Excellent Discussion on OSAS

[Eternally-Grateful]

The definite article ἡ translates to "the", not "that". That proves my point that the word "that" is unwarranted in the English language.

the faith

what does the faith refer to.

the faith that James spoke of earlier. the claimed faith.

Why are yuo so resistant. Nothing you say makes sense in any sens of the word.

why would james speak of people who say they have faith

and then talk about a different type of faith in saving them

that makes no sense

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Who is attempting to do that? I already said that both instances of faith refer to the same thing.

then that faith or the faith both fit perfectly well

so why are you arguing against it

You offered no support for the word "that". That's all I needed to know.

lol

you just gave support for it by saying you believe they both refer to the same faith

so saying in english, "the" faith... or saying "that" faith. both referring to the faith that the person said they had or "the faith".

both mean the same thing.

your arguing semantics and getting no where.

 

[synergy]

the faith

what does the faith refer to.

the faith that James spoke of earlier. the claimed faith.

I already told you that both mentions of faith refer to the same thing.

Why are yuo so resistant. Nothing you say makes sense in any sens of the word.

The faith is singular. Paul even mentions the fact that there is "One Faith". Both mentions of faith in James 2:14 refer to the same thing. What's there not to understand?

why would james speak of people who say they have faith

and then talk about a different type of faith in saving them

that makes no sense

Faith is faith. Simple. Faith needs good works to be alive, otherwise it's dead. Simple. That's it.

The analytical mind wants to classify everything into its little boxes and classifications.

 

[civic]

I already told you that both mentions of faith refer to the same thing.

The faith is singular. Paul even mentions the fact that there is "One Faith". Both mentions of faith in James 2:14 refer to the same thing. What's there not to understand?

Faith is faith. Simple. Faith needs good works to be alive, otherwise it's dead. Simple. That's it.

The analytical mind wants to classify everything into its little boxes and classifications.

James is saying, can that “ faith “ save him ? The answer no because salvific faith which saves results in good works as a by product vs an empty faith that has no life.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I already told you that both mentions of faith refer to the same thing.

and?

it proves my point. the point you can not seem to fathom

The faith is singular. Paul even mentions the fact that there is "One Faith". Both mentions of faith in James 2:14 refer to the same thing. What's there not to understand?

James is not speaking of the faith in this passage. he is referring the the faith the people said they had. You even claimed you believe they both refered to the same faith

Faith is faith. Simple. Faith needs good works to be alive, otherwise it's dead. Simple. That's it.

Yes.


they said they had faith, and by their lack of works. proved they lied. they did not have faith. so the faith they claimed they had could not save them

The analytical mind wants to classify everything into its little boxes and classifications.

Your the one trying to analyze something that is not there..

I am just stating the fact of what James said.

in one breath you say both faiths are the same

in the other breath you state they are not..

so who is the confused on here? Not me

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

James is saying can that “ faith “ save him ? The answer no because salvific faith which saves results in good works as a by product vs an empty faith that has no life.

he cannot admit this, if he would. his whole foundation crumbles.

thats why he is fighting so hard against an easily proven fact

 

[synergy]

Jas 2:14 What is the benefit, my fellow believers, if someone claims to have faith but has no [good] works [as evidence]? Can that [kind of] faith save him? [No, a mere claim of faith is not sufficient--genuine faith produces good works.]
AMP

Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith R15but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
ESV

Jas 2:14 Faith is Shown by Actions
¶ What good does it do, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not prove it with actions? This kind of faith cannot save him, can it?
ISV


Jas 2:14 Faith and Works
What (+) is the benefit, my brothers, if someone says (+) that he has faith but does not have works? That faith (+) is not able to save him, (+) is it? [The negative construction in Greek anticipates a negative answer here]
LEB

Jas 2:14 My brothers, what good is there in a man's saying that he has faith, if he has no good deeds to prove it? Such faith cannot save him, can it?
Williams

Jas 2:14 What is the revach (gain, profit), my Achim b'Moshiach, if anyone claims to have emunah but does not have ma'asim (deeds)? Surely not such "emunah" is able to bring him to Yeshu'at Eloheinu?
OJB.

What next? Going to tell me these "versions" are wrong @synergy?

James 2:14 is constructed with a rhetorical question that expects a negative answer, and the Greek grammar confirms that James is not making an open inquiry, but driving a theological point with forceful logic.

Rhetorical Framework and Expectation:
James uses a μὴ question: μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν
This construction with μὴ expects a “No” answer, as in:

“That faith cannot save him, can it?” (Expected: No, it cannot)

Shalom.

J.

I go to the source, the Koine Greek.

I offered my literal translation which is "not able the faith saves him?" There is no warrant for the word "that". Also, thanks to your observation that there is a definite article, that proves that there is one and only one Faith, the Faith. That's another nail in the coffin for all those who wish to cloud James' message.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I go to the source, the Koine Greek.

I offered my literal translation which is "not able the faith saves him?" There is no warrant for the word "that". Also, thanks to your observation that there is a definite article, that proves that there is one and only one Faith, the Faith. That's another nail in the coffin for all those who wish to cloud James' message.

lol

I can't anymore

talk about totally distorting the words of an apostle..

In your mind

James asks this question.

what if a person says they have saving faith. but has no work. can saving faith save him.

this is out their my friend.. James is the author of confusion.. and we are all fools for even listening to anything he says

ps. Not able is not in the text. the negative artile is not in the text.

the literal greek says

dynamie - able can passive voice

ho pisitis - the faith

sosai - deliver, save auto - he, personal third person - him

can, the faith save him

 

[synergy]

then that faith or the faith both fit perfectly well

so why are you arguing against it

lol

you just gave support for it by saying you believe they both refer to the same faith

so saying in english, "the" faith... or saying "that" faith. both referring to the faith that the person said they had or "the faith".

both mean the same thing.

your arguing semantics and getting no where.

The Faith is singular. The word "that" is used when there are multiple versions and you need to point out the one you're referring to.

For example, the Sun. Who says "that Sun"? We all know there's one Sun so why use the word "that"?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The Faith is singular. The word "that" is used when there are multiple versions and you need to point out the one you're referring to.

For example, the Sun. Who says "that Sun"? We all know there's one Sun so why use the word "that"?

yes the faith is singular

but what is the faith james is talking about?

refer back to the faith that people said they had.

THAT FAITH

Not saving faith. Which paul said we who are saved by grace are saved through

They claimed to have the faith. but they did not.. that is most like why the article is not used in the first instance of faith.. it was a claimed faith. not the faith.

thats why it could not save

 

[Studyman]

Jesus declared all food to be clean.
So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” Mark 7:18-19

"All foods" is the target of this teaching. Please, lets look at what was actually written, and fellowship about them.

Matt. 15: 1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands "when they eat bread".

So just to clear and honest as to what is written here, the Disciples were eating "Food". They were not transgressing any of God's commandments. They were were transgressing a "commandment or tradition of men" Yes? They were not submitting to the tradition of the Pharisees, but they did noting contrary to God in this story.

Here is how Jesus respended.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God "of none effect" by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, (As their fathers did, so do they)

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments "of men".

So Jesus really laid into these preachers. He wasn't being what we would call, "Kind" to them. "Tolerant" of them. He didn't say, "that's OK, nobodies perfect". Or, "That's OK, I know God's Law is impossible to follow". None of the things we hear from "many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord in the world God placed us in.

Noe Look how HE drives this "Transgressing God's Commandments by their own Traditions home, based on their Tradition of washing their hands a certain way before they eat bread.

10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that "the Pharisees were offended", after they heard this saying?

Mark further expands on why they were offended.

Mark 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Just to be clear and honest, there is nothing in either of these accounts so far, that speaks to drinking blood, eating animals strangled, eating dogs or swine's flesh, only eating with what the Pharisees considered as defiled, like unwashed hands, pots, served in unwashed tables or with unwashed cups. And nothing to even imply that there are Commandments or Judgments from God against any of these things. Jesus continues.

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

Mark continues like this.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (Most Translations say "cleansing all Foods".)

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Matthew like this.

16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and "they" defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: "but to eat with unwashen hands" "defileth not a man".

The Catholics interpreted this to mean that Jesus isn't just talking about "Food" as defined by His Father, and accepted by EVERY example of Faithful man in the Entire Bible, but that it is talking about everything that every culture has ever eaten. Blood, things strangled, food offered to idols, magots, dog meat, swine's flesh and so on. But there isn't anywhere in the story that this is supported. And in act's 15 the Gentiles were told to abstain for certain things that historically were not considered "Food" by God, but HE instructed His People to Abstain from them, just as the Apostle directed the Gentiles to Abstain from blood. If Jesus was including "everything" when He said "All foods", then what was th issue with blood. Would the Stomach not also "purge" the Blood and things strangled?

But to be clear and honest, why would a man choose to drink blood, after "Hearing the voice of God",

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

Wouldn't the lust to disobey this simple and easy to understand instruction come from "Within a man" and not without? Isn't that the entire meaning of the Story Jesus inspired in the first place? Isn't it rebellion, disobedience, disrespect, dishonor for God's Word that comes from within, and defiles of man?

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Paul echoes this truth.

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
Romans 14:14-15

• I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself;

I agree 100%. Blood didn't make itself unlawful to eat. Dog's didn't make themselves unclean for food. Swine didn't make themselves unclean for food.

As Paul said, "Let each man be convinced in his own mind", who to listen to.

 

[synergy]

James is saying, can that “ faith “ save him ?

The Greek says "the Faith" which is singular, one. Many take offense to that and want to say "that Faith", meaning many faiths. That clouds James' message so they can have it their way. Robertson's article crashes and falls when the Greek language is brought in.

The answer no because salvific faith which saves results in good works as a by product vs an empty faith that has no life.

I agree. That's not what we're debating.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The Greek says "the Faith" which is singular, one. Many take offense to that and want to say "that Faith", meaning many faiths. That clouds James' message so they can have it their way.

No, that faith would not mean many faiths. and no one would think this we would think that faith refers to the faith that people claimed they had, the dead faith that can not save

I agree. That's not the issue.

but it is in effect. because it is the kind of faith the people really had. as apposed to the faith that saves..

 

[Johann]

I go to the source, the Koine Greek.

I offered my literal translation which is "not able the faith saves him?" There is no warrant for the word "that". Also, thanks to your observation that there is a definite article, that proves that there is one and only one Faith, the Faith. That's another nail in the coffin for all those who wish to cloud James' message.

Another nail in the coffin?

There appears to be a significant misunderstanding of the passage on your part, despite the clear and well-grounded exegesis already offered by @Eternally-Grateful and @mailmandan.

What exactly remains unclear to you, considering it has already been thoroughly laid out?

Johann.

 

[civic]

The Greek says "the Faith" which is singular, one. Many take offense to that and want to say "that Faith", meaning many faiths. That clouds James' message so they can have it their way. Robertson's article crashes and falls when the Greek language is brought in.

I agree. That's not what we're debating.

Ok gotcha

 

[mailmandan]

yes the faith is singular

but what is the faith james is talking about?

refer back to the faith that people said they had.

THAT FAITH

Not saving faith. Which paul said we who are saved by grace are saved through

They claimed to have the faith. but they did not.. that is most like why the article is not used in the first instance of faith.. it was a claimed faith. not the faith.

thats why it could not save

Amen! As Greek scholar AT Robertson explained - "It is the spurious claim to faith that James here condemns."

James 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

James 2, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament is a rich resource for understanding Scripture, delving into original language and cultural nuances.

www.studylight.org

This is not hard to understand. It's just hard for works-salvationists to ACCEPT.

 

[Johann]

Amen! As Greek scholar AT Robertson explained - "It is the spurious claim to faith that James here condemns."

James 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

James 2, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament is a rich resource for understanding Scripture, delving into original language and cultural nuances.

www.studylight.org

This is not hard to understand. It's just hard for works-salvationists to ACCEPT.

Thank God for scholars like him brother.

God bless.

Johann.

 

[synergy]

No, that faith would not mean many faiths. and no one would think this we would think that faith refers to the faith that people claimed they had, the dead faith that can not save

but it is in effect. because it is the kind of faith the people really had. as apposed to the faith that saves..

Let's make this as simple as possible.

(Jas 2:14) My brothers, what profit is it if a man says he has faith and does not have works? Can faith save him?

(Jas 2:14) Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;

Can the Faith by itself save him? Can the One Singular Faith by itself save him? No.

That clearly shows that the One Faith by itself cannot save.

Why? Because there are no good works.

Those who wish to disregard the Greek can do so as they wish.

CC: @Johann @mailmandan @civic

 

[Dizerner]

The defense from OSAS people I've heard is usually this is justified before men not before God.

This one defense is particularly poor for a number of reasons, and completely out of the context of the passage.

Seeking to be justified before men is strictly condemned by Christ himself, and none of us should seek that.

Also, the context is not being justified before men at all, but faith that saves and being accounted righteous as God's friend.

We can clearly see that Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac to be justified before men, no one was even around at the time.

 

[synergy]

The defense from OSAS people I've heard is usually this is justified before men not before God.

This one defense is particularly poor for a number of reasons, and completely out of the context of the passage.

Seeking to be justified before men is strictly condemned by Christ himself, and none of us should seek that.

Also, the context is not being justified before men at all, but faith that saves and being accounted righteous as God's friend.

We can clearly see that Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac to be justified before men, no one was even around at the time.

Exactly! I even told them to put their money where their mouth is by justifying themselves before us. They run away as quickly as they can. Talk about hypocrisy. That takes the cake.