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

[The Remonstrant]

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

[Cow Poke]

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

oh

[The Remonstrant]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[tabibito]

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

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.

[Cow Poke]

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.

[tabibito]

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?

[tabibito]

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?

[Cow Poke]

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...

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.

[Cow Poke]

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!

[tabibito]

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

[tabibito]

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

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."

[The Remonstrant]

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.

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 Remonstrant]

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.]

[Obsidian]

Even proponents of sola fide will admit that some unrepented sins will exclude a person from salvation. . . .

No, they don't.

[tabibito]

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.