What "Sola" Did Jesus Teach......

[ralphinal]

Maybe you could clarify a little what you mean here? Do you mean preached to them? No, which is our entire impetus for bringing it to them.

Maybe you meant something different.

Let me start this way. All humans have the law in their hearts. Those who do not know Christ are judged on their following of that (responding to the Grace God gives them), except for Jews who are under another covenant. Christians are judged based on accepting the grace that leads to faith as well as the grace that leads to repentance of sins. One must do both. The grace that leads to faith, if we allow an active faith life, leads to good works which increase our faith and our grace, making it easier to avoid sin and repent when we do fall. I think that we can basically agree on this.

Here is the catch. People who have no chance of knowing of Christ, and there are some in every country of the world, fall under the Gentle rule from Romans. They can and will be saved, according to how well they respond to God’s grace. True, the onnus to follow God’s law is on them and no one else, but they cannot know of Christ so they are under a different set of rules so to speak. We cannot say that they have less of a chance than we do, as to those to whom much is given, much is expected.

Luther seems to place them in a hole, so to speak. NOt like Calvin would have, but at a disadvantage to Christians. In fact, they have the same chance. They know less and less is expected of them, but they must comply with God’s grace.

 

[ralphinal]

Are we discussing Jesus “Sola” or something else here?
Seems like there was another thread on the Luther theology

Peace
James

Actually, it is related. Luther based so much of his theology on Paul. Jesus seems to have a slightly different take on things. If we look at Luther through Jesus, we might see a different set of conclusions than those that he had.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Let me start this way. All humans have the law in their hearts. Those who do not know Christ are judged on their following of that (responding to the Grace God gives them), except for Jews who are under another covenant. Christians are judged based on accepting the grace that leads to faith as well as the grace that leads to repentance of sins. One must do both. The grace that leads to faith, if we allow an active faith life, leads to good works which increase our faith and our grace, making it easier to avoid sin and repent when we do fall. I think that we can basically agree on this.

Here is where I think you’re off a little. God does not give saving grace to non-believers apart from the grace of the Gospel. The Law that is written on the hearts of unbelievers is not gracious in the sense that it doesn’t afford mistakes, slip ups, or anything of that nature. It says “do this, and live.” That’s it. If you don’t, the wages of the transgression is physical and eternal death. Jews are under the same broad application of the Law, except that they have the advantage of having been given the Law written on tablets of stone. Christians prior to belief/Baptism are in this same state. Afterwards, they are under the grace of the forgiveness of sins if they stay firm in the faith to the end. Yes, we can agree that as Christians we have the grace to perform good works, the Sacraments to increase our faith, etc.

Here is the catch. People who have no chance of knowing of Christ, and there are some in every country of the world, fall under the Gentle rule from Romans. They can and will be saved, according to how well they respond to God’s grace. True, the onnus to follow God’s law is on them and no one else, but they cannot know of Christ so they are under a different set of rules so to speak. We cannot say that they have less of a chance than we do, as to those to whom much is given, much is expected.

There is no different set of rules. The Law that the Gentiles are under is the same Law as all of humanity. The moral Law of God. Again, there is no provision for saving grace under the Law. Since the Law was given to Adam in Eden and Adam was given the capacity to adhere to the Law it did not require graciousness. Either adhere to it perfectly or die. Since the Fall, all mankind is born with Adam’s fallen nature and is inherently in rebellion to God and cannot keep the moral Law perfectly. Since mankind is under the just condemnation of the Law, the fact that they do not have the Gospel is irrelevent to where their ultimate destiny is. Eternal judgment. It is only through the preaching of the Gospel that lost sinners can be placed under the graciousness of the New Covenant.

Luther seems to place them in a hole, so to speak. NOt like Calvin would have, but at a disadvantage to Christians. In fact, they have the same chance. They know less and less is expected of them, but they must comply with God’s grace.

Luther doesn’t, Scripture does. God’s grace is only found in the saving message of Christ crucified for sinners.

 

[ralphinal]

Here is where I think you’re off a little. God does not give saving grace to non-believers apart from the grace of the Gospel. The Law that is written on the hearts of unbelievers is not gracious in the sense that it doesn’t afford mistakes, slip ups, or anything of that nature. It says “do this, and live.” That’s it. If you don’t, the wages of the transgression is physical and eternal death. Jews are under the same broad application of the Law, except that they have the advantage of having been given the Law written on tablets of stone. Christians prior to belief/Baptism are in this same state. Afterwards, they are under the grace of the forgiveness of sins if they stay firm in the faith to the end. Yes, we can agree that as Christians we have the grace to perform good works, the Sacraments to increase our faith, etc.

There is no different set of rules. The Law that the Gentiles are under is the same Law as all of humanity. The moral Law of God. Again, there is no provision for saving grace under the Law. Since the Law was given to Adam in Eden and Adam was given the capacity to adhere to the Law it did not require graciousness. Either adhere to it perfectly or die. Since the Fall, all mankind is born with Adam’s fallen nature and is inherently in rebellion to God and cannot keep the moral Law perfectly. Since mankind is under the just condemnation of the Law, the fact that they do not have the Gospel is irrelevent to where their ultimate destiny is. Eternal judgment. It is only through the preaching of the Gospel that lost sinners can be placed under the graciousness of the New Covenant.

Luther doesn’t, Scripture does. God’s grace is only found in the saving message of Christ crucified for sinners.

So an Aztec living in 13th century Mexico has no hope?

God gives no grace to those who have no way of knowing?

God created people to go to hell with no hope?

OR

Through the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ, grace is given even to those who had no way of knowing. It is up to them to act upon it.

Would you accept that God judges them on if they would have been faithful had it been offered?

 

[JRKH]

Here is where I think you’re off a little. God does not give saving grace to non-believers apart from the grace of the Gospel. The Law that is written on the hearts of unbelievers is not gracious in the sense that it doesn’t afford mistakes, slip ups, or anything of that nature. It says “do this, and live.” That’s it. If you don’t, the wages of the transgression is physical and eternal death. Jews are under the same broad application of the Law, except that they have the advantage of having been given the Law written on tablets of stone. Christians prior to belief/Baptism are in this same state. Afterwards, they are under the grace of the forgiveness of sins if they stay firm in the faith to the end. Yes, we can agree that as Christians we have the grace to perform good works, the Sacraments to increase our faith, etc.

There is no different set of rules. The Law that the Gentiles are under is the same Law as all of humanity. The moral Law of God. Again, there is no provision for saving grace under the Law. Since the Law was given to Adam in Eden and Adam was given the capacity to adhere to the Law it did not require graciousness. Either adhere to it perfectly or die. Since the Fall, all mankind is born with Adam’s fallen nature and is inherently in rebellion to God and cannot keep the moral Law perfectly. Since mankind is under the just condemnation of the Law, the fact that they do not have the Gospel is irrelevent to where their ultimate destiny is. Eternal judgment. It is only through the preaching of the Gospel that lost sinners can be placed under the graciousness of the New Covenant.

Luther doesn’t, Scripture does. God’s grace is only found in the saving message of Christ crucified for sinners.

You have provided a quite extensive explanation here. Now in keeping with the topic of the thread, What has Jesus taught which supports these views?

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

So an Aztec living in 13th century Mexico has no hope?

God gives no grace to those who have no way of knowing?

Read the Romans chapter 1 passage again; They do know the Law of God.

God created people to go to hell with no hope?

He didn’t create them to go to Hell; they send themselves there. It is mankind and mankind’s fault alone for the state in which it exists.

OR

Through the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ, grace is given even to those who had no way of knowing. It is up to them to act upon it.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ will be of no benefit to those who do not believe the message that in Christ they are forgiven of their sins. That is why we are to preach and take the Gospel to all nations. Again, a divine rescue mission…As Romans 10 states “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ…How are they to believe in Him of whom they have not heard? How are they to hear without someone preaching…etc?”

Would you accept that God judges them on if they would have been faithful had it been offered?

No; because they have already transgressed the Law of God…as Jesus Himself states in John 3. Unless they hear and believe, the wrath of God remains on them.

 

[nsper7]

You have provided a quite extensive explanation here. Now in keeping with the topic of the thread, What has Jesus taught which supports these views?

Peace
James

You can’t take things in a vacuum. If you believe in the canon of Scripture as it was handed down to us (as an Anglican, and thus orthodox [little ‘o’] and catholic [little ‘c’] Christian, I do believe the canon we have is correct), then you cannot divide between St. Paul’s words and Jesus’.

Remember that the Church did not officially begin until St. Peter’s sermon and the giving of the Holy Spirit to the masses in the beginning of Acts. Prior to this event and the Crucifixion, my understanding is that the Old Law was still in effect. In some cases, Jesus seems to preach the fulfillment of the Old Law while St. Paul preaches the New Law.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You have provided a quite extensive explanation here. Now in keeping with the topic of the thread, What has Jesus taught which supports these views?

Peace
James

Are you getting lippy Mr?

I will look up the relevent passages and get back with you after I get done here with work stuff.

 

[ralphinal]

Read the Romans chapter 1 passage again; They do know the Law of God.

He didn’t create them to go to Hell; they send themselves there. It is mankind and mankind’s fault alone for the state in which it exists.

I agree, after all I am not into double predestination. However, the Law in their hearts is the natural law, and they can follow it fine.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ will be of no benefit to those who do not believe the message that in Christ they are forgiven of their sins. That is why we are to preach and take the Gospel to all nations. Again, a divine rescue mission…As Romans 10 states “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ…How are they to believe in Him of whom they have not heard? How are they to hear without someone preaching…etc?”

And what of those who were never near someone to hear?

No; because they have already transgressed the Law of God…as Jesus Himself states in John 3. Unless they hear and believe, the wrath of God remains on them.

Again, what of those who were never able to be taught?

 

[nsper7]

Read the Romans chapter 1 passage again; They do know the Law of God.

He didn’t create them to go to Hell; they send themselves there. It is mankind and mankind’s fault alone for the state in which it exists.

OR

The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ will be of no benefit to those who do not believe the message that in Christ they are forgiven of their sins. That is why we are to preach and take the Gospel to all nations. Again, a divine rescue mission…As Romans 10 states “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ…How are they to believe in Him of whom they have not heard? How are they to hear without someone preaching…etc?”

No; because they have already transgressed the Law of God…as Jesus Himself states in John 3. Unless they hear and believe, the wrath of God remains on them.

Remember, one has to be careful not to presume on God’s mercy. Although Scripture says what it says, one has to remember that God can show mercy to whom He so chooses.

 

[ralphinal]

Remember, one has to be careful not to presume on God’s mercy. Although Scripture says what it says, one has to remember that God can show mercy to whom He so chooses.

true enough. At the same time, we cannot say to whom mercy will be denied.

 

[JRKH]

You can’t take things in a vacuum. If you believe in the canon of Scripture as it was handed down to us (as an Anglican, and thus orthodox [little ‘o’] and catholic [little ‘c’] Christian, I do believe the canon we have is correct), then you cannot divide between St. Paul’s words and Jesus’.

Remember that the Church did not officially begin until St. Peter’s sermon and the giving of the Holy Spirit to the masses in the beginning of Acts. Prior to this event and the Crucifixion, my understanding is that the Old Law was still in effect. In some cases, Jesus seems to preach the fulfillment of the Old Law while St. Paul preaches the New Law.

But you see here that the title of the thread is what did Jesus teach. In the OP I requested that we use ONLY Gospel verses of Jesus Teaching for our arguments.
So I am simply acting the role of “moderator” here trying to keep the discussion “on track”. TriuneUnity and ralphinal know that.

Peace
James

 

[nsper7]

true enough. At the same time, we cannot say to whom mercy will be denied.

That is what I meant. In the end, judgment is God’s and, personally, I hope that He shows mercy to all humans (I am not a universalist…there is a difference between hope and actual belief).

 

[ralphinal]

But you see here that the title of the thread is what did Jesus teach. In the OP I requested that we use ONLY Gospel verses of Jesus Teaching for our arguments.
So I am simply acting the role of “moderator” here trying to keep the discussion “on track”. TriuneUnity and ralphinal know that.

Peace
James

Don’t tell me what I know . I am the mighty derailer of threads .

I have pushed this one off, but for reason. Besides, it is rare that a talk on sola anything remains this generous and kind.

 

[ralphinal]

That is what I meant. In the end, judgment is God’s and, personally, I hope that He shows mercy to all humans (I am not a universalist…there is a difference between hope and actual belief).

I had a feeling you did. All to often, people say the affirmative (God shows mercy to whom He chooses) while denying the negative (I know who God will not show mercy to). It is all up to him.

The fact is that most of us on this site know of Jesus and accept him as God. We have been given much, and we are expected for much. I really hope God’s mercy is with me.

 

[nsper7]

But you see here that the title of the thread is what did Jesus teach. In the OP I requested that we use ONLY Gospel verses of Jesus Teaching for our arguments.
So I am simply acting the role of “moderator” here trying to keep the discussion “on track”. TriuneUnity and ralphinal know that.

Peace
James

Which Sola do you want to discuss?

Sola Scriptura: Really not that important in terms of the Salvific message. Anglicans tend to be more Prima Scriptura anyway.

Sola Fide: I pointed to the verses that speak of faith/belief leading to eternal life.

Sola Gracia: I think the Gospel message is one of grace (Roman Catholics and Protestants probably agree on that).

Sola Christus (sp?): Again, I do not think there is much disagreement there.

Sola Deo Gloria: As with Sola Scriptura, I am not so sure how important this is to the Salvific message.

 

[ralphinal]

I would say that he did not teach sola fide and sola gratia as it is understood by non-Catholics. To much feeding hungry and that stuff.

 

[nsper7]

I would say that he did not teach sola fide and sola gratia as it is understood by non-Catholics. To much feeding hungry and that stuff.

It all depends on how one interprets (and we all interpret just by reading and studying) various Gospel passages. An SF/SG Protestant would view that Salvation (justification) is by belief in Christ’s Salvific work alone.

The other things (good works, discipleship, the Commandments, love, etc.) are not about Salvation, but about ‘something else’ (there are different views on what the motivation should be to do ‘good works’). The most common motivation usually offered up is we should do good works out of love and gratitude for God. If our motivation should be love, then it kind of defeats the purpose if Hell/loss of Salvation is threatened (loving someone out of extreme fear is an oxymoron).

For someone who does love God, but believes, does threatening them with Hell seem like an effective way to get them to love and trust (outside of the purely Salvific context) God?

 

[JRKH]

Don’t tell me what I know . I am the mighty derailer of threads .

:bowdown: :bowdown:

I have pushed this one off, but for reason. Besides, it is rare that a talk on sola anything remains this generous and kind.

I wonder if that could possibly be because it seeks to look at the pure teaching from Jesus himself. If we can focus on what He told us to say and do it seems that we mostly agree.
It is only when we start getting into the “what does that mean”, or “but it could also mean”, or “Yes but in the original Latin/Greek/Coptic/Hebrew/Aramaic/Vulcan/Klingon…” (sorry got carried away) But it is in these discussions that we wind up fighting with each other.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Which Sola do you want to discuss?

Sola Scriptura: Really not that important in terms of the Salvific message. Anglicans tend to be more Prima Scriptura anyway.

Sola Fide: I pointed to the verses that speak of faith/belief leading to eternal life.

Sola Gracia: I think the Gospel message is one of grace (Roman Catholics and Protestants probably agree on that).

Sola Christus (sp?): Again, I do not think there is much disagreement there.

Sola Deo Gloria: As with Sola Scriptura, I am not so sure how important this is to the Salvific message.

I want to discuss the “Sola” that Christ Himself Taught.
The consensus thus far is that he really didn’t teach a “Sola” unless it be "Hear it, Beleive it, Do it. A “Sola” of faith in action.

Peace
James