It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sola fide: Quick question to those who believe in salvation by faith alone

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: graphuto

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves . . .
We have sin as a result of our natures, and we need to deal with that.
We can't just say, "Well, now I believe in Jesus and am saved, so sin doesn't affect me, and I don't have to even admit to myself that I have a problem."

The writer of 1 John, I think was giving basically a 12 step program like they use in AA.
So it is like an alcoholic recognizing that he has a problem.
After being sober in the program, the person is still an alcoholic.

How can you lie when giving someone a command?
So you are saying that technically, Jesus wasn't lying, but really, he was.

No Jesus wasn't lying when he said that workers of inequity won't enter into heaven. These are the people that think they can work their way to heaven. They can't.
Doing good works does not offset bad works. True good works would push out bad works.
If someone thought that you can weigh it out and if you have more positive than negative you are OK, they would be wrong.

Don't be ridiculous.
You don't seem to take some of Jesus' claims on righteousness seriously.
"Believing" in Jesus means actually following him, not just thinking he did something that fixes it so you do not have to do something.

Telling a LIE will land you in hell if you don't have faith in God and Jesus.
Then your "faith" is pretty ineffectual if it is only good for forgiveness, after the fact, and can't prevent you from committing the sin in the first place.
My advice would be to read Romans 8 about the effectiveness of the spirit from God that comes to us through Jesus, to not be slaves in the service of sin.

Having begun in the Spirit (Faith on Jesus), are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Work your way to heaven)
Paul was talking about going back to the old Law that to him had already proved itself ineffectual for giving a person true righteousness.
You are trying to misapply the verse in a way that it was not intended by the writer.

edit on 31-7-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: graphuto


Fortunately, there are 62 other books we can use for context and reference.


Unfortunately... Jesus did not teach faith alone...

Paul did... Jesus trumps Paul...

And if you read the gospels you will see in context that Jesus said nothing about "faith alone"...




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Paul did... Jesus trumps Paul...
Paul didn't either.
What we have is someone trying to channel Paul while writing Ephesians where he doesn't do a very good job of including definitions for the terms he uses.
What that does is leave holes where people now can fill in their own definitions and make it into something completely different from what it was written to mean.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

Does Romans 3 not say "we are justified by faith alone"?




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Does Romans 3 not say "we are justified by faith alone"?
Not exactly.
It is saying, by a way other than by the old written Law.

The tricky part is deciding what Paul meant by "justify".
The word just standing alone with no context, could mean two ways of being "right",
1. becoming right by proceeding to do things in a right way.
2. being declared "right".

The Free Grace proponents' default mode is to plug in the second definition, with the implied idea of imputed righteousness.
The problem is that if Paul meant "imputed", he would have said so.
The Free Grace argument is that Paul said that righteousness was imputed to Abraham in his example of another type of righteousness.
What Paul had in mind was that the Law itself imputes righteousness on whoever keeps it, by definition of what the Law was.
Why Abraham had to have righteousness imputed to him was because at that time, the Law did not yet exist.
edit on 31-7-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

I would definitely argue the so called "righteousness" of Abraham...

This idea Paul uses in that chapter, being justified by Faith through his blood is where people get the idea that people sins are "paid for"... which in turn gives rise to the "golden ticket" into heaven...

Just because one believes in Jesus does not make him righteous... because as I've said many times before...

Faith is nothing but words without action....




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I would definitely argue the so called "righteousness" of Abraham...
Paul was quoting the Old Testament.

This idea Paul uses in that chapter, being justified by Faith through his blood is where people get the idea that people sins are "paid for"... which in turn gives rise to the "golden ticket" into heaven...
Verse 25 of chapter 3 of Romans says,
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
(2011 NIV)
Paul is talking about God's righteousness.
How He dealt with the pagans who did not know or keep the Law of Moses.
He did not destroy them because He had something else planned for their future, which was the ministry of Jesus, who replaces that old system of the Law with its tabernacle and ark and the Mercy Seat and the blood of animals.
What gets translated here into the English as, "a sacrifice of atonement", is the Greek word, hilastérion, which was the word used in the Septuagint for the Mercy Seat.
So Paul is saying that the judgment seat of the Lord is Jesus himself, and that is the new covenant, that Jesus gives the Law of Faith and judges according to that, rather than just this ceremonial version with dubious actual effectiveness.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
If a person is saved solely through their belief in Christ, does that mean that Satanists will be saved? They believe in God, they just don't like him very much.


Depends on which Bible verses you focus on I guess. I think it's James that says faith without works is in vain, though he says this after Paul had spent many epistles saying salvation was purely by faith alone and nothing else. And other parts of the NT say you should also love God with all your heart. The great two commandments according to Jesus of course were to 1) love God, and 2) love your neighbor as yourself.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: BridgebyaFountain

. . . after Paul had spent many epistles saying salvation was purely by faith alone and nothing else.
In our language, it just means we don't have to become Jews to be saved.
People misunderstand it because they don't bother learning the terminology of Paul, like even the one word, "saved". Too much trouble I guess, since it is only just your immortal soul at risk.
Spending 15 min. on Google is too much to ask for someone to figure out if they can really just relax from this point on and expect to still go to heaven.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Akragon

Does Romans 3 not say "we are justified by faith alone"?
Not exactly.
It is saying, by a way other than by the old written Law.

The tricky part is deciding what Paul meant by "justify".
The word just standing alone with no context, could mean two ways of being "right",
1. becoming right by proceeding to do things in a right way.
2. being declared "right".

The Free Grace proponents' default mode is to plug in the second definition, with the implied idea of imputed righteousness.
The problem is that if Paul meant "imputed", he would have said so.
The Free Grace argument is that Paul said that righteousness was imputed to Abraham in his example of another type of righteousness.
What Paul had in mind was that the Law itself imputes righteousness on whoever keeps it, by definition of what the Law was.
Why Abraham had to have righteousness imputed to him was because at that time, the Law did not yet exist.


So we fast forward one chapter to this....


What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


Then he goes on to explain why David and Abraham were "righteous"... which they were clearly not, but that is beside the point here...

Paul is where this "Faith alone" idea came from... would you not agree?




posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
I just made a commentary on this verse a few days ago, apparently on another thread.

This verse goes along with the comment I made on one of the post that you are quoting from.

"What Paul had in mind was that the Law itself imputes righteousness on whoever keeps it, by definition of what the Law was."

Paul, in the verse I am quoting above, is saying that the old covenant is a contract, where if you do certain things, then you are considered "righteous".
So if you are under that contract and considered "righteous", then that status was achieved by way of obligation stipulated in that contract, as payment.

He is contrasting that situation with the situation under the system of Christ, where righteousness is not gained by following the letter of a contract.

That does not mean that it is a gift, it is a gift in the analogy that Paul is making.
A lot of people are mentally incapable of getting analogies.
How an analogy works is the maker of it takes two things that are different, but draws on a single aspect of those two different things to make a point, to further understand one of those two things.

One of those two things is how in the real world someone can be righteous before God.

The second thing of those two things is how to get paid for honoring a contract that says if one party does a specified work, the second party benefiting from that work will pay a specified amount of money to the first party.
That money is not a gift.

Analogies are by definition, imperfect, otherwise they would not be called analogies, they would be a straightforward explanation.

Because the word, "gift" is used in the analogy, does not mean that a gift is how one becomes righteous.
edit on 12-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
People misunderstand it because they don't bother learning the terminology of Paul, like even the one word, "saved". Too much trouble I guess, since it is only just your immortal soul at risk.
Spending 15 min. on Google is too much to ask for someone to figure out if they can really just relax from this point on and expect to still go to heaven.


I don't know who you're talking about but I went through all of Paul's epistles and recorded every statement he made regarding salvation and faith. I still have the notes on about 20 sheets of paper downstairs. Someone could say it's a translation issue, and I wouldn't know too much about that. I use the KJV but I've looked through the NASB and some others as well.

The Jews seek forgiveness of sins by sacrificing animals at a temple. At least that's what the OT tells them to do. This is probably something they picked up from the Canaanites, and which several OT passages complain about as not really being desired by God in the first place. In the NT Jesus explains that not all the laws that the Jews followed were from God, but some were just made up by their elders (the Pharisees) and others were given by Moses himself. The NT also says repeatedly that we're under a "new" convenant (which is not really new since it's the same one by which Abraham was saved -- faith which was attributed to him as righteousness), and that no works of law are required for salvation (which is described in multiple ways in the NT). However, as I said earlier, James puts another spin on it and says that faith without works is fruitless. So you have some gray area there theologically, but still the majority of the NT passages about salvation simply say that it's by faith alone and not works. Paul goes into specifically what this means in multiple places in his epistles.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BridgebyaFountain

Try focusing on the message Jesus left instead of Paul...

Faith alone doesn't cut it... though Paul will tell you otherwise...




posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BridgebyaFountain

I don't know who you're talking about but I went through all of Paul's epistles and recorded every statement he made regarding salvation and faith. I still have the notes on about 20 sheets of paper downstairs. Someone could say it's a translation issue, and I wouldn't know too much about that. I use the KJV but I've looked through the NASB and some others as well.
It has nothing to do with translational issues, since the word in Greek is "save", it is where the English word, "save" comes from.
The problem is meaning drift, in how the word is used, just like how meanings of some English words used in the original King James has drifted, some to the point of actually meaning the exact opposite of what it meant 400 years ago.

. . . and that no works of law are required for salvation (which is described in multiple ways in the NT).
Not of the old covenantal way. That was what I was saying, that we do not do works according to that covenant, where we follow the letter of the written law, but produce fruit which is the works of righteousness according to the law of Faith.

However, as I said earlier, James puts another spin on it and says that faith without works is fruitless. So you have some gray area there theologically . . .
There is no "grey area, theologically". There is a failure to recognize the difference in how James and Paul are using the word, "works".
Paul was using it to describe the demands of the old covenant, and James was using it in the ordinary sense of "doing things".

but still the majority of the NT passages about salvation simply say that it's by faith alone and not works. Paul goes into specifically what this means in multiple places in his epistles.
Which goes back to my earlier comment, which is that no one questions what they think "saved" means, never considering that Paul meant it in a different way than we mean by it when we say, "saved".
Salvation was generally a political term more than a theological one, and meant to be under the protection of a government.
Israel was saved in the Exodus story by YHWH separating the Red Sea so that they could pass from being attacked by Pharaoh's army, and to enter the Sinai wilderness.
Later, one could join the congregation of "the saved" by becoming part of Israel by following all the laws of the Book of Moses.
Once the congregation of Jesus, the church, was created, then one could join it, to be saved, by, rather than following a book of laws, believing in Jesus and by faith entering the righteousness of Christ by responding to God's calling to be under His protection in the political entity of messianic rulership.
edit on 12-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


though Paul will tell you otherwise…

I think that, at his core, Paul says that works matter, as well. Just not in the same way that Jesus or James lay it out.

And, as I have said before, that is the Catholic/Protestant break, which is a matter of semantics. Both agree that works are required, the former believe that they contribute to salvation, the latter think that they are indicative of salvation. But, either way, they are still required.

Hey, how are things with the girlfriend? Do we hear wedding bells any time in the future?



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Faith alone doesn't cut it... though Paul will tell you otherwise...
Paul means a law of faith, which does "cut it".



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Perhaps you may be right... I have a personal distaste for Pauls writing so you'll have to pardon my bias...

Not to go off topic here, but thanks for your concern about me and my GF

things are very good... I've met the parents... it turns out surprisingly enough they do like me... or at least that is what they say... Yet they still want her to end it...

You may be shocked to hear that I am going to her church now... Much to my dismay... but I find it interesting

I find myself biting my lip at times with disagreements in what they preach... and I refuse to stand and sing their hymns, but I follow along... I show in my normal every day attire just waiting for someone to ask me why I don't dress up like everyone else does... I seem to recall Jesus saying "take no thought of what you wear"... locked and loaded, waiting for a chance to bust that one out... but I've had no issues with the people thus far, which has supprised me but only time will tell...

they want me to start attending their catechism classes next... I can only see bad things coming from that so I've been hesitant...

Admittedly when they stand and recite their creed... I feel slightly ill... seems like a crowd of brainwashed drones even in the tone of their voices when they say it...

Its funny though... I left Christianity because of the way I've noticed Christians treat those of different belief systems... and when I try to return to the religion... im met head on with the same attitude that caused me to leave it in the first place by the very people who im hoping will accept me...

so no wedding bells yet... but I have high hopes

thanks again Adjensen...

edit on 12-8-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Akragon

Faith alone doesn't cut it... though Paul will tell you otherwise...
Paul means a law of faith, which does "cut it".



IF that is the case it still does not cut it... Faith without works is nothing but lip service...

Jesus said there are people that honour him with their mouths, yet their hearts are far from him...

That would be those who do not work but believe their faith will get them through...

As I've said many times already... IF one believes in him, they do as he asked...

And he asked for works of the spirit...


edit on 12-8-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Both agree that works are required, the former believe that they contribute to salvation, the latter think that they are indicative of salvation. But, either way, they are still required.
"Salvation" is being a member of the church, in the rhetoric of Paul, who was legitimizing the church in the face of detractors who thought it wasn't a proper thing to preach righteousness without that being defined according to Moses.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

... Faith without works is nothing but lip service...
It actually is works but Paul avoids using that word because he is using it as a term to describe following the Book of Moses.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join