Is it faith, works, or both?

[Albion]

Everyone indeed claims to believe James 2, but in reality their actions and teachings don't agree with James 2.
James 2 talks of a trusting faithfulness.
Not simply belief.

Agreed. There is no problem there, nor did I mean to suggest one.

Many believe that---simply believing for instance that Messiah died on the cross, or even simply believing in that Messiah exists is enough.

If so, they have the backing of almost no church. We can't prevent every odd perception held by someone somewhere.

But it's not enough to just claim Messiah as your Savior.
He must also be your Lord.
Once we believe, we are to walk in the same manner He walked, obeying His Instructions and walking in His ways.

Agreed.

This is why Matthew 7:21 tells us, it's not about those who say Lord, Lord, or those who simply believe that will enter into the Kingdom, rather those who DO the will of the Father in Heaven.
The doing is a manifestation of our faith.
Without it, without that obedience---our faith is dead faith.

Correct. But the real issue remains unsettled by all of that. I refer to Salvation by Faith vs. Works Righteousness.

 

[tzadik]

Agreed. There is no problem there, nor did I mean to suggest one.



If so, they have the backing of almost no church. We can't prevent every odd perception held by someone somewhere.



Agreed.



Correct. But the real issue remains unsettled by all of that. I refer to Salvation by Faith vs. Works Righteousness.

ah.

Ok I think I understand your question now.
Well for starters do you believe that you are saved now?
And if so, saved from what?

Or...do you believe that you WILL be saved?

 

[ananda]

Faith without works = DEAD faith. John 3:36 backs this up. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον - Jn 3:16

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν - Jn 3:36
​

Biblical greek was not as completely understood in the past (e.g. Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV era) as much as it has been in the recent past. πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν,as found in Jn 3:16, is commonly translated "believes in Him," and down through the centuries, this singular interpretation has taken hold due to familiarity and tradition. Modern translators find it extremely difficult to break from tradition as well and they continue to provide this familiar translation, especially when it comes down to pivotal verses such as John 3:16. Why? In fear of condemnation of overturning centuries of church tradition and doctrine (translation sales are also not far from sight too, I'm sure).

TDNT, Liddell's, etc. today now admit that πιστεύω (pisteuo) includes the meanings "obey," "obedience," "comply," and "trust". The word εἰς (eis), as those dictionaries and lexicons agree, is more properly translated "for" or "unto". The only time eis has the meaning "in" is when the verb it modifies is a verb of motion - pisteuo is not. On the other hand, the presence of "eis" also modifies the verb it is attached to - in this case, it precludes the possibility that "pisteuo" simply means "believe"!

Secondly, πιστεύων, in both verses, is in the Greek present participle active, which implies something which is continuous and persistent. Salvation is not based on a one time belief, according to these verses!

In essence and conclusion, the meaning of John 3:16 is more precisely:

"For Elohim so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who keeps on trusting and obeying for Him may not perish, but may have eternal life."
​

John 3:36 has the same Greek grammar. It translates, according to the same rules, more precisely:

"He who keeps on trusting and obeying for the Son keeps on having eternal life, but he who keeps on disobeying [note: apeitho only has one meaning: disobey!] the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God keeps on abiding on him. ..."​

 

[tzadik]

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον - Jn 3:16

Biblical greek was not as completely understood in the past (e.g. Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV era) as much as it has been in the recent past. πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν is commonly translated "believes in Him," and down through the centuries, this singular interpretation has taken hold due to familiarity and tradition. Modern translators find it extremely difficult to break from tradition as well and they continue to provide this familiar translation, especially when it comes down to pivotal verses such as John 3:16. Why? In fear of condemnation of overturning centuries of church tradition and doctrine (translation sales are also not far from sight too, I'm sure).

TDNT, Liddell's, etc. today now admit that πιστεύω (pisteuo) includes the meanings "obey," "obedience," "comply," and "trust". The word εἰς (eis), as those dictionaries and lexicons agree, is more properly translated "for" or "unto". The only time eis has the meaning "in" is when the verb it modifies is a verb of motion - pisteuo is not. On the other hand, the presence of "eis" also modifies the verb it is attached to - in this case, it precludes the possibility that "pisteuo" simply means "believe"!

Secondly, the πιστεύων is in the Greek present participle active, which implies something which is continuous and persistent.

In essence and conclusion, the meaning of John 3:16 is more precisely:

"For Elohim so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who keeps on trusting and obeying Him may not perish, but may have eternal life."

John 3:36 has the same Greek grammar. It translates, according to the same rules, more precisely: "He who keeps on trusting and obeying the Son has eternal life ..."

Good stuff!
This goes directly with the Scriptures that tell us to persevere till the end.
Not believe once and live like you want to.
Rather believe, and continue walking in the ways of God!

Revelation 14:12

 

[ananda]

This goes directly with the Scriptures that tell us to persevere till the end. Not believe once and live like you want to. Rather believe, and continue walking in the ways of God! Revelation 14:12

Amein, brother.

 

[Albion]

ah.

Ok I think I understand your question now.
Well for starters do you believe that you are saved now?

Yes.

And if so, saved from what?

The consequences of sin--eternal death or separation from God.

 

[Albion]

This goes directly with the Scriptures that tell us to persevere till the end.
Not believe once and live like you want to.

I just hate it when others say this, but that is a real strawman argument. Who is saying that you can believe once and live like you want to? That's not the alternative to works righteousness.

 

[tzadik]

I just hate it when others say this, but that is a real strawman argument. Who is saying that you can believe once and live like you want to? That's not the alternative to works righteousness.

Excuse me...I'll rephrase...

Believe once and do not live according to the will of the Father in heaven...

 

[John 07]

TDNT, Liddell's, etc. today now admit that πιστεύω (pisteuo) includes the meanings "obey," "obedience," "comply," and "trust". The word εἰς (eis), as those dictionaries and lexicons agree, is more properly translated "for" or "unto".

and there are other lexicons that don't mention 'obey' 'obedience' 'comply' at all: Friberg, Gingrich and most notably these glosses are missing from BDAG 2003

The only time eis has the meaning "in" is when the verb it modifies is a verb of motion - pisteuo is not.

what?
the basic static use of eivj is 'in'.

see eivj in Robertson p.591-593
1. Original static use (591)

"In itself eivj expresses the same dimension relation as evn, viz. in.150 It does not of itself mean into, unto, or to. That is the resultant idea of the accusative case with verbs of motion."
​

example,
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in (eivj + the accusative) the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (Joh 1:18 NAU)

 

[Albion]

Excuse me...I'll rephrase...

Believe once and do not live according to the will of the Father in heaven...

Sorry to snap at you if that's how it seemed. However, I so often read one version or another of this favorite rejection of Sola Fide ("Say you believe and then you can do whatever you want") that I had to make mention of the fact that it's not what Sola Fide means. I don't know that "Believe once and do not live according to the will of the Father in heaven..." is a complete solution because, for one thing, we all fall short of the glory of God on a daily basis, but at least you didn't suggest that the believer thinks he has a free pass to commit whatever sins appeal to him. Obviously, I'd say, if one is saved because he's accepted the Lord, he's not going to want to live like a Heathen.

 

[ananda]

and there are other lexicons that don't mention 'obey' 'obedience' 'comply' at all: Friberg, Gingrich and most notably these glosses are missing from BDAG 2003

I personally believe the TDNT and Liddell/Scott are both significantly more comprehensive and authoritative. Even if your preferred references do not mention "obey," etc., we still have to acknowledge that the quoted references I provided do

what?
the basic static use of eivj is 'in'.

"In itself eivj expresses the same dimension relation as evn, viz. in. ... with verbs of motion."​

Liddell/Scott states that eis modifying verbs of motion (as your reference also indicates, which I've highlighted in bold!) can mean "into". Eis in Jn 3:16 is modifying πιστεύων - this is not a verb of motion. Therefore, it can only mean "for" (or "unto"). En would be the proper word translated "in", but en is not used in this verse.

 

[John 07]

just to nit-pick...a little

Liddell/Scott states that eis modifying verbs of motion (as your reference also indicates, which I've highlighted in bold!) can mean "into".

comprende

Eis in Jn 3:16 is modifying πιστεύων - this is not a verb of motion. Therefore, it can only mean "for" (or "unto").

but eis with static verbs means/translates 'in'

for static-verb eis (after eg pisteuwn):
"In itself eivj expresses the same dimension relation as evn, viz. in."


here, just a copy and paste from AT Robertson's Grammar of the GNT.
its pretty interesting: 591-592

"Eivj. There is nothing to add to the etymology of eivj as compared with that of evn save that eivj is known to be really evnÄj as we find it in the inscriptions of Argos, Crete, etc. So evnj VAqanai,an.145 This j seems to have been added to evn by analogy to e`x.146 Usually with the disappearance of n the form was eivj, but Thucydides, like the Ionic and Doric writers and the poets, preferred evj which was current in the inscriptions before 334 B.C.147 So ivj appears in a Phrygian Christian inscription.148 But the Æolic eivj gradually drove out all the other forms.149 Originally, therefore, evn alone existed with either locative or accusative, and eivj appears nowhere else save in the Greek. The classic use of eivj Ai[dou (some MSS. in Ac. 2:27, 31 and reading in Is. 14:15) is the true genitive, according to Brugmann (Griech Gr., p. 439), 'in the sphere of Hades.'


1. Original Static Use. In Homer eivsÄkei/sqai means merely to lie within. But, though eivj really means the same thing as evn, it was early used only with the accusative, and gradually specialized thus one of the usages of evn. The locative with evn, however, continued to be used sometimes in the same sense as the accusative with eivj. The accusative indeed normally suggests motion (extension), and that did come to be the common usage of eivj plus the accusative. The resultant idea would often be 'into,' but this was by no means always true. Eivj is not used much in composition in the N. T. and always where motion is involved save in the case of eivsÄakou,w where there seems little difference between eivj and evn (cf. 1 Cor. 14:21; Mt. 6:7). In itself eivj expresses the same dimension relation as evn, viz. in.150 It does not of itself mean into, unto, or to. That is the resultant idea of the accusative case with verbs of motion. It is true that in the later Greek this static use of eivj with the idea of rest (in) is far more common than in the earlier Greek. This was naturally so, since in the vernacular eivj finally drove evn out entirely and did duty for both, just as originally evn did. The only difference is that eivj used the one case (accusative), whereas evn used either accusative

or locative. But151 then the accusative was once the only case and must be allowed large liberty. And even in the classic writers there are not wanting examples. These are usually explained152 as instances of "pregnant" construction, but it is possible to think of them as survivals of the etymological idea of eivj $evnÄj% with only the general notion of the accusative case. Certainly the vernacular laid less stress on the distinction between eivj and evn than the literary language did. Though eivj falls behind evn in the N. T. in the proportion of 2 to 3, still, as in the papyri153 and the inscriptions and the LXX,154 a number of examples of static eivj occur. Some of these were referred to under evn, where the "pregnant" use of evn for eivj occurs. Hatzidakis gives abundant examples of evn as eivj and eivj as evn. Cf. eivj VAlexa,ndreia,n evsti, B.U. ii. 385; eivj tu,nbon kei/mai, Kaibel Epigr. 134; kinduneu,santoj eivj qa,lassan, B.U. 423 (ii/ A.D.). Deissmann (Light, p. 169) notes Paul's kindu,noij evn qala,ssh| and that the Roman soldier in the last example writes "more vulgarly than St. Paul." In these examples it is not necessary nor pertinent to bring in the idea of 'into.' Blass155 comments on the fact that Matthew (but see below) has no such examples and John but few, while Luke has most of them. I cannot, however, follow Blass in citing Mk. 1:9evbapti,sqh eivj to.n VIorda,nhn as an example. The idea of motion in baptizw suits eivj as well as evn in Mk. 1:5. Cf. ni,yai eivj (Jo. 9:7). But in Mt. 28:19, bapti,zontej eivj to. o;noma, and Ro. 6:3 f., eivj Cristo,n and eivj to.n qa,naton, the notion of sphere is the true one. The same thing may be true of baptisqh,tw eivj a;fesin tw/n a`martiw/n (Ac. 2:38), where only the context and the tenor of N. T. teaching can determine whether 'into,' 'unto' or merely 'in' or 'on' ('upon') is the right translation, a task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian. One does not need here to appeal to the Hebrew ~veB. lb;j' as Tholuck does (Beiträge zur Spracherklärung des N. T., p. 47 f.). Indeed the use of o;noma for person is common in the papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 196 f.). Deissmann gives examples of its eivj o;nomaà evpV ovno,matoj, and the mere locative ovno,mati, from the papyri. The static use of eivj is seen in its distributive use like evn in Mk. 4:8, eivj tria,konta kai. evn e`xh,konta kai. evn e`kato,n. But there are undoubted examples where only 'in,' 'on' or 'at' can be the idea. Thus khru,sswn eivj ta.j sunagwga,j (Mk. 1:39) where there is some excuse for the "pregnant" explanation because of h=lqen. So...o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon (Jo. 1:18),
​

 

[Stravinsk]

It appears there is a contradiction in certain verses of the Bible concerning faith, and works.

Eph.2:8-9, Paul writes, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast." Paul tell us its not of works.

James 2:21, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"

Yet in Heb.11:9-17, It states that Abraham was saved by faith, and James said it was by works.

Explain what appears to be two contradictory statements, and why they are not. Let me give you a hint. Its a time thing, and a perspective.

Phil LaSpino www.seekfirstwisdom.com

Semi blind post:

It has been argued that the epistle of James is actually partly an indictment of Paul of Tarsus. The conflict is shown in Acts - where because of what James has heard concerning Paul's teachings - he asks Paul to go through the ritual of the Nazarite - which if you compare closely to it's outline in Numbers - Paul is unable to finish - having been thrown out of the temple.

 

[ARBITER01]

It appears there is a contradiction in certain verses of the Bible concerning faith, and works.

Really?

Maybe it's a misunderstanding on people's parts. Let's take a look at what Jesus said,..

Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father.

Now did Jesus say that he who believeth on me, that "faith" that I have shall he have also? No, yet it takes faith to work those works, doesn't it?

And by the way, without those works of Jesus, your faith is dead. Quite the conundrum huh?

 

[ananda]

but eis with static verbs means/translates 'in' ...
here, just a copy and paste from AT Robertson's Grammar of the GNT.
its pretty interesting: 591-592

Lenski wrote, in reference to Robertson's, in the 1960s: "All the old grammars and all the old exegesis are superseded by the immense volume of new information now at hand in the papyri, etc. We now see how wrong it was in scores of instances in the New Testament to interpret eis as “into,” and how only sheer ignorance forced the idea of motion into the preposition."

 

[Albion]

Really?

Maybe it's a misunderstanding on people's parts. Let's take a look at what Jesus said,..

Now did Jesus say that he who believeth on me, that "faith" that I have shall he have also? No, yet it takes faith to work those works, doesn't it?

And by the way, without those works of Jesus, your faith is dead. Quite the conundrum huh?

Nicely done--clear but concise. I hope it gets across what other tries we've made at explaining to those who are confused what the relationship of works to faith is.

 

[stan1953]

Really?

Maybe it's a misunderstanding on people's parts. Let's take a look at what Jesus said,..

Now did Jesus say that he who believeth on me, that "faith" that I have shall he have also? No, yet it takes faith to work those works, doesn't it?

And by the way, without those works of Jesus, your faith is dead. Quite the conundrum huh?

So where are we at based on the OP?

Ephesians 2:8-9, is about salvation by faith. Our starting point as a Christian.
James 2:21, is about how works accompanies faith with Abraham as an example.
Hebrews 11:9-17, is about how faith governed Abraham's life.

I see no contradictions in these verses regarding faith or works. Three different scenarios. What is the conundrum?

 

[Lee52]

Really?

Maybe it's a misunderstanding on people's parts. Let's take a look at what Jesus said,..

Now did Jesus say that he who believeth on me, that "faith" that I have shall he have also? No, yet it takes faith to work those works, doesn't it?

And by the way, without those works of Jesus, your faith is dead. Quite the conundrum huh?

Ah, but Brother, as you and I and many others already know, if one is not subject to the provisions of OSAS, it makes perfect sense. For by faith we have been saved. Not by works, AND, once we have faith, we better let that faith produce works, or we are in jeopardy of being cut off and thrown into the fire with all the other dead branches............

 

[ARBITER01]

So where are we at based on the OP?

Ephesians 2:8-9, is about salvation by faith. Our starting point as a Christian.
James 2:21, is about how works accompanies faith with Abraham as an example.
Hebrews 11:9-17, is about how faith governed Abraham's life.

I see no contradictions in these verses regarding faith or works. Three different scenarios. What is the conundrum?

The use of the word "conundrum" here was stated as a sarcasm.

When one is not able to add those works of Jesus unto their faith, and think that their own works are what James talked about, then they missed the whole point of perfecting holiness and being conformed unto the image of His Son.

- It's not our faith, it is His faith given to us.
- It's not our works that we perform, it is His works performed by GOD through us.

Faith and works are intertwined in the Christian life, or else it is a dying or dead faith.

 

[ARBITER01]

Ah, but Brother, as you and I and many others already know, if one is not subject to the provisions of OSAS, it makes perfect sense. For by faith we have been saved. Not by works, AND, once we have faith, we better let that faith produce works, or we are in jeopardy of being cut off and thrown into the fire with all the other dead branches............

I agree.