Trying to make sense of the Five "Solas" of Salvation

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

As well as God and the Person themselves, do you think can other people be involved in someone's salvation, as a result of their prayers for example ?

Good question. My strong instinct (given a model of God who is scrupulously fair) is to suppose a person's salvation ultimately down to themselves (in the sense of them not rejecting the salvation proffered.

And so I must suppose the efforts of others to be included in the overall 'effort' exerted by God in the attempt to draw a particular individual to himself.

I don't pretend to understand what value a persons prayer would have to a God who could (and would, according to the above model) make up for any 'shortfall' arising the lack of prayer from those who could contribute. All I know is that he involves us in his work and that our prayers have value.

Again I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that doesn't agree with this.

I gather plenty have problems with 1. Many hold that you have to "accept Christ into your heart" or "believe in his finished work" to be saved. I would suppose folk can be saved without ever having heard of Christ. Would that not be a problem to mainstream denominations?

2. The object of faith would be problematic for many. Some would suppose "faith in Jesus Christ" or " in his atoning work". I would insert the word "believe God" for faith since Abraham "believed God" and was saved (so goes the model of NT salvation). Believing God is quite a different matter (in that it opens a whole raft of things one can believe God about) to modern faith requirements

3. Roman Catholicism supposes a person contributing to their being pulled over the line. Certain things have to be done by the person. Active work is required. There is a nod to the potential for salvation outside RC works but this strikes as a bit of a fudge since reference is made to the 'mystery of God' (i.e. we don't know)

4. As above, some would require a belief in Christ before crossing the threshold into salvation.

5. Again, RC problematic here since the credit can be part shared by those who contribute to their own salvation (or in RC, don't lose salvation granted to them by a failure to carry out necessary works)

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

I gather plenty have problems with 1. Many hold that you have to "accept Christ into your heart" or "believe in his finished work" to be saved. I would suppose folk can be saved without ever having heard of Christ. Would that not be a problem to mainstream denominations?

I would have thought that those, who due to no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospels and Christ, cannot be held accountable for that ignorance, but instead can be held accountable in other ways. I'm sure God has his way of judging such.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. The object of faith would be problematic for many. Some would suppose "faith in Jesus Christ" or " in his atoning work". I would insert the word "believe God" for faith since Abraham "believed God" and was saved (so goes the model of NT salvation). Believing God is quite a different matter (in that it opens a whole raft of things one can believe God about) to modern faith requirements

Yes but Abraham did a lot more than simply believe/have faith in God.
Or could a wealthy man really self declare his utmost faith in God and then sit crossed legged under a shady palm tree for the rest of his life, secure in the notion of his now guaranteed salvation ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

3. Roman Catholicism supposes a person contributing to their being pulled over the line. Certain things have to be done by the person. Active work is required. There is a nod to the potential for salvation outside RC works but this strikes as a bit of a fudge since reference is made to the 'mystery of God' (i.e. we don't know)

4. As above, some would require a belief in Christ before crossing the threshold into salvation.

5. Again, RC problematic here since the credit can be part shared by those who contribute to their own salvation (or in RC, don't lose salvation granted to them by a failure to carry out necessary works)

How does a Christian love their neighbour as themselves ?
Again scripture is full of examples of those who don't simply say Lord, Lord, but also do God's will.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Arkady - thanks for your post.

Arkady wrote: »

Yes but Abraham did a lot more than simply believe/have faith in God.
Or could a wealthy man really self declare his utmost faith in God and then sit crossed legged under a shady palm tree for the rest of his life, secure in the notion of his now guaranteed salvation ?

Abraham wasn't saved by works. But faith without works is dead. Works don't save but they are the fruit of faith.

The Bible is clear on this fact in Romans chapter 4 and in Hebrews 11. God can speak clearly through the Bible.

Let me quote the section on Romans 4:

Romans 4:1-8 ESVUK wrote:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Works do not save people. They don't contribute to their salvation. Otherwise grace isn't a gift any longer.

Let's thrash it out.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

I would have thought that those, who due to no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospels and Christ, cannot be held accountable for that ignorance, but instead can be held accountable in other ways. I'm sure God has his way of judging such.

That would be the majority of people who have ever lived.

The Bible doesn't give indication of two ways of salvation, just the one. Which means the essence of what saves must be the same for all people, irrespective of whether or not they have heard the gospels or of Christ. Which would appear to indicate that hearing the gospels and of Christ, aren't in themselves the essence of salvation.

The thief on the cross is an interesting example. Cursing Christ one minute, then acknowledging his as Lord and saviour the next. You could say that he is saved by faith in Christ but that wouldn't explain why he had faith in Christ. Indeed, you can say that the something which brought about his change of view was the salvation transaction and his recognition of Christ was a consequence of that change having happened in him. He can be said to be saved by his faith in Christ. But the salvation transaction providing him with that faith is the actual nub of the issue.

And whatever it is, it appears it applies to all who have ever lived and been saved.

Yes but Abraham did a lot more than simply believe/have faith in God.
Or could a wealthy man really self declare his utmost faith in God and then sit crossed legged under a shady palm tree for the rest of his life, secure in the notion of his now guaranteed salvation ?

A person who has been born again, rich or poor, has gone through a monumental change of outlook - they now know there is a God. They now know they are to be saved. They now know they are sided with God in a battle against evil. Just like a person who has gone to visit famine areas and seen the situation with own eyes, the outlook change can be expected to bring about a change in action.

The motivation for change doesn't come from fear of damnation. It comes from change in outlook. As Paul himself argues in Romans: are we to simply go on sinning. By no means: don't we know whose side of the battle we are on. To go on happily sinning, for a Christian, is as incongruous as a Nazi solider, who has come to realise the evil he is fighting and switched to the Allied side, to go on fighting against the Allied side. It's that stark a line drawn.

Which is not to say we won't sin. We have, afterall, the Bible tells us, sin embedded within our body and minds. And we have a personal battle to fight with the desires and lusts of body and mind. And sometimes we will fail. And fail badly. And sometimes, if we are lazy and a slide back into complacency, discipline will come to bear from the commander in chief. Even unto the point of being removed from the game. But declared a traitor and cast into Hell we won't be.

That very notion: grace unlimited is itself a motivator to row in alongside what God is attempting to achieve.

How does a Christian love their neighbour as themselves ?
Again scripture is full of examples of those who don't simply say Lord, Lord, but also do God's will.

As I say, the Christian is under new management. He also has the Spirit of God residing inside, to will and to act according to God's will.

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

Abraham wasn't saved by works.

Back with this worn out old sectarian strawman/misrepresentation of other denominations yet again ? Just as before, I'm still waiting for you to find any mainstream Christian denomination that claims he was, and post proper proof of it.

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would be the majority of people who have ever lived.

The Bible doesn't give indication of two ways of salvation, just the one. Which means the essence of what saves must be the same for all people, irrespective of whether or not they have heard the gospels or of Christ. Which would appear to indicate that hearing the gospels and of Christ, aren't in themselves the essence of salvation.

The thief on the cross is an interesting example. Cursing Christ one minute, then acknowledging his as Lord and saviour the next. You could say that he is saved by faith in Christ but that wouldn't explain why he had faith in Christ. Indeed, you can say that the something which brought about his change of view was the salvation transaction and his recognition of Christ was a consequence of that change having happened in him. He can be said to be saved by his faith in Christ. But the salvation transaction providing him with that faith is the actual nub of the issue.

And whatever it is, it appears it applies to all who have ever lived and been saved.

A person who has been born again, rich or poor, has gone through a monumental change of outlook - they now know there is a God. They now know they are to be saved. They now know they are sided with God in a battle against evil. Just like a person who has gone to visit famine areas and seen the situation with own eyes, the outlook change can be expected to bring about a change in action.

The motivation for change doesn't come from fear of damnation. It comes from change in outlook. As Paul himself argues in Romans: are we to simply go on sinning. By no means: don't we know whose side of the battle we are on. To go on happily sinning, for a Christian, is as incongruous as a Nazi solider, who has come to realise the evil he is fighting and switched to the Allied side, to go on fighting against the Allied side. It's that stark a line drawn.

Which is not to say we won't sin. We have, afterall, the Bible tells us, sin embedded within our body and minds. And we have a personal battle to fight with the desires and lusts of body and mind. And sometimes we will fail. And fail badly. And sometimes, if we are lazy and a slide back into complacency, discipline will come to bear from the commander in chief. Even unto the point of being removed from the game. But declared a traitor and cast into Hell we won't be.

That very notion: grace unlimited is itself a motivator to row in alongside what God is attempting to achieve.

As I say, the Christian is under new management. He also has the Spirit of God residing inside, to will and to act according to God's will.

but this still doesn't explain how a rich man with sincere faith in God, who spends his life sitting cross legged under a shady palm tree, looking forward to his assumed certain salvation, is in fact doing the will of God, or how he is loving his neighbour ?

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

but this still doesn't explain how a rich man with sincere faith in God, who spends his life sitting cross legged under a shady palm tree, looking forward to his assumed certain salvation, is in fact doing the will of God, or how he is loving his neighbour ?

The issue isn't whether sincere faith in God. The question is whether saved or not. If saved then salvation follows - since the person has satisfied ( as earlier outlined in my positing mechanism by which) the criteria for his being granted sure salvation. Whether he does or doesn't do the will of God subsequent to his being saved will have consequences for him but not his losing his salvation. I,ve suggested that he will indeed do more of God' will post-being saved (because of God taking up residence in the man, urging him in that direction). But whether or not, salvation will follow

alma73

Arkady wrote: »

but this still doesn't explain how a rich man with sincere faith in God, who spends his life sitting cross legged under a shady palm tree, looking forward to his assumed certain salvation, is in fact doing the will of God, or how he is loving his neighbour ?

The man you picture would not be following Christ, Christ asks us to Feed the Poor, Visit the Sick, those in prison, To cloth the naked. Salvation is not a passive act, its an active act of following Christ and doing as he asked in the Gospel. To be fair on protestants who do not believe the same theology of salvation as Catholics, don't do have lots of works in their Churches, they are not passive Christians.

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue isn't whether sincere faith in God. The question is whether saved or not. If saved then salvation follows - since the person has satisfied ( as earlier outlined in my positing mechanism by which) the criteria for his being granted sure salvation. Whether he does or doesn't do the will of God subsequent to his being saved will have consequences for him but not his losing his salvation. I,ve suggested that he will indeed do more of God' will post-being saved (because of God taking up residence in the man, urging him in that direction). But whether or not, salvation will follow

alma73 wrote: »

The man you picture would not be following Christ, Christ asks us to Feed the Poor, Visit the Sick, those in prison, To cloth the naked. Salvation is not a passive act, its an active act of following Christ and doing as he asked in the Gospel. To be fair on protestants who do not believe the same theology of salvation as Catholics, don't do have lots of works in their Churches, they are not passive Christians.

Yes but its claimed that only faith is essential for salvation, doing anything, including will of God, is completely unnecessary for salvation according to sola fide. Hence the rich man with faith can recline under the palm tree doing nothing, other than looking forward to his reward.

solodeogloria

Happy Easter all!

Arkady wrote: »

Back with this worn out old sectarian strawman/misrepresentation of other denominations yet again ? Just as before, I'm still waiting for you to find any mainstream Christian denomination that claims he was, and post proper proof of it.

My intention isn't to engage in sectarianism, but to look for the truth. I love Jesus and the Gospel and anything that comes anywhere close to making Christ's death void (Galatians 2:21) is worth taking seriously.

I ask these questions out of a genuine love for Christ, a genuine love for you and for others and out of a genuine will to understand you. You should give me that benefit of the doubt.

Arkady wrote: »

Yes but Abraham did a lot more than simply believe/have faith in God.
Or could a wealthy man really self declare his utmost faith in God and then sit crossed legged under a shady palm tree for the rest of his life, secure in the notion of his now guaranteed salvation ?

In this piece of your post it looks like you're suggesting that works contribute to salvation. That's why I posted Romans 4. Our works are in response to the cross. We live for Jesus because we love Him, and His rescue for us. We don't live for Jesus to get brownie points, to earn our way to heaven, or to supplement God's saving death.

God's grace isn't an excuse for licence. Jesus didn't die as a licence for us to sin more, but so that we can repent and live for Him in this life now and in the life everlasting. Paul discusses this in Galatians 5. The question is how do we use our freedom in Christ now?

Paul's answer:

Galatians 5:13-15 ESV wrote:

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

I'm sorry if you construed my point as sectarianism, but it wasn't intended as anything of the sort.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His resurrection,
solodeogloria

alma73

Arkady wrote: »

Yes but its claimed that only faith is essential for salvation, doing anything, including will of God, is completely unnecessary for salvation according to sola fide. Hence the rich man with faith can recline under the palm tree doing nothing, other than looking forward to his reward.

Where does Christ say that in the Gospel?

Arkady

alma73 wrote: »

Where does Christ say that in the Gospel?

He doesn't, in either word or deed, nor to any of the apostles, nor any other Christian in the new testament spout or practice sola fide. . that's exactly whole problem with it's false claim. But according to sola fide, that rich dude lying on a deckchair as his servants fetch him cocktails is assured salvation, as long has he has only faith. Doing the will of God is apparently not required.

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

Yes but its claimed that only faith is essential for salvation, doing anything, including will of God, is completely unnecessary for salvation according to sola fide. Hence the rich man with faith can recline under the palm tree doing nothing, other than looking forward to his reward.

You haven't really been reading what's been written, and any objection must object to what's written. Faith isn't the end of the matter. Part of the deal is that God comes to reside in the person by his Spirit. That results in a draw to a change of ways and if that draw is resisted, in disciplining. That discipline has any number of facts - up to and including death.

The rich man might appear to the world to be enjoying the lazy days of sitting under a tree. But he won't be left in peace by God, and not being at peace with God isn't pleasurable. God ensures that much.

Now you can resist to the end of your life, and suffer the consequences of not being at peace with God (and now that you know God exists you know with whom you are not at peace with)

The consequences are, it would appear, a diminishing of the reward given for work in Heaven - the place the saved rich man under the tree knows he is going to. The rich man understands what God's reward is like - he will have, afterall experienced the first fruits of what it is to be at one with God upon his salvation.

And so a tug of war; follow the ways of lost men in satisfying the desires offered by this world. Or follow the ways of God and enjoy that now and moreso in Heaven.

The issue of salvation isn't involved however. That matter has been settled.

alma73

Arkady wrote: »

He doesn't, in either word or deed, nor to any of the apostles, nor any other Christian in the new testament spout or practice sola fide. . that's exactly whole problem with it's false claim. But according to sola fide, that rich dude lying on a deckchair as his servants fetch him cocktails is assured salvation, as long has he has only faith. Doing the will of God is apparently not required.

Exactly, the apostles had faith in Christ, but they also had his mission. If they had not done what Christ had asked would they have been saved? Faith without its works means nothing in this world.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Arkady wrote: »

He doesn't, in either word or deed, nor to any of the apostles, nor any other Christian in the new testament spout or practice sola fide. . that's exactly whole problem with it's false claim. But according to sola fide, that rich dude lying on a deckchair as his servants fetch him cocktails is assured salvation, as long has he has only faith. Doing the will of God is apparently not required.

Could you please respond to my post?

There are plenty of passages throughout the New Testament that make it clear that works don't contribute to our salvation. It is only possible with God. I've provided you reason as to why I believe this from Galatians.

You're getting confused between what contributes to our salvation and what we are called to do after our salvation. The latter doesn't save us at all. It merely is the fruit of being saved. Ephesians even says that our good works are even a gift from God:

Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Our salvation remains secure. Jesus said if we are His sheep and hear His voice we will not be snatched out of His hand. (John 10:29)

I can't help but think that the Council of Trent did huge damage in terms of Catholic teaching on salvation and works. The zeal to put Martin Luther down due to "heresy" caused more damage. Luther wrote extensively on Galatians and Romans where he saw the Apostolic teaching that we are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus. That's all. If you add works it lessens the importance of Christ's sacrifice.

Simple maths.
Jesus + works = salvation isn't the same as Jesus = salvation. The first lessens Jesus' death for us. Paul says that's really serious in Galatians. It is nullifying Jesus' death.

Edit: the key question we need to ask is this. Where anywhere in the New Testament does it suggest that works contribute to our salvation?

Much thanks in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't really been reading what's been written, and any objection must object to what's written. Faith isn't the end of the matter. Part of the deal is that God comes to reside in the person by his Spirit. That results in a draw to a change of ways and if that draw is resisted, in disciplining. That discipline has any number of facts - up to and including death.

Written by who ? The new testament places great emphasis on actually doing the will of God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The rich man might appear to the world to be enjoying the lazy days of sitting under a tree. But he won't be left in peace by God, and not being at peace with God isn't pleasurable. God ensures that much.

And why if his sola fide leads will lead to guaranteed salvation as it claims ?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Could you please respond to both of my posts?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

Could you please respond to my post?

Little point when it's the same strawman every time.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are plenty of passages throughout the New Testament that make it clear that works don't contribute to our salvation.

Again more straw manning, work alone, not work.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is only possible with God.

Which self refutes the claim of its only though faith alone

I've provided you reason as to why I believe this from Galatians.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're getting confused between what contributes to our salvation and what we are called to do after our salvation.

Why are we called to do it, if its not required ?

The latter doesn't save us at all. It merely is the fruit of being saved. Ephesians even says that our good works are even a gift from God:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Our salvation remains secure.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can't help but think that the Council of Trent did huge damage in terms of Catholic teaching on salvation and works. The zeal to put Martin Luther down due to "heresy" caused more damage. Luther wrote extensively on Galatians and Romans where he saw the Apostolic teaching that we are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus. That's all. If you add works it lessens the importance of Christ's sacrifice.

"Luther wrote" ? that's some sola scriptura you have now. A man with obvious deep physiological issues and a deep hatred of others, especially the Jewish people, thought he'd invented his own get out card for not doing God's will, and happily used for German politics by a German princes in their political wars with France, unlike the peaceful saints of God down through the centuries, who stood up for Christianity inside the Church, and not by playing Judas to Christianity and pied piper encouraging countless denominations, false teachings, wars and death across western Europe, and in Ireland.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Simple maths.
Jesus + works = salvation isn't the same as Jesus = salvation. The first lessens Jesus' death for us. Paul says that's really serious in Galatians. It is nullifying Jesus' death.

No faith this time, what happened sola fide ? Yet again your false sums don't add up.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: the key question we need to ask is this. Where anywhere in the New Testament does it suggest that works contribute to our salvation?

I notice you've left out Faith yet again. Again repeating the same sectarian strawman, find me a single Christian denomination that claims works alone do. I've asked you that every time, and every time you have ignored it and then duck back in to try the same failedstrawman.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Arkady wrote: »

Little point when it's the same strawman every time.

If it is a strawman, please help me understand you better. I want to do that.

Arkady wrote: »

Again more straw manning, work alone, not work.

By saying works contribute to salvation. I'm not saying works alone save people in the post-Trent thinking. It is that grace is achieved by participating in the Sacraments. I.E - Grace has already been achieved, it's just that you need to work to get it. This is Jesus + works = salvation rather than Jesus Christ alone achieves grace by His death which is received by faith alone. Nick has already explained how the three work together and how we can say they are alone.

Arkady wrote: »

Which self refutes the claim of its only though faith alone

No, it doesn't. Nick explained this to you already, and I've explained it again above.

We are justified through faith alone, not by works (this is why I discuss works later).
We are justified by grace alone, not by merit or that we've earned our way to heaven (even in part!).
This grace is achieved by Christ's death alone.

These are all different questions. Therefore we can rightfully say they are all alone versus something else.

Jesus + works weakens Christ's death for us.

Arkady wrote: »

Why are we called to do it, if its not required?

We belong to Christ now, therefore we live for Him. Love isn't given out of compulsion. We freely love and serve Jesus because we've been saved by Him. We have new access to God the Father because Jesus has made the way for us. God the Holy Spirit works in us to make us perfect on the last day. This is sanctification, and I agree that we participate by human effort in sanctification, it isn't passive. It is because of Jesus' death and resurrection that we die to ourselves and our sin and rise with Christ. Why would we want to go back to the old life? We participate very clearly in our sanctification, in our becoming more like Jesus. But this participation doesn't contribute to our justification, the free gift of grace to all who believe by Jesus' death.

Arkady wrote: »

"Luther wrote" ? that's some sola scriptura you have now. A man with obvious deep physiological issues and a deep hatred of others, especially the Jewish people, thought he'd invented his own get out card for not doing God's will, and happily used for German politics by a German princes in their political wars with France, unlike the peaceful saints of God down through the centuries, who stood up for Christianity inside the Church, and not by playing Judas to Christianity and pied piper encouraging countless denominations, false teachings, wars and death across western Europe, and in Ireland.

Reading commentaries and listening to sermons are helpful. The sola scriptura mindset simply tests these texts to see if they are expositing the Bible or adding to it. If Luther's explanation of Galatians helps me to understand the Bible better, then it isn't in violation of the principle of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura simply presents that the Bible is sufficient for salvation, and that nothing outside of it is required to be believed by anyone for salvation.

I don't hate you. I simply disagree with you. The Christian should earnestly love one another. I long to help you understand my position and I hope to understand yours with God's help. We should be giving grace to one another. That's what I long for. Us to come to a better knowledge of God's Son Jesus. What's your aim in posting?

As for Luther, he did try to reform the church from within. Why do you think he appeared at the Diet of Worms in 1521? Why do you think Protestants wanted to be at the Council of Trent? The truth was that the Papacy banned them from coming to reform the church.

Wikipedia wrote:

It is true that the emperor intended it to be a strictly general or truly ecumenical council, at which the Protestants should have a fair hearing. He secured, during the council's second period, 1551–53, an invitation, twice given, to the Protestants to be present and the council issued a letter of safe conduct (thirteenth session) and offered them the right of discussion, but denied them a vote. Melanchthon and Johannes Brenz, with some other German Lutherans, actually started in 1552 on the journey to Trento. Brenz offered a confession and Melanchthon, who got no farther than Nuremberg, took with him the Confessio Saxonica. But the refusal to give the Protestants the right to vote and the consternation produced by the success of Maurice in his campaign against Charles V in 1552 effectually put an end to Protestant cooperation.

Arkady wrote: »

No faith this time, what happened sola fide ? Yet again your false sums don't add up.

I've explained this above, and Nick has explained it at length.

Arkady wrote: »

[/B]I notice you've left out Faith yet again. Again repeating the same sectarian strawman, find me a single Christian denomination that claims works alone do. I've asked you that every time, and every time you have ignored it and then duck back in to try the same failedstrawman.

Please answer my question, or explain how it is a strawman? The reason I bring up works is because that is what sola fide is compared against.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus and in His life giving resurrection,
solodeogloria

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If it is a strawman, please help me understand you better. I want to do that.

By saying works contribute to salvation. I'm not saying works alone save people in the post-Trent thinking. It is that grace is achieved by participating in the Sacraments. I.E - Grace has already been achieved, it's just that you need to work to get it. This is Jesus + works = salvation rather than Jesus Christ alone achieves grace by His death which is received by faith alone. Nick has already explained how the three work together and how we can say they are alone.

I have but you continually revert to the strawman of pretending your arguing against works alone instead of Faith combined with doing the will of God, and then jump to claiming that faith alone doesn't mean faith alone when your position becomes contradictory and untenable. Nick left when his contradictions were pointed out and he ran out of ad hominems and still hasn't replied to the questions he was asked.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Sola scriptura simply presents that the Bible is sufficient for salvation, and that nothing outside of it is required to be believed by anyone for salvation.

And yet your left reverting to "what Luther wrote" and continually having to refer to him and what he said instead of scripture. So much for sola scriptura.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't hate you. I simply disagree with you. The Christian should earnestly love one another. I long to help you understand my position and I hope to understand yours with God's help. We should be giving grace to one another. That's what I long for. Us to come to a better knowledge of God's Son Jesus. What's your aim in posting?

It's nothing to do with me, its about discussing how the five solas are clearly self contradictory, it is interesting that both Nick and yourself both continually tried to revert to making it about the poster instead of the posts when your contradictory claims are pointed out.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

This is my last post today.

Arkady wrote: »

I have but you continually revert to the strawman of pretending your arguing against works alone instead of Faith combined with doing the will of God, and then jump to claiming that faith alone doesn't mean faith alone when your position becomes contradictory and untenable. Nick left when his contradictions were pointed out and he ran out of ad hominems and still hasn't replied to the questions he was asked.

I think you've misunderstood me. The Bible is clear that our good works come from God so we cannot boast in them. Faith + works is equally problematic to works based salvation. Why? It minimises the cross of Christ.

Arkady wrote: »

And yet your left reverting to "what Luther wrote" and continually having to refer to him and what he said instead of scripture. So much for sola scriptura.

Luther's commentaries about Scripture are still talking about Scripture. I've explained about how Protestants understand sermons and commentaries. It isn't my fault if you don't want to listen to me.

Arkady wrote: »

It's nothing to do with me, its about discussing how the five solas are clearly self contradictory, it is interesting that both Nick and yourself both continually tried to revert to making it about the poster instead of the posts when your contradictory claims are pointed out.

When you imply that I hate you it is about you and it is personal. I'm called to love you and others on this forum and that's what I aim to do.

Can you please answer my question now?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is my last post today.

I think you've misunderstood me. The Bible is clear that our good works come from God so we cannot boast in them. Faith + works is equally problematic to works based salvation. Why? It minimises the cross of Christ.

Without trying to dodge it yet again, explain exactly how faith and doing the will of God minimises the cross of Christ ?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Luther's commentaries about Scripture are still talking about Scripture. I've explained about how Protestants understand sermons and commentaries. It isn't my fault if you don't want to listen to me.

You're the one claiming sola scriptura while having to continually revert to "what Luther wrote". The more you insist on this contradictory position, the more it helps underline the contradiction.

solodeogloria wrote: »

When you imply that I hate you it is about you and it is personal. I'm called to love you and others on this forum and that's what I aim to do.

Again you attempt to divert to making about the poster when the contradictions of your claims are pointed out, i.e. continually pretending that other denominations position is "works alone", instead of faith and doing the will of God.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Can you please answer my question now?

Clearly state any non-strawmen questions that have not been answered.

The only questions I recall you asking so far, are not questions about faith combined with doing the will of God, but are repeated strawmen ones about how can people be saved by works alone - When no denomination claims they can. When this is repeatedly pointed out to you, and you're asked to prove that any denomination claims this, you always fail to.

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

Written by who ? The new testament places great emphasis on actually doing the will of God.

The Bible says a lot of things and we could spend the rest of our days pitting verse against verse without getting very far. Rather than go that route I thought to suggest the basic working and if your objections were met then you might approach the Bible from that angle and confirm that it fit what I was saying

And why if his sola fide leads will lead to guaranteed salvation as it claims ?

For the reasons outlined a couple of times to you already. The Holy Spirit taking up residence. There is ample NT reference to that notion.

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Bible says a lot of things and we could spend the rest of our days pitting verse against verse without getting very far. Rather than go that route I thought to suggest the basic working and if your objections were met then you might approach the Bible from that angle and confirm that it fit what I was saying

For the reasons outlined a couple of times to you already. The Holy Spirit taking up residence. There is ample NT reference to that notion.

Appreciate that, the problem is the 16th century Western European Protestant political invention of salvation only from faith alone and excluding every thing else, from doing God's will, to grace, to Christ, to the Holy Spirit just isn't there.

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

Appreciate that, the problem is the 16th century Western European Protestant political invention of salvation only from faith alone and excluding every thing else, from doing God's will, to grace, to Christ, to the Holy Spirit just isn't there.

Salvation by faith alone has context, doing God's will has a context, grace has a context, the Holy Spirit as a context. They are all there in the Bible in context. We just disagree on the context.

I suggested an approach (a reverse engineering of sorts). You don't want to go there (for good reason, it now appears). Fair enough.

Have at it with the usual alternative: "my verse plucked from context vs. your verse plucked from context" - with whomsoever you please. You'll be at it from here to eternity without resolution.

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

Salvation by faith alone has context, doing God's will has a context, grace has a context, the Holy Spirit as a context. They are all there in the Bible in context. We just disagree on the context.

I suggested an approach (a reverse engineering of sorts). You don't want to go there (for good reason, it now appears). Fair enough.

Have at it with the usual alternative: "my verse plucked from context vs. your verse plucked from context" - with whomsoever you please. You'll be at it from here to eternity without resolution.

Thanks for the refreshingly honest answers anti, and that's a good example of where sola scriptura breaks down again, resulting in countless interpretations and denominations and heresies over the centuries. And we haven't even got into trying to find some logic in the five points of TULIP yet . . . but that's for another thread.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Arkady wrote: »

Clearly state any non-strawmen questions that have not been answered.

The only questions I recall you asking so far, are not questions about faith combined with doing the will of God, but are repeated strawmen ones about how can people be saved by works alone - When no denomination claims they can. When this is repeatedly pointed out to you, and you're asked to prove that any denomination claims this, you always fail to.

This is the question:

Edit: the key question we need to ask is this. Where anywhere in the New Testament does it suggest that works contribute to our salvation?

It isn't a straw man as you have argued that works contribute to our salvation. I understand that you mean this partially but this still weakens the cross and it's sufficiency for us. I'm arguing that our works contribute to our sanctification which is different.

The only invention is that grace is achieved by participating in the sacraments. Luther simply taught the Apostolic Gospel. It was the Papacy who argued for grace to be attained by works by our participation and the church being Lord over the Bible. Please show me how grace attained through participation in the sacraments is Biblical.

I make no apologies for being Reformed.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

Thanks for the refreshingly honest answers anti, and that's a good example of where sola scriptura breaks down again

A point I was in agreement with you over.

antiskeptic wrote:

This one (sold scriptura) is problematic:

It wasn't so much 'refreshing honesty' involved as it was as a theology which doesn't see how sola scriptura can be upheld. And does see how the others can be upheld in a particular context.

Sola this that and the other are very global terms which can be arranged in any number of ways to form a theology. Some arrangements run into immediate difficulty (such as Calvinisms U), others perhaps not. My interest is in having a theology that makes the most sense to me. Not that this doesn't mean there are no questions, but that some of the massive obstacles get dealt with.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Arkady wrote: »

Thanks for the refreshingly honest answers anti, and that's a good example of where sola scriptura breaks down again, resulting in countless interpretations and denominations and heresies over the centuries. And we haven't even got into trying to find some logic in the five points of TULIP yet . . . but that's for another thread.

I'd be up for walking through TULIP also. I personally am not sure if I subscribe to Limited Atonement but I can see Biblical arguments for it. The rest seem to be Biblically true.

I have sympathy with the Swiss memorial view of the Lord's Supper also. It wouldn't be fair to only celebrate the work of the German Reformation in restoring the Apostolic Gospel.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!



This is the question:


It isn't a straw man as you have argued that works contribute to our salvation. I understand that you mean this partially but this still weakens the cross and it's sufficiency for us. I'm arguing that our works contribute to our sanctification which is different.

The only invention is that grace is achieved by participating in the sacraments. Luther simply taught the Apostolic Gospel. It was the Papacy who argued for grace to be attained by works by our participation and the church being Lord over the Bible. Please show me how grace attained through participation in the sacraments is Biblical.

I make no apologies for being Reformed.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus,
solodeogloria

You've tried the same strawman yet again. It's not works and never has been and no denomination claims it is, nor have I, so it's pointless to keep pretending and misrepresenting the position in the style of some second rate cheesy american televangelist. It's not going to fool anyone with even a passing understanding of other denominations. It's faith and works among many other things including the Trinity and God's grace. Again I asked you before : Find a mainstream denomination that claims its works alone, and post proof that they do.