• adhomienem
    15
    This is my response to the claim that works are necessary for salvation (within Christian theology).

    It definitely seems like if we did not exert any effort in acquiring salvation, then free will would appear to fall away, because then it’s just up to God to pick people to be saved who are incapable of acting on their own accord. But this argument conflates two definitions that the Bible is adamant about separating: work and faith. It would be a mistake to call our faith in Christ’s sacrifice to be a work because the Bible specifically categorizes that belief as faith alone, and not as a work.

    The basis of my response lies in Ephesians 2, specifically in verses 8 and 9, which states: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” This verse distinguishes our “effort” to believe in God as faith, clarifying that such “effort” is not considered a work, but rather something different. We can call faith a work as much as we want to, but that definition does not fit how God categorizes it. He makes the point to distinguish between our belief for salvation and our works that follow in order to prevent us from sinning in our salvation--if we were to boast in our acquisition of salvation, then we would be sinning in that boast by acting in opposition to humility.

    This is not to negate the verses that clearly assert a faith without works is dead. Works are the natural consequence of a true faith, and it is true faith that provides salvation. Where I think I disagree with those who claim works are necessary for salvation is the causal order. To me, Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that this is the order:
    1. Grace through faith
    2. Salvation is received
    3. Works begin

    Whereas those who say works are necessary for salvation would put the order this way:
    1. Grace through faith
    2. Works begin
    3. Salvation is received

    If I’ve incorrectly represented another’s argument, please let me know. Also, my response rests solely on Biblical evidence, so any replies that fail to address Biblical text fall outside the scope of this argument.
  • Valentinus
    1.6k
    Would it be fair to say that keeping the conversation within the bounds of the text makes the argument strictly theological in contradistinction to a philosophy of religion approach?

    For instance, would you include the arguments between Luther and Erasmus on this subject?

    What if the text was read without the assumptions you claim are the only ones possible? Salvation is not a board game.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.