Is Faith Without Works Dead?

[Clete]

Whether Paul did or did not write Hebrews aside, what are we to do with Biblical passages like this? Because Jesus also sounds like He's saying this too. How does that square with Paul teaching that we are saved by Faith Alone?

Jesus does teach it and no, it does not square with saved by faith alone because that isn't what saved people prior to the risen Christ giving the gospel of Grace to the Apostle Paul.

Jesus and the twelve and their converts (e.g. Luke, James, Jude, etc) taught a gospel that required faith mixed with obedience to the law. Paul taught a gospel that required belief only. They are NOT the same.

Especially since Paul frequently warns us to not sin too. I mean they all warn us to avoid sin, that's for sure, it's just that Jesus and Hebrews and James and Peter and John all sound like you can sin your way out of salvation, and meanwhile Paul (who's also just as hard telling us to not sin) also tells us basically we can't sin our way out of salvation.

Sin harms those around us and it harms ourselves and it offends God. It is the opposite of love. And its a very big deal. People will go to Hell as a result of sins committed by believers! How many millions reject Christ because of the false doctrine taught by Augustine alone?!

The Kingdom gospel had two operating motives. God implored people to love Him and to love their neighbor because in so doing they would obey the whole law. This is the love motive. However, the threat of being cut off was present if disobedience persisted a so there was certainly an element of fear of wrath.

In the Grace gospel, "Faith works by love." That's Paul's teaching about avoidance of sin in a single sentence. Love is acting in another's best interest and what Paul's gospel does is to remove the fear motive leaving only the love motive.

In Jesus's words, or in the non-Pauline books, is there any hint or indication that it is faith alone that saves? It can just be a hint of it really, and then the whole New Testament does cohere with Paul.

This is backward. If there is even a hint of law in the non-Pauline books of the New Testament then those books do not "cohere with Paul" for want of a better phrase.

You can mix grace into a covenant of law and it remains a covenant of law. It does not work the other way because the law is the knowledge of good and evil; it is the result of the fall and concerns the flesh. A point that Paul goes to great lengths to make.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?​

And that's really I think the main problem Mid Acts is trying to solve, is the apparent incoherence between Paul and the rest of the New Testament, including Jesus Himself.

It permits the plain reading of any scripture you care to point out on this topic and others related to it.

They can show from the Scripture the apparent incoherence.

It isn't merely "apparent". It requires theological interpretation to explain the incoherence away from within any and every other theological paradigm.

So there's high initial plausibility for Mid Acts.

The plausibility is not merely "initial". If the desire is to find a systematic theology that permits the plain reading of scripture, it is the most plausible of all theological systems that I have yet to be exposed to and, more than that, the only arguments that undermine it's plausibility hinge on a desire to preserve pet doctrines, like the idea the Mary remained a virgin or that God is utterly immutable or that God exists outside of time. In short, it is extra-biblical theological contructs and the desire to preserve a belief in them that gives any motivation to anyone to question its plausibility.

Which means to defeat Mid Acts, you have to come up with a defeater or two or more defeaters, and then those defeaters must stand up, and then you can defeat that high initial plausibility that the Mid Acts position does possess. It does seem like Paul sounds like he's singing a different key, at first blush, prima facie, at first glance, etc.

This is a stunning admission for practically anyone to make, much less a Catholic. I'd suspect that there are Catholics who would be appalled at your willingness to concede even this much. That's likely because they sort of intuitively understand that you've set yourself a bar here that Catholic dogma cannot clear. Indeed, it is my conviction that no other system can clear that bar but Catholicism hasn't a prayer of clearing it by any rational means whatsoever.

But if there are defeaters that stand up, then Paul's not singing a different key at all, and your position merely appears to be right, but it isn't actually right, because it's all built on the idea that Paul's singing a different key, but he isn't.

This is true of any doctrinal system. There is no such thing as contradictory truths. Any "defeater" (not a real word) that stands against any system would defeat that system, by definition.

Mid Acts says Paul's singing a different key, and that has high initial plausibility, it can be shown from the Scripture, so it stands, unless there are defeaters for it (and that stand instead). And that consists of any hint that we are saved by faith alone, found in the non-Pauline New Testament.

This is certainly a false premise, as established above.

The modifier "any hint" is where the lie is put to this standard because who gets to define what qualifies as "any hint".

No, the "defeater" would be if you could establish that the non-Pauline books of the New Testament affirmatively and definitively teach that we are saved by faith alone, which they very obviously do not.

(If Paul wrote Hebrews then of course that would be a defeater for Mid Acts, because then you would have Paul saying Faith Alone, AND sounding like you can sin your way out of salvation.) But it doesn't have to be very clear, it need only be a hint. Such as John 3:16 for example. whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Again, false premise. Grace can and was and will be again added to a covenant of law. Indeed, it must be!

I'm saying this because the position with the highest initial plausibility is that the New Testament coheres.

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

That would be a "defeater" of this "initial plausibility" by your own standard and mine!

This is apparently true, since it begins with Jesus, and He is definitely a new major character in the story of the God is Israel. So it's different from the Old Testament. But the New Testament coheres, is the position with the highest initial plausibility.

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Oops! Another "defeater" that meets your own standard!

Mid Acts in showing incoherence is a defeater to this view.

Well, it isn't a defeater just because you want it to be. You've set the bar so unreasonably low that practically any passage you pulled out of the bible at random would do the trick.

If the apparent incoherence isn't actual incoherence, this can be shown by a defeater. If this defeater stands, then Mid Acts is defeated, and Mid Acts itself is a defeater of the view that the N.T. coheres. [So, that position would hold up.]

Repeat yourself much? Sheesh!

 

[Nick M]

Whether Paul did or did not write Hebrews aside, what are we to do with Biblical passages like this?

Divide them, do not try to reconcile the contradiction. Paul explicitly states this. Do not mix Israel's law with our grace. We were granted grace to drive Israel to jealousy. If you have called upon the name of the Lord, you are saved. As a side note, nobody will call upon his name who does not believe he was raised from the dead. They will confess too. It all goes together. You are not under the law, but under grace. So does that mean you should be married and have girlfriends on the side? God forbid!. In the words of Paul. Do you get it yet?

 

[Nick M]

Because Jesus also sounds like He's saying this too.

What Bible are you reading? Why do you disregard what he says?

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Nick M]

We in the Body of Christ, on the other hand, are saved from death caused by sin, and our security lies within the very character of God, not what we do or do not do.

To add to this, Paul says the law reveals our sin, after saying we have no sin. He says the body is dead because of sin. But our spirit is alive. Our body will go to the grave, and it's stench of sin with it. God will have no part of it. Paul even tells you (Idolater) that he wants to do what he can't. He can't stop failing and sinning. When you objectively look at the law, you have failed. For the record (Idolater) when "Paul people" and "MAD" shoot off like this, it is always scriptural, even if the reference are not given.

 

[Lon]

Why are you so angry!

Easy:
1) Tired of the same 'ol arguments, don't want to do it anymore (has nothing to do with you other being member #289 for the #290th time).
2) Disdain. Doesn't want to continue the conversation so a good insult will end it (but you and I are made of different stuff with long suffering and patience and want to learn. Open Theists, honestly, don't want to learn. I've written quite a bit on the omniscient thread that is very challenging to Open Theist views and they don't like to look at their own doctrine too closely. They'll deny it of course, but we only get mad if we are more dedicated to a group of scholars than we are to God. That said, Open Theism and Mid Acts are rather simple doctrines. If one is 'in' they look right because it is all balled up tight and I agree makes sense, for simplicity, but I've never found God that simple. His ways are much higher than ours. Think of it this way: When one's doctrine is so simple that it ALL makes sense, questioning what is simple can get very exasperating. They simply, aren't the same kinds of theologians most of us are (not a slam on them or us). It is rather they don't like entertaining broader pictures outside of that scope. Think of 'stupid' as "My theology is more right then yours!" but they actually mean 'simple' and they like it that way.
It really is that they cannot entertain another view. I've been very close to the Calvinist (not double-pred) and 2nd Acts camp. I love all those who espouse these opposing doctrines that I've met. They are all godly men and woman that love their Savior. It is like Open Theists either weren't very good Calvinists or 2nd Acts Dispensationalist or they have little remembrance or empathy. On point, I have empathy for them, but I think having your own theology constantly questioned is more difficult than Open Theists will admit.
3) TOL. This is childish, no question to call someone a simpleton. It isn't gracious, kind, or gentle as scripture calls. The defense is often "Jesus did it." Well I'm not Jesus, so when they accuse of "Nicer than God" it is the place to make that error. I do want to be nicer than God because "man's wrath doesn't produce righteousness." God's does. So, nicer than God is trying to err on the right side where angels fear to tread. See Jude 9 It is also disobedience: Proverbs 10:12; 11:12 Romans 14:1 thus excusing behavior to say "Jesus did it." "Maybe He didn't! He isn't going to go against scriptures. At the very least, we should not go and do likewise. For us? Sin." Knight, (aka Nathan Detroit) left this site he created after a long post about regretting the tenor of 'smack' he created. He would have recreated this forum, perhaps after, I believe, God talked to him over the matter.
4) Take it in stride. Try not to let it overcome your longsuffering, patience, and gentleness, not returning it with the same, but with maturity and grace. If we simply react, we are no better off. It is a test for our own resolve to be gracious, gentle, loving, and careful with response that 'perhaps God will grant them favor.' It isn't that we have already arrived, but that we press on like Paul. Acting in grace fosters mutual maturity and godliness.

No, It does not. The predestined, called, Justified, Glorified pertains to Salvation only....not to your every day affairs..

"Have a few scriptures in mind?" It isn't stupid, it is what you believe. If I were interested in helping or correcting or entertaining that I examine my own view, I'd ask like that. Forums, perhaps are for posturing, they aren't bible study groups (but in a way they are-Iron sharpens iron). God says His Word never returns void but goes out and accomplishes His purposes. Open Theism is the other side of the Bible coin when you re-examine what a verse means and does not mean. When we take another's view that we disagree with into consideration, we are challenged. Such either strengthens our scriptural resolve, or it allows God in to challenge what we believe(d) we know/knew.