Salvation: by faith alone or faith and works?

[Botz]

This will be a closed debate between OldEnglishSheepdog and Chestertonrules on the subject of SALVATION...whether it is by faith alone, or whether it is by faith and works. ..the usual rules apply which are:-

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

First of all I'd like to outline the assumptions I will be using and the contentions I will be defending under those assumptions.

My assumption is that the Word of God is truth (John 17:17), that it is living and active (Hebrews 4:12) and that God wants to reason with us (Isaiah 1:18) and does so according to His word (Isaiah 66:2) and an exegetical approach is what God instructs (Isaiah 28:9-10).

It is my contention that the Word of God is wholly sufficient to equip the believer (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and that scripture is that word of God, given by divine revelation (1 Thes. 2:13).

By contrast, what seems right to people is not necessarily right (Isaiah 55:8; Proverbs 14:12; 16:25), so when we come together to reason about God we have to use His word to interpret His word. It is also my assumption that we are warned against placing our faith in other people (Isaiah 2:22) over God’s word (Jer. 17:5), and that those who claim to be the mediators of God’s word can and historically have been corruptors of that Word and anytime they stray from scripture they end up teaching for doctrines the traditions of men, a practice that’s thoroughly condemned by both the Old and New Testament scriptures and such people should be resisted even if they're claiming to be priests, prophets or apostles (Jer. 5:31; Isaiah 29:13; Matt; 15:9; Mark 7:7; Col. 2:22; 2 Cor. 11:13; Galatians 1: 1-9).

We should never add to the words of God (Proverbs 30:5-6) but should strive to accurately understand His word in context and interpret passages by closely examining the words in the statements and examining the words in like contextual applications.

With that in mind, if the Bible makes a positive statement, that statement is to be believed as written in its context, with nothing added to it or subtracted from it, those truths should be understood and used to interpret other passages. If there is a seeming contention between two passages, they must be compared for their context, and only the words that are written should be considered, free from preconceived assumptions.

In this way I propose that the Bible believing reader can be as objective as possible in their reading of God’s word.

So, the contention I wish to defend is simply that the Bible states clearly and indisputably that we are saved by grace, through faith, not by works, it is the gift of God, and that gift is namely eternal life.

I maintain that this is so because the Bible undeniably states as much in two verses: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9),

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

These passages are consistent with treating the necessary conditions for salvation in their contexts, and are accompanied by many other verses that clearly demonstrate that if someone doesn’t work for their salavation they are saved if they earnestly accept the gift of God through faith, which is credited to them as righteousness.

It is not my contention that everyone who has any kind of faith is saved, nor that anyone who claims to have faith but is paying lip service is saved. “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1), and it is faith in the gospel which is imparted to us as righteousness (Romans 1:17). Any and every perversion of the faith of the gospel is rewarded with damnation (Galatians 1:9), so the nature of our faith an in what we place our faith is of utmost importance to salvation.

Since many will say “Lord Lord” and Jesus will say ‘I never knew you’ as we see in Matthew 7, I submit that it is fully consistent with the knowledge that we are saved by grace through faith not by works that not just any faith would save us. It has to be faith in the gospel to be a living, saving faith, which entails honest repentance and submission to God’s will, so that it is not we who live any longer but Christ in us (Gal. 2:20) and that works are a necessary manifestation of such a transformative faith.

So, since salvation being by grace, through faith, not by works is so clearly stated in scripture, unless and until someone can demonstrate that these passages do not say what I assert, I maintain they are clear and consistent as the condition outlined by God for salvation.

Now, chestertonrules, regarding the passage you bring up:

I'll get the ball rolling with a familiar passage. In fact, this the only time in scripture when the words "faith alone" are used.

To begin with, this is irrelevant. My argument is not predicated on the usage of the words ‘faith alone’, but with the accurate and honest treatment of all the words in their proper context.

I think the passage is quite clear, but I'm sure OES will explain why it means something different than it says!

On the contrary, let’s look at exactly what the passage does say, and distinguish that from what it doesn't say.

Let’s first examine the context of the letter to see how the passage is framed. The epistle of James starts out as follows:

“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.

“Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.”

So, right away we can see that this letter is to the Jewish believers (brothers and sisters who have faith of the twelve tribes scattered among the nations).

The letter proceeds and the beginning of the chapter in question is as follows:

“My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism.”

So he’s instructing believers in Jesus on how to behave. We’ll bear in mind that this is the context in which James is writing.

James 2

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?

Notice the wording here -claims to have faith. So the sincerity of the faith may be in question. Let’s read on.

Can such faith save him?

Stopping right there, it is wholly consistent with my position to suggest that indeed, no, such faith could not save him.

As I mentioned, my contention is not that any pretense of faith is honest faith, nor is all faith saving faith. The passage in Ephesians 2:8-9, which states that salvation is by grace, through faith, not by works, in no way suggests that any faith will do.

Muslims have faith – does such faith save them? I have faith in my wife, does such faith save me?

The object and the nature of the faith both have to be properly understood to determine the kind of faith that saves.

Let’s continue:

15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

So, we see that there is a kind of dead faith, and that such a faith will not save a person. We also see that works will accompany living faith. With this I agree.

However, this does not state that salvation is by grace through faith and works. That’s simply not what it says.

What it does say is that if faith is not accompanied by works (action) that faith is dead.

So there is a dead kind of faith and a living kind of faith.

With this I have no contention. Once again, it is my assumption that many will say Lord Lord and He will say ‘I never knew you’. I fully acknowledge that there are dead faiths that don’t save and that live faith will be accompanied by its necessary manifestation of works and this passage explicitly states nothing more.

18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Notice exactly what James is saying – I will show you my faith by what I do.

Does he state that one must be saved by their works? No, he states that he will show his faith by his works. They are a demonstration of saving faith.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

Here we have an excellent demonstration of dead faith. Demons that believe fully in God and Jesus and fully acknowledge His existence are not saved. Belief is not enough to constitute living faith, it must be the transformative, living faith of being born again in honest repentance and submission to God.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Again, let’s pay particular attention to what’s being said.

It says that Abraham’s faith was made complete by his works.

Does it actually state that he was saved by faith and works? No, it doesn’t. It says his faith was made complete by his works, which is consistent with what we see above, in that he showed his faith by works, and which is also consistent with what we see in Hebrews on exactly this topic:

“By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death” (Hebrews 11:17-19).

Since “faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1), what he did he did by faith, which justified his faith - this offers no challenge to the assertion that it was his faith that is what saved him.

So I entirely agree that “his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.”

I disagree with the unbiblical assumption that therefore, ‘his faith and his actions were working together towards his salvation’ which the text does not say.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.

So, what does it say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” We clearly see here that it was Abraham’s belief that was credited to him as righteousness, not his works.

Let’s look at an undeniably expository passage in Romans 4, which even quotes the same source passage from Genesis 15:6: “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

“Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness…” (Romans 4:2-5).

The passage continues in verse 20 as follows:

“Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4: 20-25).

This requires no interpretation from me, only that the passage in James is not in conflict with Romans because it’s referring to making of Abraham’s faith complete, not the contingency or lack thereof of Abraham’s faith unto salvation, as is the context in Romans 4.

I submit that this clearly demonstrates the truth of the matter, wholly apart from any of my personal assumptions.

24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

And here, I believe, is the heart of the disagreement.

We’ve seen that the context is not how a man is saved, beyond the mention that such faith as does not manifest works does not save, with which I have no quarrel.

This verse, if removed from its context does seem to imply that salvation is contingent on works, even though the context is clearly denoted in Romans 4 to the contrary. Still, to put to rest any lingering doubts the reader might have regarding extra-biblical assumptions, let’s put the two verses that form the backbones of our cases side by side and see what emerges:

“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone”

““For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”

What we see, objectively is that the latter verse explicitly states that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works it is the gift of God (which we’ve seen in Romans 4 and 6 is not recompense for work otherwise it would be wages and not a gift), whereas the former makes no explicit mention of saving or salvation. The word justified must be interpreted to be justified in God’s eyes unto salvation, in order to maintain the suggestion that we require works for salvation.

Therefore, I maintain that the exegetical reading demonstrates we are saved by grace through faith, and that works are the necessary manifestation of such saving faith.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

This statment also provides no challenge to Ephesians 2:8-9, or Romans 6:23. Interestingly enough further reading on the significance of the nature of Rahab’s faith is also available in Hebrews 11, how it was “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient” (verse 31).

So, regarding these comments:

Comments:

1) This passage discusses the value of faith alone for salvation.( and concludes that it has no value)

It does not. And exegetical reading reveals that it treats the nature of saving faith, by starting with the statement that people ‘claiming’ to have faith, but don’t show works do not have the kind of faith that saves.

Your assertion is garnered from eisegesis which assumes the meaning of the text at the expense of the particulars of the wording, the immediate context within the passages, and the context in light of parallel passages in scripture as a whole which explicitly state the contrary to this assumption.

2) This passage states that faith alone is dead and that dead faith will not justify a person.

What it states is that the kind of faith that does not have works is dead, which is wholly consistent with the other passages that explicitly state that salvation is by grace through faith, not works, which Romans 4 deals with on exactly the same subject of Abraham's faith as we see in James 2, but in Romans the specific context is not in reference to how Christians ought to behave but is specifically regarinding the conditions for salvation and thus goes into in greater detail towards that end.

3) This passage tells us that our faith is made complete and effective based on our actions.

Yes, our faith is, but our gift of eternal life is not on the line here. The Bible goes on to talk about the rewards we’ll earn in our works, after explicitly stating that the gift of God is eternal life (Romans 6:23) and such a gift cannot be earned (Romans 4: 4-6). The rewards are above and beyond the gift and any suggestion to the contrary must be inserted into the text as a preexisting assumption.

So, I submit that even this passage which you submitted with the assertion that it demonstrates salvation by faith plus works, in fact demonstrates the contrary, to which we could add numerous passages which expressly affirm this conclusion.

Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I don't care about your assumptions. I'll ignore those points unrelated to the scripture I posted for now.

If you want to make other points later in the debate, that will be fine.

Your long, irrlevant filibusters are annoying and ineffective.

I disagree.

If I were debating with someone who said they were a Christian but denied the inerrancy of scripture, then without stating assumptions they could accuse me of circular reasoning by using scripture to interpret scripture.

If someone subscribed to the Mormon doctrine of the burning in the breast, again my assumptions would come second to their feelings of conviction, so it is important to establish certain approaches at the forefront in order to have a meaningful conversation.

I'm not sure what your point is here. If you believe that salvation and our walk with Christ is different for Jews and gentiles, then I think you are mistaken. Otherwise, this is an irrelevant waste of space and time.

I agree that salvation is the same for the Jew and for the gentile, but if in the future you’re mistaken again in assuming that such is not my position, a stronger refutation than you provided would have been, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

But in saying that any other point I could be making is irrelevant, I disagree. The point was that a passage has to be considered in its context, and here we can see that the context is to those believers in Christ who come from a background of intimate familiarity with the scriptures, but also a heritage of being under the Law of Moses and who are now new creatures by grace through faith in Yeshua.

I submit that the inductive approach I’m undertaking here is not at all a waste of time since it is what is commanded in the Bible, as I outlined in my assumptions (Isaiah 28:9-10) and is key to properly understanding the purpose of the books, which directly frames the passages.

If you said, “I love chocolate, and anyone who thinks that chocolate tastes terrible is wrong”, I can’t simply remove part of your sentence without considering the purpose communicated in the overall context and simply assume any part of it will carry the meaning with it, as we see if I were simply to quote the part that says “… chocolate tastes terrible”.

Context dictates the meaning.

If you had read my entire post, you’d have noticed that I made reference to the context in my summary on which I’ll now expand even further by noting that James’ purpose wasn’t to write to the saved on how to be saved, but on how Christians who understand that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled are to behave knowing that they’re free from the Law, and by contrast Romans chapter 4 was dealing directly with how we stand justified unto salvation in God's estimation by grace through faith in Christ.

Both James 2 and Romans 4 deal with overlap on exactly the same issue of Abraham's faith in Genesis 15, but the context of James is talking to Hebrews who are saved about how to behave in Christ, and Romans 4 is addressed to gentiles on then nature of salvation by faith apart from works.

So I submit, establishing the context is of utmost importance to understanding the text.

James is referring to faith in the one True God.

Of course. Faith is not about the one who holds the faith, but in the reliability and trustworthiness of the one in whom the faith is placed. If I have faith in my wife's marital faithfulness and she’s unfaithful then my faith is useless. Likewise, if she's maritally faithful, but terribly forgetful and I place my faith in her remembering my birthday, my faith is useless.

Faith in the unchanging, all faithful holy God is saving because the object of the faith is faithful, not because the holder of the faith is faithful or worthy, and He has declaired that to have faith in Him we must have faith in the gospel of salvation, or else our faith is not saving faith.

But notice that just the very fact that James asks “Can such faith save him” demonstrates that salvation is found or lost in the faith.

He then describes what makes this faith alive and effective.

16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

James tells us that faith unaccompanied by actions is dead faith. Do you believe that faith unaccompanied by actions is a living faith?

I already stated the contrary.

So we agree that there is live faith and dead faith. We also agree that live faith will be accompanied by works.

Given that we both agree with those things, upon what grounds do you go and then indicate that Ephesians 2:8-9 is incorrect in saying that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, it is the gift of God?

Once again, I am not contending that if you have some kind of belief in God that this is live faith, so the above is no problem for me, but you’ll notice that the above does not say that by works we are saved, only that if we have a live faith it should be accompanied by works, unlike a dead faith.

However, this does not state that salvation is by grace through faith and works. That’s simply not what it says.

That's exactly what it says.

No, if that were exactly what it says then it would say “salvation is by grace through faith and works”.

If you maintain that such is exactly what it says, please show me the verse in which those words appear.

I submit I’ve examined the passage and they’re not there.

By insisting that it is exactly what it says you’re simply admitting that you’re reading into the passages exact statements that objectively aren’t part of the text.

What it does say is that if faith is not accompanied by works (action) that faith is dead.

Yes it does!!

I know. That is why I said “What it does say is that if faith is not accompanied by works (action) that faith is dead”.

Belief is not enough to constitute living faith, it must be the transformative, living faith of being born again in honest repentance and submission to God.

This debate is over.

You have conceded my position.

I must disagree and suggest that I really have not.

Faith is clearly differentiated from works in the Bible, and faith is what saves us and works are what we are to do for rewards after we’re saved by grace through faith not by works: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Works are our purpose as new creatures in Christ.

But having the faith isn’t the same thing as doing the works. Feeling repentant and feeling humble before God with a broken and contrite heart is not working. Those are beliefs, values, feelings and elements of emotional investment, and are therefore a part of faith.

Works are not beliefs, values, feelings and emotional investments. If you think they are then you will be fired from whatever job to which you will try your hand, because they will expect you to work.

The Bible clearly differentiates between faith and works, tells us it’s by faith we’re saved and tells us the heart conditions that constitute faith.

Redefining beliefs, values, feelings and emotional investments as works neither makes sense nor does it erase Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 6:23 from the Bible, nor does it help you deal with the parallel passage from Romans 4 I presented as expounding on salvation by faith alone and not by works while addressing the exact same passage from Genesis 15:6 as James 2:

“Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness… Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4: 2-5; 20-25).

It seems peculiar that you didn’t even bother to address this passage, which states in no uncertain terms that “to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness” and yet you still imagine a concession on my part.

I submit that I’ve dealt with the passage you presented line by line, addressing what it actually states and separating that from what you assert it states yet is not represented either in the text, the context of the chapter, the context of the Epistle, nor the context of scripture overall (especially in light of the passage from Romans 4, but also given that my position is simply the exact words of Ephesians 2:8-9, while salvation has to be interpreted into the passages from James 2 if it’s to be supposed to be contingent on works).

So, you’ve apparently tried to redefine the elements of faith such as values, beliefs, and feelings as works, suggested that words appear in this passage that simply do not, and ignored the actual words that do appear in the parallel passage in Romans 4 that explicitly state that for the one who does not work their faith will be credited to them as righteousness, which is in no conflict with the fact that such faith is made complete in works since we are new creatures in Christ and our purpose in faith is to do the works God set out for us to do in advance.

I must contest that this passage does not contain the words you assert and the words it does contain do not communicate the meaning you attribute, so it is a preconception you’re reading into the text which must be dismissed in favour of what the Bible does actually say in expository passages such as Romans 4, as well as those which I mentioned are the foundation of my assumptions:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

I do not see how I've made any concession as I believe I've stayed true to my stated assumptions, in which I understand you did not bother to invest much focus, and if you had done so, perhaps you would not so readily misinterpret this as a concession.

In either case, I've made numerous points on how the words do not express the meaning you're reading into the text, and the expository nature of passages from Hebrews 11 and Romans 4, so in light of my disagreement that I've made a concession, I submit this debate is not yet over.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Belief is not enough to constitute living faith, it must be the transformative, living faith of being born again in honest repentance and submission to God.

Repentance and submission to God require work.(ie. willful thoughts, words, or actions)

I noticed that you had to remove my comments in order to deny them, because they've already addressed what's wanting in such an assertion, so I'll simply say that this assertion is not outlined as such by the Bible. You're simply asserting this which is not according to the Bible but just according to you. The Bible clearly differentiates between faith and works and states beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is faith that saves us not works, and that once we're saved our purpose is to do the works of God:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" (Ephesians 2:8-10).

It also clearly tells us that we have to repent and die to ourselves and that we will be saved and that that salvation is the gift of God (Romans 6:23), and such is not earned by works because if it was it would no longer be a gift but wages as we saw from the passage in Romans 4 that deals directly with the subjects addressed in James 2, so the Bible entirely disagrees with you, as I've already pointed out and as you've failed to addressed.

So from a cursory examination of scripture we can see that it's God's word against yours on this, and He's in a position to dictate what constitutes faith versus works, which one saves, whether or not that's exclusive by His definition instead of yours and whether or not He gives salvation as a gift of if He'll accept our filthy rags of righteousness as labour for which He'll reward.

"Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?" (Isaiah 2:22).

Faith without works is dead and will not save you.

Such a faith won't save, because such a faith is a dead faith. Mine is a living faith, and as we see from the parallel passage in Romans 4, which I already quoted but with which you seem unwilling to address, which states a clear objection to your very argument "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:5-6).

You keep making statements about scripture instead of actually interacting with the scripture in any kind of meaningful way, choosing instead to try to reduce it to the way it may come across if taken out of its context if considered only according to extra-biblical assumptions instead of Biblical precepts.

I've dealt with the passage from James 2 and have submitted Biblical challenges for you to do likewise but you've only reiterated your initial assertions that I've shown are not supported by the words of the text, or their context, or the rest of scripture, to which you've added only your counter-biblical insistence that works include the things which God has defined for us as elements of saving faith, quite apart from works, which will not save.

I contest that your summaries are oversimplifications to the point of misrepresentation and even downright denial of what the scripture actually teaches because we see as much expounded in the very passage in Romans 4 that deals with the subject of James 2 but from a persepctive of justification before God (instead of how a Christian ought to behave, as we've seen is the context of James 2), a theme which continues throughout the epistle ot the Romans : "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe" (Romans 3:22), "the gift of God is eternal life" (Romans 6:23) "but the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many" (Romans 5:15), "And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:5-6).

So we see that righteousness comes by faith, the gift of God is eternal life that came by grace and not by works, and if by works then grace be no more grace.

Once again, this gift of grace is through faith and not works as Romans 4 made so clear because if a gift is worked for then it's earn so the gift is no more a gift by a recompense, which would deny that "the gift of God is eternal life" (Romans 6:23).

Scripture thoroughly deals with and subsequently air-tightly rejects your assertion.

So your conclusion seems to be that faith plus submission to God is necessary for salvation, and I agree!

No, saving faith is submission to God but apart from works: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" (Ephesians 2:8-10). I submit you're still trying to smuggle in a clause that would serve as the thin edge of the wedge of works to try to pound something other that salvation by grace through faith, not by works into the gospel message.

Notice that you didn't reference anything I actually stated in this response, but still presumed to summarized my view despite my arguments? That's the problem with ignoring all of my statements and then informing me of my own conclusion - you're committing the strawman fallacy of ascribing an argument to me instead of dealing with the one I'm presenting.

So, I've dealt with the passage you submitted in James 2 in terms of looking at the actual words used and we see that it doesn't actually explicitly state that salvation is by faith and works, but only that the kind of faith that saves will be accompanied by works, which is consistent with my position, and I've dealt with the passage by presenting numerous parallel passages which expound specifically on the unconditional nature of salvation by faith apart from works, which you've ignored and simply restated your initial assumptions about the passages despite the scripture.

I've dealt with the passage you've submitted as far as I can in light of your turning a blind eye to the scripture I've presented and the subsequent arguments I've made (choosing instead, it seems, to ignore the bulk of my arguments by failing to address them and even deleting my words in a rare instance of even the pretense of dealing with my position, so that you could simply restate the assumption my deleted argument already addressed) and since it was I who invited you to this conversation, and allowed you to take the liberty of presenting the first passage and even setting the rule of dealing with one passage at a time, which I've done in expository manner, I therefore believe I've been more than fair in dealing with your position and that it is now my turn to present a passage for consideration.

How then do you deal with what the scripture states "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9), which is my position, is drawn straight from the exact words of scripture, and is something that you flatly deny?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Salvation is by grace through faith, but not by faith alone, as you have admitted.

I admitted no such thing. My position has been and continues to be that salvation is by grace through faith not by works, it is the gift of God and if it is worked for in any way it ceases to be a gift as we see in the expository passage in Romans 4, "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. Howeve, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:2-5).

So, could you please discontinue informing me of my position according to how you'd prefer to deal with my position, as that's a strawman fallacy, and please finally deal with this passage which informs the reading of James 2, as it deals with the same passage in Genesis but specifically within the context in which you wish to explore in James 2, or move on to the next phase of the debate and address the passage I've presented which is Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast"?

I've presented it numerous times and you keep ignoring it, opting instead to issue strawmen fallacies.

Saving faith MUST be accompanied by submission to God.

I've already pointed out that saving faith is submission to God, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20); "But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation" (Col. 1:22).

Once again, you're ignoring all the scripture I've presented and the arguments I've made to simply reassert your initial assumptions which have been demonstrated to be incongruous with scripture.

Your opinions do not make truth, it is scripture that is truth (John 17:17), so you can't simply state and restate your unsubstantiated opinion despite scripture.

If we don't submit and strive to follow God's will our faith will not save us.

Why do you keep making unbiblical assertions in response to the Biblical verses that challenge these very assertions?

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

"If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:2-5).

"the gift of God is eternal life" (Romans 6:23).

Once again, as I've pointed out and you ignored to simply restate your initial, unbiblical assumptions, the passage in James 2 overlaps very nicely with Romans 4 and Romans 4 provides the context which you seek regarding how we're justified in God's eyes and we see clearly that its by faith apart from works, and that eternal life is the gift of God obtained by grace through faith not by works, "and if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6).

Your assertions are flat out denials of scripture. Please deal with the scripture instead of simply restating unbiblical assumptions that continue to be unbiblical, and will continue be as demonstrably so, regardless of how many times you repeat them.

You seem confused by Paul's references to the works of the Jewish law.

In demonstrably point of fact, you seem to be confused as Paul could not possibly be making reference to Jewish law, since the topic is Abraham, who preceded Moses through whom the Jewish Law was given.

Just look at the Old Testament for a second - Abraham comes in after the tower of Babel in Genesis Chapter 11 (while he was still called Abram), and Moses doesn't enter the picture until Exodus 2 - that's chronologically much later.

What I've been pointing your attention to is that James 2 and the expository passage in Romans 4 overlap on the point of Abraham's faith versus Abraham's works. This so demonstrably has nothing to do with the Law of Moses that it really makes me wonder if you even bothered to read my argument, or the passages in question.

Therefore the works in the discussion of faith verses works as dealt with in Romans 4 is demonstrably not the works of the law - not that it would make any difference, as the law was simply the commandments of God, given to demonstrate that humanity cannot be saved by working towards the adherence to God's commandements given to man but needs to be saved by faith not by works, so your argument would fail in either case, as Romans explicitly addresses later in chapter 9, "the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works" (Romans 9:30-32).

However we needn't complicate the matter, since suffice it to say it is simply impossible for Paul to have been referencing the works of the Mosaic Law long before Moses was born, and such was the case in Romans 4, which expounds on the topic of Abraham's faith as seen in James 2.

There is a distinction between obedience to God's commandments and adherence to the Jewish Law, as Paul makes clear multiple times in scripture.

Once again, the topic is about Abraham, who predated the Jewish Law, so no, Paul was not making any kind of distinction - such is a total impossibility.

Further from that, you can't now run off to other passages that will not support your point upon further investigation, just as James 2 didn't when the actual words were compared to your assertions, then examined in their context and then held up to the light of scripture as a whole.

You set the rule that we were to deal with one passage at a time, and I dealt with the passage you submitted in James 2 as far as I could since I examined the words used and then extended the examination to the demonstrably direct parallel passages, all of which you ignored.

So, it was my turn to submit a passage for examination and that passage is Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Since this is my position, extracted right from the exact words of scripture, how do you reconcile the exact words of this passage since they contradict your argument?

Here are just a few:

What Paul does say:

1 Cor 7:19

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

WHAT PAUL DOES NOT SAY:

1 Cor 7:19

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. FAITH ALONE IS WHAT COUNTS.

What Paul does say:

Gal 6

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

WHAT PAUL DOES NOT SAY:

Gal 6

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows, UNLESS HE HAS FAITH. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction, UNLESS HE HAS FAITH; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

What Paul does say:

1 Cor 6

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

NOTE WHAT PAUL DOES NOT SAY:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God, UNLESS THEY HAVE FAITH.

What Paul DOES Say:

Gal 5

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

NOTE WHAT PAUL DOES NOT SAY:

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God, UNLESS THEY HAVE FAITH.

What Paul did say:

Acts 26:20

First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

WHAT PAUL DID NOT SAY:

20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their FAITH ALONE.

These arguments don't even make sense. I already stated that my argument was not predicated on the appearance of the words 'faith alone' in scripture, but in the honest treatment of the meaning of all the words in scripture, which simply does include the words "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9), with which you have not dealt, even though it is time for you to deal with them at this point in the debate.

The reason it did make sense to go over the passage in James 2 and evaluate exactly what it did say verses exactly what it did not say, was simply because your argument was that it did exactly say something that it did not exactly say - namely that we are saved by works and faith... so we search (in vain) for that in the text.

That was the argument.

By contrast I've not asserted that any of those verses you cherry picked out of their contexts included the words "faith alone", so you’re challenging something that is not my argument (and is therefore another strawman fallacy).

If that were my argument then you'd have followed a reasonable line of investigation here, but since that is not the case then you haven't followed a reasonable line of investigation but have pursued an unreasonable line of argumentation for some unknown reason.

Further from that, it is not time for me to deal with all of these passages, since you set the rule that we would deal with one passage at a time, and in addition since they are submitted under the demonstrably false predication that Paul was referencing the Mosaic Law when he was speaking of the faith and works of Moses' ancient ancestor Abraham.

In order for my position to be valid I don't need the words 'faith alone' to appear at the end of every sentence in the Bible, or even at any point in the Bible. Remember, in the first post I noted that my argument is not predicated on the appearance of those words.

My argument is that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9), and it is time for you to address that now, please and thank you.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

It is by grace, THROUGH, faith, not by grace BY Faith.

Wow chesterton, that's incredible weak.

I stated that my position is the exact words of Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast".

So it was never my position that it was by faith not by grace, was it? This is a strawman argument, and a particularily bad one.

Grace enables us to follow Jesus with faith. Faith alone will not save us, as scripture explicitly tells us.

This is simply a weak attempt at misdirection.

You cannot divert attention away from the fact that the verse states that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works by focusing on the grace component which also rules out works as a contributing factor for salvation "if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (Romans 11:6).

So, comparing grace to works, we are saved by grace not by works and now let's see how the scripture compares faith to works "What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4: 3-5).

OK, so we see we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, it is the gift of God (Romans 6:23) and if by works it is no more grace and if by works then it would be wages not a gift as through faith - so entirely opposite of what you're implying, it is by grace through faith we are saved, not through faith plus works, not by works but as we see in Romans 4 apart from works, with which you seem to be struggling (though failing) to establish.

Since the point I'm actually making and you're resisting is that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, it is the gift of God and that gift is eternal life (Romans 6:23) which cannot be earn or else it would be wages and not a gift as we see in Romans 4, and since it was never my argument that we're not saved by grace - quite the contrary - then please deal with the argument and tell me how you justify interpreting this as salvation through faith plus works since it says by grace, through faith, not by works - it is the gift of God.

But chesterton, since I've never stated that my position is salvation by faith alone apart from grace, can I ask, where did you get that idea that it is? You're really chasing after one misconception of what my position is (despite how I've actually framed my arguments) after another, as though you'd had a series of rebuttals preplanned and are employing them regardless of how ill suited they are to the position.

I have to ask, are you actually even reading my posts, or are you just providing prescribed rebuttals that you hope might apply?

Start with this verse if you want to look at one at a time.

chesterton, it was you who wanted to look at one passage at a time, remember?

How you would even pretend that drawing out some inference from a verse that deals with circumcision will bail you out here in this discussion of faith versus works is simply a mystery, but it will have to remain an unsolved one for the time being because now we're looking at Ephesians 2:8-9, with which you haven't dealt, since it was never my argument that we are saved by faith apart from grace, but simply that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, it is the gift of God.

It is that with which you have to deal because that is exactly what scripture states, that is my position, and you're flatly denying that we are saved by grace through faith - not by works, so how do you justify that flat out denial of what scripture states, apart from this failed misdirection?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I've dealt with the passage in Ephesians. We are saved through faith, by grace. However, it does not state that faith alone will save us.

You have not dealt with the passage because you're leaving half of the passage out, and then expressly denying the half that you've omitted.

You're trying to imply that because we're saved by grace through faith then therefore I'm incorrect as though my point is that faith will save us apart from grace, and somehow that seems to you to support your case which is that works are necessary for salvation. Do you see how much work I have to do just to try to infer your argument from the gapping holes in your statements? That's how little you've actually addressed anything.

If you’d even bothered to make an argument instead of simply restating contradictions to the undeniable and exact wording of the text, then all you'd have addressed would have been a strawman argument – but you’ve left me to deduce your fallacies since you haven’t even bothered to produce the lack of reasoning behind them.

What simply is the case is that you’ve failed to address what Ephesians 2:8-9 actually says about works and the gift of God: "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I am still not arguing that we are saved by faith irrespective of grace, so once again I ask you to stop with that strawman fallacy and simply deal with the words of scripture instead of editing them and inserting instead assertions that contradict the words you've revised.

The point is not whether or not faith alone will save, but if we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works, or not.

You're argument is that we are saved by works as well, and you're trying to make that case by simply stating and restating that we are not saved by faith alone, but please deal with the words in scripture, and answer the following necessary questions about what the passage actually states and what that would necessarily entail:

1. Does it or does it not say that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works?

2. Does it or does it not say that it is not of ourselves?

3. Does it or does it not say that it is the gift of God?

In addition to what this passage explicitly states in words wholly apart from any interpretation, how about the qualifications we've seen in other passages that directly overlap?

1. What about the parallel passage we see in Romans 4 that directly addresses the nature of faith apart from works (which remember is before the establishment of the Jewish Law) which states that Abraham was justified towards God by faith apart from works, and it notes that so too are all who believe and it will be credited as righteousness? Doesn't it also say that if works were a part of that justification then it justification before God wouldn't be a gift but wages, and therefore we see the nature of the gift of God by grace through faith as mentioned in Ephesians as wholly apart from works?

2. Relating to that gift (qualified both in Ephesians 2 as being not of ourselves but by grace through faith, as well as by Romans 4 as being apart from works otherwise it would not be a gift but wages), doesn't Romans 6:23 also say that the gift is eternal life?

Therefore, if we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, then we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, right? Therefore not by works.

So, you can't just keep repeating we're not saved by faith alone as some kind of mantra, but you have to admit that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, it is the gift of God which is eternal salvation as we see in Romans 6:23, and cannot be earned or else it would not be a gift by wages as seen in Romans 4:2-5.

What point do you think Paul is making here?

1 Cor 7:19

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

I think the point Paul is making is that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

Once again you’re not even presenting an argument – this passage simply doesn’t follow to support your case, and is so far from doing so that this time I can’t even imagine how you pretend to construct the faulty premises upon which you would torture out what you supposed to be an ambiguous allusion to something you’d run to for support instead of simply accepting what the Bible plainly states.

May I invite you to actually read and believe what scripture says instead of omitting the actual words and filling in the blanks that you pretend are there with your speculation, and then believing the speculation as though it were the scripture?

Please remember, we are talking about the role of faith versus works in salvation, so please stop trying to change the subject to the Mosaic practice of circumcision and stick to the issue.

You've done nothing to actually address Ephesians apart from announcing you've already done so, so instead of simply repeating that we're not saved by faith alone and allowing your silence to be populated but some unspoken implication that only the imagination can fill with deductive arguments that when expressed are necessarily ridiculous, can you finally actually put together some kind of a case of how you can inductively justify stating that we are saved not by grace through faith alone, but that the works that are of ourselves (which according to the Bible would negate the gift of God of eternal life) are actually part of the equation, despite the explicit and unambiguous statement the passage makes to the contrary, and despite how that statement is reinforced entirely when overlapping passages are examined?

Please and thank you.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Once again, you’re just restating your assertion (not even an argument) and running off to other passages instead of dealing with the one I presented (in violation of the rule you proposed and I accepted) or answering the questions I asked you.

Ephesians does not tell us that faith alone will save us.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith… not by works” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Just as you simply asserted that the passage in James exactly said something that simply is not in the text, so here you say that Ephesians does not tell us something that exactly is stated by the text.

It is by grace through faith, not by works, as we plainly see above and any denial of that is simply just that – denial.

Since you're just refused to answer the straight forward questions I asked you to answer regarding what this passage actually, plainly states, I’ll furnish the answers now.

The passages simply does state that salvation is not by works, but by contrast is by grace through faith.

It simply does state this is not of ourselves.

It simply does state that it is the gift of God, which we see in Romans 6:23 is the gift of eternal life, and is qualified in Romans 4 and 11 that such is by grace through faith apart from works, because if it were not apart from works then it would not be a gift but wages, and grace would no more be grace.

Paul tells us that keeping God's commands is what counts.

When dealing with the issue of circumcision.

Remember the rules of the debate as laid out by Botz included not going off on tangents, and ignoring the issue to pursue a point on another issue and simply pretend it applies to the issue of faith versus works on salvation is going off on tangents, at best.

I could just as readily say that we see from Sampson that hair-length is important so we’re saved by faith plus hair, but that would be absurd, so I don’t pursue such avenues.

Can we keep God's commands without doing, thinking, or saying anything?

This is a Red Herring that you don’t even try to link back to the discussion with a coherent argument.

Once again, you simply state an assumption and leave it to me to formulate your argument for you and then proceed to refute the case I have to make in your defense, but the passages you’ve elected upon which I have to make your case for you have been so ill suited for the discussion that no one could be up to the task of defending your position from the criterion you prescribe.

If you’re forcing me to make your arguments for you, at least provide me with better raw materials instead of tying my hands with verses that don’t apply to the discussion.

I've demonstrated that salvation is explicitly tied to works and faith throughout scripture.

No you haven’t.

Let’s run through how this discussion has progressed:

What you did was provide a passage that we examined in vain for the explicit wording stating we are saved by some combination of faith and works which was your contention - and in fact, upon closer examination, especially in light of parallel passages, your argument was disconfirmed and mine confirmed, as I will reiterate here: "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works… Therefore, the promise comes by faith… This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Romans 4:2-24).

Though I’ve issued multiple challenges you’ve proved completely incapable of responding to this passage and its undeniable refutation of your argument, and I say undeniable especially in light of your total failure to even acknowledge the passage at all.

Since you proved incapable of responding to my counter-point I submitted a passage that comprises my own contention, which is the exact words of Ephesians 2:8-9.

Interestingly enough, of all the tactics you employed instead of simply dealing with the wording in scripture or answering my simple questions regarding what scripture states, the line of argumentation you pursued most frequently was simply to ignore the passages in whole or in part and simply contradict what you pretend isn't simply provided by the Word of God right there in black and white “it is by grace you are saved, through faith… not by works” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

So, while your other tactics (such as pretending I’d conceded the argument because of some semantic juggling you were doing to try to redefine the elements of faith as elements of works, then pretending that the passage in Romans was referring to the Jewish Law which it cannot possibly be since it’s dealing with Abraham who predated the advent of the Jewish Law by centuries, then you fled to other passages which not only violates the rule you put in place but also the passages in question don’t even apply to the issue at hand or my arguements), all proved impotent, what you demonstrably ultimately relied upon in this discussion was flat out denial that the exact words you claimed to be in James 2 where not there, and the exact words that I quoted are in Ephesians 2: 8-9 really are there.

Further to that, in both cases passages that demonstrably overlap on exact theme (such as dealing with the same OT passage) confirm Ephesians 2: 8-9 and disconfirm your assumptions of James 2, to which you’ve proven completely incapable of even providing a response.

So you’ve clearly demonstrated that all you can do is ignore the words in scripture and run off to other passages and try to make inferences that you then interpret to support your assumptions.

That’s all I needed to see, so thank you for your posts and helping me communicate my point.

[Botz]

I think this debate has gone as far as it can go given the way it has been approached.....as Chesterton started, I'll ask OES to close and we'll leave it at that.

For future reference, when people want to debate it would be good if they actually stayed with the program, and were prepared to actually have an argument that they could passionately defend or expound, rather than going around in circles and never actually getting to the nitty-gritty, and seeming to ignore important questions vital to the integrity of the debate....when debating it is imperative that you consider one anothers arguments and actively seek to respond to the question in hand, and the pertinent points brought up during the conversation. Enough said.