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

[JonathanL]

Out of a flock of mixed species numbering 85 (numbers do vary a bit - but not by a whole lot) who come for food - 8 will come to my hand with another 16 (or so) that will gather at my feet. The rest won't come any closer than they have to. There is more in the pigeon's own personality than anything else that makes the difference.

But Jesus message here in John 6:44 and 6:65 doesn't seem to be that it is the person who hear's personality that decides whether he will come to Jesus on the prompting of the Father. Rather, it seems to me that Jesus is saying that everyone's mindset/personality is such that unless the Father grants it to them, we won't want to listen to Jesus words in the first place, we find it hard to even stomach His words (as some of his disciples even said ).

John 6:55 would need to be evaluated in the light of "Why would God withhold the opportunity for a person to come to Christ?"

John 6:65*

My guess would be that God does not withhold the opportunity to anyone. If someone dies in their unbelief it's not because God withhold the opportunity for them to come to Christ, but because they stubbornly refused the prompting/drawing until the very end.

[tabibito]

But Jesus message here in John 6:44 and 6:65 doesn't seem to be that it is the person who hear's personality that decides whether he will come to Jesus on the prompting of the Father. Rather, it seems to me that Jesus is saying that everyone's mindset/personality is such that unless the Father grants it to them, we won't want to listen to Jesus words in the first place, we find it hard to even stomach His words (as some of his disciples even said ).

Or that the person's mindset is such that what is offered does not appeal to him? The people in view were from within the "flock" and the food appealed, but they were not attracted to God. Once the part that they didn't like was mixed with the part that they liked, they were gone.



John 6:65*

My guess would be that God does not withhold the opportunity to anyone. If someone dies in their unbelief it's not because God withhold the opportunity for them to come to Christ, but because they stubbornly refused the prompting/drawing until the very end.

That answers the question, does it not?

[JonathanL]

Or that the person's mindset is such that what is offered does not appeal to him? The people in view were from within the "flock" and the food appealed, but they were not attracted to God. Once the part that they didn't like was mixed with the part that they liked, they were gone.

My problem with this interpretation is that when Jesus says "no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father", he seems to be speaking specifically about not being able to believe in Him with regards to the "hard sayings", or as you put it "the part that they didn't like". No one, in their natural state of mind, likes the "hard sayings" unless the Father draws them. It's not that some people like certain parts of Jesus' words and dislike others, while other people like all of the parts, and therefore come to Jesus. Rather, everyone likes some parts of His message, but find it hard to stomach others, and unless granted to them by the Father, will continue rejecting the message.

As I read it, Jesus seems to be saying "unless [it is granted to him by the Father/the Father draws him] no one is able to come to me, because the words I'm speaking are hard to stomach/accept."

And I think Paul is speaking of the same thing when he says, in 1 Cor 2:14:

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

© Copyright Original Source

That answers the question, does it not?

I would hope so.

[tabibito]

1 Cor 2:14 - "The natural person does not accept the things of God"
Unpacking:
"natural person" from the Koine Greek "psuchikos" - controlled by or conformed to the soul [as contrasted with "sarkikos: controlled by the flesh," and "pneumatikos: controlled by the (person's own) spirit."]

There would be major difficulties if this meant that the soul-ish person could not accept any of the things of God at all (verse 12 seems to indicate that is not the case). The things of the Spirit of God are specified, rather than the things of God or with more immediate significance, Christ. No problems if the soul-ish person could not accept the things of God by direct interaction with the Holy Spirit - which seems the most likely interpretation. Near as I can tell, the soul-ish person's defect is circumvented by hearing another person preaching.
With possible relevance, Jesus points to the idea that a living person is more persuasive regarding the things of God than is a ghost, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

[Sparko]

1 Cor 2:14 - "The natural person does not accept the things of God"
Unpacking:
"natural person" from the Koine Greek "psuchikos" - controlled by or conformed to the soul [as contrasted with "sarkikos: controlled by the flesh," and "pneumatikos: controlled by the (person's own) spirit."]

There would be major difficulties if this meant that the soul-ish person could not accept any of the things of God at all (verse 12 seems to indicate that is not the case). The things of the Spirit of God are specified, rather than the things of God or with more immediate significance, Christ. No problems if the soul-ish person could not accept the things of God by direct interaction with the Holy Spirit - which seems the most likely interpretation. Near as I can tell, the soul-ish person's defect is circumvented by hearing another person preaching.
With possible relevance, Jesus points to the idea that a living person is more persuasive regarding the things of God than is a ghost, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

[tabibito]

Miiy miiy - you just used the technique that I have been advocating. Aren't you ashamed?

[Sparko]

Miiy miiy - you just used the technique that I have been advocating. Aren't you ashamed?

What? Reading the passage in context? That is what I have been telling you all along. Somehow you decided to go word by word and ended up claiming it was comparing living people to ghosts.

[tabibito]

Oh - you mean that I should have written it as follows:

There would be major difficulties if this meant that the soul-ish person could not accept any of the things of God at all (verse 12 seems to indicate that is not the case). The things of the Spirit of God are specified, rather than the things of God or with more immediate significance, Christ. No problems if the soul-ish person could not accept the things of God by direct interaction with the Holy Spirit - which seems the most likely interpretation. Near as I can tell, the soul-ish person's defect is circumvented by hearing another person preaching. note the new line here - it signifies a paragraph break - which indicates a new topic.
With possible relevance, Jesus points to the idea that a living person is more persuasive regarding the things of God than is a ghost, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

Just so as to point out that I was saying that the deficit in a soulish person's ability to understand the things of the Holy Spirit might be overcome by hearing a person preaching, because the soulish person can't receive the things of the Holy Spirit directly.

and

That parable of the rich man and Lazarus might just have relevance, (because in that parable, it is pointed out that people who won't hear the living will certainly not be persuaded by a ghost.) This is called a simile.

[Sparko]

Oh - you mean that I should have written it as follows:

There would be major difficulties if this meant that the soul-ish person could not accept any of the things of God at all (verse 12 seems to indicate that is not the case). The things of the Spirit of God are specified, rather than the things of God or with more immediate significance, Christ. No problems if the soul-ish person could not accept the things of God by direct interaction with the Holy Spirit - which seems the most likely interpretation. Near as I can tell, the soul-ish person's defect is circumvented by hearing another person preaching. note the new line here - it signifies a paragraph break - which indicates a new topic.
With possible relevance, Jesus points to the idea that a living person is more persuasive regarding the things of God than is a ghost, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

Just so as to point out that I was saying that the deficit in a soulish person's ability to understand the things of the Holy Spirit might be overcome by hearing a person preaching, because the soulish person can't receive the things of the Holy Spirit directly.

and

That parable of the rich man and Lazarus might just have relevance, (because in that parable, it is pointed out that people who won't hear the living will certainly not be persuaded by a ghost.) This is called a simile.

Perhaps if you wrote simply without all of the rigamarole and nonsense, people could actually follow your argument. "soul-ish person?" what the heck?

And the verse is not talking about preaching, it is talking about how nonbelievers can't understand the things of God because they are not led by the spirit, so it sounds like nonsense to them. The preaching would be part of how they GET the Holy Spirit, but unless they are even open to receiving him, they will not even understand the gospel. God has to open their eyes to the gospel as well.

[tabibito]

Perhaps if you wrote simply without all of the rigamarole and nonsense, people could actually follow your argument. "soul-ish person?" what the heck?

And the verse is not talking about preaching, it is talking about how nonbelievers can't understand the things of God because they are not led by the spirit, so it sounds like nonsense to them. The preaching would be part of how they GET the Holy Spirit, but unless they are even open to receiving him, they will not even understand the gospel. God has to open their eyes to the gospel as well.

Soul-ish was a necessary term, and one that is used in Theology texts, to indicate that the text is referring to people who are under the influence or control of the soul. That contrasts with people who are under the influence and control of the flesh, and also contrasts with people who are under the influence and control of their own spirit.

I didn't claim that the verse was talking about people preaching. I was pointing out that the verse says
"people under the influence and control of the soul cannot receive things of the Holy Spirit directly."
and (changing focus from the verse itself)
That problem might be overcome by preaching - hearing the word from a living human.

[JonathanL]

1 Cor 2:14 - "The natural person does not accept the things of God"
Unpacking:
"natural person" from the Koine Greek "psuchikos" - controlled by or conformed to the soul [as contrasted with "sarkikos: controlled by the flesh," and "pneumatikos: controlled by the (person's own) spirit."]

I'm not convinced there is any substantial difference between the concept of a "soul-ish" person and a "fleshly" person. They both seem to be to be described in essentially the same way in the NT texts, hinting towards the fact that they're simply two ways to describe the same kind of person.

There would be major difficulties if this meant that the soul-ish person could not accept any of the things of God at all (verse 12 seems to indicate that is not the case).

Without the help of God the soul-ish person most definitely cannot accept the things of God. Paul is talking to and about the recipients of the letter in verse 12, who had been the kind of soul-ish persons who were unable to accept the things of God, but who had had their eyes opened by the Spirit.

As I read it, Paul seems to be saying that the "soul-ish" person is unable to accept or understand the things of God, or even want to accept or understand them, on his own ability. That is, he cannot on his own accord come to understand these things unless God makes it possible for him by "opening his eyes".

The things of the Spirit of God are specified, rather than the things of God or with more immediate significance, Christ. No problems if the soul-ish person could not accept the things of God by direct interaction with the Holy Spirit - which seems the most likely interpretation. Near as I can tell, the soul-ish person's defect is circumvented by hearing another person preaching.

The things of the Spirit of God that Paul is talking about is the secret of the gospel or as he puts it in 1 Cor 2:7a "a secret and hidden wisdom of God" (ESV). It's this "wisdom of God", which is nothing else but Christ crucified for our sins, that Paul is talking about when he says that the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. And these things that the Spirit reveals to the spiritual person He receives from the Father, as 1 Cor 2:10-11 (ESV) says: "these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. "

With possible relevance, Jesus points to the idea that a living person is more persuasive regarding the things of God than is a ghost, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

"Moses and the Prophets" seem to me to be talking about the Old Testament, not living people. The point seems to be that what is written in the scriptures should be enough for anyone to accept the things of God. A similar idea is echoed in John 5:39-47:

Scripture Verse: John 5:39-47 ESV

39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

© Copyright Original Source

In fact, the similarities here are so striking that I'm almost 100% convinced that Jesus' words here are impossible to ignore if you want to properly understand the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. If we compare (I'll color-code the parts that seem to speak about the same idea) what's written above to the end of the discussion between the rich man and Abraham in the parable:

Scripture Verse: Luke 16:29-31 ESV

if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.

© Copyright Original Source

And this should be obvious, but just in case: Jesus' words through Abraham's mouth in the parable that not even a person being raised from the death would be enough convince some people of the truth was confirmed when He himself was resurrected, and some people still refused to believe His message. Jesus statement that those who do not believe Moses' writings won't believe His words seem to parallel Abraham's words that those who do not hear Moses and the Prophets also won't be convinced if someone should rise from the dead, as was confirmed by some people's unbelief, even in face of Jesus resurrection.

[tabibito]

I'm not convinced there is any substantial difference between the concept of a "soul-ish" person and a "fleshly" person. They both seem to be to be described in essentially the same way in the NT texts, hinting towards the fact that they're simply two ways to describe the same kind of person.

That is certainly true, however I find it prudent to accept that a difference exists, however subtle. There are places where a person's spirit and soul cannot be distinguished from each other, too; but Paul makes a point of saying that there is a division - the sword penetrating even to the divide.

Without the help of God the soul-ish person most definitely cannot accept the things of God. Paul is talking to and about the recipients of the letter in verse 12, who had been the kind of soul-ish persons who were unable to accept the things of God, but who had had their eyes opened by the Spirit.

As I read it, Paul seems to be saying that the "soul-ish" person is unable to accept or understand the things of God, or even want to accept or understand them, on his own ability. That is, he cannot on his own accord come to understand these things unless God makes it possible for him by "opening his eyes".

Again, the number of verses which make such a claim cannot be denied - and yet "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (or is it the Word of God?) gives cause for consideration. Likewise a wealth of passages, Old Testament and New, which refer to people being unwilling to receive* a love the truth (e.g. 2 Thess 2:10b) so as to be saved.

*δεχομαι: receive what is offered - (receive is active) receive someone by giving that person a welcome, or receive something by reaching out to take it.

The things of the Spirit of God that Paul is talking about is the secret of the gospel or as he puts it in 1 Cor 2:7a "a secret and hidden wisdom of God" (ESV). It's this "wisdom of God", which is nothing else but Christ crucified for our sins, that Paul is talking about when he says that the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. And these things that the Spirit reveals to the spiritual person He receives from the Father, as 1 Cor 2:10-11 (ESV) says: "these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. "

Verses 6 - We speak wisdom among them that are perfect ... (9) the things that God has prepared for those who love him ... (10) God has revealed them to us ... (12) has freely given them to us ...
I'm satisfied that the context won't lend itself to the fundamentals of the gospel, particularly in view of the statement in verses 4 and 5. Nonetheless - I don't consider the books closed on this one.

"Moses and the Prophets" seem to me to be talking about the Old Testament, not living people. The point seems to be that what is written in the scriptures should be enough for anyone to accept the things of God. A similar idea is echoed in John 5:39-47:

Scripture Verse: John 5:39-47 ESV

39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

© Copyright Original Source

In fact, the similarities here are so striking that I'm almost 100% convinced that Jesus' words here are impossible to ignore if you want to properly understand the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. If we compare (I'll color-code the parts that seem to speak about the same idea) what's written above to the end of the discussion between the rich man and Abraham in the parable:

Scripture Verse: Luke 16:29-31 ESV

if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.

© Copyright Original Source

And this should be obvious, but just in case: Jesus' words through Abraham's mouth in the parable that not even a person being raised from the death would be enough convince some people of the truth was confirmed when He himself was resurrected, and some people still refused to believe His message. Jesus statement that those who do not believe Moses' writings won't believe His words seem to parallel Abraham's words that those who do not hear Moses and the Prophets also won't be convinced if someone should rise from the dead, as was confirmed by some people's unbelief, even in face of Jesus resurrection.

For practical purposes, writings and spoken by people probably serve equally well (again - 1 Cor 2: 4-5), sending prophets and apostles who tend to be ill treated (Luke 11:49), God accepting people who do what is right (Acts 10:34-35.) I don't see any record of a person's ears being opened where that person is unwilling to have opened ears - but there are records where people (deliberately even) block their ears, so I consider it at least likely that people can begin to receive the basics without prior intervention by the Holy Spirit.

[The Remonstrant]

• How should the nature of faith be defined?

Faith means to accept that God has given you eternal life via Jesus Christ.

1 John 5:10-11 [KJV, emphases added]

¹⁰ He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. ¹¹ And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

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)?

No, Paul is talking about how to gain eternal life. James is talking about how to use that eternal life to avoid temporal judgment, and gain blessing.

James 2:12-13 [KJV]

¹² So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. ¹³ For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

James 1:25 [KJV]

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

[The Remonstrant]

Those who advocate the sola fide (faith alone) doctrine typically conflate repentance and faith, arguing that the two are different sides of the same coin. The essence of the logic may be stated thus: If one does not repent, his/her faith is spurious (i.e. not salvational); if one does not have faith, s/he will not repent.

[tabibito]

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)?

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?

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.