How do we achieve salvation from our sins? Faith alone or faith with works/repentance?
Paul wrote:
This is an amazing passage. I’d even venture to say that most Christians don’t believe it, or wouldn’t even if they know it’s in the Bible, which I suspect many don’t
Jesus’ brother James wrote:
This accusation to the “vain man”, and grouping him with devils, is aimed directly at Paul.
(John mentions neither faith nor repentance and only the works of Jesus or God. [???])
My only question is since Luke was a disciple of Paul, why this (and several other references) to repentance.
We don’t know how close Luke and Paul were.
The message of repentance was one to well known to contradict, coming as it must have in the Q source for the Synoptic Gospels.
Paul’s letter to the Romans was to the church furthest removed from interaction with the more aware churches in the East. Politicians in this day of mass communication still get away with messages tailored for selected audiences.
The truth is we can’t be sure. But whatever the case, these passages speak their contradictory messages for themselves, and are more evidence for the conflict between Paul and James in the early Jerusalem Church.
While the notion of the unity of thought and action is an aspect of Chinese thought not normally thought to be paralleled in Christian theology, I think it provides a reasonable synthesis in this case. If a person truly believes in Jesus, they won’t . . . do whatever Christians don’t do. Wear funny hats in Church, or go on serial raping binges.
That doesn’t mean that man isn’t alienated from God in the Christian worldview. So faith is ultimately what is required, but the possession of true faith necessarily demands action. That means that even if I, a non-Christian, were to obey all the rules of Christianity (both the common-sense ones as well as the more specific ones) I am still hell bound. At the same time, Pastor McFundy who purports to believe in Jesus would also be hell bound were he to demonstrate, through action, that he doesn’t actually believe in Jesus through unChristian action.
Faith is a beginning, but it is not the totality.
That is my (admittedly heathen) understanding of the Christian view.
I think this was an on-going controversy between Catholics and Protestants. William Marshner made a in-depth comparison between the two: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JUSBYFAI.HTM
Christian faith is blind faith. Faith without reason is blind, reason without faith is dead. True faith is the courage and character to follow where reason leads. Faith is an emotion and needs guidance. It is the engine of a car while reason is the steering, accelerator and brakes.
The passage in question discards all reason. It is saying do what you want, and you’ll be saved as long as you believe. Never mind repentance through good works and restitution. It goes against even the internal teachings of the Bible, including the words of Jesus.
Yes, but those who do extol good works ignore Paul, who gave us much if not most of the critical tenets of Christian theology.
I think your exegesis on those passages is lacking. As a non-Christian, I can’t say I am familiar with those passages in question; however, given the emphasis that the Fathers of the Church put on reason, let alone movements like the Scholastics, I’m not sure that “blind” faith in this case is really the way Christians do approach it. Or at least “informed” Christians, since there are masses of Christians who do espouse what you are objecting to. But pointing out that there are people who believe something within a religiophilosophy is different from saying the religiophilosophy, itself, holds those views. In that light, I’m not convinced Christians aren’t using the brakes, steering, and accelerator.
Then how can you question my post, which isn’t even exegesis, but merely laying out the quotes in question, and pointing to the contradiction? Contradiction is what underlies the two opposing approaches to salvation within Christianity. I believe many Christians are taught the doctrine of salvation through faith alone, but I also believe that many of those would be amazed to have such a viewpoint, that entry into heaven is not earned by being good, so blatantly delineated as Paul’s passage does.
That’s why I think some exegesis is required, quotes in isolation tell very little. I’ll take a guess: one is addressed to non-Christians and the other is addressed to Christians. Big difference there. Insofar as I understand the Bible, faith is emphasized towards non-Christians in the Bible because it is through the transformative power of faith that people become Christian. Having become Christian, acting in a Christ-like/Christian manner becomes important.
Both were addressed to early proto-Christians. Paul’s to the Greek and Roman (pagan-convert) churches, while the others were in the context a Jewish society as best as we can tell. But what does that matter today, Biblical authority is at stake no matter what.
It doesn’t matter which was aimed at who. When Jerusalem fell in 70CE, Paul’s churches were left alone on the field.
Pagans needed to be brought into believing in the God they worship. A vital first step. In the other case, he was addressed individuals who already believed in God and were part of an orthopraxic tradition.
As for it not mattering whom it was aimed at, why bother with the Bible at all in that case? If the Bible isn’t taken into context, it is meaningless. Same goes for any text.
I don’t really see where James and Paul are at odds. Paul emphasized that salvation is by grace through faith. James says that faith without works is dead. Paul agrees. Even the most basic confession of faith is a work. It would be a contradiction if James said you don’t need faith just works. He doesn’t. Paul agrees that when grace is effective it issues in faith and when faith is effective it issues in good works. Apparent conflict resolved.
No only is faith without works dead, works without faith are dead too. Repentence itself is a work of faith. If one confesses faith but does not possess faith, it is a lie. That would truely be a dead work. Undergoing the sacrament of baptism is a work. If it is done without faith, it is a dead work. (In the case of infant baptism, I take it that it is an act of faith on the part of the parents and priest.)
Paul advocates many good works in his epistles. Here are examples from I Thessalonians chapter 6:
12 Now, brothers and sisters, we ask you to appreciate those who work hard among you, who lead you in the Lord and teach you.
13 Respect them with a very special love because of the work they do.
Live in peace with each other.
14 We ask you, brothers and sisters, to warn those who do not work.
Encourage the people who are afraid.
Help those who are weak.
Be patient with everyone.
15 Be sure that no one pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to do what is good for each other and for all people.
16 Always be joyful.
17 Pray continually,
18 and give thanks whatever happens. That is what God wants for you in Christ Jesus.
19 Do not hold back the work of the Holy Spirit.
20 Do not treat prophecy as if it were unimportant.
21 But test everything.
Keep what is good,
22 and stay away from everything that is evil.
Incidently, version of Romans 4 you cited is a poor translation. I suppose it purports to be a paraphrase, but it is useless for a serious discussion of the issue you have raised. There is no mention of heaven in those verses, and the word is grace not salvation and yes there is a difference.
Grace is purportedly bestowed when someone is saved, so you’re side stepping the issue. In any case, “if a person could earn (the grace bestowed by savlation) by being good, then it wouldn’t be free–but it is!” is what Paul is saying no matter what translation or paraphrase you use.
On top of that, as I’ve pointed out before, you open a real can of worms when you start saying the interpretation of one translation or paraphrase of the Word of God is more accurate than another–especially given 2000 for mischief and happenstance. If corruption of the Bible weren’t possible, why the curse on those who add or take away from it, and and what point was the curse put upon it, and why then.
No, grace is prevenient. Grace unless it is rejected produces faith. Faith, in turn produces works which are acceptable to God. Concerning the Bible there are existing Greek manuscripts. I’m looking at the Nestle Greek text. If you have another authoritative Greek text let’s talk about it.
The word your text translates as “salvation” is χάÏιν which clearly means grace not salvation. The version you are quoting distorts the meaning of the verse. Your version specifically refers to heaven The greek word for heaven οá½Ïανὸς doesn’t appear in the passage you are citing. “The Living Bible” and other similar paraphrases of the Bible are too imprecise for use in discussion of serious issues such as you have raised.
Using critical thought to examine the Bible doesn’t open a “can of worms.” It’s indispensible if we are going to achieve or maintain intellectual integrity.
Any translation somewhat modifies meaning.That’s why it’s wise to refer back to the original language texts from time to time. So, yes I would say that the authoritative Greek texts are more reliable than translations in general because they are untranslated. There are many reliable modern English translations now. You can check them against the Greek manuscripts word for word to see how accurate they are. The one you used does not check out on the verse you used it for, so it isn’t reliable. Why use it?
