Can men not obey the truth and be saved?

[LouisBooth]

"Never would have realised that we were saved by sanctification if you didn't say that. "

*sigh* no no. Savlation and sanctification are 2 very different things. Salvation is by believe and sanctification is when you are molded by God into his image through works you do that he has set up for you to do.

 

[Thunderchild]

it seems clear to me that Paul was saying that we are justified by faith alone

Justified by faith alone now - and again there is this unwarranted addition of "alone" to the passage. Even so, maybe I could accept that - now, how does justification amount to salvation? But the claim was salvation by faith alone until just now. What caused the goal posts to be moved?

Or maybe there is a bit more to being justified than merely having faith after all.

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. and yet again and yet again - works specifically of law.

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Jam 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. NO! James is NOT contradicting Paul: He is contradicting the claim that is being made of Paul's statements - said claim being that nothing more than faith is needed.

 

[Thunderchild]

You are right. The ones who did the translation of the New American standard bible put it in there for clarity. Things of this nature occur much since it is a translation and things are sometimes implied in one language and not another. When one goes from one language to another one has to look at it in
Young's literal translation also uses "that" and the NIV uses "such." The revised standard uses "his." Also the word "doth" in the KJV is not in the original greek. They all did it for clarity since it better shows n English what is meant in the greek.

I see... the original authors mistakenly wrote "pistis" instead of "pistews", or "outos pistis", or "toi outos" - so the translators of some Bibles kindly inserted the missing word (or corrected the word used) so that we wouldn't misunderstand what James was saying. It is a pity though, that the translators are not agreed on precisely which words the original author forgot to include, or mis-spelled.
But I notice that these same translators failed to make the requisite corrections later in the passage (all for the sake of clarity in understanding - of course)
Jam 2:24 - 26 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Would you be kind enough to inform me of which words were incorrectly written by the author? Perhaps he accidentally reversed the positions of "faith" and "works" in his exposition?

 

[Thunderchild]

Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Interesting. I can see why the translators state that they are unsure about the meaning of "proginosko" (foreknow).

But let us pretend that there is no doubt about the actual meaning of "proginosko" - that it does indeed mean that God knew the people from the beginning (or before then) of creation.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

(as stated before by someone else) foreknow --> predestinate --> called --> justified --> glorified. Well now, many are called but few are chosen (according to Jesus, anyway). So it would seem that justified (following after being called) might be applicable to those who are chosen - but called doesn't necessarily result in justification.

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
Justified by faith alone now - and again there is this unwarranted addition of "alone" to the passage. Even so, maybe I could accept that - now, how does justification amount to salvation? But the claim was salvation by faith alone until just now. What caused the goal posts to be moved?

First can I please ask that you respond to my questions from before.  If you do not have an answer please just say that you do not have an answer and we can leave it like that but please respond to them if you intend to ask me anymore questions. 

Secondly I was speaking as to what Paul was refferring to in the passage.  He said that we are justified by fatih alone. 

Or maybe there is a bit more to being justified than merely having faith after all.

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [/B]

just because you hear the law does not mean that you have faith.  Also who is a doer of the law?  Do works make this so?  If so then we are all going to hell because in Romans 3 Paul clearly states that no one seeks after God.  That we have all sinned or broken the law.  So again I do not get how this verse really helps your cause.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. and yet again and yet again - works specifically of law. [/B]

Well the law is not void.  It is still there.  This verse really seems to go against your view again.  It is not by works it is by faith. 

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Jam 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. NO! James is NOT contradicting Paul: He is contradicting the claim that is being made of Paul's statements - said claim being that nothing more than faith is needed. [/B]

Then what was Paul stating when he said it was by faith and not by works?  You ask alot of questions and make statements but never provide answers. 

blackhawk

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
I see... the original authors mistakenly wrote "pistis" instead of "pistews", or "outos pistis", or "toi outos" - so the translators of some Bibles kindly inserted the missing word (or corrected the word used) so that we wouldn't misunderstand what James was saying. It is a pity though, that the translators are not agreed on precisely which words the original author forgot to include, or mis-spelled.

hmm this is interesting since many of the greek words they were translating do not have a word in English that goes with it perfectly.  Also it is strange since if one translates from one language to another many times are words such as "that" added because if not it would not mean the same in English as it did in another language.  Oh but that is not important.  A word for word translation is the best no matter if it does make sense in English or not. 

But I notice that these same translators failed to make the requisite corrections later in the passage (all for the sake of clarity in understanding - of course)
Jam 2:24 - 26 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Would you be kind enough to inform me of which words were incorrectly written by the author? Perhaps he accidentally reversed the positions of "faith" and "works" in his exposition? [/B]

None and i never said any were.  You have stated that. It is your strawman.

 Anyways, if what you say is so then tell me why James contrdicted himself and agreed with the author of the Pentetauch when he said

James 2:23
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
(NAU)

Did James not remember what he had said before or was he speaking of two different Abrahams?  Or was he saying something different than what you say he was? 

blackhawk

 

 

[Thunderchild]

Now now.... adding a word for the sake of clarity is not the same thing at all as adding a word to alter the original meaning, or render a specific meaning ambiguous.

Adding "that" could be justified if faith was written as "pisteos", because that is what would have been written if the author had meant "that faith" previously referred to. Similarly, if the author had meant "such faith" he would simply have written "toi outos" - "can such save him." Adding the word "faith" would then be justified, for the sake of clarity. But the author wrote "pistis" - faith. Additional words are unwarranted entirely. Not only is the verse perfectly clear in what is written of and by itself, the statement is re-iterated and given exposition only a short time later.... "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. " Not to mention that the theme is repeated with three other verses, each pointing to a different historical personage. And just to ram the point home - twice repeated - faith without works is dead.

 

[LouisBooth]

Saying the authors wrote the wrong word is pretty much the weakest argument I've seen in a long time thunder.

 

[michael servetus]

John 8:32 Jesus said: And ye SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.

I think not. Look what happened to me!