Acts 22:16 Paul's salvation

[dwight92070]

Doug - What work did Abraham perform in Genesis 15:1-6 to show that he had faith?
Paul refers to this verse in Romans 4:1-5.
So what work did Paul say that Abraham performed to show that he had faith?

Who was James writing his letter to? Christians or non-Christians?

Quote Reply
Report

What has been taken down @dwight92070?

I'll gladly re-post it if it was from me.

J.

Okay, I found it in #801 and I copied it and will paste it below. Doug referenced it in #817 by saying: "As highlighted above ..." but I scrolled up and there was nothing there. This morning I noticed the arrow beside Doug's name in 817, clicked on it, and the comments or article appeared.
Here it is:
Comment: In this passage, James explains that not all believing will result in salvation. The believing he is describing in this passage is a mental or intellectual believing that is not associated in a change in one's heart and thus in one's behavior or actions. Belief in the New Testament sense that effects the new birth denotes more than a "demonic" like, intellectual assent to a set of facts or truths. The demons believe but they are clearly not saved. Genuine belief does involve an intellectual assent and consent of one's mind, but also includes an act of one's heart and will. Biblical saving faith is not passive assent but an active staking of one's life on the claims of God. The respected Greek lexicon author W E Vine defines belief as consisting of

What is the source of this comment or is this an article written somewhere? In the last sentence, which is incomplete, I see a reference to "Greek lexicon author W E Vine", but it doesn't give enough information to determine if the previous sentences were authored by him.

 

[Johann]

What is the source of this comment or is this an article written somewhere? In the last sentence, which is incomplete, I see a reference to "Greek lexicon author W E Vine", but it doesn't give enough information to determine if the previous sentences were authored by him.

πιστός
pistós; fem. pistḗ, neut. pistón, adj. from peíthō (G3982), to win over, persuade. Worthy of belief, trust, or confidence.
(I) Trustworthy (1Co_7:25; 1Ti_1:12; 2Ti_2:2; 1Pe_4:19; Rev_19:11; Sept.: 1Sa_3:20; Pro_20:6). True, sure, trustworthy, believable, worthy of credit (Rev_1:5; Rev_2:13; Rev_3:14; Sept.: Psa_89:38; Pro_14:5; Isa_8:2). Of things, true, sure, such as ho lógos (ho, def. art.; lógos [G3056], word), the word (1Ti_1:15; 1Ti_3:1; 1Ti_4:3; 2Ti_2:11; Tit_1:9; Tit_3:8; Rev_21:5; Rev_22:6). In Act_13:34, tá hósia Dabíd tá pistá (tá, neut. def. art.; hósia, neut. pl. of hósios [G3741], sacred; Dabíd [G1138], of David), the sure, inviolable, sacred things (promises, blessings) of David, the sure ones.

(II) Faithful in duty to oneself and to others, of true fidelity (Col_4:9; 1Pe_5:12, a faithful brother; Rev_2:10). Of God as faithful to His promises (1Co_1:9, "dependable the God" [a.t.]; 1Co_10:13; 1Th_5:24; 2Th_3:3; Heb_10:23; Heb_11:11; 1Jn_1:9; Sept.: Deu_32:4); of Christ (2Ti_2:13). As an attestation or oath, God is faithful (2Co_1:18). Especially of servants, ministers, who are faithful in the performance of duty (Mat_24:45; Mat_25:21, Mat_25:23; Luk_12:42; 1Co_4:2; Eph_6:21; Col_1:7, Col_1:9; Col_4:7; Heb_2:17). With epí (G1909), upon, with, followed by the dat. pl. of olígos (G3641), a little, ep’ olíga, with little things (Mat_25:21, Mat_25:23); with en (G1722), in, followed by the acc. (Luk_16:10-12; Luk_19:17; Eph_1:1; Col_1:2; 1Ti_3:11; Heb_3:5); by the dat. of person (Heb_3:2; Sept.: Num_12:7; 1Sa_22:14).
(III) With an act. sense, firmness in faith, confiding, trusting, believing, equivalent to ho pisteúōn, the pres. part. of pisteúō (G4100), to believe (Joh_20:27; Gal_3:9). Followed by the dat. (Act_16:15; 1Co_4:17). Used in an absolute sense (Act_10:45; Act_16:1; 2Co_6:15; 1Ti_4:3, 1Ti_4:10, 1Ti_4:12; 1Ti_5:16; 1Ti_6:2; Tit_1:6; Rev_17:14). Used in the acc. as an adv., pistón poiéō (poiéō [G4160], to do, perform), meaning to do faithfully, in a believing manner, as a Christian (3Jn_1:5; Sept.: Psa_101:6).

Deriv.: ápistos (G571), untrustworthy; pistóō (G4104), to confirm, establish.

Syn.: áxios (G514), worthy; bébaios (G949), steadfast, sure; alēthḗs (G227), true; alēthinós (G228), truthful; ámemptos (G273), blameless; anepílēptos (G423), irreproachable; eilikrinḗs (G1506), sincere; apseudḗs (G893), veracious; aklinḗs (G186), firm, without wavering; ametamélētos (G278), irrevocable; ametakínētos (G277), unmovable.

Ant.: ádēlos (G82), uncertain; astḗriktos (G793), unstable; ápistos (G571), unfaithful, untrustworthy; oligópistos (G3640), little faith; parabátēs (G3848), pseudḗs (G5571), false; dólios (G1386), deceitful; plános (G4108), seducing.
Word Study

A. Verbs.
1. pisteuo (G4100), "to believe," also "to be persuaded of," and hence, "to place confidence in, to trust," signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon, not mere credence. It is most frequent in the writings of the apostle John, especially the Gospel. He does not use the noun (see below). For the Lord's first use of the verb, see Joh_1:50. Of the writers of the Gospels, Matthew uses the verb ten times, Mark ten, Luke nine, John ninety-nine. In Act_5:14 the present participle of the verb is translated "believers. See COMMIT, INTRUST, TRUST.
2. peitho (G3982), "to persuade," in the middle and passive voices signifies "to suffer oneself to be persuaded," e.g., Luk_16:31; Heb_13:18; it is sometimes translated "believe" in the RV, but not in Act_17:4, RV, "were persuaded," and Act_27:11, "gave (more) heed"; in Act_28:24, "believed. See AGREE, ASSURE, OBEY, PERSUADE, TRUST, YIELD.
Note: For apisteo, the negative of No. 1, and apeitheo, the negative of No. 2, see DISBELIEVE, DISOBEDIENT.
B. Noun.
pistis (G4102), "faith," is translated "belief" in Rom_10:17; 2Th_2:13. Its chief significance is a conviction respecting God and His Word and the believer's relationship to Him. See ASSURANCE, FAITH, FIDELITY.
Note: In 1Co_9:5 the word translated "believer" (RV), is adelphe, "a sister," so 1Co_7:15; Rom_16:1; Jas_2:15, used, in the spiritual sense, of one connected by the tie of the Christian faith.
C. Adjective.
pistos (G4103), (a) in the active sense means "believing, trusting"; (b) in the passive sense, "trusty, faithful, trustworthy." It is translated "believer" in 2Co_6:15; "them that believe" in 1Ti_4:12, RV (KJV, "believers "); in 1Ti_5:16, "if any woman that believeth," lit. "if any believing woman." So in 1Ti_6:2, "believing masters." In 1Pe_1:21 the RV, following the most authentic mss., gives the noun form, "are believers in God" (KJV, "do believe in God"). In Joh_20:27 it is translated "believing." It is best understood with significance (a), above, e.g., in Gal_3:9; Act_16:1; 2Co_6:15; Tit_1:6; it has significance (b), e.g., in 1Th_5:24; 2Th_3:3 (see Notes on Thessalonians p. 211, and Galatians p. 126, by Hogg and Vine). See FAITHFUL, SURE.
Notes: (1) The corresponding negative verb is apisteo, 2Ti_2:13, KJV, "believe not" RV, "are faithless," in contrast to the statement "He abideth faithful."
(2) The negative noun apistia, "unbelief," is used twice in Matthew (Mat_13:58); Mat_17:20), three times in Mark (Mar_6:6; Mar_9:24; Mar_16:14), four times in Romans (Rom_3:3; Rom_4:20; Rom_11:20, Rom_11:23); elsewhere in 1Ti_1:13 and Heb_3:12, Heb_3:19.
(3) The adjective apistos is translated "unbelievers" in 1Co_6:6, and 2Co_6:14; in 2Co_6:15, RV, "unbeliever" (KJV, "infidel"); so in 1Ti_5:8; "unbelieving" in 1Co_7:12-15; 1Co_14:22-24; 2Co_4:4; Tit_1:15; Rev_21:8; "that believe not" in 1Co_10:27. In the Gospels it is translated "faithless" in Mat_17:17; Mar_9:19; Luk_9:41; Joh_20:27, but in Luk_12:46, RV, "unfaithful," KJV, "unbelievers." Once it is translated "incredible," Act_26:8. See FAITHLESS, INCREDIBLE, UNBELIEVER.
(4) Plerophoreo, in Luk_1:1 (KJV, "are most surely believed," lit., "have had full course"), the RV renders "have been fulfilled." see FULFILL, KNOW, PERSUADE, PROOF.
Vine NT.

Hope this is helpful brother.

J.

 

[Doug Brents]

Doug - What work did Abraham perform in Genesis 15:1-6 to show that he had faith?
Paul refers to this verse in Romans 4:1-5.
So what work did Paul say that Abraham performed to show that he had faith?

We are not told what action Abraham took that was associated with his belief. We are simply told that Abraham believed/trusted/had faith in the promise of God. We are not told if his faith was demonstrated at that instant, or if it was demonstrated in years to come, but his faith was credited as righteousness.

Who was James writing his letter to? Christians or non-Christians?

Both. He was writing to the "twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad". That could encompass both the saved of the twelve tribes, and the lost of the twelve tribes.

Okay, I found it in #801 and I copied it and will paste it below. Doug referenced it in #817 by saying: "As highlighted above ..." but I scrolled up and there was nothing there. This morning I noticed the arrow beside Doug's name in 817, clicked on it, and the comments or article appeared.
Here it is:
Comment: In this passage, James explains that not all believing will result in salvation. The believing he is describing in this passage is a mental or intellectual believing that is not associated in a change in one's heart and thus in one's behavior or actions. Belief in the New Testament sense that effects the new birth denotes more than a "demonic" like, intellectual assent to a set of facts or truths. The demons believe but they are clearly not saved. Genuine belief does involve an intellectual assent and consent of one's mind, but also includes an act of one's heart and will. Biblical saving faith is not passive assent but an active staking of one's life on the claims of God. The respected Greek lexicon author W E Vine defines belief as consisting of

What is the source of this comment or is this an article written somewhere? In the last sentence, which is incomplete, I see a reference to "Greek lexicon author W E Vine", but it doesn't give enough information to determine if the previous sentences were authored by him.

The full comment of Johann's was in post #800. I was only commenting on the one part of it, so I cut out the rest. Please forgive me. I did not intend to cause confusion by editing his comment.

 

[Johann]

Doug - What work did Abraham perform in Genesis 15:1-6 to show that he had faith?
Paul refers to this verse in Romans 4:1-5.
So what work did Paul say that Abraham performed to show that he had faith?

Who was James writing his letter to? Christians or non-Christians?

Quote Reply
Report

Okay, I found it in #801 and I copied it and will paste it below. Doug referenced it in #817 by saying: "As highlighted above ..." but I scrolled up and there was nothing there. This morning I noticed the arrow beside Doug's name in 817, clicked on it, and the comments or article appeared.
Here it is:
Comment: In this passage, James explains that not all believing will result in salvation. The believing he is describing in this passage is a mental or intellectual believing that is not associated in a change in one's heart and thus in one's behavior or actions. Belief in the New Testament sense that effects the new birth denotes more than a "demonic" like, intellectual assent to a set of facts or truths. The demons believe but they are clearly not saved. Genuine belief does involve an intellectual assent and consent of one's mind, but also includes an act of one's heart and will. Biblical saving faith is not passive assent but an active staking of one's life on the claims of God. The respected Greek lexicon author W E Vine defines belief as consisting of

What is the source of this comment or is this an article written somewhere? In the last sentence, which is incomplete, I see a reference to "Greek lexicon author W E Vine", but it doesn't give enough information to determine if the previous sentences were authored by him.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 Commentary | Precept Austin

www.preceptaustin.org

Here's the post @dwight92070.

God bless.

J.

 

[dwight92070]

I am not "afraid" of Acts 26. What I am trying to get you to see is that it does not say what you think it says. The story of Paul's conversion is told three times, and in two of them the timeline is laid out very clearly. In the third, the timeline is condensed, leaving out details that are unnecessary for the listener to know at that point. We cannot rewrite the timeline of the first two just because the third doesn't give details. All Scripture must agree, so if you take your timeline, then the first two become false. That cannot be true.

[Dwight} Correct, his story is told three times and for some reason, you seem to ignore or place little value on the third story in Acts 26. Yet that third story has valuable information, not found in the first two, that you also seem to ignore. That information is found in verses 15-18 - specifically 16,17, and 18. Paul says here that Jesus Himself spoke to him, NOT Ananias speaking on behalf of the Lord - and that means that he was still on the road to Damascus. Jesus is speaking in the first person in all these verses - "for this purpose I HAVE APPEARED TO YOU ... BUT ALSO TO THE THINGS IN WHICH I WILL APPEAR TO YOU ... THE GENTILES TO WHOM I AM SENDING YOU ... AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SANCTIFIED BY ME.

[Dwight] By contrast, when Ananias comes to Paul in Acts 9:17 and in Acts 22:12-16, Jesus is not speaking directly to either of them. Instead, in these first two stories, Ananias is speaking on behalf of the Lord. Contrary to what you are saying, the third story is not condensed - just the opposite - it actually gives MORE information not found in the first two.

[Dwight] Therefore the timeline seems to be as follows: 1. Jesus Himself appears to Saul on the road to Damascus 2. Jesus Himself commissions Saul while still on the road Acts 26:16-18 Ananias is not present for this commissioning. 3. Saul is told to go into the city "and it will be told you what you must do" Acts 9:6. In Acts 22:10, a little more information is given: " ... Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do" (apparently by Ananias) The additional information that Ananias gives Saul, after laying his hands on him, which restores his sight, is "Brother Saul ... The God of our fathers HAS APPOINTED YOU TO KNOW HIS WILL AND TO SEE THE RIGHTEOUS ONE AND TO HEAR AN UTTERANCE FROM HIS MOUTH. (Ananias' words here are past tense, making it clear that Saul saw and heard Jesus before Ananias came to him) For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard." Then he baptized Saul. (we have discussed the details of that ad infinitum, so I won't go into that now.)

[Dwight] So, yes, Ananias' visit obviously was essential and he DID add important information about what Saul was appointed to do, but it was SECOND HAND INFORMATION. Jesus told Ananias, then Ananias told Saul. In Acts 26, Saul got information from Jesus FIRSTHAND, DIRECTLY FROM HIM. JESUS COMMISSIONED SAUL DIRECTLY ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS - ANANIAS WAS NOT THERE.
[Dwight] There is no indication that Jesus spoke directly to Saul, while Ananias was standing right there. If Ananias had been there, he too would have seen the light, heard Jesus' voice, and fallen to the ground, which is exactly what happened to the men with Saul. See Acts 9:7 they "heard the voice but saw no one"; Acts 22:9 they "saw the light ... but did not understand the voice"; and Acts 26:13-14 the light was "shining all around" Saul and his companions ... and when we had ALL FALLEN TO THE GROUND, I heard a voice ..."
[Dwight] When the Lord spoke to Ananias, it was in a vision, there was no blinding light, no mention of him falling to the ground - all of which implies that this was VERY MUCH DIFFERENT from what Saul experienced. In fact, Ananias himself pointed that out: He said "the God of our fathers has appointed you TO KNOW HIS WILL AND TO SEE THE RIGHTEOUS ONE AND TO HEAR AN UTTERANCE FROM HIS MOUTH." This was a rare privilege that Ananias DID NOT EXPERIENCE. Paul knew the will of God like very few have known it. He was privileged to see and hear the glorified Jesus, like few have.


Again, those verses do not "scare" me, because they do not change anything found in the first two tellings of the event. Saul was still in sin three days after his experience on the Road, and so he was not saved on the Road. He was saved when he was baptized three days after the Road.

[Dwight] Wrong, Saul, having seen Jesus, must have been shaken to the core. He knew immediately, when Jesus spoke to him, that he had been gravely wrong and extremely violent and sinful. To even suggest that Saul did not repent on the spot in deep and broken humility is to totally miss what happened that day. If that happened to you or me, that's what we would do. Not only that, but to suggest that Jesus did not forgive him on the spot is to dishonor Jesus Himself. When Zacchaeus saw Jesus, he was converted on the spot - and he did not even see the GLORIFIED JESUS, as Saul did. When the man in the tombs was delivered by Jesus, he was converted on the spot - and he too did not see the GLORIFIED JESUS. When Jesus healed Bartimaeus' blind eyes, he was converted on the spot - and he did not see the GLORIFIED JESUS. Instantly, their faith saved them and their sins were forgiven. Saul was instantly and powerfully saved on the road - having aligned his faith with Jesus, and having all his sins forgiven.

It is irrelevant that Saul saw Jesus' glory and Ananias did not. Seeing His glory does not make His words any more true, valid, powerful, or potent. Jesus came to speak directly to Ananias, just as He spoke directly to Saul. Same Jesus, same power, same glory. Just because one was blinded and the other was not does not make the one blinded more holy or righteous.

[Dwight] Irrelevant? What part of God's word is irrelevant to you?? Saul, privileged to see the glory of the Righteous One, whereas Ananias DID NOT - makes no difference to you?? If that's how little value you place on the PERSON OF THE GLORIFIED JESUS, I am at a loss for words.
You equate the vision of Jesus speaking with Ananias with the blinding light of His glory and majesty, when He HIMSELF spoke directly to Saul?? No one is suggesting that Saul was more holy than Ananias. But there is a message there that I believe the Holy Spirit is conveying to us. At the very least Saul was more privileged than Ananias, or the rest of US for that matter. I think too that the Holy Spirit is showing us how authoritative the words of Paul are in the scripture. I do not worship him, but I do hold all authors of scripture in high esteem. Paul wrote about half of all the books in the New Testament - 13 out of 27

 

[Doug Brents]

[Dwight} Correct, his story is told three times and for some reason, you seem to ignore or place little value on the third story in Acts 26. Yet that third story has valuable information, not found in the first two, that you also seem to ignore. That information is found in verses 15-18 - specifically 16,17, and 18. Paul says here that Jesus Himself spoke to him, NOT Ananias speaking on behalf of the Lord - and that means that he was still on the road to Damascus.

No, it does not mean that he was still on the Road. If a servant brings a message from their Lord, the message doesn't come from the servant. It is the Lord who is speaking. Ananias didn't speak with his own voice. He spoke with Jesus' voice (figuratively). So if Paul says that Jesus told him, it means that Jesus told him through Ananias.

Jesus is speaking in the first person in all these verses - "for this purpose I HAVE APPEARED TO YOU ... BUT ALSO TO THE THINGS IN WHICH I WILL APPEAR TO YOU ... THE GENTILES TO WHOM I AM SENDING YOU ... AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SANCTIFIED BY ME.

And in the Old Testament, frequently the messenger will speak as if they were God speaking to the audience (speaking in the first person, Exo 20:22 is just one example). Just because Paul depicts Jesus speaking in the first person here, doesn't mean that Jesus was the actual speaker.

By contrast, when Ananias comes to Paul in Acts 9:17 and in Acts 22:12-16, Jesus is not speaking directly to either of them. Instead, in these first two stories, Ananias is speaking on behalf of the Lord. Contrary to what you are saying, the third story is not condensed - just the opposite - it actually gives MORE information not found in the first two.

Jesus spoke directly to Ananias (in a vision) telling him where to go, who to speak with, and what to say. And Jesus speaks directly to Saul telling him to go into the city where he would be told what else he must do. You are putting too much emphasis on the version in Acts 26, and not letting the first two set the timeline.

Therefore the timeline seems to be as follows: 1. Jesus Himself appears to Saul on the road to Damascus

true

2. Jesus Himself commissions Saul while still on the road Acts 26:16-18 Ananias is not present for this commissioning.

This is part of step 3. Jesus commissions Saul three days after his experience on the Road through Ananias. Just because Ananias is not mentioned in Acts 26 does not mean anything other than that Paul did not mention him in this telling of the story to King Agrippa.

3. Saul is told to go into the city "and it will be told you what you must do" Acts 9:6. In Acts 22:10, a little more information is given: " ... Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do" (apparently by Ananias) The additional information that Ananias gives Saul, after laying his hands on him, which restores his sight, is "Brother Saul ... The God of our fathers HAS APPOINTED YOU TO KNOW HIS WILL AND TO SEE THE RIGHTEOUS ONE AND TO HEAR AN UTTERANCE FROM HIS MOUTH. (Ananias' words here are past tense, making it clear that Saul saw and heard Jesus before Ananias came to him)

No, Ananias' words are not past tense here. He is foretelling that Saul would spend the next three years in Arabia and in Damascus leaning the Gospel directly from Jesus (Gal 1:11-12, 17-18).

So, yes, Ananias' visit obviously was essential and he DID add important information about what Saul was appointed to do, but it was SECOND HAND INFORMATION. Jesus told Ananias, then Ananias told Saul. In Acts 26, Saul got information from Jesus FIRSTHAND, DIRECTLY FROM HIM. JESUS COMMISSIONED SAUL DIRECTLY ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS - ANANIAS WAS NOT THERE.

Saul did not get the information first hand at all. Jesus told him who He was, and then sent him into the city to await further instruction. There was no commissioning on the Road, nor did Jesus have a long drawn out conversation with Saul on the Road. Saul received all of the commissioning instruction from Jesus through Ananias three days later.

There is no indication that Jesus spoke directly to Saul, while Ananias was standing right there. If Ananias had been there, he too would have seen the light, heard Jesus' voice, and fallen to the ground, which is exactly what happened to the men with Saul. See Acts 9:7 they "heard the voice but saw no one"; Acts 22:9 they "saw the light ... but did not understand the voice"; and Acts 26:13-14 the light was "shining all around" Saul and his companions ... and when we had ALL FALLEN TO THE GROUND, I heard a voice ..."

Ananias was not with Saul on the Road at all (he didn't appear until three days later). And yes, he would have probably reacted the same as the other men with Saul did. But we will never know the "If..."s, or the, "Maybe..."s. What we know is that Jesus met Saul on the Road, blinded him, and sent him into town to await further instructions. Then Ananias came to deliver Jesus' message to Saul.

When the Lord spoke to Ananias, it was in a vision, there was no blinding light, no mention of him falling to the ground - all of which implies that this was VERY MUCH DIFFERENT from what Saul experienced. In fact, Ananias himself pointed that out: He said "the God of our fathers has appointed you TO KNOW HIS WILL AND TO SEE THE RIGHTEOUS ONE AND TO HEAR AN UTTERANCE FROM HIS MOUTH." This was a rare privilege that Ananias DID NOT EXPERIENCE. Paul knew the will of God like very few have known it. He was privileged to see and hear the glorified Jesus, like few have.

Indeed, he spent the next three years learning from Jesus directly (possibly reliving the life of Jesus as if he had been there with him every day, but that is just my supposition since Jesus' ministry was three years and Saul spent three years learning from Jesus).

Wrong, Saul, having seen Jesus, must have been shaken to the core. He knew immediately, when Jesus spoke to him, that he had been gravely wrong and extremely violent and sinful. To even suggest that Saul did not repent on the spot in deep and broken humility is to totally miss what happened that day.

Repentance does not absolve sin. You walk into mud and then turn around. Turning around does not remove the mud from your shoes. Just repenting does not forgive sin, but it is certainly a necessary step in receiving forgiveness. Did Saul repent that instant or did he not repent until Ananias showed up? Doesn't matter. We know he repented at some point in that time, but it doesn't matter when in that period he repented. It doesn't change anything.

If that happened to you or me, that's what we would do. Not only that, but to suggest that Jesus did not forgive him on the spot is to dishonor Jesus Himself.

That does not dishonor Jesus at all. It honors Him as one who keeps His Word. If Saul had been forgiven on the Road, then Jesus lied when He said that we cannot be born again without water and the Spirit. Saul could have experienced the Spirit (he certainly experienced Jesus) on the Road, but he did not experience water on the Road, and so could not have been born again.

And to suggest that he was saved while he was still in sin is to completely disregard all of what Scripture says about sin.

Irrelevant? What part of God's word is irrelevant to you??

None of Scripture is irrelevant. But you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The fact that Saul saw the glory of Jesus and was blinded while Ananias, or Peter, or any of the other people who had visions of Jesus, were not does not make any difference.

Saul, privileged to see the glory of the Righteous One, whereas Ananias DID NOT - makes no difference to you?? If that's how little value you place on the PERSON OF THE GLORIFIED JESUS, I am at a loss for words.

No, it does not lessen the value of Jesus. Ananias did see Jesus, and hear His voice, as did Peter, and John, and many others. John even went to Heaven with Jesus (Revelation), as did Paul at one point (2 Cor 12:2). You want to make something more of it than there is because Saul was blinded. But that is not the point. Ananias was a messenger of God just as surely as Saul was (he was not an Apostle as Saul became, but he was still a messenger speaking the very words of Jesus).

You equate the vision of Jesus speaking with Ananias with the blinding light of His glory and majesty, when He HIMSELF spoke directly to Saul?? No one is suggesting that Saul was more holy than Ananias. But there is a message there that I believe the Holy Spirit is conveying to us. At the very least Saul was more privileged than Ananias, or the rest of US for that matter. I think too that the Holy Spirit is showing us how authoritative the words of Paul are in the scripture. I do not worship him, but I do hold all authors of scripture in high esteem. Paul wrote about half of all the books in the New Testament - 13 out of 27

Just because Ananias did not write any Scripture does not mean that he words he spoke to Saul were any less inspired by Jesus Himself. Jesus spoke directly to Ananias, just as much as He did to Saul on the Road, just as much as He spoke directly to Peter before the messenger from Cornelius came to him. Yes, I equate the vision of Jesus speaking to Ananias with the light Saul saw on the Road, and with the burning bush that Moses saw, and the vision that Peter saw, and the vision that John saw, and the vision that Daniel saw. They were all visions of God's glory. Each had a different purpose, and each had a different result, but each and every one of them was a demonstration of the Glory of God.

 

[dwight92070]

We are not told what action Abraham took that was associated with his belief. We are simply told that Abraham believed/trusted/had faith in the promise of God. We are not told if his faith was demonstrated at that instant, or if it was demonstrated in years to come, but his faith was credited as righteousness.

Both. He was writing to the "twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad". That could encompass both the saved of the twelve tribes, and the lost of the twelve tribes.

The full comment of Johann's was in post #800. I was only commenting on the one part of it, so I cut out the rest. Please forgive me. I did not intend to cause confusion by editing his comment.

Bingo! There was no action taken - he simply believed. How do we know he believed? We don't have to know. God knew because He knew his heart and He knew that Abraham believed Him.
What action did Paul say Abraham took to show he had faith in Gen 15:1-6?
The same. Paul said (in Rom. 4:1-5) that "he who does NOT work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."

So what does James mean by James 2:21 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

He simply means that his actions show that he truly had faith in God. Remember, at the time he offered up Isaac, Abraham had walked with God for about 50 years. An educated guess is that Abraham was about 125 years old, with Isaac being about 25, when Abraham offered him up. Abraham was first called by God when he was 75 years old, so he had walked with God close to 50 years when he offered up Isaac.

This tells us that James is NOT speaking of one's initial faith (for salvation) in James two, but he is speaking of the faith that a Christian has AFTER he has been saved -Just as Abraham demonstrated the faith that he still had some 50 years AFTER God first called him, by offering up Isaac.

However, let's assume that the baptismal regeneration people (BRP) are correct and that James, although he may be referring to the faith that persons who have already been saved have, he is also referring to the faith of persons who are just now getting saved.

So the BRP say that this person must show that he has genuine faith by his works, to display that he is really saved. So what works does James recommend? Well, in James 2:15, he recommends clothing and feeding the poor. Okay, so if a new believer clothes and feeds the poor, doesn't that prove that he is really saved? According to James, yes, it does.

James also refers to Rahab, who protected the spies, so that they wouldn't be killed. So if a new believer protected an innocent, wanted person or persons, so that they would not be killed, wouldn't that prove that they had genuine faith and were saved? According to James, yes, it would.

So does this satisfy the requirements of the BRP? You and I both know that it does NOT. This shows that they really aren't being honest when they quote "faith without works is dead". The truth is that they are really saying: "Faith without baptism is dead."

And James 2 doesn't say that. It says, that faith without ANY works is dead. So really, ANY GOOD WORK should satisfy Jame's requirement, NOT specifically baptism. So when the BRP quote James 2, as they endlessly do, then we know that it's simply a pitch for "No salvation without baptism", and that they are not really giving us a true interpretation of James 2.

So, James 2 is not now, nor has it ever been, about initial faith of a new believer to get saved.
But James 2 is now, and always has been about the faith that believers have AFTER they get saved.

 

[dwight92070]

James is written predominantly to Jewish believers, not unbelievers. In fact, what Bible book is not written to believers or we could say, the remnant of Israel, i.e. true lovers of God, both Jew and Gentile?

"In the exercise of His will He brought us forth in by the word of truth ..." James 1:18 James is speaking to born again disciples of Jesus. Notice there's no mention of being saved by being baptized. Rather they were born again by their faith in the word of truth.
"My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude ..." James 2:1
Once again, James is speaking to Christians, not unbelievers here in chapter 2.
So in James 2:14-26, James is again speaking to Christians, not unbelievers. When he speaks of their faith, he's addressing people who are already born again. So they don't need to know how to get saved - they already are saved through faith in the word of the gospel.