The Orthodox Study Bible: Justification, very brief and non-exhaustive

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

I am filling in for a missing staff member today, as I usually do not drive out to Vancouver, Tuesday, but a couple of visitors noticed this bible and were intrigued.

Based on my reading and research, reasonably, Orthodoxy, does not hold to justification by grace through faith, alone.

This causes a theological separation from

Protestantism

Reformed

Many within the Protestant Church, including many evangelicals and many fundamentalists within, therefore understand Orthodoxy as holding to works righteousness and not justification by grace through faith. In other words, it is reasoned Orthodoxy assumes that the atoning and resurrection work in Christ is not sufficient for salvation.

In my view, as a Reformed theologian and philosopher, within Orthodoxy (or any religious movement, including Protestant, Roman Catholic or other) where works righteousness exists, it will not save anyone (good works are a sign and result of salvation). As a Protestant within the Reformed tradition, again for clarity, I reason that God alone plans, creates, initiates salvation. Regenerated human beings, embrace the gospel work of salvation for salvation.

From page 801 of the Orthodox Study Bible:

By their own definition... Orthodoxy here, denies works righteousness for salvation.

But my theological reasoning,  in regards to justification by faith, by adding the concept of cooperation by His grace, it denies justification by grace through faith alone.

As I noted in the previous article in review of this text...

If by works righteousness, concepts within James and Romans 4 (4: 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness) are meant, as in showing salvific faith by works and obedience, I can accept that as embracing salvation, but I would not use the term 'cooperation'.

This theology, from my Reformed perspective also places too much reliance on libertarian free will, as I view regeneration as taking place from God and embraced by the chosen person.

A significantly free response within moral responsibility in faith is not forced or coerced, but it is also not done in libertarian free will. Those whom God chooses, will freely believe (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9), they will not reject salvation as God has regenerated and simultaneously converted the person (s) that believes by grace through faith.

However, I take Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Study Bible at its word here, to be clear...

Very brief on the Genesis flood

Vancouver Courier: Vancouver flooded today.

Very brief on the Genesis flood

The original You Tube video was pulled. I replaced it with the link below.

Does the Bible Say Noah’s Flood Was Global or Universal?/by Hugh Ross November 2, 2016

---

Dr. Ross's comments, minimally, biblically, present a reasonable interpretation.

2 Peter 3: 5-7

New American Standard Bible

5 For [a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Ross's view supports a localized, 'worldwide' flood effecting humanity and animal life.

Therefore some animal life is preserved within the Ark of Noah.

This is not a global flood, by Dr. Ross's interpretation, theologically. But from my previous study of 2 Peter this concept of 'world' and world system, as opposed to global, would (again) be reasonable. The use of figurative literal language at points, as opposed to plain literal is permissible within 2 Peter.

I would deduce that within this view, the 'new world' would have been untouched by the biblical flood, so for example, North and South America and Oceania would have not been flooded.

New Testament Greek

World: cosmos

Cited

STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος κόσμος kósmos, kos'-mos; probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):—adorning, world. 

Controversially, this would raise the theological possibility, that if there were other human beings in the new world at the time of Noah's flood, they would have remained untouched, as would have been animal life in the new world.

This view from Ross would counter premises from critics stating that not all animal life could have been in the Ark. And as well, that not animal life was destroyed in the flood.

I would reason that not all insect life, was destroyed, for example, in the 'old world' or 'new world'.

Dr.Ross's views may be offensive to many within fundamentalistic Christianity, but they should at least be considered within scholarship.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

The continued present

Theologically and philosophically and very non-exhaustively within this article, as long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by time; and by the unchanging nature of an infinite, eternal God that exists within created, finite time.

For humanity:

The past cannot be (literally) relived, but can be experienced in a sense, as in remembered and learned from.

The future can never be grasped, but can be planned for.

The present is all we can literally live in.

A positive in regard to a Christian, biblical, worldview is what I shall state is the continued present.

That is being within the salvific work of the triune God through Jesus Christ, when a believer dies, it is most reasonable that his/her disembodied spirit (soon, I am not stating dogmatically, instantaneously) resides in the spiritual realm of Paradise.

Bauer on page 614 describes Paradise from Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12 and Revelation 2 as a place above the earth. Now from my philosophical/theological perspective I do not take this plain literally, as in some place in the clouds, or above the clouds, or even beyond the solar system or beyond the physical Universe, as in a place that can be physically found via space/travel.

The Bible (New Testament more distinctly) teaches that Paradise is a place where spirits in Christ go after death, and Old Testament/Hebrew Bible saints went to spiritually after death. The Bible teaches this using figurative literal language.

There is also the issue of Paul's 2 Corinthians reference and his willingness to consider departing the body to be with the Lord in Philippians 1.

Upon the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, those in Christ have a restored, immortal body to live within the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21-22) and the culminated Kingdom of God.

The theological assumption is that Paradise is a temporary realm for those in Jesus Christ and Old Testament saints.

Paradise = Heaven1
The culminated Kingdom of God = Heaven2

Both present the continued present.

BAUER, W (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Some guy @work. Someone sneaked a photo.

Validity

VanDusen Botanical Gardens

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Interesting from philosopher Blackburn:

The primary meaning of validity, (philosophically, my add), is that within arguments, a conclusion (s) follows from premises. (389).

Premises and conclusions are not valid in themselves, but are true or false. (389).

Validity requires the correct form of logic. A valid argument. This can also be seen in my book reviews of the following...

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Stanford University

Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. 

(Cannot have true premises and false conclusion (TF) for validity, my add)

Invalid: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by assuming that all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. If this is possible, the argument is invalid. 

Validity and invalidity apply only to arguments, not statements. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call a statement valid or invalid. 

True and false apply only to statements, not arguments. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call an argument true or false. All deductive arguments aspire to validity.  

Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises. Unsound: an argument that is not sound.

Valid: Argument (s)

True: Premises and conclusion (s)

Notice, I will at times state that something is reasonable. This connects to the idea of validity, not necessarily truth or soundness. Although it may be so, in my view.