Justification by Faith Alone: Catholics and Protestants Together?

Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to the idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone), but fewer are aware that Catholics do not have to condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to "faith working by charity." In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or "faith formed by charity." The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or "faith unformed by charity." This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.

Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).

However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

Why, then, do Catholics not use the formula faith alone in everyday discourse? There are two reasons:

First, whenever a theological tradition is developing, it must decide which way key terms are going to be used or there will be hopeless confusion. For example, during the early centuries it was decided that in connection with Jesus identity the term God would be used as a noun rather than as a proper name for the Father. This enables us to say, Jesus is God and be understood. If the term God were used as a proper name for the Father in this regard, we would have to say, "Jesus is not God." Obviously, the Church could not have people running around saying "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God," though both would be perfectly consistent with the Trinity depending on how the term "God" is being used (i.e., as a noun or a proper name for the Father). Hopeless confusion (and charges of heresy, and bloodbaths) would have resulted in the early centuries if the Church did not specify the meaning of the term "God" when used in this context.

Of course, the Bible uses the term "God" in both senses, but to avoid confusion (and heretical misunderstandings on the part of the faithful, who could incline to either Arianism or Modalism if they misread the word "God" in the above statements) it later became necessary to adopt one usage over the other when discussing the identity of Jesus.

A similar phenomenon occurs in connection with the word "faith." Evangelical leaders know this by personal experience since they have to continually fight against antinomian understandings of the term "faith" (and the corresponding antinomian evangelistic practices and false conversions that result). Because "faith" is such a key term, it is necessary that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in practice, even though there is more than one use of the term in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term "faith" in their community to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in this, by the way.)

This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula "faith alone." Given the different usages of the term "faith" in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:

First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "faith formed by charity" than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "intellectual belief." In fact, even in Galatians 5:6 itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.

Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the KJV) speaks of "the faith," meaning a body of theological beliefs (e.g. Jude 3). The connection between pistis and intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.

Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith, hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and which is found throughout his writings, not just in 1 Corinthians 13:13 (though that is the locus classicus for it), including places where it is not obvious because of the English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad "faith" is taken to mean "formed faith" then hope and charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened. To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad, the Church chose to use the term "faith" in a way that did not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be kept from collapsing into one another.

Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)

In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified, even though our outward actions do not always reflect them because of the fallen nature we still possess. Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair, and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.

As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith, hope, and charity." This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith alone" if the term "faith" is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define "faith"; that is, as an unconditional "placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit." The definition Protestants normally give to "faith" is the definition Catholics use for "hope."

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which "works by charity" then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant's idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan "salvation by faith alone" becomes the Catholic slogan "salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone)."

This was recognized a few years ago in The Church's Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German Conference of Bishops, which stated:

Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having "mere" faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and lovegood Catholic sense. According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes other acts

The same thing was recognized in a document written a few years ago under the auspices of the (Catholic) German Conference of Bishops and the bishops of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (the Lutheran church). The purpose of the document, titled The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, was to determine which of the sixteenth-century Catholic and Protestant condemnations are still applicable to the other party. Thus the joint committee which drafted the document went over the condemnations from Trent and assessed which of them no longer applied to Lutherans and the condemnations of the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, etc., and assesses which of them are not applicable to Catholics.

When it came to the issue of justification by faith alone, the document concluded:

During the drafting of this document, the Protestant participants asked what kind of authority it would have in the Catholic Church, and the response given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who was the Catholic corresponding head of the joint commission) was that it would have considerable authority. The German Conference of Bishops is well-known in the Catholic Church for being very cautious and orthodox and thus the document would carry a great deal of weight even outside of Germany, where the Protestant Reformation started.

Furthermore, the Catholic head of the joint commission was Ratzinger himself, who is also the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the body charged by the pope with protecting the purity of Catholic doctrine. Next to the pope himself, the head of the CDF is the man most responsible for protecting orthodox Catholic teaching, and the head of the CDF happened to be the Catholic official with ultimate oversight over the drafting of the document.

Before the joint commission met, Cardinal Ratzinger and Lutheran Bishop Eduard Lohse (head of the Lutheran church in Germany) issued a letter expressing the purpose of the document, stating:

I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the "faith alone" formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:

The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.

So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it is used "so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.

I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term "faith" had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula "faith alone" had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean "intellectual assent alone"

The Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than it could equall confusing formulas. This formula can be given an orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.

In fact, one can argue that the problem of antinomianism in Protestantism is a product of the attempt by the Reformers to change the established usage of the term "faith" to include more than intellectual assent. The English verb "believe" (derived from Old High German) and the English noun "faith" (derived from French and before that Latin) were both formed under the historic Christian usage of the term "faith" and thus they connote intellectual assent.

This is a deeply rooted aspect of the English language, which is why Protestant evangelists have to labor so hard at explaining to the unchurched why "faith alone" does not mean "intellectual assent alone." They have to work so hard at this because they are bucking the existing use of the language; the Reformers effort to change the meanings of the terms "believe" and "faith" have not borne significant fruit outside of the Protestant community.

This is also the reason Evangelical preaching often tragically slips into antinomianism. The historic meaning of the terms "believe" and "faith," which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren't paying attention, and antinomianism results.

This reflects one of the tragedies of the Reformation. If the Reformers had not tried to overturn the existing usage of the term "faith" and had only specified it further to formed faith, if they had only adopted the slogan "iustificatio sola fide formata" instead of "iustificatio sola fide," then all of this could have been avoided. The Church would have embraced the formula, the split in Christendom might possibly have been avoided, and we would not have a problem with antinomianism today.

So I agree a hundred percent with what Trent did. The existing usage of the term "faith" in connection with justification could not be overturned any more than the existing usage of the term "God" in connection with Jesus' identity could be overturned.

What both communities need to do today, now that a different usage has been established in them, is learn to translate between each others languages. Protestants need to be taught that the Catholic formula "salvation by faith, hope, and charity" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith alone." And Catholics need to be taught that (at least for the non-antinomians) the Protestant formula "faith alone" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith, hope, and charity."

It would be nice if the two groups could reconverge on a single formula, but that would take centuries to develop, and only as a consequence of the two groups learning to translate each others' theological vocabularies first. Before a reconvergence of language could take place, the knowledge that the two formulas mean the same thing would first need to be as common as the knowledge that English people drive on the left-hand side of the road instead of on the right-hand side as Americans do. That is not going to happen any time soon, but for now we must do what we can in helping others to understand what the two sides are saying.

(Needless to say, this whole issue of translating theological vocabularies is very important to me since I have been both a committed Evangelical and a committed Catholic and thus have had to learn to translate the two vocabularies through arduous effort in reading theological dictionaries, encyclopedias, systematic theologies, and Church documents. So I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants, on this point.)

The fact "faith" is normally used by Catholics to refer to intellectual assent (as in Romans 14:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:14-26) is one reason Catholics do not use the "faith alone" formula even though they agree with what (better) Protestants mean by it. The formula runs counter to the historic meaning of the term "faith."

The other reason is that, frankly, the formula itself (though not what it is used to express) is flatly unbiblical. The phrase "faith alone" (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:

Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below), the phrase "faith alone" is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase "faith alone" to the use of that phrase in the Bible.

Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula "faith alone" while at the same time preaching that man is justified "by faith and not by works of the Law" (which Catholics can and should and must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read Catholic literature). James 2:24 requires rejection of the first formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second.

There really is no need for all this speculation.

Paul is quite clear in Ephesians 2 that salvation is of grace ... by faith ... and produces works.

There is no one who is saved by the commision of any work ... for such would be counter to the declaration of Paul in Ephesians 2.

Jesus has called us all to be perfect, ... even as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

Paul says that we all miss that mark.

If you're counting on making the mark to get into heaven, ... I'm afraid that you're not going to make it.

The only perfect righteousness that will get us into heaven is the righteousness of Christ, which God has, graciously made available to us.
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
In this discussion of the Law by Paul, he gives the purpose of the Law ... that all the world may be guilty before God.

Thus, ... this Law is not, simply, the Law of the Jews, ... it is the Law by which God judges the entire world ... Jews & Gentiles.

It is, indeed, the Law which is based upon God's commandments to love Him ... and to love one another, ... for upon these two, says our Lord, ... does all the Law and the Prophets hang (Matthew 22:37-40).
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Once again, ... by this Law (which judges the whole world) ... there shall no flesh be saved.

The Law is our teacher ... and bring us to the knowledge of our need for God's grace.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

In the Letter to the Romans, and much of the rest of his writings, Paul also deals with the question of how we are saved, but he is responding to those who insist that one must keep the Jewish Law in order to be saved. (Circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.)

And how does the Jewish Law you speak of (i.e. circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) ... function to make all the world guilty before God ?

For this is what the Law which Paul speaks does ...
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
I feel like each time we move to a new Scripture passage, I'm potentially left with a significant work of exegesis. (see posts 166 and 199). Paul's arguments are extremely well laid out and I'm happy to move onto Romans and Ephesians, but would prefer to deal with the passages from Matthew before jumping around.

No scripture is to be interpreted outside the context of all of the scriptures. Other scripture will help one's understanding of scripture in general, ... and individual scriptural passages in particular.

You're using Scripture to refute Scripture, and that will not do. There is but One Spirit who Inspired the Scriptures, and they do not contradict.

I cannot contradict scripture with scripture, for such is impossible. As I have previously stated, scripture interprets scripture ... (i.e. the scriptures enlighten one's understanding of the whole of scripture ... and particular scriptures.)

Would you agree with me that the terms which Jesus sets for attaining perfection, in this case, keeping the Commandments, selling all of ones possessions, giving the money to the poor, and following Jesus, are in fact reasonable and possible?

The disciples didn't think so ... and Jesus, Himself, said that it was impossible for men.
Matthew 19:25 And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered much, saying: Who then can be saved?

26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.
Finally, to clear some of the clutter from the conversation, would you join me in condemning Salvation by belief alone as being totally unscriptural and a dangerous teaching?

Sorry ... I can do no better than to echo my Master ...
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

(sorry - been away)

*** I'm looking at the verses quoted in this post, however, and they all refer to being saved in the future***

Present AND Future tenses are used. That is because both are true. The Kingdom of God has *already* come and it *will* come.

Think of Abraham. He received the promise of God that he should become a mighty nation - by faith - it had to be by faith because the fulfillment of that promise was yet in the future.

The fulfillment of that promise rested on God's faithfulness to His word. Abraham believed God would do for him what He promised - and the Scriptures say he was justified (or accounted righteous) thereby. Paul uses this as a type of our salvation.

***I see that it says we have been justified (made righteous) but it does not say we have a guarantee of going to heaven based upon this.***

In the NT, the guarantee of salvation is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. He is the "down payment" on the promise of God's salvation of the believer in the future.

2 Corinthians 1:21-23
And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

2 Corinthians 5:4-6
For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened--not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

and finally...

Ephesians 1:13-15
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

*** "Therefore, whoever thinks he stands must be careful lest he fall!""***

I believe you are using this verse out of context. A believer can "fall" into temptation - but not into hell. Where is the entire body of the Epistles, is the believer ever warned of the danger of their eternal destruction?

The reader may be warned that they might not truly be converted (and therefore in mortal danger) but converted people are never threatened will hell.

***This sentence does not say, once you have confessed with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and once you have believed in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you have been saved.***

The verse leave NO OTHER OPTION open. If you do those things you WILL be saved - Period - End of Story. If you WILL surely be saved then your ARE saved now.

***I'm particularly disturbed that anyone might be reading that last sentence as an indication that we can say, "I'm saved!" in the sense that it would mean,"I have been saved" ie I've received a guarantee to go to heaven when I die,...***

The guarantee is there, my friend. It may disturb you, but the believer who has the Holy Spirit living within them is guaranteed heaven - not because of what they have done, but because of what God has done for them.

****...regardless of my actions***

The only "actions" we are capable of are tarnished at best. The only truly "good works" that man can perform are those done by God acting though him. For God to act though someone they must first be in right relationship to Him. Good work flow from a relationship with God - they do not "earn" one a right relationship with God.

*** To be honest, I'm totally puzzled by the use of the term, "I am saved" Is it me, or is this a grammatical atrocity?***

Example of "saved" in past tense usage...

2 Timothy 1:8-10
"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who *saved* us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"

Titus 3:4-6
"But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he *saved* us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,"

*** I don't see as a Scriptural teaching the idea that a guarantee of salvation flows automatically from the conversion experience***

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

Thoughts?

"Present AND Future tenses are used. That is because both are true. The Kingdom of God has *already* come and it *will* come."

Petronius Maximus, we are not talking about the parousia, we're talking about salvation. PM, We are called to share in the Blessedness of God our Father, but being wounded by sin, we stand in need of salvation by God. Divine help comes to us in Christ through the moral law that guides us and the grace of God that sustains us. Scripture tells us to "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phillipians 2:12, 13)

"The fulfillment of that promise rested on God's faithfulness to His word. Abraham believed God would do for him what He promised - and the Scriptures say he was justified (or accounted righteous) thereby. Paul uses this as a type of our salvation."

Good, so with regards to salvation it is a promise, not a fait accompli, correct? That is what "The fulfillment of that promise rested on God's faithfulness to His word," means, right? It is a promise for a future event.

"Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation. For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, "Surely I will bless you and multiply you." And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise." (Hebrews 6:9-15)

Or as our Lord put it:

"and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." (Matthew 10:22)

Brother, you and Quester do well to remind us of the importance of Faith in God, of Belief in the promises of Christ, and of total and complete trust in God our Father. I, on the other hand, will remind you that God is not indifferent to our actions, and in fact, we will be judged not according to what we believed, but according to our actions. God has prepared good works in advance for us to do, and God has given us Commandments to follow for our own good. Neither those works nor those Commandments are optional.

"In the NT, the guarantee of salvation is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. He is the "down payment" on the promise of God's salvation of the believer in the future."

I do not see this. The guarantee of salvation is in the Promises of Christ, which are made to those who love Him (and this includes keeping the Commandments.). If we persevere in Christ, we will obtain the promise. It is possible to turn away from God and to reject the Holy Spirit.

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6)

You see, God is faithful in all things, but we may turn away from Him who would save us, and reject the very Spirit which advocates for us, and which would make us free collaborators in God's work here in the world. We may receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and we may later reject the Spirit. It is the same story as the covenants made with God in Scripture. Man indeed makes covenants with God, but man is left free to break those covenants. Those who are saved in the OT are saved in the same way as those who will be saved in the NT: By Grace, through faith, working in love.

"2 Corinthians 5:4-6
For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened--not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee."

My translation actually reads quite a bit differently, it does not say guarantee.

"Now the one who has prepared us for this is God, who has given us the Spirit as a first installment." (2 Corinthians 5)

I've seen this elsewhere translated as a pledge. It is not a guarantee that we will go to heaven when we die because we have been born again. Look at the next 6 verses:

" So we are always of good courage; we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men; but what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience." (2 Corinthians 5: 6-10)

This passage, 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 parallels Romans 8: 17-30, where Paul speaks of the reception of the "first fruits" of the Spirit.
"And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body."<
The gifts of the Spirit do not make us puppets, however, and God is described as a Lord and as a Father, not as a puppeteer.
" So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- for IF you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but IF by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Romans 8: 12-13)
We are called to live according to the Spirit and to submit to the Holy Spirit which we have received at Baptism. Quester and I were discussing Matthew Chapter 5, which I think describes well the life of the Spirit to which God calls us. We will, however, be judged according to our actions. Or as Paul states elsewhere in the Letter to the Romans:
"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. "
That is, we will be judged according to our actions. There will be no double standard for those who have have undergone a conversion to Christ. We too will be judged according to our actions. For example, if we condemn others, we will be condemned by the same standard.

"*** "Therefore, whoever thinks he stands must be careful lest he fall!""***

"I believe you are using this verse out of context. A believer can "fall" into temptation - but not into hell. Where is the entire body of the Epistles, is the believer ever warned of the danger of their eternal destruction?"

If we can fall into temptation, then we can fall into hell, correct?

"The reader may be warned that they might not truly be converted (and therefore in mortal danger) but converted people are never threatened will hell."

Truly converted versus untruly converted??? What you are seeing here is a weakness of a theological system which says a person is guaranteed to go to heaven once he has converted to Christ. "The reader may be warned that they might not truly be converted." In other words, nobody is guaranteed to go to heaven when they die because of their conversion, because everyone can wonder if it was a "true" conversion experience. Save yourself some trouble, it was a true conversion experience. But it's not the conversion experience that is our assurance of salvation, it is our continued clinging to the Promises of Christ, a continued faith in God, not a one time deal. The bottom line is, when we are judged, we will be judged according to our actions, not according to whether or not we underwent a conversion experience. "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." That is, if we continue to accept Jesus as our Lord (and this includes keeping his Commandments,) He will save us. The only way for you to reconcile a conversion experience to Christ as being a guarantee of salvation (and as I've written before, I think this is a completely inaccurate reading of Scripture to begin with,) is to assert the non-Scriptural teaching that we have no free will, as Calvin did. Rather than build a mountain of human assumptions on a foundation of sand, it's better to take the plain words of Scripture at face value. We have converted to Christ, now we must walk according to the guidance of the Spirit, and if we fail to do so, we have no assurance of Salvation.

Scripture doesn't interpret Scripture, human beings interpret Scripture. I'm going right back to those same three questions.

Scripture interprets itself in the sense that it cannot contradict itself.

Therefore, scriptural passages which may appear to conflict need to be reconciled to one another ... and, often, it is other scripture which provides such a reconciliation.

For example ... I believe that Paul's writing does much to reconcile the Matthew 19 passage ... with, say, ... John 6:47.

When asked what one must do to see eternal life, Jesus tells a young man that he must keep the Commandments. Would you agree to me that those who break the Commandments have no assurance of Salvation, regardless of what they believe?

One of the commandments which Jesus presented to the young man as needful to be kept was ... "Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself."

Does your salvation depend upon you not ever breaking this commandment ?

Would you agree with me that the terms which Jesus sets for attaining perfection, in this case, keeping the Commandments, selling all of ones possessions, giving the money to the poor, and following Jesus, are in fact reasonable and possible? (Matt 19: 16-30)

I might be tempted to ... but, in the very same passage, Jesus, Himself, says that it is humanly impossible.

Finally, to clear some of the clutter from the conversation, would you join me in condemning Salvation by belief alone as being totally unscriptural and a dangerous teaching?

Now you have responded to the last question..

"Sorry ... I can do no better than to echo my Master ...
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
This Scripture does not say we are saved by belief alone.

But, of course it does.

To maintain that there is something more required from us for our salvation ... would make this statement of Jesus to be an untruth.

Here Jesus says that ... "He that believeth on ME" ... "hath everlasting life."

It is Jesus' statement.

He was perfectly free to add any other requirements into the statement He wished ... but He didn't.

Now, as an example of scripture interpreting scripture, ... I would say that the following scripture does much to reconcile your position ... with this scripture ...
John 14:12 Otherwise believe for the very works’ sake. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do: and greater than these shall he do.
Jesus says that belivers have (present tense) everlasting life.

And ... Jesus says that believers shall perform works like the works which He did.

"The fulfillment of that promise rested on God's faithfulness to His word. Abraham believed God would do for him what He promised - and the Scriptures say he was justified (or accounted righteous) thereby. Paul uses this as a type of our salvation."

Good, so with regards to salvation it is a promise, not a fait accompli, correct? That is what "The fulfillment of that promise rested on God's faithfulness to His word," means, right? It is a promise for a future event.

It was a promise to Abraham ... but now, the promise has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

BTW ... God will not overlook our good works ... but will reward us for them. But, even the believer whose works are burnt up will be saved, ... even so as by fire.
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

"In the NT, the guarantee of salvation is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. He is the "down payment" on the promise of God's salvation of the believer in the future."

I do not see this. The guarantee of salvation is in the Promises of Christ, which are made to those who love Him (and this includes keeping the Commandments.). If we persevere in Christ, we will obtain the promise. It is possible to turn away from God and to reject the Holy Spirit.
"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6)
But I believe that you would agree that such a fall as this will not be a repeated thing for the believer ... since there is no return to grace provided for it.

This fall is, therefore, something much more than missing a Mass one weekend, for instance.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.
Reference 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 above.

For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified."
You do know that this is Romans chapter 2, ... where Paul is laying out the general principle ... The righteous shall live, ... and the unrighteous shall die ?

Well, coming up fast is Romans chapter 3, where Paul makes the case that there is none righteous ... that there are no doers of the law ... because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

So where is thy hope ... O man ?

Is it not in the righteousness which is in Christ Jesus ?

For this is what the Father has offered unto us ...
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

--------------------------------------------------------

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

They've totally sidestepped the Scripture at hand, and the central issues. To wit:

I invested a significant amount of effort in responding to your concerns, particularly with regards to Matthew 19:16-30, the scene where a man asks Jesus what he must do to be saved. See posts 80, 166, 183,196, and 198. These posts were long, they were thorough and they were very specific and sincere responses to what I assumed were honest questions. (We've had other posts back and forth, but these are the central ones from my side dealing with the Scripture in question.) I feel like you're uncomfortable with this passage, and rather than deal with it, you've dismissed it, and changed the subject to other passages, including Matthew 5 (which I also spent quite a bit of time on.) It seems to me that each time I respond to your questions, the subject is changed. Perhaps you're not interested in the answers.

With regards to Matthew 19: 16-30, I feel that you have seized upon the first available verse to dismiss it. In particular, Matthew 19: 27. "For Human beings, it is impossible, but not for God. For God, all things are possible." What is the "it" in question here? You have argued that it is keeping the 6 commandments Jesus has said must be kept for one to inherit eternal life, and giving away one's possessions to follow Christ, despite the fact that I've pointed out previously that this is exactly what people have done in the passage.

Looking at the passage, "it" actually refers to being saved, not to moral or self-sacrificing conduct on the part of humans.

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

The Question is not who can keep these 6 Commandments, (the young man has) nor is it who can give up everything to follow Christ (The Apostles following Christ have, and point this out to Him in the next verse.) The question is, "Who can be saved?" The Apostles are astonished, because in the Old Testament, riches are seen as a sign of God's blessing, whereas in he has turned that on it's head, and said it's hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. They ask, "who then can be saved?" His response indicates that salvation is from God, not from humans.

If we were to follow your logic, we might as well say it is impossible for humans to truly believe as well. (See Matthew 28:17)

The point is, Quester, Christ tells us that we must behave morally, and the New Covenant does not invalidate the moral law; rather, we are called to follow the moral law through the preaching of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

This passages we have discussed from Matthew (chaps 19 and 5) emphasize this point quite clearly. If you would prefer the letter to the Romans, St. Paul gives essentially the same list of Commandments:

"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. (Romans 13: 8-15)

And if Paul has not been clear enough here, then perhaps his writings elsewhere are:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6: 9-11)

Anyone who misconstrues the Letter to the Romans to say that the moral law is not required of the believer has made a grave mistake. Indeed, that is one of the points of the article at the head of this thread.

"This is a deeply rooted aspect of the English language, which is why Protestant evangelists have to labor so hard at explaining to the unchurched why "faith alone" does not mean "intellectual assent alone." They have to work so hard at this because they are bucking the existing use of the language; the Reformers effort to change the meanings of the terms "believe" and "faith" have not borne significant fruit outside of the Protestant community.

This is also the reason Evangelical preaching often tragically slips into antinomianism. The historic meaning of the terms "believe" and "faith," which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren't paying attention, and antinomianism results.

This reflects one of the tragedies of the Reformation. If the Reformers had not tried to overturn the existing usage of the term "faith" and had only specified it further to formed faith, if they had only adopted the slogan "iustificatio sola fide formata" instead of "iustificatio sola fide," then all of this could have been avoided. The Church would have embraced the formula, the split in Christendom might possibly have been avoided, and we would not have a problem with antinomianism today."

I feel like you're uncomfortable with this passage, and rather than deal with it, you've dismissed it, and changed the subject to other passages, including Matthew 5 (which I also spent quite a bit of time on.) It seems to me that each time I respond to your questions, the subject is changed. Perhaps you're not interested in the answers.

Your feelings are misleading you.

I simply interpret the passage differently than you do. I have never interpreted this passage as you do.

And I have shared out of my heart as genuinely as have you.

With regards to Matthew 19: 16-30, I feel that you have seized upon the first available verse to dismiss it. In particular, Matthew 19: 27. "For Human beings, it is impossible, but not for God. For God, all things are possible." What is the "it" in question here? You have argued that it is keeping the 6 commandments Jesus has said must be kept for one to inherit eternal life, and giving away one's possessions to follow Christ, despite the fact that I've pointed out previously that this is exactly what people have done in the passage.

Looking at the passage, "it" actually refers to being saved, not to moral or self-sacrificing conduct on the part of humans.
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." The Question is not who can keep these 6 Commandments, (the young man has) nor is it who can give up everything to follow Christ (The Apostles following Christ have, and point this out to Him in the next verse.) The question is, "Who can be saved?" The Apostles are astonished, because in the Old Testament, riches are seen as a sign of God's blessing, whereas in he has turned that on it's head, and said it's hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. They ask, "who then can be saved?" His response indicates that salvation is from God, not from humans.

I agree that the discussion topic has been the criteria God has set for us to attain salvation.

I maintain that the only requirement is faith.

You have a different view.

The point is, Quester, Christ tells us that we must behave morally, and the New Covenant does not invalidate the moral law; rather, we are called to follow the moral law through the preaching of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

I have never advocated that the saved are not to behave morally. Jesus calls us to a moral perfection which would be unattainable except by His life within us.

What I have done is to differentiate that such moral living is the result of our saved condition ... rather than the cause of it.

I understand that you feel that such is a dangerous position (i.e. apt to give those believing it a license to less moral living) ... but it is what we see as truth from the scriptures.

Paul dealt honestly with this dilemna ...
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
I also believe that your concerns about this are not substantiated as one compares the moral lives of Protestants vs. those of Catholics.

I find that most Catholics do not live lives any more moral, ... if as moral, ... as most Protestants.

Indeed, some of the greatest moral failures have occurred within the Catholic leadership, ... from the papal seat ... to the priests in the parishes.

"I agree that the discussion topic has been the criteria God has set for us to attain salvation. I maintain that the only requirement is faith. You have a different view. "

Indeed I do. The view that we are saved by faith alone is not found in the Bible, it is anti-Scriptural, and was invented by Martin Luther a millennia and a half after the time of Christ. The only time you will see that in Scripture is if you happen to own a copy of his translation, into which he added his personal doctrine. He also effectively "removed" the Epistle of James from his translation, which directly contradicts his doctrine.

It looks to me like it caused you considerable difficulties with a very simple passage of Scripture in Matthew 19: 16-30. I've seen someone on this forum actually begin to make the argument that the Epistle of James was not Scriptural, because it contradicts Martin Luther's principle. As I have said, Martin Luther's man made principle that we are saved by faith alone is elevated over and above Scripture, which is the Inspired Word of God.

"I have never advocated that the saved are not to behave morally. Jesus calls us to a moral perfection which would be unattainable except by His life within us. What I have done is to differentiate that such moral living is the result of our saved condition ... rather than the cause of it. I understand that you feel that such is a dangerous position (i.e. apt to give those believing it a license to less moral living) ... but it is what we see as truth from the scriptures. "

I think you've said it's impossible to keep the 6 Commandments which Jesus said to keep in order to see Eternal Life. It's reasonable to see that as a dangerous position. Our Lord has said to keep the Commandments if we would inherit eternal life. Moreover, I don't see that Scripture speaks of people as either saved or unsaved, and you sidestepped the Scripture which speaks of people who have in fact fallen away after a legitimate conversion.

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Or perhaps you would hear that from the Letter to the Romans:

" But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off."

Conversion is no guarantee of anything other than having been converted, but apparently even that is a controversial point in some traditions.

Scripture also says that we will be judged according to our actions, in particular to the extent that we Love God and show mercy to our fellow man. It seems that those who rest their faith on Martin Luther's theory that we are saved by faith alone must either argue that we have no free will, or that mercy, love, good deeds, and avoidance of sin come automatically (!) to the believer. Those teachings are not Scriptural. Moreover, they're delusional. I'm being told in the same breath that it's impossible to keep the 6 Commandments Jesus lays out in Matthew 19:16-30, and that good works and avoidance of sin come automatically to those who believe. What a bunch of baloney.

I also believe that your concerns about this are not substantiated as one compares the moral lives of Protestants vs. those of Catholics. I find that most Catholics do not live lives any more moral, ... if as moral, ... as most Protestants. Indeed, some of the greatest moral failures have occurred within the Catholic leadership, ... from the papal seat ... to the priests in the parishes."

That's a defensive response and a sweeping generalization of several billion people. It does nothing for your position. Alleging moral failings on the part of Catholics will not turn incorrect readings of Scripture into correct ones.

Going back to the article at the head of the thread:

"Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term "faith" in their community to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in this, by the way.)"

"I agree that the discussion topic has been the criteria God has set for us to attain salvation. I maintain that the only requirement is faith. You have a different view. "

Indeed I do. The view that we are saved by faith alone is not found in the Bible, it is anti-Scriptural, and was invented by Martin Luther a millennia and a half after the time of Christ.

Yes ... that has been your steadfast claim ... and you have yet to prove it.

I have presented at least a half-dozen scriptural references, some from the lips of Jesus, Himself, ... which say clearly that God's requirement from man to obtain the salvation He offers ... is faith/belief.

You have yet to adequately address these references.

It looks to me like it caused you considerable difficulties with a very simple passage of Scripture in Matthew 19: 16-30.

That you prefer not to deal honestly with such scriptural statements as I has previously offered ... is only reindorced by this, another claim of yours.

Though I have responded to you that I do not have difficulty with this passage ... you refuse to accept my testimony as truth for me ... and prefer to twist the meaning of my responses to that which serves your purpose. You might wish to take time to consider your own level of honesty in this discussion ... and what your real objectives are.

I think you've said it's impossible to keep the 6 Commandments which Jesus said to keep in order to see Eternal Life.

Do you keep them ?

Have you, in this discussion even, ... loved me ... as much as you've loved yourself, ... or is there not some ego (i.e. not loving me as yourself) ... which I see in your responses ?

Moreover, I don't see that Scripture speaks of people as either saved or unsaved, and you sidestepped the Scripture which speaks of people who have in fact fallen away after a legitimate conversion.
"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6)
I did not side-step this issue.

I said that I see that the scripture you reference speaks of a loss of faith ... by one which previously believed ... for which ... there is no return to salvation.

Scripture also says that we will be judged according to our actions, in particular to the extent that we Love God and show mercy to our fellow man.

Indeed we shall ... as believers ... we shall be rewarded for our lasting works ... and shall suffer loss for our works which were not of God, ... but even then, ... we shall be saved, ... so as by fire.

This point you have also failed to address.

It seems that those who rest their faith on Martin Luther's theory that we are saved by faith alone must either argue that we have no free will, or that mercy, love, good deeds, and avoidance of sin come automatically (!) to the believer. Those teachings are not Scriptural. Moreover, they're delusional. I'm being told in the same breath that it's impossible to keep the 6 Commandments Jesus lays out in Matthew 19:16-30, and that good works and avoidance of sin come automatically to those who believe. What a bunch of baloney.

You really should educate yourself scripturally.

Take a year ... and commit yourself to the reading and study of the whole of scripture. One cannot base one's entire belief set on one passage of scripture. One must be willing to bring one's understanding of any scriptures in line with an understanding of the whole of scripture.

As you do ... I believe that these beliefs that you now see as baloney ... will be revealed to you as God's truth, ... as well.
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Some of these spiritual things might be ...
... that, upon conversion, God begins a work in hearts and minds which He has pledged to finish.
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
... that, upon conversion, God takes us in as His adopted children, ... and that He has pledged to ... never cast us out.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
... that, upon conversion, ... God seals us unto the day of redemption, ... with the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
... that, ... God has both the power and will, ... to oppose any effort to separate us from Himself.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

I believe, with Paul, that neither of us can say that we have arrived in our scriptural understanding ... and we can both certainly benefit by further study.

Such study is needful ... and profitable ... to the servant of God who wishes to be effective for God ...
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
May we both continue to pursue such.

Quester,

I don't mind challenging you on your beliefs, but I can see my last post upset you.

"...is there not some ego (i.e. not loving me as yourself) which I see in your responses?"

Then pray for me, brother.

"Have you, in this discussion even, loved me as much as you've loved yourself..."

I've put as much time as I've had to give into responding as thoroughly and specifically to your posts as I have been able. Is there something more love requires in this situation? If so, show me, and if convinced, I will not be remiss.

"You really should educate yourself scripturally"

Amen, Brother, please pray for me that I may come to know and live the Scriptures more fully.

"I have presented at least a half-dozen scriptural references, some from the lips of Jesus, Himself, ... which say clearly that God's requirement from man to obtain the salvation He offers ... is faith/belief."

The question has never been whether or not God requires faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, this we know. Please see post 196. The question here is being saved by faith alone, and that has been not shown from Scripture--because it's not there, Quester. That's a man made invention of the 16th century. Look for yourself, where does Scripture say we are saved by faith alone? Quester, show me where Scripture says "faith alone."

"That you prefer not to deal honestly with such scriptural statements as I has previously offered ... is only reindorced by this, another claim of yours.

"Though I have responded to you that I do not have difficulty with this passage ... you refuse to accept my testimony as truth for me ... and prefer to twist the meaning of my responses to that which serves your purpose. You might wish to take time to consider your own level of honesty in this discussion ... and what your real objectives are. "

I can see I've upset you. My assumption is that you are even-keeled and not weak in faith--and I still hold those assumptions. My objective is not to hurt you, but to challenge you. It does indeed appear to me that these passages have caused you some discomfort. Where have I been dishonest? I am reading the passage literally. You've asserted that the people in Matthew 19:16-35 are lying to each other, that people are not being straightforward with each other (including Jesus), that it's simply ambiguous, that the meaning must be hidden, or even that the passage makes itself invalid. The passage is crystal clear. It is the attempt to impose Martin Luther's doctrine of "faith alone" upon the Scripture that is causing difficulty, not a literal reading of this passage or the Sermon on the Mount. Our faith must not stand alone, Quester, or else it is less than worthless.

I believe we Christians have nothing to loose by seeking out the truth, and that we must wrestle with the Word of God and come to grips with whatever claims it makes of us. This passage makes some extraordinary claims, and it is no suprise that they would initially be troubling to anyone who believes 1) that they are saved by belief alone, and 2) that they were guaranteed to go to heaven when they die based upon their conversion experience. Neither of these beliefs, as comfoting as they may be, are Scriptural.

"As you do ... I believe that these beliefs that you now see as baloney ... will be revealed to you as God's truth, ... as well."

It's not the Bible that I think is questionable, it's the man made beliefs which are being imposed upon the Scriptures. Have I not been told repeatedly and empahtically that it is impossible for people to keep the 6 Commandments that Jesus said we must keep to see eternal life, much less live according to the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount? Furthermore, have I not been told that moral living and good works follow automatically from the conversion experience? Are these not contradictory statements? Perhaps you could clarify this for me.

"I said that I see that the scripture you reference speaks of a loss of faith ... by one which previously believed ... for which ... there is no return to salvation."

This Scripture (Hebrews 4:4-6) speaks simply of falling away, and with that passage, we see that the conversion experience is no guarantee, correct? Anyone can fall away, right? Other passages speak of those who are luke warm, those who commmit serious sin, those who do not show mercy, and those who simply value this world more than the next. Or shall I elaborate upon that from Scripture? It says quite a bit about this. (By the way, we are speaking of salvation here, and as we know regarding Salvation, with God, all things are possible.) I only bring this up because people appear to be discounting Scripture based on a superimposition of man made doctrines about a different moral standard and Scriptural understanding being applied to those who are "saved" versus those who are "unsaved." There are no 'saved" people in the Bible, the people are being saved by Grace through Faith working in Love.

"Indeed we shall as believers we shall be rewarded for our lasting works and shall suffer loss for our works which were not of God, but even then, we shall be saved, so as by fire. This point you have also failed to address. "

Conversion is no guarantee of salvation, Quester, I think I've made that clear, so clearly I think you're operating under false assumptions when you read this passage. It says nothing of a guarantee of salvation, all must face judgement. You can choose to believe that this passage means that God will sanctify the believer in this life, or you can even choose to see it as a purgatorial cleansing in the next, but those who persist in sin and do not show mercy have no guarantee of eternal life, regardless. Not everyone who says to Jesus," Lord, Lord," will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

"One cannot base one's entire belief set on one passage of scripture."

Amen, Brother, and I do believe I've had John 6:47, beautiful Scripture that it is, quoted to me quite a few times as somehow seen to be over-ruling the rest of Scripture. Actually, it's been a peculiar interpretation of this Scripture that is held to trump other Scriptures.

"Some of these spiritual things might be that, upon conversion, God begins a work in hearts and minds...";

I agree.

" that, upon conversion, God takes us in as His adopted children"

I agree.

"that He has pledged to ... never cast us out."

The passage you quote does not refer to conversion alone. Be that as it may, we are free to walk away from God. You have seen fellow Christians do that. They did indeed convert, but rather chose to walk away later.

"That, upon conversion, God seals us unto the day of redemption, with the indwelling of His Holy Spirit."

You have just discussed a passage (Hebrews 6: 4-6) which discusses those who have experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit but later fall away. Therefore, no guarantee of salvation there, correct?

"I said that I see that the scripture you reference speaks of a loss of faith ... by one which previously believed ... for which ... there is no return to salvation."

"God has both the power and will to oppose any effort to separate us from Himself."

So?? It is incorrect to assume that he will impose His Will upon a believer in this life. Rather that is something we must freely choose, or even pray for as we do in some Catholic prayers, and in a certain sense, in the Lord's prayer itself. Moreover, we just covered this in the last statement, in which you spoke distinctly of people losing faith, despite having experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Clearly people can separate themselves from the Love of God. Are you arguing here that we do not have free will? That would be an unscriptural position. Do you really want to go there? I'll be blunt, it's easier to read the plain meaning of Scripture than to tie yourself up into knots by trying to reconcile "justification by faith alone" with the very Scriptures that it contradicts. Following Conversion and Baptism, the believer must obey the teachings of Christ, including his moral Commandments, otherwise there is not assurance of salvation.

"I believe, with Paul, that neither of us can say that we have arrived in our scriptural understanding and we can both certainly benefit by further study. Such study is needful and profitable to the servant of God who wishes to be effective for God.May we both continue to pursue such."

Amen, Brother.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.