James 2:24, Works, and Salvation

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

Can you quote any passage that speaks of being saved from sin which unequivocally means the consequences of sin?

This works as well for your argument as it does for mine:

1 Peter 2:24 (NASB)

24. and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

However, I believe "sins" must be a metonym for the consequences of our sins. Sins are not "things" that can be placed on his body. Also, how could He have been the unblemished lamb required as a sacrifice?

1 Peter 1:19 (NASB)

19. but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Another similar scripture:

2 Corinthians 5:21 (NASB)

21. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


Jesus was not a sinner but was treated as one, in our place.

(me) In regard to Jesus' death saving us from sin it would seem that if this was so we would be completely sanctified and sin no more.

Not if salvation is a process—and I believe it is.

But surely if His death was only to enable us to be completely sanctified it would occur for at least some in this life. Perhaps it could be true for a martyr such as Polycarp, but if he lived for another ten years I would be surprised if he didn't sin a time or two.

[Paidion]

1 Peter 2:24 (NASB)

24. and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

However, I believe "sins" must be a metonym for the consequences of our sins. Sins are not "things" that can be placed on his body.

I agree that sins are not things that can be placed on His body, but sins ARE things that can be endured by Him. "Bore" can mean "endured".
"Our sins" may refer to the sins of humanity, and in this case those persons who tortured Him and killed Him. He bore that torture and death—He bore those sins against Him.

I still don't think there's a single passage which clearly indicates that "sins" is used in such a way that it is tantamount to "consequences of sins".

But surely if His death was only to enable us to be completely sanctified it would occur for at least some in this life.

Did I not address this in my previous post? His death to enable us to overcome sin and be saved from sin doesn't imply immediate perfection. Salvation is a process.

[Paidion]

21. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Jesus was not a sinner but was treated as one, in our place.

So that means that in our becoming the righteousness of God, we don't actually become righteous, but are treated as such. Yes, that's the doctrine of the easy grace crowd.
But God wants actual righteousness, not merely positional righteousness. George MacDonald's Unspoken Sermons III in the chapter entitled "Righteousness" may be instructive concerning this matter:

In his second epistle to the Corinthians he says, 'He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him;'-'He gave him to be treated like a sinner, killed and cast out of his own vineyard by his husbandmen, that we might in him be made righteous like God.' As the antithesis stands it is rhetorically correct. But if the former half means, 'he made him to be treated as if he were a sinner,' then the latter half should, in logical precision, mean, 'that we might be treated as if we were righteous.' 'That is just what Paul does mean,' insist not a few. 'He means that Jesus was treated by God as if he were a sinner, our sins being imputed to him, in order that we might be treated as if we were righteous, his righteousness being imputed to us.'

That is, that, by a sort of legal fiction, Jesus was treated as what he was not, in order that we might be treated as what we are not. This is the best device, according to the prevailing theology, that the God of truth, the God of mercy, whose glory is that he is just to men by forgiving their sins, could fall upon for saving his creatures!
I had thought that this most contemptible of false doctrines had nigh ceased to be presented, though I knew it must be long before it ceased to exercise baneful influence; but, to my astonishment, I came upon it lately in quite a modern commentary which I happened to look into in a friend's house. I say, to my astonishment, for the commentary was the work of one of the most liberal and lovely of Christians, a dignitary high in the church of England, a man whom I knew and love, and hope ere long to meet where there are no churches. In the comment that came under my eye, he refers to the doctrine of imputed righteousness as the possible explanation of a certain passage-refers to it as to a doctrine concerning whose truth was no question.

It seems to me that, seeing much duplicity exists in the body of Christ, every honest member of it should protest against any word tending to imply the existence of falsehood in the indwelling spirit of that body. I now protest against this so-called doctrine, counting it the rightful prey of the foolishest wind in the limbo of vanities, whither I would gladly do my best to send it. It is a mean, nauseous invention, false, and productive of falsehood. Say it is a figure, I answer it is not only a false figure but an embodiment of untruth; say it expresses a reality, and I say it teaches the worst of lies; say there is a shadow of truth in it, and I answer it may be so, but there is no truth touched in it that could not be taught infinitely better without it. It is the meagre misshapen offspring of the legalism of a poverty-stricken mechanical fancy, unlighted by a gleam of divine imagination. No one who knows his New Testament will dare to say that the figure is once used in it
.
I have dealt already with the source of it. They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

We have the word imputed just once in the New Testament. Whether the evil doctrine may have sprung from any possible misunderstanding of the passage where it occurs, I hardly care to inquire. The word as Paul uses it, and the whole of the thought whence his use of it springs, appeals to my sense of right and justice as much as the common use of it arouses my abhorrence. The apostle says that a certain thing was imputed to Abraham for righteousness; or, as the revised version has it, 'reckoned unto him:' what was it that was thus imputed to Abraham? The righteousness of another? God forbid! It was his own faith. The faith of Abraham is reckoned to him for righteousness. To impute the righteousness of one to another, is simply to act a falsehood; to call the faith of a man his righteousness is simply to speak the truth. Was it not righteous in Abraham to obey God? The Jews placed righteousness in keeping all the particulars of the law of Moses: Paul says faith in God was counted righteousness before Moses was born. You may answer, Abraham was unjust in many things, and by no means a righteous man. True; he was not a righteous man in any complete sense; his righteousness would never have satisfied Paul; neither, you may be sure, did it satisfy Abraham; but his faith was nevertheless righteousness, and if it had not been counted to him for righteousness, there would have been falsehood somewhere, for such faith as Abraham's is righteousness. It was no mere intellectual recognition of the existence of a God, which is consistent with the deepest atheism; it was that faith which is one with action: 'He went out, not knowing whither he went.' The very act of believing in God after such fashion that, when the time of action comes, the man will obey God, is the highest act, the deepest, loftiest righteousness of which man is capable, is at the root of all other righteousness, and the spirit of it will work till the man is perfect. If you define righteousness in the common-sense, that is, in the divine fashion-for religion is nothing if it be not the deepest common-sense-as a giving to everyone his due, then certainly the first due is to him who makes us capable of owing, that is, makes us responsible creatures. You may say this is not one's first feeling of duty. True; but the first in reality is seldom the first perceived. The first duty is too high and too deep to come first into consciousness. If any one were born perfect, which I count an eternal impossibility, then the highest duty would come first into the consciousness. As we are born, it is the doing of, or at least the honest trying to do many another duty, that will at length lead a man to see that his duty to God is the first and deepest and highest of all, including and requiring the performance of all other duties whatever. A man might live a thousand years in neglect of duty, and never come to see that any obligation was upon him to put faith in God and do what he told him-never have a glimpse of the fact that he owed him something. I will allow that if God were what he thinks him he would indeed owe him little; but he thinks him such in consequence of not doing what he knows he ought to do. He has not come to the light. He has deadened, dulled, hardened his nature. He has not been a man without guile, has not been true and fair.

But while faith in God is the first duty, and may therefore well be called righteousness in the man in whom it is operative, even though it be imperfect, there is more reason than this why it should be counted to a man for righteousness. It is the one spiritual act which brings the man into contact with the original creative power, able to help him in every endeavour after righteousness, and ensure his progress to perfection. The man who exercises it may therefore also well be called a righteous man, however far from complete in righteousness. We may call a woman beautiful who is not perfect in beauty; in the Bible men are constantly recognized as righteous men who are far from perfectly righteous. The Bible never deals with impossibilities, never demands of any man at any given moment a righteousness of which at that moment he is incapable; neither does it lay upon any man any other law than that of perfect righteousness. It demands of him righteousness; when he yields that righteousness of which he is capable, content for the moment, it goes on to demand more: the common-sense of the Bible is lovely.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

But while faith in God is the first duty, and may therefore well be called righteousness in the man in whom it is operative, even though it be imperfect, there is more reason than this why it should be counted to a man for righteousness. It is the one spiritual act which brings the man into contact with the original creative power, able to help him in every endeavour after righteousness, and ensure his progress to perfection. The man who exercises it may therefore also well be called a righteous man, however far from complete in righteousness. We may call a woman beautiful who is not perfect in beauty; in the Bible men are constantly recognized as righteous men who are far from perfectly righteous. The Bible never deals with impossibilities, never demands of any man at any given moment a righteousness of which at that moment he is incapable; neither does it lay upon any man any other law than that of perfect righteousness. It demands of him righteousness; when he yields that righteousness of which he is capable, content for the moment, it goes on to demand more: the common-sense of the Bible is lovely.

But this is no answer to the problem. As I read MacDonald, he too believes in imputed (or credited with being) righteousness based on Faith. And now it has been revealed to us more clearly the object of saving faith. If God demands perfection, the only way we will have it is if it is credited to us on some basis. And if so, whence the righteousness we are credited with if not from God?

So that means that in our becoming the righteousness of God, we don't actually become righteous, but are treated as such. Yes, that's the doctrine of the easy grace crowd.

I disagree with "once save, always saved" as much as you do but I must admit there are many in that crowd who are every bit as Godly as those who disagree with them. My mother came from a Baptist family and left the Baptist church; last I heard there were seven pastors among my cousins on her side of the family. They all live far from me but I have come to know one of them who is Southern Baptist. He is nearly 80 years old and still laboring in the vineyard. He chose when young a career working for secular employers to make a living and at the same time spent his life as a pastor of small churches that couldn't afford a to hire someone. I would say that is devotion to our Lord.

[jriccitelli]

I wish the above discussion about Jesus and the thief on the cross, and where and when they went to paradise, or if they are there yet, were relegated to a different thread.I think this very important discussion on works and salvation should not be diverted (Paidion)

I thought so too, and since I did just answer someone on another forum who asked: Did God die when Jesus died? So I will put that up as my answer and response to Editor, here: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5011

I have to force myself to ignore the urge to talk on this, and other topics that I really enjoy studying, because of a pressing Church topic that has been becoming more and more urgent in my life, and I feel for others experiencing the same. I must say i am so happy for these bible forums where you can speak on doctine and matters, even when we don't always agree. Case in point: Me and Paidion, and others here are often at odds, but I think we need a place of discussion, and it is beneficial, and I love you all as a believers and brothers seeking the truth

I wish the church, its leaders, and most of their Pastors had the backbone to participate in discussions like this, but fat chance

[Paidion]

I disagree with "once save, always saved" as much as you do but I must admit there are many in that crowd who are every bit as Godly as those who disagree with them. My mother came from a Baptist family and left the Baptist church; last I heard there were seven pastors among my cousins on her side of the family. They all live far from me but I have come to know one of them who is Southern Baptist. He is nearly 80 years old and still laboring in the vineyard. He chose when young a career working for secular employers to make a living and at the same time spent his life as a pastor of small churches that couldn't afford a to hire someone. I would say that is devotion to our Lord.

I fully agree that "there are many in that crowd who are every bit as Godly as those who disagree with them." Perhaps more so! My mother was a Baptist as are three of my siblings. As a young man of 19 and 20, I attended a most alive Baptist church in which both the pastor and his wife were Southern Baptists. I was deeply blessed in that church, and am ever grateful for it. Indeed I was baptized in that church, and it helped me to draw closer to Christ and experience Him daily. In 1998, my wife and I had the privilege of staying a couple of days in their house in Magnolia, Texas. The pastor, who was in his nineties, prepared sumptious meals for us. The couple was just as Godly and devoted as ever.

No, it is not the people of "that crowd" that I oppose; it is their teaching concerning grace. The teaching of cheap grace can lead some people into believing they have been permanently saved from hell, and for that reason, they think they can continue to sin with impunity because "My sins are forgiven, past, present, and future."

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[jriccitelli]

No, it is not the people of "that crowd" that I oppose; it is their teaching concerning grace. The teaching of cheap grace can lead some people into believing they have been permanently saved from hell, and for that reason, they think they can continue to sin with impunity because "My sins are forgiven, past, present, and future." (Paidion, above)

There are only two crowds. Those who trust in His righteousness - and those who trust in their own righteousness. You can’t have it both ways.
‘The teaching of cheap grace can lead some people into believing they have been permanently saved from hell…’ (Paidion. above)
Calling it ‘cheap’ may reveal why some don’t believe or understand God’s Sacrifice (or His Way of righteousness). In your case you still don’t agree that Jesus is both The Lord, and God. You also do not believe in all the words of Moses and the Law: in which reveal the precepts of His Holiness / our enmity with God / and the necessity of a blood sacrifice - for without a Holy sacrifice there can be no substitute for sin.
‘… and for that reason, they think they can continue to sin with impunity because…’ (Paidion)
There are a lot of reasons as to why people continue to sin. The predominate reason: is that we are human, that is why we must live in grace through faith. Secondly: They never really grow in the knowledge of their salvation, some assume they are saved, others seem to assume God does not ‘care’ what they do, or know why God saved them.

I use to struggle with the question of: why do so many ‘christians’ live as though they don’t know, love and respect their Savior? I have witnessed that a person may accept Jesus as their savior, but as they begin to know Him, learn more about Him, some people encounter a God they really do not enjoy, appreciate, love or want to be part of. Not because they are more moral than God, but they just don't love or 'want' to be moral. I have witnessed some who upon learning ‘more’ about something, realize later on they do not really ‘want’ to participate in, or believe, after all. They may no-longer believe, and yet they still may participate in a ‘said’ faith, duty, or religion for some purpose other than truth and true belief. The full biblical truth about who God really is, and the truth about what we really are as humans, may not have been revealed to a person at some ‘said’ conversion. A person may even fully comprehend and believed the truths, but later change their mind.

(I believe and understand the doctrines of being sealed in the Spirit, chosen by God, bought with a price, the New man, and being born again, but I have to balance and understand these all within the context of freewill and faith. All these doctrines can be affirmed as pledges by God, and prerequisites to Eternal life, but is having their fulfillment a matter of faith? Thus to lose faith may be akin to loss of their fulfillment. We still live by faith in this life until we are clothed and made New in the new Earth. As Paul said the whole Earth groans until then (and so do I). I think God purposefully left a practical need for balance between the concepts of Eternal security and insecurity (Arminian). Yet I am sure we can be secure that if we ‘believe and have faith’ we will be saved)

"My sins are forgiven, past, present, and future." (Paidion, above)
Yes they are, but only if you believe and have faith in His One sacrifice for sins. The point of this common statement is grounded in the fact of the once and for all Sacrifice of Christ. We cannot possibly offer a sacrifice for sin to God, in the present or in the future, the only sacrifice God will account for our righteousness is the one in the past, the One on the Cross. Our Faith in this fact is our Salvation.

Trusting in His righteousness should lead us to the knowledge of true righteousness, a righteousness that is by faith in Him who is able to make us righteous, and motivate us to good works. A salvation that is Not by our works but By His Spirit, which will be evident by His works: "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (1 John 3:21) 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you…' (1 Peter 1:2-4) "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust… ” (2 Peter 1)

[Paidion]

There are only two crowds. Those who trust in His righteousness - and those who trust in their own righteousness.

If you insist on reducing the crowds to two (which I consider rather unrealistic), I would describe the first crowd as those who are basically self-serving, trying to avoid eternal hell by accepting Christ, or praying the sinner's prayer, or trusting in the finished work of Christ or ... (what needs to be done seems to vary in this crowd), and who believe it is good to live a righteous life but unnecessary in order to escape hell and go to heaven, and the second crowd as those who have forsaken the self-serving life, and who become disciples of Christ, entrusting their whole lives to Him, and who practise doing what He said, and succeed through the enabling grace of God which can be appropriated by faith. It is the former who receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1), and the latter who, working togethe with Him, receive the grace of God for a purpose, the purpose being to eschew evil, and to live righteously.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]