A different gospel?

[Eleanor]

Can't it be both? Does not our salvation affect our lived-out life?

However, initial salvation is apart from faith's necessary works (Eph 2:8-9).
While the salvation of our lived-out life is sanctification, which is works of obedience in the Holy Spirit, which lead to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19).

The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided us with a wealth of information about the Jewish culture at the time. It provides us with a background which can help us understand specific circumstances. It does not change the overall message of Scripture. It does not change the gospel message - through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ we have forgiveness of sins. But it can change how we look at certain passages/phrases/words in the texts. But again, big picture, nothing changes.

Yes, in Galatians and Romans, Paul is arguing specifically against the need for the Gentiles to be circumcised, keeping kosher, keeping sabbath, etc, exactly what the Jerusalem council had decided in Ac 15:24.

Keeping in mind that the issue at the Council was two-fold: salvation (Ac 15:1) as well as membership in the people of God (Ac 15:5).

This is exactly what the NP is saying. The OP are making this more general works. Which of course is still true, but not what is being discussed in these specific instances.

The OP is not referring to the council of Jerusalem, it refers to all of Paul's teaching, where Abraham is Paul's example of righteousness apart from works (Ro 4:1-5) when there was no Mosaic law at that time. Abraham being the model of his doctrine, Paul has more than Mosaic laws in mind when he uses "works of the law," which phrase would be relevant to NT Jews whose only "meritoreous" works were the law.

While specifically I agree that it depends totally on the church/denomination you are in, I think the issue is a general problem in our western societies today which is very individualistic, expecially in these postmodernism times. I also agree that there is nothing preventing fellowship across denominations, and yet we are still very divided.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The OP is not referring to the council of Jerusalem, it refers to all of Paul's teaching, where Abraham is Paul's example of righteousness apart from works (Ro 4:1-5) when there was no Mosaic law at that time. Abraham being the model of his doctrine, Paul has more than Mosaic laws in mind when he uses "works of the law," which phrase would be relevant to NT Jews whose only "meritoreous" works were the law.

I guess these is where the disagreement is. Does Paul have more on his mind that just the Mosaic laws? OP says yes, NP says no.
Since verse 9 onwards talks about circumcision specifically, here I would probably side with NP that 'works' is not general, but referring to Mosaic laws like circumcision, etc - fits better with the context. Either way, what does it change?

 

[ReverendRV]

《snip》 5. As Protestants we pride ourselves on following *only* the clear teaching of Scripture, and yet "faith alone" is not clearly taught, but has to be inferred and deduced, which requires interpretation. So what? Someone might say. Well that's the Catholic guy's point: that's not Sola Scriptura. That's interpretation. Protestants end up having to do the same thing they accuse Catholics of doing, because Sola Fide is not based on Sola Scriptura, but a Reformed interpretation of Scripture. 《snip》

It's redundant to have five Onlys. The Solas aren't meant to be understood as each being the sole factor of Salvation; or if you will, of Justification. For instance, Sola Christus; Christ Alone. Christ is not the sole factor of Justification, but he comes with Grace. Our Faith comes with Grace and Christ; and so on and so on. But the point of the 5-Solas is the significance of each of them; it's as-if they are the lone factor of Salvation and Justification. None here will balk at saying we're Saved by Christ Alone, right? In a way, the Solas are a figure of speech. Sure; we're not Justified through Faith Alone. The implication would be we're not Saved by Grace, right? We're not to become Antinomian by saying we're Justified through Faith Alone, and exclude the Works we were created for. No; the Solas are not "Onlys". To infer Calvinists are saying Faith is Alone, is wrong...

Calvinists are saying that Faith is Alone regarding our contribution to Justification in the sight of God. Saint James is teaching us about Justification in the sight of Man; show HIM the good Works you were recreated for...

 

[Arial]

Fabulous! Then it sounds like you, NT Wright, and Reformed theology are all on the same page with justification, with one exception: whether justification is declared or imputed.

In all their arguments they state the Reformed position as being something it is not based only the what it/ some do arguments that are purely theoretical is what I am saying and I think you know that is what I am saying but it is convenient to act like one has a low comprehension ability. It is not flattering to the one who does it though. I just sounds like more cover up when an argument is presented that cannot be denied. And then they take that non argument and say that is the reason the whole concept of justification by faith alone---and other doctrines----must be revamped in light of all the new information we have. If you choose to agree with heresy by saying it isn't heresy, that it agrees with the Reformed position just because it says it does, when it doesn't that is to your own detriment.

Justification is a judicial ruling by the Judge. That means Christ's righteousness is counted as our own---obviously we are not actually perfectly righteous----until we reach the fulness of our salvation. Jesus actually took the penalty for our sins, the just judgement of the Just Judge against them. And if our sins have had their debt paid in full by Him, they are no longer held against us. Justified. Our sins imputed to Him on the cross, His righteousness imputed to us through faith. That is not what NP teaches.

How do you feel about penal substitution since NP denies that too.

 

[Arial]

I guess these is where the disagreement is. Does Paul have more on his mind that just the Mosaic laws? OP says yes, NP says no.
Since verse 9 onwards talks about circumcision specifically, here I would probably side with NP that 'works' is not general, but referring to Mosaic laws like circumcision, etc - fits better with the context. Either way, what does it change?

That was the particular issue Paul was dealing with in Gal. Agitators trying to add Mosaic law as necessary for salvation. That is why the book is worded the way it is. That does not negate the numerous scriptures that teach the complete sufficiency of Christ with nothing added to it----works period. One who is saved is the seed planted in the good soil with produces the fruit of righteousness---good works.

 

[Eleanor]

I guess these is where the disagreement is. Does Paul have more on his mind that just the Mosaic laws? OP says yes, NP says no.
Since verse 9 onwards talks about circumcision specifically, here I would probably side with NP that 'works' is not general, but referring to Mosaic laws like circumcision, etc - fits better with the context. Either way, what does it change?

I don't see the Jerusalem Council as determinitive of Paul's use of "works of the law" throughout his epistles.

 

[Arial]

It's redundant to have five Onlys. The Solas aren't meant to be understood as each being the sole factor of Salvation; or if you will, of Justification. For instance, Sola Christus; Christ Alone. Christ is not the sole factor of Justification, but he comes with Grace. Our Faith comes with Grace and Christ; and so on and so on. But the point of the 5-Solas is the significance of each of them; it's as-if they are the lone factor of Salvation and Justification. None here will balk at saying we're Saved by Christ Alone, right? In a way, the Solas are a figure of speech. Sure; we're not Justified through Faith Alone. The implication would be we're not Saved by Grace, right? We're not to become Antinomian by saying we're Justified through Faith Alone, and exclude the Works we were created for. No; the Solas are not "Onlys". To infer Calvinists are saying Faith is Alone is wrong...

Calvinists are saying that Faith is Alone regarding our contribution to Justification in the sight of God. Saint James is teaching us about Justification in the sight of Man; show HIM the good Works you were recreated for...

As Calvin said, Salvation through faith alone but not faith that is alone. Salvation is only in Christ. Grace is only in Christ. Faith is only in Christ. For God's glory only. The scriptures are the authority over the church only.

 

[Carbon]

Fabulous! Then it sounds like you, NT Wright, and Reformed theology are all on the same page with justification, with one exception: whether justification is declared or imputed.

Nope. Definitely not on the same page. I just don't understand how you can read the differences and not see them. Maybe you haven't read?

 

[ReverendRV]

As Calvin said, Salvation through faith alone but not faith that is alone. Salvation is only in Christ. Grace is only in Christ. Faith is only in Christ. For God's glory only. The scriptures are the authority over the church only.

See, now this is where we should start. Now we can solve the dispute...

 

[TB2]

Nope. Definitely not on the same page. I just don't understand how you can read the differences and not see them. Maybe you haven't read?

Well true enough, someone's wrong. You et al or Blomberg's assessment of NT Wright’s Justification book that

"In fact, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision is by far Wright’s clearest and most extensive explanation to date of his convictions about this central Christian doctrine, and should allay many of the concerns of all but the most intransigent of his detractors."

Either you're right or an "intransigent detractor"--- a question we're unlikely to reach consensus on. Oh well <sigh>

 

[TB2]

You know as well as I do that Scripture never expressly states "Trinity," but that means absolutely nothing in regard to what it presents thereof.

Of course. But what does that have to do with the fact that it's "an inconvenient truth" that James 2.24 is the only place where "faith alone" occurs? Did I say it's not true? No. I said it's not expressly taught. It has to be deduced and inferred from Scripture (like the Trinity!). That is not rejecting faith alone or the Trinity unlike unitarians who do use that type of argument to reject when I am not rejecting faith alone. So yes, Arials point is a strawman and inappropriate and a bit slanderous, and frankly I'm a little surprised that you would endorse it

 

[TB2]

Justification by definition is a declaration of not guilty.

And NT Wright agrees with that

 

[ReverendRV]

Of course. But what does that have to do with the fact that it's "an inconvenient truth" that James 2.24 is the only place where "faith alone" occurs? Did I say it's not true? No. I said it's not expressly taught. It has to be deduced and inferred from Scripture (like the Trinity!). That is not rejecting faith alone or the Trinity unlike unitarians who do use that type of argument to reject when I am not rejecting faith alone. So yes, Arials point is a strawman and inappropriate and a bit slanderous, and frankly I'm a little surprised that you would endorse it

I don't know every Calvinist here, but as far as it goes with me; a defense that a true Church Doctrine is not explicitly stated in a verbatim Verse, is pointless and a waste of time. The Trinity, and Sola Fide; don't need explicitly verbatim Verses in order to be true...

 

[TB2]

I don't know every Calvinist here, but as far as it goes with me; a defense that a true Church Doctrine is not explicitly stated in a verbatim Verse, is a waste of time and pointless. The Trinity, and Sola Fide; don't need explicitly verbatim Verses in order to be true...

Amen! Very true! But here my point was not whether it needs to be expressly taught but that it requires interpretation. Sometimes there is this Protestant 'arrogance' for lack of a better word where we as Protestants [or insert denomination X] 'smugly' and proudly proclaim that "we" are following the "clear" teaching of Scripture (implying that no one else is and that their reading of Scripture is colored by tradition or a particular interpretive framework) when that's really no less true of us. Some humility might be in order.

 

[ReverendRV]

But here my point was not whether it needs to be expressly taught but that it requires interpretation. Sometimes there is this Protestant 'arrogance' for lack of a better word where we as Protestants [or insert denomination X] 'smugly' and proudly proclaim that "we" are following the "clear" teaching of Scripture (implying that no one else is and that their reading of Scripture is colored by tradition or a particular interpretive framework) when that's really no less true of us. Some humility might be in order.

This is true...

So let's advance...

 

[TB2]

Or call it even, a truce? I'm getting tired lol

 

[ReverendRV]

Or call it even, a truce. I'm getting tired lol

You will notice I'm the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet, almost Arminian; so you'll be surprised we'll agree more often than not...

It's a way I can resolve our differences; the thing is though, resolution quells activity. Also, I notice when people skip over my Posts, to deal with others who would rather fight...

 

[TB2]

You will notice I'm the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet; so you'll be surprised we agree more often than not...

It's one way I can resolve the differences. Also, I notice when people skip over my Posts, to deal with others who would rather fight...

You do strike me as the voice of reason. Best

 

[Sereni-tea]

That was the particular issue Paul was dealing with in Gal. Agitators trying to add Mosaic law as necessary for salvation. That is why the book is worded the way it is. That does not negate the numerous scriptures that teach the complete sufficiency of Christ with nothing added to it----works period. One who is saved is the seed planted in the good soil with produces the fruit of righteousness---good works.

Agreed. As far as I can tell, no one is saying otherwise.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I don't see the Jerusalem Council as determinitive of Paul's use of "works of the law" throughout his epistles.

Agreed.