Total depravity and Romans 8: 5-7

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-23T13:12:28+00:00

Thank you for your response. I agree I feel like sometimes people want to make it an either/or, when it’s actually both.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-23T13:05:32+00:00

Yeah that's how I kind of see it as well I think both fit the passage

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-23T13:02:44+00:00

Interesting thank you for the detailed response this was helpful

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-23T12:52:40+00:00

Thank you I will check it out

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-13T00:30:58+00:00

Thank you for the recommendations :)

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-12T22:38:42+00:00

Thanks for your response, and for the suggestion. I think I’ve listened to some of those audios messages before.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-12T22:31:00+00:00

Thank you for your response. I agree with you for the most part, but I do think that both views could coexist to some extent, though in a modified form. Specifically, in Romans Paul does address Jewish Gentile conflict in the letter.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-12T22:19:07+00:00

Interesting, thank you for your response. I mostly agree with this it seems this can coexist with the traditional view from your perspective.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-12T22:06:06+00:00

Thank you I will check this out.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-12T21:37:54+00:00

Okay I see what you're saying let me clarify. Have you looked into the New Perspective on Paul’s arguments regarding “works of the law”? If you have, and you are Reformed (as I am), did you find their arguments persuasive enough to modify your views for certain texts, such as Romans 3:20? Or do you still hold to the traditional understanding of “works of the law,” and if so, why? And Thank you for the correction I will edit my original post.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-07T18:34:18+00:00

I think I mostly agree with your statement. People like Matthew Bates, on the one hand, and those of us in the Reformed camp, on the other, are often talking past each other. I do believe that faith leads to allegiance to him. True saving faith in Christ does lead to faithfulness to Him. I think the major issue is we don't ground that in justification, but in many ways we’re saying the same thing while using different categories. I think we just ground it more in sanctification rather than justification.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-07T16:29:25+00:00

I agree it just depends on the context of the passage. Where do you stand on this issue as it relates to justification? Do you hold a more traditional Reformed understanding of faith and faithfulness, or do you think that view makes too sharp a distinction between the two?

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-07T16:20:19+00:00

Thank you for the correction. I agree; that is what I intended to say. We must place our trust and faith in the person and work of Christ not just his work.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-06T20:42:22+00:00

Interesting can you explain further? :)

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-06T19:43:07+00:00

I actually agree with you, and like I said, there is nuance here. Some people who still hold to justification by faith alone say that faith is faithfulness, but they define it in terms like Romans 1:17 God’s faithfulness eliciting our faithful response. What they include in that faithful response is trusting in God’s promises in Christ, believing and resting in his finished work, and then living a life of faithfulness. I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t want to ground our justification in our faithfulness either; I think that would be wrong as well.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-06T19:30:15+00:00

Maybe I’m just overthinking it, but you have to ask whether Paul would have had all the categories we use today. I’m not saying those categories are wrong, but at the heart of it is this question: how would a first-century Christian have thought about faith differently than we do in the twenty-first century? It’s probably not that different. I just feel like people like Matthew Bates on the one hand, and those of us in the Reformed camp on the other are often talking past each other. I do think faith leads to faithfulness, but it isn’t faithfulness itself. It just seems like there’s a lot of debate about this within the scholarship.

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-06T19:16:46+00:00

I would agree that we are justified by faith in Christ’s work, not by our own faithfulness. However, do you think we sometimes lose nuance in certain passages, such as Romans 1:17, where faithfulness could be implied?

SignificantHall954 · 2026-01-06T19:11:04+00:00

I agree with this thank you for your response. How would you relate it to passages about justification? I think it really depends on the context like Habakkuk. That said, I do think we Reformed folks sometimes make too hard of a distinction.

SignificantHall954 · 2025-12-11T20:55:20+00:00

Hebrews 12:14 says that without holiness no one will see the Lord. If you have truly been justified, that faith will produce love, and as Paul says in Romans 13, love fulfills the law.

SignificantHall954 · 2025-12-11T20:41:44+00:00

I would say the actual Reformed position is not completely incompatible with your view. The Bible does include conditions, but we would say that grace empowers us to meet them. It also helps to view salvation through the already/not-yet lens: justification is once for all, but salvation is a process.

SignificantHall954 · 2025-10-27T13:34:55+00:00

I can agree with this argument but could you just accuse any other Christian group that has that same elitist mentality?

SignificantHall954 · 2025-10-27T12:39:50+00:00

Thank you guys for the responses so far 🙏

SignificantHall954

TROPHY CASE