The fact that this is looked upon as a personal issue is because of the ignorance toward the prominent errors regarding salvation.

The "faith alone" error is so wide spread, it amazes me that any SDA clings to the statement with such tenacity. As mentioned above, the Holy Spirit seems to keep that terminology from ending up in inspired counsel, then one would wonder why anyone would tend to use it.

We can argue the point until it is beating a dead horse, as was done here, and never acknowledge that the Bible NEVER uses the term faith alone (or, only), except in the negative "NOT by faith only".

While examples have been cited to contrary this position, they themselves are evidence that there is no direct wording that does state otherwise. Examples prove nothing in and of themselves. When Sunday keepers are confronted, they strictly use example driven texts to prove their point (Paul preached on Sunday, donations were collected on Sunday, Jesus went against rabbinic sabbath teachings, etc.). Why is the same methodolgy being used here when we know this is not good Bible exegesis? Don't you think there is a good reason why neither the Bible nor the SOP use "faith alone", when applied to salvation, in a good light?

One can fit in very well with evangelical Christianity with these "key words", or one can use this as a way of being ambiguous. It was only after posting additional comments that one could be sure where Tom stood on this matter.

"Said the angel, 'God will sustain him. His faith must be made perfect by works, for FAITH ALONE IS DEAD. It must be sustained by works. A living faith is always manifested by works.' (Testimonies, vol 1, page 619 & quoted from Ellen White in her biography, vol. 2, page 130)

"On the other hand, those who claim that their faith alone will save them, are trusting to a rope of sand; for faith is strengthened and made perfect by works only." (Redemption, #7, page 63, also ST 4/20/1904 & R&H 4/13/1911 - slightly different wording)

"If we choose to disobey His commandments, we may cry, 'Faith, faith, only have faith,' and the response will come back from the sure word of God, 'Faith without works is dead' (James 2:20). (Faith & Works, page 47)

"The faith that does not produce good works does not justify the soul (James 2:24 quoted)." (The New Life, page 28)

"From the pulpits of today the words are uttered: 'Believe, only believe. Have faith in Christ; you have nothing to do with the old law, only trust in Christ.' How different is this from the words of the apostle who declares that faith without works is dead." (Faith & Works, page 89)

"There are many who cry, 'Beleive, only believe.' Ask them what you are to believe. Are you to believe the lies forged by Satan." (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, page 347)

"Many at the present day say, 'Believe, only believe, and live.' Faith and works must go together, believing and doing are blended." (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, page 373)

These examples are not to further this debate with Tom, but to show why neither the Bible nor the SOP generally use "faith alone" in a good light. It can be said that we are saved in faith alone since the real meaning of true faith implies an active, working faith; but this has been preverted for thousands of years. Gnosticism and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans were all about "faith alone", but they perverted it into a mental ascent that had nothing to do with behavior. One should be very wary of accepting the view of "faith alone" as it comes with different meanings to different people. Mostly bad.

The fact that this is looked upon as a personal issue is because of the ignorance toward the prominent errors regarding salvation.

I think Jeff was referring to the tone, which is at times quite sharp. In particular, you appear to be angry. That's my impression anyway. I wanted to assure him that I'm not angry. You may well not be either. In written discourse one does not have clues such as body language and voice inflection to help, so comments come accross as much stronger than they would in person. I try to adjust for this by editing my posts and dialing back the tone, but it's easy to miss something and come accross too sharply.

The "faith alone" error is so wide spread, it amazes me that any SDA clings to the statement with such tenacity. As mentioned above, the Holy Spirit seems to keep that terminology from ending up in inspired counsel, then one would wonder why anyone would tend to use it.

I don't know why you're insisting on this. I've already provided two examples where the Spirit of Prophecy used the phrase. Here's the second of two:

quote:

---

When you turn away from the broken cisterns that can hold no water, and in the name of Jesus your Advocate come directly to God, asking for the things you need, the righteousness of Christ will be revealed as your righteousness, the virtue of Christ as your virtue. You will then understand that justification will come alone through faith in Christ; for in Jesus is revealed the perfection of the character of God; in His life is manifested the outworking of the principles of holiness.(1SM 330)

---

"justification will come alone through faith in Christ." The heresy is not "faith alone" but "faith which isn't faith." True faith produces works. The works testify to the genuineness of the faith. But it's important that we understand that our salvation is a free gift, received by faith alone. Here's the other quote I referenced.

quote:

---

There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more earnestly, repeated more frequently, or established more firmly in the minds of all than the impossibility of fallen man meriting anything by his own best good works. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. (FW 18)

---

So not only does inspired counself use the phrase, it tells us that there is nothing which needs to be repeated more frequently than this! We have a very strong disposition to want to make God a debtor to us. Also to be "holier than thou." Remembering that we are justified through faith alone can help us remember our condition is no better than anyone else, apart from the grace of God.

We can argue the point until it is beating a dead horse, as was done here, and never acknowledge that the Bible NEVER uses the term faith alone (or, only), except in the negative "NOT by faith only".

Paul writes the following:

quote:

---

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

---

If anything the expression Paul uses, "faith without works," is even stronger than "faith alone." Apparently the Holy Spirit is very desirous that we should understand this concept; what do you think?

This is a complicated subject to study. Both sides of this can find prooftexts to support their view and the balanced biblical view requires all of them to be covered. This is of course one of the main themes in the bible and therefore requires the student to consider all parts of the scriptures. For instance the hall of faith in Hebrews 11.

First, a word about tone. Bill I do think that your posts have been quite sharp and accusatory without due cause. I don’t think they reflect the compassion I’m sure you have towards others. It is the tone that makes me think it is getting personal, since the tone has gotten progressively sharper.

Now as for what you’ve been discussing…

Bill said

quote:

---

It can be said that we are saved in faith alone since the real meaning of true faith implies an active, working faith

---

Tom said

quote:

---

"justification will come alone through faith in Christ." The heresy is not "faith alone" but "faith which isn't faith." True faith produces works. The works testify to the genuineness of the faith. But it's important that we understand that our salvation is a free gift, received by faith alone.

---

You seem to be saying the same things yet getting hung up on semantics. The fact that “faith only” has been perverted for thousands of years does not mean that Tom is perverting it. So getting snagged on the phrase “faith alone”, knowing that neither of you believes anyone can be saved by a faith that does not produce works, is unproductive. That may be why it seems you’re beating a dead horse.

I think the point that Tom makes is that we can’t earn our own salvation just by works. We’ve already broken the law and deserve death. The only thing we can do to pay our own penalty is to die the second death. Through faith we are justified, and the evidence that we have a saving faith is manifest by our works. So we can say that if we don’t have works we also don’t have salvation since no works, no faith; no faith, no justification; no justification, no life; no life, death.

I think that a related heresy is that sanctification isn’t a necessary for salvation and it isn’t a component of grace in the same sense that justification is a component of grace.

Jeff

I think this thread has gotten way off-topic. Soteriology is very important, but I don't think it was the intended topic here. It would be nice to split this up into more focused threads, but that may not be possible now.

Brother Arnold,

I would like to address your concern first: It appears the original issue has already died, unless you would like to revive it with an additional statement. It appears to me that if everyone had to sign what I did in order to begin posting, then some, at least, downright lied about their feelings toward Ellen White's writings. Others, even more insidious, only half believe it. Much has been said about descrepencies, both in the Bible and the SOP, but when pushed to produce any real ones, it suddenly got quiet. The problem with producing descrepencies is that it would show that we cannot trust the Bible or SOP in its totality, and gives people leeway to pick and choose what is and what is not inspired. I considered starting a topic here on this issue and transposing the posts from TRO, but as the issue died there as well, as no one wanted to produce descrepencies there either, I assummed it would do the same here.

Everybody else: I need to appologize for my posts, while I did not have any ill feelings, it appears many take it as so. I would state for the record that I attack issues and the forums, as well as e-mails, don't allow for ways in which non-verbal communication can be added to help others recognize how one is reacting, as Tom brings out above. For instance, I use all capital letters to highlight and one post Tom stated I was "shouting", I did not take offense at this but neither did I consider myself as shouting.

When posting, one regularly takes the shortest method to convey a thought and this can come across as being curt. The alternative being, "Hello Tom, how's the wife and kids? Now, about this 'faith alone' stuff..." I do admit, I have been frustrated in these posts, mainly due to calling things what set laws do not allow, specifically in English grammer. "Faith alone in Christ" is not the same as "faith in Christ alone", while it can be said the context supports this or that there is no other option, is not valid. The Catholics believe in faith in Christ AND (there I go shouting again!) Mary or faith in Christ AND the saints, ther are many errors possible which Ellen White would have known of, yet she choose to write the latter. I have consistently asked for a statement saying "faith alone" and instead get examples, which do not prove the point. I understand that Toma nd I are saying the same thing, even though I choose to not use the statement "faith alone" as I see obedience as necessary but not meritorious, I believe he would say the same, yet chooses to sate it is still by "faith alone". I would call this a misnomer which is only detectable after continued questioning. Ah, faith "alone" but yet includes obedience, how then is it alone?

My further examples, then, were to show how the Bible and SOP treats that verbage, which is not kindly, as if to say, "don't say 'faith alone' as people may misconstrue what you are really saying is necessary for salvation." But again, rather than confront the issue, we will quote texts that imply the usage, though they do not state it directly. It is a delicate balance that needs to be taught, it is not "faith and works", as if the works were meritorious. Nor is it (may I say this?) "faith alone" as if works didn't matter. But "faith that works", as she says in the posts above, where the two are blended. Paul says it best in Galatians 2:20-21, "I am crucified (dead) with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." This is salvation! We get it by faith, but it is not until we are empowered by the Spirit of the Son of God living in us, and doing I might add, are we truly saved. This doing within us is His doing, therefore it is not meritorious to us, yet it is required!

"There are conditions to our receiving justification and sanctification, and the righteousness of Christ. I know your (Elder AT Jones) meaning, but you leave the wrong impression upon many minds. While good works will save even one soul, yet it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works." (Faith & Works, page 111)

"The covenant of grace was first made with man in Eden, when after the Fall there was given a divine promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. To all men this covenant offered pardon and assisting grace of God for future obedience through faith in Christ. It also promised eternal life on condition of fidelity to God's law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of salvation." (Patriarchs & Prophets, page 370)

"From a sense of thorough conviction, you can testify to men of the immutable character of the law manifested by the death of Christ on the cross, the malignate nature of sin, and the righteousness of God in justifying the believer in Jesus, on condition of his future obedience to the statutes of God's government in heaven and earth." (R&H 4/24/1888)

Faith Alone? Yes, you can stretch the concept and say that, but since the term is so misrepresented, why throw a possible stumbling block before your brother instead of calling it what is, "Faith THAT works!"

"In the gift of His only begotten Son He has insured to us eternal life upon condition of our faith and obedience." (ST 5/6/1889)

Sorry, I see a misquote in the first SOP quotation,

"while good works will NOT save even one soul..."

Bill, I agree with Jeff. The last post was far more pleasant.

Capitilazation in net etiquette is considered shouting and is frowned upon (unless it's really your intention to do the equivalent of shouting). Instead there are other ways of emphasizing, two common ones being the use of "*" or italics. For example, faith *and* works, or faith and works. If you only use the caps ones in a post for the word "AND," no one will notice. BUT IF THERE IS A SENTENCE WITH A WHOLE LOT OF CAPS, IT LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING.

This is admitedly a minor point, but I thought you might be interested in this background.

You wrote:

quote:

---

"Faith alone in Christ" is not the same as "faith in Christ alone", while it can be said the context supports this or that there is no other option, is not valid.

---

I'm glad it appears you and I appear to be in agreement that it's by faith alone that we are justified, with the understanding the genuine faith is always evidenced by good works. Having said that, I don't understand your statement above. I showed the two statements may indeed mean the same thing, both by showing what her context was and by giving an analagous example. So why are you still disputing this point? I don't get it.

Here's a further example:
1.Only I wanted to get there on time.
2.I only wanted to get there on time.
3.I wanted only to get there on time.

These statements could mean either I was the only one who wanted to get there on time, or I wanted nothing other than to get there on time, with the exception that #3 could only be understood the second way. The way to know that 1 or 2 means is by the context. Only 3 is clear, without respect to context, as to the meaning. If the intent of the author is the that I wanted above all things to get there on time, 1 and 2 are for practical purposes equivalent. There would be no need to argue that they are different, except for the purposes of semantics.

Ellen White wrote, "Salvation is through faith in Christ alone." She meant "salvation is through faith alone in Christ" not "salvation is through faith in Christ only as opposed to faith in Christ and something else." Had she written "Salvation is through faith alone in Christ" (as I wrote it), the ambiguity would have been avoided, but the way she wrote it is clearly understandable by taking into account the context.

So given that you agree with me, what's your point? Thank you (and, by the way, how's the wife and kids?)

One last post, then I am ready to hang this one up, as this topic has gone from SOP & the Bible, to Faith and/or Works, and now to grammatical English.

Tom, you listed three examples of English.

1) Faith alone in Christ vs Faith in Christ alone

2) I came by car alone vs I came alone by car

3) A.Only I wanted to get there on time.
B.I only wanted to get there on time.
C.I wanted only to get there on time.

In #1, "alone" is an adjective helping to clarify the noun, either "faith" or "Christ". Either way does make a difference. Context does not change the word usage enough to warrant a "definite" re-reading of the passage. (I do agree that the context is faith and/or works, but I believe she meant what she said and could have written it the other way, but didn't - was there a reason?)

In #2, "alone" is either an adjective helping to clarify the noun "car" (only used a car), or it is an adverb clarifying the verb "came" (came by myself). Either way does make a difference. (the use of the word "only" (instead of alone) in these sentences would make the statement more ambiguous if used either way - I only came by car or I came by car only; would more likely be viewed as saying the same thing)

In #3, the word order makes no difference since the adverb "only" applies to the verb "wanted" in all three clauses.

In 25 million words, Ellen White had ample opportunity to state that we are saved by faith alone in Christ. Where is a clear cut example, as this is not it? Is there a difference between the two statements? Yes, one says we are saved by only having faith, the other says we are saved only by Christ (as opposed to either works, or somebody else such as Mary). It is my belief that to say we are saved by faith alone, or even faith AND works, while both are technically correct, is something that the Holy Spirit seems to shy away from having anybody write. Why? Because it is a misconstrued statement. Read the above SOP quote, "it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works." But to say "faith and works" also can be a misconstrued statement. You have failed to produce one statement where she quite definitely says "faith alone (or, only)" in regards to salvation. If the Holy Spirit did not say it, why should we? Who are we to say, "I know I correctly understand faith to include (good works, obedience, etc) so therefore I can state we are saved by faith alone," when the Bible never says that. Semantics? Not necessarily, maybe the Holy Spirit knows better than we that people are more likely to confuse the issue than we would think. Meanwhile, there are multitudes of quotes against "faith alone", "belief only", etc. Now why is that? Are we trying to be more precise than the Bible? Are we trying to be more righteous than God? I can go through every one of the texts you quoted and show that they are either incomplete or that there is more to the text than a surface reading.

(example, John 3:16 - the same Jesus who said that also said, "he who believes and is baptised", same Jesus who said, "he who endures to the end shall be saved", etc)

Now I realize the point is no longer defining faith, it is whether saying "faith alone" is a complete statement. While Jeff would concur, I still do not. There are problems with the statement which is why you will not find a clear cut example in all those Bible or SOP quotes (but one, that I know of - I will quote it at the bottom). Keep in mind, I have been stating generalities, I tried hard to steer clear of saying "never" states "faith alone", but the vast majority of quotes that use this terminology are quite definitely negative, of that there can be no doubt!

"By faith only can we reach heaven" (ST 4/1/1880) This follows the sentence "Obedience towards God is sure to bring the victory", so it is a complete thought still.

Knowing now, that we do see this issue in the same light, I will not post regarding this again, but I will state for the record, that I disagree with the usage of the term "faith alone' as un-Biblical since the only time it occurs in Scripture is the statement "not by faith only", and I take my stand on what God says and how He says it.

BTW - The wife and kids are fine and, assuming you are married with children, I pray your's are as well. God bless!