Works, Faith, & Salvation (for Iano)

That people who hold that our works has an effectual bearing on salvation agree that a case a been made for a works-style salvation is probably not all that surprising.Truthlover has done little else than insert random verses from scripture and assert that they mean what TL says they mean. In other words Truthlover has ignored any context in which the verses are set. One can indeed make the bible say salvation through works if one does that. It's not exactly rocket science.His comparing Galatians with the Romans 2 verse is a case in point. Paul talking about Old Convenant justification by works and going on to show that no man will be justified by these works has nothing at all to do with second salvation. Even Truthlover agrees justification is by faith. That is not case-building, it is demonstration of the way in which the case made by scripture can be twisted to suit ones own particular view. But it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny.Truthlover put up verses that talk about judgment but never makes the case that all judgement is salvation related. It's just assumed. Truthlover uses verses without context and never shows that the person being talked to is in need of a second salvation. It's just assumed that everyone does. His case doesn't explain the many if/then statements that appear to promise salvation - so long as the 'if' part is satisfied. A case isn't made by presuming the case being made is in fact made.Paul goes through a lot of trouble to carefully build his case for justification/righteousness through faith. It can be said to run from Romans 1 through 3:20 where he shows people who might think otherwise, that justification/righteousness doesn't come through works. Then from Romans 3:21 thro' to end of chap 5 he builds his argument for justification by faith. That people need to be justified, how one doesn't get justified and how one does. 5 Chapters on justification.Where is the detailed, carefully worked out argument for second salvation by works in the bible? Well it would seem a string of isolated verses scattered randomly throughout the epistles will have to suffice for this more important segment as to salvation.Hmmm....This message has been edited by iano, 19-Dec-2005 12:03 PM

I think you're misunderstanding me here.I might not exactly agree with Truthlover on all accounts here -- but I do agree with purpledawn that Truthlover has presented his arguments in a more clear fashion than you have. In addition to this, as purpledawn has also noted, Truthlover's thoughts are something which you haven't exactly addressed yet -- except to say that you disagree with them.

I suppose the reason for that is that the thread hasn't really settled on a basis for discussion. The problems as I see them have to do with how we progress. Or whether progression is possible. This is a question I've asked about which I have no response yet.If Truthlover has a fundimentally different view as to what the word 'believer' means to the one I hold then we would get into problems when either of us use the word 'believer' We would be speaking different languages and the result would be a mess. How do we progress? No one has said. So do we just plough on with my and truthlovers potentially different ideas about what a true Christian is. I don't imagine that would be profitableThe sense I have got thus far is that Truthlover is going to place any verse he likes up and it is down to me to argue that it means something else. But simply placing a verse and asserting that it means what you think it does is not making a case in the first place. Where is the contextual arguement that attempts to raise the assertion to the level of a case. There has been none. Indeed the only contextual analysis was my rebuttal of his Romans 2 = Galatians claim.

This is actually pretty funny, because really, there was no such claim. I quoted Gal 6:7-9, and in parentheses I wrote something to the effect of "(Hey, that's exactly what Rom 2:6 says)."So I made no such claim. The claim I made is that Gal 6:7-9 says something very clearly:

quote:

---

Behold, God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that shall he reap. He who sows to the flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption. He who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap everlasting life. Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season, we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

---

My claim was that in v. 9 Paul is clearly saying that eternal life will be reaped by not growing tired of doing good. This is a very clear verse, and I've never seen any "no works" people have any answer for it.Apparently, you don't either, because you chose the shuffle, shuffle, dance, dance, change the subject answer of "This isn't the same as Rom 2."I guess you did add, "Where's the context? I'm ignoring this until TL explains the context to me. Does he expect me to look up the context on everything he says?" But that didn't seem like much of an answer, either.Dance, dance, shuffle, shuffle...that's what it sounds like.This message has been edited by truthlover, 12-19-2005 11:18 AM

This is called debating. With my friends it's just called discussing, because we all want to know what's true, so I quote the verse and tell them what I think it says. They tell me why they agree or disagree, and we expand from there, examining context or other verses or historical setting or even just plain ol' common sense to verify what I've asserted.Simply placing a verse and asserting what it means is most certainly making a case, especially if the verse is pretty clear. Then, it is indeed up to those who disagree to argue it doesn't mean that. That's how debate works.

truthlover, The problem is that terms like "saved" and "eternal life" and "redemption" have shades of meaning in the New Testament.One may have eternal life but not be swallowed up by that life. There is a seed of eternal life. There is the growth of that life. And there is the total swallowing up of our whole being by that eternal life.Lest we think that the gift of God's life is no more than a ticket which reads "Admit One" (to some happy place) the entire New Testament shows this life must spread thoughout our whole being.Since Paul ran the race until the end of his life, he never counted himself to have arrived at the complete saturation of eternal life. He had life, but he stretch forward to gain life, to gain Christ. And he wisely exhorted us to follow him. This requires faithful and consistent absorbing more of Christ as life into every part of our personality.So we should not grow tired of opening and allowing Christ to spread into more and more parts of our being. Paul never makes the gift revert back to the wages due work as far as eternal redemption is concerned.It is actually very simple. When one is born he is not automatically an adult. There must be growth and patience and development unto the full maturity of human life.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-19-2005 01:07 PM

And, for the record, I agree with TL here too.Iano, you are shuffling around quite a bit here. Just answer TL's questions.Yes. You've established the fact that you do not agree with him. But you haven't said why.Whether you agree with TL or not is irrelevant at this point because TL's already answered your questions -- many times I might add.

Truthlover opened his thread with a series of verses. They were addressed.- 'if/then verses. Truthlovers included one from Romans 5:9-10. Truthlover meant this as an indication that a second salvation existed - even if it wasn't intended to demonstrate that this second salvation was works based - just as a backup for second salvation at all. The verse however is one of many if/then statements. Truthlover has not dealt with the problem of how statements on which salvation is only dependant on the 'if' condition begin fulfilled (and works is not the basis of the 'if' being fulfilled in the Romans instance. If "....shall be saved from wrath" is a then part of an if/then statement then it means there is no separately enabled second salvation.- sheep and goats. there is an assertion that the people are saved on account of their works. As if the works were causal. This is not supported in the passage in itself. It could be works are causal but it could equally be the works are consequential. Romans 7:6 "But now we (justified people) are delivered from the law....that we should serve in newness of spirit" I hold that it is not surpringing that the righteous will be recognised by works - the righteous WILL produce works. Paul in his frequent exhortations tells us to behave as that which we are. "You are a citizen, a son, an heir. Start acting like one" Truthlover seems to say works = causal. I say works = consequential- various judgement passages. These verses weren't actually posted just listed and briefly commented on by truthlover. Truthlover said that many didn't actually refer to salvation - so I'm not sure why they were included in a case for second salvation. I myself have no problem with all being 'judged'. I just don't hold that all judgement is salvation related.These opening verses have been more or less dumped to one side and a move made into warning style verses. What's the point of responding when there is no attempt to get around the problems posed by that which has already been put up? How does Truthlover weave an if/then statement which ties justification to final salvation without any other condition into his doctrine? I haven't heard it yet.The problem I have with the verses he now puts up now (besides the ignoring of those with which he started out on his case) is that there is no contextual basis for saying that Paul is introducing new doctrine here. The letter to Galatians is a pastoral letter (I would hold) largely admonishing the church for lapsing into legalism (justification by works) and away from the gospel which they had previously heard. Then at the end the Galatians suddenly get a vital doctrine introduced out of nowhere. Paul spent half an epistle on justification by faith but tosses in this infinitely more vital doctrine within the course of a couple of verses to the Galatians?I've posed that the churches then, as now, aren't necessarily filled with justified people. By outlining fruit of the Spirit/fruit of the flesh people are in a position to know whether they have been justified or not. If works are consequential then observing fruit of the Spirit within oneself is a good way of confirming position for those who aren't sure of their position.God will not be mocked. Whilst no one can tell if someone elses fruit is by the Spirit or by the Law (works), God can. To the outside world they can appear the same. The person will know the motivation of their own hearts however and is in a position to decide for themselves. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. It is not unreasonable to suppose that scripture will do likewise. It does after all address the position of the lost as well as the found. Paul frequently uses comparison between those who are not justified and those that are. That the Galatians verse is nested in an epistle dealing with a church which has shifted to legalism and needs reminding of the gospel, such a warning would appear warranted. What do you expect a legalistic church to contain if not people who think they can earn heaven by works? I don't say that this view is correct I am not providing verses to support that view here but without some contextual case building to the contrary by Truthlover (who after all said he had a case) then my contextual understanding can rest until then.Is one who sows to the flesh one who is justified?. We know from Romans that a person who is justified is "not of the flesh", they are "not in the flesh", they "walk not after the flesh", they don't "mind the things of the flesh" Why should they start sowing to it?Call it dancing. Call it shuffling. But doctrine-forming from random verses (and Truthlovers verses are about as randomly drawn as one could want) says nothing at all. I've no interest in chasing Truthlover around the bible, with each counter for verses put up left aside and new ones cast in. I've asked how he knows that a justified person is being addressed in warning passages and have heard nothing back. We know that a justified person has been issued an if/then statement but if there is an additional works condition which wasn't mentioned to the Romans then at least let it apply to the person who has been justified. For without a condition on them the if/then must stand. Must it not?Paul was very concerned about people sticking to that which they learned about the Gospel. He went to extraordinary lengths to explain justification by faith. He never stops talking about justification by faith. To which church did he expound the mechanism of this second salvation? Where did he start it and where did he finish it. Where did he explain in amidst it how this is the way it has always been (as with justification by faith). Where is the meat and potatoes of this if-true-then-it-is-vital doctrineWhere is this case I hear so much about? Scattered about all over the bible in a hodge podge of contextually-curious verses it would seem....This message has been edited by iano, 20-Dec-2005 02:26 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 20-Dec-2005 04:43 PM

So say you, but I just gave you a case where he does. You talk about eternal life having shades of meaning, and you talk about it growing to saturation, but it's all talk.Let's look at the use of eternal life by Paul. He uses it ten times, going by the KJV and looking up eternal life, life everlasting and everlasting life. None of those give any indications of shades of meaning. Several are clearly talking about future possession of something we don't have now: [list]

Rom 2:6,7 uses it as a reward at the judgment for doing good

Rom 5:21 could be interpreted either way

Rom 6:22 says it's the end of holiness

Rom 6:23 says it's the gift of God, but it definitely seems future

Gal 6:8 uses it as something reaped for doing good

1 Tim 6:12 tells Timothy to lay hold of eternal life by fighting the good fight of faith

1 Tim 6:19 says that those who are rich in good works lay up a store for themselves for "the time to come," so that they may lay hold on eternal life

Tit 1:2 says eternal life is a hope (future again)

Tit 3:7 says that being justified by his grace (past tense here), we should be made heirs according to the hope (future) of eternal life.

​

There is simply nothing in any of this to indicate that anything you said is true.

​

You have to pay attention to consistincies. John consistently speaks of eternal life as a present possession of the believer. (I have a really encouraging explanation of why this is so that I picked up from the early church...it's really neat.) Paul consistently speaks of it as a future reward.

​

So when you say that Paul is talking about eternal life growing in us, you're speaking from your own beliefs, not Paul's. It'd be different if you were speaking of John, although John doesn't speak of it the way you do, either. But with Paul, the things you said are simply not valid.

How can one get eternal life in the future? Eternity is as far as we can understand it, timeless. If nobody can really get their head around eternity (and I know of no one who can, given that all are confined to the temporal/spatial) how could anyone come to any objective understanding about it.People are eternal already. They will go to heaven or hell when they die - they don't cease to exist at some point in...er...timePeople have eternal life or death already - it is already known where everyone will be.We were created from spacial/temporal dust but an eternal God blew eternal breath into us. He knew us before we were formed in our mothers wombs. He knew every one of our actions before he created the universe.It's mind boggling. It's impossible for us to understand what eternity is - this side of glory. There are many pictures used in the bible so that we can understand in terms we can understand how this whole thing works - to an extent. Sheep, shepherd, sons, heirs, citizens. They are but pictures. I have eternal life now in the sense that my eternal destination is life not death. But the sense of being in eternity can only be described as something future - given that I am locked in time at the moment and not yet released in my eternal state.This is not meant as a argument against second salvation. It just serves to highlight that however eternal life/death is obtained, a person has it alreadyFreaky!This message has been edited by iano, 20-Dec-2005 05:53 PM

is that they disagree with you very clearly. No, there's not, but this isn't a new doctrine. It's very old. It's only new to you. Yours is the new doctrine, and it wasn't introduced until about AD 1520, which is why it's so difficult to fit into Paul's writings. Paul spent half an epistle telling the Galatians how to be justified. For you, that means he told them what they could do to get God to pretend they are righteous, even though they're not. For Paul and the Galatians, however, he was telling them how they could actually become righteous. That's why he writes:

quote:

---

Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

---

You see, to Paul, being justified and becoming perfect, complete, or mature were the same thing. A justified person is made righteous, which is what the Greek literally means.So Paul spent the first half of the epistle telling them that they will never become righteous people by the keeping of the Law. They will become righteous by the Spirit.Then, in total consistency with the first half of the letter, he warns them in the last two chapters of the consequences if they don't return to the Spirit. If they continue in the works of the flesh, he says in 5:19-21, then they will not inherit the kingdom of God. If they sow to the flesh, he says in 6:7,8, then they will reap corruption. It is only by the Spirit that they will continue to do good without fainting and thus reap everlasting life.All very consistent. No one in the Scriptures agrees with you, iano.

quote:

---

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are OBVIOUS. Whoever does not do righteousness is not of God, nor he that does not love his brother (1 Jn 3:10)

---

The apostle John thinks the difference is obvious. You think they look the same. That's a problem, iano. We do not know that from Romans. Paul warns his listeners that they are to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh in Romans. Why would he do that if it can't happen to them? It's hard to believe you're suggesting that a justified person is never in the flesh."If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit" (Gal 5:25). That's a pretty silly command if those who live in the Spirit are always walking in the Spirit.Have you noticed, iano, how often your doctrine reduces verses to silliness? It's pretty often. Have you found any verses that are rendered silly by what I'm saying? I have a better source for what I'm saying. You should pay attention to my pointing out to you that you're trying to fit a 500-year-old doctrine into 2000-year-old writings. I didn't call this dancing and shuffling. Here you're addressing the issues. Earlier you dodged them, changing the subject. You tried a little of that at the start of the post, claiming I've not addressed issues that I most certainly did address. But here you're addressing the issue, and we can discuss.Notice how the whole context of Galatians has been discussed in this post. Not real deeply, but it has been discussed. That's because you finally answered so that there was something to apply the context to. If you want context, this would be the normal way to get it. You say why context matters, and I address the context. I'll do that every time. I don't do this. I bring up a subject and offer verses for discussion, and when new verses are brought up, I address them as they relate to the issue. I don't leave things behind. It's amazing you mention this, because you jump all over the place in a discussion, and it's very hard to keep you from leaving things behind. You asked me for warning passages. I gave you four. You never addressed them. If you asked me how I knew justified persons were addressed by those passages, I don't remember it. I do remember you referring to Romans verses as warning passages, when I didn't agree they were warning passages at all. You may also have asked about Rom 2, for which my answer was that there's no way to tell from Rom 2 alone whether he's referring to a judgment only of the lost.My answer on the passages you've ignored is that I know justified people are being addressed, because they're written to the church. Paul never stops talking about the hope of eternal life. Paul never stops talking about works. It's all over the place, but you've been ignoring it. I started, emphasis on started, with 1 Cor 6:9,10; Eph 5:3-5; Gal 5:19-21; and Gal 6:7-9, but you never addressed any of them, so we didn't get to go any further.You can find it anywhere, though. I randomly picked Philippians just now, since I've already given you Corinth, Ephesus, and the churches of Galatia as "to which church he expounded" and just started reading in chapter 2. In chapter 3, he writes:

quote:

---

"I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of King Y'shua my Master, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but dung that I may win Christ and be found in him not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of the King, the righteousness which comes from God by faith, so that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, being made conformable to his death, if, by any means, I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, or were already made perfect, but I chase after, that I may lay hold of that for which King Y'shua has laid hold of me. Brothers, I do not count myself to have laid hold, but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in King Y'shua.

---

How about Colossians, since we're right there, anyway?

quote:

---

You, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, blameless, and beyond reproach in his sight, IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the Gospel which you have heard.

---

We could do this in every book, and this one in Colossians, besides being amazingly clear, addresses the past tense/future tense thing I told you about. Reconciled is in the past tense and refers to his death. No specifics are given about the future, but it's clear it has to do with what you do. Continue and don't be moved away, and then you'll be presented blameless.It's all over the place, iano, and it's taught to every church in the letters.

Better take that up with Paul. He's the one who said it.Your complaint here doesn't make any sense to me. It's the life that's eternal, not your possession of it. You don't have eternal life now, but there's an offer of how to get it. Pretty simple. It might also be known what your Christmas presents are, both by God and by whoever gave them to you, but that doesn't mean you have them already.

Truthlover, First let’s see if the verses about growing to saturation with God’s life are all just talk:”I planted and Apollos watered, but God caused the growth” (1 Cor. 1:6)Is this just talk? God caused what to grow? Do you think he means that God caused them to advance in age year after year to get older and older? Foolishness. He is talking about the growth of the spiritual life that they have received.To grow here is obviously to have one’s personality filled with Christ. And another way to say that is saturation with Christ as life.To ”be filled in spirit” (Eph. 5:18) could also be phrased to be saturated in Spirit. And the Spirit is ”the Spirit of life (Rom. 8:2).”“ . in that we do not desire to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4)This certainly could also be expressed as saturated with life. And this is the eternal ZOE life of God. So it is not just all talk.”My children, with whom I travail again in borth until Christ is formed in you.” (Galatians 4:19).Is this just talk? They have received Christ but Paul labors that Christ would be formed in them. You don’t think that has anything to do with the growth of eternal life?”As newborn babes, long for the guileless milk of the word in order that you may grow unto salvation” (1 Peter 2:2)And interesting enough this verse does show a slightly different aspect of the word “salvation.” They received salvation in one sense when they were born again to become newborn babes. Yet Peter says that they need to grow unto salvation. Salvation is the issue then of a process growth. This shows a shade of meaning of “salvation” which is slightly different from other verses like Luke 19:9; 2:30; Romans 10:10; 2 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 19:1.” . holding the Head, out from whom all the Body, being richly supplied and knit together by means of the joints and sinews, grows with the growth of God” (Col. 2:19b)Do you care about the growth of the Body of Christ? Or is this just all talk to you?”But holding to truth in love, we may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ” (Eph. 4:15)Do you think this growing up into Christ the Head is just so much vain talk? [list][/qs]This is the list of verses you provided. I did not say that the shades of meaning of eternal life are specifically seen in these verses. But we will look at one or two of your (not my) candidates. If Timothy received eternal life upon being having Jesus Christ as in First John 5:12, then for him to lay hold on eternal life has a somewhat different shade of meaning then simply being regenerated to receive eternal life.He may have life in his spirit. But he must lay hold of the eternal life for it to have more and more impact on his living. If Timothy is to lay hold of eternal life he could very well say that in this aspect of his life or that aspect of his life he is seeking to lay hold on the eternal life.Yet he who has the Son has life. And he who believes that Jesus is the Christ has eternal life. So in one shade of meaning (if you will) he HAS laid hold on eternal life. But in another sense he is exhorted to lay hold on eternal life even though he has been saved for a long time. This is similar to the above case. Paul is talking to Christians. All who believe that Jesus is the Son of God have eternal life. In one sense they have already laid hold on Him. In another sense they are to live in such a way so that they may lay hold on eternal life in the future. That is to enjoy the reward of the in the time to come related to the faithful servants. Here again we see a slightly different emphasis or shade of meaning for eternal life. Is eternal life only for the future? No it is not. Clearly we are to enjoy eternal life in some aspect as soon as be become believers.”the spirit is life because of righteousness” (Rom. 8:10) The human spirit is eternal divine ZOE life at the moment of regeneration. He does not say that that human spirit will be life in the time to come only.Paul expected that the eternal life of Christ would be manifested in the bodies of the enduring apostles in the day of their labors, not just in the time to come:” . that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body” (2 Cor. 4:10)Eternal life is not only their hope for the future. It is their hope in their daily trials.
”Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life” (Acts 5:20).The angel was exhorting the apostles to testify to their present daily experience of this eternal life. The above couple of verses show that the disciples are to enjoy the life today and not just wait to enjoy it in the future. The ZOE life is by definition the eternal life. It is not the PSUCHE and it is not the BIOS. It is the ZOE - the divine and eternal life of God. Reward he did speak of. But reward is not gift. So when Paul speaks of reward he is not talking about eternal redemption which saves a person eternally. That is not a reward. That is a gift:”For by grace you have been saved through faith, and THIS NOT OF YOURSELVES; IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD” (Eph. 2:8)Please excuse the shouting emphasis. But it is as clear as it can be. To be eternally saved from the second death is a gift of God and not of ourselves. Here again it is clear:”Not out of works of righteousness which we did but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5)So human beings are eternally saved by God’s gift and not of themselves. And they are saved not out of works which they did but according to His mercy.Reward from works of righteousness then has nothing to do with eternal redemption. Reward as Paul speaks of it is related to something dispensitional and temporary. No I am not speaking solely out of my own belief. Both Christ Himself and his apostles spoke in terms of the growth of life.I already provided proof of this above. Paul intends that we would grow up into Him in all things - Ephesians 4:15The church itself must grow into a holy temple in the Lord - Ephesians 2:21;Peter exhorts us to grow. And John refers to little children, young men, and fathers in his epistle, which are all related to spiritual growth. See First John 2:12-19.Children of God cannot become mature sons of God unless there is growth of the life of God within them:Peter speaks of grace and peace being multilpied in our lives. And this multiplication strongly implies growth.”Grace and peace be multiplied in the full knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Peter 1:2)
If you think that this growth of grace and peace has nothing to do with the life of God saturating and growing within the disciples then your understanding of the New Testament salvation is indeed very superficial.“Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18) Then please exlain to me what Paul means when he says:”I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 cor. 3:6)Paul planted WHAT? Apollos watered WHAT? And God caused WHAT to grow?I say Paul planted the divine life. Apollos watered the divine life. And God caused the divine life to grow within the Corinthian Christians.How can he speak of those who are mature and those who are carnal and infants (1 Cor. 3:3) unless there is levels of growth of the life that they have received?”And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshy, as to infants in Christ”If there is no growth of the divine life than how can Paul speak of the church in Corinth as God’s farm or God’s cultivated land:”For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s cultivated land (or God’s farm) . ” (1 Cor. 3:9)
What do you think God is growing on God’s farm? Is He just growing the human life? If that is the case then the whole world of unbelievers is on God’s farm by virtue of the fact that everybody is growing older and older.The growth on God’s farm must be the growth of the life that has been planted within the believers as a divine seed (1 John 1:9; Matt. 13:4; 1 Peter 1:23) which has been implanted as the word of life into the believers (James 1:21).” . receive in meekness the implanted word, which is able to save our souls.”

I'd be interested in hearing this when you have the time.

Interesting, but I don't think Truthlover is arguing against different shades of meaning. Of course there are different shades of meaning to various words within the Scriptures -- and obviosly people grow within their faith -- but iano seems to be using this as means to build his case against the idea that works can jeopardize one's salvation.The point in question is not whether we can grow in our faith. Of course we know we can.The point in question is whether or not our actions count for anything, and also the lingering question of whether or not this "eternal life" can be lost once it is gained (no irony intended)?Truthlover has certainly pointed out various good points from the Scriptures which seems to be strong warnings about falling away from the faith. But, to my knowledge, iano has not effectively answered these questions. He indeed seems to be dancing around them as far as I can see.