Response to Steve Ray on Salvation by Faith Alone

Steve Ray recently pointed out that the bible attributes salvation to things other than faith.  (link)
Salvation, taken narrowly, is a synonym for justification, but salvation also has a broad sense, including things like entrance into heaven itself.  We are justified by faith alone, but that does not mean we are saved (in the broad sense) by faith alone.  My ear alone hears, but if it’s torn from my head, it will no longer hear.  Likewise, faith, when not accompanied with works, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and forgiving others, does not save.  In this sense, things besides faith are conditions for salvation, but they do not receive God’s free gift of justification – only faith does.

One of the categories of items Steve mentioned deserves special attention – God’s grace, the cross, Christ’s blood and His righteousness.  It’s wrong to oppose faith with God’s grace.  Faith does not earn but rather receives God’s gifts.

Comments

Pumice said…
I like the illustration of the ear and hearing.

I don't know if God laughs or cries at how we isolate a verse and then base everything on it.

Grace and Peace
July 14, 2011 at 9:18 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Pumice! I agree about taking verses out of context.

God be with you,
Dan
July 14, 2011 at 10:59 AM
De Maria said…
Hi,

You said:
Response to Steve Ray on Salvation by Faith Alone
Steve Ray recently pointed out that the bible attributes salvation to things other than faith. (link)
Salvation, taken narrowly, is a synonym for justification,

Agreed.

but salvation also has a broad sense, including things like entrance into heaven itself.

I like the way you put that.

We are justified by faith alone,

That is not what Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

but that does not mean we are saved (in the broad sense) by faith alone.

This is true. I refer you to Matt 25:31-46.

My ear alone hears, but if it’s torn from my head, it will no longer hear.

Kind of a drastic analogy but I get the point.

Likewise, faith, when not accompanied with works, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and forgiving others, does not save.

Amen! But Scripture says that it also does not justify:
Romans 2:13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

In this sense, things besides faith are conditions for salvation, but they do not receive God’s free gift of justification – only faith does.

Faith accompanied by works. does. Faith alone, does not.

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

One of the categories of items Steve mentioned deserves special attention – God’s grace, the cross, Christ’s blood and His righteousness. It’s wrong to oppose faith with God’s grace. Faith does not earn but rather receives God’s gifts.

The first grace, prevenient grace is given us before we have faith. But in order to merit any further graces, we must have faith:
Hebrews 11:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Without that faith, meritorious works are not possible.

Sincerely,

De Maria
September 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more