Sola Fide and James 2

[IggyAntiochus]

Ah, isn’t this one of, if not the main heresy that Paul dealt with? As you know, there were many Judaizers in the early days of Christianity who claimed that the Gentiles must follow the strictures of the Mosaic Law. Doesn’t it make sense that Paul is correcting that notion here? This appears to me to be an issue that is intimately related to the issue discussed in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, in which Paul and Barnabas brought to Peter and the other elders the issue of whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised. As you note, Gentiles were never, and will never be under the Mosaic Law. It is for this reason that Paul clarifies that works of the Law cannot justify us.

One other point to address on this. There is no evidence that Paul’s letter to the Romans is confronting the Judaizing party. Paul is definitely addressing Jewish-Gentile Christian relations but he is doing so in order to clarify how both Jews and Gentiles fit into redemptive history. The church in Rome was predominately Gentile, especially after the emperor expelled Jews from the city around A.D. 49. In the church of Galatia, it was dominated by the Judaizing party, who were teaching their false doctrine to Gentiles there. This did not happen in Rome. What mostly occurred was that as Jews filtered back into the city, some tensions did develop, but there are none of the rebukes and condemnations in Romans as there are in Galatians.

 

[onemangang]

Glad to hear!

I would disagree. It doesn’t fit the Catholic argument because the Catholic argument is this:

"When Paul uses the term works of the law, in Romans, he is meaning the works of the Mosaic Law. The rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Law do not justify us, but the works of love do. So he is saying that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law."

No, that is a misrepresentation of what Catholic doctrine is. It is not just the Mosaic Law when referring to works of the law, although that is true, but incomplete. It means ALL works. It means that man cannot demand payment due for work performed, that is known as STRICT MERIT. Paul is saying that no matter what work you perform, you cannot be justified apart from grace! If God was to judge you by strict merit, you would all go to hell, but since God is a loving Father, He judges you through the eyes of MERCY! God also tells us what He wants to see in a Child of God. As we actively participate in the unfolding of divine love through the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ. We have entered into a Divine family a Covenant through our baptism, not some Legal Contract.

A quick example being Colossians 3:1[Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. **7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived.**8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

15 **Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
**

Since God tells us what is ACCEPTABLE in the EYE"S OF HIS MERCY, when we DO these things we are being justified not by faith alone but by works. Works that are viewed through the eyes of Mercy, that are graced as a gift out of divine love!

I can’t recommend this book enough Not by Faith Alone by Robert Sungenis! It illustrates the Catholic view of Justification and points out the errors made by Luther, Calvin, Hodge, Norman Giesler, James White, R.C.Sproul and a host of others. **

 

[onemangang]

Glad to hear!

Let me reiterate the problem. The reason that Paul is not speaking exclusively of the works of the Mosaic Law is because the Gentiles are condemned by the law and cannot be justified by them, but the Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law, so what law is Paul talking about?

Paul is talking about the law written on the human heart. Therefore, no law can justify man because man is unable to keep any law, whether of conscience or the Mosaic Law. So Paul’s term “works of the law” must include both works performed by Jews and by Gentiles. This would exclude the Mosaic Law because no Gentile was ever subject to it. Therefore, any law is insufficient for man to be justified by. So when Paul says works of the law, he means any work.

Absolutely agree with the last part of this!
ALL WORK! No Work can justify a man before God ONLY DIVINE MERCY!

Lets look again at James 2 and how if we try to justify ourselves by strict merit, we fall short, but if we rely on GOD"S MERCY we are Justified by Works through the EYE"S OF MERCY OF A LOVING FATHER since entering the covenant of GRACE THROUGH OUR BAPTISM.

** For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy.** And mercy exalteth itself above judgment.

[14] **What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? **[15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

[16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

[26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

Paul and James are saying the same thing! You try to demand payment for work done, you are judged apart from mercy and guilty under the law! It is grace and mercy that you are judged by, as a child of a loving Father, not some JUDGE. If you try to demand payment for works done by strict merit, well your works are but filthy rags (menstrual cloths) This UNVEILING to the Jews, which was hidden, is our Lord Jesus Christ, from which all meritorious grace proceeds!

The Works that James talks about are works viewed through the eyes of Mercy from our loving Father, they are graced works, not payment due!

 

[exnihilo]

Your understanding of justification sounds pretty Catholic. I mean that as a compliment, of course Do you believe that justification is a “once for all” event, or a process?

That is certainly not an insult. There are and always have been great Catholic theologians. I think it is more of a process. Baptism is a justification event but I think people can lose their justification through sin. I do not believe ‘once saved always saved’.

I definitely agree with you that the short formulations of justification (faith alone or faith and works) are wholly inadequate to explain the topic. As you may know, many Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share the perspective that, because God is incomprehensible, it’s not overly helpful to go into great detail in trying to understand his motives and methods.

Thomistic Philosophy is great and really helps to clarify thinking. I truly love it. But I do have an appreciation for the Eastern ways. It seems in the West our insistence on properly explaining God has often been the cause division. Hopefully those at odds will truly work for unity out of charity. So often people approach this with a desire to first and foremost be right out of their own pride. I find that very often if we talk in a spirit of charity we find out we have many things we agree on. I dont mean to say that fighting for the True Faith is not something we should do. I do believe there is such a thing as the True Faith and that it should be fought for, but out of charity not pride.

Based on how minor the distinctions are between the doctrines of justification that the Protestants and Catholics of this thread espouse, do you believe that Martin Luther’s reformulation of the doctrine of justification was warranted? Or do you believe that it was a reaction to the corruption and poorly lived-out faith of many Catholics of the day? (I’m not sure it’s clear, but I’m trying to ask those two questions in light of the discussion of how formulations of doctrines can’t fully explain the mystery of God.)

I’m not enough of a historian on the subject to really have an opinion. The church of that day, like any church (or ecclesiastic community) today, certainly had corruption. There were many priests who were teaching error, but there are many priests and pastors teaching error today. I lean towards believing that Martin Luther’s spirit of change (even if that change was just clarification and better discipline) was a good and needed thing in the church of that time, at least in the beginning. The end result was not necessarily good as it led to division, and from that more division, of the church. To answer this within the context of the wisdom of explaining the mysteries of God I’d say I’m not sure. If some in the church were teaching error and implementing bad practice this needed to be fixed. But what ended up happening was not all good.

 

[Lisa44]

I’m sure this is one of those prompts that comes up all the time, so I hope it does not frustrate anyone. I’m simply looking for a straight answer to a question I’ve wondered about for some time. I have asked many Protestants how James 2:14-26 (and especially James 2:24) can possibly coexist with the Protestant notion of Justification by Faith Alone, and I have never received an answer that honestly deals with James 2:24. I’ve even listened to multiple debates by prominent Protestant apologists on the issue of Justification, and none of them have had answers that even come close to sufficing on this topic in my opinion. It seems to me that, when preparing for a debate on Justification, James 2 would be pretty central for both sides to understand (and of course Romans as well). Why then do Protestant apologists seem to beat around the bush with this if it’s obvious that it will come up? I mean no disrespect, I’m just trying to figure out how “justification by faith alone” (sola fide) can possibly coexist with “not justified by faith alone” (James 2:24).
…

Hi Chris,
Romans 2 says a man can’t have a body without a spirit. And so we can’t have faith without works. They go together as one.

But, the problem is ‘people’ have their own definitions of “work” and then they compound believers with their own personal definitions of what “work” they personally require as evidence that a person is saved. For example, a Catholic Priest would require a Catholic to go to confession if they missed Mass otherwise they cannot be saved without this particular “work”. A Baptist would say that x person is an alcoholic and that they cannot be saved unless they do the “work” of abstaining from alcohol.

So it becomes rather dizzying much like it must have been dizzying to be a Jew in the time of Jesus - wash my hands, oh no! didn’t wash my hands then ate food! Touched a menstruating woman…then became dirty…oh no!..

It all gets very dizzying.

So these cannot possibly the “works” that Paul is talking about. A legalistic framework of behaviors that no one can ever perfectly fulfil!

Obviously, this is not the “work” he is referencing.

 

[ChrisB103]

Hi Chris,
Romans 2 says a man can’t have a body without a spirit. And so we can’t have faith without works. They go together as one.

But, the problem is ‘people’ have their own definitions of “work” and then they compound believers with their own personal definitions of what “work” they personally require as evidence that a person is saved. For example, a Catholic Priest would require a Catholic to go to confession if they missed Mass otherwise they cannot be saved without this particular “work”. A Baptist would say that x person is an alcoholic and that they cannot be saved unless they do the “work” of abstaining from alcohol.

So it becomes rather dizzying much like it must have been dizzying to be a Jew in the time of Jesus - wash my hands, oh no! didn’t wash my hands then ate food! Touched a menstruating woman…then became dirty…oh no!..

It all gets very dizzying.

So these cannot possibly the “works” that Paul is talking about. A legalistic framework of behaviors that no one can ever perfectly fulfil!

Obviously, this is not the “work” he is referencing.

Ok, so then what “work” is James referencing?

 

[onemangang]

Thomistic Philosophy is great and really helps to clarify thinking. I truly love it. But I do have an appreciation for the Eastern ways. It seems in the West our insistence on properly explaining God has often been the cause division. Hopefully those at odds will truly work for unity out of charity. So often people approach this with a desire to first and foremost be right out of their own pride. I find that very often if we talk in a spirit of charity we find out we have many things we agree on. I dont mean to say that fighting for the True Faith is not something we should do. I do believe there is such a thing as the True Faith and that it should be fought for, but out of charity not pride.

I love the East as well, I think somethings like God’s mysteries are better left alone. Unfortunately that is not the reality of the situation. The scholasticism in the west was birthed out of defense. There was always those from outside the Church, or inside saying “This is what the bible says” Rome was forced to defend Christ, and did so by entering into the discussion on the level and terms of the opposing voices! Hence some of the more scholastic approach.

I’m not enough of a historian on the subject to really have an opinion. The church of that day, like any church (or ecclesiastic community) today, certainly had corruption. There were many priests who were teaching error, but there are many priests and pastors teaching error today. I lean towards believing that Martin Luther’s spirit of change (even if that change was just clarification and better discipline) was a good and needed thing in the church of that time, at least in the beginning. The end result was not necessarily good as it led to division, and from that more division, of the church. To answer this within the context of the wisdom of explaining the mysteries of God I’d say I’m not sure. If some in the church were teaching error and implementing bad practice this needed to be fixed. But what ended up happening was not all good.

I agree with Luther that the Church needed to stop abuses and needed reform, but it should have come from the inside, and remained internal. I totally would disagree the split was good!

 

[JonNC]

=ChrisB103;8880367]Well, then we’ll all have to continue the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity a bit longer that the Church observes from January 18th-25th each year Hopefully this millennium will be one of Christian reunification, as I’ve heard before.

And hopefully sooner rather than later.

So would you say that you understand justification to be a process?

Not really. The process is more in terms of sanctification.

I very much agree that saying we are justified by faith and works isn’t a properly nuanced description. As you do, I prefer stating that we are justified by faith working through love.

And I believe that this is the area of growing convergence between us, that we both say we are justified by faith working through love.

Jon

 

[Lisa44]

Ok, so then what “work” is James referencing?

In James 2 the work he references is not to show favoritism to rich people, and to give to those who have physical needs.

 

[ChrisB103]

In James 2 the work he references is not to show favoritism to rich people, and to give to those who have physical needs.

So with this definition of work in mind, how would you describe what James 2 means? Please make the focus of your response on James 2:21-26, as I’m sure we largely agree on the rest of the chapter. Thanks in advance!

 

[ChrisB103]

Because of the overall message of the New Testament as it relates to the idea of salvation. If you were just to reconcile Paul’s statement in Romans that man is saved by God, apart from any merits or worthiness in him, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and were to somehow fit a reading of James that believes James is saying we are justified by faith and works, you would still have the rest of the NT statements on salvation to contend with. If there is any message that rings truest about the message of the Scriptures, it is that man is helpless to save himself because of his slavery to sin, and that man needs a divine rescuer who is able to save apart from anything within man (for there is nothing within man that would make him saveable).

I’ve never seen any single passage in Romans, nor any group of passages that support faith alone. I think the fact that Luther added “alone” after “faith” in Romans 3:28 supports the idea that even Luther, who brought the doctrine of Sola Fide into the world, thought the idea either needed to be clarified significantly or outright added into Scripture.

I do hope that the part of your comment that I italicized is not meant to contradict your understanding of the Catholic position on justification. If so, then you’re dealing with a bad straw man. Catholics agree that there is nothing we can do by ourselves that can restore mankind into a relationship with God. This is why Jesus was made incarnate and died on the cross - to restore our relationship with God. It is only God’s grace from the cross that brings us back into relationship with God. Period. Indeed, if your italicized quote was the Catholic position, then it would be demonstrably against the Scriptures. I’ll paraphrase the least beneficial post in this thread: it is not, and it is not.

The purpose of my prompt was to see how you would interpret James’s epistle if it were in isolation from the rest of the Bible. Of course, I understand that James is not in isolation, I’m just trying to figure out if our difference of opinion exists inside and outside of James or just outside of James.

Except that there is nothing within the Genesis account of the sacrifice of Isaac, or James’ discussion of that account, that would lead to drawing from the text that Abraham’s actions assisted in his progressive justification. I believe that would be a definite case of eisegesis, reading a Roman Catholic teaching of initial and progressive justification into a text where it doesn’t exist.

I disagree strongly here. I think that the text itself implies progressive justification, and that sanctification and justification are an intertwined process. The fact that Abraham’s faith in God had begun quite a while before his willingness to sacrifice Isaac demonstrates that he was already justified, yet we are told that Abraham was justified by his sacrifice of Isaac in James 2. So, we have a man who was already just in God’s eyes who demonstrated his faith in God by his willingness to sacrifice his own son. We are told that Abraham was justified by this work, even though he was already justified.

I’m surprised you would go so far as to call this eisegesis. Not only do I feel that our differences in interpretation here stem from the possible semantic range of “justify”, but I still honestly think that the Catholic interpretation continues to fit the text better.

Why is it that you believe that justification is a “once and for all” event?

Let’s consider Romans 6:7. All standard English translations render this verse as some variation on the statement “He who has died has been freed from sin.” The topic here is one of sanctification, the making holy of the believer, or the freeing of him from sin.

What is significant about 6:7 is that when it says the one who has died has been freed from sin, the word for “freed” is actually the Greek word for “justified.” What it literally said was “he who has died has been justified from sin,” yet the context is so obviously sanctificational that all standard English translations of the Bible rendered “justified from sin” as “freed from sin.” This shows that there is not a rigid wall between justification and sanctification in the apostle Paul’s mind. The semantic ranges of the two terms overlap. This also makes perfect sense out of James’s epistle and removes the supposed need to read “justified by works” as “shown just by works”.

Works do increase our faith, as well as our growth in holiness. We receive a boundless supply of grace from God in order to live holy lives in submission to Christ; but all of those gifts of grace that God gives for our sanctification must be predicated upon a relationship to God that involves union with His Son. That is, they must be innocent in the eyes of God, otherwise there is no relationship to be had, other than judgment.

I agree.

You see, the issue cuts to the heart of the character of God, as well as His justice. God’s mercy does not trump His justice. He cannot have a relationship with an individual that is continually in and out of judgment with Him. This is not true peace. It’s merely a temporary armistice until the man’s sins again throw up a wall of hostility between him and God. The only true peace that man can have with God is that forged in the sacrificial death of His Son, wherein all of the sins of the offender have been paid for and complete reconciliation occurs. There is total and irrevocable peace. This is true shalom, as described in Romans 8. We receive a righteousness that can neither be improved upon nor diminished; that of God Himself.

Are you saying here that you believe in OSAS? I know from my Baptist friends that this is a pretty standard Baptist belief, but for some reason I didn’t peg you as a OSASer.

 

[ChrisB103]

Let me reiterate the problem. The reason that Paul is not speaking exclusively of the works of the Mosaic Law is because the Gentiles are condemned by the law and cannot be justified by them, but the Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law, so what law is Paul talking about?

Paul is talking about the law written on the human heart. Therefore, no law can justify man because man is unable to keep any law, whether of conscience or the Mosaic Law. So Paul’s term “works of the law” must include both works performed by Jews and by Gentiles. This would exclude the Mosaic Law because no Gentile was ever subject to it. Therefore, any law is insufficient for man to be justified by. So when Paul says works of the law, he means any work.

Of course the Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law. My point is that the Judaizers claimed to the Gentiles that the Gentiles were indeed under the Law. For this reason, Paul clarifies that the Mosaic Law cannot save, whether this is to prevent the Romans from being convinced of the Judaizer heresy in advance or to correct any Judaizer adherents. My guess is the former, because it is more consistent with the evidence, as you point out later.

My hesitance with accepting your interpretation of what Paul means by “works” is that they are often spoken of in close proximity to discussions about circumcision in James, leading me to believe that he is speaking specifically of the works of the Mosaic Law. Also, we both agree that Paul is condemning the Galatians for succumbing to the beliefs of the Judaizers, and Paul uses the same terminology of “works of Law” with them to refer to the works of the Mosaic Law that the Judaizers tell them they must follow. Why must we understand “works of the Law” differently in Galatians than in Romans?

One other point to address on this. There is no evidence that Paul’s letter to the Romans is confronting the Judaizing party. Paul is definitely addressing Jewish-Gentile Christian relations but he is doing so in order to clarify how both Jews and Gentiles fit into redemptive history. The church in Rome was predominately Gentile, especially after the emperor expelled Jews from the city around A.D. 49. In the church of Galatia, it was dominated by the Judaizing party, who were teaching their false doctrine to Gentiles there. This did not happen in Rome. What mostly occurred was that as Jews filtered back into the city, some tensions did develop, but there are none of the rebukes and condemnations in Romans as there are in Galatians.

I agree that the evidence does not support there being any significant number of Judaizers or significant tension from their doctrine in Rome. However, based on the knowledge that Galatians was written before Romans, I think it is quite possible that Paul is laying down the groundwork for the Romans so that they won’t succumb to the Judaizers like many in Galatia did, especially based on how significant of a problem it was in Galatia. If Paul didn’t warn his disciples of heretical beliefs, what kind of spiritual father would he be?

Ultimately, I think one of the largest problems for Sola Fide adherents is its late emergence onto the Christian scene. How do you cope with the fact that Sola Fide wasn’t held by any number of authentic Christians until the 16th century?

I’m thoroughly enjoying our discussion, and I hope you are as well. I’m learning a lot, and perhaps most importantly I’m gaining respect for Sola Fide adherents now that I see there are possible ways to understand James in light of Sola Fide.

 

[Lisa44]

So with this definition of work in mind, how would you describe what James 2 means? Please make the focus of your response on James 2:21-26, as I’m sure we largely agree on the rest of the chapter. Thanks in advance!

I think, he is saying if you love Jesus you would do as he did, being kind to the poor. This seems to be the work he is talking about. Not an arbritrary rule about doing x to get saved.
Also, it’s not saying that Abraham and Rahab were not saved by their belief before they did x act. Both Abraham and Rahab were law breakers. She was a prostitute and he was going to murder his son. So they are not able to be saved by the law.

I listened to the debate you provided. Thanks, the joke about the Pope was really funny. However, I disagree with Hahn that salvation is not a one time event. If it is not a one time event then when does it happen? Who knows? Who knows if they are saved or not? All you are left with is doubt in that situation, as Bowman pointed out. Although I think I disagree with Bowman also, who said that you need an addition of works. I’m really not sure what he was talking about.

If we go back to James 2, what is he saying to the hypothetical Christian who shows favoritism to rich people in the community, is he saying that they are not Christian, and that they don’t love Jesus? No, but he is saying that their love for Jesus is not perfected. And he points out that the love is not perfected through devotion to the law.

 

[Lisa44]

Now, I think I know what the “work” is, and it has to do with growing closer to Jesus, that is the work. It is not that we are not saved by our belief in him initially, but that the work we have to do is grow in our love and knowledge of Christ.

This is the only “work” I can think of and our salvation is not predicated on the progress of that work per say, but by our believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

For comparison, a graduate from medical school who starts work in a hospital is a doctor. Just because he hasn’t perfected his practice doesn’t make him less of a doctor. So too a believer in Christ doesn’t cease to be saved by Christ because his work in Christ is not perfected.

 

[Pitcharan]

…

Ultimately, I think one of the largest problems for Sola Fide adherents is its late emergence onto the Christian scene. How do you cope with the fact that Sola Fide wasn’t held by any number of authentic Christians until the 16th century?

I’m thoroughly enjoying our discussion, and I hope you are as well. I’m learning a lot, and perhaps most importantly I’m gaining respect for Sola Fide adherents now that I see there are possible ways to understand James in light of Sola Fide.

Faith and Good works are inseparable and interlinked. How do you accept the phrase “faith alone” when faith can never be alone. Recall what our Lord taught: “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.” (John 14:12)

Coming to Romans 3: 28, Paul is only echoing our Lord’s teaching that justification is not achieved by ‘observing the Law’ but by ‘fulfilling the Law’. He uses the term ‘works’ to mean ‘observing the Law’.

When the Law was revealed through Moses the means to fulfill the Law was also revealed together with it. The stiff-necked Israelites neglected the means and foolishly believed in mere observance of the Law.

Our Lord exposed them and emphasised the means for fulfilling the Law, viz. "Love of God and neighbor’

 

[Pitcharan]

… I disagree with Hahn that salvation is not a one time event. If it is not a one time event then when does it happen? Who knows? Who knows if they are saved or not? All you are left with is doubt in that situation, as Bowman pointed out. Although I think I disagree with Bowman also, who said that you need an addition of works. I’m really not sure what he was talking about…

Salvation is merely offered and not doled out like a gift. Salvation is not an event but a process that is completed on the day of last judgment. Recall what our Lord taught: All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved (Mk 13:13)

If you want to know how one loses the offer of salvation, consider this:

Matthew 22

*The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen*.”

Is it not clear from the above parable that the offer of salvation which was made firstly to Israel is now made to all mankind; but the ones who prove unworthy by their own attitude and conduct are bound to lose it?

 

[Lisa44]

Salvation is merely offered and not doled out like a gift. Salvation is not an event but a process that is completed on the day of last judgment. Recall what our Lord taught: All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved (Mk 13:13)

If you want to know how one loses the offer of salvation, consider this:

Matthew 22

*The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen*.”

Is it not clear from the above parable that the offer of salvation which was made firstly to Israel is now made to all mankind; but the ones who prove unworthy by their own attitude and conduct are bound to lose it?

So you are saying that we are saved by our attitude and conduct? What attitude and conduct are we supposed to have that is demonstrated in Matthew 22?

 

[Pitcharan]

So you are saying that we are saved by our attitude and conduct?

Not me, you are saying that.

This is what I am saying: one can lose the offer of salvation by behaving in an unworthy manner.

What attitude and conduct are we supposed to have that is demonstrated in Matthew 22?

Subjects are supposed to show reverence and respect to the King NOT to insult the King

 

[Lisa44]

Not me, you are saying that.

This is what I am saying: one can lose the offer of salvation by behaving in an unworthy manner.

Subjects are supposed to show reverence and respect to the King NOT to insult the King

I did not say a person is saved by their attitude and conduct. You must have misunderstood me.

What do you think is meant by “works” in James chapter two?

 

[ChrisB103]

I think, he is saying if you love Jesus you would do as he did, being kind to the poor. This seems to be the work he is talking about. Not an arbritrary rule about doing x to get saved.
Also, it’s not saying that Abraham and Rahab were not saved by their belief before they did x act. Both Abraham and Rahab were law breakers. She was a prostitute and he was going to murder his son. So they are not able to be saved by the law.

I listened to the debate you provided. Thanks, the joke about the Pope was really funny. However, I disagree with Hahn that salvation is not a one time event. If it is not a one time event then when does it happen? Who knows? Who knows if they are saved or not? All you are left with is doubt in that situation, as Bowman pointed out. Although I think I disagree with Bowman also, who said that you need an addition of works. I’m really not sure what he was talking about.

If we go back to James 2, what is he saying to the hypothetical Christian who shows favoritism to rich people in the community, is he saying that they are not Christian, and that they don’t love Jesus? No, but he is saying that their love for Jesus is not perfected. And he points out that the love is not perfected through devotion to the law.

I wouldn’t claim either that you have to do x to get saved, and that this can be done without faith in Christ. That’s not the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that we must come to faith in Christ, be baptized, and we must demonstrate our faith. To Catholics, “saving” faith and works are inseparable, and together they justify us by God’s grace. Anything we do that is a manifestation of our faith in God is a good work, because it stems from our faith.

Now I would like to respond to the portion of your comment that I bolded. To me, this argument has always seemed like one of enjoying being comfortable in your position without any reference to Scripture. Please provide proof otherwise if you see it differently. I would look to things that Paul said to support my view such as the following:
“So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling” Philippians 2:12
“For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.” 1 Cor 4:4
To me, it seems clear that Paul believed that he (at least in most of his life) believed that he could not have eternal assurance. I agree that as Paul grew more and more in his faith he became more confident in his position with the Lord. However, this is not the position that any OSASers have espoused from what I’ve seen.

Thanks for participating in the thread, by the way!