Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[Starlight]

You couldn't be more wrong, Jim. In order to be saved, one has to recognize and repent of their own sin. Our Salvation is by Grace through Faith - not anything we can do, are, or hope to be.

Let's say I'm right and that you have a wrong translation/interpretation of this passage and a couple of other similar ones, and that a pre-Protestant 'salvation by works' reading of the bible was actually correct where humans could actually do enough good to please God and to make his "nice" list rather than his "naughty" list. How much would that affect you and your life?

[JimL]

He wasn't that great against iron chariots:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. -Judges 1:19

Mountain war god got a -3 modifier on all rolls against iron chariots.

Oh, that is too funny. God lost because the enemy had better chariots!

[Mountain Man]

Just imagine the dumbest bordering-on-parody thing you can think of, and that'll be Jimmy's response.

No, survival of the fittest is exactly what christianity is based on, the fittest get saved, and by fittest I simply mean believers.

Did I call it, or did I call it?

[Mountain Man]

He wasn't that great against iron chariots:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. -Judges 1:19

Mountain war god got a -3 modifier on all rolls against iron chariots.

For someone who claims to have a deep understanding of scripture, this is a dumb criticism.

Skeptics say: "Some omnipotent God! He couldn't even drive out people with iron chariots!" What's the problem here? This was the same God that the Bible says parted the Red Sea, brought Ten Plagues on Egypt, and created everything. Is it really plausible to suggest that some later Biblical writer is now going to say that this same God was limited because a couple of pagans had some iron chariots? Of course not! Obviously, something else is meant here - that the "he" in question is Judah, not God, and "the Lord was with Judah" - i.e., Judah had good tidings - inasmuch as He gave them success in the mountains, but NOT enough to take on iron chariots. The Judges writer is assuring the reader that in spite of Judah's failure in the valley, the Lord was with them.

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-JUD.html#ironchariots.html

[oxmixmudd]

Let's say I'm right and that you have a wrong translation/interpretation of this passage and a couple of other similar ones, and that a pre-Protestant 'salvation by works' reading of the bible was actually correct where humans could actually do enough good to please God and to make his "nice" list rather than his "naughty" list. How much would that affect you and your life?

How in the world can that passage (Ephesians 2:8-10) change meaning in any substantial way as a result of a translation difference? I'm sitting here looking at word for word Greek to English and wondering what possible gyrations you'd be referring to that could possibly affect it enough to drive it away from the basic idea that salvation is a gift and the result of faith, not works.

Indeed, if one looks at it in the vulgate, which came from the Greek at a time much closer to the time of writing than the present day, it simply reinforces the idea that passage is being correctly translated here.

Source: latin vulgate

gratia enim estis salvati per fidem et hoc non ex vobis Dei enim donum est non ex operibus ut ne quis glorietur

© Copyright Original Source

The concept of faith being a primary component of salvation is found throughout the new testament, and not just as a Pauline doctrine. Peter is quite clear on the concept of being born again, on the fact following Christ in baptism is what has saved us through faith. Not to mention Jesus Himself emphasizing faith over the law on several occasions.

If one looks at the whole of the new testament, works and faith are related - works apart from faith are dead, works alone can't save, the works themselves do not save, faith is the required element, but faith devoid of works is also dead. There can't be true salvation apart from the change that WILL produce good works. But that change comes through faith and repentance, not by doing good things.

And I'm pretty sure that overarching theme is essentially independent of any of the mechanics of translation. All translations done by qualified scholars from all the major branches of the faith across the millenia have produced texts that lead to that same conclusion.

Consider the modern Roman Catholic English Translation:

Source: the New American Bible, Eph 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.

© Copyright Original Source

The Roman Catholic Tradition would offer as much emphasis on works as can be found in any of the historical Christian traditions, yet one can barely tell any difference from how their scholars translate the text and how modern evangelical scholars translate the text.



Jim

[Starlight]

How in the world can that passage (Ephesians 2:8-10) change meaning in any substantial way as a result of a translation difference? I'm sitting here looking at word for word Greek to English and wondering what possible gyrations you'd be referring to that could possibly affect it enough to drive it away from the basic idea that salvation is a gift and the result of faith, not works.

Jewish customs with "faithfulness".

In this reading, Paul never has anything negative to say about morally good deeds. And, in fact, he says morally good deeds will receive a positive final judgement according to the gospel that he preaches (Rom 2:6-16).

Paul also talks positively a lot about "faithfulness", and the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" and the "faithfulness of Abraham". To him this seems to be a synonym for obedience as he sometimes uses that word instead (e.g. Phil 2:8) or uses both together as "faithful obedience" (e.g. Rom 1:5). IMO, to Paul, this term "faithfulness" or "faith" as it's sometimes translated, is best read as referring to the faithful obedience of a Christ-like life in which one obeys God's will and commands. So in Phil 2:8, Jesus was obedient to God and was rewarded for this, and Paul's thinking is that if we too imitate Jesus' obedient faithfulness we too would be rewarded by God. So I think Paul's word "faithfulness" absolutely encompasses and includes what we would also call "good works".

So I don't think there's actually a contradiction between:

"a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" - James 2:24
"a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" - Gal 2:16

James is saying God approves of a person who actually does good, not merely someone who intellectually believes in God, and goes on to note that even demons intellectually believe in God. Paul is saying that following Jewish customs isn't what makes God approve of a person, but instead it is Christ-like faithful obedience to God's will that leads to God's approve, and he goes on to talk at length about circumcision. So two completely different meanings of "works" (good works vs Jewish customs) in the two writers and two rather different meanings of "faithfulness" / "faith" (intellectual belief vs faithful obedience).

Also, worth noting that the term "salvation" for Paul is almost always used to describe the life-transition point when a person repents of past evil deeds and commits to living a life in obedience to God's will. Not everyone needs to be saved because not all have gone astray in the first place - remember Jesus' parable where the shepherd sets out to rescue the 1 sheep in 100 that has gone astray...



In Paul's theology, salvation (life transformation - repentance & sanctification) will likely lead to a positive final judgement from God, but one is saved from sin and from a life of sinfulness, one is not saved from hell directly (indeed to say that God 'saves' someone from God's own judgment is almost oxymoronic). Salvation from sin and the power of sin is offered by God as a free gift to sinners, as God constantly reaches out to sinners in many and various ways, imploring them to change and reform and repent, and sending Jesus to teach them how to live rightly etc.

Hence in Ephesians Paul is attacking Jewish national pride and saying that God sent Jesus as a gift to both gentiles and Jews and the Jews aren't in a privileged position with regard to salvation or God's favor, and also emphasizing that Jewish customs like circumcision are not the measure of God's approval of a person. Don't over-individualize the passage and don't take it to be about morally good works rather than Jewish customs.

[NorrinRadd]

Let's say I'm right and that you have a wrong translation/interpretation of this passage and a couple of other similar ones, and that a pre-Protestant 'salvation by works' reading of the bible was actually correct where humans could actually do enough good to please God and to make his "nice" list rather than his "naughty" list. How much would that affect you and your life?

Assuming you could somehow come up with such a translation of that passage, the part a little later in the chapter where he says the Law of Commandments in decrees was abolished; the similar part in Col. 2 that says the list of decrees was destroyed; the portions of Gal. 3 that says the Law was hung on the Tree, and that we stay saved the same way we get saved, i.e. by believing what we heard; the portion of Tit. 3 that teaches we were not saved on the basis of righteous works; and the portions of John 6 that teach that the only "work" we need do to inherit eternal life is to believe in Him; and that you could prove beyond reasonable doubt that yours is the correct meaning:

I would consider Scripture to be useless, as it is incomprehensible. I would probably abandon Christianity. I'd probably become a satanist, just for fun. Or maybe a Norse pagan.

[NorrinRadd]

Jewish customs with "faithfulness". ...

Since the NPP is most famously associated with N.T. Wright, one might expect his translation of the New Testament to support your case. It does not.

[Starlight]

Since the NPP is most famously associated with N.T. Wright

Of all modern New Perspective scholars, who have a vast variety of views, NT Wright is the one I would say is not worth reading. He is more wrong than right IMO and what he does get correct is laid out much better by other scholars.

one might expect his translation of the New Testament to support your case.

Wright calls 'works of the law' "badges of covenant membership" in general in his writings. That's an okayish term I guess. Typical of him to make things sound unnecessarily complex though.

the part a little later in the chapter where he says the Law of Commandments in decrees was abolished; the similar part in Col. 2 that says the list of decrees was destroyed; the portions of Gal. 3 that says the Law was hung on the Tree

Yes, Paul thinks the Jewish customs (Law = circumcision etc) are irrelevant and done away with. But he's quite supportive of loving one another.

and that we stay saved the same way we get saved, i.e. by believing what we heard... and the portions of John 6 that teach that the only "work" we need do to inherit eternal life is to believe in Him;

As I have mentioned "faithfulness" / "obedience" (or even "perseverance") is usually a better translation of the word concerned than "belief" is.

I would consider Scripture to be useless, as it is incomprehensible. I would probably abandon Christianity.

I saw one of Nick's recent threads is on that topic. You could go crying to him that the bible was too unclear I guess.

But I think you have a reasonable point in the sense that I think an omniscient God if he had existed would have done a much better job of making the bible clear, and hence the arguments among Christians over the centuries about doctrine and about what it says are themselves evidence that God does exist and didn't write the bible, because he would have anticipated their errors/concerns/questions and clearly addressed them.

[Mountain Man]

Of all modern New Perspective scholars, who have a vast variety of views, NT Wright is the one I would say is not worth reading. He is more wrong than right IMO and what he does get correct is laid out much better by other scholars.

Of course, everybody has it wrong but you.

But I think you have a reasonable point in the sense that I think an omniscient God if he had existed would have done a much better job of making the bible clear...

The Bible is a multifaceted book. Its basic message is so simple and clearly explained that even a child can grasp it, but you can study its whole for a lifetime and still learn something new every time you open its pages. Which, incidentally, is exactly what I would expect from a book of divine origin.

[oxmixmudd]

Jewish customs with "faithfulness".

In this reading, Paul never has anything negative to say about morally good deeds. And, in fact, he says morally good deeds will receive a positive final judgement according to the gospel that he preaches (Rom 2:6-16).

Paul also talks positively a lot about "faithfulness", and the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" and the "faithfulness of Abraham". To him this seems to be a synonym for obedience as he sometimes uses that word instead (e.g. Phil 2:8) or uses both together as "faithful obedience" (e.g. Rom 1:5). IMO, to Paul, this term "faithfulness" or "faith" as it's sometimes translated, is best read as referring to the faithful obedience of a Christ-like life in which one obeys God's will and commands. So in Phil 2:8, Jesus was obedient to God and was rewarded for this, and Paul's thinking is that if we too imitate Jesus' obedient faithfulness we too would be rewarded by God. So I think Paul's word "faithfulness" absolutely encompasses and includes what we would also call "good works".

So I don't think there's actually a contradiction between:

"a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" - James 2:24
"a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" - Gal 2:16

James is saying God approves of a person who actually does good, not merely someone who intellectually believes in God, and goes on to note that even demons intellectually believe in God. Paul is saying that following Jewish customs isn't what makes God approve of a person, but instead it is Christ-like faithful obedience to God's will that leads to God's approve, and he goes on to talk at length about circumcision. So two completely different meanings of "works" (good works vs Jewish customs) in the two writers and two rather different meanings of "faithfulness" / "faith" (intellectual belief vs faithful obedience).

Also, worth noting that the term "salvation" for Paul is almost always used to describe the life-transition point when a person repents of past evil deeds and commits to living a life in obedience to God's will. Not everyone needs to be saved because not all have gone astray in the first place - remember Jesus' parable where the shepherd sets out to rescue the 1 sheep in 100 that has gone astray...



In Paul's theology, salvation (life transformation - repentance & sanctification) will likely lead to a positive final judgement from God, but one is saved from sin and from a life of sinfulness, one is not saved from hell directly (indeed to say that God 'saves' someone from God's own judgment is almost oxymoronic). Salvation from sin and the power of sin is offered by God as a free gift to sinners, as God constantly reaches out to sinners in many and various ways, imploring them to change and reform and repent, and sending Jesus to teach them how to live rightly etc.

Hence in Ephesians Paul is attacking Jewish national pride and saying that God sent Jesus as a gift to both gentiles and Jews and the Jews aren't in a privileged position with regard to salvation or God's favor, and also emphasizing that Jewish customs like circumcision are not the measure of God's approval of a person. Don't over-individualize the passage and don't take it to be about morally good works rather than Jewish customs.

I think you missing the forest for the trees. The 'Jewish Customs', as you put it, are the God given Old Testament Law, which from Paul's perspective is itself perfect insofar as a system of works can be and therefore the only system of 'works' capable of producing righteousness in his theology, should the attainment of righteousness be possible at all through a system of works. So when he says righteousness can't be attained through works and those works are those same 'Jewish customs', he is, in fact, saying righteousness is impossible through ANY system of works.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

Let's say I'm right

While we're at it, we might as well say Trump is an honest and honorable man!

and that you have a wrong translation/interpretation of this passage and a couple of other similar ones, and that a pre-Protestant 'salvation by works' reading of the bible was actually correct where humans could actually do enough good to please God and to make his "nice" list rather than his "naughty" list. How much would that affect you and your life?

Quite honestly, I "do works" because I'm saved, not to "get saved".

[JimL]

For someone who claims to have a deep understanding of scripture, this is a dumb criticism.

Skeptics say: "Some omnipotent God! He couldn't even drive out people with iron chariots!" What's the problem here? This was the same God that the Bible says parted the Red Sea, brought Ten Plagues on Egypt, and created everything. Is it really plausible to suggest that some later Biblical writer is now going to say that this same God was limited because a couple of pagans had some iron chariots? Of course not! Obviously, something else is meant here - that the "he" in question is Judah, not God, and "the Lord was with Judah" - i.e., Judah had good tidings - inasmuch as He gave them success in the mountains, but NOT enough to take on iron chariots. The Judges writer is assuring the reader that in spite of Judah's failure in the valley, the Lord was with them.

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-JUD.html#ironchariots.html

Of course, the scripture can mean whatever you want it to mean, MM. If the Lord was with him, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountains, then why, if the Lord was with him, couldn't he defeat those in the valley. Well, those in the valley just happened to be better equipped and "the Lord" has nothing to do with it in either case. You're so easy.

[JimL]

How in the world can that passage (Ephesians 2:8-10) change meaning in any substantial way as a result of a translation difference? I'm sitting here looking at word for word Greek to English and wondering what possible gyrations you'd be referring to that could possibly affect it enough to drive it away from the basic idea that salvation is a gift and the result of faith, not works.

Indeed, if one looks at it in the vulgate, which came from the Greek at a time much closer to the time of writing than the present day, it simply reinforces the idea that passage is being correctly translated here.

Source: latin vulgate

gratia enim estis salvati per fidem et hoc non ex vobis Dei enim donum est non ex operibus ut ne quis glorietur

© Copyright Original Source

The concept of faith being a primary component of salvation is found throughout the new testament, and not just as a Pauline doctrine. Peter is quite clear on the concept of being born again, on the fact following Christ in baptism is what has saved us through faith. Not to mention Jesus Himself emphasizing faith over the law on several occasions.

If one looks at the whole of the new testament, works and faith are related - works apart from faith are dead, works alone can't save, the works themselves do not save, faith is the required element, but faith devoid of works is also dead. There can't be true salvation apart from the change that WILL produce good works. But that change comes through faith and repentance, not by doing good things.

And I'm pretty sure that overarching theme is essentially independent of any of the mechanics of translation. All translations done by qualified scholars from all the major branches of the faith across the millenia have produced texts that lead to that same conclusion.

Consider the modern Roman Catholic English Translation:

Source: the New American Bible, Eph 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.

© Copyright Original Source

The Roman Catholic Tradition would offer as much emphasis on works as can be found in any of the historical Christian traditions, yet one can barely tell any difference from how their scholars translate the text and how modern evangelical scholars translate the text.



Jim

So, if you just don't happen to believe, if you aren't a christian, then how good one is, what works one does in his life, doesn't matter, because of their non-belief, it's off to hell they go, right?

[JimL]

While we're at it, we might as well say Trump is an honest and honorable man!



Quite honestly, I "do works" because I'm saved, not to "get saved".

How do you know you're saved, you haven't died yet? If you stop doing works, would you still be saved? I think what you mean to say is that you do works because you believe you are saved. Which is another way of saying that you do works to get saved.