James 2:24, Works, and Salvation

[Paidion]

In view of the following teaching of the apostle Paul, it would appear impossible (if Paul is deemed to have written the truth) to discount righteous living as necessary for eternal life. Once again I display Paul's teaching. May we take it to heart.

Romans 2:6-10

For He will render to everyone according to his works.

To those who by perseverance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,
He will give eternal life, but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth,
but are persuaded by unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek, for God shows no partiality.

[robbyyoung]

In view of the following teaching of the apostle Paul, it would appear impossible (if Paul is deemed to have written the truth) to discount righteous living as necessary for eternal life...

Hi Paidion,

Yes, this is my understanding in view of the evidence before us. However, IMHO this would exclude babies/children, death bed conversions and the mentally challenged regarding a history of righteous living.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

Yes, this is my understanding in view of the evidence before us. However, IMHO this would exclude babies/children, death bed conversions and the mentally challenged regarding a history of righteous living

.

That seems rational. Paul may have been referring to "normal" adults. However, I don't think it excludes death-bed conversions. The repentant thief on the cross, seems to be an example of a conversion just prior to death, and Jesus said to him, "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise."

Also, Jesus gave the parable of the workman who worked only for the last hour of the workday and received the same wage as those who had toiled all day.

[robbyyoung]

Yes, this is my understanding in view of the evidence before us. However, IMHO this would exclude babies/children, death bed conversions and the mentally challenged regarding a history of righteous living

.

That seems rational. Paul may have been referring to "normal" adults. However, I don't think it excludes death-bed conversions. The repentant thief on the cross, seems to be an example of a conversion just prior to death, and Jesus said to him, "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise."

Also, Jesus gave the parable of the workman who worked only for the last hour of the workday and received the same wage as those who had toiled all day.

Hi Paidion,

I said "excludes" when I should have said "includes" babies/children, death bed conversions and the mentally challenged as equally viable to the righteousness required for salvation. Thanks for catching my errant verbiage . Nevertheless, I think we agree on this one.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

Nevertheless, I think we agree on this one.

[jriccitelli]

‘Paul lists many sins in his epistles which are works which can disqualify us to be saved’ (Rich)

All sin disqualifies us from salvation. A believer is motivated by a love for God, and the indwelling Holy Spirit to teach, direct, motivate, empower and inspire us to love others just as we love His Son. This kind of true motivation is not available to man, without revelation of the Gospel. So a believer must first believe in the grace and forgiveness in the Cross. Then be filled by Gods Spirit, in that order: in order to produce the fruit that God desires (you can't produce fruit unless you are already in the vine) And I believe losing faith, is what causes someone in the vine to stop producing fruit. And being cut off.

‘Saved by grace through faith unto good works’
‘Dogs bark because they are dogs, not to become dogs’
(It seems these two statements are always true, and easy enough to understand) It is evident that good deeds, kindness, righteousness and works, do not ‘prove’ that our faith is in God, but a faith in God should be evidenced by these things also and ‘not only’ by what we ‘claim’.

(Still I notice Paidion teaching a works salvation, injecting his covert ‘enabling grace’ doctrine into this (Nov.19), as well as his extra comma into "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise" doctrine)

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

as well as his extra apostrophe into "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise" doctrine)

I don't know that it Paidion's doctrine. Many people have believed this. It seems strange to me that a believer would reject that Jesus was in the grave for parts of three days as he predicted he would be, and that he wasn't actually dead. I believe Jesus paid the Ransom with his death, and stayed dead until the third day when he was raised by the Father. Given that, why wouldn't one want a comma after "today"?

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

(All this below is from the thread: 'Re: God's Creation of Souls' Mar 1 2012):

Are you certain that He said that, JR? Are you quite sure He did not say, "Truly I tell you today, you will be with Me in Paradise"? (Paidion, Feb 26, 2012)

I am going to make a big deal out of this because this is not the first time I've heard it, and I'm tired of it. First, I am aware of the deficiency of Greek punctuation. This phrase of Jesus is very common to Jesus; 'Truly I say to you'. This common phrase becomes common because it is repeated verbatim. Adding 'today' to the phrase is not common. And I am willing to bet 'very' uncommon, or unfound, in ancient writing of the time.

"But I'm sure we've all heard people say, "I'm telling you right now, ..." Today/right now — not much difference' (Paidion, Feb 26)

Some people may use such a phrase, but it still doesn't make much sense. This is still really poor grammar no matter what language a person is speaking. It sounds like a line an upset parent might say when arguing with a child.

Jesus repeatedly uses the line 'Truly I say to you' when He wants to establish attention to what he is about to say, so why would he add a confusing word of 'no significance' (everyone knew it was today) to a phrase He no doubt had said many, many times, only to sound like gabby Rhetoric (while He is in pain, on a cross). More likely the word 'today' had great significance. People generally correct themselves after saying something confusing. Jesus is never that 'sloppy' with His words. Jesus never uses the phrase 'truly I say to you today' 'pause', anywhere else, yet Jesus uses the phrase Truly I say to you 30 times (!) in Matthew, and 30 times (!) in John, and it seems they are not all parallel verses. (There are 7 references to 'Truly I say to you' in Luke's Gospel) and none of these include the word 'today'.

[TheEditor]

So, just to be clear, you would opt for Jesus not really being dead for parts of three days, but rather having died for a split second and immediatley being in Paradise (whatever that means) with the thief on the cross? This is apparently what you are saying. My understanding is that he was in the grave for three days as he said he would be, not in some legalistic narrow and restricted sense, but actually dead for the three days he prophesied he would be. If putting a comma there makes it harmonize, then why are you so upset with the comma?

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

PS JR, are you so certain that it was "gabby rhetoric", and not the way the disciple recounted the words? My point being, just because the reteller used the phrase does not necessarily mean Jesus used the term exactly like that. If you'd like me to find other areas where Jesus' words in the narrative make no apparent sense in saying them, and it sounds like "gabby rhetoric" (?) I am sure I can find some. In fact, I am sure there are whole books critiquing such "gabby rhetoric:....written by skeptics.

Regards, Brenden.