Salvation by Faith Alone?

[Cyrillic]

In my hometown there once lived a certain dude, Jacobus Hermanszoon, who said that the Calvinist god is an idol and not at all the loving and merciful God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. It's hard to disagree with him. You might know Jacobus Hermanszoon better under the name of Jacobus Arminius.

[Romaios]

Yet, as unique a foundation as Christ is, His work on Calvary, in Hades, and in the Heavenlies at the right hand of the Father should be seen as what it is: a foundation, rather than the whole edifice of our salvation.

you entirely fail to see the irony of this. You fail to see the the infinite salvific value of Calvary. You teach that Christ is the foundation but not the edifice, but when you teach that 'the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth', you teach it as the whole deal. This is idolatry. God says, "I will share my glory with no man".

Yet, Christ is part of the Church - He is her very head.

And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

[Happy Lutheran]

 If by it you mean that Christ was commanding the use of a form of words which convey some mystical benefit, such a suggestion can only arise from a profound misunderstanding of the nature of baptism. Baptism is a witness of one's faith to the external world.

"I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit....

For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore, although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do?

But here the devil is busy to delude us with false appearances, and lead us away from the work of God to our own works...But the Scriptures teach thus: Even though we collect in one mass the works of all the monks, however splendidly they may shine, they would not be as noble and good as if God should pick up a straw."

Martin Luther

[rachel]

For most Protestants, justification = salvation and sanctification = growing in Christ (works, etc.). The reality is that they are not distinct from one another. Both are part of salvation...

They are part of salvation, but they are distinct.  However, most Protestants have gone one step further and have totally divorced sanctification from justification.

you seem confused as to whether they are truly 'distinct' or not. Paul clearly distinguishes between them. Is that not good enough?
 

They are more concerned that God has all the responsibility for one's salvation that they tend to ignore one's growth in the spiritual life.

I can't imagine where you get this idea. If you can swear to me that the Holy Spirit just can't stop raising the dead through your ministry, even I might be susceptible to plausibility!
 

That is why such disciplines as fasting (even before the Eucharist), rules of prayer (even before the Eucharist), confession, etc. have pretty much been excised. 

or perhaps they just wash their faces and go about their business as Jesus advised.

[rachel]

 If by it you mean that Christ was commanding the use of a form of words which convey some mystical benefit, such a suggestion can only arise from a profound misunderstanding of the nature of baptism. Baptism is a witness of one's faith to the external world.

"I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit....

For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore, although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do?

But here the devil is busy to delude us with false appearances, and lead us away from the work of God to our own works...But the Scriptures teach thus: Even though we collect in one mass the works of all the monks, however splendidly they may shine, they would not be as noble and good as if God should pick up a straw."

Martin Luther

it wasn't the only thing he was wrong about.

[biro]

If Rachel thinks Martin Luther was so wrong, why does she have his five 'Sola's as her signature? She wouldn't know them if Luther hadn't written them. 

[Cyrillic]

If Rachel thinks Martin Luther was so wrong, why does she have his five 'Sola's as her signature? She wouldn't know them if Luther hadn't written them. 

Does it surprise you that Rachel as a Calvinist disagreed with Luther?

[adampjr]

If Rachel thinks Martin Luther was so wrong, why does she have his five 'Sola's as her signature? She wouldn't know them if Luther hadn't written them. 

Because disagreeing with Luther about the nature of Baptism has nothing to do with her agreement with other things Luther said?

[rachel]

I agree. But the works were the product of His faith. The faith produced the works, and the faith saved. The same works, without faith, would not save because works do not earn right standing with God. Faith saves. Why? because Faith works (pun intended).

Cleopas,

So, if a=faith and b=works and c=salvation, you appear to be saying that a + b= c.
And a + 0 not equal to c, therefore, 1) works are needed for salvation and 2)
faith alone is not enough.

Then, we have Jesus saying

Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

not to mention

Rev 21:12b "Then another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.  And the dead were judged according to their works"  (NKJV).

Can we agree that salvation by faith alone is false, at least under normal circumstances?  

no, because the 'will of the Father' is that you accept his offer of salvation on the basis of Christ's shed blood.

[rachel]

If Rachel thinks Martin Luther was so wrong, why does she have his five 'Sola's as her signature? She wouldn't know them if Luther hadn't written them. 

Does it surprise you that Rachel as a Calvinist disagreed with Luther?

the presumption appears to be that Luther made them up! Someone here must read the Bible!

[Tzimis]

no, because the 'will of the Father' is that you accept his offer of salvation on the basis of Christ's shed blood.
[/quote]


 Wouldn't this be considered blackmail in a court of law?  Lets see where the consequence of that choice can lead. On the one hand we have. "Burn in hell" and on the other we have "Lets torment those who are in hell" These are basically your two only choices when you are lead down the path of a sacrificial theological belief. The reason they don't add up is because. People who have love in there hearts don't wish torment.  
     In Orthodoxy those choices are both the same side of a coin and the mathematics don't add up. That can only mean that the formula is defective. Seriously, ask yourself this question. Why would a loving god seek revenge out on those he has come to save? If you concentrate on this enough with an open mind. Hopefully you will see as much.



Christ has risen!

[rachel]

no, because the 'will of the Father' is that you accept his offer of salvation on the basis of Christ's shed blood.

 Wouldn't this be considered blackmail in a court of law?  Lets see where the consequence of that choice can lead. On the one hand we have. "Burn in hell" and on the other we have "Lets torment those who are in hell" These are basically your two only choices when you are lead down the path of a sacrificial theological belief.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
1 John 4:9-11 (in Context)
this is where not believing the Bible gets you.

 

The reason they don't add up is because. People who have love in there hearts don't wish torment.  

ok, so you don't understand that God is infinite justice AND infinite love.

  

  In Orthodoxy those choices are both the same side of a coin and the mathematics don't add up. That can only mean that the formula is defective. Seriously, ask yourself this question. Why would a loving god seek revenge out on those he has come to save? If you concentrate on this enough with an open mind. Hopefully you will see as much.

Nahum 1:2
 The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies.
Nahum 1:1-3 (in Context)

[Daedelus1138]

   I believe St. Paul's use of the term "sanctification" has nothing to do with moral excellence of a person- it has to do with the person being set aside from the world and made holy by the Holy Spirit, just like an item used in a temple might be consecrated.    I know sometimes in certain Protestant sects sanctification is emphasized as "works" that a person does to showing their faith, but I think this is a later developement in theology.   I don't think there is a rigid distinction between what justification and sanctification actually means ontologically in the Bible- justification is just a legal or covenantal description, sanctification is the religious metaphor.

[Daedelus1138]

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
1 John 4:9-11 (in Context)
this is where not believing the Bible gets you. 

  What does atoning sacrifice mean, though? This is what the Orthodox object to, not that the idea that Jesus Christ died for their sins.  The Orthodox object to the idea that Christ died as a legal, penal substitute.  They affirm that he died as an atoning sacrifice, the Lamb of God. 

  I must distance myself from your comment that God is both infinite justice and infinite love.  That would seem to make both statements about God meaningless.  I think, rather, that justice is part of God's love.  But then so is God's mercy.  But I know Calvinists are not used to hearing that.  But then I'm not a Calvinist.  I'm more comfortable with the Lutheran or Anglican understanding that roots our salvation in faith in the finished works of Christ on the Cross- and not in the secret decrees of God.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Salvation by Faith Alone?