The Dispensational Place of I, II, and III John

[GOD Shines Forth!]

I have often wondered how those who are placed in "the dispensation of the grace of God"--as given to Paul for us--can cite the doctrines in I/II/III John as descriptive of our position under grace. There are some on this forum who appear to have built their theology ON his letters. I see it in reverse, John's letters MUST be interpreted in the light of Paul's, which are weightier for us because they are written TO us (whereas John's are written to the circumcision, likely in the earlier Acts period...e.g. "if you confess your sins", "the sin that is mortal", "they went out from us", "heard that antichrist is coming", etc.).

There are not many resources that look into this, but I found this blog article informative...

The Dispensational Place of I, II, and III John

Would appreciate in any insights believers have on this topic. Though I will not be debating it, feel free to!

 

[Phil W]

I have often wondered how those who are placed in "the dispensation of the grace of God"--as given to Paul for us--can cite the doctrines in I/II/III John as descriptive of our position under grace. There are some on this forum who appear to have built their theology ON his letters. I see it in reverse, John's letters MUST be interpreted in the light of Paul's, which are weightier for us because they are written TO us (whereas John's are written to the circumcision, likely in the earlier Acts period...e.g. "if you confess your sins", "the sin that is mortal", "they went out from us", "heard that antichrist is coming", etc.).

There are not many resources that look into this, but I found this blog article informative...

The Dispensational Place of I, II, and III John

Would appreciate in any insights believers have on this topic. Though I will not be debating it, feel free to!

Why do you think John was addressing only the circumcision?
It seems applicable to all men.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Why do you think John was addressing only the circumcision?
It seems applicable to all men.

The letter has always fascinated me, and from a "dispensational" angle seemed under studied. This is why I posted the attached article, which I thought was well written. I’m not dogmatic on my current understanding, and would like input (and why I did not set out to debate a position).

 

[redleghunter]

I have often wondered how those who are placed in "the dispensation of the grace of God"--as given to Paul for us--can cite the doctrines in I/II/III John as descriptive of our position under grace. There are some on this forum who appear to have built their theology ON his letters. I see it in reverse, John's letters MUST be interpreted in the light of Paul's, which are weightier for us because they are written TO us (whereas John's are written to the circumcision, likely in the earlier Acts period...e.g. "if you confess your sins", "the sin that is mortal", "they went out from us", "heard that antichrist is coming", etc.).

There are not many resources that look into this, but I found this blog article informative...

The Dispensational Place of I, II, and III John

Would appreciate in any insights believers have on this topic. Though I will not be debating it, feel free to!

I think I know the thread in which evoked this question. I don’t think the NT is divided by dispensation. From Acts 2 onward the church grew. There are no separate gospels in the NT. Not saying you believe this, but there are dispensationalist who do believe this.

Now the epistles of John throughout Christianity are put later than Paul’s epistles. Only some Preterists believe the entire NT was complete before 70AD.

The link below is compiled from the majority of NT scholars. I will note the most accomplished Dispensational theologian John Walvoord had a similar view.

Appendix 8: Chronological Order of the Books of the New Testament - Bible Study Tools

 

[redleghunter]

The letter has always fascinated me, and from a "dispensational" angle seemed under studied. This is why I posted the attached article, which I thought was well written. I’m not dogmatic on my current understanding, and would like input (and why I did not set out to debate a position).

Just read the article. They make some assertions that it was only in modern times scholars saw the epistles of John as later in the first century. But the accurate information is John’s epistles were always later in the first century after 70AD.

Here is more information on 1 John:

The Epistles of John - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Just read the article. They make some assertions that it was only in modern times scholars saw the epistles of John as later in the first century. But the accurate information is John’s epistles were always later in the first century after 70AD.

Here is more information on 1 John:

The Epistles of John - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

Thank you for the resources.

 

[redleghunter]

Thank you for the resources.

Most welcome. I have more to share but alas the hour is late where I am. Will pick up tomorrow.

Looking at the article you posted it seems the author is an Acts 28:28 Dispensationalist. Meaning they don’t see the church beginning until after Paul reached and lived in Rome under house arrest. So that may be painting their view of 1 John earlier and as not part of the Scriptures “in the age of Grace.”

Yet the Gospel has been Grace since the Resurrection.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Most welcome. I have more to share but alas the hour is late where I am. Will pick up tomorrow.

Looking at the article you posted it seems the author is an Acts 28:28 Dispensationalist. Meaning they don’t see the church beginning until after Paul reached and lived in Rome under house arrest. So that may be painting their view of 1 John earlier and as not part of the Scriptures “in the age of Grace.”

Yet the Gospel has been Grace since the Resurrection.

I don’t like minimizing any portion of Scripture, but comparing Scripture with Scripture one cannot help being left with...questions. I like how "dispensationalism" answers some of these, but any system has its flaws.

 

[Guojing]

Why do you think John was addressing only the circumcision?
It seems applicable to all men.

To understand this, you have to understand Galatians 2:9

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

The letters written by James, Peter and John, from this perspective, are written only to the circumcised Jews. The three of them agreed to confine their ministry strictly to the Jews.

Another way to see this is that the book of James is actually the first NT letter ever written. Yet why did the Holy Spirit sees fit to place James after Paul's letters? That is because Romans to Philemon belongs to the church age, the grace dispensation, which is now.

But dispensationalists generally believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. Once the church is raptured, what will be left on earth will be the unbelieving Jews as well as the Gentiles. When the grace dispensation is over, salvation will once again be based on faith AND works.

That is how James 2, 1 John and Revelations 14:9-12, can be understood.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

To understand this, you have to understand Galatians 2:9

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

The letters written by James, Peter and John, from this perspective, are written only to the circumcised Jews. The three of them agreed to confine their ministry strictly to the Jews.

Another way to see this is that the book of James is actually the first NT letter ever written. Yet why did the Holy Spirit sees fit to place James after Paul's letters? That is because Romans to Philemon belongs to the church age, the grace dispensation, which is now.

But dispensationalists generally believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. Once the church is raptured, what will be left on earth will be the unbelieving Jews as well as the Gentiles. When the grace dispensation is over, salvation will once again be based on faith AND works.

That is how James 2, 1 John and Revelations 14:9-12, can be understood.

Good explanation, thank you.

 

[redleghunter]

But dispensationalists generally believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. Once the church is raptured, what will be left on earth will be the unbelieving Jews as well as the Gentiles. When the grace dispensation is over, salvation will once again be based on faith AND works.

On the bolded above. Classic Dispensationalism does not promote salvation will revert to "faith and works." No one, not even in the OT was saved by the law or works. It has always been saved by God's Grace. Even the epistle to the Hebrews makes this crystal clear by contrasting the Old Covenant with the New Covenant but confirming the New Covenant is by which all by Grace through Faith are saved. Hebrews 11 points this out clearly.

Now there is a variant of dispensational groups who believe the gospel changed at various points in Acts of the Apostles. But the apostle Peter puts this to rest in Acts 11 and Acts 15:

Acts 11: NASB

1Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, 3saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence, saying, 5“I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object coming down like a great sheet lowered by four corners from the sky; and it came right down to me, 6and when I had fixed my gaze on it and was observing it I saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling creatures and the birds of the air. 7“I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8“But I said, ‘By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9“But a voice from heaven answered a second time, ‘What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.’ 10“This happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky. 11“And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea. 12“The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. 13“And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”​

Acts 15: NASB

1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”​

The Gospel has always been Grace since the foundations of the world and always will be by God's Grace.

 

[Phil W]

The letter has always fascinated me, and from a "dispensational" angle seemed under studied. This is why I posted the attached article, which I thought was well written. I’m not dogmatic on my current understanding, and would like input (and why I did not set out to debate a position).

I was going to first ask "what do you think dispensational is?", but other posters have filled in the blanks, (thanx) so...
If there are actually different "requirements" for salvation for Jews and Gentiles depending on the date of their conversion...pre or post Paul's revelation, which one applies to the Jews who were converted by Paul before his writings were published?

Actually, dispensationalism just seems to be a divisive effort by the devil.
Both Jew and Gentile have the same requirements, ie, love God above all else and love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Whether or not the Jew eats pork or not, his love(s) will be the discriminator at the final judgement, not how well he adhered to Mosaic rules.
That being said, John's epistles are equally written to Jew and Gentile.
The gist?
Walk in the light-God, and not in darkness-sin.
All unrighteousness is sin.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

I was going to first ask "what do you think dispensational is?", but other posters have filled in the blanks, (thanx) so...
If there are actually different "requirements" for salvation for Jews and Gentiles depending on the date of their conversion...pre or post Paul's revelation, which one applies to the Jews who were converted by Paul before his writings were published?

Actually, dispensationalism just seems to be a divisive effort by the devil.
Both Jew and Gentile have the same requirements, ie, love God above all else and love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Whether or not the Jew eats pork or not, his love(s) will be the discriminator at the final judgement, not how well he adhered to Mosaic rules.
That being said, John's epistles are equally written to Jew and Gentile.
The gist?
Walk in the light-God, and not in darkness-sin.
All unrighteousness is sin.

This is why I appreciate input. I’m not sure exactly where I fall on the "dispensational" spectrum. "Let God be true, though every man were a liar" is the bottom line. I learn a lot from dispensational teachers, they take the Scriptures very seriously.

 

[Phil W]

This is why I appreciate input. I’m not sure exactly where I fall on the "dispensational" spectrum. "Let God be true, though every man were a liar" is the bottom line. I learn a lot from dispensational teachers, they take the Scriptures very seriously.

Technically, there is no difference between dispen' and pre-dispen'.
It is just a reference to the state of learning based on time.
They both require us to love God above all else and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
I have found that dispen' teachers frequently dispense with obedience to any exhortation or admonishment regarding any commandment.
They are of the "faith is enough for salvation" camp and use their POV to dispense with baptism, repentance from sin, obedience to God, and a boat load of whatever they choose to label "pre-dispensational".

 

[Guojing]

On the bolded above. Classic Dispensationalism does not promote salvation will revert to "faith and works." No one, not even in the OT was saved by the law or works. It has always been saved by God's Grace. Even the epistle to the Hebrews makes this crystal clear by contrasting the Old Covenant with the New Covenant but confirming the New Covenant is by which all by Grace through Faith are saved. Hebrews 11 points this out clearly.

The Gospel has always been Grace since the foundations of the world and always will be by God's Grace.

Oh you are an Acts 2 dispy? I don't get a chance to interact much with them in Internet forums.

Let's discuss how a classical dispensationalist view salvation in the OT. Yes, I will definitely agree that God's grace is involved. But faith is our response to God's grace, and Paul clearly stated that we are saved by grace thru faith.

Since both of us accept that salvation is by faith apart from works in the grace dispensation, the question is, what about those in OT, those in the 4 Gospels for example?

Do they also show faith by ceasing from their works? You seem to be implying that is the case from your use of Hebrews 11. A few questions will come to mind that will clarify for me exactly what your beliefs are.

If Abel put his faith in God's instructions about the right way to approach him, but chose not to offer the correct sacrifice, would God still considered him saved?

If Rahab put her faith in God of the Jews but chose not to hide the spies, would God still considered her saved?

If Noah believed God that there will be a flood but choose not to build an ark, would God still considered him saved?

And since we are in the subject of the Tribulation too, if someone then put his faith in Jesus's death burial and resurrection at the beginning, but somewhere in during the Trib, decided to take the mark of the beast, would God still considered him saved?

Are all these considered works to you? Bringing an animal for sacrifice, building an ark, hiding the spies, rejecting the mark of the beast?


I am interested in hearing your opinions.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh you are an Acts 2 dispy? I don't get a chance to interact much with them in Internet forums.

I’m actually Reformed but do respect Classic Dispensationalism. So on these threads I try to help those who are interested to know the distinctions between actual Classic Dispensational theology and the hyper Dispensational theology. The Classic Dispensational theology never separated Gospels.

Let's discuss how a classical dispensationalist view salvation in the OT. Yes, I will definitely agree that God's grace is involved. But faith is our response to God's grace, and Paul clearly stated that we are saved by grace thru faith.

Yes Paul did and very interesting he spends an entire chapter in discourse in Romans chapter 4 explaining we are saved by Grace through faith by giving the example of Abraham. In both Romans and Hebrews we see the “Golden thread” of faith throughout revealed redemptive history.

Since both of us accept that salvation is by faith apart from works in the grace dispensation, the question is, what about those in OT, those in the 4 Gospels for example?

Again see Romans chapter 4. How did Paul logically argue that he was not teaching something new? The faith of Abraham was invoked. That was well before the Mosaic Law.

Do they also show faith by ceasing from their works? You seem to be implying that is the case from your use of Hebrews 11. A few questions will come to mind that will clarify for me exactly what your beliefs are.

What do you mean by ceasing to work. In Hebrews 11, they believed and trusted God. Since they believed the promises of God they acted accordingly in faith.

If your point is “is faith comatose” my answer is no. Saving faith is a gift of God. And this Faith as Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 is an active and obedient faith.

If Abel put his faith in God's instructions about the right way to approach him, but chose not to offer the correct sacrifice, would God still considered him saved?

This would not be faith. We do and act upon what we believe to be true. Abel followed God’s instructions because he trusted God’s words and promises.

If Rahab put her faith in God of the Jews but chose not to hide the spies, would God still considered her saved?

But she did.

If Noah believed God that there will be a flood but choose not to build an ark, would God still considered him saved?

But he did.

Are all these considered works to you? Bringing an animal for sacrifice, building an ark, hiding the spies?

All of these are examples of the saving faith explained in Romans 4 and Hebrews 11.

 

[Guojing]

I’m actually Reformed but do respect Classic Dispensationalism. So on these threads I try to help those who are interested to know the distinctions between actual Classic Dispensational theology and the hyper Dispensational theology. The Classic Dispensational theology never separated Gospels.


Yes Paul did and very interesting he spends an entire chapter in discourse in Romans chapter 4 explaining we are saved by Grace through faith by giving the example of Abraham. In both Romans and Hebrews we see the “Golden thread” of faith throughout revealed redemptive history.


Again see Romans chapter 4. How did Paul logically argue that he was not teaching something new? The faith of Abraham was invoked. That was well before the Mosaic Law.


What do you mean by ceasing to work. In Hebrews 11, they believed and trusted God. Since they believed the promises of God they acted accordingly in faith.

If your point is “is faith comatose” my answer is no. Saving faith is a gift of God. And this Faith as Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 is an active and obedient faith.


This would not be faith. We do and act upon what we believe to be true. Abel followed God’s instructions because he trusted God’s words and promises.


But she did.

But he did.

All of these are examples of the saving faith explained in Romans 4 and Hebrews 11.

The point is not whether those works did happen. But if they had not done those works, would God considered them saved? Is it very difficult to answer that hypothetical question of mine? I am asking for your opinion, you need not worry whether it is right or wrong.

It seems your definition of saving/active/obedient faith is faith accompanied by works?

As for Paul he explicitly stated a number of times that, for us now under the grace dispensation, we show faith in God by ceasing from our works.

"BUT NOW the righteousness of God without the law is manifested" (Rom. 3:21);

"To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5);

"Being Justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24);

"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7);

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Tit. 3:5);

"Not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9) -

When God now says this, what will faith do? Faith will say, "This is the most wonderful offer ever made by God to man. I cannot refuse it. I will trust Christ as my Savior and accept salvation as the free gift of God's grace."

However, that option of ceasing from your works was not available in the OT. Abel, Rahab, Noah had to show their faith in God by their works. This was what James was also referring to in that famous chapter 2.

 

[redleghunter]

The point is not whether those works did happen. But if they had not done those works, would God considered them saved?

Frankly the line of questioning is absurd.

All saints old and new labored for God because they believed His promises.

Is it very difficult to answer that hypothetical question of mine? I am asking for your opinion, you need not worry whether it is right or wrong.

You created an unnecessary dichotomy. The fact is all saints old and new believed the promises of God and because they trusted Him acted according to His Will and Purpose. That’s God Inspired Revealed fact.

It seems your definition of saving/active/obedient faith is faith accompanied by works?

From my comments I don’t see how you would conclude that. I’m Reformed.

My point again is you create an unnecessary dichotomy faith vs works. Here’s why:

Ephesians 2: NASB

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

As for Paul he explicitly stated a number of times that, for us now under the grace dispensation, we show faith in God by ceasing from our works.

In don’t think Paul had in mind what you are promoting. He was contrasting the efforts of man to justify themselves vs the Finished Work of Jesus Christ.

If Paul took his own advice according to how you are interpreting “ceasing work” He would not have labored for the Lord as an Apostle.

The Biblical theme throughout Old and New Testaments is people acted on what they believed and trusted in. Hebrews 11 and Romans 4 show this clearly.

"BUT NOW the righteousness of God without the law is manifested" (Rom. 3:21);

Amen

"To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5);

Amen

"Being Justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24);

"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7);

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Tit. 3:5);

"Not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9) -

And Amen!

When God now says this, what will faith do? Faith will say, "This is the most wonderful offer ever made by God to man. I cannot refuse it. I will trust Christ as my Savior and accept salvation as the free gift of God's grace."

There is no other way.

However, that option of ceasing from your works was not available in the OT. Abel, Rahab, Noah had to show their faith by their works. This was what James was also referring to in that famous chapter 2.

No sir you have it wrong. The same laboring for what people trusted in the OT is the same in the NT. The 11 Apostles and the Apostle Paul labored for the Gospel, planted churches and were persecuted for not only what they said but what they did.

Paul spends a lot of ink telling the churches how much he had labored for the Lord. His labor was not salvific but the results of:

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”

You are creating a dichotomy which is not present in Holy Scriptures.

There is nothing we do to save ourselves. There is nothing we do to “keep” our salvation. We are Justified, Sanctified and will be Glorified by Grace through faith. All the Finished Work of Jesus Christ.

“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.” (Galatians 3:11)

And cover to cover in the Bible those who lived by Faith did not sit on their hands. They acted on the promises and commands of God.

 

[Guojing]

Frankly the line of questioning is absurd.

All saints old and new labored for God because they believed His promises.


You created an unnecessary dichotomy. The fact is all saints old and new believed the promises of God and because they trusted Him acted according to His Will and Purpose. That’s God Inspired Revealed fact.


From my comments I don’t see how you would conclude that. I’m Reformed.

My point again is you create an unnecessary dichotomy faith vs works. Here’s why:

Ephesians 2: NASB

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.


In don’t think Paul had in mind what you are promoting. He was contrasting the efforts of man to justify themselves vs the Finished Work of Jesus Christ.

If Paul took his own advice according to how you are interpreting “ceasing work” He would not have labored for the Lord as an Apostle.

The Biblical theme throughout Old and New Testaments is people acted on what they believed and trusted in. Hebrews 11 and Romans 4 show this clearly.


Amen


Amen



And Amen!


There is no other way.

No sir you have it wrong. The same laboring for what people trusted in the OT is the same in the NT. The 11 Apostles and the Apostle Paul labored for the Gospel, planted churches and were persecuted for not only what they said but what they did.

Paul spends a lot of ink telling the churches how much he had labored for the Lord. His labor was not salvific but the results of:

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”

You are creating a dichotomy which is not present in Holy Scriptures.

There is nothing we do to save ourselves. There is nothing we do to “keep” our salvation. We are Justified, Sanctified and will be Glorified by Grace through faith. All the Finished Work of Jesus Christ.

“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.” (Galatians 3:11)

And cover to cover in the Bible those who lived by Faith did not sit on their hands. They acted on the promises and commands of God.

Since you are unwilling to answer those questions, your belief about how one is saved becomes vague to me. You seem to be following the popular saying that "You are saved by faith alone but faith that saves is NEVER alone."

If I interpret you correctly, the problem with such an argument like "Works do not cause salvation but works follow after salvation, otherwise one is not really saved" is pretty much a circular argument.

The argument flows like this

You only need to believe to be saved, no works required.

But if you don't show works after you are saved, you are not really saved, because it shows you don't really believe.

Yet, you only need to believe to be saved, no works required.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You either believe it is faith alone without works that save, or you believe that its faith AND works that save.

If there must be works after you are saved, to prove that your faith is true saving faith, then its equivalent to saying if works are not present, then one is not saved. This is modus tollens.

That makes work a necessary condition for salvation, which you avoid saying.

 

[Guojing]

Frankly the line of questioning is absurd.

Maybe a final question then, since you may have missed this earlier

And since we are in the subject of the Tribulation too, if someone then put his faith in Jesus's death burial and resurrection at the beginning, but somewhere in during the Trib, decided to take the mark of the beast, would God still considered him saved?

Do you think this question is also absurd? Is it very difficult for you to state your opinion on this?