No assurance of Salvation is not equal to No Salvation

[Not David]

James is saying that faith without works is dead. What is a dead faith? No faith. In other words, if you don't have works, you don't have faith. James then says, how can that sort of faith save him? It cannot, because it doesn't exist, and this is evident by the fruitlessness of that faith. A man is justified by a faith that works. Abraham demonstrated his faith by his works, and it justified him of his faith. This is why he said, show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works.

You are inferring that. James still calls a "dead faith" faith.

 

[Not David]

What was different about you, that you chose this path, and not the atheist next door? Ah, something to boast about.

In Calvinism: I was one of the elect and the other isn't, so he is unaware even though I know that.

 

[Jonaitis]

You are inferring that. James still calls a "dead faith" faith.

I am not inferring anything, James clearly says this in verse 2:18. He asks the man with a "dead faith" to show it without works.

Hebrews 11 is actually a great go to for cross-reference that supports what I have said.

 

[Not David]

I need to finish some projects so I will be back tomorrow. I also feel the thread turned from a discussion about not believing people who don't have assurance of salvation aren't saved to just talking about assurance of salvation.

Here is a gif of a smiling Wonder Woman to calm us all.

 

[HTacianas]

Romans 4:2-3 “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.”

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

Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

 

[Jonaitis]

In Calvinism: I was one of the elect and the other isn't, so he is unaware even though I know that.

In "Calvinism," I was a child of wrath like the rest of mankind until the Lord showed me mercy, drew me to himself, and sealed me with his blood. Whatever I did was him working in me, not merely giving me grace to make a choice.

 

[Call me Nic]

I will ask again, do you believe repentance (at its beginning) is the first evidence of faith? Let's take the maturity out of the picture, you remain a babe for the rest of your Christian life.

Well, what do you define as repentance? There is quite a controversy over that word these days.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I feel a lot of times when I tell someone that I don't have assurance of Salvation, they believe "I don't have a relationship with Jesus", but it is the opposite, I know that I have to work out my salvation every day.

What is your opinion?

You are correct. There are many who think they are saved when they are nowhere near it, and there are those who think they are not saved when they actually are. Assurance of salvation is not compulsory. John Bunyan in "Pilgrims Progress", speaks of characters called, "Ready-to-halt" and "Little-Faith", describing those who will get successfully to the Celestial City, but have not comfort on the way. He speaks also of confident characters who think they are perfectly okay, but when they get to the gate of the City, they find it locked against them because they did not come through the narrow gate, but over the wall instead. Pilgrims Progress is a great allegory of the Christian walk and clearly shows who is going to make it and who is not. John Bunyan, after receiving Christ as Saviour, spent many years struggling and crying out to God for assurance until he finally found it. He wrote about that in his book "Grace Abounding To The Chief Of Sinners".

If a person has gone through the narrow gate by:
1. Acknowledging that he is a hopeless, depraved sinner deserving of hell.
2. Believe in his heart (not just in his head) that Jesus died for him on the cross and rose again to give him eternal life.
3. Received Jesus as his Lord and Saviour.
4. Abandoned any trust in himself to be able to do anything acceptable to God, but put his full trust in Christ for any good that he can and will do.

Then he is fully saved, even though he may not receive immediate assurance of his salvation.

 

[Call me Nic]

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

Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Right, but notice that the scripture, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness" occurred in Genesis 15:6, which was many, many years before Isaac was even born. So Abraham was justified (counted righteous) before God way back in Genesis 15 before Isaac was alive, but Abraham's faith was demonstrated when he offered Isaac upon the altar. Abraham was already saved when he offered his son, that's what scripture clearly teaches.

 

[Jonaitis]

Well, what do you define as repentance? There is quite a controversy over that word these days.

The process of turning from sin, not a single act. I suppose someone could argue that the first evidence of repentance is turning from trusting in their own righteousness, but that will remain until the day you die. You begin and go on from there, even if you don't grow you stay where you were in that repentance when you first believed.

How do you define repentance?

 

[Call me Nic]

The process of turning from sin, not a single act. I suppose someone could argue that the first evidence of repentance is turning from trusting in their own righteousness, but that will remain until the day you die. You begin and go on from there, even if you don't grow you stay where you were when you first believed.

How do you define repentance?

To repent is to change one's mind; the context of repentance doesn't necessarily have to do with sin. God repented many, many times throughout scripture, but God has never turned from sin.

Repentance is indeed required for salvation, but only in the context of changing what one believes about Jesus. After all, Jesus said in Mark 1:15, "Repent, and believe the gospel."

 

[Jonaitis]

To repent is to change one's mind; the context of repentance doesn't necessarily have to do with sin. God repented many, many times throughout scripture, but God has never turned from sin.

Repentance is indeed required for salvation, but only in the context of changing what one believes about Jesus. After all, Jesus said in Mark 1:15, "Repent, and believe the gospel."

You're right (not about God though), I forgot about that.

 

[Call me Nic]

You're right (not about God though), I forgot about that.

What I meant by "God has never turned from sin," is that God repented, but since God cannot sin, he cannot possibly repent from sin, showing that repentance doesn't necessarily refer to anything to do with sin.

 

[Oldmantook]

That's not my savior. We all sin every day so we lose our salvation every day? Poor Jesus. His death didn't mean much did it?

You fail to distinguish between occasional sin which is forgiveable and habitual sin which is not forgiveable.

 

[Jonaitis]

What I meant by "God has never turned from sin," is that God repented, but since God cannot sin, he cannot possibly repent from sin, showing that repentance doesn't necessarily refer to anything to do with sin.

What I meant with what I said is that God never repents, its just anthropomorphic language with his dealings with men But everything else you said was good. You have me corrected, I totally forgot that repent means to change one's mind.

 

[Call me Nic]

Except that you need to read Genesis. His faith is based on him doing what God told him to do.

No, his faith was in the promise of what God told him he would do for Abraham.

Paul proves that in the following passage.

Romans 4:9-25 "Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yetbeing uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, wasnot to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

 

[Call me Nic]

What I meant with what I said is that God never repents, its just anthropomorphic language with his dealings with men But everything else you said was good. You have me corrected, I totally forgot that repent means to change one's mind.

Oh okay, I see what you mean, and I agree (knowing that God is fully aware and knowledgable of all things); I was merely using the Bible's language. Good talk, though, brother.

 

[Jonaitis]

Oh okay, I see what you mean, and I agree (knowing that God is fully aware and knowledgable of all things); I was merely using the Bible's language. Good talk, though, brother.

This is for another discussion concerning divine impassibility, but being immutable he cannot for a moment change in anything in himself. It is like when we read about his anger being kindled or provoked, it is to our limitations that he is presented that way. God doesn't get mad or angry. He is pure act, simply meaning that is remains angry and wrathful perfectly toward sin...it just appears that he is provoked when we stand in the position of that wrath or anger when we sin. It is us who change, not God; it is us who is punished under his wrath when we step into the realm of what he hates as it were.

Sorry, I love talking about that. Carry on, good talk.

 

[Call me Nic]

Paul never said faith alone and the works he mentions are the Jewish Law.
"For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." (Romans 8:13)
"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

Paul talking about losing salvation:
"But I discipline my body and keep it under control,[a] lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." (1 Corinthians 9:27).

Where in scripture does the Bible make the distinction between good works, and works of the law? The law is holy and just and good according to Paul (Romans 7:12); are you saying that following the law of God is not good works?

And 1 Corinthians 9 is not talking about losing salvation. The context is speaking of rewards given by serving in the gospel, not of salvation. Believers can lose rewards (2 John 1:8), but cannot lose their salvation (John 5:24, John 10:28, Romans 8:38-39).

 

[Call me Nic]

This is for another discussion concerning divine impassibility, but being immutable he cannot for a moment change in anything in himself. It is like when we read about his anger being kindled or provoked, it is to our limitations that he is presented that way. God doesn't get mad or angry. He is pure act, simply meaning that is remains angry and wrathful perfectly toward sin...it just appears that he is provoked when we stand in the position of that wrath or anger when we sin. It is us who change, not God; it is us who is punished under his wrath when we step into the realm of what he hates as it were.

Sorry, I love talking about that. Carry on, good talk.

I agree with you, overall. But I have to admit that (not being reformed in theology myself) I have trouble fully understanding the dynamic of the Lord throughout scripture towards people, when he knows full well what will happen. I don't doubt he is all-powerful and all-knowing, and I believe fully that everything is already going to happen according to his will. But the fact that he does seem to "react" in scripture is interesting and hard for me to personally grasp. But great is the mystery of godliness.