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

  • #46
    1:Rom 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith
    Hebrews 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

    Direct quotes of Habakkuk 2:4, two by Paul. Perhaps the authors were unaware of what the Hebrew text says?
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by tabibito
      Direct quotes of Habakkuk 2:4, two by Paul. Perhaps the authors were unaware of what the Hebrew text says?
      What is more realistic — that Paul didn't know what the Hebrew text says, or that you don't know what it says?

      Comment


      • #48
        I take it that Paul was fully aware of the meaning of emunah - faithful. He did after all contrast it with unrighteousness in Romans. As did the author of Hebrews in his own comments, though less explicitly. And Habakkuk also noted, sets the righteous (who live by faithfulness) in contrast with those who are not upright.
        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


        • #49
          Either Paul was lying, or you are wrong on every single one of those points.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            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.
            and equally emphatically declares the "works" to be "works of law." Once "works of law" has been established - repeatedly - as the context for "works," he simply refers to "works of law" as "works." That is a perfectly normal process - there is no need to continuously refer to the object in full. I could provide a demonstration of the process from an unrelated topic in Acts readily enough.

            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.
            It is a theme that Paul picks up in Romans 11 perhaps.

            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.)
            Perhaps, and further to your point about John 6 and fruit, we would find a hint of the resolution in Luke's record of Paul's declaration to Agrippa, "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus ... and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance." (Acts 26:19).

            are good works in some sense necessary for salvation
            I don't know how to answer that.
            Though I repeat myself - No-one can honestly claim to believe in Christ whilst ignoring his teachings. Christ's own teachings (as recorded in the gospels) laid down requirements to do good works.

            "Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt 7:20-21) Even those who work with the demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit won't necessarily have access to heaven - that should all by itself raise questions about the nature of the required works. It certainly addresses the matter of fruits. Of course there are some who will claim that Jesus never knew these people, as stated in verse 23, but that is a stock standard declaration of utter repudiation, as shown by the use of the same concept in Matthew 25:11-12

            Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? 47 Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like" Is there some point to calling Jesus "Lord" when what he says should be done goes undone? The follow-up is the parable of the houses built on the rock, and on sand. The one who hears Jesus' words AND DOES THEM will stand - the one who doesn't, won't.

            Though the authenticity of Matt 28 is in dispute, the words attributed to Jesus in that verse are easily extracted from the gospels, so that technicality, even if it should prove valid, does not invalidate the statement itself. "teach them to do all that I have commanded you."

            So - where does that leave the person who says "I believe in Christ, but not what he says about works"?
            Last edited by tabibito; 05-24-2019, 03:53 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


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              My go[-]to verse on this is in Ephesians 2, and it's by Grace through Faith that we are saved. I don't think your OP addresses Grace.

              We are saved by Grace through Faith, and therefore, we do works as His people. The works are not "so that" we are or will be saved, but "because of".
              CP, you are correct that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2.8). Whilst all Christian traditions acknowledge this truth (particularly enunciated in the Pauline corpus), they nevertheless are in disagreement on the role of works in salvation.
              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                • Do you believe sola fide (faith alone) to be a doctrine that is faithful to the scriptures (or, at least, to the Pauline corpus)?
                Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                Romans chapter 4 teaches justification by faith alone. In this chapter, Paul uses the example of Abraham to show that we are counted righteousness when we place our faith in Christ. Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 which teaches that Abraham was counted as righteous as soon as he believed God.

                Romans 4:5 teaches that God justifies the ungodly. "Justify" means "declare righteous." God declares ungodly people to be righteous. How can God do that? Christ's atonement paid sin's penalty and satisfied God's justice. Christ's removed our guilt. Also, God imputes Christ's righteousness to us.
                Do you believe that repentance must also be included in order for one to be justified/declared righteous?
                For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                Comment


                • #53
                  I think it fair to say that Christ wasn't accepting of disobedience, and that Paul was no more accepting of disobedience than was Christ himself. The apparent conflicts between Paul and the other New Testament authors - all of them - arise from tortured interpretations of Paul's actual statements. That is nothing new, Peter wrote about it in 2 Peter 3:14-16.

                  The idea that a person can make a valid claim to believe in Christ, while declaring that he believes none of Christ's teachings cannot be substantiated.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                    CP, you are correct that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2.8). Whilst all Christian traditions acknowledge this truth (particularly enunciated in the Pauline corpus),
                    So good so far... but...

                    they nevertheless are in disagreement on the role of works in salvation.
                    So, "all Christian traditions acknowledge this truth"..... yet they're "in disagreement".....

                    You frequently don't make a whole lot of sense, brother. Maybe something got lost in the translation.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      My go to verse on this is in Ephesians 2, and it's by Grace through Faith that we are saved. I don't think your OP addresses Grace.

                      We are saved by Grace through Faith, and therefore, we do works as His people. The works are not "so that" we are or will be saved, but "because of".
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      that's my view.

                      The example I was told once was: A man adopted a son. The son cuts the grass and does various chores because the father asks him to. He does it out of love, respect and gratitude, not to earn or keep his place as the man's son. That relationship is finalized. It can't be undone. Now the son could be rebellious and refuse to cut the grass or do any chores, but that doesn't make him not a son, it just means his relationship with his father is strained.
                      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? 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.
                      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        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? 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.
                        If the parable of the prodigal son is anything to go by, yes. The father didn't make a move toward the son until the son had turned back (repented).
                        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


                        • #57
                          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?
                          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.

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

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            If the parable of the prodigal son is anything to go by, yes. The father didn't make a move toward the son until the son had turned back (repented).
                            I just used that same example, but there didn't appear to be any point in the story in which the son was "no longer welcome in the same home".
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Welcome in the home under a proviso? Other parables might be applicable to outcomes of a return without being repentant - the bridesmaids with the lamps, as one example. The unforgiving servant for another. The wedding guest who couldn't be bothered wearing the proper attire perhaps is the most compelling.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Welcome in the home under a proviso? Other parables might be applicable to outcomes of a return without being repentant - the bridesmaids with the lamps, as one example. The unforgiving servant for another. The wedding guest who couldn't be bothered wearing the proper attire perhaps is the most compelling.
                                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?
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

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