Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.
Calvinists hold that even the belief itself is a gift.
We don't have to be talking about faith in God here- it is either possible to brag about one's faith (could be in a person or even in an institution), or it is not.
For example, a teacher who has faith in her student's ability to learn, even if no one else shares her optimism. Could she potentially brag about how she believed in the student when no one else would?
How was the thief on the cross next to Christ saved ?
If it was faith + works where was his works?
We don't draw a line between the two. There is faithfulness. The thief believed on Christ and defended Christ. He began the process of regeneration right there, through a supreme act of God's mercy. Situations like that are atypical, however.
We don't have to be talking about faith in God here- it is either possible to brag about one's faith (could be in a person or even in an institution), or it is not.
For example, a teacher who has faith in her student's ability to learn, even if no one else shares her optimism. Could she potentially brag about how she believed in the student when no one else would?
I mean yeah, I agree with you. I think faith is best viewed as a covenant badge in most cases where Paul uses it.
HUH? Faith is a sign of the covenant. We are continually regenerated by being faithful to God, which includes the good works in verse ten, but not the works apart from grace in verse nine. We are admitted into the covenant (usually) through baptism and our continuing faith is the sign that we remain in the Covenant, while we faithfully partake of the Holy Eucharist, confess our sins, etc.
It's not really semantic at all. Is salvation imputed righteousness, or is it a process of regeneration?
Protestants commonly use salvation to refer to all that God does to redeem us, which includes both justification and sanctification, i.e. both our status as accepted by God and the life-long process of regeneration.
However it is sometimes used just for justification.
The full phrase is justification by grace alone through faith alone. The model proposed by Paul is that Christ dies for us, and we are united with him by the Holy Spirit. This results in faith (we can argue later how much free will be have in the process), and faith results in good works.
The main thing Protestants insist on is the logical order, i.e. that good works come from faith which comes from our union with Christ. Faith is defined very broadly as our participation in the union with Christ. Good works that are done outside of this context don't gain anything. You said the same, except that you talked about good works outside of grace. But since grace operates by uniting us with Christ, I think this is the same thing. (I hope you wouldn't argue that God's grace inspires us to do good works in themselves, i.e. without having them come from a spiritual regeneration.)
We do not deny that the quality of our faith improves over time, and that in fact faith and works develop synergistically. However we use the term "justification" to refer to our status as part of the covenant (to use NPP terms). Thus it is based on our union with Christ, not on the quality (or quantity, if such a thing could be measured) of our participation in it. Hence there's room for growth in that quality. The growth of faith and faithful actions occurs within the context of a relationship with our Father that depends upon Christ's death for us and thus is stable, even though our moment to moment spiritual state is not stable.
Protestant formulations come out of a polemical context, where we were opposing theological abuses most of which didn't occur in Orthodoxy. There probably are still disagreements with Orthodoxy in this area, but in their haste to reject all of Protestantism as heretical, I have yet to see Orthodox contributors actually put their finger on the significant differences. I would be interested in seeing that happen, but as long as you primarily setting out to reject everything Protestant theology says, it's unlikely that you'll have the kind of objectivity needed to distinguish between significant differences and differences in emphasis and terminology or conceptual framework.
No, Christ is always with His Church so the Church as a whole will not teach a heretical doctrine, especially on something as serious as salvation.
How would you respond if I said, "God was always with his nation, so Israel would never have delved into heretical doctrines"? It seems to me you're assuming that everyone who identified himself with the "Church" actually had faith in Christ and actually had Christ leading him around to the extent that he wouldn't teach any heresies regarding salvation.
Was the Church in apostasy for most of its life?
Again, you're equating "Church" with whoever identified himself as a "Christian." Why don't you go ask a Mormon if he's part of the "Church" and see what he says.
The thief believed on Christ and defended Christ. He began the process of regeneration right there, through a supreme act of God's mercy. Situations like that are atypical, however.
If it was so atypical, then why did Luke bother to include it?
Kabane, what is your definition of "eternal life"?
***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.
How would you respond if I said, "God was always with his nation, so Israel would never have delved into heretical doctrines"?
Um, God pulled them out of idolatry whenever they fell into it. The Church had the Arian crisis where Arians temporarily outnumbered the Trinitarians, but we were pulled out of it.
It seems to me you're assuming that everyone who identified himself with the "Church" actually had faith in Christ and actually had Christ leading him around to the extent that he wouldn't teach any heresies regarding salvation.
Um, no. I am saying that the Church as a whole is not going to teach heresy. Where was the bishop or priest who taught sola fide in the ancient Church? You will have to say that everyone in the Church was apostate.
Again, you're equating "Church" with whoever identified himself as a "Christian." Why don't you go ask a Mormon if he's part of the "Church" and see what he says.
No I'm not, are you dumb? I mean the Church as a whole, led by its bishops.
If it was so atypical, then why did Luke bother to include it?
Because it happened?
Kabane, what is your definition of "eternal life"?
Life in an immortal body with God.
Hedrick, in Orthodox theology, you are not first 100% regenerated which then results in faith and good works. Our faithfulness and cooperation with God in partaking of his holy mysteries (repentance, eucharist, etc.) continues the process of regeneration (theosis) over time in which we are made into the likeness of Christ.
If eternal life simply means life in an immortal body with God, then how do you understand the passages which describe eternal life as a present possession?
Um, God pulled them out of idolatry whenever they fell into it. The Church had the Arian crisis where Arians temporarily outnumbered the Trinitarians, but we were pulled out of it.
Who has greater numbers, the Catholics or the Orthodox?
On numerous occasions, God allowed Israel to delve into deep and widespread false religion. And in the end, Jesus finally decided to wipe them out entirely via the Romans. So allowing for this same pattern, I don't see how you can argue against the possibility of serious false doctrine clouding the Christian truth over the centuries. The apostles predicted that heretics would arise. You cannot assume that everyone who calls himself a Christian really is one.
I'm not, are you dumb? I mean the Church as a whole, led by its bishops.
Now all you're doing is inserting a title into the mix. Don't the Catholics have bishops? Why hasn't God protected them from error? (And I'm not sure, but don't even the Mormons have bishops?) Jesus and Paul predicted that false prophets would arise who would look like sheep but who would introduce destructive teachings. Simply having an ordination with the title "bishop" seems insufficient to negate the danger warned by Jesus.
For example, Paul specifically warned the Roman church that God would treat them in a manner similar to the Jews if they began to displease God. There's no suggestion that God would necessarily preserve the Roman church:
Jesus gave a similar warning to the Greek church at Ephesus:
We're therefore talking about entire churches being cast aside, and not just a few foolish individuals who reject the infallible teachings of their bishops or whatever.
Where was the bishop or priest who taught sola fide in the ancient Church? You will have to say that everyone in the Church was apostate.
If you're looking for specific names, I'm not sure how many I can give you. But consider these ancient descriptions:
Around 200 A.D., therefore, people were teaching that obedience to baptism, the most basic of Christian commands, was unnecessary for salvation.
Within a list of various sects of Christians (he also mentions universalists, a group comparable to Lutherans/Arminians, and others), Augustine seems to describe believers in Free Grace theology.
HUH? Faith is a sign of the covenant. We are continually regenerated by being faithful to God, which includes the good works in verse ten, but not the works apart from grace in verse nine. We are admitted into the covenant (usually) through baptism and our continuing faith is the sign that we remain in the Covenant, while we faithfully partake of the Holy Eucharist, confess our sins, etc.
It's not really semantic at all. Is salvation imputed righteousness, or is it a process of regeneration?
Is faith a sign of the covenant ? In the old covenant the sign was circumcision. I equate that to baptism in the new covenant. But abraham was declared righteous before he did anything. ( Romans 4:1-6 ) and it was credited before he was actually circumcised ( Romans 4:9-11 )
So in the same way if someone has true saving faith their FIRST act of obedience would be to become baptised.
No, it isn't. It is a novel doctrine formulated a few hundred years ago. It's like if someone today came up with a brand new doctrine. It was not taught by the Church for over a thousand years.
Not at all. It is definitely present in Patristic writings:
"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
Clement of Rome, ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.
Not at all. It is definitely present in Patristic writings:
"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
Clement of Rome, ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.
There's more--lots more.
He isn't teaching sola fide. Clement also said
Originally posted by St. Clement of Rome
Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.
So Clement says that we are justified by our works. The prior quotes simply says that justification does not come from ourselves, and I affirm this, both the justifying faith and the justifying works come from the grace of God, not from the holiness of our own heart.
So Clement says that we are justified by our works. The prior quotes simply says that justification does not come from ourselves, and I affirm this, both the justifying faith and the justifying works come from the grace of God, not from the holiness of our own heart.
Would you mind providing the context here? I'd like to see it. Or direct me to it, if you would.
In any event, I believe he is saying what James is saying from the little that is here--we SEE that a man is justified by his works.
iow, works proceed from justifying faith. They are the evidence of a justifying faith.
[quote=Reformanda;2811296]Would you mind providing the context here? I'd like to see it. Or direct me to it, if you would.
Originally posted by 1 Clement
30:1 Since, therefore, we are a portion of the Holy One, let us do all such things as pertain unto holiness, avoiding evil-speaking, foul and impure embraces, drunkenness, disorderliness, abominable desires, detestable adultery, execrable pride;
30:2 for God, he saith, resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
30:3 Let us cleave, therefore, to them to whom grace has been given from God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, temperate, keeping ourselves far from all whispering and evil speaking, justified by our deeds, and not by our words.
30:4 For he saith, He who saith many things shall, in return, hear many things. Doth he that is eloquent think himself to be just?
30:5 -- doth he that is born of woman and liveth but for a short time think himself to be blessed? Be not abundant in speech.
30:6 Let our praise be in God, and not for ourselves, for God hateth the self-praisers.
30:7 Let the testimony of right actions be given us from others, even as it was given to our fathers who were just.
30:8 Audacity, self-will, and boldness belong to them who are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness, to them that are blessed of God.
In any event, I believe he is saying what James is saying from the little that is here--we SEE that a man is justified by his works.
That is not what James nor Clement says. He does not say, and thus you see that we are justified by faith, and the evidence of faith is from our deeds, but our deeds do not justify. They say WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY WORKS.
Because it happened?
