Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

[ebia]

Your statement is funny actually because half of Protestantism accuses the Church of saying even the Moslems are saved and the other half say that the Church claims only Roman Catholics are saved.  

's probably the same half - consistancy isn't some people's strong suit.  

[Tog_Neve]

PART 1
Michael

You need to decide is James talking about salvation or not?

Have already expressed that James is discussing faith and not salvation.

But faith is just a deep sense of belief, so under that definition I think the demons have a true faith, it is just the wrong kind.

But here is where you get it wrong.  Faith is not just a deep sense of belief.  Faith is also an accepted willingness to do God's will.  The demons do not have a true faith because they are unwilling to do God's will.  They believe that there is one God as James states it.  James does not even go into detail to state that there is but one Savior or anything else other than to state that if you believe there is but one God then you have the same belief the demons have.  

But you focus too narrowly, the context is broader than just the verses behind. James is next going to show that the demons have faith and are not saved. This shows that faith alone cannot save and James even says that here leading up to his argument.

And we must be reading and replying to things way far back.  I had expanded upon the demons/faith thing in my last post.  But by your previous statements a moment ago I can see where the confusion may come in.  You feel that faith is just a "deep sense of belief" but faith is more than that.  As I said in previous post above faith is also an acceptance to do the will of God.  

We are talking throughout James about two kinds of faith, and how they relate to salvation.

Actually James is talking about faith and faith alone.  When you realize that belief is a part of faith and only a part of faith then you will see that when James makes a comment such as "if a man says he has faith" then you can see that what James is talking about in trying to contrast those that claim to have faith and those that show they have faith.  And that claiming you have faith is only claiming and not doing.  As James also points out we should be doers, meaning that we should be doing God's will.  If we have faith then we have accepted to do God's will.  What James is basically saying in his letter is that "You have claimed to have faith and claim to be willing to do God's will, then by gollly get out there and do it!"

But now we do need to discuss whether salvation can be lost. I contend that where works are required, works can cease. If works cease faith dies and salvation is lost. I am going to assume (and correct me right away if I am wrong) that you are going to agree with that but claim that a true living faith is not going to let works cease. I also think we agree on the fact that we cannot do any good works on our own without the infusion of the free gift of grace.

I would claim that faith will not let works cease.  However, since works are done by man then man can always find ways to screw them up.  But I will say that if man were to continue to do things in accordance to God's will then their faith will be bolstered.  God will bless them and allow the fruit of their works to add to their faith.  I would agree with you up to the point of where you stated that salvation is lost.  Our blessings here on earth may cease, our rewards in heaven may cease, but our salvation is not lost.  And James does not say that it is.  And Jesus states that we will drink of His water but once.
END PART 1

[Tog_Neve]

PART 2
This next part let me break it down just a little.

If we are to assume that works cannot cease I feel that means that works are only the fruit of faith.

Works in accordance to Gods will, in the Spirit of God, or for the Glory of God are fruits of faith.  If a man goes to church every Sunday, goes on visitation every chance they can, etc, etc but does not have an acceptance that he is doing God's will, or believes that there is one God, then he is just going through the motions.  Doing the works but no "meaning" behind them.  So our works should be a willing acceptance of God's will.

First it strips away man’s free will after we respond to the free gift.

Yes and no.  We are to be submissive and submit our will to that of God.  However we still have free will in that we can always ignore the will of God and do as we desire.

Second it denies the idea that man can sin accepting the free gift, since our works are fruits of a true, living, saving faith and that would not bear bad fruit.

If we continue to do God's will then we will not sin.  However we are still free to ingore God's will and can then fall into a sin or sinning.

Third if works were only fruit of faith, and works perfect faith, then faith would be self perfecting. The whole process seems too convoluted to me.

James 2:22 "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;"  This being in the example of Abraham.  If we allow our faith to be the guide of our works then God will provide us with things to build our faith, thus allowing it to be perfected.  

But before I go further let me know we agree this far.

I guess we dont.....should I read further?

I would like to see some scripture referenced to show that faith cannot die. I will try to provide some that show it does. The verse below (James 1:3) sure seems to support the idea that our faith can die.

Save your breath/typing Faith being 2 parts, belief of the One true God, and an acceptance to do His will.  As I said I do not believe that faith can truly "die", can we no longer do God's will?  Yes.  But how can one no longer believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the truth?  I do not believe anyone can.  One can attempt to cover that belief but they would be lying to themselves.  That is why I say I do not believe that faith can truly die.

See this is where I get confused. If salvation is dependent on faith, then any discussion of faith is a discussion of salvation. Especially if that discussion is about whether that faith continues to exist.

No any discussion of faith is not automatically a discussion of salvation.  They are two seperate items.  If we are talking about apples that does not automatically mean we are talking about apple trees.  Our salvation is dependant upon 2 things, Gods grace first and foremost, and then our faith.  And our faith is 2 fold as well, one in that we believe and two that we are willing to do Gods will.  If that is the case then God will give us the gift of salvation.  One that cannot be taken away.  Once we eat of that bread Jesus says we shall never again hunger.  The Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith does.

1 Cor 3:15 is talking about our works enduring the trial of fire not our faith. Those mentioned in that verse are saved, we know that because they choose to built upon the foundation of Christ. But the actual act of building refers to works. The fact that they chose to build on that particular foundation is because of faith. The trial by fire does not affect the foundation or their choice of it but it does affect the works.

It is talking about much more than simple works.  Read 1 Cor 3 and you will see that Paul is talking to the Corinths about the seed that he had planted and Apollos had come in after him and watered.  Paul mentions that he left them basically as babes.  They have not matured in their faith.  He left them with the foundation and Paul states that foundation is Christ.  And that faith should be built upon.  We know that Paul is not just talking about works because Jesus Christ is not a work and that is the foundation that Paul is talking about.  Paul is talking about their whole spiritual walk, their whole life.  And during that whole time Paul tells us to build upon that foundation of Christ.  This building could be not only from someone else such as Paul describes Apollos doing but ones own selves as he moves into explaining the outcome of building upon the foundation.  It is clear that Paul is not simply talking about works in this section but a relationship with God.

END PART 2

[Tog_Neve]

PART 3

No, I think you are misremembering the lesson. Just because the ‘;’ means two separate related independent clauses does not mean that the subject of the first clause it separate from the subject of the second as I pointed out in my comments to your grammatical analysis linking grace to works and faith both (though in different ways) though faith and works existed in separate clauses. You never disagreed so I assumed you accepted that separate independent clauses could share the same subject.

Just happened to miss the analysis.  My apologies.  But here is what you said

The semi-colon is used to separate the first clause from the second. Thus by using NOT it is contrasting the subject of the first clause and the second. The subject of the first clause is “grace” the subject of the second clause is “yourselves”. So we are in agreement that we are saved by grace not by anything we do. (By the way faith is something we decide to have or not – faith is of ourselves).  The second part of the second clause is linked for comparison to the subject of the first clause by the IT IS showing how grace is a gift. This is in agreement with the fact that grace is not of ourselves. Faith has been left entirely out of this discussion so far in terms of relating the two clauses. Now look at the last or third clause as it related back to the subject of the first. Once again by using NOT it is contrasting the subject of the first clause and the subject of the third clause. The subject of the first clause is “grace” the subject of the second clause is “works”. So we are in agreement that we are saved by grace not by works. So my whole point that Eph 2:8 is about grace and works being contrasted still seems to stand.

Incorrect.  The first part of the statement is that by grace we are saved through faith.  We see that the "by grace" is a preposition and is not the subject of the sentence.  "you" is the subject of the sentence and "been saved" is the verb.  "Through faith" is the adverb adding to being saved.  The preposition is used to show that only because of grace can you be saved through faith.  The second section 'and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God' is an adjective statement expanding upon grace.  In that it is a gift from God that he would allow his grace to be the binding between you being saved through your faith.  Then the third section is 'not as a result of works, that no one should boast' is a continuation of the first section.  So it is by grace that you are saved through faith, not as a result of works, that no one should boast.
 

But in this case we are discussing James 1:12 and there is no semicolon, it uses a colon.

Now this is interesting.  My Bible has a semi-colon.  You say yours has a colon.  I check www.bible.com under the KJV and theirs has a comma.  I look at my Sword Project Bible with 3 parallel translations and there is the colon, semi-colon, and comma as well.

However, with regards to losing salvation I think James has alluded to it just above in James 1:12 where he says if we endure we get the crown of life.

I made comment to "alluding" and the like earlier.  And that is backwards thinking.  First go to the source which is Jesus who says a saved person will never thirst again and then come to James.  And even in 1:12 James only "alludes" to it if you desire to think of it that way.  Otherwise James said that one who perseveres trials is blessed.  And as far as the crown of life James says a man will receive the crown of life under one condition, that being approved by God.  

So you claim this lesson is not applicable to us?

Nope not at all.  Just clarifying who is being talked about here.  Those mentioned as not following the Gospel is a reference to Jews, who know God but do not follow the Gospel of Jesus.

END PART 3

[Tog_Neve]

PART 4

How does that differ?  A living faith with works is a faith that is acceptable towards salvation, is it not?  A faith without works, or a claimed faith without works is not acceptable towards salvation.  The only difference we seem to have here is whether the person who claims to be a Christian has any faith at all.  This is probably more semantics than anything, as I am defining faith as belief and you are defining faith as a living active belief.  Your definition makes faith and works inseparable and keeps the demons from having faith.  I am referring to faith and works as separate concepts as they are distinguished by Paul so that he can emphasize the difference between works of the law and works of love.  But my separation allows the demons to have faith, since it is merely belief.  If this is an accurate portrayal of our positions I would ask you how do you emphasize the difference between the works Paul says cannot participate in our salvation and the works that accompany belief (though Paul calls it faith) to make it a real faith?

Reading this one and some of the other replies it appears we come to the need to define faith and what it is.  We both know what each of us defines faith as and we begin to get confused on reading because our definitions are different.
Faith is shown/defined very well in Hebrews Chapt 11.  “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”  We are shown by the author some examples of faith from Abel on up to Joshua and Rahab.
Abel – Offered a better sacrafice
Noah – In reverence prepared an ark
Abraham – obeyed by going out
Etc, etc
As we read these examples we get a clear understanding that faith involves a willingness to do God’s will. Heb 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please Him”  This statement as well states there is more to faith than belief.  Without faith there is no willingness to do God’s will or to trust God’s judgement, thus it is not pleasing to God.  This also does not deter from Paul’s teachings either.
And faith is separate from our works.  Faith is only the willingness to do God’s will.  Go back to Hebrews 11 and look at the examples again.  They all start with “by faith.”  By their willingness to do God’s will these people acted.  And acted in a way that was pleasing to God.
See faith is more than simple belief or different degrees of faith as you had tried to define it.  But yet it remains separate from works because it is ‘by faith’ we should be doing works.  And works that are pleasing to God.

If faith without doing the will of God is the dead faith and the demons don’t have faith merely belief, then why is James contrasting or comparing the two in verses 2:14 through 2:20.  There is no change of subject at verse 2:19 as you need to have to separate the “dead faith without works” and mere “belief” of the demons.  We know that these verses should be taken together because of the single idea of a “dead faith without works” that shows up explicitly in verses 14, 17, and 20.

James starts by stating if a man says he has faith but has no works of faith to show for it can he truly be saved?  James shows an example and then goes on to basically clarify what the man who says he has faith really means, ‘I believe in God.’  And he is doing well to get that but even the demons believe in God, and they tremble in fear of God.  But to have faith means you need to recognize, ‘you foolish fellow’, that you have to be willing to put your faith and willingness to do God’s work into actions.  
James is stating that if a man professes to have faith and there is no fruit of that faith then they never had a true faith to begin with and only give lip service.  

But it is not just a showing through that works do, they also perfect or strengthen our faith.  The more we do the will of God the more graces we receive and the more our faith is strengthened.  I contend the converse is true as well if you neglect your gifts and do not do the works of love we are called to, we will have taken from us even that which we had.  Not to the point of taking away our salvation but to the point where we eventually have neglected it to the point where our faith is weakened to be deceived.

EXACTLY!  We let our faith show in our works and thus God blesses us which in turn strengthens our faith.  Directly proportional.  
But have you flip-flopped here.  In stating that if we neglect our gifts we may lose our blessings but not our salvation?  That is what I have been saying all along.  That even if we stop building our faith and stop doing works that we still maintain our salvation.

No I did not mean to imply that, I was only saying that I expected you to eventually get around to redefining faith in that way.  As it is I don’t think you hold to that definition actually since you accept the idea of faith and works being necessary for salvation.

But I am not redefining faith.  Faith is defined well in the Bible, and there are even examples

Gee and I thought I was being humble.  But don’t you see there is value in that 2000 year history.  The review of doctrine by the best minds in the world both inside the Church defending it and outside of the Church attacking it have served to temper the resulting theology and insure it is at the very least self consistent and comprehensive.  I would add that it has been shown to be in agreement with scripture as well or at least not so obviously contrary that the billions of its members have not left the Church in large number.

And I do not mean this durgatorily either, but the same process could be used on a cult as well.  But this refining and tempering is a process in which men are involved. The Jews thought they had it right by law as well, but they lost the Spirit.  This can happen with anything man tries to do.  Man can get complacent in their actions, can take for granted that God is with them and stop thanking God, stop asking God for advice. And start relying more on the works they have accumulated as being more trustworthy than what God has already provided.  
As far as billions leaving the church.  I don’t want to split hairs or ruffle feathers but the fact that there is a plethora of denomination out there shows that there are billions who have issues with the RCC doctrine.  And the vice versa may be said of Baptists, Anglicans, etc, etc, etc.

Looking back I understand how you might be offended by what I have posted and am sorry for that

Accepted and understood.

END PART 4

[Tog_Neve]

PART 5

This is a great mistake in my mind.  I would not encourage anyone to belong to a denomination just to belong, but the Church was established on earth as the final authority in appeals (Mt 18:17) for a reason.  The ability to appeal to the Church requires a visible, physical entity, as does the hierarchy of Bishops and elders.  Since I believe Christ’s Church continues to exist on earth I believe it must be possible to see it.  So if you belong to some denomination you can at least point to a physical presence.  If you do not belong to a denomination you have no physical visible entity to appeal to, in order to resolve disputes.  It is the only way I know to be a Christian and be absolutely sure you do not belong to the true Church on earth.  I consider myself a Christian first and foremost as well, but I also believe that the Catholic Church is that one true Church based on doctrine and the unbroken string of laying on of hands that is required for true succession of ministry.

I did not say that I do not belong to a denomination.  As a matter of fact I attend a Baptist church.  What I meant was more than anything is that I do not lay claim to a denomination before laying claim to being a Christian.  And if I find a denomination that has doctrine/traditions/ideas that do not follow scripture then I would not attend their church.  As well as look at teachings from them as possible suspect.

You had made comments referring to the living magisterium and similar and I would like to discuss them more sometime as well.  Since they concern oral traditions and things of that nature not found in the Bible but held onto as inspired and such.  As well as some other concepts that I ran across when reading more of the Magisterium from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  But right now we need to stick to this topic and not stray…When I have read some more of this I will post another thread concerning it and we can discuss it there.

END

[michael_legna]

PART 1 OF 3

I am going to do something in response to your post that I normally try to avoid but I think it will help pare it down and join some points closer together for discussion and make it more logically connected.  If this bothers you let me know or if you feel I didn’t cover a point let me know too and I will be glad to go back over a topic.  I will try not to misrepresent your intentions in your answers by moving them around but if I do forgive me and let me know where I have erred.

We seem to be discussing two issues.  The first I will cover is the definition of faith.  The second is losing salvation appears later in the post.

Reading this one and some of the other replies it appears we come to the need to define faith and what it is.  We both know what each of us defines faith as and we begin to get confused on reading because our definitions are different.
Faith is shown/defined very well in Hebrews Chapt 11.  “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”  We are shown by the author some examples of faith from Abel on up to Joshua and Rahab.
Abel – Offered a better sacrafice
Noah – In reverence prepared an ark
Abraham – obeyed by going out
Etc, etc

As we read these examples we get a clear understanding that faith involves a willingness to do God’s will. Heb 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please Him”  This statement as well states there is more to faith than belief.  Without faith there is no willingness to do God’s will or to trust God’s judgement, thus it is not pleasing to God.  This also does not deter from Paul’s teachings either.

And faith is separate from our works.  Faith is only the willingness to do God’s will.  Go back to Hebrews 11 and look at the examples again.  They all start with “by faith.”  By their willingness to do God’s will these people acted.  And acted in a way that was pleasing to God.
See faith is more than simple belief or different degrees of faith as you had tried to define it.  But yet it remains separate from works because it is ‘by faith’ we should be doing works.  And works that are pleasing to God.

As I said in previous post above faith is also an acceptance to do the will of God.  

Actually James is talking about faith and faith alone.  When you realize that belief is a part of faith and only a part of faith then you will see that when James makes a comment such as "if a man says he has faith" then you can see that what James is talking about in trying to contrast those that claim to have faith and those that show they have faith.  And that claiming you have faith is only claiming and not doing.  As James also points out we should be doers, meaning that we should be doing God's will.  If we have faith then we have accepted to do God's will.  What James is basically saying in his letter is that "You have claimed to have faith and claim to be willing to do God's will, then by gollly get out there and do it!"

I see under your definition of faith how this would be the interpretation one would come away with from the book of James.  I think my interpretation based on my definition of faith is not far off from yours except when it comes to the extrapolation of lack of works to loss of salvation.  I think this difference between us is mostly semantic in nature, but not entirely.

So bear with me as I try something.  In James we have someone who believes and has an acceptance to do the will of God and does it (a living faith) VS someone who says that they believe and accepts to do the will of God but you claim doesn’t really accept to do the will of God as evidenced by their lack of works (a dead faith).  One is saved, the one who does the works, the other is not saved but not because they didn’t do the works but because there is no true acceptance to do the will of God, if I follow your definition properly.  This leaves 6 other combinations for someone to fall into.  

I decided to lay them out in a truth table format to make it clearer (I hope).

The first column is Believes, the second column is Accepts to do the will of God, the third column is Works

B    A   W
T    T    T (living faith)
T    T    F (I place the people without works here – dead faith)
                (I suspect you say these type of people cannot exist, because they would be saved by
                 faith alone without works and you don’t believe that is possible)
T    F    T (accidentally compliant Christians?)
T    F    F (I would place the demons here because they believe/know Christ is the savior)
                (I think you place the people with out works here – dead faith)
F    F    F (I think you place the demons here but it depends on what you feel we have to believe
                 Maybe you put them in the category above)
F    F    T (nice humans)
F    T    F (well intentioned humans)
F    T    T (well intentioned humans who are nice)

Of course this is all based on your definition of faith.

For my definition of faith we get the following.

B   W
T    T  (living faith)
T    F  (dead faith – demons end up here too)
F    F  (atheists)
F    T  (nice atheists)

The big difference is that it is immediately apparent in my set that if works cease you lose your salvation.  It is not so obvious in yours but I think that the same is true there as well.  We already know that it your set if works never are there the person is not saved because you would claim that the mere absence of works proves they were really in group 4, because group 2 cannot exist.  Here is the problem with group 2 not existing.  It makes works a non-voluntary reaction to faith.  Works become only the fruits of faith.  But I got the impression along the way that you did not hold to that position.  Am I wrong on that, do you believe man loses his free will with regards to good works once he accepts Christ?

END OF PART 1

[michael_legna]

PART 2

If faith without doing the will of God is the dead faith and the demons don’t have faith merely belief, then why is James contrasting or comparing the two in verses 2:14 through 2:20.  There is no change of subject at verse 2:19 as you need to have to separate the “dead faith without works” and mere “belief” of the demons.  We know that these verses should be taken together because of the single idea of a “dead faith without works” that shows up explicitly in verses 14, 17, and 20.

James starts by stating if a man says he has faith but has no works of faith to show for it can he truly be saved?  James shows an example and then goes on to basically clarify what the man who says he has faith really means, ‘I believe in God.’  And he is doing well to get that but even the demons believe in God, and they tremble in fear of God.  But to have faith means you need to recognize, ‘you foolish fellow’, that you have to be willing to put your faith and willingness to do God’s work into actions.  

This response is why I assume that you would put the demons in group 5 because you hold it is not enough to believe in God, you must also believe in Christ and His sacrifice.  This gets into another issue of faith (that is what do we have to believe to have true belief) but we can cover that later.

James is stating that if a man professes to have faith and there is no fruit of that faith then they never had a true faith to begin with and only give lip service.  

No, he doesn’t say that he never had faith he goes on to call that state of the man a “dead faith”.  So it is a faith.  If it is a dead faith for someone to believe and not do the works because they did not accept to do the will of God then based on the truth table it is exactly like the demons have (unless you extend belief to believing in Christ and His sacrifice – but I would suggest the demons know that too).  That is why James is comparing the demons to the man with dead faith.  Your response does not seem really clear to me on your analysis of this section.  Do you think James is comparing the man with no works to the demons?  Does the man with no works have a dead faith?  Do the demons have a dead faith?  If not what is the difference?

But it is not just a showing through that works do, they also perfect or strengthen our faith.  The more we do the will of God the more graces we receive and the more our faith is strengthened.  I contend the converse is true as well if you neglect your gifts and do not do the works of love we are called to, we will have taken from us even that which we had.  Not to the point of taking away our salvation but to the point where we eventually have neglected it to the point where our faith is weakened to be deceived.

EXACTLY!  We let our faith show in our works and thus God blesses us which in turn strengthens our faith.  Directly proportional.  
But have you flip-flopped here.  In stating that if we neglect our gifts we may lose our blessings but not our salvation?  That is what I have been saying all along.  That even if we stop building our faith and stop doing works that we still maintain our salvation.

Gee I don’t think I flip-flopped, notice I said it is not just a showing through – indicating that works does many things.  It perfects faith, it is a fruit of faith, it is a sign of faith and in the beginning it is the first response to grace in that repentance is kindle by grace and repentance is a work.
 
I think both are end results of loss of works.  Some reduction in works will result in loss of crowns, but at some point further loss of works does more than merely “stop building our faith” it begins to weaken our faith to the point where we no longer even accept the idea of doing God’s will.  At that point (using your definition of faith) we no longer have a faith that is acceptable toward salvation.

1 Cor 3:15 is talking about our works enduring the trial of fire not our faith. Those mentioned in that verse are saved, we know that because they choose to built upon the foundation of Christ. But the actual act of building refers to works. The fact that they chose to build on that particular foundation is because of faith. The trial by fire does not affect the foundation or their choice of it but it does affect the works.

It is talking about much more than simple works.  Read 1 Cor 3 and you will see that Paul is talking to the Corinths about the seed that he had planted and Apollos had come in after him and watered.  Paul mentions that he left them basically as babes.  They have not matured in their faith.  He left them with the foundation and Paul states that foundation is Christ.  And that faith should be built upon.  We know that Paul is not just talking about works because Jesus Christ is not a work and that is the foundation that Paul is talking about.  Paul is talking about their whole spiritual walk, their whole life.  And during that whole time Paul tells us to build upon that foundation of Christ.  This building could be not only from someone else such as Paul describes Apollos doing but ones own selves as he moves into explaining the outcome of building upon the foundation.  It is clear that Paul is not simply talking about works in this section but a relationship with God.

Oh I agree that the three, relationship with God, faith and works are intertwined and that all man sees is the works.  From God’s perspective He can and will judge all three but the most important will be the relationship.  That does not mean that when the non-applicable works are burnt away that we will not suffer loss from our perspective, it also does not preclude our receiving rewards for those works which are applicable.  I do not see that verse supporting the idea even with the lead in that faith itself can be burnt away.  This approach of yours actually makes more sense under my definition of faith as I see forms of faith that are insufficient and could fail under a trial by fire and be burnt away.   But under your definition of faith (to be both belief and acceptance to do the will of God), there can be no non-applicable form of faith (you either have it or you don’t). So what form of faith are you saying is getting burnt away when tried by fire?

But now we are getting into loss of salvation.

END OF PART 2

[michael_legna]

PART 3

But now we do need to discuss whether salvation can be lost. I contend that where works are required, works can cease. If works cease faith dies and salvation is lost. I am going to assume (and correct me right away if I am wrong) that you are going to agree with that but claim that a true living faith is not going to let works cease. I also think we agree on the fact that we cannot do any good works on our own without the infusion of the free gift of grace.

I would claim that faith will not let works cease.  However, since works are done by man then man can always find ways to screw them up.  But I will say that if man were to continue to do things in accordance to God's will then their faith will be bolstered.  God will bless them and allow the fruit of their works to add to their faith.  I would agree with you up to the point of where you stated that salvation is lost.  Our blessings here on earth may cease, our rewards in heaven may cease, but our salvation is not lost.  And James does not say that it is.  

I agree that man can always find a way to screw things up.  I also agree that if we continue to do the will of God our faith will be bolstered or as James puts it perfected.  I hold that the converse is true though.  If we find a way to screw things up we will do less works, our faith will become less strong and we will be led less and less to do good works, further reducing the strength of our faith, spiraling in to our death.

Mar 4:24  And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
Mar 4:25  For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath. (see also Mt 13:12, Mt 25:29, Lk 8:18 and Lk 19:26)

And Jesus states that we will drink of His water but once.

I think we need to look at these verses more closely because I agree at first glance they seem to support your idea I am just not sure how to reconcile that interpretation with all the other verses that show we can lose our way.

This next part let me break it down just a little.

If we are to assume that works cannot cease I feel that means that works are only the fruit of faith.

Works in accordance to Gods will, in the Spirit of God, or for the Glory of God are fruits of faith.  If a man goes to church every Sunday, goes on visitation every chance they can, etc, etc but does not have an acceptance that he is doing God's will, or believes that there is one God, then he is just going through the motions.  Doing the works but no "meaning" behind them.  So our works should be a willing acceptance of God's will.

Oh I agree absolutely that proper intentions are vital to works being efficacious.  

First it strips away man’s free will after we respond to the free gift.

Yes and no.  We are to be submissive and submit our will to that of God.  However we still have free will in that we can always ignore the will of God and do as we desire.

But if we can ignore God’s will then we can end up without works to show as fruits of the belief and acceptance to do God’s will.  Then we would appears as those with dead faith in James, or worse yet eventually become as those with dead faith and lose our salvation.  If you contend that it is impossible for us to ever fall that far, then it is more than just us submitting to God’s will it is a loss of free will.

Second it denies the idea that man can sin accepting the free gift, since our works are fruits of a true, living, saving faith and that would not bear bad fruit.

If we continue to do God's will then we will not sin.  However we are still free to ingore God's will and can then fall into a sin or sinning.

But at some point you must hold that there is a limit to how sinful we can become, how devoid of good works we become, else those fruits of faith are no longer present at all and we are just like those in James who have a dead faith, one you insist is not a true faith (merely belief) and so we have lost our salvation.

Save your breath/typing Faith being 2 parts, belief of the One true God, and an acceptance to do His will.  As I said I do not believe that faith can truly "die", can we no longer do God's will?  Yes.  But how can one no longer believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the truth?  I do not believe anyone can.  One can attempt to cover that belief but they would be lying to themselves.  That is why I say I do not believe that faith can truly die.

See this is where I get confused. If salvation is dependent on faith, then any discussion of faith is a discussion of salvation. Especially if that discussion is about whether that faith continues to exist.

No any discussion of faith is not automatically a discussion of salvation.  They are two seperate items.  If we are talking about apples that does not automatically mean we are talking about apple trees.  Our salvation is dependant upon 2 things, Gods grace first and foremost, and then our faith.  And our faith is 2 fold as well, one in that we believe and two that we are willing to do Gods will.  If that is the case then God will give us the gift of salvation.  One that cannot be taken away.  Once we eat of that bread Jesus says we shall never again hunger.  The Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith does.

Perhaps you want to reword some of this or explain it to me because first you claim you do not believe that faith can truly die but then you say that The Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith does.  What does sustaining our faith do if not keep it from dying?

However, with regards to losing salvation I think James has alluded to it just above in James 1:12 where he says if we endure we get the crown of life.

I made comment to "alluding" and the like earlier.  And that is backwards thinking.  First go to the source which is Jesus who says a saved person will never thirst again and then come to James.  And even in 1:12 James only "alludes" to it if you desire to think of it that way.  Otherwise James said that one who perseveres trials is blessed.  And as far as the crown of life James says a man will receive the crown of life under one condition, that being approved by God.  

Yes, we definitely disagree on this point of exegesis.  I feel that you cannot interpret scripture by understanding the complex verses based on the the clear verses.  That you must consider all verses and what they allude to.  You seem to want to find verses that plainly state something and interpret everything else in light of them.  That to me is forcing the majority to conform to the minority.  I do agree with you that we should go to the source as you put it.  Even though all of the scriptures are divinely inspired it is still legitimate in my mind to hold that if a doctrine is sound we should see it taught by Christ, so it should appear in the Words in Red.  If it doesn’t we need to reconsider our interpretation.

I hope my jumping around and reorganizing the paragraphs was not too confusing.

END OF PART 3

[Tog_Neve]

PART 1

And I will first reply with the end of yours

I hope my jumping around and reorganizing the paragraphs was not too confusing.

Nope not at all.  But I am going to mix it up a little bit more....I feel something must be addressed before moving into your table.

I see under your definition of faith how this would be the interpretation one would come away with from the book of James.  

Besides Hebrews defining faith and showing examples lets see if we can find some more
1 Sam 2:35 "And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind..."
- Faithful being one that will do the will of another.
II Chron 19:9 "And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.
- Again we see action from faithfulness.
Neh 7:2 "That I gave my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the ruler of the palace, charge over Jerusalem: for he was a faithful man, and feared God above many."
- An indication that being faithful will produce action.  They were given charge because they would be good rulers, because they were faithful (willing to do God's work)
Ps 5:9 "For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre;they flatter with their tongue"
- If we are faithful then our tongue will be controlled, James teaches this as well.  
Ps 31:23 "O love the LORD, all ye his saints: for the LORD preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer"  
- Here again we see to be faithful is to be a doer.  And if we are a doer then the Lord will reward us.  This is also shown in James as being a doer and not just a hearer.  To be faithful is to do that which is pleasing to God.
Ps 89:33 "Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail"
- Speaking of his will to do that which God desires.
Ps 14:5 "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies"
- Action driven by faith again.  
Jer 23:28 "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully."
- Action driven again by faith. Actions that would be pleasing to God.
Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith"
- we should live by our faith
Matt 9:2 "And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of palsy; 'Son be of good cheer, they sins are forgiven thee"
- Here we see that Jesus forgave this person upon seeing their faith.  Sure Jesus being God could have seen all of the good works they may have done in their past, but it does not say that, it says that He saw their faith (their belief and willingness to do Gods will).  And thus He forgave them.  Faith alone saved here.
Matt 9:22 "But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, 'Daughter, be of good comfort; they faith hath made thee whole.' And the woman was made whole from that hour."
- Again faith alone made her whole.  And it states from that hour, implying from that hour on.  Since it is not stating up until she stops doing works...it is not even showing her doing works only touching His garment.  She had belief and Jesus saw her desire to do God's will so she was made whole.
Matt 25:21 "His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."
- A servant is faith how? by doing the will of the Master.
Acts 16:15 "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there."
- Faithful to the Lord as in obedient to the Lord, doing the Lords bidding.
Rom 1:5 "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name."
- Faith is obedience...doing the will of another.
Rom 1:8 "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."
- If faith were simply a deep belief and nothing more then what would people be speaking of?  He implies that they their actions, being faith driven, are being spoken of.
I Cor 2:5 "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God"
- trust in God.
And there are more that reference faith as the driving force for actions.  And there are verses that are used to describe faith as sounding as belief or a deep beleif as well.  But as you have said we have to look at the big picture and we do that we see faith encompasses not only the belief of God and all that He is, but faith is a willingness to do the will of God, the desire to be obedient to God.  
So we can see that it is not simply "my" definition of faith but it is a Biblical definition of faith as well.

Now on to your table

Need to clarify a couple of things here.  B=belief in God, belief in Jesus in who He is and what He represents.  Believe He died on the cross to save all of mankind.  
Also lets understand works as being those that God would find pleasing from a believer (not necessarily or limited to preaching the Gospel), charitable works, selfless works, etc.
Let me also state this before going into these, and that is that I am looking at these as the A being a defining point of which also seperates those that have asked Christ into their lives and those that have not.  Since this step of asking God to save you is the defining point when a person is giving himself to God.

Group 7 and 8 could not exist.  How could one be willing to do God's will if one does not believe in God?  They couldn't.  There is a little dependancy between the B and the A.  
Group 6 like you say..basically nice athiest.
Group 5 bad athiest.
Group 4 is where Demons would go.  They know who God is, they know who Jesus is.  They know why Jesus was crucified as well.  They also know Jesus came to save all of man kind.
Group 3 Dont know if I would call them accidentally compliant or just good natured to begin with.  Or maybe not even Christians.  I have known many people who do lots of good things and when asked they say "yeah yeah I believe in God and that Jesus came and died for me"  I think they have heard but did not listen.  They may fit into the people that have not done the preceding work we talked about as far as being repentive.  I was this way before being saved...I believed in God and knew who Jesus was, but never truly accepted it because I was never repentive, nor had I ever got down on my knees and prayed.  I had only stepped into church on a handful of occasions and those were special occasions (wedding, etc).  I think there is a large number of people in the world that would fit into this catagory.
Group 2 And you are correct I do not believe this group could exist, but not for the reasons you stated.  If one is willing to do Gods will but does not do as God would like, then they really were not willing to begin with were they?  
Group 1 is where all Christians should be 100% of the time.  That is pretty much impossible but what we should desire.  However we can fall into letting our works slide...we opt to stay home and sleep in versus going to church, we dont make it to visitation, or other activities.  A person can be saved, baptised, have gone to church many times over then suddenly or even slowly stop going to church, stop talking about God, let dust collect on their Bible, etc, etc.  They have stopped doing works that are pleasing to God.  They can even deny God as Peter did.  Peter wanted to do right, but let his fear run his actions, and not his trust in God.  But as with Peter God does not let His children go, and He finds ways to remind them...cock-a-doodle-doooo.  

END PART 1

[Tog_Neve]

PART 2

No, he doesn’t say that he never had faith he goes on to call that state of the man a “dead faith”.  So it is a faith.  If it is a dead faith for someone to believe and not do the works because they did not accept to do the will of God then based on the truth table it is exactly like the demons have (unless you extend belief to believing in Christ and His sacrifice – but I would suggest the demons know that too).  That is why James is comparing the demons to the man with dead faith.  Your response does not seem really clear to me on your analysis of this section.  Do you think James is comparing the man with no works to the demons?  Does the man with no works have a dead faith?  Do the demons have a dead faith?  If not what is the difference?

You are neglecting the initial statements and that is that the man 'says'.  We are talking about a person who is claiming to have faith.  It is not stating that the person is saved but only that they are claiming to be saved.  And what James is stating is that since they are not acting upon their faith and doing works becoming of God then the 'faith' they profess to have is useless and dead.  James brings in the statement of the demons believing to illustrate that even the demons believe so we must do more, we must act on our faith.  Faith without actions is only belief and not a true faith.

Gee I don’t think I flip-flopped,

Wew...had me worried there  You had made that comment about not losing salvation and you had me worried.

But under your definition of faith (to be both belief and acceptance to do the will of God), there can be no non-applicable form of faith (you either have it or you don’t). So what form of faith are you saying is getting burnt away when tried by fire?

Faith is not being burnt away by fire.  But the works a person had done shall.  Those that were used to build on the foundation of Christ and done in faith shall remain, those not shall be burnt away.  And as far as faith...yes you have it or you dont.  You are either saved or you are not.  Some more in a bit.

I agree that man can always find a way to screw things up.  I also agree that if we continue to do the will of God our faith will be bolstered or as James puts it perfected.  I hold that the converse is true though.  If we find a way to screw things up we will do less works, our faith will become less strong and we will be led less and less to do good works, further reducing the strength of our faith, spiraling in to our death.

However God will let nothing take us from His hands.  Just as Satan can influence us to commit sins he cannot cause us to lose our power over sin, which is what our new birth has provided.  With Jesus within us we have the power to overcome sin.  And God shall also influence us to recongize/realize what it is that we are doing.  Remember Peter and the rooster.  

But if we can ignore God’s will then we can end up without works to show as fruits of the belief and acceptance to do God’s will.  Then we would appears as those with dead faith in James, or worse yet eventually become as those with dead faith and lose our salvation.  If you contend that it is impossible for us to ever fall that far, then it is more than just us submitting to God’s will it is a loss of free will.

I contend that a person can be saved say at age 18 (just as example), do works according to God's desire for 10 years and then start to falter and stop listening to God.  That person will lose blessing given in this life, and that persons rewards will stop growing in the next life.  But they are guaranteed by Jesus himself a place in heaven.  Our expression of faith can be dead...we can cease to do Gods work but we if saved will still conquer death and have eternal life.  As far as it being impossible to fall to a point of even possibly losing our salvation...yes I think it possible, but I feel it would be very very very difficult.  God would not let us go without trying to help us.  He would do anything for us and it is not beneath Him to send an influence our way to try and steer us back to the path of righteousness.  

But at some point you must hold that there is a limit to how sinful we can become, how devoid of good works we become, else those fruits of faith are no longer present at all and we are just like those in James who have a dead faith, one you insist is not a true faith (merely belief) and so we have lost our salvation.

If we were to fall into a state the could be compared to a dead faith, the Bible teaches us that we would still be saved.  From the time of salvation we are given a new life in Jesus.  A clean slate if you will.  And from there we are to build upon the foundation of Christ which He has engraved into us.  We are taught that our works (good or bad) are basically marked for our rewards.  If we are doing right the God will reward us.  At the time of our judgement our life will be judged (from the time of salvation because all before that is already gone).  The works we have done that are not of faith will be burned away.  And what remains will be the measure of our rewards.  We are told that once we drink of the water that Christ offers we shall never thirst again.  We are also told that when we are saved we become children of God, we are born again in the Spirit of the Father.  Can any man no longer be the father of his child?  No.  But like an eartly father to his child we desire the child to do right, we desire to be proud of the child in their actions, we reward the child for doing well, and yes we punish the child for doing wrong.  But even with a child if they continue to do well and receive rewards they will continue to try and make the father proud and are joyful at the blessings the father provides the child.

Perhaps you want to reword some of this or explain it to me because first you claim you do not believe that faith can truly die but then you say that The Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith does.  What does sustaining our faith do if not keep it from dying?

You are correct a poor choice.  My meaning was that the Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith should be built upon, perfected.

END PART 2

[Tog_Neve]

PART 3

I feel that you cannot interpret scripture by understanding the complex verses based on the the clear verses.  That you must consider all verses and what they allude to.  You seem to want to find verses that plainly state something and interpret everything else in light of them.  That to me is forcing the majority to conform to the minority.  

And we agree that we disagree.  And I have to say that I feel if you interpret first the complex verse without understanding the clearer verses then you are only guessing.  Look at a math formula... P=I^2 * R.  A simple formula really and we shall make it a given that you would know that the '^' is indicationg I to the power of 2 (I squared), also what that means.  As well as the '*' is multiplication.  But what is P,I, and R represent?  If you are just 'alluding' then they could mean anything you want.  But as with pretty much any formula there is meaning behind not only the structure of the formula but also the individual variable.  In this case it is the formula for calculating power in electronics, in watts.  Ew, thats neat but what about the rest?  You have to know the foundation first and then move up to the more complex.  In school they did not teach you calculus in 1st grade.  They build a foundation first of the things which are 'clear', 1+1=2.  Then they moved to more complex with the understanding of the basics.
 
We must first understand that which is clear, and then through the power of God and prayer that which is harder to understand will be made clear.  The Bible teaches us this as well.  When we start with the simple foundation which is Christ we see clearly that Christ states that once we are saved we are never to thirst again, never to hunger again, we are born again in the Spirit of God as one of His children.  We have that foundation and that is where we start.  From there the other authors, through inspiration, have expanded upon that simple concept, salvation is the gift of God by His grace (P= power in watts).  They have expanded upon the idea and explained what faith consists of (I = current in Amps).  The others have provided one disciplines, examples, instruction, ways to make our relationship with God better (R=resistance in Ohms).  And when we have the understanding of what individual simple ideas are we can then build upon them to know our formula is solid being built upon the simple foundation of Christ.  

Being the word of God there can be no conflict in its writings...it is deemed perfect and thus has no flaws.  So one author cannot contradict another.  And when you build upon the simple foundation of Christ it is clear that no author conflicts.  Paul expresses the same as James, James the same as Peter, etc, etc.  And none conflict with Jesus.  And when you apply to the complex what it is you desire then you can run across conflictions with what is simply there.  You have not shown me yet that when Jesus said we shall never thirst that he really did not mean "never" or that "never" does not mean never, that it means only until next time you are thirsty.  BY your implication that we can lose our salvation is in direct conflict with what Jesus had to say, and it is only through your "alluding" or implying that which you believe to the meaning of some verses do you even come close to trying to prove that point.  However when shown in the light of what Jesus had to say it is clear that what you try to "allude" to falls flat on its face.  If you know the answer already and the questions you ask do not quite get you to the correct answer then you must not be asking the right questions.  Jesus tells us that we shall never be lost from God, we are saved forever.  From that point on if an author appears to be in direct conflict with that then is it the writers fault?  Say it is not so, for this the perfect word of God and there is no fault.  So it must be in the readers fault, thus in the readers interpretation.  

You talk about how you must consider all verses.  But you can read the Bible and not understand any of it.  By looking at all of the pieces at once you only have confusion and chaos.  You have to start somewhere.  Take a 1000 piece puzzle and dump it on the table.  There is your 1000 verses that talk about salvation.  Does the puzzle make sense?  No it is mass of confusion and disarray.  You have to start somewhere... build a foundation.  We are told in the Bible to build our foundation in Christ.  With the puzzle most would build the borders first.  Once we have our foundation we then expand upon it and we see what other writers say about that which Christ has spoken.  And like a puzzle the pieces will all fit into place.  There is no "alluding", no guess work, only re-inforcement of that which Jesus had already spoken of.

How do you reconcile that Jesus said we would never thirst?  Was He not speaking the whole truth?  Did Jesus need James or Paul to come in and re-define what "never" means?  Are you saying that Jesus spoke clearly so that we have to read more into what He said than what is written?  Jesus said "never" what do you propose that actually means?

END

[michael_legna]

PART 1 OF 4

I did not mean to imply that you had come up with the definition of faith out the blue, just that your understanding of the definition of faith and mine were different.

I see where you think scripture defines faith as including the acceptance to do the will of God and you make a very strong case for acceptance to do the will of God being part of a true faith, but as I point out below I do not think the verses are intended to define and thus limit faith to this one type.

Webster defines faith as follows:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF

As you can see there is no reference to acceptance to doing the works of God and in fact the dictionary sees belief as a synonym, which you do not.  So the common usage and meaning for faith (which is the meaning the translators of the scriptures were required to use) is different from your meaning.  

If every place the translators use faith is to mean what you mean by faith it is clear they should have used a different word (even making up a new term if they needed to, to create a literal translation) or through dynamic equivalence added surrounding text to express this difference through verbiage.  But they did not.  So the question becomes is the definition of faith you see in scripture a redefining of the English word “faith” or did the translators get it right all along and you are applying verses incorrectly.

I contend that the latter is the correct answer, not because the verses you quote don’t relate to faith, they do.  But because they are each talking about a saving faith, they are not talking about the concept of faith in general.  If a saving faith inherently includes acceptance to do the will of God, then a definition we derive from discussion of that type of faith does not preclude other forms of faith that do not include an acceptance to do the will of God.  Thus enters James discussion of faith in both its living and dead forms and we see a much closer link with the synonymous term of belief.

Group 7 and 8 could not exist.  How could one be willing to do God's will if one does not believe in God?  They couldn't.  There is a little dependancy between the B and the A.  

“How could one be willing to do God's will if one does not believe in God?”  I think you find the answer in Rom 2:14  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

This gets into the concept of a conscience.  Group 7 are bad Gentiles since they know in their hearts what to do but don’t and Group 8 are the good Gentiles who do what they know in their heart to be good.  They know the will of God without knowing the one true God.

Group 6 like you say..basically nice athiest.

I agree

Group 5 bad athiest.

Again I agree.

Group 4 is where Demons would go.  They know who God is, they know who Jesus is.  They know why Jesus was crucified as well.  They also know Jesus came to save all of man kind.

Ok but then you have the demons believing but not having faith, which is completely understandable using your definition of faith.  But I hope you can see that if we use my and Websters definition of the general concept of faith, where faith and belief are synonymous they end up merged with the bad atheists.  I contend this makes James discussion and Paul’s continued statements separating faith and works make a lot more sense.

Also I tried to put the people with no works (those with a dead faith) in Group 2 which you say doesn’t exist and I thought you would put them here in Group 4 but you put the demons here even though you said earlier that James is not comparing the demon to those without works who only say they have faith.  My question is in your opinion what Group do those people belong in?

Group 3 Dont know if I would call them accidentally compliant or just good natured to begin with.  Or maybe not even Christians.  I have known many people who do lots of good things and when asked they say "yeah yeah I believe in God and that Jesus came and died for me"  I think they have heard but did not listen.  They may fit into the people that have not done the preceding work we talked about as far as being repentive.  I was this way before being saved...I believed in God and knew who Jesus was, but never truly accepted it because I was never repentive, nor had I ever got down on my knees and prayed.  I had only stepped into church on a handful of occasions and those were special occasions (wedding, etc).  I think there is a large number of people in the world that would fit into this catagory.

Yeah this is the broad path, not the straight and narrow.

Group 2 And you are correct I do not believe this group could exist, but not for the reasons you stated.  If one is willing to do Gods will but does not do as God would like, then they really were not willing to begin with were they?  

I think we can be willing and yet not do God’s will, maybe not exclusively but some more than others.  Even Paul talks about his problem with the spirit being willing but the flesh being weak.  

Rom 7:18-19  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Group 1 is where all Christians should be 100% of the time.  That is pretty much impossible but what we should desire.  However we can fall into letting our works slide...we opt to stay home and sleep in versus going to church, we dont make it to visitation, or other activities.  A person can be saved, baptised, have gone to church many times over then suddenly or even slowly stop going to church, stop talking about God, let dust collect on their Bible, etc, etc.  They have stopped doing works that are pleasing to God.  They can even deny God as Peter did.  Peter wanted to do right, but let his fear run his actions, and not his trust in God.  But as with Peter God does not let His children go, and He finds ways to remind them...cock-a-doodle-doooo.  

I think most Christians spend the vast majority of their time bouncing between Groups 1 and 2 depending on where they are in their faith.  To put it another way I don’t drop someone irrevocably into Group 1 after one good work that conforms them to the will of God.  In fact anytime you sin you for that moment are not in Group 1 by definition, so where do you go if not to Group 2.  Where we probably differ is I believe you stay in Group 2 until you repent.

END OF PART 1

[michael_legna]

PART 2

In reference to James 2:18-20

You are neglecting the initial statements and that is that the man 'says'.  We are talking about a person who is claiming to have faith.  It is not stating that the person is saved but only that they are claiming to be saved.  And what James is stating is that since they are not acting upon their faith and doing works becoming of God then the 'faith' they profess to have is useless and dead.  James brings in the statement of the demons believing to illustrate that even the demons believe so we must do more, we must act on our faith.  Faith without actions is only belief and not a true faith.

Yes it is the man who ‘says’ he has faith and is saved – when clearly he is not; however it is James who says that same man has a dead faith.  So it is James who is identifying that system of belief the man has (whatever it is) without work is still some form of faith in the sense of Webster as a synonym of belief.  I agree it is not a true saving faith, but it is a faith in the general use of the word just as the belief of the demons is a faith of sorts.  

Also consider

1 Cor 13:2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Here we see it is possible to have great faith (such as to move mountains) but not have charity, so I would think that this individual has not accepted to do the will of God so would not have faith in your definition, but yet is referred to by the scriptures as having great faith.

I agree that man can always find a way to screw things up.  I also agree that if we continue to do the will of God our faith will be bolstered or as James puts it perfected.  I hold that the converse is true though.  If we find a way to screw things up we will do less works, our faith will become less strong and we will be led less and less to do good works, further reducing the strength of our faith, spiraling in to our death.

However God will let nothing take us from His hands.  Just as Satan can influence us to commit sins he cannot cause us to lose our power over sin, which is what our new birth has provided.  With Jesus within us we have the power to overcome sin.  And God shall also influence us to recongize/realize what it is that we are doing.  Remember Peter and the rooster.  

I agree that we cannot be taken from God’s hand but we can leave willingly.  Through asking Jesus into our lives we do have the power to overcome sin, but we have to cooperate with that power, we don’t always do that.  Yes Peter did recognize what he did was wrong and he repented over it, but he did not have to repent.  Judas repented over what he did too, but he never brought forth works meat for repentance, his solution does not lend itself to one having confidence in his end result.

As far as it being impossible to fall to a point of even possibly losing our salvation...yes I think it possible, but I feel it would be very very very difficult.  God would not let us go without trying to help us.  He would do anything for us and it is not beneath Him to send an influence our way to try and steer us back to the path of righteousness.  

Wait a minute did you just flip-flop?  Do you admit the possibility of losing one’s salvation?  I never said it was easy to lose your salvation but I do believe it is possible, otherwise we play no role in our own salvation.

If we were to fall into a state the could be compared to a dead faith, the Bible teaches us that we would still be saved.  From the time of salvation we are given a new life in Jesus.  A clean slate if you will.  And from there we are to build upon the foundation of Christ which He has engraved into us.  We are taught that our works (good or bad) are basically marked for our rewards.  If we are doing right the God will reward us.  At the time of our judgement our life will be judged (from the time of salvation because all before that is already gone).  The works we have done that are not of faith will be burned away.  And what remains will be the measure of our rewards.  

Yes our works do apply to rewards (and that is what this verse is talking about) but that is not all they are for.  They also perfect our faith.  If our works fall into a state that could be compared to a dead faith I have yet to see that the Bible teaches we are still saved.  I still see to many verses and parables that indicate we can lose our salvation.

We are told that once we drink of the water that Christ offers we shall never thirst again.  We are also told that when we are saved we become children of God, we are born again in the Spirit of the Father.  Can any man no longer be the father of his child?  No.  But like an eartly father to his child we desire the child to do right, we desire to be proud of the child in their actions, we reward the child for doing well, and yes we punish the child for doing wrong.  But even with a child if they continue to do well and receive rewards they will continue to try and make the father proud and are joyful at the blessings the father provides the child.

You are correct a poor choice.  My meaning was that the Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith should be built upon, perfected.

But then what is the consequence if we do not do works to perfect our faith?

END OF PART 2

[michael_legna]

PART 3

I feel that you cannot interpret scripture by understanding the complex verses based on the the clear verses.  That you must consider all verses and what they allude to.  You seem to want to find verses that plainly state something and interpret everything else in light of them.  That to me is forcing the majority to conform to the minority.  

And we agree that we disagree.  And I have to say that I feel if you interpret first the complex verse without understanding the clearer verses then you are only guessing.  Look at a math formula... P=I^2 * R.  A simple formula really and we shall make it a given that you would know that the '^' is indicationg I to the power of 2 (I squared), also what that means.  As well as the '*' is multiplication.  But what is P,I, and R represent?  If you are just 'alluding' then they could mean anything you want.  But as with pretty much any formula there is meaning behind not only the structure of the formula but also the individual variable.  In this case it is the formula for calculating power in electronics, in watts.  Ew, thats neat but what about the rest?  You have to know the foundation first and then move up to the more complex.  In school they did not teach you calculus in 1st grade.  They build a foundation first of the things which are 'clear', 1+1=2.  Then they moved to more complex with the understanding of the basics.

I did not mean to imply that we don’t learn by interpreting the easy first working our way up from milk to meat.  But we must always be willing to re-evaluate our understanding of the verses we took as clear when we were babes in the faith, as we gain a deeper understanding merging more and more of the complex verses into our understanding.

As to alluding allowing you to have things mean anything you want, that is not true.  Your choices must be made in light of all of the surrounding text.  It is the consistency of the text that forces the allusions to their proper understanding regardless of what a seemingly clear verse may say on the surface.  In your example if I was reading an electronics text I would soon see that P was power, I was current and R was resistance.  As much as I might want them to be Principal, Interest and Reserve if I were an accountant I would not be allowed to make that interpretation by the text.  I would be shown to be inconsistent.

We must first understand that which is clear, and then through the power of God and prayer that which is harder to understand will be made clear.  The Bible teaches us this as well.  

Unfortunately we see that that method doesn’t work for the vast majority of Christians as they all come up with radically different interpretations from the same spirit.  Added to that there is no way to know when the spirit has directed you or when you have had some flash of inspiration on your own that was not guided and that this method is of man made design appearing nowhere in scripture leaves little to recommend its use.

When we start with the simple foundation which is Christ we see clearly that Christ states that once we are saved we are never to thirst again, never to hunger again, we are born again in the Spirit of God as one of His children.  We have that foundation and that is where we start.  From there the other authors, through inspiration, have expanded upon that simple concept, salvation is the gift of God by His grace (P= power in watts).  They have expanded upon the idea and explained what faith consists of (I = current in Amps).  The others have provided one disciplines, examples, instruction, ways to make our relationship with God better (R=resistance in Ohms).  And when we have the understanding of what individual simple ideas are we can then build upon them to know our formula is solid being built upon the simple foundation of Christ.  

But that is just one example and it is the easiest case at that.  But even here you are again supporting a supposedly clear verse with allusions to the correctness of your interpretation from more vague and complex verses.  The support just isn’t obvious because there is no disagreement between the seemingly clear and the seemingly complex.  What if you found the additional texts were contrary to your interpretation of the seemingly clear verse, would you not then revise your interpretation of the seemingly clear verse?

Being the word of God there can be no conflict in its writings...it is deemed perfect and thus has no flaws.  So one author cannot contradict another.  And when you build upon the simple foundation of Christ it is clear that no author conflicts.  Paul expresses the same as James, James the same as Peter, etc, etc.  And none conflict with Jesus.

Yes they don’t contradict each other but our understanding of one of them can contradict our understanding of another.  That is why we need a way to judge which of our understandings is correct.  This in now way reflects on the correctness of a verse but only on our fallible understanding of it.

And when you apply to the complex what it is you desire then you can run across conflictions with what is simply there.  

Yes and that conflict is what we use to determine what the proper interpretation of any verse is.  Once we have systematically interpreted all verses such that no conflict arises then we know we have properly interpreted all scripture.  If someone goes back and says wait a minute this seemingly clear verse seems to be interpreted all out of whack, we say too bad!

You have not shown me yet that when Jesus said we shall never thirst that he really did not mean "never" or that "never" does not mean never, that it means only until next time you are thirsty.  BY your implication that we can lose our salvation is in direct conflict with what Jesus had to say, and it is only through your "alluding" or implying that which you believe to the meaning of some verses do you even come close to trying to prove that point.  However when shown in the light of what Jesus had to say it is clear that what you try to "allude" to falls flat on its face.  If you know the answer already and the questions you ask do not quite get you to the correct answer then you must not be asking the right questions.  Jesus tells us that we shall never be lost from God, we are saved forever.  From that point on if an author appears to be in direct conflict with that then is it the writers fault?  Say it is not so, for this the perfect word of God and there is no fault.  So it must be in the readers fault, thus in the readers interpretation.  

You are merely putting more weight on your interpretation of one clear verse from Christ, than the weight you would give to your interpretations of more subtle implications of many verses by other authors inspired by the Holy Spirit.  It is a completely understandable position, however it is not proper or acceptable otherwise the whole of scripture could be a page long.

END OF PART 3