Zobel said:

---

People love taking that verse out of context.

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3517107/replies/69335311

---

I don't see your point on how it's out of context and Romans 3:21-31 sends the same message.

Because this verse is not relevant to a faith/works discussion. As I said before, if you read what "saved" means here to St Paul it is not "going to heaven" or any other kind of individual salvation, even being saved at the judgment. I know because he goes on to explain it, immediately after this, by talking about how those of the other nations were far off, separated from Yahweh the God of Israel and that separation was why they had no hope and were without God. But, in Jesus, those of the other nations were brought near and reconciled. St Paul brought this message of hope to them, what was previously a mystery. What was the mystery? "Those of the nations are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise [of Abraham] in Jesus Christ."

And you are correct, Romans 3 is basically the same message - and again, it has nothing to do with a faith/works discussion, because it too is talking about the common salvation between non-Jews and Jews. You can tell because it talks about non-Jews and Jews over and over again in that passage, and the passage that comes before it, and the ones after it. The message of Romans 3 isn't "works not faith" or "faith not works" - it has nothing to do with any of that. It is that the blessings of God are not for the Jewish people only, and that the God of Judah is also the God of the nations, and that faithfulness is what is pleasing to God, not being Jewish. Abraham was given circumcision as a confirming mark of his faithfulness, and so he is the father of the non-Jews who are faithful as he was before circumcision, and the father of the Jews who are faithful as he was after receiving circumcision.

In both cases "works" are clearly and explicitly linked not to "good deeds" or "righteous acts" but following the Torah, that is, being Jewish.

St Paul says over and over what his Gospel is. It's not about how to be saved - it is that the God of Israel has reconciled all people of the world by taking action through the death of the Messiah to cleanse them in the blood of His atonement, bringing them near, and allowing them to receiving the same blessings that the Jews receive. The "second half" of his letters (the ones most faith alone people never talk about) are filled with instructions on how that actually is worked out in the lives of faithful non-Jewish believers in the Jewish Messiah. And that is by being faithful, which is all about how you live your life - faithfully - which is about what you do.

I want to add that I don't fault you or anyone else who reads these verses the way you do, and then get confused when I say they are out of context. The context you have received from your tradition brings an interpretive lens over the text, and that lens is asking questions about faith and works and so looks to the text to answer them.

Everyone brings a lens like this with them, and biases and expectations and questions, and we receive the lens and the "correct answers" via interpretive tradition. You get this every Sunday in church.

The problem is the lens you have is not the lens that the people who received this letter had. They were not asking the questions Luther or Calvin or Zwingli asked - or even those of Augustine or Pelagius - these came later. So your context is different than theirs.

They were asking questions we don't even think to ask, because they have been so clearly and explicitly answered that they are not "questions" in our minds any more. Their questions are things like "do non-Jews need to be circumcised to take communion?" or "should we have separate communities for Jewish and non-Jewish followers of Jesus?" or "can we still participate in pagan festivals?" or "should we have sex in church?" or "do the Torah passages about incest or sexual morality apply to non-Jewish followers of Jesus?" or "if people die before the return of the Messiah, did they miss out on the resurrection?"

The interesting thing is, that we've forgotten so much of these answers that they now need to be answered again! Because most modern Christians don't know how the Torah applies to non-Jewish Christians (i.e., most of them). And many don't know about the Resurrection! Or what St Paul's gospel actually was. They want to talk about questions that came up 15 centuries later. So these discussions are good.

I appreciate the thought out response. My question is this: you say we have freedoms to reject the gift. How can you actively reject something you are not also capable of actively accepting?

I can see where "passively enjoy" and "choose not to reject the gift" seems to take the place of active acceptance, but it doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. If I choose to "passively enjoy" the love my wife gives me, I am still choosing to enjoy it no different than I would choose to reject it. I cannot reject that which I cannot accept and vice versa.

If I am incapable of accepting something, then it is being forced upon me, regardless of what I will. If I have no say in the transaction, then Calvin is sounding incredibly accurate.

The Banned said:

---

I appreciate the thought out response. My question is this: you say we have freedoms to reject the gift. How can you actively reject something you are not also capable of actively accepting?

I can see where "passively enjoy" and "choose not to reject the gift" seems to take the place of active acceptance, but it doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. If I choose to "passively enjoy" the love my wife gives me, I am still choosing to enjoy it no different than I would choose to reject it. I cannot reject that which I cannot accept and vice versa.

If I am incapable of accepting something, then it is being forced upon me, regardless of what I will. If I have no say in the transaction, then Calvin is sounding incredibly accurate.

---

God's eternal plan of predestination includes each person's free response to His grace. God desires all to be saved and reach repentance (2 Peter 3:9). While God may give different graces to different people, His love and grace are available to all. Romans 9:18-22 illustrates that God has mercy on whom He wills, but this does not negate His universal desire for salvation. Grace is an unmerited gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9), and while we cannot earn it, we can freely cooperate with it. Thus, God's grace is universally offered, though individuals must choose to accept it.

The Banned said:

---

I appreciate the thought out response. My question is this: you say we have freedoms to reject the gift. How can you actively reject something you are not also capable of actively accepting?

I can see where "passively enjoy" and "choose not to reject the gift" seems to take the place of active acceptance, but it doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. If I choose to "passively enjoy" the love my wife gives me, I am still choosing to enjoy it no different than I would choose to reject it. I cannot reject that which I cannot accept and vice versa.

If I am incapable of accepting something, then it is being forced upon me, regardless of what I will. If I have no say in the transaction, then Calvin is sounding incredibly accurate.

---

I think you make good arguments, but they don't make sense to me because of my experiences. I probably should have not responded because faith and love is a mystery to me. I believe in faith and love, but I don't always understand how I love or care for people who may not love me back, and I am okay with that. That does not make sense to me. All I know is I tried to live my life (as a prodigal son) without a relationship with God and it was the biggest failure and emotional torture of my existence. I didn't have peace of mind or contentment until I submitted to him. God kept showing up in my life through other people, my thoughts, and then my prayers. Life/sin wore me down and I quit ignoring/rejecting Him.
The older I get, I think this Logical reasoning you described doesn't make since when explaining love. Love can can be very one sided where one side loves more than another and it's not equal or fair for one side. My experience as a parent has taught me that.

The Banned said:

---

Faith leads to action or faith makes you act?

I'm not trying to be a pest here, but there is an important distinction that, in my experience, tends to fly under the radar. If it wasn't for the fact that this distinction leads to denominational divide, I'd let it go without comment.

---

I'm not sure I understand the distinction here?

When you accept Jesus and get the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Holy spirit will prompt you to act. Listening, understanding and acting on those prompts comes with time and devotion to following Jesus. I have faith and sometimes I act when I get a prompt and sometimes I ignore it. My salvation doesn't come and go based on my response to a prompt from the Holy Spirit. Sometimes I get it right and sometimes I get it wrong.

I'm not sure that actually addresses what he is asking, though. That God pursues us (He does) doesn't change whether both acceptance and rejection are activities we engage in.

I appreciate you responding and won't blame you for not having it all fully fleshed out. I get exactly where you're coming from and agree with much of it.

What you're describing is why I think the average day in the life of a practicing Catholic/EO versus practicing Protestant probably doesn't look all that different. Different kinds of prayers, sure, but there is prayer and time with God. Attempts to treat people well. Trying to stay faithful to the Word.

I think as Christians we can get much closer to unity than we actually are today, but it is these types of theological distinctions that can stand in the way, which is why I'm trying to dive in. For example, the idea that you stop rejecting His overtures is by definition you accepting His overtures. Like how the prodigal son did have to do the action of returning home to his father. He didn't stay in the pig sty, and his dad didn't come pick him up. He had to get up and walk back to the loving father in order to receive the gift of the homecoming celebration.

Based on what I've read on Lutheranism, including Luther's works, this doesn't fit. It goes against the total depravity of man. We can't choose that turning back. God has to choose it for us. That is unless we agree that as humans we have an active role in our salvation, which he rejected

Hey...so.. um said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Faith leads to action or faith makes you act?

I'm not trying to be a pest here, but there is an important distinction that, in my experience, tends to fly under the radar. If it wasn't for the fact that this distinction leads to denominational divide, I'd let it go without comment.

---

I'm not sure I understand the distinction here?

When you accept Jesus and get the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Holy spirit will prompt you to act. Listening, understanding and acting on those prompts comes with time and devotion to following Jesus. I have faith and sometimes I act when I get a prompt and sometimes I ignore it. My salvation doesn't come and go based on my response to a prompt from the Holy Spirit. Sometimes I get it right and sometimes I get it wrong.

---

So the Holy Spirit does the prompting. I'm more or less ok with this. Sometimes we listen, sometimes we don't. Now: what happens if we just stop listening altogether? The spirit keeps on promoting but we just decide we're not doing that anymore and we're going our own way?

You are correct, I failed to address his question. I don't understand the question and assumption that if you don't actively accept something then you cannot reject it. Semantics might play a role because not accepting could mean the same as actively rejecting. This part of the question I don't understand because I see not accepting the same/similar to rejecting something depending on how it used. Here is the way I have viewed acceptance versus rejection. The only analogy I can think of is you spray me with a water hose, then I get wet. I am now wet and do not need to accept the idea that I am wet because it is a reality that I am wet. I can reject the desire to feeling wet or becoming more wet by running away to avoid the water spray and then reject the feeling of wetness by changing my clothes and drying off with a towel. So It seems to me love and kindness (feeling wet) can be done to me without me wanting or accepting it. How I respond to the love and kindness (feeling wet) is way more important. Just acknowledging/accepting that kindness happened to me is a pretty weak and passive response. I prefer the active nature of being thankful and reciprocating that love back. Hopefully that somehow answers his question.

Yes - God loves us, and first loved us while we were sinners. That's the "spraying" bit. And in fact even before the death of the Messiah He loved us, and provided good things and blessings to everyone, sinner and righteous alike. And even further He is merciful, giving us time to repent from evil before taking action.

God says He will have mercy on whom He will, and He will have compassion on whom He will. He has mercy and shows compassion to everyone!

I think the question here is that given everyone is "sprayed" and but salvation does not appear to be guaranteed to all, it comes back to what separates the sheep from the goats?

Because God has pursued all, died for all, shown grace to all, shown mercy to all... if some are not saved, why? That's what the OP is asking about.

Zobel said:

---

Because God has pursued all, died for all, shown grace to all, shown mercy to all... if some are not saved, why? That's what the OP is asking about.

---

I have this same belief. I guess I did not understand his question until you restated it for me. As for the question, I am fully convinced we don't know and will not know on earth the answer to this question. Who are we to know the full mind of God except what he reveals to us. Adam and Eve sought that knowledge by eating the fruit and look what happened. This knowledge is not necessary for our salvation, faith, or to have a loving relationship with our Father in heaven. Thank you for the clarification.

Txducker said:

---

You are correct, I failed to address his question. I don't understand the question and assumption that if you don't actively accept something then you cannot reject it. Semantics might play a role because not accepting could mean the same as actively rejecting. This part of the question I don't understand because I see not accepting the same/similar to rejecting something depending on how it used. Here is the way I have viewed acceptance versus rejection. The only analogy I can think of is you spray me with a water hose, then I get wet. I am now wet and do not need to accept the idea that I am wet because it is a reality that I am wet. I can reject the desire to feeling wet or becoming more wet by running away to avoid the water spray and then reject the feeling of wetness by changing my clothes and drying off with a towel. So It seems to me love and kindness (feeling wet) can be done to me without me wanting or accepting it. How I respond to the love and kindness (feeling wet) is way more important. Just acknowledging/accepting that kindness happened to me is a pretty weak and passive response. I prefer the active nature of being thankful and reciprocating that love back. Hopefully that somehow answers his question.

---

I don't love this analogy for a few reasons, but I'm ok to stick with it: God sprays everyone. Everyone is wet. Some choose to change clothes. Some accept the wetness. This seems clean on the surface, but the reality is that acceptance is just as much of an active choice as rejecting. It is my choice to accept salvation just as much as it is to reject salvation. Even if I had no consent to get wet in the first place, if I CAN choose dryness there logically HAS to exist the choice to stay wet.

There is no scenario that I can imagine in which there is a choice to move without an equal and opposite choice to stay still

What he's exploring is that some will say that they do know the answer to this question, and it is that God does not in fact save everyone.

Zobel said:

---

Or the action -is- the faith, because without action you cannot be faithful.

---

The Banned said:

---

There is no scenario that I can imagine in which there is a choice to move without an equal and opposite choice to stay still

---

Doesn't matter that you can move, the person spraying you can change their aim and move faster than you, fly through the air, and they are not bound by the physics of this earth.

I agree, all we can do is to confess what has been given through the Word. Thought this video summarizes much of the responses given in this thread. What some have alluded to as a weakness for Luther, I see as a strength. He and other confessional Lutherans are unwilling to go beyond what is stated in Scripture. We cannot bind God by our own logic and reason.

Similarly, I cannot explain how Jesus' true body and blood is present in Communion, but I believe it in faith because I believe that is what the Bible proclaims.

Txducker said:

---

The Banned said:

---

There is no scenario that I can imagine in which there is a choice to move without an equal and opposite choice to stay still

---

Doesn't matter that you can move, the person spraying you can change their aim and move faster than you, fly through the air, and they are not bound by the physics of this earth.

---

This would lend itself towards irresistible grace, which Luther rejected. I agree that it is basically a necessity if faith is not an active choice, which is why Calvin promulgated the teaching. Which ties in well with my OP that Calvinism is the most logical ending of "faith alone".

But you have said that we can reject it, so it does matter if we can move. And if we can move, we can also stay. It's an active choice in either direction, or it's totally outside of our control. Luther got caught in the middle, which is why his immediate predecessor tried to change Lutheranism towards synergistic salvation. Which was then rejected after his death, and reemphasized monergism. There is an inherent contradiction that can't be rectified without embracing one side or the other. .

The Banned said:

---

I appreciate the thought out response. My question is this: you say we have freedoms to reject the gift. How can you actively reject something you are not also capable of actively accepting?

I can see where "passively enjoy" and "choose not to reject the gift" seems to take the place of active acceptance, but it doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. If I choose to "passively enjoy" the love my wife gives me, I am still choosing to enjoy it no different than I would choose to reject it. I cannot reject that which I cannot accept and vice versa.

If I am incapable of accepting something, then it is being forced upon me, regardless of what I will. If I have no say in the transaction, then Calvin is sounding incredibly accurate.

---

My counter example is our own existence. Did you choose to be born? Alternatively, you can reject that gift of life and throw it away. How is that different than our second birth? God does the work not us. We as sinners cannot go to God but God's Word comes to us.

You cannot choose to be born, but being born, you are human, and being human, you have human will. The human will is free, because it was made in the image of God, and it was assumed by Jesus in His humanity. Otherwise He would either have assumed a sinful will and been human, or not assumed the same will humans had and consequently not been human. QED.

Zobel said:

---

What he's exploring is that some will say that they do know the answer to this question, and it is that God does not in fact save everyone.

---

I think the original question is more about does having faith equate to doing works, which then implies we are saved by our works. Here is his question again.

So for those of a different Protestant tradition, I'd like to get your input: if you believe that God calls us and it's on us to respond to the call in the affirmative, are we not, at least in part, saved by a work? If choosing to accept or reject the gift God has given us is not a human work contributing to our salvation, what is it?

The definition of work is misused here. Our faith, a gift from God, by not rejecting the faith could be viewed as a non physical action on our part, which is what I believe.
I think the fallacy is thinking a non-physical action of not rejecting faith, which is a "feeling or belief", would be defined as "work" in the scripture. Good deeds are examples of Physical works used in the scripture. The idea of coming to the faith or believing are non-physical actions (spiritual) and is never used as an example of a good deed performed by an individual. Faith is not "work" and has never been used in scripture that way. The word "works" in scripture has traditionally been used in the context of helping other humans.

Donut Holestein said:

---

The Banned said:

---

I appreciate the thought out response. My question is this: you say we have freedoms to reject the gift. How can you actively reject something you are not also capable of actively accepting?

I can see where "passively enjoy" and "choose not to reject the gift" seems to take the place of active acceptance, but it doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. If I choose to "passively enjoy" the love my wife gives me, I am still choosing to enjoy it no different than I would choose to reject it. I cannot reject that which I cannot accept and vice versa.

If I am incapable of accepting something, then it is being forced upon me, regardless of what I will. If I have no say in the transaction, then Calvin is sounding incredibly accurate.

---

My counter example is our own existence. Did you choose to be born? Alternatively, you can reject that gift of life and throw it away. How is that different than our second birth? God does the work not us. We as sinners cannot go to God but God's Word comes to us.

---

We can't choose to be born but God didn't unilaterally make us born either. It REQUIRES human cooperation with God, which is exactly why contraception was denounced as evil by all of Christianity until the last 80-90 years.

God allowed our parents to work together in whatever way they chose to allow you and me to come into existence. He did not force me into existence. A great example of how He gave humanity free will.

Donut Holestein said:

---

I agree, all we can do is to confess what has been given through the Word. Thought this video summarizes much of the responses given in this thread. What some have alluded to as a weakness for Luther, I see as a strength. He and other confessional Lutherans are unwilling to go beyond what is stated in Scripture. We cannot bind God by our own logic and reason.

Similarly, I cannot explain how Jesus' true body and blood is present in Communion, but I believe it in faith because I believe that is what the Bible proclaims.

---

This is mind blowing. We have a theologian saying that God has created a logical fallacy. He has created a square circle. He can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it. This is not saying the ways of God are unknowable. This is saying that He intentionally created something that does not make sense and cannot make sense.

I don't know how anyone can watch this and not challenge their biblical presuppositions, specifically that Grace alone means that we don't get to choose to follow God. To say that the Bible demands us to believe this is the number one reason to reject sola scriptura and embrace the fact that they may have interpreted the Bible all wrong. The Bible is right, but the way it has been read is wrong.

This is also why Calvin immediately challenged Luther, as did many other reformers, and even his immediate successor. I think the reality that Luther was just not a very good theologian needs to be heavily considered.

Zobel said:

---

You cannot choose to be born, but being born, you are human, and being human, you have human will. The human will is free, because it was made in the image of God, and it was assumed by Jesus in His humanity. Otherwise He would either have assumed a sinful will and been human, or not assumed the same will humans had and consequently not been human. QED.

---

I don't see how that refutes the example that we can reject a gift we cannot accept.

Furthermore, we are corrupted by sin. Jesus is not. We are bound to death without external help.

Why are you saying that a work is a physical act?

It seems like you're saying that acceptance is an action but not-rejection is not. That looks like a distinction without a difference.

St Paul never says anything about physical works. He talks a lot about works of the Torah, but when he does that he is talking about being Jewish.

I think your last two sentences are simply not correct.

The Banned said:

---

Txducker said:

---

The Banned said:

---

There is no scenario that I can imagine in which there is a choice to move without an equal and opposite choice to stay still

---

Doesn't matter that you can move, the person spraying you can change their aim and move faster than you, fly through the air, and they are not bound by the physics of this earth.

---

This would lend itself towards irresistible grace, which Luther rejected. I agree that it is basically a necessity if faith is not an active choice, which is why Calvin promulgated the teaching. Which ties in well with my OP that Calvinism is the most logical ending of "faith alone.

---

I respectfully disagree that this leads to irresistible grace. Faith is loving and acknowledging God is your creator/God. You're wet because of the love and grace being sprayed at you, but that does not necessitate that you love and submit to the person spraying you with the water.
You probably have life experiences where you have been nice to someone and they still cursed you and hated you. No different.

Quote:

---

I don't see how that refutes the example that we can reject a gift we cannot accept.

---

I don't understand this sentence. You can't reject being born. You can't accept being born. You just are born. Reality is.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, we are corrupted by sin. Jesus is not. We are bound to death without external help.

---

Again, this comes back to the Incarnation.

Christ Jesus was made like us in every way, excepting only sin.

That means He is truly Human.

If He became Human, He had a human will.

The Humanity He took, He took from an actual, living human - His mother, the Theotokos, the one who bore God.

His will is a human will, and therefore it has the same powers and capacities as your will or my will - or else it is not human. We have an additional capacity He does not - the deliberative capacity, the capacity to desire evil, which is a consequence of our sin. But that absolutely does not and can not preclude us from desiring good and willing the good - because if it did, He could not desire the good and will the good!

Txducker said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What he's exploring is that some will say that they do know the answer to this question, and it is that God does not in fact save everyone.

---

I think the original question is more about does having faith equate to doing works, which then implies we are saved by our works. Here is his question again.

So for those of a different Protestant tradition, I'd like to get your input: if you believe that God calls us and it's on us to respond to the call in the affirmative, are we not, at least in part, saved by a work? If choosing to accept or reject the gift God has given us is not a human work contributing to our salvation, what is it?

The definition of work is misused here. Our faith, a gift from God, by not rejecting the faith could be viewed as a non physical action on our part, which is what I believe.
I think the fallacy is thinking a non-physical action of not rejecting faith, which is a "feeling or belief", would be defined as "work" in the scripture. Good deeds are examples of Physical works used in the scripture. The idea of coming to the faith or believing are non-physical actions (spiritual) and is never used as an example of a good deed performed by an individual. Faith is not "work" and has never been used in scripture that way. The word "works" in scripture has traditionally been used in the context of helping other humans.

---

I know how it is traditionally used, but view the Lutheran video above that states that grace alone means there is NOTHING we can do. If faith is something that we DO, then it gets lumped into the category of work, which is exactly why reformed/calvinistic doctrine is on the rise. So I can agree with you and appreciate the distinction, but it's a distinction that doesn't really work in practice.

Txducker said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Txducker said:

---

The Banned said:

---

There is no scenario that I can imagine in which there is a choice to move without an equal and opposite choice to stay still

---

Doesn't matter that you can move, the person spraying you can change their aim and move faster than you, fly through the air, and they are not bound by the physics of this earth.

---

This would lend itself towards irresistible grace, which Luther rejected. I agree that it is basically a necessity if faith is not an active choice, which is why Calvin promulgated the teaching. Which ties in well with my OP that Calvinism is the most logical ending of "faith alone.

---

I respectfully disagree that this leads to irresistible grace. Faith is loving and acknowledging God is your creator/God. You're wet because of the love and grace being sprayed at you, but that does not necessitate that you love and submit to the person spraying you with the water.
You probably have life experiences where you have been nice to someone and they still cursed you and hated you. No different.

---

I have those experiences, sure. But I don't have any experiences of showing love to someone without it being an act of my will. If my wife showers me with love, it is still an act of my will to go wash the dishes in return. She could shower me in love and I could choose to divorce her. Either way, I am doing some choosing. It's not the showering that leads to irresistible grace. It's the idea that one action is passive while other is active that leads to irresistible grace because it doesn't make any sense.

As the video showed, it requires a logical fallacy be accepted as truth. And what's interesting about that: he is encouraging his followers to accept something. To incline their will towards this teaching. This is yet another action that he would say isn't really an action. You cannot passively accept that which you can actively reject. We're either passive in both regards or active in both.

The Banned said:

---

Donut Holestein said:

---

I agree, all we can do is to confess what has been given through the Word. Thought this video summarizes much of the responses given in this thread. What some have alluded to as a weakness for Luther, I see as a strength. He and other confessional Lutherans are unwilling to go beyond what is stated in Scripture. We cannot bind God by our own logic and reason.

Similarly, I cannot explain how Jesus' true body and blood is present in Communion, but I believe it in faith because I believe that is what the Bible proclaims.

---

This is mind blowing. We have a theologian saying that God has created a logical fallacy. He has created a square circle. He can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it. This is not saying the ways of God are unknowable. This is saying that He intentionally created something that does not make sense and cannot make sense.

I don't know how anyone can watch this and not challenge their biblical presuppositions, specifically that Grace alone means that we don't get to choose to follow God. To say that the Bible demands us to believe this is the number one reason to reject sola scriptura and embrace the fact that they may have interpreted the Bible all wrong. The Bible is right, but the way it has been read is wrong.

This is also why Calvin immediately challenged Luther, as did many other reformers, and even his immediate successor. I think the reality that Luther was just not a very good theologian needs to be heavily considered.

---

By that same logic, can you explain the nature of Jesus as true man and true God? Or the example I already gave in the Eucharist?

I'm not trying to argue but I'm simply answering the question you asked. If you reject it so be it but I will not change my position based on what makes sense to you.

Furthermore, you stated that this doctrine arose with Luther yet we find statements in the church fathers that align with those statements.

I don't expect you to watch these but I'll share for those curious on patristic evidence for Sola Fide:

There is a difference between paradox and fallacy.

I don't agree with Jordan Peterson on this approach...he mistakes a lack of unanimity and a lack of polemical precision that comes from the absence of heretical pressure as a lack of consensus, and then uses that supposed lack of consensus as license for or evidence of variance in belief. Its a mistake.

There are two issues, one is that that the church actively preserved the writings of the fathers while simultaneously maintaining the public teaching. The preservation of the writings of the fathers assumes certain interpretations in line with the teaching of the church because they were selected to be preserved. This validates their authority, and he appeals to their authority. But, at the same time, he feels completely unconstrained by the authority which makes them so! How can you disagree with the authority that selected and approved the fathers - and that authority's interpretation of the fathers which is why they were preserved in the first place - while accepting that work?

The second is he is not constrained by the authority of the fathers and freely disagrees or ignores their writings when it suits his purposes. So where he likes St John Chrysostom, he quotes him; where St John says things like

Quote:

---

Faith is indeed great and bringeth salvation, and without it, it is not possible ever to be saved. It suffices not however of itself to accomplish this

---

or

Quote:

---

Since though he has said here, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life," and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him"); yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this.

---

or

Quote:

---

Therefore, beloved, let not us either expect that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthy of this blessed calling, nothing hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one.

---

or

Quote:

---

. . . not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us.

---

or

Quote:

---

Here also he awakens those who had drawn back during the trials, and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For it is deeds also into which that tribunal will enquire.

---

or

Quote:

---

"It is the gift," said he, "of God," it is "not of works." Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God. . . . He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast. And then, lest when thou hearest that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, thou shouldest become idle, observe how he continues, Ver. 10. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them."

---

Cooper is nowhere to be found.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't see how that refutes the example that we can reject a gift we cannot accept.

---

I don't understand this sentence. You can't reject being born. You can't accept being born. You just are born. Reality is.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, we are corrupted by sin. Jesus is not. We are bound to death without external help.

---

Again, this comes back to the Incarnation.

Christ Jesus was made like us in every way, excepting only sin.

That means He is truly Human.

If He became Human, He had a human will.

The Humanity He took, He took from an actual, living human - His mother, the Theotokos, the one who bore God.

His will is a human will, and therefore it has the same powers and capacities as your will or my will - or else it is not human. We have an additional capacity He does not - the deliberative capacity, the capacity to desire evil, which is a consequence of our sin. But that absolutely does not and can not preclude us from desiring good and willing the good - because if it did, He could not desire the good and will the good!

---

Thanks for explaining. I don't disagree about our free will but would add that in my view God first informs and calls us to that good.

Thanks for the reply, I've only started to look into the patristics and will likely continue. As Cooper states we should consider what issues share consensus among the church fathers and where there was differences. As you've stated we need to consider the context of what they are discussing and Cooper acknowledges this as well. The claim made by others was that the evidence for any patristic statements was nil and I don't think that is the case upon my initial review.

Not sure if my participation in this thread did any good. If nothing else it's caused me to focus on the issues.

I don't mind watching those videos and will happily do so on my next long drive. Especially the Trent horn one, as I saw that Trent horn video. I don't have 3 hours today though. Looks like Zobel has done a good job of explaining how the church fathers are often taken out of context here.

I would say that Lutherans do have an answer for the dual natures of Christ: it's the hypostatic union.

I would say that Lutherans do have an answer for the mystery of the Eucharist: you call it sacramental union.

The prior video you posted said very clearly that Lutherans do not have an answer for how God wants all to be saved and yet some aren't. And it's because the logic (in the technical sense) of monergistic salvation that doesn't include double predestination is flawed. It is a square circle. It's not a miraculous mystery. It is something that cannot be but somehow is. It's saying that God made 2+2=/= 4.

This differs from the other examples because we can work out how they can be explained. Maybe it's transubstantiation. Maybe it's sacramental union. Maybe it's a term we've yet to come up with. They are miracles of God, but they can be logically reasoned and we don't teach that there is no answer to it. The hypostatic union derived from Spirit led councils teaching that there is an answer here. Not just tossing their hands up and saying it will never make any sense so don't try. God is a God of unfathomable mystery, but one thing He is not is a logical contradiction.