OK. Look, I didn't say I was a Calvinist expert. However, I was "indoctrinated" with the Heidleburg confession during my stint with the 5 pointers. While I didn't remember the correct answer, I knew exactly where to find it. From the confession: Why do you say that you are righteous only by faith? A. Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God, and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only.You just told me what Faith accomplishes. You haven't told me what Faith is, specifically as in "faith alone", as it relates to "faith" and "works".
That's as if I asked you for a definition of Automobile, and you replied "Gets me from Chicago to Saint Louis!!" Yes, it does, but that's not what it is.
So, let's try again: What is "Faith", specifically as in "faith alone", as it relates to "faith" and "works"?
FAITH ONLY? FAITH ALONE? James Repudiates that doctrine! We could go all night into the reasons Calvinism's spinning of how works play into salvation, but we don't need to. James, contrary to the claims of this confession, solved this issue 1900 years or so ago. Calvinism shares with Lutheranism, the "downgrading" of the book of James. While still considered scripture, James is twisted, spun, and explained away by giving other passages more promenance and importance. Like I said, scripture does not support justification by faith alone. That's a man made doctrine. But.. I'd take it you don't accept the evidence of James. So, unless you can say "you have a very good point", let's not go round and round about this all nigh.
I do accept the evidence of James. If you understood the Calvinist meaning of Faith (or even the Lutheran, though Calvinism has been IMO more clear in it's presentation), you would understand that.
Let me ask you this: No offense meant. Honestly. Would the following statement be true?
You are unable to give a definition of what Calvinists mean by the word "Faith".
True, or False?
If that is False, then you are (again) cordially invited to provide a proper definition of what, to the Calvinist, Faith is; But if the statement is True, then just say so, and I'll explain what a Calvinist means by the word, "Faith"; as it attends to "faith alone", or "faith" and "works".
What do you say?
>>I do accept the evidence of James. If you understood the Calvinist meaning of Faith (or even the Lutheran, though Calvinism has been IMO more clear in it's presentation), you would understand that.
From my interpretation of Calvinism, works are considered "obedience" and alongside faith one is justified.
Do I belive this verions of works? No. It's just an attempt to whittle down works while focusing on faith.
Calvanism seems to argue that if you are faithful, then you must be obedient. Christ taught love more than obedience. Works out done out of obedience may still be pleasing to God, but not as pleasing as works from the heart.
An "active" obedience is required from a Christian, but IMO, it's part of faith. It *is* true that we need to actively obey God. That's not the issue.
Works, when done from the heart and out of love and charity, are not works of "active obedience." I can get my kid to do things he dosn't want to, and he's not doing it out of faith or love. He does it "actively" because he doesn't want a time out or he want's something from me. That's not love. See the difference?
I'd go on but I'm tired. I'll resume in the morning.