Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Faith and Works: The Relationship between Faith, Works, and Salvation in the NT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Remonstrant
    If one were to doubt his or her relationship to Jesus Christ, whether s/he is united to him or not, would this lack of personal assurance of salvation indicate that his or her faith is not genuine (i.e. false; not salvational in nature)?
    Yes, that "faith" is not genuine because it does not meet the definition of faith. Faith, according to Hebrews 11, is basically confidence in God's existence and in his willingness to reward. To expect hellfire for oneself is a total lack of confidence in God's willingness to reward. Why would anyone live for God if he didn't even expect to wind up in God's kingdom at all?

    Matthew 6:20-21

    [B]ut lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.


    A treasure in heaven that is uncertain would be worth even less than a garment corruptible by moths.

    To answer your question of whether such "faith" is "salvational in nature," the answer is no. And if that were all the "faith" that the person ever had, then the person would be unsaved. However, it is possible to be saved if you believed in the past, even if your faith later gets corrupted or misplaced.

    Does not James 1.12 conflict with your interpretation? ‘Blessed is the man who endures trial, because, having been approved, he will receive the crown of life that He has promised to those loving Him’ (Berean Literal Bible).
    I'm not sure exactly what "crown of life" means — because it isn't exactly self-explanatory, the context doesn't define it, and I don't see it defined elsewhere. If I had to guess, I would say that a crown of life may refer to a living crown: Other saved souls won through your evangelism.

    1 Thessalonians 2:19

    For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?


    Or it may refer specifically to the special eternal reward that accompanies getting such souls saved.

    Daniel 12:3

    And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.


    1 Peter 1:1-4

    1 The elders which are among you I exhort [to] . . . 2 feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.


    In any event, the point of a "crown of life" is simply that it is a crown that doesn't fade. There isn't any good reason to assume that "crown of life" means simply the same thing as "eternal life," as your question suggests. We don't earn eternal life by enduring temptation. That would be Catholicism or Judaism, not Christianity.

    Comment


    • Significant portions of Hebrews 11 - which are self evident to anyone who takes context seriously:

      Hebrews 11:6B he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

      Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

      Hebrews 11:8A By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out

      Hebrews 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

      And the last that I have listed is illustrative. Rachel did not perish with the others because she believed - having been told of the conditions that applied - that she had to do things to bring the blessing to fruition ... and she acted on that belief. She could have believed and done nothing ... which would have resulted in her death.
      Last edited by tabibito; 06-02-2019, 10:04 AM.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        I have seen claims that the "faith and doubt are mutually exclusive" story is bogus, and it seems that the claims (not the story) are valid. "Crown of life" also might, as an outside chance, indicate that the reference is really about eternal life, and [not riches and prestige in a person's temporal life on Earth or perhaps a Rolls Royce instead of a Honda Accord in heaven]. But don't the people who promote the "faith and doubt are mutually exclusive" story also say that perseverance is not something that the believer does, but something that is imposed on him by grace? [Emphasis added.]
        The notion that the believer will inevitably persevere in the faith is held by Calvinists, yes, and is closely tied to the doctrines of unconditional election to salvation and irresistible (‘efficacious’) grace. For Calvinists, the very grace by which believers are said to persevere is given to ‘the elect’ as an unconditional divine gift. It is impossible therefore for ‘authentic believers’ to apostatise. ‘Inevitable perseverance ’ is a very fitting name for Calvinism’s understanding of believers’ unavoidable continuance in the faith. (See Robert Shank, Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance [Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1989], p. 165.)

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        As for "sola fide" conflating "repentance and faith," there is a growing trend in academic theology to the view that "faith" and "belief" are for the most part invalidly conflated.
        Is it possible that you could expound and/or provide me a link to (a) resource(s) that elucidate this discussion?
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
          The notion that the believer will inevitably persevere in the faith is held by Calvinists, yes, and is closely tied to the doctrines of unconditional election to salvation and irresistible (‘efficacious’) grace. For Calvinists, the very grace by which believers are said to persevere is given to ‘the elect’ as an unconditional divine gift. It is impossible therefore for ‘authentic believers’ to apostatise. ‘Inevitable perseverance ’ is a very fitting name for Calvinism’s understanding of believers’ unavoidable continuance in the faith. (See Robert Shank, Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance [Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1989], p. 165.)



          Is it possible that you could expound and/or provide me a link to (a) resource(s) that elucidate this discussion?
          I had investigated the problem some years ago and come to the conclusion (on the basis of Septuagint uses of pistis etc.) that faith in most of its usages means "faith" as in "keeping faith" i.e. "fidelity," "trustworthiness," "dedication," and "commitment" so when it began to crop up in theology texts, my response was to say, "it's long overdue" - but I didn't note the actual references. They're pretty much superfluous given that the Bible shows the same already. I'll try to track down some of the more interesting sources in the coming days, but meantime, Daniel Howard-Sneider provides what might be the considerations that got the ball rolling for academic theologians. Howard-Sneider's argument against "faith" meaning "belief" is solid enough, but the conclusion - that faith is "stick-to-itiveness" - isn't forced by the premises. (His conclusion would make "faith" equivalent to "biazo").

          (not saying that Howard-Sneider got the ball rolling.)

          Daniel Howard-Snyder, Markan Faith in Int J Philos Relig (2017) 81, 36

          And a comment that I made in a recent essay: "Based on Snyder’s examination of pistis, dictionary definitions of emunah and emun, as “faithfulness, fidelity, trustworthiness etc.,” would benefit from the addition of “dedication” – which is more a matter of context than of definition – to their lists."

          As I said, I'll try to track down actual references a few days from now. Other fish to fry this week that can't be delayed.
          Last edited by tabibito; 06-03-2019, 06:35 AM.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            I had investigated the problem some years ago and come to the conclusion (on the basis of Septuagint uses of pistis etc.) that faith in most of its usages means "faith" as in "keeping faith" i.e. "fidelity," "trustworthiness," "dedication," and "commitment" so when it began to crop up in theology texts, my response was to say, "it's long overdue" - but I didn't note the actual references. They're pretty much superfluous given that the Bible shows the same already. I'll try to track down some of the more interesting sources in the coming days, but meantime, Daniel Howard-Sneider provides what might be the considerations that got the ball rolling for academic theologians. Howard-Sneider's argument against "faith" meaning "belief" is solid enough, but the conclusion - that faith is "stick-to-itiveness" - isn't forced by the premises. (His conclusion would make "faith" equivalent to "biazo"). […]
            Thank you for your reply. Your understanding of πίστις, pistis as ‘fidelity’ or ‘faithfulness’ comports well with Matthew W. Bates’ recently published proposal, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017).* Throughout, Bates argues against what he believes is a ‘truncation’ of the gospel. A significant area of concern for Bates is the appropriate translation of pistis and its cognates in English Bible translations. In brief, he believes that pistis-language would, in most instances, better be translated as allegiance (πίστις, pistis) or give allegiance to (πιστεύω, pisteuō), rather than as ‘faith’ or ‘believe’. Bates has a forthcoming, soon-to-be-released volume that aims to clarify and further expand upon his work Salvation by Allegiance Alone (2017) entitled Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019).

            As regards taking more time to further respond, please do take all the time that you require. I have learned that I cannot survive the drudgery of engaging folk on TheologyWeb for long apart from the benefit of taking extended periods of rest and recuperation for the preservation of mental sanity.


            * Whilst I have a copy of the aforementioned work, I have yet to read the book from cover to cover. I will likely press myself go back to the beginning of the volume and persevere until the end the next time round.
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
              [SIZE=3][FONT=Palatino Linotype]A significant area of concern for Bates is the appropriate translation of pistis and its cognates in English Bible translations. In brief, he believes that pistis-language would, in most instances, better be translated as allegiance (πίστις, pistis) or give allegiance to (πιστεύω, pisteuō), rather than as ‘faith’ or ‘believe’.
              I've taken a copy of your post for further consideration during mid-year break. Problems might arise for Bates' argument in some of the gospel accounts, where "allegiance" might not work particularly well; people bringing others to Jesus for healing, or coming to Jesus on behalf of absent others even. "Dedication" or "commitment" will work in those accounts - where Christ is only the target (indirect object, so to speak) of faith, rather than the object of faith. On the basis of your recommendation and a strong second from a lecturer**, I'll make sure to give the book some attention.

              ** Lecturer speaking just now recommends Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches, Oxford University Press, 2015. as a good and more technical follow up to Bates.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • I realize that "inerrancy" only applies to the now-nonexistent original documents, and that basically only KJV-onlyists *really* believe in divine preservation of the word of God.

                Still, it is more than a little disconcerting to think that virtually if not literally every modern and semi-modern English translation in existence renders such a pivotal word incorrectly.
                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                Beige Federalist.

                Nationalist Christian.

                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                  I realize that "inerrancy" only applies to the now-nonexistent original documents, and that basically only KJV-onlyists *really* believe in divine preservation of the word of God.

                  Still, it is more than a little disconcerting to think that virtually if not literally every modern and semi-modern English translation in existence renders such a pivotal word incorrectly.
                  Nothing new in that - Augustine complained that inaccurate translations of the Bible into Latin forced the need to learn the original Biblical languages (Koine Greek and Hebrew).

                  Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum (1708) has for faith: belief, credit, promise, word, with faithful being "trusty, honest, sincere"... by (1730) the dictionary essentially gives "belief" or "trust" as the definition with faithful retaining "trusty, honest, sincere" ... In their definitions for other words, both editions use faith as a synonym for trustworthy.
                  Robert Cawdrey, A Table Alphabetical 1604 doesn't have an entry for faith.
                  Somewhere in history, faith did have the meaning of loyalty or trustworthiness - "faithful" (as of spouse etc) testifying to that definition (also "keeping faith"). At a guess, mid to late 1600s might have narrowed the range of meanings. The Table Alphabetical was about the first attempt to produce an English language dictionary, and it only covered the "difficult" words. However there were a number of French/English translations produced in the late 16th and 17th centuries. And there it is Fidelite as a translation of faith in both current and early 17th century French ... fidele/fidelement//fidelity, faithfulness, loyalty, trustingness; truth, sincerity, unfeignedness. Randal Cotgrave, A Dictionary of the French and English Tongues, 1611
                  Also Florio's Italian English Dictionary: Queen Anna's New World of Words, 1611 under head-words Fede, Fedele, Fedelta
                  Last edited by tabibito; 06-04-2019, 07:32 AM.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                    I realize that "inerrancy" only applies to the now-nonexistent original documents, and that basically only KJV-onlyists *really* believe in divine preservation of the word of God.
                    Well, I believe in that, and I'm not a KJV-onlyist.

                    Still, it is more than a little disconcerting to think that virtually if not literally every modern and semi-modern English translation in existence renders such a pivotal word incorrectly.
                    Surely not, this would also include virtually all lexicons and commentaries. "Pistis" means faith, or faithful.

                    Source: BDAG

                    πίστις, εως, ἡ (Hes., Hdt.+; ranging in meaning from subjective confidence to objective basis for confidence).

                    William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 818.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, I believe in that, and I'm not a KJV-onlyist.


                      Surely not, this would also include virtually all lexicons and commentaries. "Pistis" means faith, or faithful.

                      Source: BDAG

                      πίστις, εως, ἡ (Hes., Hdt.+; ranging in meaning from subjective confidence to objective basis for confidence).

                      William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 818.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      As you have noted - lexicons do include in their definitions of "faith", "faithful" in their lists. And "faithful" does not mean "belief." A faithless spouse is not one who doesn't believe the partner, but one who is disloyal to the partner. And there are a few occasions when "faith" can mean belief, it just isn't the default sub-definition.

                      BDAG entry for pistis (excerpt)
                      πιστις the state of being someone in whom confidence can be placed, faithfulness, reliability, fidelity, commitment
                      nullify the faithfulness/commitment of God (cp. Ps 32:4; Hos 2:22) Ro 3:3. show all good faith( fulness) I have remained faithful or loyal (πίστιν τηρεῖν as Polyb. 6, 56, 13; 10, 37, 5; Jos., Bell. 2, 121; 6, 345; OGI 339, 46f; IBM III, 587b, 5f [Dssm., LO 262=LAE 309, esp. note 3])
                      a solemn promise to be faithful and loyal, assurance, oath, troth
                      a token offered as a guarantee of someth. promised, proof, pledge
                      state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith

                      'twould seem that theologians are only now catching up with what has been plainly written and under their noses for more than a century (in German, anyway). Of course, earlier lexicons might have also included the information: the Latin Vulgate does after all translate pistis as fides - which can mean either trust or fidelity.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        As you have noted - lexicons do include in their definitions of "faith", "faithful" in their lists. And "faithful" does not mean "belief." A faithless spouse is not one who doesn't believe the partner, but one who is disloyal to the partner. And there are a few occasions when "faith" can mean belief, it just isn't the default sub-definition.

                        BDAG entry for pistis (excerpt)
                        πιστις the state of being someone in whom confidence can be placed, faithfulness, reliability, fidelity, commitment
                        nullify the faithfulness/commitment of God (cp. Ps 32:4; Hos 2:22) Ro 3:3. show all good faith( fulness) I have remained faithful or loyal (πίστιν τηρεῖν as Polyb. 6, 56, 13; 10, 37, 5; Jos., Bell. 2, 121; 6, 345; OGI 339, 46f; IBM III, 587b, 5f [Dssm., LO 262=LAE 309, esp. note 3])
                        a solemn promise to be faithful and loyal, assurance, oath, troth
                        a token offered as a guarantee of someth. promised, proof, pledge
                        state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith
                        Yes, so then the question is which subdefinition applies in each instance. Rom. 1:17 ("the righteous shall live by faith") translates the Hebrew "emunah" in Hab. 2:4, which is "faith" or "faithfulness", not "allegiance." The Septuagint translates "emunah" here as "pistis".

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Yes, so then the question is which subdefinition applies in each instance. Rom. 1:17 ("the righteous shall live by faith") translates the Hebrew "emunah" in Hab. 2:4, which is "faith" or "faithfulness", not "allegiance." The Septuagint translates "emunah" here as "pistis".

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          Actually, the most appropriate rendering for English would be "fidelity." Not that any of the others would be inappropriate. I have commented often enough in the past about Paul's citation of Habakkuk 2:4 in two references, and the author of Hebrews also using it once. Also noting often enough, that English translations of Hab 2:4 have God saying "the righteous shall live by his faith," where the LXX has God saying "the righteous shall live by my faith."

                          The LXX plays directly to Paul's, "if we are faithless he remains faithful."
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Actually, the most appropriate rendering for English would be "fidelity." Not that any of the others would be inappropriate. I have commented often enough in the past about Paul's citation of Habakkuk 2:4 in two references, and the author of Hebrews also using it once. Also noting often enough, that English translations of Hab 2:4 have God saying "the righteous shall live by his faith," where the LXX has God saying "the righteous shall live by my faith."
                            Well, my point is that the LXX shows that Paul doesn't mean allegiance.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Well, my point is that the LXX shows that Paul doesn't mean allegiance.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              I don't recall making any comment about allegiance - maybe I slipped up, but the posts I have made would make it plain that "allegiance" wasn't a particularly noteworthy rendering. Then again, now that you have brought it up ... how much difference is there between "allegiance" and "fidelity" or "loyalty?"
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                I don't recall making any comment about allegiance...
                                No, I was responding to Remonstrant's post:

                                Originally posted by The Remonstrant
                                A significant area of concern for Bates is the appropriate translation of pistis and its cognates in English Bible translations. In brief, he believes that pistis-language would, in most instances, better be translated as allegiance (πίστις, pistis) or give allegiance to (πιστεύω, pisteuō), rather than as ‘faith’ or ‘believe’.
                                Originally posted by tabibito
                                Then again, now that you have brought it up ... how much difference is there between "allegiance" and "fidelity" or "loyalty?"
                                Well, fidelity is closest to "faithfulness", but "allegiance" and "loyalty" would be different, and none of these carry the idea of "faith".

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X