Eternal Salvation; Through Faith Alone, or by Faith plus works? (believing, praying)

[nateswift]

I like the NASB 1 John 2: 3By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.4The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;5but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:6the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

It'sok, though, you can have faith in Christ even if you don't know Him.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by nateswift

I like the NASB 1 John 2: 3By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.4The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;5but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:6the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

It'sok, though, you can have faith in Christ even if you don't know Him.

The gospel message gives enough information by which a person can come to have faith in Christ for eternal salvation. But knowledge of God increases with study of the Word of God under the teaching ministry of God the Holy Spirit who is the true Mentor.

2 Peter 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Mike555

<snip>

Oh, and by the way, 1 John 2:3-6 is not addressing salvation, but is referring to a believer's day to day rapport with Christ. Being in fellowship. It is not referring to the believer's permanent position in Jesus which occurs at the moment of faith alone in Christ alone.

For the benefit of those who may be mislead, let us view a broader expanse of the scripture as found in I John, and even if I concede that John spoke only to Christians, then he definitely spoke that salvation is something done through continual works and it refutes your argument because the false, modern theology of once saved, always saved is imbedded with one-time decisionalism:

I John 1:6-7 NIV

If we claim to have fellowship with him, yet walk in the darkness, we lied and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Excuse me, did he just write that you must WALK in the light in order that the blood of Jesus purify Christians from sin?

I John 2: 15-17

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes an the boasting of what he has and does--comes not from the Father, but from the world. The world and it's desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

Excuse me again. Does John mean that the only will of God is confession with the lips? God has no will for service to Him? So a better interpretation of the bolded part in your mind is but the man who does SOME of the will of God lives forever? Or are works not the will of God?

And in writing to Christians in 3 John 11 John warns:

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. He who does good is of God, he who does evil has not seen God.

And Peter, writing to Christians in 2nd Peter 3:17

Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

Even Paul, whose writings frequently conflict with those of Jesus, wrote in Colossians 1: 21-23a RV

And you, who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body and flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, PROVIDED THAT YOU CONTINUE IN THE FAITH, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you have heard---

So even Paul doesn't believe that a one time confession is all a "true" Christian must rely upon. You must remain stable and steadfast. And isn't that works?

Now you may certainly try the red herring of saying that I don't believe the words of Paul (and I do not where they conflict frequently with the words of Jesus--start a thread on that, why don't you), but then I will maintain that you ignore the many parables of Jesus and His earliest direct statements that state flat out that FRUIT is necessary in order not to be thrown into the fire or have that which was given to you taken away.

Instead, concentrate on refuting the statement I made in post 79:

The New Testament calls a man to confession in some places AND works in others. If there are Scriptures that say one is "saved by faith," and still others that say "those who have DONE GOOD will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned,"(John 5:28-29), how should we Christians reconcile those differences? Cling to one and dismiss the other? Rationalize and attempt to justify one or the other? Or fulfill BOTH instructions, by confessing with the mouth and living with the life?

Because if someone fulfills BOTH instructions, then they are doing the will of God. And then refer back to I John 2: 15-17

[Wardendresden]

Revelation 3:1-6 NIV

"To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. [2] Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. [3] Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. [4] Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. [5] He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels. [6] He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Notice that the author says they should strengthen what remains and is about to die. They must have had something to start with, and it must be able to die. He also talks about those who have not soiled their clothes. Since we know that we have all sinned this cannot mean people who have never sinned, it must be people who have not gone back into sin and rejected what they had. Again He says these people (who did not soil their clothes) are the ones who will walk with Him and He will dress in white.

These were Christians who were not obeying and repenting. After all, the author is writing to churches in this chapter. Churches are places that worship Christ. They are not temples, or synagogues, or mosques.

And back to Jesus' words:
(John 15:1-6 NIV)

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. [2] He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. [3] You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. [4] Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. [5] "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the
fire and burned.

If Jesus is the vine and we are the branches and we do not remain in Him we become like a branch thrown away and burned in the fire, what could that mean? I believe you have to twist this passage to show anything but judgment for those believers who reject their faith. To me this passage debunks the theology of carnal Christianity. If a believer is living a carnal life the Father will cut them off from the vine which is Jesus Christ. I didn't say that Jesus did.

(Ezekiel 18:23-28 NIV)

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? [24] "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die. [25] "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? [26] If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. [27] But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed AND does what is just and right, he will save his life. [28] Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die.

My question here is has God changed? How were Old Testament saints saved? Was it the blood of animals, or was it faith in God that He would send a Redeemer to take away their sins? Of course it was by faith, just as we are today. The difference was that their faith was for something in the future and ours is for something in the past. And their faith was something tied post and parcel with works.

So one must need both faith and deeds to be found ultimately justified in the sight of God. Salvation is FAITH + WORKS, even as Clear Lens showed in his extensive post #219 (Dead Faith=Faith Without Works) of early Christian writing. The modern apostasy of one time decisionalism and once saved always saved have no basis in the earliest extant writings of Christians, nor in the faith of the Old Testament saints.

Salvation is about faith AND works. No matter what kind of apologetic is offered, it simply will not stand up without cutting out or ignoring whole swathes of both the New and Old Testaments.

The New Testament calls a man to confession in some places AND works in others. If there are Scriptures that say one is "saved by faith," and still others that say "those who have DONE GOOD will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned,"(John 5:28-29), how should we Christians reconcile those differences? Cling to one and dismiss the other? Rationalize and attempt to justify one or the other? Or fulfill BOTH instructions, by confessing with the mouth and living with the life?

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Mike555

The gospel message gives enough information by which a person can come to have faith in Christ for eternal salvation. But knowledge of God increases with study of the Word of God under the teaching ministry of God the Holy Spirit who is the true Mentor.

2 Peter 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Well, you gotta know to grow in knowledge. Otherwise you need to be introduced.

[Clear lens]

Nateswift asked in post #63 “Mike, why was this doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone formulated? what is the historical background?”

MysticPhD in post #69 : "Nate . . . the easy believism tickles their ears. It is so easy. All you have to do is agree to believe and accept that Christ saved us. How hard is that? They have to do nothing.and they don't have to bother with any tough things like trying to love each other daily and repent when we don't. Having to commit to anything else beyond the "belief IN" Christ is too hard and interferes with their lives too much. Having to follow the guidance of the Comforter within their consciousness (their conscience) places restrictions on their lives that are too limiting. “

Nateswift post #70 “That's really not the problem for many of the adherents of this doctrine, Mystic. Many of them actually are themselves "eager to do good works." The thing I see is that the doctrine of "faith alone in Christ alone" was a response to a very real abuse in which people were required to jump through whatever hoops and continue doing so throughout their lives. The response was entirely appropriate.....until the doctrine took on a life of it's own and the theologians began picking it apart in the same way the Jews of Jesus' day had picked apart the Sabbath Laws as an example, turning what was meant to be helpful into a travesty in its own right. For many it is not a matter of tickling ears, but of swallowing whole the nit-picking legalistic perceptions of theologians with far too much time on their hands and no real comprehension of the original spirit of the doctrine.” :



Nateswift/mysticPhD, et al :

My historical interest lies in the earliest periods of the original judeo-christian movement, thus I’ve not studied the later schismatic theories and interpretations such as mike555 has adopted. Still, I think Nates question to mike555 of post #63 is another profound point.

What WAS the motive to create a theological interpretation that devalued repentance and actions and elevated declared belief as the sole principle in salvation?

I think MysticPhD’s observation regarding a type of moral laziness (post #69) is insightful, and perhaps the most basic motive, (i.e. “this is EASY, I can give lip service to Jesus, even believe in him as a savior without doing anything uncomfortable) I can see personalities to which this motive would appeal. My medical group had a contract to work with a prison for 5 years and, interestingly, MysticphDs observation is quite consistent with many of the inmates justifications (i.e. making themselves feel "just") for their evil actions yet remaining "good christians".

In the prison context this interpretation of "belief without repentance or action" simply seemed to be a mechanism whereby the prisoner could avoid the moral implications and strain of moral conscience of his actions; he could avoid repentance and he could (partly) avoid feeling bad for certain evil actions.

The prisoner could tell himself : "Yes, I did rape that woman or molest that child, but I am still saved and going to heaven despite my minor faults because I believe Jesus' atonement will cancel out these imperfections of the flesh that I have. hallelujah...." It was the prisoners belief that was partly to blame for their unwillingness to progress morally. If he had felt that he was morally obligated to stop raping and stop molesting, perhaps he might have made more progress toward a more moral lifestyle that did not do so much damage to others. IF this belief kept christian rapists and christian child molesters from feeling obligated toward moral improvement, then does this belief cause the same problems among non-rapist, non-molester christians?


However, I also like NateSwifts Response (post #70) that he thinks the interpretation of “faith without repentance or action” developed as a response to personalities who had become “hyperworkers” and “legalists”.

The strict ascestics who took self-denial and austerity to the extreme and started flagellating themselves may fall into the examples of individuals “losing balance” in Nateswifts example. That is, I think there are individuals who did the very thing Nate is suggesting, and that the "faith without repentance or action" interpretation may have originated as a response to an imbalance in "penance" or a "works only" theology.

Neither of these two proffered suggestions as to how a Christian “faith without repentance or action” interpretation and theology originated are self-exclusive. Either alone or both together (synergisism) are perfectly acceptable premises (and other premises could be added).

They both reflect the straining of authentic religion through the filter of personality which results in new interpretation of religion. They both represent valid mechanisms for how hybrid Christian interpretations may develop. Any resulting new hybrid interpretation then becomes adopted and systematized into the remaining doctrinal trappings of Christianity and thus one has yet one more Christian schism and becomes part of the phenomenon of apostasy from early and authentic Christian religion.

I believe that it was probably a similar mechanism the writer of ephesians was referring to when he warned of individuals “… being tossed and carried about by every wind of the teaching in the sleight of men, in [their] craftiness in the systematizing of error; “ Eph IV:14 “…εν τη κυβεια των ανθρωπων, εν πανουργια προς την μεθοδειαν της πλανης,”

"Μεθοδειαν/ Methodeian" refers to a"method"; a type of “systemizing” and methodical organizing of error (πλανης). (to be fair, Ricker would have translated προς as “with a view to the systemizing of error” and his translation has it’s advantages for non-americans as it reveals the gloss better than my offering).

One point is that Apostasy from the earliest Christian interpretations did not happen through frank “rejection” of gospel principles among Christians, but rather apostasy came (mainly) through “contamination” of gospel principles and interpretations and their adoption into christian thought and interpretation.

Once contaminations became systemized and adopted by newer Christians unfamiliar with the earliest and most authentic Christian teachings, the contaminations simply became the new christians' orthodoxy and they did the best they could with the Christianity they were taught.

How were the new christians who adopted the contaminated interpretation to know the subtle difference either in the 4th century OR in the 21st century? It’s complicated. Mike555 feels his interpretation is just as valid as the earliest Christians felt about their interpretation.

Since my interest is in the earliest periods, I honestly don’t know when the interpretation of “faith without repentance or action” originated. (though it did undergo greater systemization into protestant thought in the late middle ages inside a reactive mechanism similar to Nates suggestion) Nor do I know why this interpretation originated. I can say this interpretation doesn’t exist in any of the earliest judeo-christian texts of the earliest centuries and thus is a later contamination that became systematized into later Christian thought.

I would be very interested if any historian IS aware of the earliest periods the interpretation of "faith without repentance or action" started appearing in the judeo-christian literature. Perhaps if we knew WHEN the interpretation first appeared, that would help us to reveal some of the societal motives underlying WHY this interpretation was started.

Clear
σιτζτζω

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

For the benefit of those who may be mislead, let us view a broader expanse of the scripture as found in I John, and even if I concede that John spoke only to Christians, then he definitely spoke that salvation is something done through continual works and it refutes your argument because the false, modern theology of once saved, always saved is imbedded with one-time decisionalism:

On the one hand you say that once saved always saved is modern theology, but on the other hand you say that it is the gospel of the apostle Paul whom you accuse of preaching a different gospel than Jesus taught.

Paul in writing to believers stated that they were saved in the past with reference to the time they first believed on Christ.

Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive (Aorist Indicative) together with Christ (by grace you are saved),

In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense. Greek Verbs (Shorter Definitions)

Paul then continues,

Ephesians 2:6 and raised us up (Aorist Indicative) with Him, and seated us (Aorist Indicative) with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Not only is a person eternally saved simply by trusting in the finished work of Christ on the Cross, but in this dispensation of the Church he is positionally in Christ and positionally seated with Christ in the heavenly places. Jesus is currently seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Therefore, positionally, so is every believer at the initial moment of faith in Christ.

Ephesians 2:7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

The believer has been eternally saved at the moment of faith in Christ and seated with Christ in the heavenly places so that God can show the surpassing riches of His grace in the ages to come.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9] not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Paul then repeats that you are saved by grace, and adds that it is through faith that you are saved. And as he said in verse 5 with reference to believers, that salvation took place in the past at the moment of believing on Christ.

You do not work for your salvation by having to live in such a way as to deserve or earn your salvation. Salvation is by grace and grace excludes works as a condition for salvation.

Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

We are told in Ephesians 2:8-9 that salvation is by grace through faith, and not by works, so that no man may boast. We are further told in Romans 11:6 that if it is by grace then it is not on the basis of works, otherwise grace in no longer grace. But salvation is by grace and therefore CANNOT be on the basis of works.

God does not contradict Himself. And since both Paul and John are apostles speaking God's words Paul does not contradict John, just as he does not contradict James.

I John 1:6-7 NIV

Excuse me, did he just write that you must WALK in the light in order that the blood of Jesus purify Christians from sin?

'1 John is a family letter written from the Father to His ''little children'' who are in the world. The sin of a Christian is treated as a child's offense against his Father, and is dealt with in a family matter.' [From the description of 1 John in the Scofield Reference Bible, 1967 Edition, p. 1342]

All sin has already been judged at the Cross. Sin is therefore not even an issue in salvation anymore. The only issue in salvation is whether or not you will simply trust Jesus for eternal life.

Now, sin is an issue in the believers life because it puts the believer out of fellowship and under the control of his old sin nature. The believer out of fellowship is said to be carnal. He is still saved, but as long as he is walking in the power of his old sin nature he cannot walk in the light.

For that very reason God in grace provides the means of restoration to fellowship. Simply confess, name, cite, identify, or acknowledge your sins committed as a believer to God the Father, and by so doing be immediately restored to fellowship and in a position to resume spiritual growth.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

By simply naming your sins to God you agree with Him that you sinned, and because that sin was previously judged at the Cross, God forgives the sin.

Sin is never an issue in salvation. The believer who sins can come under divine discipline in time, but he is disciplined as a son (Hebrews 12:3-7).

I John 2: 15-17

Excuse me again. Does John mean that the only will of God is confession with the lips? God has no will for service to Him? So a better interpretation of the bolded part in your mind is but the man who does SOME of the will of God lives forever? Or are works not the will of God?

The will of God for the unbeliever is to believe on Christ.

The will of God for the believer is that the believer pick up his cross and follow Jesus.

These are two different things. If the believer does not pick up his cross and follow Jesus he comes under divine discipline, but he cannot lose his salvation. Nor does the believer's failure to pick up his cross mean that he was never saved.

John said in 1 John 2:17

The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever.

The word John used is menei - meno and means abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry. The controlling theme of the epistle of 1 John is fellowship with God the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). What John is talking about by 'abiding forever' is not eternal life in contrast with eternal condemnation, but rather that while the things of this world will pass away, the believer who does the will of God builds on eternal foundations and will have everlasting riches, honor, and life in the sense of quality of life.

And in writing to Christians in 3 John 11 John warns:

John was not questioning Diotrephes' salvation, but he was affirming that Diotrephes' conduct manifested real blindness toward God. Gaius was to be careful to shun such an experience as this. [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, p. 914]

And Peter, writing to Christians in 2nd Peter 3:17

2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

Falling from your steadfastness is not a warning that you can lose your salvation. It refers to not being influenced by those who distort the Scriptures so that you fall away from your steadfastness in the truth which is revealed in the Scriptures. But instead, 'grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.' 2 Peter 3:18. Always study the context of a passage.

Even Paul, whose writings frequently conflict with those of Jesus, wrote in Colossians 1: 21-23a RV

So even Paul doesn't believe that a one time confession is all a "true" Christian must rely upon. You must remain stable and steadfast. And isn't that works?

Now you may certainly try the red herring of saying that I don't believe the words of Paul (and I do not where they conflict frequently with the words of Jesus--start a thread on that, why don't you), but then I will maintain that you ignore the many parables of Jesus and His earliest direct statements that state flat out that FRUIT is necessary in order not to be thrown into the fire or have that which was given to you taken away.

Colossians 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22] yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- 23] if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

This has nothing to do with being able to lose your salvation. It is similar to 2 Peter 3:17 and concerns remaining steadfast in the truth. The believer might depart from the principles and doctrines of the Word of God, but he can never lose his salvation. If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. (2 Peter 2:13).

Instead, concentrate on refuting the statement I made in post 79:

The New Testament calls a man to confession in some places AND works in others. If there are Scriptures that say one is "saved by faith," and still others that say "those who have DONE GOOD will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned,"(John 5:28-29), how should we Christians reconcile those differences? Cling to one and dismiss the other? Rationalize and attempt to justify one or the other? Or fulfill BOTH instructions, by confessing with the mouth and living with the life?

Because if someone fulfills BOTH instructions, then they are doing the will of God. And then refer back to I John 2: 15-17

This has already been refuted. Works belong to the believer's spiritual life. They have nothing to do with receiving the free gift of eternal life.

John 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29] and will come forth; those who did the good to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil to a resurrection of judgment.

The word 'deeds' is not found in the original. The ones who have done the good are those who have believed on Christ and have been credited with God's perfect righteousness. The ones who have done the evil are the unbelievers who have only their own human righteousness which is as filthy rags in God's sight (Isaiah 64:6).

When Jesus said to work for the food which endures to eternal life rather than to work for the food which perishes, He was asked by the crowd what the works of God were that they might do them. They thought that they could please God and obtain eternal life by doing good works. But Jesus replied that there was but one work of God that they must do. And that was to believe in Him.

John 6:27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." 28] Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works (erga; Plural) of God?" 29] Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work (ergon; Singular) of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Jesus' reply to them was that they could not earn their salvation by their works. There was only one work of God. That is there is only one thing that God requires. And that is to put your trust in the one who the Father has sent. Because of sin man cannot earn salvation by going good works. (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5) God requires that people recognize their inability to save themselves and simply receive His free gift of eternal life.

Jesus Himself refutes the false teaching that one can earn salvation by works.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You cannot work for a free gift. If you had to work for it then it would neither be free, or a gift.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Nateswift asked in post #63 “Mike, why was this doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone formulated? what is the historical background?”

MysticPhD in post #69 : "Nate . . . the easy believism tickles their ears. It is so easy. All you have to do is agree to believe and accept that Christ saved us. How hard is that? They have to do nothing.and they don't have to bother with any tough things like trying to love each other daily and repent when we don't. Having to commit to anything else beyond the "belief IN" Christ is too hard and interferes with their lives too much. Having to follow the guidance of the Comforter within their consciousness (their conscience) places restrictions on their lives that are too limiting. “

Nateswift post #70 “That's really not the problem for many of the adherents of this doctrine, Mystic. Many of them actually are themselves "eager to do good works." The thing I see is that the doctrine of "faith alone in Christ alone" was a response to a very real abuse in which people were required to jump through whatever hoops and continue doing so throughout their lives. The response was entirely appropriate.....until the doctrine took on a life of it's own and the theologians began picking it apart in the same way the Jews of Jesus' day had picked apart the Sabbath Laws as an example, turning what was meant to be helpful into a travesty in its own right. For many it is not a matter of tickling ears, but of swallowing whole the nit-picking legalistic perceptions of theologians with far too much time on their hands and no real comprehension of the original spirit of the doctrine.” :



Nateswift/mysticPhD, et al :

My historical interest lies in the earliest periods of the original judeo-christian movement, thus I’ve not studied the later schismatic theories and interpretations such as mike555 has adopted. Still, I think Nates question to mike555 of post #63 is another profound point.

What WAS the motive to create a theological interpretation that devalued repentance and actions and elevated declared belief as the sole principle in salvation?

I think MysticPhD’s observation regarding a type of moral laziness (post #69) is insightful, and perhaps the most basic motive, (i.e. “this is EASY, I can give lip service to Jesus, even believe in him as a savior without doing anything uncomfortable) I can see personalities to which this motive would appeal. My medical group had a contract to work with a prison for 5 years and, interestingly, MysticphDs observation is quite consistent with many of the inmates justifications (i.e. making themselves feel "just") for their evil actions yet remaining "good christians".

In the prison context this interpretation of "belief without repentance or action" simply seemed to be a mechanism whereby the prisoner could avoid the moral implications and strain of moral conscience of his actions; he could avoid repentance and he could (partly) avoid feeling bad for certain evil actions.

The prisoner could tell himself : "Yes, I did rape that woman or molest that child, but I am still saved and going to heaven despite my minor faults because I believe Jesus' atonement will cancel out these imperfections of the flesh that I have. hallelujah...." It was the prisoners belief that was partly to blame for their unwillingness to progress morally. If he had felt that he was morally obligated to stop raping and stop molesting, perhaps he might have made more progress toward a more moral lifestyle that did not do so much damage to others. IF this belief kept christian rapists and christian child molesters from feeling obligated toward moral improvement, then does this belief cause the same problems among non-rapist, non-molester christians?


However, I also like NateSwifts Response (post #70) that he thinks the interpretation of “faith without repentance or action” developed as a response to personalities who had become “hyperworkers” and “legalists”.

The strict ascestics who took self-denial and austerity to the extreme and started flagellating themselves may fall into the examples of individuals “losing balance” in Nateswifts example. That is, I think there are individuals who did the very thing Nate is suggesting, and that the "faith without repentance or action" interpretation may have originated as a response to an imbalance in "penance" or a "works only" theology.

Neither of these two proffered suggestions as to how a Christian “faith without repentance or action” interpretation and theology originated are self-exclusive. Either alone or both together (synergisism) are perfectly acceptable premises (and other premises could be added).

They both reflect the straining of authentic religion through the filter of personality which results in new interpretation of religion. They both represent valid mechanisms for how hybrid Christian interpretations may develop. Any resulting new hybrid interpretation then becomes adopted and systematized into the remaining doctrinal trappings of Christianity and thus one has yet one more Christian schism and becomes part of the phenomenon of apostasy from early and authentic Christian religion.

I believe that it was probably a similar mechanism the writer of ephesians was referring to when he warned of individuals “… being tossed and carried about by every wind of the teaching in the sleight of men, in [their] craftiness in the systematizing of error; “ Eph IV:14 “…εν τη κυβεια των ανθρωπων, εν πανουργια προς την μεθοδειαν της πλανης,”

"Μεθοδειαν/ Methodeian" refers to a"method"; a type of “systemizing” and methodical organizing of error (πλανης). (to be fair, Ricker would have translated προς as “with a view to the systemizing of error” and his translation has it’s advantages for non-americans as it reveals the gloss better than my offering).

One point is that Apostasy from the earliest Christian interpretations did not happen through frank “rejection” of gospel principles among Christians, but rather apostasy came (mainly) through “contamination” of gospel principles and interpretations and their adoption into christian thought and interpretation.

Once contaminations became systemized and adopted by newer Christians unfamiliar with the earliest and most authentic Christian teachings, the contaminations simply became the new christians' orthodoxy and they did the best they could with the Christianity they were taught.

How were the new christians who adopted the contaminated interpretation to know the subtle difference either in the 4th century OR in the 21st century? It’s complicated. Mike555 feels his interpretation is just as valid as the earliest Christians felt about their interpretation.

Since my interest is in the earliest periods, I honestly don’t know when the interpretation of “faith without repentance or action” originated. (though it did undergo greater systemization into protestant thought in the late middle ages inside a reactive mechanism similar to Nates suggestion) Nor do I know why this interpretation originated. I can say this interpretation doesn’t exist in any of the earliest judeo-christian texts of the earliest centuries and thus is a later contamination that became systematized into later Christian thought.

I would be very interested if any historian IS aware of the earliest periods the interpretation of "faith without repentance or action" started appearing in the judeo-christian literature. Perhaps if we knew WHEN the interpretation first appeared, that would help us to reveal some of the societal motives underlying WHY this interpretation was started.

Clear
σιτζτζω

the later schismatic theories and interpretations such as mike555 has adopted.

On the contrary. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not as a result of works, is not a 'later theory'. It is Ephesians 2:8,9. It is Romans 11:6 and Titus 3:5. It is John 6:27-29, and it is Romans 6:23.

Either salvation is by works, or it is not by works. The Bible plainly states that salvation is not by works, but is a free gift received by grace through faith in Christ Jesus.

And that is the topic of this thread.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Nateswift asked in post #63 “Mike, why was this doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone formulated? what is the historical background?”

MysticPhD in post #69 : "Nate . . . the easy believism tickles their ears. It is so easy. All you have to do is agree to believe and accept that Christ saved us. How hard is that? They have to do nothing.and they don't have to bother with any tough things like trying to love each other daily and repent when we don't. Having to commit to anything else beyond the "belief IN" Christ is too hard and interferes with their lives too much. Having to follow the guidance of the Comforter within their consciousness (their conscience) places restrictions on their lives that are too limiting. “

Nateswift post #70 “That's really not the problem for many of the adherents of this doctrine, Mystic. Many of them actually are themselves "eager to do good works." The thing I see is that the doctrine of "faith alone in Christ alone" was a response to a very real abuse in which people were required to jump through whatever hoops and continue doing so throughout their lives. The response was entirely appropriate.....until the doctrine took on a life of it's own and the theologians began picking it apart in the same way the Jews of Jesus' day had picked apart the Sabbath Laws as an example, turning what was meant to be helpful into a travesty in its own right. For many it is not a matter of tickling ears, but of swallowing whole the nit-picking legalistic perceptions of theologians with far too much time on their hands and no real comprehension of the original spirit of the doctrine.” :



Nateswift/mysticPhD, et al :

My historical interest lies in the earliest periods of the original judeo-christian movement, thus I’ve not studied the later schismatic theories and interpretations such as mike555 has adopted. Still, I think Nates question to mike555 of post #63 is another profound point.

What WAS the motive to create a theological interpretation that devalued repentance and actions and elevated declared belief as the sole principle in salvation?

I think MysticPhD’s observation regarding a type of moral laziness (post #69) is insightful, and perhaps the most basic motive, (i.e. “this is EASY, I can give lip service to Jesus, even believe in him as a savior without doing anything uncomfortable) I can see personalities to which this motive would appeal. My medical group had a contract to work with a prison for 5 years and, interestingly, MysticphDs observation is quite consistent with many of the inmates justifications (i.e. making themselves feel "just") for their evil actions yet remaining "good christians".

In the prison context this interpretation of "belief without repentance or action" simply seemed to be a mechanism whereby the prisoner could avoid the moral implications and strain of moral conscience of his actions; he could avoid repentance and he could (partly) avoid feeling bad for certain evil actions.

The prisoner could tell himself : "Yes, I did rape that woman or molest that child, but I am still saved and going to heaven despite my minor faults because I believe Jesus' atonement will cancel out these imperfections of the flesh that I have. hallelujah...." It was the prisoners belief that was partly to blame for their unwillingness to progress morally. If he had felt that he was morally obligated to stop raping and stop molesting, perhaps he might have made more progress toward a more moral lifestyle that did not do so much damage to others. IF this belief kept christian rapists and christian child molesters from feeling obligated toward moral improvement, then does this belief cause the same problems among non-rapist, non-molester christians?


However, I also like NateSwifts Response (post #70) that he thinks the interpretation of “faith without repentance or action” developed as a response to personalities who had become “hyperworkers” and “legalists”.

The strict ascestics who took self-denial and austerity to the extreme and started flagellating themselves may fall into the examples of individuals “losing balance” in Nateswifts example. That is, I think there are individuals who did the very thing Nate is suggesting, and that the "faith without repentance or action" interpretation may have originated as a response to an imbalance in "penance" or a "works only" theology.

Neither of these two proffered suggestions as to how a Christian “faith without repentance or action” interpretation and theology originated are self-exclusive. Either alone or both together (synergisism) are perfectly acceptable premises (and other premises could be added).

They both reflect the straining of authentic religion through the filter of personality which results in new interpretation of religion. They both represent valid mechanisms for how hybrid Christian interpretations may develop. Any resulting new hybrid interpretation then becomes adopted and systematized into the remaining doctrinal trappings of Christianity and thus one has yet one more Christian schism and becomes part of the phenomenon of apostasy from early and authentic Christian religion.

I believe that it was probably a similar mechanism the writer of ephesians was referring to when he warned of individuals “… being tossed and carried about by every wind of the teaching in the sleight of men, in [their] craftiness in the systematizing of error; “ Eph IV:14 “…εν τη κυβεια των ανθρωπων, εν πανουργια προς την μεθοδειαν της πλανης,”

"Μεθοδειαν/ Methodeian" refers to a"method"; a type of “systemizing” and methodical organizing of error (πλανης). (to be fair, Ricker would have translated προς as “with a view to the systemizing of error” and his translation has it’s advantages for non-americans as it reveals the gloss better than my offering).

One point is that Apostasy from the earliest Christian interpretations did not happen through frank “rejection” of gospel principles among Christians, but rather apostasy came (mainly) through “contamination” of gospel principles and interpretations and their adoption into christian thought and interpretation.

Once contaminations became systemized and adopted by newer Christians unfamiliar with the earliest and most authentic Christian teachings, the contaminations simply became the new christians' orthodoxy and they did the best they could with the Christianity they were taught.

How were the new christians who adopted the contaminated interpretation to know the subtle difference either in the 4th century OR in the 21st century? It’s complicated. Mike555 feels his interpretation is just as valid as the earliest Christians felt about their interpretation.

Since my interest is in the earliest periods, I honestly don’t know when the interpretation of “faith without repentance or action” originated. (though it did undergo greater systemization into protestant thought in the late middle ages inside a reactive mechanism similar to Nates suggestion) Nor do I know why this interpretation originated. I can say this interpretation doesn’t exist in any of the earliest judeo-christian texts of the earliest centuries and thus is a later contamination that became systematized into later Christian thought.

I would be very interested if any historian IS aware of the earliest periods the interpretation of "faith without repentance or action" started appearing in the judeo-christian literature. Perhaps if we knew WHEN the interpretation first appeared, that would help us to reveal some of the societal motives underlying WHY this interpretation was started.

Clear
σιτζτζω

Excellent analysis . . . but I fear it will be lost on those indoctrinated into the current and dominant anti-Christ apostasy. The true irony is that the early warnings not to accept the false teachings that were proliferating at the time were ignored and the dominant apostate theology won out. So now when the warnings are read . . . they are used to protect that existing false Gospel instead.

[Matthew 4:4]

Originally Posted by Mike555

On the contrary. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not as a result of works, is not a 'later theory'. It is Ephesians 2:8,9. It is Romans 11:6 and Titus 3:5. It is John 6:27-29, and it is Romans 6:23.
Either salvation is by works, or it is not by works. The Bible plainly states that salvation is not by works, but is a free gift received by grace through faith in Christ Jesus.
And that is the topic of this thread.

Doesn't John 6 v 28 say ' work the works of God '?
Doesn't verse 29 say ' the work of God ' ?
'Labor not for food that perishes' meaning labor not for literal food but labor for spiritual food or spiritual works.
Didn't Jesus say at John 5 v 17 that his Father still works and Jesus works ?

The works of the neighborly good Samaritan were not necessarily 'spiritual works' but Jesus using that illustration to show we should all widen out in love for others.
If one has been motivated by Godly love then one will do God's will. Jesus actively did God's will.
[ Luke 4 v 43; 22 v 42; Mark 14 v 26 B; Matt. 26 v 39; John 4 v 34; 5 v 30; 6 v 38 ]

The demons do not exercise their faith by doing God's will even though the demons believe [ James 2 v 19 ]
So, their faith is dead faith because they have no spiritual works. [James 2 v 26 ]
True faith that is ' saved by God's undeserved grace ' involves more than possessing or believing something is true.
The motivation of the heart [ seat of motivation ] is involved. What does Romans 10 vs 10 to 15 mean ?

Doesn't James 2 v 26 B say..... faith without works is dead ?

Didn't Jesus commission his followers to spread the 'good news of God's kingdom' on a global international scale at Matthew 24 v 14; Acts 1 v 8 ? That 'spiritual work' is proclaimed earth wide because of faith [exercising one's beliefs ] That work of course would be in vain if it were not for Jesus shed blood [ 1st John 1 v 7 ].
No one can earn or buy salvation because that is only through Jesus' ransom [ Matthew 20 v 28 ]
However, we can show appreciation for Jesus' ransom by doing spiritual works as Jesus and his first-century followers did.