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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    So good so far... but...So, "all Christian traditions acknowledge this truth" [of Ephesians 2.8] ..... yet they're "in disagreement".....

    You frequently don't make a whole lot of sense, brother. Maybe something got lost in the translation.
    The doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) is affirmed by many Protestants and evangelicals, but is not embraced by all Christian traditions. Romans Catholics, for example, believe that the teaching contradicts scripture. They will frequently cite James 2.24 as a verse that is explicitly at variance with sola fide (‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone’ [LEB*]). I am not aware of any Christian tradition, however, that would dare to deny that salvation is by grace through faith, for this is what Ephesians 2.8 declares. But does this verse wholly exclude works from being in some way necessary for the attainment of final/eschatological salvation? Some would say no.


    * Lexham English Bible (2012). See also the Berean Literal Bible (2016), Christian Standard Bible (2017), New American Standard Bible (1995), New English Translation (2006), and New International Version (2011).
    For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
      The doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) is affirmed by many Protestants and evangelicals, but is not embraced by all Christian traditions. Romans Catholics, for example, believe that the teaching contradicts scripture. They will frequently cite James 2.24 as a verse that is explicitly at variance with sola fide (‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone’ [LEB*]). I am not aware of any Christian tradition, however, that would dare to deny that salvation is by grace through faith, for this is what Ephesians 2.8 declares. But does this verse wholly exclude works from being in some way necessary for the attainment of final/eschatological salvation? Some would say no.


      * Lexham English Bible (2012). See also the Berean Literal Bible (2016), Christian Standard Bible (2017), New American Standard Bible (1995), New English Translation (2006), and New International Version (2011).
      oh
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
        Is it not possible, however, that the relationship between the two might reach such a point of hostility or deterioration that, eventually, the son effectively disowns his father via chronic rebellion and disobedience?
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Jesus frequently used the earthly "good father" analogy to show us who God is. He doesn't use an angry or impatient father as that example. [Emphasis added.]
        I agree.

        Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
        In such a case, the son departs from the home and/or is no longer welcome in the same home so long as his disrespect and hostility continues.
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        And the father (Luke 15) very patiently waits for his son to "come to himself", and rejoices at his return.
        I agree. I would only add that I do not believe that it was guaranteed that the son would return. The prodigal may never have repented and therefore tragically remained and died outside the house of his father. The cause for rejoicing was that he did (re)turn, and his father was waiting to embrace him as his son.
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
          The doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) is affirmed by many Protestants and evangelicals, but is not embraced by all Christian traditions. Romans Catholics, for example, believe that the teaching contradicts scripture. They will frequently cite James 2.24 as a verse that is explicitly at variance with sola fide (‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone’ [LEB*]). I am not aware of any Christian tradition, however, that would dare to deny that salvation is by grace through faith, for this is what Ephesians 2.8 declares. But does this verse wholly exclude works from being in some way necessary for the attainment of final/eschatological salvation? Some would say no.


          * Lexham English Bible (2012). See also the Berean Literal Bible (2016), Christian Standard Bible (2017), New American Standard Bible (1995), New English Translation (2006), and New International Version (2011).
          Yes - that is the thrust of Paul's argument. Works of law are of no value without faith. Even proponents of sola fide will admit that some unrepented sins will exclude a person from salvation, but never the ones they themselves commit (of course) because they're still in the flesh and therefore can't overcome sin. Works of love, righteousness etc. ... Paul does not consider optional.
          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


          • #65
            Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
            I agree. I would only add that I do not believe that it was guaranteed that the son would return. The prodigal may never have repented and therefore tragically remained and died outside the house of his father. The cause for rejoicing was that he did (re)turn, and his father was waiting to embrace him as his son.
            Even if he died "outside the house of his father", it doesn't change the fact that he's still his father's son, and the father was always ready to receive him. Imagine somebody bringing the dead body of the son to the father - do you really think the father would refuse him a burial?

            Look at verse 20 - And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

            There is ZERO indication that the father knows that the son is repentant - "while he was still a long way off", the father was already in motion to receive him, regardless.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Are you proposing that, in any of those circumstances, the person was "in the household as a family member", then the relationship became so bad that they were no longer welcome back in the home?
              That is certain. Did Paul not order certain parties be expelled from the assembly? And a servant was as much a part of the household as blood-kin. The proviso for repentance can easily be demonstrated:
              That Jesus said a person should forgive his brother up to 70 times 7 (Matt 18:22) is all but universally known, but the first half of that story is not recorded by Matthew: the first half is recorded by Luke (17:3-4) “Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day and comes back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
              Likewise, Jesus statements not all who call him Lord will be permitted to enter heaven - only those who do the will of God. Also his complaint "why do you call me Lord? you don't do what I tell you to."
              Then comes the answer to the TULIP vendors who claim that they can't stop sinning because they are in the flesh. "There are two things that people who are in the flesh can't do. The second is - they can't understand the things of God." (1 Cor 2:14) which, oddly enough, is the verse they themselves cite when people point out that there precepts are incorrect.
              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


              • #67
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Even if he died "outside the house of his father", it doesn't change the fact that he's still his father's son, and the father was always ready to receive him. Imagine somebody bringing the dead body of the son to the father - do you really think the father would refuse him a burial?

                Look at verse 20 - And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

                There is ZERO indication that the father knows that the son is repentant - "while he was still a long way off", the father was already in motion to receive him, regardless.
                No analogy is so robust that it cannot be very quickly be stretched beyond its elastic limit. Nonetheless, the father ran to meet the son - what would the father's reaction have been had the son commanded him when they met: "You will reinstate me to full position of sonship as is my right!" Joyful as the father might have been to that point, would you expect a different reaction to that which followed the actual expression of submission?
                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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Are you proposing that, in any of those circumstances, the person was "in the household as a family member", then the relationship became so bad that they were no longer welcome back in the home?
                  So, I asked about your previous statement "in any of those circumstances", and you're about to change gears...

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  That is certain. Did Paul not order certain parties be expelled from the assembly?
                  It's 1 AM where I am, and I need to get some sleep, but you gots lots of assumin' goin' on here in just this very first 'challenge'.

                  Later.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    No analogy is so robust that it cannot be very quickly be stretched beyond its elastic limit. Nonetheless, the father ran to meet the son - what would the father's reaction have been had the son commanded him when they met: "You will reinstate me to full position of sonship as is my right!" Joyful as the father might have been to that point, would you expect a different reaction to that which followed the actual expression of submission?
                    Wow...... you're kinda blowing the whole point of Jesus telling this story. I'll leave you to your very active imagination.

                    G'nite!
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      3:30 pm here is 1:00 am there. I'll keep that for future reference.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                        The doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) is affirmed by many Protestants and evangelicals, but is not embraced by all Christian traditions. Romans Catholics, for example, believe that the teaching contradicts scripture. They will frequently cite James 2.24 as a verse that is explicitly at variance with sola fide (‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone’ [LEB*]). I am not aware of any Christian tradition, however, that would dare to deny that salvation is by grace through faith, for this is what Ephesians 2.8 declares. But does this verse wholly exclude works from being in some way necessary for the attainment of final/eschatological salvation? Some would say no.


                        * Lexham English Bible (2012). See also the Berean Literal Bible (2016), Christian Standard Bible (2017), New American Standard Bible (1995), New English Translation (2006), and New International Version (2011).
                        Not to mention: neither faith nor grace can possibly be the gift in that verse. (a matter of Koine Grammar, and pronouns being required to match the gender of the nouns they stand for.) Two options for "and that not of yourselves" 1/ "you are saved," being perfect tense, can be referred to by a pronoun (the pronoun standing for the STATE of being saved) 2/ The whole can be considered a noun phrase ("that" would again refer to the state // of having been saved by grace through faith.) I favour the first, but it's only ahead by half a nose. Either way, the state of being saved is the gift; in simpler terms, "you didn't save yourselves, that was God's doing."
                        Last edited by tabibito; 05-26-2019, 02:34 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


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          And the father (Luke 15) very patiently waits for his son to "come to himself", and rejoices at his return.
                          Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                          I agree. I would only add that I do not believe that it was guaranteed that the son would return. The prodigal may never have repented and therefore tragically remained and died outside the house of his father. The cause for rejoicing was that he did (re)turn, and his father was waiting to embrace him as his son.
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Even if he died "outside the house of his father", it doesn't change the fact that he's still his father's son, and the father was always ready to receive him. Imagine somebody bringing the dead body of the son to the father - do you really think the father would refuse him a burial?

                          Look at verse 20 - And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

                          There is ZERO indication that the father knows that the son is repentant - "while he was still a long way off", the father was already in motion to receive him, regardless.
                          The father waited with patience and longing in the hope of his youngest son’s return. It was the father’s longing that his son would be restored to a positive relationship with him. Nevertheless, it was well within the realm of possibilities that the estranged son could have thwarted his father’s earnest desire of renewed fellowship. In embarking upon his wayward, profligate journey, the youngest son had effectively disowned himself from his father and his father’s entire household. This was reflected by the physical distance the son sought between him and his father (see Lk 15.13).

                          The love of the father is not in doubt, nor his desire for restoration. The obstacle that stood between the fulfilment of the father’s desire was the obstinacy of his son’s will.
                          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Yes - that is the thrust of Paul's argument. Works of law are of no value without faith. Even proponents of sola fide will admit that some unrepented sins will exclude a person from salvation, but never the ones they themselves commit (of course) because they're still in the flesh and therefore can't overcome sin. Works of love, righteousness etc. ... Paul does not consider optional. [Emphasis added.]
                            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Even proponents of sola fide will admit that some unrepented sins will exclude a person from salvation. . . .
                              No, they don't.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                                No, they don't.
                                I will amend: Even the many proponents of sola fide with whom I have had acquaintance have admitted that certain unrepented sins preclude salvation.
                                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

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