Question about salvation, repentance, obedience and works

[jlay]

The supposed conflict between Paul and James has been debated so much and to be honest, I don;t know why.
It is clear that Paul values good works the stem from God's Grace ( out of love) and it is clear that James understands that good works come from strong faith.
It should be noted that James also states WHICH works he believes has most value - taking care of widows and orphans and NOT speaking badly of anyone.

It seems to me that James is addressing those that CLAIM to have faith but show no evidence of it and He is right to question this because, if there is no evidence of the faith that ONE PROCLAIMS ( and the proclamation part is crucial), how can one believe what is proclaimed by that person?

Really? YOu don't know why? Well one says that we are justified by faith and not works, and sites Abraham. The other says we are not justified by faith alone, but by works, and sites......,Abraham.
I'm not saying there isn't a rational way to reconcile these things, but to say, "I don't know why?" as if it is some shocking conclusion is just not being honest with the text, IMO.

[PaulSacramento]

The supposed conflict between Paul and James has been debated so much and to be honest, I don;t know why.
It is clear that Paul values good works the stem from God's Grace ( out of love) and it is clear that James understands that good works come from strong faith.
It should be noted that James also states WHICH works he believes has most value - taking care of widows and orphans and NOT speaking badly of anyone.

It seems to me that James is addressing those that CLAIM to have faith but show no evidence of it and He is right to question this because, if there is no evidence of the faith that ONE PROCLAIMS ( and the proclamation part is crucial), how can one believe what is proclaimed by that person?

Really? YOu don't know why? Well one says that we are justified by faith and not works, and sites Abraham. The other says we are not justified by faith alone, but by works, and sites......,Abraham.
I'm not saying there isn't a rational way to reconcile these things, but to say, "I don't know why?" as if it is some shocking conclusion is just not being honest with the text, IMO.

I recall the first time I read James and the first impression I got was that James was making a comment on those the think that just because they proclaim to have faith that the don't have to do anything other than say they have faith.
Only after someone pointed out the controversy that SOME see did I become aware that it could be taken that way.

The fact that Abe is cited for BOTH cases must mean that they are NOT trying to cancel each other out, but complementing each other.
Long before Abe was justified but what he did, he was viewed righteous by God.
I think people are reading what they want as opposed to what James wrote.
That both Paul and Jame use Abe to cite examples of righteousness based on faith AND Good works PRODUCED BY faith, seems to me to make the whole argument a bit irrelevant.

[RickD]

Byblos, God has given us the Holy Spirit as a pledge, a guarantee that our salvation is paid in full! God guarantees it! That my friend is true, absolute assurance!

Actually, it isn't, Rick. Byblos is right, in my opinion.

Yes, the HS is a pledge and guarantee of our salvation. But if we can fall away and prove that we never had the HS even though we thought we did, then there is no way to know whether or not you have the HS or not. You can think you do, but you have to admit that if others were deceived about having the HS (which they later proved by falling away), then you, too, could be deceived.

The moment you say that you can prove you were never really saved even though you thought you were, you have denied absolute assurance. The best you can have is moral assurance.

I have absolute assurance, since I say that I can never prove I was never saved. It doesn't matter what I do in the future, I am saved, because even if I am faithless, Jesus is faithful to His promise to save me.

edit:

Just j's post. We need a 'like' button. In the meantime, this will have to suffice:

Jac, you lost me.

Scripture says if one places his faith in Christ he will have eternal life. John 3:16.
And since scripture is God's written word, and God doesn't lie, if I believe(trust) in Christ for my salvation, God gives me eternal life. My salvation is assured.
I really don't understand what you're disagreeing with. Anyone who trusts in Christ gets eternal life. Their salvation is assured.
Are you misreading something I'm saying?

[Jac3510]

Just bear with me and answer a few questions.

You say that if a person"really [doesn't] love God, and [doesn't] want to be with Him" then you see them as an "apostate . . .who was never saved."

So let's say Smith believes he trusts Christ to save Him. Let's say he starts out loving Christ and loving God, but through some tragedy (take your pick--imagine the scenario yourself), he grows to hate God. That hatred grows and eventually he turns against Him, becoming a raving atheist.

Now -- are you suggesting that it is possible that this man is an "apostate . . .who was never saved" to begin with?

[RickD]

jac wrote:
You say that if a person"really [doesn't] love God, and [doesn't] want to be with Him" then you see them as an "apostate . . .who was never saved."

No, I never said that.

So let's say Smith believes he trusts Christ to save Him. Let's say he starts out loving Christ and loving God, but through some tragedy (take your pick--imagine the scenario yourself), he grows to hate God. That hatred grows and eventually he turns against Him, becoming a raving atheist.

Now -- are you suggesting that it is possible that this man is an "apostate . . .who was never saved" to begin with?

If he ever actually trusted Christ, then no, I don't believe it would be possible for him to be an apostate. Seeing that I don't know if he actually trusted Christ, then if he never did, there would be a possibility. I wouldn't claim to call him an apostate, because I just don't know.

If he trusted Christ, then God would know, then he would have assurance. The problem is that I don't know if he ever trusted Christ.

[PaulSacramento]

We are humans, that we can fall away is natural.
So much can happen to us that can turn us against Christ, did not Peter deny Christ?
Did not Thomas need to actually see and touch Christ?
We are flawed and fallen and it is so easy to lose our faith BUT we are blessed because Christ, who became fully human, knows that better than anyone else and He is our mediator and in Him we must trust to see our true selves, even when its hard for US to see it.

[Jac3510]

jac wrote:
You say that if a person"really [doesn't] love God, and [doesn't] want to be with Him" then you see them as an "apostate . . .who was never saved."

No, I never said that.

Uhm . . . yes you did. Here's your exact quote:

That's kinda part of the reason why I believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with. I just don't claim to know if such a person never really believed in Christ, or if that person is a believer, has fallen away, and God will draw him back.

And I see an apostate as one who was never saved, whereas Jac says apostates are saved.

How can you say you didn't say what you just said???

If he ever actually trusted Christ, then no, I don't believe it would be possible for him to be an apostate. Seeing that I don't know if he actually trusted Christ, then if he never did, there would be a possibility. I wouldn't claim to call him an apostate, because I just don't know.

If he trusted Christ, then God would know, then he would have assurance. The problem is that I don't know if he ever trusted Christ.

You're jumping WAY ahead of me. I'm trying to show you the flaw I see in your logic. Forget whether someone ACTUALLY trust Christ or not. Just bear with me, Rick.

According to YOUR words, it is possible for someone to prove they "really never were saved to begin with," right? Do you agree that you said that? Did you mean that? Do you think that it is possible for a person hate God and thereby prove they were never really saved to begin with?

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
jac wrote:
You say that if a person"really [doesn't] love God, and [doesn't] want to be with Him" then you see them as an "apostate . . .who was never saved."

No, I never said that.


Uhm . . . yes you did. Here's your exact quote:

You wrote:
That's kinda part of the reason why I believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with. I just don't claim to know if such a person never really believed in Christ, or if that person is a believer, has fallen away, and God will draw him back.

And I see an apostate as one who was never saved, whereas Jac says apostates are saved.

How can you say you didn't say what you just said???

Jac, you took the first part of my quote and thought I was saying it referred to apostates. It didn't. The second part was referring to apostates.

I don't consider all people who don't love God, and I don't consider all people who don't want to be with Him as apostates. You conflated the first part of my quote with the second.

According to YOUR words, it is possible for someone to prove they "really never were saved to begin with," right? Do you agree that you said that? Did you mean that? Do you think that it is possible for a person hate God and thereby prove they were never really saved to begin with?

I didn't say that, or I didn't mean that. Whichever you prefer. And no, I don't think one can prove one was never saved by one's hating God.

[Jac3510]

Then you tell me, in what sense do "[you] believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with"?

[RickD]

Then you tell me, in what sense do "[you] believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with"?

Jac, my reply was to what Kureiuo said here:

Kureiuo wrote:
I haven't even gotten into whether it is really an act of mercy for God to force someone who doesn't want to be with Him to do so...

Look at the context of what I was saying to Kureiuo. Does that help?

[Jac3510]

With respect, Rick, that doesn't help. Whether or not it is an act of mercy for God to force someone to be with Him who doesn't want Him to, you still said that you "believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with."

So, I'll ask again -- under what conditions can we look at a person and say they "really never were saved to begin with"?

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
With respect, Rick, that doesn't help. Whether or not it is an act of mercy for God to force someone to be with Him who doesn't want Him to, you still said that you "believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with."

I said, " That's kinda part of the reason why I believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with. I just don't claim to know if such a person never really believed in Christ, or if that person is a believer, has fallen away, and God will draw him back."
Take the second part with the first part.
In other words, I'm inclined to believe, but I'm just not sure if such a person never really believed, or if that person is a believer who has just fallen away(but is still a believer).

So, I'll ask again -- under what conditions can we look at a person and say they "really never were saved to begin with"?

As I said, I just don't know, nor should I claim to know if a specific person is saved or not. That's between him and God.

[Jac3510]

Fair enough. And apostates?

[RickD]

Fair enough. And apostates?

Judas Iscariot is a perfect example of an apostate.

As far as being able to tell who's an apostate? I have no way of knowing. I guess it'll all be sorted out in the afterlife.

[Jac3510]

I'm not asking about whether specific persons are apostates. Can you define exactly what an apostate is insofar as you use the term?