Faith or Works or Both?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I wanted to gather opinions and reasons for these opinions from you guys on the topic of Salvation by Faith, Works, or Both?

This thread assumes that one takes the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

This thread assumes that the OT God and the NT God are one and the same.

This thread assumes that Jesus is God in the flesh.

This is a Bible discussion about the Bible, and as such, any post that doesn't assume the above three rules/statements may or may not be replied to or discussed by me.

Sorry for all the front end assumptions, but it's nearly impossible to have any sort of precision discourse on this topic without laying some ground rules.


We'll start small, and I'll expound more as replies come in :

If salvation is through faith, can someone continue to live a wicked life after they've been saved?
How much sin must a person commit to be considered "wicked" ?

If salvation is through works, how is it measured in the end? Does one have to do more net "good" than "bad?"
Considering that every "evil/wicked/sinful" thought that passes through ones mind is counted as a "tick" of sin, how could anyone in the entire world be saved?

MY position/opinion/understanding is as follows : Salvation is by grace through faith alone. Obviously no one is perfect, so it's not like anyone completely stops sinning once they're saved. But if they believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and they're thankful for their free gift, and they love God for it, they WILL make a conscious effort to do better.

David committed adultery and killed a man, yet he was still "saved"

There are more examples, but that's all I have off the top of my head without looking it up.

Discuss!

edit on 29-3-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


wow so many front loaded assumptions - but hey if you want to play that game : john 3 / 16 .



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Sorry for all the front end assumptions, but it's near impossible to have any sort of precision discourse without some ground rules to go by.


16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


So, faith?



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

f salvation is through faith, can someone continue to live a wicked life after they've been saved?
Can you give a biblical definition for "saved"?
And I don't mean from a Bible dictionary, but from the Bible.
I think this is the source of confusion that results in the thread title's question.
The modern pop-culture religion definition is way off from what the Bible teaches.
Until you rectify that problem, you will never get a satisfactory answer.

Considering that every "evil/wicked/sinful" thought that passes through ones mind is counted as a "tick" of sin, how could anyone in the entire world be saved?
Here is another one of your problems, you don't understand the Bible.
When Jesus was talking about thought crimes, he was countering the rationale of the Pharisees, who believed that anyone not as outwardly "holy" as them, were sinners, in their terminology.
Jesus was showing that they were wrong, that they were sinners, too, and only a true repentance and acceptance of Jesus would allow them to be truly righteous, because it comes from a spiritual connection with God that can only go through Jesus.
You are missing what is a rhetorical device and taking it literally to define sin.
The problem is not sin, it is going through the procedure to become an overcomer, which is belief and repentance and baptism and becoming a member of the body of Christ.

edit on 29-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Salvation itself seems to be the actual act of or ticket to everlasting life with God.

Luke 1:69
Luke 1:68-70
Luke 1:77
Luke 1:76-78
Luke 2:30
Luke 2:29-31
Luke 3:6
Luke 3:5-7
Luke 19:9
Luke 19:8-10
John 4:22
John 4:21-23
Acts 4:12
Acts 4:11-13
Acts 13:26
Acts 13:25-27
Acts 13:47
Acts 13:46-48
Acts 16:17
Acts 16:16-18
Acts 28:28
Acts 28:27-29
Romans 1:16
Romans 1:15-17
Romans 10:10
Romans 10:9-11
Romans 11:11
Romans 11:10-12
Romans 13:11
Romans 13:10-12
2 Corinthians 1:6
2 Corinthians 1:5-7
2 Corinthians 6:2
2 Corinthians 6:1-3
2 Corinthians 7:10
2 Corinthians 7:9-11
Ephesians 1:13
Ephesians 1:12-14
Ephesians 6:17
Ephesians 6:16-18
Philippians 1:19
Philippians 1:18-20
Philippians 1:28
Philippians 1:27-29
Philippians 2:12
Philippians 2:11-13
1 Thessalonians 5:8
1 Thessalonians 5:7-9
1 Thessalonians 5:9
1 Thessalonians 5:8-10
2 Thessalonians 2:13
2 Thessalonians 2:12-14
2 Timothy 2:10
2 Timothy 2:9-11
2 Timothy 3:15
2 Timothy 3:14-16
Titus 2:11
Titus 2:10-12
Hebrews 1:14
Hebrews 1:13-14
Hebrews 2:3
Hebrews 2:2-4
Hebrews 2:10
Hebrews 2:9-11
Hebrews 5:9
Hebrews 5:8-10
Hebrews 6:9
Hebrews 9:28
Hebrews 9:27-28
1 Peter 1:5
1 Peter 1:4-6
1 Peter 1:9
1 Peter 1:8-10
1 Peter 1:10
1 Peter 1:9-11
2 Peter 3:15
2 Peter 3:14-16
Jude 1:3
Jude 1:2-4
Revelation 7:10
Revelation 7:9-11
Revelation 12:10
Revelation 12:9-11
Revelation 19:1
Revelation 19:1-3
edit on 29-3-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

Everlasting life in heaven, in my opinion, is the definition of "saved"
OK, but where does the Bible define it as such?
In the other thread that you posted in, on the "two types of Christians", you were quoting Ephesians 1, about salvation by grace, through faith, where a good Bible commentary will point out the fallacy that a lot of Christians fall into, which is that it means going to heaven, when it is really talking about the creation of the church by Jesus and our joining it as the analog of the Israel of the Old Testament, which is the special group of God's chosen people.
God chose us, so that is the Grace, that we didn't have to do something to draw God to us.
edit on 29-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I'm of the opinion that one doesn't need Bible commentaries to understand the Bible. You understand it by reading it. Although just about every time the word "everlasting" is used, it does seem to be in reference to God's covenant...
edit on 29-3-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Salvation itself seems to be the actual act of or ticket to everlasting life with God.
All you are doing is quoting a verse that says, "everlasting life", then giving citations of verses with the word "salvation" in it.

Where does it actually define it?



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The Bible isn't a dictionary.

Nowhere in the Bible will you see :
salvation - sal·va·tion
salˈvāSHən
noun // THEOLOGY
1.
deliverance from sin and its consequences, believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ.



Or any other word for that matter. What are you getting at?

If you read the verses, you'll see the context of what salvation means.
edit on 29-3-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

I'm of the opinion that one doesn't need Bible commentaries to understand the Bible.
Well, it doesn't seem to be working very well for you.
The Bible was written like two thousand years ago and people have problems understanding something written three hundred years ago without some sort of commentary.

OK, "everlasting" is an English word, so from the first word you need another book at least, as a reference, even if it is a lexicon, to understand what it means, and doubly so if your intention is to use your reading to develop your own theology.
edit on 29-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by graphuto
 

I'm of the opinion that one doesn't need Bible commentaries to understand the Bible.
Well, it doesn't seem to be working very well for you.
The Bible was written like two thousand years ago and people have problems understanding something written three hundred years ago without some sort of commentary.

OK, "everlasting" is an English word, so from the first word you need another book at least, as a reference, even if it is a lexicon, to understand what it means, and doubly so if your intention is to use your reading to develop your own theology.
edit on 29-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Seems to be working fine for me. It seems to be your opinion that it isn't, which you're entitled to. Just remember what opinions are like -!


Why would I need a lexicon when it was translated over 400 years ago by 50 or more of the best linguists/scholars of the day?
That seems almost asinine. I also appreciate the condescending "tone" you've taken with me!



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

If you read the verses, you'll see the context of what salvation means.
OK, no, because you don't get the rhetoric, and this is something that takes real scholars who have PHD's in this, that learned from not just the Bible but all the literature that existed in the time that the Bible was written.
For example, the passage in Ephesians that you extracted that little phrase from, you probably didn't realize that it is part of a single sentence that is eleven verses long.

edit on 29-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 05:10 AM
link   

jmdewey60
For example, the passage in Ephesians that you extracted that little phrase from, you probably didn't realize that it is part of a single sentence that is eleven verses long.


Grace through faith? It means what it says man. By grace, through faith.

Here's Ephesians 2 :



1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved


6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


How does the fact that it may or may not have originally been one big sentence change ANYTHING?

Either way, could you try to quit derailing the thread and taking it off topic, and posit something to the OP? Or don't...

We're not going to re-define words and terms we've known and understood for at LEAST the past 200 years so you can prop up your doctrine.

I'm of the opinion that Faith really is the strait and narrow path.

Most people either don't think there IS a God, or that they can "work" their way to heaven.
edit on 29-3-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

Why would I need a lexicon when it was translated over 400 years ago by 50 or more of the best linguists/scholars of the day?
That seems almost asinine. I also appreciate the condescending "tone" you've taken with me!
Sorry about the tone, and I am aware of it, and not happy about it, but I feel like you have sort of retrograded, if that's the right term, but have slipped into the pop-culture religion a little too much, where before you seemed to have a decent outlook, not going with the crowd.
Anyway, that is another thing, the King James needs a sort of commentary to point out where the words have changed their meanings in the English since it was written.
No one speaks Shakespearean English unless they are on stage, and even then they are constantly debating the meanings of the lines.
edit on 29-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto

In my series on James, I necessarily had to tackle this question.
Here's an extract from my comments on the relation between the two;

"In the rest of the chapter, James claims to show that men are “justified by works”.
Yet the two episodes he quotes to illustrate this point are both cited in Hebrews ch11 as examples of Faith.

The first episode is Abraham’s obedient response to the command to sacrifice Isaac.
In Hebrews, this is an example of Faith, a because “he considered God was able to raise men even from the dead” (Hebrews ch11 v19).
He had received the promise of descendants through Isaac, and his obedience implied a confidence that the action would not nullify the promise.
For James, the point is that his Faith was “completed” by his works- that is, he did not just believe, but acted on his belief.

The second episode is Rahab of Jericho, assisting the scouts who had been sent out by Joshua.
In Hebrews (ch11 v31) this is another example of Faith.
For James, though, she was “justified by works”, presumably because she did not just believe in the God of Israel but acted on that belief.
He repeats the claim that “Faith without works” is dead (v26), and adds the very suggestive analogy that “works” animates Faith in the same way that the human spirit animates the body.
Perhaps the point is that the presence of life reveals itself by movement.

How can the same two episodes be examples of “Faith” in Hebrews, and examples of “works” in James?
I think we come back to the point that Faith hinges upon trust.
But “trust” is another quality which needs to be done, not merely said.
The man who walks across a bridge is showing a much more genuine trust than the man who says “I
believe that bridge will hold my weight”, and stays where he is.

These two episodes are examples of “trustful action”.
But Hebrews gives them a label (“Faith”) putting emphasis on the fact that “trust is acting”.
While the label used in James gives the emphasis that “trust is acting”.
“Works” is the action of trust, by which Faith is made real and “complete”.
Nevertheless, both writers are making the same point- that genuine trust involves walking across that bridge.

In the middle of his discussion on Abraham’s obedience, James claims (v23) that it fulfilled the scriptural declaration;
“Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Genesis ch15 v6).
Paul is using the same verse, of course, for his own teaching on Faith and works found in Romans and Galatians.
It’s noteworthy, and notorious, that Paul and James make opposite-sounding statements about this verse.
Paul relies upon it for his claim that Abraham was justified by his Faith.
Yet James is using the same verse as part of his argument that men are justified by their works

However, we mustn’t allow this verbal contradiction to prevent us noticing the extent of their agreement.
They both agree on the importance of that verse.
They both appreciate the significance of the fact that Abraham believed in the promise God made him.
In short, they agree on the starting-point of Abraham’s righteousness...

I believe that Paul and James are really talking about the same thing, a full commitment of active trust in God.
Paul calls this “justified by Faith”, for fear that works will be made a substitute for Faith.
While James calls it “justified by works”, for fear that works will be left out altogether."

On the question of what it means to be "saved", we can't separate this from the New Testament understanding of "judgement".
Being "saved" is the opposite of and alternative to being "condemned".
For example, 1 Corinthians ch1 v8
1 Thessalonians ch1 v10
Philippians ch1 v10

edit on 29-3-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Good post, thanks for laying all of that out.

Obviously they go hand in hand.

Believe in/on God (faith).

If you believe what God has said, the works will follow. They can't not.

Sure, you can backslide and commit sin, but overall, you're trying to do as God commands. (Namely the big 2 commandments)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

could you try to quit derailing the thread and taking it off topic, and posit something to the OP?
I'm just saying, that you set up a hypothetical situation where the outcome is dependent on how you define all the terms in its statement, and can't give concrete definitions for them.
You can't answer the question until you ask it properly.
Make it like:
If someone deludes themselves that they have already met all the requirements for a guaranteed golden ticket to paradise, then realize that they are just exactly the same as they were before, should they be worried?

Then, the answer is Yes, they should be very worried that they believed in a lying preacher giving them false hopes like the serpent in Eden.
edit on 29-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Apology accepted, and if that's sincerely the position that you were coming from, I can understand it and relate to it.

I think that I still stand in about the same place (belief wise) as I always have here on ATS :

1. Believe and trust in/on God
2. Love and obey Him


It's a tricky subject, honestly, which is why I wanted other's opinions on it. You clearly knew what I was trying to state in the OP given that little example you gave there, so I guess I was wondering why all the animosity?

To expound what I believe a bit more :

IF you have TRUE FAITH in/on God/Jesus, you WILL try your best to do as He commands.

If you don't try to be a better person, you don't believe what He says. If you don't believe what He says, you don't believe in Him. John 1:1

I'm not a universalist though, by no means do I think you can purely "work" your way to heaven.
And on the other hand, I mean, faith without works is dead, or non-existent.
edit on 29-3-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

It’s noteworthy, and notorious, that Paul and James make opposite-sounding statements about this verse. Paul relies upon it for his claim that Abraham was justified by his Faith.
Paul creates something new from an existing word, Faith, to mean the thing in the new covenant that fills the same sort of role as the Law filled in the old covenant.
His point was that there was a fundamental law that existed before there was the old written Mosaic Law.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I don't quite grasp what you're saying here.


jmdewey60
Paul creates something new from an existing word, Faith, to mean the thing in the new covenant that fills the same sort of role as the Law filled in the old covenant.
His point was that there was a fundamental law that existed before there was the old written Mosaic Law.


What was the fundamental law?
How did you tie this in?
What exactly are you trying to say!?
edit on 29-3-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join