Faith is active and visible, not something that occures "in your heart".

I look forward to an engaging, open, and honest attempt to come to the truth of God's Word. I will be quoting from the NKJV, unless otherwise noted. I appreciate the background of my opponent. I was raised in the Church from birth, but recently visited with a Messianic Jewish Synagogue to gain a perspective on the historical Jewish culture. I would challenge the definition given by Con. His definition comes from a secular dictionary. I would rather use the definition that is given in the Bible. Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. " I would present that substance and evidence are things that can be seen, or felt, or handled, or shown to others. These are things that could be presented to a jury to prove a case. They are not simply felt in the heart where no one else can see them. Some versions of the Bible translate this verse as "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. " (NIV) The problem with this translation, is that it does not fit with other references to faith in the Bible. For instance, James chapter 2. In the second half of this chapter, James is discussing the relationship between faith and works. He starts out in verse 14 by asking if a faith without works can save a man. The obvious answer to his rhetorical question is, "NO". He goes on to say this outright when, in verse 17, when he says that faith without works is dead. He then gives examples, that are mirrored in Heb 11, of a couple of the heroes of faith, demonstrating that it is their works for which they were justified. He finishes in verse 26 to say that just "as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. " Now back up 2 verses. Here in James 2:24, James tells us that ". .. man is justified by works, and not by faith only. " (Just as an aside, this is the only place in all of Scripture where the phrase "faith only", or "faith alone" is found, and it specifically says that we are NOT saved by faith only. ) Justified is not defined in Scripture, so I am open to using the secular dictionary's definition which according to dictionary. com is: " 3. Theology. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit. " (1) Given this definition (to which I trust my opponent will not object), James 2:24 says that we are made guiltless (or declared innocent) by our works, not by faith alone. So faith cannot be alive and effective without works, but you can have works that are not done in faith. This is evidenced by the story Jesus told of the sheep and the goats in Matt 7:21-23. Here Jesus says that "Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? '" Obviously these people did works, but Jesus says He will tell them "I never knew you". He won't tell them "I don't know you anymore. " He "never" knew them, even though they thought they knew Him, and did great works in His name. So then, not just any work is a saving work. Given now that not all works are saving, yet faith without works is dead (and therefore cannot save us), but we are justified by works and not faith alone, how do we read Eph 2:8 which says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. " Obviously, as we are told in many places in Scripture, it is the power of God that saves us. This power is given to us as a gift that we cannot earn and do not deserve. But Eph 2:8 tells us that it is through faith (which as I have proven includes and demands works) that this grace is given to us. Why is this phrase necessary? Because we know that Jesus lived and died and was raised to offer salvation to the entire world. Grace is there available to everyone, but as I showed through Matt 7:21-23, not everyone will be saved. So what is the dividing point between those who are saved and those who are not? Eph 2:8 tells us that it is faith that separates those who are saved and those who are not. So, this begs the question, "If works are required for our faith to be alive, and a living faith is "saving faith" (this is a given as a dead faith is no faith at all (James 2)), what works are the "saving works" and what works are not? Let us look to Scripture for the answer. In many of Paul's writings, he tells us that works of the Law (of Moses) will not save us. For instance Romans 2:15, Romans 3:20, Romans 3:27, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:2, Galatians 3:5, and Galatians 3:10 all specifically mention "works of the Law". In Romans 4:2, Romans 4:6, Romans 9:11, Romans 9:32, and Romans 11:6, Paul only mentions works but given the context, he is referring to works of the Law. To zero in on one of these verses, in Romans 3:28 Paul tells us that we are, ". .. justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. " This in no way takes away from James' assertion that faith is only alive when it includes works, because Paul qualifies the works he is talking about: "works of the Law". So if works of the Law will not save us, what works are required? When we read through all of New Testament Scripture, we find a few places where we are told that certain things either save us, or lead to our salvation. This not being the focus of this debate, I will list just a few of them here. Romans 10:10 tells us that, "with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " And 2 Corinthians 7:10 tells us, "For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation. .. ". Given just these two verses we can see that there are "works" that are required of us to receive salvation. We MUST believe, repent, and confess that Jesus is the Son of God. Without these "works", we cannot be justified, and therefore will not be saved. Now, I will address some of the comments in my opponent's opening statement. In Con's opening comments, he makes the statement that "the premise that Salvation is to be the sole purpose of faith creates a fundamental contradiction in the nature of religion. " I don't know where that premise comes from, but it is not in any way an assertion of mine. While salvation is one purpose of faith, it is in no way the only purpose of faith. He makes an assertion that if two economically different people commit the same crime, neither should be treated any differently under the law. I would wholeheartedly agree, although this in no way impacts this debate. Next, he make the assertion that if we obey in response to the promises of reward that God has made, we are in some way selfish and therefore not deserving of the reward. This could not be in any way more wrong. In their book "Launching a Leadership Revolution", Orrin and Chris say that mankind is motivated to do things on three increasingly complex levels. The first is material motivation. For instance, when your children are young you offer them rewards and/or punishments according to their good or bad behavior. This is to teach them the difference between right and wrong. The second level of motivation is recognition or respect. We never lose our desire to achieve material accomplishments, but recognition and respect take on a greater meaning to us as we grow more mature. Finally, we are motivated by our purpose or legacy. This is the highest level of motivation, but again, we do not lose our desire for material rewards or for recognition and respect, but our purpose becomes an even greater motivating factor in our lives. Now, I am not suggesting that Orrin and Chris are experts on Biblical interpretation, but the are recognized as experts on leadership, motivation, and people. God knows that we are motivated by these things (He created us that way). Because He knows our motivations, He gave us the promise of the reward in Heaven or the punishment in Hell to spark that first level of motivation. He wants us to desire Heaven and fear Hell, otherwise, He would not have offered the descriptions that the Bible contains of those places. If God seeks to motivate us through this most basic of motivating factors, what is my opponent's case? Is God wrong to offer us a reward if we are pleasing to Him, or threaten a punishment if we as displeasing? Yes, He wants us to want to do good because it is the right thing to do. Yes, He wants us to avoid evil because it is harmful to ourselves or to others around us. But that in no way de-legitimizes the rewards and punishments depicted in God's Word. References: 1. . http://www.dictionary.com... 2. Woodward, Orrin and Brady, Chris, Launching a Leadership Revolution, Business Plus, Oct 2008