dadof10... very perceptive. I would agree that if a man can loose his salvation, sola fide is a myth. If a man can loose his salvation, there is an element of works in salvation. I would say the same thing of the concept of "free will." If our will cooperates with Gods will there is an element of merit in salvation. We have at least in some small part earned our salvation.
Hi, Mondar. Long time no see. I hope you have been well.
After all this time, I hate to disagree with you right off the bat
, but here goes.
: ) Not a problem. I am aware of some of the differences between our traditions. The issue of free will goes all the way back to the beginning. I think of Luther and Desiderius Erasmus and their books "bondage of the will" and "freedom of the will." Nevertheless, you have always disagreed in a respectful and knowledgeable way.
Although it's of course possible, I don't think it necessary follows that if we cooperate with God's will we are "earning" salvation. I can think of many situations where people cooperate with others and "earn" nothing. If I go over to my mom's house and see her toilet is broken and fix it out of love, how did I earn anything? If my son cleans the garage for me, I might be grateful and maybe even take him for an ice cream, but he would in no way have "earned" the ice cream. He did something out of love and I responded out of love.
Concerning the term "earned" I think we need to be careful not to talk past each other. I am using the term "earned" in a way in which many similar verbs would be fine. We could say "deserved." Many other terms could be used. In the background of my comments are concepts of Grace. Of course Roman Catholics see the necessity of the Grace of God. Reformed people go a little further... we see the all sufficiency of the grace of God. Of course we use the term "sola gratia" (grace alone) to describe the sufficiency of Grace. One of the things I observe is that those who deny OSAS have a similarity in their thinking. Take for instance Jethro Bodine in this thread. Would you not see the similarity between him and you? Would you not see the similarity between those who deny OSAS. Is not Jethro's position, rather close to Roman Catholic Theology? Is not Jethro's gospel quite Roman Catholic? I am interested in your opinion on this.
Concerning the illustrations you gave above. I would suggest that we might be quibbling about choice of words and there is little substance to the differences. As I mentioned, the concepts of earned, deserved, or some sort of merit is the issue, not the exact word "earned." I am speaking of the all sufficiency of Grace. Certainly if your son cleans your garage, there is a sense in which he deserves a reward. He has been a "good" boy. If you fix your mothers toilet, you merit your mothers love. That would be being a good son.
I think sometimes our two sides talk by each other and the reason is simple. We look at justification as familial, you look at it as legal. I have read so many commentaries by well meaning OSAS adherents that mention primarily the legal side of justification/salvation and ignore the familial relationship aspect altogether. IMHO, our relationship with Christ should be looked at primarily as a family relationship. After all, the most beautiful words in the Bible might just be the last four words of 1John 3:1: "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are."
I am not sure how you are putting things together here. I am not sure I am grasping all of what you are saying above. Also, I am not sure if you are just suggesting that the issue is one of emphasis, or one in which you would deny that justification has a forensic aspect. In my past, I always understood Roman Catholics as understanding justification as "infused righteousness" and not a legal declaration. Your using different language that has more the feel of N.T.Wright, who is Church of England.
Concerning justification. I do not know which commentaries you have read. So I cannot speak to that. I would be very interested in what you read. Any chance you can point to any specific commentaries?
I do recognize that in the language of the scriptures, the term righteous (noun form), or just (verb form) has a range of meaning and uses in the scriptures. The terms can be used in a general sense, not in reference to the doctrine of justification, or it can be used in a technical forensic sense to speak of the Pauline doctrine of justification. When the context uses the term in a general sense, I would still not grasp what you could mean by "familial." The term in those contexts often means to "make righteous" without any specific forensic sense. On the other hand, some of the Pauline contexts point to a specific forensic concept that refer to the doctrine of justification. Take for instance:
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Notice the legal language in the context. The term "charge" speaks of a prosecution lawyer making an accusation or change in a courtroom setting. In verse 34 we again have the term "condemneth."
I should mention that Paul is not the only one to use the term "justification" in a forensic sense. Its that Paul is the one who uses the term in a forensic sense and connects it to the doctrine of justification. Another context in which the term has a forensic context is Exodus 23:7
Exo 23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the justice due to thy poor in his cause.
Exo 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
Exo 23:8 And thou shalt take no bribe: for a bribe blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
Courtroom language is all over the context here. Verse 6 is parallel with verse 7. Bribes given in a courtroom setting would "justify' the wicked. There is, however, a huge difference between the use of the term in Ex 23:7 and the use in Romans 8:33. In Exodus 23:7 the context is all about a courtroom setting. The doctrine of justification is not what Moses is talking about in Exodus. Moses is giving a law code for the nation of Israel. Romans is merely using the term "justify" in a forensic sense to speak of the NT doctrine of justification.
Dadof10, I know some of my above discussion is only a small brief glimpse of what is involved in a discussion on justification. We both know there is so much more. Thanks for your comments. It is always good to talk to you.
