of God and repenting of all sins until death comes.  This idea, I really disagree with but that is between You and God to decide.

Ps.  When reading the Bible, read the Bible literally and carefully and please, don't be afraid to ask any questions

agur

Dear All

The faith part, I'm in agreement with Ollie.

       I believe we recieved Salvation when we say yes to Jesus.  After all, didnt Jesus say all the time, He who believeth?
       Now I have a friend who is Calvinist, and he believes Faith is a work because it is we who says yes.  A Work?  Now I do understand that yes, it is we that save ourselves but it really a work when a person simply Repent - to change ones mind or purpose (Not an about face nor continual abstanence) and believe (Trust) Jesus for our Salvation and that we have eternal security?  Faith happens in the Heart and Mind (Once).  The definitrion of Faith can be found in Hebrews 11:

1   Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

       What makes Faith a work however, is when you have to have Faith every time - now that is work contrary to Ephesians which clearlty distinguishes Faith and Works.

Ps.  I can't bare to read long pieces, please make your answer short and verses - one by one

agur

 

Dear Ollie

From Blueletterbible.org

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm
++++
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1068183026-6411.html

       the Word by the context can means water but also Identification.  Now to assume that every word Baptism means water, then that means in Luke 12:50, it means water too:

  Luke 12
50   But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

       Are we to assume that every word that says Baptism means Water?  No, we ought to interpret words by the sentence and subject-context.

agur

On the part of petro's and all Gracers involved, I agree with wholly.  But in the otherside, the verses like Rom 6, Acts 2, amd mark 16 is being used over and over again despite being adressed.  Notice that they (Gracers) did not go to other verses but answered the baptism verses by itself.  And when the verses has been answered (by gracers), little has been done (by the other side) to correct the explinations.  I think clearly, the battle is already won.

       Thanks BEP.  I see what you are saying and I agree.  For me, I fell in love with the idea of grace and it became my own belief - one I hold dear (I never knew what grace was before  ).  In consenquence, I am less willing to be wrong, "Well...uh...well...um...(eh-hem), this is what I believe, so there! "
       I think as time goes on, we become attached to what we believe.  Through many victories our faith in our doctrine is solidified until one comes along and blows our faith out of the water - who saw that coming?  Therefore, we must at all times before embracing a doctrine or new, be objective and not lean to what we fancey or feel for that matter - even our heart.

Jeremiah 17
9   The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

7   Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.  - Proverbs 3:7

      And if the doctrine is embraced, give graceful attention even if, "OH-its sooo obvious!!!"  I'm not saying to open your mind completly, there should be a healthy amount of skepticism, but be ready, the Bible is clear, but you may be reading it wrong (2 Timothy 2:15).

agur

[by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:]

       I see that there are other scriptures to deal with.  Ill getr to them soon but in 1 pr 3:21, Baptism is only a figure, a symbol of in reference to vs 18; here, water was used to kill people, it wasn't used to save at all, but it did take Noah and his family.  In this:

21   The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

       Baptism here, is clearly a picture of the ressurection, and that is why it is used.  Baptism is only a symbol, not an act to bring effect.

        IN Romans 6, how do we know its talking about Water Baptism?

3   Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4   Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

       The Word Baptism means to dunk, but in root, it means to be Identified with.  Just like a white hankerchiff, in red ink, we are identified with Him in death, and raised with Him from spiritual death.  To me, the two passages are clearly spiritual, the word Baptism does not always refer to water:

50   But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! - Luke 12:50

       Water Baptism?  No, the kind of baptism He is talking about is clearly in reference to His death.
       So how can we tell whether it is water or not?  By context; in Romans 6, we were baptised with Him To what?  His death.  And we were raised with Him.  If this was water, it wouldnt make sense because the only purpose to Baptismal Regeneration is to wash sins away.  In Romans 6, it talks about a baptism that changes life.

agur

Dear all, what a turn-out!  I have a lot on my plate but everyone was considerate of me.  Now, in many difficult passages, it is easy to assume that there are no explinations but often, it is the context that explains what the verse is really saying:

Acts 2:38.  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

       "For."  Now this word can mean in-order-to, but it can also mean, "because of".  I can say that since vs 38 was a response to vs 37:

37   Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

       Pricked...they were convicted weren't they?  They believed Peter's message.  Peter then say, "repent and be baptised" because their sins have already been forgiven (Matthew 3:11 In order for them to repent?  Or is it because of their repentance?  Both Acts 2 and Matthew 3 used the same word, "for").  

Acts 22:16.  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

       I guess it can imply that sins can be washed but pay attention to the last part:

...Calling on the name of the Lord

       If one by simple obedience to bath to wash sins because its God's command, why does one need to call in His name?  This is not the same as when Jesus said to the lame, "Pick up your mat and walk" because if it is an order, it will happen.  In this case, if it were so that by the spirit of obedience, a believer washes his sins by baptism, he wouldn't need to call out to god because he is commanded to by God.  Therefore, there is a strong implication that this is spiritual than physical.  Paul is commanded to wash his sins awaym BY calling on His name.

Mark 16:16.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

       But He that believeth not shall be damned...notice it didn't say He that believeth not and not baptised...  If baptism was so important, why didn't Jesus say it again?  Can it be implied one needs to be baptized?  No, because if it were that important, He would trouble himself to sway it again just like Jesus saying "Verily Verily, KJV" or "Truly Truly NASB"

       Heidi - in John 3:5 when it says Water and Spirit, it can mean the way you see it but keep in mind the context; not in some far off place but the verse next to it:

5   Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6   That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    Verse 6 is the key to vs 5 because Jesus is clearly placing vs 5 in spirit and not action.  What is water then?  I believe it is in reference to John 4:

7   There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8   (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
9   Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
10   Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11   The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12   Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13   Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14   But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.[/u]

        Spirit and Spirit?  Yes, just like vs 6.  The word, "and (in greek, Kai)" can also be "even" according to the greek word used.  Now lets say it does talk about water Baptism - we have a controdition then because in 3 vs 18:

18   He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

        Again, it didn't mention baptism, so if vs 5 did say it, then we see here a controdiction.

Dear Brother Petro

       I understand what you are saying and yes, it may seem that she (Heidi) is making a judgement call; however it only seems that way, and i think your attitude was un-called for.  While God knows who is saved and who isn't, no believer can truely know whether one is saved or not; thats why James stressed works (2:14-16, 18 to show others your faith is real).  Works are the only clue to us believers that the individual may be saved (but again keep in mind, it's not proven test).
       Individually, it is easier because you know yourself better than others:

5   Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
2 Corinthians 13:5 (1 Corinthians 15:3, "...if you hold fast...unless ye believed in vain...(or didn't believe at all)"

        Your intentions are good, but you were unecesarily rough.  From what I can see, Heidi until now has been on your side of the issue but it was only then when she shared her opinion that you came against, and not only her, forrest too.
       I know there are a lot of damnedable heresies, but let me tell you that even in among bretherans, there are views that may be contrary to your own.  Im not talking abouit the Gospel, im talking about the little things like these.  The Bible is such that no man's wisdom can equal (nor any so called god for that matter), thats why we hold the Bible as our absolute truth.  Therefore, we deny any tradition, practice, and doctrine outside of Scripture (after all, scripture says so).  But because we hold the bible as true source, it allows certain amount of autonomy that each believer has.  As a result, we are independants, we do not owe any allegiance to any denomination or organization lest we fall into a trap of traditional creeds and the "love of" denomination placing second, the love of Bible.  
       Does that mean we can interpret the Bible anyway we please?  Absolutely Not!!!  It is one thing to owe allegiance to scripture as priority to Church doctrine but it is quite another to ignore any passage you did not like.    

agur