Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Faith and Works: The Relationship between Faith, Works, and Salvation in the NT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    No, I was responding to Remonstrant's post:
    As to that - the verb does USUALLY mean believe. The noun USUALLY means loyalty - or trustworthiness, faithfulness (which is not belief - as has already been noted), commitment, reliability ... a variety of words which indicate fidelity and will vary as appropriate to context.

    Well, fidelity is closest to "faithfulness", but "allegiance" and "loyalty" would be different, and none of these carry the idea of "faith".
    The words are quite similar in intent. and their relationship to "faith" is not particularly relevant. Their relationship to πιστις is relevant.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Nothing new in that - Augustine complained that inaccurate translations of the Bible into Latin forced the need to learn the original Biblical languages (Koine Greek and Hebrew). ...
      The possibility that the problem is longstanding does not soften the impact in any way. It only implies that since early in the Church Age, God was unable or unwilling to see that His word was properly transmitted and translated. We do not live in 1st-C Palestine or the Roman Empire, and it is unrealistic to expect regular people to know any one of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.

      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Well, I believe in that, and I'm not a KJV-onlyist.
      WADR, no, you really don't believe it, unless there is some particular unique translation that you hold to be "the" word of God, flawlessly transmitted and translated down through the millennia.

      Surely not, this would also include virtually all lexicons and commentaries. "Pistis" means faith, or faithful.

      Source: BDAG

      πίστις, εως, ἡ (Hes., Hdt.+; ranging in meaning from subjective confidence to objective basis for confidence).

      William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 818.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Blessings,
      Lee
      IMO, most believers would never give a thought to this fact unless they noticed that KJV, HCSB, Young's Literal, and Green's Literal translate Gal. 5:22 one way, and virtually all other versions render it another way. Even then, most would just say, "Huh. Interesting," and then go on thinking that in the vast majority of cases, "pistis" means "faith" or "belief," and "pisteuo" means "believe."
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
        The possibility that the problem is longstanding does not soften the impact in any way. It only implies that since early in the Church Age, God was unable or unwilling to see that His word was properly transmitted and translated. We do not live in 1st-C Palestine or the Roman Empire, and it is unrealistic to expect regular people to know any one of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and .
        So also thought Augustine until near the end of his life. He did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, and his knowledge of Koine Greek was rudimentary at best. All the more remarkable then that he should have said it was necessary to learn the Biblical languages.


        IMO, most believers would never give a thought to this fact unless they noticed that KJV, HCSB, Young's Literal, and Green's Literal translate Gal. 5:22 one way, and virtually all other versions render it another way. Even then, most would just say, "Huh. Interesting," and then go on thinking that in the vast majority of cases, "pistis" means "faith" or "belief," and "pisteuo" means "believe."
        Most believers don't even bother to compare versions.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
          Thank you for your reply. Your [tabibito’s] understanding of πίστις, pistis as ‘fidelity’ or ‘faithfulness’ comports well with Matthew W. Bates’ recently published proposal, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017).* Throughout, Bates argues against what he believes is a ‘truncation’ of the gospel. A significant area of concern for Bates is the appropriate translation of pistis and its cognates in English Bible translations. In brief, he believes that pistis-language would, in most instances, better be translated as allegiance (πίστις, pistis) or give allegiance to (πιστεύω, pisteuō), rather than as ‘faith’ or ‘believe’. Bates has a forthcoming, soon-to-be-released volume that aims to clarify and further expand upon his work Salvation by Allegiance Alone (2017) entitled Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019). […]
          For a twenty-page critique of Bates’ Salvation by Allegiance Alone (2017), see Will N. Timmins, ‘A Faith Unlike Abraham’s: Matthew Bates on Salvation by Allegiance Alone’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 61.3 (2018): 595–615, <https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...15_Timmins.pdf>.
          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            I don't recall making any comment about allegiance - maybe I slipped up, but the posts I have made would make it plain that "allegiance" wasn't a particularly noteworthy rendering. Then again, now that you have brought it up ... how much difference is there between "allegiance" and "fidelity" or "loyalty?"
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
              I realize that "inerrancy" only applies to the now-nonexistent original documents, and that basically only KJV-onlyists *really* believe in divine preservation of the word of God.
              These seem to be rather biting assertions.

              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
              Still, it is more than a little disconcerting to think that virtually if not literally every modern and semi-modern English translation in existence renders such a pivotal word incorrectly.
              Even if it were granted that the majority of English Bible translations have rendered pistis and pisteuō in a less-than-optimal fashion in many instances (which I am not here affirming or denying), we must not let this stand in the way of progress.
              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Well, my point is that the LXX shows that Paul doesn't mean allegiance.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                To be clear, I have not yet taken a stance on Bates’ proposal. Presently, I must reserve my judgement, as further reflection and study are required.
                For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                  For a twenty-page critique of Bates’ Salvation by Allegiance Alone (2017), see Will N. Timmins, ‘A Faith Unlike Abraham’s: Matthew Bates on Salvation by Allegiance Alone’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 61.3 (2018): 595–615, <https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...15_Timmins.pdf>.
                  I've only skimmed the JETS article - it is a good read. Right now though - and in part because of the article itself - I'm plumping for "commitment" as the default rendering for πιστις.
                  if pistis is understood as allegiance to the Christ, “then it immediately becomes obvious why
                  early Christians would have spoken of the ‘law of the Christ’ with esteem rather
                  than with law-hating suspicion” (p. 87). I confess that this was not immediately
                  obvious to me, but Bates proceeds to spell it out: “The rendering of pistis … and
                  submission to the law of Christ amount to nearly the same thing—to give pistis
                  means to enact allegiance to the king by obeying his law” (p. 87).
                  Bates, 601

                  Agreed - the relationship between disciple (distinct from believer) and Christ is the relationship between liege-man and liege-lord. However, certain passages don't even indicate a commitment to Christ himself so much as to a cause. cf - the people who lowered a man through the roof for healing, the Syro-Phoenician woman with the possessed daughter, the Centurion with the dying daughter, and the woman who had been haemorrhaging for 12 years. Each of these committed their cause to Christ, but there is no evident commitment on the part of those people themselves to Christ himself. A proper read of the article and its book and a bit further consideration is needed meseems.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    As to that - the verb does USUALLY mean believe. The noun USUALLY means loyalty - or trustworthiness, faithfulness (which is not belief - as has already been noted), commitment, reliability ... a variety of words which indicate fidelity and will vary as appropriate to context.
                    Source: TDNT

                    πίστις. As in Gk. (→ 176, 17 ff.) this can mean both “faithfulness” and “trust,” though it is seldom used in the former sense.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Originally posted by Norin Radd
                    Even then, most would just say, "Huh. Interesting," and then go on thinking that in the vast majority of cases, "pistis" means "faith" or "belief," and "pisteuo" means "believe."
                    Well, it does, and I'm happy to have "pistis" mean "faith" in Gal. 5:22.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Each of these committed their cause to Christ, but there is no evident commitment on the part of those people themselves to Christ himself.
                      Oh, but I think they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, very likely, as in the following case:

                      "Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him." (Mt. 20:34)

                      A proper read of the article and its book and a bit further consideration is needed meseems.
                      Here is a quote from the article that I think is most cogent:

                      Source: JETS article

                      Bates cites this as an example of πίστις and πιστεύω being “used with reference to matters of sworn allegiance, loyal commitment, and treason in battle” (p. 80), omitting to note that the construction Josephus uses is πιστεύω αὐτός, “to entrust oneself” (cf. John 2:24). The two texts which specify the object towards which loyalty or fidelity is expressed use πίστις πρός to convey this sense (J.W. 1.207; 2.341). Nowhere in SAA does Bates adduce a single example of πιστεύω or πίστις, followed by εἰς or ἐπί or ἐν, with the meaning “to give allegiance to.” Bates needs to provide unambiguous examples of such if the reader is to avoid the conclusion that his proposal at this point is mere speculation, especially given that this is Bates’s key argument for why πίστις means allegiance in salvation-oriented contexts.

                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • πιστις.jpg


                        πιστοι is of course the participle, and therefore translates the verb πιστευω not the noun πιστις
                        Last edited by tabibito; 06-06-2019, 02:35 PM.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          [T]he relationship between disciple (distinct from believer) and Christ is the relationship between liege-man and liege-lord. However, certain passages don't even indicate a commitment to Christ himself so much as to a cause. cf - the people who lowered a man through the roof for healing, the Syro-Phoenician woman with the possessed daughter, the Centurion with the dying daughter, and the woman who had been haemorrhaging for 12 years. Each of these committed their cause to Christ, but there is no evident commitment on the part of those people themselves to Christ himself. A proper read of the article and its book and a bit further consideration is needed meseems.
                          The instances you cite relate specifically to the temporal healing/deliverance of persons by Jesus of Nazareth. They believed that Jesus had the power and authority to perform great wonders.
                          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                            The instances you cite relate specifically to the temporal healing/deliverance of persons by Jesus of Nazareth. They believed that Jesus had the power and authority to perform great wonders.
                            In Matthew 9: 27-29, faith (pistin) might conceivably be belief or trust. The people whose faith was pointedly noted and praised, in the passages I referred to, went to great lengths to approach Jesus. Moreover, and particularly in the cases of the man who was lowered through the roof and the Syrophonoecian woman, where the blessings were not received by the people who approached Jesus, belief was not a dominant factor. The chart in post 131 shows quite clearly just how unlikely it is for "faith" to mean "belief."
                            Last edited by tabibito; 06-07-2019, 04:20 PM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                              If one were to doubt his or her relationship to Jesus Christ, whether s/he is united to him or not, would this lack of personal assurance of salvation indicate that his or her faith is not genuine (i.e. false; not salvational in nature)?
                              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                              Yes, that "faith" is not genuine because it does not meet the definition of faith. Faith, according to Hebrews 11, is basically confidence in God's existence and in his willingness to reward. To expect hellfire for oneself is a total lack of confidence in God's willingness to reward. Why would anyone live for God if he didn't even expect to wind up in God's kingdom at all?
                              One may believe in the reality of God and his readiness to reward those that are seeking him (Heb. 11.6), yet be unsure of the authenticity of his or her faith and/or repentance. Is the assurance of salvation to be obtained wholly upon objective grounds? I am not convinced that it is. It would, of course, be folly to presume that one is in a positive relationship with God apart from the word of God and its promises. Nevertheless, I do not see how, scripturally, an individual’s appropriation of salvational assurance may be justifiably had without taking into consideration subjective means as well.
                              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Remonstrant
                                One may believe in the reality of God and his readiness to reward those that are seeking him (Heb. 11.6), yet be unsure of the authenticity of his or her faith and/or repentance.
                                I still don't think you get my point: If you are worried about going to hell, then you CANNOT live a life that pleases God. The passage teaches that assurance of salvation is core to the gospel. You have to know that your treasure is in heaven before your heart can be there.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X