Faith "alone"

[da525382]

In my discussions with salvation by works advocates, this issue always comes up: since Paul or anyone else NEVER said the word "alone", the concept simply does not exist in scripture and is heretical, according to them. They will state either that many other things are needed besides faith, i.e., confession, repentence, water baptism, etc. OR they will state that faith itself by definition MEANS you must confess, repent, and be water baptized, that that is what Paul was talking about.

Any thoughts?

Don

 

[wnwall]

In my discussions with salvation by works advocates, this issue always comes up: since Paul or anyone else NEVER said the word "alone", the concept simply does not exist in scripture and is heretical, according to them. They will state either that many other things are needed besides faith, i.e., confession, repentence, water baptism, etc. OR they will state that faith itself by definition MEANS you must confess, repent, and be water baptized, that that is what Paul was talking about.

Any thoughts?

Don

Faith always produces repentance. They cannot be divorced. Saving faith is when you believe you are a sinner and deserve wrath and believe Christ bore the wrath of God for you and want to be right with God and trust in Jesus' atoning sacrifice for your righteousness. That will always produce repentance, a turning away from sin. If you do not turn away from sin then either you don't truly want to be right with God or you don't truly believe God keeps his promises.

So repentance is necessary for salvation in that faith is necessary for salvation. You can't have one without the other. Faith is a prerequisite to repentance and repentance always accompanies true faith.

Water baptism is not necessary or else Jesus lied when he told the man who died next to him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise."

As Piper says, the great error of a salvation by faith and works view is the mingling of sanctification and justification. We are justified by faith, and all those who are justified will be sanctified. Piper explains:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...12&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

 

[GrinningDwarf]

In my discussions with salvation by works advocates, this issue always comes up: since Paul or anyone else NEVER said the word "alone", the concept simply does not exist in scripture and is heretical, according to them. They will state either that many other things are needed besides faith, i.e., confession, repentence, water baptism, etc. OR they will state that faith itself by definition MEANS you must confess, repent, and be water baptized, that that is what Paul was talking about.

Any thoughts?

Don

I usually refer them to Galatians...the entire book.

 

[da525382]

Faith always produces repentance. They cannot be divorced. Saving faith is when you believe you are a sinner and deserve wrath and believe Christ bore the wrath of God for you and want to be right with God and trust in Jesus' atoning sacrifice for your righteousness. That will always produce repentance, a turning away from sin. If you do not turn away from sin then either you don't truly want to be right with God or you don't truly believe God keeps his promises.

So repentance is necessary for salvation in that faith is necessary for salvation. You can't have one without the other. Faith is a prerequisite to repentance and repentance always accompanies true faith.

Water baptism is not necessary or else Jesus lied when he told the man who died next to him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise."

As Piper says, the great error of a salvation by faith and works view is the mingling of sanctification and justification. We are justified by faith, and all those who are justified will be sanctified. Piper explains:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...12&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

Hey what a great post and video.....thanks wnwall!

 

[da525382]

I usually refer them to Galatians...the entire book.

But, of course, their response is that that book was only written about Judaizers, with little other application. Furthermore, they will argue that you must take "the whole" of scripture into account! Whew.

Don

 

[heymikey80]

In my discussions with salvation by works advocates, this issue always comes up: since Paul or anyone else NEVER said the word "alone", the concept simply does not exist in scripture and is heretical, according to them. They will state either that many other things are needed besides faith, i.e., confession, repentence, water baptism, etc. OR they will state that faith itself by definition MEANS you must confess, repent, and be water baptized, that that is what Paul was talking about.

It's amazing to me when people confuse political slogans with the theology behind them. The Five Solas are rallying cries.

"Catholic" doesn't appear in Scripture, either.

The theology behind "Faith alone" is not only straight from Scripture, it's a very present issue today: that faith is the only thing God uses as an instrument of your justification: not your will (Rom 9:13), not your works (Ep 2:8-9), nor anything else.

The Reformed don't believe faith is unaccompanied either. That's a political smear perpetrated over 400 years ago by ill-meaning Catholics. Westminster denies this outright:

"Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love." WCF 11.2

The complaint is a red herring. Go to "you're saved through faith, not out of actions" -- Paul said that ( Ep 2:8-9 works == actions in Greek)-- and ask which of what they're adding is an action. Take it back out. Faith is not work. Faith is relying.

The Apostle also says faith is not works. That's flatly obvious he says it so many times (Rom 3:27, Rom 4:4-5 "to who does not work", Rom 7:21-8:1 -- Paul about himself, Rom 9:16, just for a few I can think of this early).

 

[Elect]

In my discussions with salvation by works advocates, this issue always comes up: since Paul or anyone else NEVER said the word "alone", the concept simply does not exist in scripture and is heretical, according to them. They will state either that many other things are needed besides faith, i.e., confession, repentence, water baptism, etc. OR they will state that faith itself by definition MEANS you must confess, repent, and be water baptized, that that is what Paul was talking about.

Any thoughts?

Don

Romans 4:2-5
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Why? Because it is God that justifies the sinner.

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

 

[da525382]

It's amazing to me when people confuse political slogans with the theology behind them. The Five Solas are rallying cries.

"Catholic" doesn't appear in Scripture, either.

The theology behind "Faith alone" is not only straight from Scripture, it's a very present issue today: that faith is the only thing God uses as an instrument of your justification: not your will (Rom 9:13), not your works (Ep 2:8-9), nor anything else.

The Reformed don't believe faith is unaccompanied either. That's a political smear perpetrated over 400 years ago by ill-meaning Catholics. Westminster denies this outright:

"Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love." WCF 11.2

The complaint is a red herring. Go to "you're saved through faith, not out of actions" -- Paul said that ( Ep 2:8-9 works == actions in Greek)-- and ask which of what they're adding is an action. Take it back out. Faith is not work. Faith is relying.

The Apostle also says faith is not works. That's flatly obvious he says it so many times (Rom 3:27, Rom 4:4-5 "to who does not work", Rom 7:21-8:1 -- Paul about himself, Rom 9:16, just for a few I can think of this early).

Thanks, Heymickey,

However no matter how much I quote Paul on faith vs works, THEY quote James: works are necessary. Whew.
And I realize they are the works of God, but these people simply don't accept that.

 

[heymikey80]

Thanks, Heymickey,

However no matter how much I quote Paul on faith vs works, THEY quote James: works are necessary. Whew.
And I realize they are the works of God, but these people simply don't accept that.

James is easy. James says what he's talking about. "Do you want me to SHOW you that faith without works is dead?"

"You SEE [with your eyes] Abraham was justified by works."

James is clear: he's talking about showing your justification. He's not talking about how you are justified.

 

[orthedoxy]

Is repentance necessary for salvation since the thief on the cross never repented even though he knew he was a sinner?

 

[heymikey80]

Is repentance necessary for salvation since the thief on the cross never repented even though he knew he was a sinner?

Prove he "never repented".

Not only is repentance an internal response, it's a change of intent. But how that intent yielded into action, when he's on a cross about to die -- you'd have to fill me in.

Repentance is not penance. The thief has no "Hail Marys" or "Our Fathers" to pray.

 

[wnwall]

Thanks, Heymickey,

However no matter how much I quote Paul on faith vs works, THEY quote James: works are necessary. Whew.
And I realize they are the works of God, but these people simply don't accept that.

I think the difference between James and Paul is their definition of "faith". I found Piper's analogy helpful... when he preached on James he said, "If an American says he wants to play soccer and a European says he wants to play football, and they argue about it all day, that'd be a wasted afternoon." Americans and Europeans define the word "football" differently.

Similarly when James says salvation is not by faith alone, he is using the word faith differently from Paul, and it is important to understand how he is using the word because he is right.. if we go to an extreme (as has been done in much of Protestant America) we can end up teaching people they're saved when all they have is the dead faith James speaks of.

Normally I think of the type of "faith" James speaks of as mere "belief". Now, don't get too hung up on the exact words (there are verses that say if you believe you will be saved), focus on how the words are being used. These days when people say they "believe" something (at least in my neck of the woods) they mean they have come to a cognitive, logical understanding that it is true. We speak of "believing" in evolution or "believing" in aliens. If you ask any evolutionist why he believes in evolution, he will tell you something like, "Because it makes sense." If that is all there is to your Christianity, a mental understanding that Jesus is Lord, then there is only condemnation for you. As James says, "even the demons believe and they shudder!"

But if I ask you if you have faith in your wife, that's a very different question from whether you believe in evolution. If I ask you why you have faith in your wife you will probably tell me about all the times she's been there for you and held you up when you were weak. You'll probably tell me about how she's never given you any reason to doubt her faithfulness, how much she means to you, how hard it would be for you to live without her, how you trust her with your money and the raising of your kids, how you know you can rely on her. To have faith in a person is a very different thing than believing an idea. If you say you have faith in your wife yet you don't trust her with your kids, your faith is dead. It's not real faith.

From much of Protestant America, we can get the idea that faith is simply believing an idea, that if we are aware of the facts of Jesus and be convinced they are true, that's sufficient belief. And for those people, James is very good because James says, "No, if that's all the faith you have, your faith is dead."

But there are other kinds of people who get this idea that we can get right with God on our own righteousness, and for those kinds of people Paul is very good because Paul says, "if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Gal 2:21).

So James and Paul are in agreement, they're just using the word "faith" in different ways. There is a very real danger in thinking that if you are convinced Jesus is God, you will be saved. But many who even do miracles in Jesus' name will be cast from his presence (Matt 7).

Another, helpful, way to think about it is whether or not you really believe if you don't act like you believe, which is the angle John comes from. If you truly believed God kept his promises, you would not be unfaithful. Every sin you've ever committed has had unbelief behind it. When you sin, you are outwardly expressing an inward lack of belief that God will keep his promises. And if you live in unrepentant sin, you don't truly believe, as 1 John says. Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure that a man finds in a field and goes and sells everything he has to buy the field so he can have the treasure. If you haven't sold everything you have to buy the field to have the treasure, then there's something you have that you value more than the treasure, so you don't truly believe God is your most valuable treasure.

Scripture comes at this from many angles, and there is much more that could be said on this, but I'll just stop here and point out that when scripture seems to be contradicting itself (such as Paul saying "faith alone" and James saying "not faith alone"), it's usually trying to teach us something about our hearts.

For instance, Jesus said, "When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt 6:3-4). But in the same gospel Jesus said, "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). So are we supposed to let others see our good deeds or do them in secret? Jesus is teaching us that whether you do it in secret or in the open depends on whether you would be doing it for your glory or God's glory. The outward action isn't nearly as important as the heart.

So when Paul says, "faith alone saves" and James says "faith alone does not save", we need to stop and consider why they appear to be contradicting each other. It's because they're addressing issues of the heart and coming at it from different angles because different people have different idols, different sins, different weaknesses, and are blinded by Satan in different ways.

I hope my unorganized thoughts can be helpful in solidifying your understanding.

I recommend Piper's sermon Does James Contradict Paul?

Nathan

 

[orthedoxy]

Prove he "never repented".

Not only is repentance an internal response, it's a change of intent. But how that intent yielded into action, when he's on a cross about to die -- you'd have to fill me in.

Repentance is not penance. The thief has no "Hail Marys" or "Our Fathers" to pray.

Scripture doesn't say he repented.
Prove the thief wasn't baptized.

 

[Reformationist]

Is repentance necessary for salvation since the thief on the cross never repented even though he knew he was a sinner?

That would depend on how you use the word "for." It is not a necessary prerequisite for salvation but it is a necessary fruit of conversion. And, as was mentioned earlier, faith is the instrumental cause of our salvation, not the grounds for it. All of these acts of obedience are just that, acts of obedience. They are not the means by which man and God synergistically effect salvation.

God bless

 

[bradfordl]

I hope my unorganized thoughts can be helpful in solidifying your understanding.

Nothing disorganized about any of that, brother, just plain good Gospel. Thanks for the insights.

 

[heymikey80]

Scripture doesn't say he repented.
Prove the thief wasn't baptized.

There's every reason to expect the thief repented, simply on the record of his actions: he confessed and he petitioned Christ Himself. In fact he petitioned Christ on the clear belief that Christ was Who He said He was -- even though Christ Jesus was dying on the Cross, not yet resurrected.

He had more faith than all Jesus' disciples. And you think he didn't repent right there? Based on what?

There's also every reason to expect Scripture would record that he was already a Christian disciple. But there isn't a record of it.

Plus -- what's a Christian doing stealing? It doesn't seem consistent with baptismal regeneration. It doesn't sound like a regeneration in power.

Y'see how this method works: there's a reason to expect something -- and it's either confirmed by its presence, or falsified by its absence. It leaves some room for interpretation, sure (should we *really* expect a clear statement?).

The clear evidence of repentance should lead us to credulously conclude there was repentance.

The absence of evidence of baptism is less sure, but there's no reason to expect the thief was baptized -- he was simply a thief, hung on a cross beside the Lord of Glory, just like the one on the other side. Only this thief confessed agreement that his punishment was just, his crime wrong his shuddering at the thought of sinning again, against the Man in the Gap.

We too are thieves. We die daily.

 

[mlqurgw]

Scripture does show that one theif repented while the other didn't. Compare Matt. 27:44 where it is said that both the theives mocked Him and Luke 23:39-42 where we find one no longer mocking but believing. It is apparrent that at some point one of the theives was regenerated and made a profession of faith while the other didn't.

 

[da525382]

Is repentance necessary for salvation since the thief on the cross never repented even though he knew he was a sinner?

Why do you assume he did not repent? Have you so defined repentance, you can conclude by looking at someone whether on not they have repented? I thought God was the one to do that? And I fully believe Jesus knew and sensed this man's repentance, since it is of the heart anyway....otherwise our God is a most illustrious liar. In the entire gospel of John, the word "repentance" is not found, yet many were justified by Christ Himself through belief, and John's audience, of course, was receiving his envangelistic work that people everywhere reading it would believe, and in doing so, receive life.

 

[da525382]

I think the difference between James and Paul is their definition of "faith". I found Piper's analogy helpful... when he preached on James he said, "If an American says he wants to play soccer and a European says he wants to play football, and they argue about it all day, that'd be a wasted afternoon." Americans and Europeans define the word "football" differently.

Similarly when James says salvation is not by faith alone, he is using the word faith differently from Paul, and it is important to understand how he is using the word because he is right.. if we go to an extreme (as has been done in much of Protestant America) we can end up teaching people they're saved when all they have is the dead faith James speaks of.

Normally I think of the type of "faith" James speaks of as mere "belief". Now, don't get too hung up on the exact words (there are verses that say if you believe you will be saved), focus on how the words are being used. These days when people say they "believe" something (at least in my neck of the woods) they mean they have come to a cognitive, logical understanding that it is true. We speak of "believing" in evolution or "believing" in aliens. If you ask any evolutionist why he believes in evolution, he will tell you something like, "Because it makes sense." If that is all there is to your Christianity, a mental understanding that Jesus is Lord, then there is only condemnation for you. As James says, "even the demons believe and they shudder!"

But if I ask you if you have faith in your wife, that's a very different question from whether you believe in evolution. If I ask you why you have faith in your wife you will probably tell me about all the times she's been there for you and held you up when you were weak. You'll probably tell me about how she's never given you any reason to doubt her faithfulness, how much she means to you, how hard it would be for you to live without her, how you trust her with your money and the raising of your kids, how you know you can rely on her. To have faith in a person is a very different thing than believing an idea. If you say you have faith in your wife yet you don't trust her with your kids, your faith is dead. It's not real faith.

From much of Protestant America, we can get the idea that faith is simply believing an idea, that if we are aware of the facts of Jesus and be convinced they are true, that's sufficient belief. And for those people, James is very good because James says, "No, if that's all the faith you have, your faith is dead."

But there are other kinds of people who get this idea that we can get right with God on our own righteousness, and for those kinds of people Paul is very good because Paul says, "if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Gal 2:21).

So James and Paul are in agreement, they're just using the word "faith" in different ways. There is a very real danger in thinking that if you are convinced Jesus is God, you will be saved. But many who even do miracles in Jesus' name will be cast from his presence (Matt 7).

Another, helpful, way to think about it is whether or not you really believe if you don't act like you believe, which is the angle John comes from. If you truly believed God kept his promises, you would not be unfaithful. Every sin you've ever committed has had unbelief behind it. When you sin, you are outwardly expressing an inward lack of belief that God will keep his promises. And if you live in unrepentant sin, you don't truly believe, as 1 John says. Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure that a man finds in a field and goes and sells everything he has to buy the field so he can have the treasure. If you haven't sold everything you have to buy the field to have the treasure, then there's something you have that you value more than the treasure, so you don't truly believe God is your most valuable treasure.

Scripture comes at this from many angles, and there is much more that could be said on this, but I'll just stop here and point out that when scripture seems to be contradicting itself (such as Paul saying "faith alone" and James saying "not faith alone"), it's usually trying to teach us something about our hearts.

For instance, Jesus said, "When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt 6:3-4). But in the same gospel Jesus said, "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). So are we supposed to let others see our good deeds or do them in secret? Jesus is teaching us that whether you do it in secret or in the open depends on whether you would be doing it for your glory or God's glory. The outward action isn't nearly as important as the heart.

So when Paul says, "faith alone saves" and James says "faith alone does not save", we need to stop and consider why they appear to be contradicting each other. It's because they're addressing issues of the heart and coming at it from different angles because different people have different idols, different sins, different weaknesses, and are blinded by Satan in different ways.

I hope my unorganized thoughts can be helpful in solidifying your understanding.

I recommend Piper's sermon Does James Contradict Paul?

Nathan

Thanks a million billion, Nathan! Don

 

[tanelornpete]

I hope my unorganized thoughts can be helpful in solidifying your understanding.

There's another way to put this that comes close, if not exactly, to the same point you made so 'un-organizedly'

There are two uses of the word faith: the term that indicates volitional acceptance of data: "I believe that Jesus is God" and the term that indicates a belief system: "We are of the Christian faith."

James' argument is that your works demonstrate where your mind is. Your claim that you are a Christian ('of the faith') is contradicted by your sinful actions. Your faith (belief in Christ) is only demonstrated to be saving faith if it results in works that fulfill the command of Christ to love God and each other.

Side note: saving faith is of the same genus as all other types of faith - only the content (what is believed) is different. Demons believe in God - but they do NOT believe He saves them....they tremble at that thought.

David