Dear Guests of IDOTG:Last week I welcomed back Phillip Evans with this new multi-part series. Please refer to Part One for the introductory installment of this series. Phillip the is author of Eternal Security Proved. Excerpts from this article are drawn from his book. For additional articles by Brother Evans see below.
This morning we continue with the second installment of Brother Phillip Evans’s new series.
If all truly born-again saints recover themselves out of sin before they die, as some LS teachers state or strongly imply, then why the existence of such chastisement that leads to physical death? Lest anyone attempt to argue that Ananias and Saphira were not truly saved, why would fear fall on the early Church if such punishment only happened to the lost? Or perhaps Ananias and Saphira were merely one-time exceptions in the LS paradigm?
Or the example of Simon the Sorcerer? Right after getting truly born again, he desired to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit with money, no doubt to make an even better profit off the people than he had done before with his sorcery. Or certain people who believed in Jesus, but were *afraid to publicly commit to him, for they desired the praise from men more than from God?
The LS advocate will protest that I oppose the truth that Christ sets us free from sin. I don’t oppose that truth at all. Look at the Apostle Paul’s struggles against the power of sin in his flesh in Romans. Do you think he saw himself completely free from the power of sin? If so, then why the heartache about the struggle? Does Christ set us completely free from sin or not? Yes, of course He does. But let’s not get things tangled up here.
First of all, at the moment of conversion from lost to saved, we are instantly and eternally set free from the penalty of sin (past tense element of salvation), but while still in our mortal bodies we are in the process of being saved from the power of sin as we yield ourselves in obedience to God (present tense element of salvation). Failure to do such yielding will not nullify our eternal salvation that has already been sealed, but will rob us of peace and joy in this life, and ultimately, eternal reward in God’s Kingdom if we do not repent. Even in this life sin’s authority is broken, and it is not possible for it to enslave us, unless we use our will to choose to be its slave.
So you see, being free from sin’s authority does not mean that a saint could not choose to become enslaved again. For if a saint can sin even though the authority of sin is nullified, that is proof that the saints still possess their free will to make choices to serve God or not. This is Paul’s message in Romans 6 and 7. The encouragement in Romans 6 and 7 to live holy lest we be enslaved is not to the lost, for they are natural slaves to sin’s authority. But it’s to the saints, who can only be enslaved by yielding themselves to their former master.
Paul called the power of sin that is still in our mortal flesh the “body of death.” He looked forward to when he would no longer have to contend with this body of death, for it severely burdened him. He was alluding to a practice of the Romans, who would sometimes tie a dead body to a person as punishment for a crime, and they would have to carry it wherever they went. Truly a gruesome weight!
Everyone that has trusted Christ as Savior ought to depart from iniquity and live holy, but not all do. Recall Jesus’ healing of the ten lepers, but only one returned thanks. Many born-again, likewise truly healed people today are among the nine instead of the one. It is a fact that saints can continue in sin, and still be saved. Scripture is clear that some saints harden themselves and let their faith become shipwrecked.
What is the currency that buys our pardon, the blood of Christ, or our efforts at non-continuing in sin?
To be continued…
*Site Publisher’s Addendum:
During my extended interaction in 2006 at Pulpit Magazine with Nathan Busenitz (John MacArthur’s personal assistant) he wrote this,
“But Lordship (Salvation) sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance.”At least twice I left the following passage, companion comment and question for Nathan’s attention.
“Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” (Jn. 12:42-43).Nathan never responded to the passage or question. All advocates of Lordship Salvation are welcome to answer the question in the thread?
The Bible says they were not open about, and would not confess a “change of allegiance.”
Did they biblically repent; were they believers?
Originally posted under, A Question Left Unanswered on Dec. 28, 2006. A fuller discussion of this issue appears in the revised and expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel, pp. 127-128.
Site Publisher’s Note:
There is a good discussion underway in the thread under the first installment of this series. You may want to look in.
Phillip Evans has contributed several articles to IDOTG including:
The Hollow Gospel of the GES
Christ's Resurrection: Part of the Saving Message?
Out on a Limb to Protest Too Much
Lou, thanks for pointing out this passage. LS adovates will have a very tough time answering this. (Have they even attempted?)
ReplyDeleteIn fact, in John 12, the believers in 42-43 are contrasted with the unbelievers just a few verses before this. This proves that their belief was genuine, as contrasting unbelief with "false" belief would be ridiculous. And this goes to the heart of LS doctrine. In order to prop up their teaching, they must redefine the nature of belief/faith/trust.
“Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” (Jn. 12:42-43).
Phil
Phil:
ReplyDeleteIf you go to the Dec. 2006 article A Question Left Unanswered you’ll find there was one attempt to answer. The answer was flawed from the outset because it was based on an incorrect definition of repentance.
The key issue is that Nathan Busenitz in an open forum had more than one opportunity to address and/or answer the question in regard to the passage and passed on it entirely.
In the other thread one guest noted, “I have not always agreed with every tenet you have put forth, but you have asked the question they cannot answer. Reminds me of when the Lord asked Pharisees questions they couldn't answer.”
FWIW, I added this passage, commentary and question to the new edition of my book IDOTG (pp. 127-128), including the history of Nathan’s pass on the question.
Lou
“Did they biblically repent; were they believers?”
ReplyDeleteConsidering the following, I will take a shot at answering the question from the Non-Lordship position. NO! They were not believers in the sense of being saved.
John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
This questions the belief of one that does not seek the honour that cometh from God only.
Rom 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
This shows that confessing with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, is an essential result of salvation, which is absent from their testimony.
John 12:42 states that “many also believed on him”, interestingly enough those Jews recorded in John 8:31-47 are recorded in verse 31 as those who have “believed on him” as well. HOWEVER, those very same Jews in verse 44 are described as being children of the Devil, an unfitting title for a child of God by faith.
The term “believed on him” is more than once associated with those who believed on him as a man who came to fulfill an earthly kingdom, but who did not also believe on Him as Jehovah God to the saving of their souls.
When we see verses like “believeth on the Son”, and “believeth not the Son”, these are iron clad as to precisely the nature of the person one has believed on for salvation. When merely “him” is mentioned it can either be referring to the Son of God in all His glory, or merely Jesus in his humanity.
"So you see, being free from sin’s authority does not mean that a saint could not choose to become enslaved again. For if a saint can sin even though the authority of sin is nullified, that is proof that the saints still possess their free will to make choices to serve God or not. This is Paul’s message in Romans 6 and 7. The encouragement in Romans 6 and 7 to live holy lest WE be enslaved is NOT TO THE LOST, for they are natural slaves to sin’s authority. But it’s to the saints, who can only be enslaved by yielding themselves to their former master." (caps added)
ReplyDeleteI came to this position a few years in my study of Romans. It was disheartening to think of the typical "Romans Road" gospel presentation which pulls 6:23 out of context and directs it to unbelievers.
Hi Phil and Lou,
ReplyDeleteThe topic of Ananias and Saphira is a fruitful one! Not only is your point about how the Church had fear an important one, so also is Peter's challenge of these two.
Note he asks them to explain why they would try to deceive the Spirit of God. What a silly question to ask an unsaved person.
Good writing Phil!
Kev
Thanks Kev, you've got a great point about Peter's challenge to them! Iron sharpen's iron!
ReplyDeletePhil
Phil/Kevl
ReplyDeleteHearts filled by/with Satan are not a requisite of a child of God.
Nowhere does the Bible talk of the faith of Ananias and Sapphira.
The reason:
They were the among the first tares in the new dispensation. This is why great fear came upon the church, the realization that some could be so willing to give up much of their own, and yet not be converted such that they could give all.
Conviction and enlightenment brought them to give, much like modern tares in the church who can give a little, however falling short of conversion, they could not be honest about their condition with either themselves or the Holy Ghost. Ananias and Sapphira are not a display of backslidden saints, they are a display of dishonest hypocrites.
The best displays of backslidden saints are David/Solomon/Hezekiah/Peter.
Hi Look up,
ReplyDeleteThanks for addressing me with your comment.
I would agree with you that a heart being filled by/with Satan is not a necessity for someone to be a Christian. You rightly point this out.
However, Satan does "fill someones heart TO" do things. Even Christian someones. Remember the Lord's rebuke of Peter when Peter wanted to stop Him from being killed? He called Peter Satan, actually He was talking about this exact same thing. Satan had filled Peter with the desire to do what God had not planned. Even though Peter was a saved man.
Much like my last point, would it not be absolutely bizarre for Peter to ask an unsaved person who is a slave to sin why they had allowed Satan to influence them so....
Now, answer me this. Where does the Bible say that these were among the first tares in the New Dispensation? Where does the Bible say that the Church became fearful because they realized that people could be willing to give up so much of their own and yet not be converted that they would give all????? (and for that matter what does giving all have to do with being converted... I shudder to imagine your answer... )
Where does the Bible give the explanation that you offer about their reasoning?
It is not their reasoning, it is yours.
Kev
Look up, I was a tad aggressive in my last. I trust you are able to answer without being offended.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Kev
Look-Up, you said:
ReplyDelete"Nowhere does the Bible talk of the faith of Ananias and Sapphira."
The point of the account was not to highlight their punctiliar faith which saved them unto eternal life, for they were already in the Church. Are you suggesting that a non-mention of this faith means they never had it? It's difficult to prove a negative. However, I will provide evidence that shows they were saved.
I addressed this topic when I replied to James Kime (in part 1) with:
Concerning Ananias and Saphira, their punishment caused fear to fall upon the Church (the saints). Isn't this consequence of Church discipline exactly what God intended? That this "sin unto death" is something that saints should fear lest they commit a sin similar to what Ananias and Saphira committed? According to I John 5:16, this type of punishment is certainly something that a saint could experience.
So you see, the possibilty exists that this punishment can happen to a saint, as I've shown from Scripture. And if the saints who witnessed this event in Acts feared, as God intended that they would, it would therefore make no sense to believe anything other than that they were genuinely saved. For you to try and cast doubt upon that fact makes no sense at all, for you know from Scripture that saints can be punished by God with physical death. At least you were not dogmatic that Ananias and Saphira were lost. Does that mean you are open to the possibilty that they were saved?
It should be obvious to you that that God would not use the punishment of a lost couple in this manner as if to imply they were saved but carnal (for God does not lie), in order to prove He can discipline carnal saints in this manner. Note, saints punished in this manner cannot be said to have endured to the end, nor could it be said that they "persevered" to the end(see 5th point of Calvinism).
The only logical conclusion therefore, is that Ananias and Saphira were indeed saved.
---------------------------------
It should be obvious that this is a case of Church discipline, in light of I John 5:16. Does your belief system require otherwise? That would place you dangerously close to the LS camp.
Also, remember the saved Corinthians who did not honor the Lord's Supper? Some got sick, and some died.
Phil
“Much like my last point, would it not be absolutely bizarre for Peter to ask an unsaved person who is a slave to sin why they had allowed Satan to influence them so....”
ReplyDeleteEnlightened/unconverted people can be and are addressed in this manner, just as Judas was, or the Jews in Acts 7:51. These same people can resist the Holy Spirit, these same people allow Satan to influence them so. And it is to the consciences of these people that the word of God can appeal to bring them to conversion. Therefore they are appealed to in strong language.
“Now, answer me this. Where does the Bible say that these were among the first tares in the New Dispensation? Where does the Bible say that the Church became fearful because they realized that people could be willing to give up so much of their own and yet not be converted that they would give all?????”
In its silence about their defence, the Bible condemns both Ananias and Sapphira, whereas Peter has a couple dozen chapters that give us a true sense of his character. Ananias and Sapphira have but one chapter, and that one does nothing but condemn them. When you read the Kings you find this is quite typical (with the exception of Saul who gets much airtime because of his persecution of David) that the lost get very little airtime and that which they do get, focuses on their sin.
In an enlightened state (partaking of the truth with Christians), they resisted the moving of the Holy Spirit, who moved ALL of the other Christians at that particular moving to sell ALL that they had. Were there others that had only given partial amounts we could have understood the moving to have been different in different individuals, but as it is, only Ananias and Sapphira resisted. Had they other chapters to defend them and build a better character, we could possibly write that off as a quenching the Holy Spirit, but since the word of God records their only claim to Christianity as hanging out with Christians yet exposes their lying to the Holy Ghost, to think more of them than we ought is to put into scripture what isn’t there. With their attempt at lying to the Holy Ghost it is Psa 10:4,11 and Isaiah 29:15 that pronounces the woe.
And to continue...
ReplyDeleteActs 4:31...they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost...
Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Acts 4:33....great grace was upon them all.
And then we have the BUT, which shows the exception, and differentiates him from THEM who ALL had great grace, and were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias
Therefore he and his wife are not part of THEY who were ‘filled with the Holy Ghost’ and ‘were of one heart and of one soul’, but rather are tares.
Look-Up said:
ReplyDelete“Did they biblically repent; were they believers?
Considering the following, I will take a shot at answering the question from the Non-Lordship position. NO! They were not believers in the sense of being saved.”
“John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
“This questions the belief of one that does not seek the honour that cometh from God only.”
Look-Up, thank you for your comments on this, and I certainly appreciate you being non-LS.
However, making an assumption about one verse, and carrying over that same assumption to another, is not always legitimate. Since especially in this case, your assumption goes against Scripture's consistent presentation of faith/belief/trust as a simple concept. LS advocates make this same type of error numerous times in order to try and prove their teaching is true.
The presence of sin or lack thereof in one's life should not be the absolute measure of how we judge whether that person is saved, as LS advocates often do, and I would wager that only in a minority of cases can we be close to 100% certain whether one is saved or lost, as only God sees the heart. LS teachers apparently don't appreciate this fact.
Let's look at John 5:44. This is a case where Jesus knew that these addressed had never believed. Their sin of arrogance and their unwillingness to repent (change their minds) of this sin blocked their own selves from embracing the required humility in order to recognize their need before God and believe the truth. Lest anyone accuse me of teaching works, as if humility is a work, it is simply a state of mind whereby one expresses their desire for salvation, by simple recognition that they are a sinner and condemned under sin, and that God is the greater Authority than themselves with the power to judge them, and the power to save them.
It should be obvious that the sin of those believers referenced in John 12:43 can befall any saint. I am not aware of any child of God in this life that is immune to the pride and the seeking of honor from men, as the unbelievers in John 5:44 exhibited.
The amount of time between when one is born again, and when falling back into sin is not relevant, as pertains to our observation of whether one's profession of faith was genuine. Many saints only have “sprout growth”, and never produce mature fruit. One of Jesus' parables comes to mind that illustrates this. Therefore, we would have no reason from our point of view to acknowledge that they were saved, if visible fruit is our criteria for making the judgment. Although Simon the Sorcerer was genuinely saved (as I've discussed in depth in another posting – in part 1 of my article), his fall back into sin was apparently rather quick. The human heart is a fickle thing, and even saints can do puzzling things.
Rom. 10:9-10: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
ReplyDeleteLook-Up said: “This shows that confessing with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, is an essential result of salvation, which is absent from their testimony.”
Not that only LS advocates hold your view of these two verses here, it is certainly consistent with LS doctrine. However, if the heart believes unto righteousness, salvation in the sense of justification occurs right then.
After getting saved, free will is not suspended even for a moment for the saint. Many people are by nature painfully shy, and will never get up in front of any crowd large or small, and confess their faith. Would it count if they confess to a couple of close friends?
In my book, I offered that the confession with the mouth in this passage is anthropomorphic language to illustrate agreement with God, i.e., belief. I will now admit there could be more to it than this. In other words, believing with the heart brings justification (stage 1 salvation), and confession starts the process of practical sanctification (stage 2 salvation).
It should be considered a grave error to make any sort of obvious (to us) outward manifestation of the Spirit the guide that we use to make a judgment on what has occurred in another's heart. This is the road that leads to self-righteously judging others as lost when they may in fact be saved. And it also leads to LS doctrine.
You brought up John 8:31-47 and stated that Jesus had called some of those who had believed in Him, children of the devil, as if to prove that belief in Scripture can sometimes refer to “false faith”. Not only is this an LS position, it is also an unsupported assumption seeing that Jesus was addressing a mixed crowd that contained believers and unbelievers.
You said, “The term 'believed on him' is more than once associated with those who believed on him as a man who came to fulfill an earthly kingdom, but who did not also believe on Him as Jehovah God to the saving of their souls.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this dichotomy of the term “belief” presented in Scripture. I'm sure at first Judas Iscariot had placed some confidence in Jesus (as a man only, not believing Him to also be the Eternal Son of God), but the writers of Scripture were very careful not to cloud its presentation of faith by using the word “belief” in regards to Judas' initial confidence in Jesus as a man, though they could have used that word. Had they done so, they obviously would have qualified it, but it was just better to not go there to begin with. There is a reason that only one concept of belief is presented in Scripture, and that is to preserve and illustrate the simplicity of the Gospel.
You said: “When we see verses like 'believeth on the Son', and 'believeth not the Son', these are iron clad as to precisely the nature of the person one has believed on for salvation. When merely “him” is mentioned it can either be referring to the Son of God in all His glory, or merely Jesus in his humanity.”
This is mere human reasoning you are using to try and make your point. I've not seen any Scripture that validates this assumption.
Phil
Look-Up, your analysis of Acts 4 and 5 is rather flawed.
ReplyDeletePlease quote all of Acts 4:31. It was at the *time* that they prayed when they were gathered together that they will filled with the Holy Spirit. This does not imply that it was their continuous state. All saved are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but not all are continually filled by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, Ananias and Saphira are not ruled out as lost here from Acts 4:31 by any means.
Also, at that time, they did have all things common, but not necessarily in terms of ownership, otherwise the reports of them (not just Ananias and Saphira) selling land and bringing money would make no sense.
And grace was upon them all, Ananias and Saphira included (before they sinned).
The "But" in Acts 5:1 is not drawing a contrast between Ananias and Saphira with saints in Acts: 4:31-33, but with Joseph the Levite, who honorably gave honestly.
Phil
"The presence of sin or lack thereof in one's life should not be the absolute measure of how we judge whether that person is saved..."
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the Bible shows us that a saved or lost person can commit nearly any like sin. It is the absence of faith (trust) in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ that is the single measure.
Those in John 8:31 who "believed on him" believed not on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, as evidenced by His condemnation of them in John 8:44. Likewise, Ananias and Sapphira have no record of a trust of any kind, BUT (there's that but again) are held out in contrast to those who did trust Christ. Like the Kings of the OT the absence of that which is needed being recorded is what gives it away.
Same with Simon, who "believed also". You are familiar with James where "the devils also believe". So what exactly did he believe and who exactly did he believe on? Even without what history records of him, his last recorded words show a concern only about consequences of sin (Acts 8:24) and not that his sin separated him from God is a good giveaway on his position before the Lord. He too was lost.
“...making an assumption about one verse, and carrying over that same assumption to another, is not always legitimate. Since especially in this case, your assumption goes against Scripture's consistent presentation of faith/belief/trust as a simple concept.”
I agree that trust is the completion of saving faith. There is no demonstration of trust by Ananias/Sapphira/Simon or the Jews in John 12. A man is justified before God by faith alone (the essence of Romans), and he justifies the God of his faith before men by what he does (the essence of James), in these cases there is nothing done by any of these people to justify their faith (actual trust of Christ) to us such that we should consider them saved. The statements of their “faith” are left open ended, and specifically not closed up entirely with words so that we can learn to rightly divide, because in real life, this is what we will have to do. We will have to learn to rightly divide the wheat from the chaff so that we can fellowship with children of God, so that we can determine the lost still in need of the gospel, even if their profession is very high.
Look-Up, you said:
ReplyDeleteThose in John 8:31 who "believed on him" believed not on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, as evidenced by His condemnation of them in John 8:44.
Apparently you failed to see and address my point that Jesus was speaking to a mixed crowd of believers and unbelievers. Some things he addressed to the believers, and some to the unbelievers.
You also fail to understand that The Letter of James does not at all contrast "saving faith" with "non-saving faith". Your position is consistent with the LS position on the 2nd chapter of his letter! It is also consistent with Roman Catholicism's take on it, as both LS and RC see those spoken of here as being lost. Notwithstanding LS would say never saved, and RC would also include loss of salvation for those who fail to maintain works. It's highly ironic that the Reformed movement, poisoned by Calvinism has come into almost lock-stock agreement with RC doctrine!
In another discussion with an LS advocate (can't recall the name or thread), it was scary to see how close he was approaching embracing the doctrine that a true saint could lose their salvation!
Unfortunately, most protestant denominations throughout many of their churches now are poisoned with the error of LS doctrine. However, as one poster commented, majority does not equal right. There will be at least a remnant of the saints who appear before the Throne of God that have rightly divided the Scripture concerning the Gospel and will be commended for it.
James is not speaking of faith in Christ when he said, "the devils also believe". This is one example of James' use of irony. They believe that God exists, but have not placed their trust in Him. Not a single time in James' letter does he exhort his audience to have faith in Christ, for the letter is written to and for saved brethren! To not view James 2 as referring to the saints does us a great disservice by negating the value of this exhortation made to and for us.
James is Wisdom literature, and as such he used great irony, such as calling some of the saints "sinners", as never occurs in non-Wisdom literature.
The main irony in James, is that although we receive the greatest gift (eternal life in the sense of justification and imputed righteousness before God, moving from death to life) by faith alone in Christ alone, we can only have the lesser benefit of spiritual growth and practical sanctification (the “saving of our souls”) through faith mixed with works. Ironic, no?
I would encourage you to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel by rightly dividing God's Word that addresses it, lest you risk losing some or all of your eternal reward. I write this to you as a brother in Christ.
My comments to you in this thread are now completed. I invite you to have the last word if you desire.
Thank you for the lively discussion. My prayer is that others will learn and be edified by it. Iron sharpens iron.
God bless you,
Phil
“Apparently you failed to see and address my point that Jesus was speaking to a mixed crowd of believers and unbelievers. Some things he addressed to the believers, and some to the unbelievers.”
ReplyDeleteI saw your point but as I read the chapter straight through, I saw that Jesus directly spoke to “those Jews which believed on him” in verse 31, and told those same Jews that “the truth shall make you free”, not “the truth hath made you free” in verse 32. Then on to verse 33 it was “they” (those same Jews directly addressed by Jesus in verse 31 and 32) who answered Him and continued the conversation through to verse 59 where the same “they” addressed in verse 31 “which believed on him” picked up stones to stone Him, thereby showing they had a belief akin to the devils in James.
Saving faith actually consists of three things 1) Knowledge 2) Belief 3) Trust. We need a knowledge of the saving truth before we can believe it, then we must believe it to be true, and finally trust that it is true in our own case! Those in Matt 13:5, 20-21 are exactly those who believed a truth but did not trust it in their own case, and like those in John 12:42 (compare Matt 10:32-33 which leaves them without an Advocate), failed to receive a saving faith.
“You also fail to understand that The Letter of James does not at all contrast "saving faith" with "non-saving faith".
Actually, I plainly stated A man is justified before God by faith alone (the essence of Romans), and he justifies the God of his faith before men by what he does (the essence of James). Nowhere did I say that the purpose of James was to contrast “saving faith with non-saving faith”. James teaches of how men ought to make the power of God in their lives real, by what they do. It teaches that even devils can reach believing, but what good does it do them, others, or God. We are given a faith that produces things that glorify God (some faster, some slower) but nevertheless it produces things that cannot be produced without it. James simply exhorts to go forth in those things that make the invisible work of God visible to the average man.
“James is not speaking of faith in Christ when he said, "the devils also believe".”
Of course he is not, he is talking about a type of belief that Ananias/Sapphira/Simon Magus etc. had, one that did not trust, one that did not save! There is much belief out there, but very little trust. How many will admit to a belief in God, but oh how few will trust Him!
I now pass the last word on to the living God, who shows that this is not at all a light matter, and one worthy of our deepest consideration....
Prov 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.
Hi Look up, Phil, and Lou!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for it being so long in between my posts. I can do no better.
First, Look Up, thank you for pulling out the fact that "all" were doing this. That is a compelling thought, but not compelling enough to overcome the whole of Chapter 5.
Why would Peter be judging these people at all for holding back part of what they were giving. It could be argued (I think successfully) that Peter would himself be in very great error accepting anything from non-believers in the first place.
Paul is clear that the Lord judges (not just punishes and rewards, but JUDGES) those who are outside of the Church - not the Apostles, or the leaders. 1 Cor 5:12-13
Peter's challenge and judgment followed by fear in the Church equates that these were believers. There is a sin unto death. Remember these words of warning from the Apostle John.
Now I didn't follow all of your conversation with Phil, however I noted something about James 2 just above this.
You'll find, if you look at the Greek, that "that kind" of Faith is not in the Text. James is not describing a "kind" "type" or "quality" of faith.
Actually in fact, the often quoted verse is not in the mouth of James at all - but his supposed objector whom he argues AGAINST in order to make his point clear that Works and Faith are two separate things. Works are how a believer brings their faith to perfection, not how they prove they are saved, or determine if they are...
Check out James to "and one will say" here is the conversation.
James - "But someone will say;"
Objector- “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!"
James - "But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?"
James calls his objector foolish.
James goes on to show that works animate faith, not make it real or prove it to be real, but ANIMATE it. Put it to use.. .and through reliance on God your faith is perfected... and when God is faithful to you (as HE ALWAYS IS) you can be recognized as a friend of God. Not because you do for God, but because God does for you.
I hope this helps!
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteAs always you are most welcome and we really appreciate your input.
Lou