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

  • #31
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    According to Paul - God showed his mercy while we were yet sinners.

    Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

    And verse 9 shows that faith is not the only factor in justification.
    Which is another way of saying we don't have to stop sinning to be saved. We are still sinners. God saves us despite our failings. All he asks is that we believe (have trust) in him and in the atonement of Jesus. He doesn't ask us to fix ourselves first. We don't have to earn salvation. He gives it to us freely. Yet how can you be saved unless you know about Jesus and his sacrifice? Or believe in God? That is why we share the gospel.

    You don't have to obey the law, or earn your salvation. In fact, Paul says you can't. Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Tabibito
      God, telling Habakkuk to record the events Habakkuk saw in a vision, also said "the just shall live by faith." There's no "faith in a vision" mentioned.
      As usual, you show zero ability to read the context of a passage.

      That was a response to Obsidian.
      Just quoting a passage from Galatians isn't an argument. Galatians teaches free grace theology, as I already showed. Living in the Spirit does not necessarily require walking in the Spirit. They are different.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
        As usual, you show zero ability to read the context of a passage.
        Prithee elucidate - which part of "the righteous shall live by faith is in the vision"?

        Just quoting a passage from Galatians isn't an argument. Galatians teaches free grace theology, as I already showed.
        Which I don't argue against. I argue against the unsupported extrapolation from free grace that makes it seem that the believer gets a free pass and is not required to do anything.

        Living in the Spirit does not necessarily require walking in the Spirit. They are different.
        The person who is living in the Spirit is required to walk in - that is "to conduct his life and affairs in accordance with" - the Spirit. That is what the "let" is about ... it doesn't express permission, it expresses a command. Which should be obvious from its use in verse Gal 5:26 ... 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory,

        I'll acknowledge that it might be possible to be a Christian without knowing Christ, but the person who knows Christ is mature, which is to say spiritual and not carnal.
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Tabibito
          That is what the "let" is about ... it doesn't express permission, it expresses a command.
          You are admitting that someone alive in the Spirit CAN FAIL to walk in the Spirit. You are admitting that the person has to be commanded, meaning it is not automatic. That possibility of failure completely invalidates your theory that all saved people do not sin.

          Prithee elucidate - which part of "the righteous shall live by faith is in the vision"?
          Starting with Habakkuk 1:5 and continuing until 2:14, a vision is told about how international chaos will reign, and the heathen will oppress, and false gods will be worshiped. In spite of all this madness, in 2:13—2:14 it states:

          Habakkuk 2:13-14

          13 Behold, is it not of the Lord of hosts that the people shall labour in the very fire,
          and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity?
          14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord,
          as the waters cover the sea.


          There is good news at the end of it, because God is working, and eventually he will fill the earth with knowledge of himself. That is what people are told to have faith in.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
            You are admitting that someone alive in the Spirit CAN FAIL to walk in the Spirit. You are admitting that the person has to be commanded, meaning it is not automatic. That possibility of failure completely invalidates your theory that all saved people do not sin.
            I never made any such claim - that's just your eisegesis of what I said.



            Starting with Habakkuk 1:5 and continuing until 2:14, a vision is told about how international chaos will reign, and the heathen will oppress, and false gods will be worshiped. In spite of all this madness, in 2:13—2:14 it states:
            Ah - I see. Habakkuk had a vision of himself making prayer to God and a vision of God answering him. OK - Can't see it myself, but I'll take your word for it.
            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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Tabibito
              I never made any such claim - that's just your eisegesis of what I said.
              Okay. Then you are refusing to admit what Paul plainly does. If walking in the Spirit were the same as living in the Spirit, Paul would not distinguish them.

              Ah - I see. Habakkuk had a vision of himself making prayer to God and a vision of God answering him. OK - Can't see it myself, but I'll take your word for it.
              Then maybe God has hardened your heart and blinded your eyes, because I literally cited the verses showing what I'm talking about.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                Okay. Then you are refusing to admit what Paul plainly does. If walking in the Spirit were the same as living in the Spirit, Paul would not distinguish them.
                Also Paul: "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will never fulfill the desires of the flesh." (Gal 5:16 - ISV)
                16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. (ESV) The translators don't seem to agree with you.

                Λέγω δέ, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε (you (pl) must walk about) καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε.

                Then maybe God has hardened your heart and blinded your eyes, because I literally cited the verses showing what I'm talking about.
                Did Habakkuk say that God said "the righteous shall live by faith"?
                Last edited by tabibito; 05-23-2019, 11:53 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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Tabibito
                  Also Paul: "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will never fulfill the desires of the flesh." (Gal 5:16 - ISV)
                  16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. (ESV) The translators don't seem to agree with you.

                  Λέγω δέ, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε (you (pl) must walk about) καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε.
                  What is your actual point? Posting two contradictory translations of the same verse is supposed to show me something?

                  Did Habakkuk say that God said "the righteous shall live by faith"?
                  Are you unable to read? The answer to your question is yes.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    How should the nature of faith be defined?
                    Almost every occurrence of the noun "faith" (πιστις and its cognates) in the LXX translates Hebrew words for "loyalty," "trustworthiness," "fidelity" with some allowance for "dedication." The noun almost never translates "belief." Specifically and significantly, (Hab 2:4) "the righteous shall live by faith" translates "emunah" (fidelity) - so any claim that Paul says "the righteous shall live by belief" is scuttled. Further to that Hab 2:4 as translated into English shows ""the righteous shall live by his faith" says the Lord" (exact wording does vary). The Septuagint shows, ""the righteous shall live by my faith," says the Lord." The LXX translation has a body of support in the New Testament.

                    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                    You can't have "fidelity" to a vision. Instead, a person has faith in a vision. The context clearly shows that it is talking about faith.

                    Did Habakkuk say that God said "the righteous shall live by faith"?
                    Originally posted by Obsidian
                    Yes
                    So your claim is what?
                    That Habakkuk was saying that the righteous will live by faith in the vision that God was showing him?
                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by tabibito
                      So your claim is what?
                      That Habakkuk was saying that the righteous will live by faith in the vision that God was showing him?
                      It doesn't really matter who is speaking, but in context God is speaking. God is saying that despite all the horrific things that are going to happen, as shown in the vision, the end of the vision also shows a good outcome where God takes over the world. The righteous will have faith in that good outcome, despite the present bad circumstances. That is a direct contrast to the "soul which is lifted up," a king who grows proud because in the present, it looks like he is winning.

                      Habakkuk 2:3-8

                      3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time,
                      but at the end it shall speak, and not lie:
                      though it tarry, wait for it;
                      because it will surely come, it will not tarry.

                      4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him:
                      but the just shall live by his faith.
                      5 Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man,
                      neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell,
                      and is as death, and cannot be satisfied,
                      but gathereth unto him all nations,
                      and heapeth unto him all people:
                      6 shall not all these take up a parable against him,
                      and a taunting proverb against him,
                      and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long?
                      and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay!
                      7 Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall bite thee,
                      and awake that shall vex thee,
                      and thou shalt be for booties unto them?
                      8 Because thou hast spoiled many nations,
                      all the remnant of the people shall spoil thee;
                      because of men’s blood, and for the violence of the land,
                      of the city, and of all that dwell therein.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        So your claim is that "The righteous shall live by faith in a vision"

                        OK
                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                          In this thread, I would like to enquire of participants their understanding regarding the relationship between faith and works in the New Testament. Questions such as the following may be considered:

                          How should the nature of faith be defined?


                          "Faith" (and the verb "believe") is more than casual intellectual assent. Most lexicons show that "pistis" and its related forms carry a sense of "firm trust." The noun form can also be used in both subjective and objective senses: We have faith in that which is faithful, we trust that which is trustworthy.

                          In actual NT usage, in the context of the topic at hand, it is often used as a contrast to "works." (It would not surprise me to find that some of the OT passages adduced by NT authors don't directly support this. I believe it is becoming increasingly recognized, even among conservative scholars, that the NT authors were somewhat "free" in their application of OT citations. Here I'm thinking specifically of Hab. 2:4, and its use by Paul in Rom. 1:17 and esp. Gal. 3:11.)

                          In Rom. 3-4 and Gal. 3, the contrast between "faith" and "works" is particularly explicit. It is also explicit there that the "works" are specifically "works of the (Jewish) Law." The contrast is also explicit in Eph. 2:8-9, and there is no mention of "Law" there. (The only mention of "Law" in Ephesians is later in that chapter, 2:15, where we are told it was "nullified," NET.) In Tit. 3:5-7, there is not even mention of "faith" as having a part in our being saved / justified. (I don't believe a sharp distinction between "salvation" and "justification" is, well, justified.) Passages such as these make reasonably clear that works/deeds don't play a role in our getting saved. Gal. 3 also makes clear that we complete our salvation the way we began it -- by faith/believing, not by doing works (contrary to the occasionally heard aphorism, "Saved by grace, kept by works").

                          Some might object that the *only* "works" we are "excused from," so to speak, are the "works of the Law," by which they mean the ritual aspects of the Law of Moses; the "moral law,' meaning the Decalogue, remains binding. I don't think it's that simple.

                          1) Such a division of the Law is not stated in Scripture, but is only inferred by readers. Since Sabbath worship is one of the preeminent tenets of OT "ceremonial" law, is part of the Decalogue, and yet is rendered optional in Rom. 14, Gal. 4, and Col. 2, this supposed division is dubious.

                          2) Eph. 2 explicitly refers to the "Law of commandments and ordinances." That seems a fairly explicit statement that even the Decalogue is no longer in force, certainly not in the same way it had been.

                          3) In John 6, Jesus seems to be announcing release from more than just ritual observances when, in answer to the question about what "works of God" one must do to obtain eternal life, He answered that the only "work" needed was to "believe" in Him. (Regarding the discussion of this passage elsewhere: My reading of the relevant portions of John's Wisdom by Ben Witherington III and The Gospel of John: A Commentary by Craig Keener is that both, esp. Keener, agree with my understanding. Both are, of course, fully competent in Biblical languages, but neither, AFAICT, make any reference to arcane issues of Greek grammar, rather basing their views on exegeting the context.)


                          Does Paul contradict James on the role of faith and works in justification/salvation? (If so, how? If not, how may the two be reconciled?
                          The quick prima facie reading of James suggests he contradicts Paul and Jesus (as quoted by John). His wording seems almost deliberately chosen with Paul's writings in mind. They can be reconciled by Jas. 2:18, which indicates James is talking about works as *evidence* of faith, not something that must be *added to* faith. This is consistent with Paul in, e.g., Eph. 2:10 following on 2:8-9; Gal. 5:6, following the earlier contrast between "faith" and "works" in ch. 3; Tit. 3:8, following on 3:5-7.

                          However, interpreting an entire passage through one verse can be questionable. If he really did intend to contradict Paul, then his really is an "epistle of straw," and should be removed from the Canon.

                          Do you believe sola fide (faith alone) to be a doctrine that is faithful to the scriptures (or, at least, to the Pauline corpus)?
                          Whatever is the formal, theological definition of "Sola Fide," I do believe we both "get saved" and "stay saved" by faith, irrespective of "works" -- whether "good" or "bad."

                          As to whether that belief is faithful to Scripture, see below.

                          Are the New Testament authors non-contradictory on the relationship between faith and works? (Are attempts at harmonisation possible, improbable, or forced?)
                          There are definite "tensions."

                          Paul is emphatically clear that salvation does not depend on works. But 1 Cor. 6, Gal. 5, and Eph. 5 all present "vice lists" that list behaviors that preclude inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. The 1 Cor. and Eph. passages esp. have the tenor of warnings. They seem to indicate "bad" works can cause us to forfeit our inheritance. And they resemble written "laws," which Paul elsewhere downplays.

                          Similarly, while John 6 shows that obtaining eternal life depends only on trusting Jesus, not on "works" or "deeds" in the conventional sense, John 15 shows that failure to "bear fruit" (whatever exactly that means) will lead to one being excised from the Vine.

                          I can harmonize the Pauline passages by pretending that his intent is that a believer who continues to habitually engage in those practices will eventually turn away and intentionally abandon faith. (I take Heb. 6 and Heb. 10 to teach that willful apostasy is possible, and irreversible.)

                          On the whole, are good works in some sense necessary for salvation (particularly the attainment of final/eschatological salvation)?
                          I don't know how to answer that.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Some might object that the *only* "works" we are "excused from," so to speak, are the "works of the Law," by which they mean the ritual aspects of the Law of Moses; the "moral law,' meaning the Decalogue, remains binding. I don't think it's that simple.

                            1) Such a division of the Law is not stated in Scripture, but is only inferred by readers. Since Sabbath worship is one of the preeminent tenets of OT "ceremonial" law, is part of the Decalogue, and yet is rendered optional in Rom. 14, Gal. 4, and Col. 2, this supposed division is dubious.

                            2) Eph. 2 explicitly refers to the "Law of commandments and ordinances." That seems a fairly explicit statement that even the Decalogue is no longer in force, certainly not in the same way it had been.
                            Agreed - though I don't think "dubious" is quite strong enough a word.

                            Also agreed - the verb (pisteuo) does usually mean believe.

                            Even if John 6:19, as commonly translated, is accepted - examining the nature of "believing" still gives rise to a problem:
                            This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
                            Could anyone be considered to believe in ~ if he considered ~ false. Belief involves at a minimum, believing what Jesus taught.
                            Did Jesus declare dedication to God as a requirement? What did he say about UNfaithFULNESS (oops - not believing)? Paying lip-service? Hypocrisy? What kind of disciple disregards his master's teachings?

                            Where is belief in Christ when his teachings are disregarded? The authenticity of "make disciples of all nations etc" is disputed - but it remains a summary of Christ's teachings even if the challenge is valid.

                            Does James contradict Jesus and Paul? What did Paul have to say about dedication? unfaithfulness? paying lip-service? hypocrisy?

                            And what was Peter's assessment?
                            2 Peter 3:14 beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

                            Not a whole lot there that supports "faith alone" - and more than enough to show that Paul's teachings were being misrepresented and misapplied. The outcome of that action for the people doing it is also stated - their own destruction.

                            Luther claimed that Romans 10:10 says "Salvation is the outcome of faith."
                            Romans 10:10 For one believes with his heart and is justified, and declares with his mouth and is saved.
                            Nothing valid can be done with that verse to make it support Luther's assessment. The outcome of declaring (that Jesus is Lord v9) is salvation - the believer is required to do something for salvation to be in effect.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 05-24-2019, 12:34 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


                            • #44
                              hab 2 4.jpg
                              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


                              • #45
                                The context doesn't have anything to do with "faithfulness." It has to do with believing in the vision. The vision is a message of hope.

                                Romans 8:24

                                For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?


                                If you ignore context, then effectively you are refusing to read the Bible, despite all your years of study.

                                Comment

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