The more I read about these doctrines and the arguments surrounding them, the more I think they represent a distinction without a difference.

Catholics and Protestants agree that both faith and works will be present in a saved Christian. Both would even agree that faith comes first, and, at least initially, regeneration in righteousness comes from believing God. Both would agree that, after that initial regeneration, you continue to grow closer to God by doing His will.

The only practical distinction I can see is how to articulate the problem in the case of a brother who professes faith but continues to bear bad fruit. A Protestant would say the hypocrite lacks true saving faith, otherwise he would bear good fruit. The Catholic would say that he may have faith in an intellectual belief sort of way, but he doesn't have faith that works through love. But however you describe the problem, it means something is amiss in the hypocrite's walk with God. While the words used might be different--"your faith is apparently lacking based on your conduct" versus "you might have mental assent, but need to implement faith that works through love"--I really think the message is the same: "You have an apparent problem of the heart."

It really seems like 99% of the debate is talking past each other and/or arguments against strawmen based on misunderstanding (or, in some cases, intentional misrepresentation).

I'm not sure that I understand what your question is.

Agree with the general OP comments.

Faith first and then works. Like shampoo and conditioner. Some say 2 bottles others say 1 bottle where they are combined. We agree you need both.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I'm not sure that I understand what your question is.

---

Sorry, I didn't pose a question. I just hoped to share what was sort of surprising to me--that these two doctrines are more similar than the tone of the debates (around here anyway) might sometimes suggest. In fact, I think that whatever real differences there are between the views are academic, even pedantic, because in practice the approaches are essentially identical.

Would you agree? (If so, I'm sure you'll next join me in a rousing Christian rock song. )

I think traditional or ancient Christianity has a different concept of the means, mechanism and ends of salvation; it is a different soteriology.

Quote:

---

Catholics and Protestants agree that both faith and works will be present in a saved Christian. Both would even agree that faith comes first, and, at least initially, regeneration in righteousness comes from believing God. Both would agree that, after that initial regeneration, you continue to grow closer to God by doing His will.

---

I don't believe there is a word in Greek for the distinction in English between belief and faith. We get the two words from Latin and Old English. Both are pisteuo in Greek. So your second sentence is a little bit confusing, maybe?

Regeneration is only used twice the NT; once in Matthew referring to the resurrection (Truly I say to you that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit down upon His throne of glory, you having followed Me) and in Titus 3 (by the washing of regeneration and renewing). Scripturally, regeneration of a believer refers only to baptism.

This is also shown in the early Church, as demonstrated by St Justin (circa 150):

Quote:

---

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

---

And St Irenaeus (c 180):

Quote:

---

And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, "Go to Siloam, and wash;" thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver.

---

So no, I don't see that they are the same.

Protestant soteriology focuses the entirety of theosis into one moment (belief) rather than the synergistic process we see in both the scriptures and in the witness of the early Church.

Well I heard some pastors and sermons mention people who will just accept and believe in Jesus at the end of the ages when the Lord comes back. That's cutting it awfully close IMO. I would go even further to say that it might not even work. It may be too late.

I have even heard of people who choose to accept Christ and believe in His death, burial and resurrection on their death bed right before they pass on. Seems to me they got the faith part. One must question whether or not they lived long enough to "achieve" the works part.

It will all be for the Lord to decide.

There's a term for this method of salvation, I'm having trouble recalling. Salvation by the skin of one's teeth? Perhaps a narrow escape of one's boot from the fire. I dunno.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think traditional or ancient Christianity has a different concept of the means, mechanism and ends of salvation; it is a different soteriology.

Quote:

---

Catholics and Protestants agree that both faith and works will be present in a saved Christian. Both would even agree that faith comes first, and, at least initially, regeneration in righteousness comes from believing God. Both would agree that, after that initial regeneration, you continue to grow closer to God by doing His will.

---

I don't believe there is a word in Greek for the distinction in English between belief and faith. We get the two words from Latin and Old English. Both are pisteuo in Greek. So your second sentence is a little bit confusing, maybe?

---

Sorry for any confusion; I wasn't trying to make any distinctions. I just used the words from Genesis and Romans during the latter part of the sentence.

Quote:

---

Regeneration is only used twice the NT; once in Matthew referring to the resurrection (Truly I say to you that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit down upon His throne of glory, you having followed Me) and in Titus 3 (by the washing of regeneration and renewing). Scripturally, regeneration of a believer refers only to baptism.

This is also shown in the early Church, as demonstrated by St Justin (circa 150):

Quote:

---

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

---

And St Irenaeus (c 180):

Quote:

---

And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, "Go to Siloam, and wash;" thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver.

---

---

At the risk of starting another baptism debate, do you believe that no one can be saved without baptism? I recall you saying that, unlike RCC, the Orthodox don't limit the number of sacraments. Does that mean that the Orthodox would believe it's at least possible to be regenerated without water? After all, Jesus did heal some without spit, mud, or physical contact at all (e.g., the centurion's servant).

Quote:

---

So no, I don't see that they are the same.

Protestant soteriology focuses the entirety of theosis into one moment (belief) rather than the synergistic process we see in both the scriptures and in the witness of the early Church.

---

Well, that's why my post was limited to "initial regeneration." But even given this difference, how would this make your approach different, in practice, when confronting a (baptized) Christian brother who is bearing bad fruit?

Quote:

---

At the risk of starting another baptism debate, do you believe that no one can be saved without baptism? I recall you saying that, unlike RCC, the Orthodox don't limit the number of sacraments. Does that mean that the Orthodox would believe it's at least possible to be regenerated without water? After all, Jesus did heal some without spit, mud, or physical contact at all (e.g., the centurion's servant).

---

The one doesn't have to do with the other.

Exodus 33:19 is pretty clear that God is sovereign, so it's not mine to answer what He can or can't do with regard to salvation. But that's the wrong question to ask. The better question is "what do the scriptures tell us about being saved?" And scripture shows that salvation begins with baptism.

You used the word regeneration, which is a very particular word used in a very specific way about only two things in the Bible: the new creation in an eschatological sense, and baptism. This makes sense because baptism is a part of the other. When it comes to regeneration in a soteriological sense there is only one meaning: baptism.

Healing of the physical is a different subject.

Quote:

---

Well, that's why my post was limited to "initial regeneration." But even given this difference, how would this make your approach different, in practice, when confronting a (baptized) Christian brother who is bearing bad fruit?

---

See above. "Initial regeneration" can only mean baptism, scripturally.

We have scripture about confronting the immoral brother and I really don't see what that has to do with salvation. It's Christ's place to judge his servant (Romans 14:4). The question of admonishing or correcting bad behavior doesn't have anything to do with a person judging the likelihood of another's salvation.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

At the risk of starting another baptism debate, do you believe that no one can be saved without baptism? I recall you saying that, unlike RCC, the Orthodox don't limit the number of sacraments. Does that mean that the Orthodox would believe it's at least possible to be regenerated without water? After all, Jesus did heal some without spit, mud, or physical contact at all (e.g., the centurion's servant).

---

The one doesn't have to do with the other.

Exodus 33:19 is pretty clear that God is sovereign, so it's not mine to answer what He can or can't do with regard to salvation. But that's the wrong question to ask. The better question is "what do the scriptures tell us about being saved?" And scripture shows that salvation begins with baptism.

You used the word regeneration, which is a very particular word used in a very specific way about only two things in the Bible: the new creation in an eschatological sense, and baptism. This makes sense because baptism is a part of the other. When it comes to regeneration in a soteriological sense there is only one meaning: baptism.

Healing of the physical is a different subject.

---

I'm not sure what "the one" and "the other" are referring to in your first paragraph.

In your view, is the faith that moves you to be baptized only good for that purpose? Does it have any salvific effect of its own?

I agree that physical healing is different. I only mentioned it because Jesus' healing with spit and mud was mentioned in the previous discussion about saving with baptism in water.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well, that's why my post was limited to "initial regeneration." But even given this difference, how would this make your approach different, in practice, when confronting a (baptized) Christian brother who is bearing bad fruit?

---

See above. "Initial regeneration" can only mean baptism, scripturally.

We have scripture about confronting the immoral brother and I really don't see what that has to do with salvation. It's Christ's place to judge his servant (Romans 14:4). The question of admonishing or correcting bad behavior doesn't have anything to do with a person judging the likelihood of another's salvation.

---

Okay. What practical impact does your doctrine of salvation have on your daily walk with Jesus, and, specifically, how do you perceive that it's made different from that of most Protestants?

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what "the one" and "the other" are referring to in your first paragraph.

---

Baptism and healing.

Quote:

---

In your view, is the faith that moves you to be baptized only good for that purpose? Does it have any salvific effect of its own?

---

What a strange way to put it.

This isn't a chemical formula. There's no two parts A plus one part B and a catalyst C => eternal unloseable salvation.

Faith has value, and not simply by "moving" you to be baptized. You can't be saved without Faith.

Patriarch Jeremias II wrote this to the Lutherans:

Quote:

---

Let us consider whether it has not been said in vain, that apart from faith, hope, and love, it is impossible to be saved. For as we, indeed, need the eyes of our body for viewing visible things, so doubtless we have need of faith for the study of the divine things. For as knowledge of the matters comes according to the proportion of the accomplishments of the commandments, so also the knowledge of the truth comes according to the measure of the hope in Christ [cf. Jn 7:17]. And as, indeed, it is meet to worship nothing else than God, so one should not hope in any other than God alone who is the One who cares for all [cf. Mt 4: 10]. As he who has hope in man is accursed, so blessed is he who rests in God. And just as the memory of the flame does not warm the body, in the same manner faith without love does not effect the light of knowledge in the soul. Indeed, it is impossible for love to be found apart from hope. Hence, the Holy Fathers say one thing is permanent: the hope in God. All other things are not in reality, but merely thought. He who has fastened his heart on the power of faith has nothing without works. And when one has nothing, he limits everything to faith. Indeed, the power of faith is in good works. And he who has been deprived of love, has been deprived of God himself. One ought to strive in such works and also hope in Him. For if you ask yourself or another true Christian on what ground the ones being saved have hope of salvation, he would by all means say that we hope only in the mercy of God. But this is the forbearance of God. For if He would not endure evil for us, no one would be saved, since no one among men is without sin. "If even his life on the earth should be but one day on the earth" [Job 14:4-5]. Therefore, if we have the hope of salvation in the forbearance of God, this hope of salvation, indeed, is given only to those who endure the evil and not to those who bear malice. Let us then, as far as possible, be patient, piously forgiving others who have trespassed against us; and then the Heavenly Father will not only forgive us, but He will bestow upon us life everlasting in Christ.

---

Quote:

---

Okay. What practical impact does your doctrine of salvation have on your daily walk with Jesus, and, specifically, how do you perceive that it's made different from that of most Protestants?

---

This is a book.

We achieve salvation through theosis or divinization. Not at baptism or any other point.

Cf 2 Tim 2:11-13

Quote:

---

Here is a trustworthy saying:
If we died with him, [baptism]
We will also live with him;
If we endure, [Christian discipleship / works]
We will also reign with him.
If we disown him, [apostasy]
he will also disown us.
If we are faithless [faith],
he will remain faithful, [Christ's steadfast love]
for he cannot disown himself.

---

And Phil 3:12-14

Quote:

---

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining towards what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

---

Wouldn't it be more relevant for Protestants to explain why their doctrine is different or the same? Our was established and existed for some 14 centuries prior to the innovations of the Protestants. You should justify your schism, not ask me to explain why they are the same or different.

Put another way if they're the same, why aren't you Orthodox? Why not end the schism?

As a Protestant, I would say that we believe more in grace and a "one time thing" where once you accept Christ you are saved. Theosis is not required but imho, should occur naturally as one pursues to be more Christ like.

To me, the rub becomes how this is manifested. Does one become a monk, a missionary, a clergy, whatever? Or does one continue in their vocation trying to live as a Christian the best they can?

I have just about given up reading a lot of theology and Christian books because it seems as if most of them are written with the theme that the ones who are truly following Christ will become "Super Christians", missionaries, clergy, whatever instead of just doing the best where God has placed them.

And I really appreciate your posts and insight.

Orthodoxy does not claim at all that being a monastic or clergyman is superior. Orthodoxy and theosis are for all. Indeed theosis is salvation. Salvation is to become abt grace what God is by nature, to be united with Him.

There's actually a famous story of St Anthony the Great being shown a man more holy than he was. A doctor living in the city, versus a monk living in the desert.

Christ says to be perfect as He is perfect. That's theosis, and that is the commandment for all Christians. And it's possible too, else you say He's asking the impossible.

I guess I can sum it up best by saying that I think a Christian who goes to work everyday, provides for their family, lives with integrity, takes care of their older parents or relatives, etc. is doing the Lord's work just as much as those involved as preachers, missionaries, monks, etc.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Orthodoxy does not claim at all that being a monastic or clergyman is superior. Orthodoxy and theosis are for all. Indeed theosis is salvation. Salvation is to become abt grace what God is by nature, to be united with Him.

There's actually a famous story of St Anthony the Great being shown a man more holy than he was. A doctor living in the city, versus a monk living in the desert.

Christ says to be perfect as He is perfect. That's theosis, and that is the commandment for all Christians. And it's possible too, else you say He's asking the impossible.

---

I agree. I just do not think that is emphasized enough by a lot of ministers and Christian authors as far as what everyday Joes do.

It seems as if the ones at church always giving the talks or getting praised are involved in missions or "church" work. And not the teachers, cops, paramedics, accountants, lawyers, doctors, etc. unless they do "over and beyond" rather than just doing right everyday, To me, those are the true salt of the Earth.

Of course. 1 Cor 12 clears this up completely. We are all called where we are.

dermdoc said:

---

I guess I can sum it up best by saying that I think a Christian who goes to work everyday, provides for their family, lives with integrity, takes care of their older parents or relatives, etc. is doing the Lord's work just as much as those involved as preachers, missionaries, monks, etc.

---

Gene Vieth wrote some great books and blogs about this.

This was a huge part of the Reformation and Luther talked about it often.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Wouldn't it be more relevant for Protestants to explain why their doctrine is different or the same? Our was established and existed for some 14 centuries prior to the innovations of the Protestants. You should justify your schism, not ask me to explain why they are the same or different.

Put another way if they're the same, why aren't you Orthodox? Why not end the schism?

---

Those are fair questions and relate to the ones that caused me to look into the real difference between sola fide and the Catholic doctrine. My reading led me to believe that there's little difference in practice. But it sure meant a lot to some folks 500 years ago.

Sorry if my question seemed accusatory, and you're certainly free to ignore it. But I thought that I read before that you converted to Orthodoxy (and overcame familial pressure in doing so), so I thought you might have some insight that you'd share about the real, practical differences (if any).

They're so different that I think Orthodoxy and modern evangelical Protestantism aren't even the same religion.

Different confession, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, Christology. Different beliefs and practice. Two different religions with a common ancestry, like American football and soccer.

For example the West calls it a creed but we call it the symbol of faith. Properly a symbol in Greek is that which implies the other. So our symbol of faith is not a summary of our belief but a statement which implies the fullness of the faith. If you don't have the same symbol / creed it means you don't have the same faith. And the west and the east do not share the symbol any longer... most Protestants don't even use one at all.

The issue is not so much about the role faith and works have in the lives of a Christian, but more about the differences in WHEN a soul becomes "saved".

Is it the moment they are Baptized? the moment they accept Christ? When they receive the Eucharist? The moment of death? When? When can one know with absolute certainty that they are saved and have been granted eternal salvation?

I think the relationship and role of faith and works is better understood when the timing of salvation is better understood. This is where the theological differences rest imo.

Yes, but why is that even a relevant question?

What's the spiritual benefit of deciding the moment?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I guess I can sum it up best by saying that I think a Christian who goes to work everyday, provides for their family, lives with integrity, takes care of their older parents or relatives, etc. is doing the Lord's work just as much as those involved as preachers, missionaries, monks, etc.

---

Gene Vieth wrote some great books and blogs about this.

This was a huge part of the Reformation and Luther talked about it often.

---

Thanks I just read his book on callings.

the OP made the reference to how faith and works are a distinction without a difference between Protestants and Catholics for the "saved Christian". Catholics don't believe in a once saved always saved doctrine. Salvation is something that comes at the end of the race and not the beginning.

Catholics are saved by grace through faith, but because that judgement comes at the end of the race non-Catholics sometimes think Catholics are trying to earn our way into Heaven vs. Protestants who believe they have already been saved and that their salvation cannot be lost.

Essentially, we all agree on the role of faith and works in "saved Christian" but for Catholics the Christian is not saved until they have finished the race and fallen asleep in Christ.

I'm with you, the point I'm making is what is the spiritual advantage of identifying the moment? How does it benefit the person?

Mainly because from the Protestant perspective they tend to view salvation as a done deal once the individual accepts Christ. From the Catholic perspective we are working out our salvation with God each and every day until the end. It is important that we maintain our relationship with Christ and our communion with him and his Body, the Church.

The disconnect is that one view has no need for works but works are proof of the faith, and the other view appears to have need for works in order to earn salvation which makes those works "less pure" because of the motive behind them. Neither of these is exactly accurate but it flows from the timing of when salvation is actually granted to the believer.

Salvation is something that I am hopeful and confident in receiving, but I think it presumptuous to assume or think its a done deal. I must keep the faith and endure in it to the end.

To answer more directly...I don't know that there is a spiritual advantage or benefit to the person to identify the moment. It just changes their perspective of the role works play. In one view works have no value but are proof, in the other the works aid in the faith and help to strengthen it.

I live in the Bible Belt, and have attended several Protestant churches and "nondenominational churches" in the past. This was one of the sticking points for me for each of them.

During one of the sermons at the nondenominational megachurch, the pastor was telling the personal story of a young man who had lived a rather wanton life, and who had professed a disbelief in Christianity. His family was distraught when he died, because they thought he had never been "saved". His friend, however, recalled that the boy had once attended a youth retreat at which the pastor, during a campfire session, had asked each of the participants to toss a stick into the fire if they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. The friend recalled that the deceased boy had indeed tossed his stick into the fire, and the family was so overjoyed to learn that their son, instead of being condemned by God to the fires of eternal damnation, had been accepted into the full glory of God in heaven!

That megachurch does wonders for many of the people who attend, and has absolutely turned around countless lives and contributed to their ultimate salvation, made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, but that was my last time to attend there.

Quote:

---

The more I read about these doctrines and the arguments surrounding them, the more I think they represent a distinction without a difference.

Catholics and Protestants agree that both faith and works will be present in a saved Christian. Both would even agree that faith comes first, and, at least initially, regeneration in righteousness comes from believing God. Both would agree that, after that initial regeneration, you continue to grow closer to God by doing His will.

---

As a protestant I actually don't believe faith and works will be present in a saved Christian but should be. I believe that Jesus performed all of the works needed for humanties salvation The moment a person places their initial faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, then that moment of faith is credited as righteousness. All sins are forgiven and new birth is the key identity.

Imagine a 20 year old with no defect who eats baby food, and his mom still ties his shoes. In the same way, all new born Christians should press on to maturity. The sad news is that some of us don't for various reasons. It doesn't mean salvation was lost.

3 Types of people:
Non-believers - have not put their faith in God
Believers who are spiritual - believers who are pressing on to maturity
Carnal or fleshly Christians - believers who are not pressing on to maturity

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 1 Cor 3

Our works don't save us from our sins, but they do save us from living a usless life as a believer which is the purpose of James' book.

Agree

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The more I read about these doctrines and the arguments surrounding them, the more I think they represent a distinction without a difference.

Catholics and Protestants agree that both faith and works will be present in a saved Christian. Both would even agree that faith comes first, and, at least initially, regeneration in righteousness comes from believing God. Both would agree that, after that initial regeneration, you continue to grow closer to God by doing His will.

---

As a protestant I actually don't believe faith and works will be present in a saved Christian but should be. I believe that Jesus performed all of the works needed for humanties salvation The moment a person places their initial faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, then that moment of faith is credited as righteousness. All sins are forgiven and new birth is the key identity.

Imagine a 20 year old with no defect who eats baby food, and his mom still ties his shoes. In the same way, all new born Christians should press on to maturity. The sad news is that some of us don't for various reasons. It doesn't mean salvation was lost.

3 Types of people:
Non-believers - have not put their faith in God
Believers who are spiritual - believers who are pressing on to maturity
Carnal or fleshly Christians - believers who are not pressing on to maturity

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 1 Cor 3

Our works don't save us from our sins, but they do save us from living a usless life as a believer which is the purpose of James' book.

---

The carnal man isn't a believer. He's the unfruitful one sown among the thorns in Matthew 13. Do you have faith if the world chokes out the word in you? There is only one in the parable who understands the word, and he bears fruit as evidence of his understanding.

Quote:

---

22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty."

---

Faith overcomes the world; it will not be choked out by the world. From 1 John 5:

Quote:

---

4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. 5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

---

This.

The once saved always saved makes up the false distinction between this or that faith, effective or ineffective faith. This comes from (among other places) a poor translation of James 2:14.

The simple answer to " I actually don't believe faith and works will be present in a saved Christian" is found in the epistle of St James.

Quote:

---

What is the profit, my brothers, if anyone says to have faith, but has no works? Is faith able to save him?...faith by itself if it has not works, is dead.

But do you want to come to know, O foolish man, that faith apart from works is worthless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, having offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that his faith was working with his works, and by his works, his faith was perfected. And the Scripture was fulfilled, saying, "And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness," and he was called a friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.

And likewise was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works, having received the messengers and having sent them forth by another way? For just as the body apart from spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

---

The bible literally, actually says "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

St James is clear: "Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves."

St Paul likewise. There's an awful lot of contingent "ifs" in 2 Tim 2:11-13.

Kool said:

---

I live in the Bible Belt, and have attended several Protestant churches and "nondenominational churches" in the past. This was one of the sticking points for me for each of them.

During one of the sermons at the nondenominational megachurch, the pastor was telling the personal story of a young man who had lived a rather wanton life, and who had professed a disbelief in Christianity. His family was distraught when he died, because they thought he had never been "saved". His friend, however, recalled that the boy had once attended a youth retreat at which the pastor, during a campfire session, had asked each of the participants to toss a stick into the fire if they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. The friend recalled that the deceased boy had indeed tossed his stick into the fire, and the family was so overjoyed to learn that their son, instead of being condemned by God to the fires of eternal damnation, had been accepted into the full glory of God in heaven!

That megachurch does wonders for many of the people who attend, and has absolutely turned around countless lives and contributed to their ultimate salvation, made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, but that was my last time to attend there.

---

Grace Bible Church in CS taught "Once Saved, Always Saved" when I was there in 04-06 timeframe. So it's not just the Bible Belt.

As usual K2 nails it. James is not the only place in the Bible the supports the case for works...but I don't know how James could have made it any clearer.

It's amazing to me the contortions that some "Bible Alone" believers twist themselves into trying to make the Bible support their theology. They ignore things plainly stated or actions demonstrated, and then read things into Sxripture that simply aren't there...and then claim they have the full truth. Really puzzling sometimes.

I'll try to comment but the posters on this thread are way ahead of me debating these things. Great thread.

I align with Dirt Diver on this. I think Christ accomplished all because there is no way I can have enough works to justify anything. I was created to do good works to further his Kingdom but all that is Him working through me. I can't take credit for any of it.