In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ

You are introducing a contrast [between works of the law and works of faith and love] Paul is not making

Of course he is making it. There is no shortage of passages where works of the law are said to be not salvific and next to it works of faith and love are urged. The first paragraph of Titus 3 is a good example, or any ending of a Pauline letter where having argued against circumcision he goes on to urge good works.

Your response is one attempt after another to deny the obvious. When Paul speaks of “works of the law” by which a man sought justification by the merit thereof, and he distinguishes them with faith as the means of appropriating justification, you insist he is really only disallowing the former because a “legal obligation are thereby containing their own rewards, and distinguishing them “works of faith” by which a man merits eternal life according to the law of Rome, yet Paul's whole thesis is contra ability and contra merit. Abraham was helpless to birth a nation, but his faith was counted for righteousness. Certainly he would have to put his faith into action, but it was not his actions that appropriated the promise, but his faith. “And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. {22} And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. {23} Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; {24} But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; {25} Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. " (Romans 4:21-25)

"{3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. {4} Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. {5} But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. {6} Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, " (Romans 4:3-6)

But while the kind of faith can be qualified, your version must constantly substitute what Paul is precisely contrasting, a system of works-righteousness versus faith. And as Abraham himself was before the law, with righteousness being imputed before he was even circumcised, “works of the law” are not simply what are disallowed, but what they represent, and if there had been a law or system of merit which could have given eternal life, righteousness should have been by the law.

Rather, justification is by imputed righteousness — Christ works being the effective cause — procured through a kind of God-given faith that will bring forth fruit unto practical holiness.

Righteousness is real , not "imputed". "Imputed" is an Old Testament construct. A Chjristian man is a "new creature" (Galatians 6:15), not an old creature in camouflage.

Indeed he is the latter, but you wrongly contrive to set the two in opposition, as they are one event, (1Cor. 6:11; cf. Acts 10:43ff; 15:8,9; Eph. 1:13) You can see if you can get transformed of the occurrence of the word “logizomai” in the New Testament:

Total KJV Occurrences: 42

think, 7: 2Co. 3:5, 2Co. 10:2 (2), 2Co. 10:7, 2Co. 10:11, 2Co. 12:6, Phi. 4:8; imputed, 5: Rom. 4:11, Rom. 4:22-24 (3), Jam. 2:23; counted, 4: Rom. 2:26, Rom. 4:3, Rom. 4:5, Rom. 9:8; reckoned, 4: Luk. 22:37, Rom. 4:4, Rom. 4:9-10 (2); accounted, 2: Rom. 8:36, Gal. 3:6; reckon, 2: Rom. 6:11, Rom. 8:18; suppose, 2: 2Co. 11:5, 1Pe. 5:12; account, 1 1Co. 4:1; accounting, 1: Heb. 11:19; charge, 1: 2Ti. 4:16; conclude, 1: Rom. 3:28; count, 1: Phi. 3:13; despised, 1: Act. 19:27; esteemeth, 1: Rom. 14:14; impute, 1: Rom. 4:8; imputeth, 1 Rom. 4:6; imputing, 1 2Co. 5:19; laid, 1: 2Ti. 4:16; numbered, 1: Mar. 15:28; reasoned, 1: Mar. 11:31; thinkest, 1: Rom. 2:3; thinketh, 1: 1Co. 13:5; thought, 1: 1Co. 13:11

if believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those “very works which have been done in God,” then it is a wage

Yes, if a motivation is salvation, or fear of punishment, then it is no longer work of love. Salvific work imitates Christ; He worked because He loved.

So you agree that works done seeking merit eternal life — and under the law they trusted God that this was the case — are a wage and invalid. Thus according to you works do merit eternal life but such can only those done with a motive to merit eternal life, or escape judgment. And that this was Paul's argument although he simply contrasted the system of works-merit with faith. Sorry, it is just not there.

Romans 11 and Romans 4 that you go on to cite make the disctintions between grace and any works, not between faith and works, and are wholly Catholic doctrine of Grace Alone.

It is not surprising then that you seem to only be able to see Rm 4 and 11 as making a distinction between grace and works. Grace is the rubric under which salvation is accomplished, which you try to equate it with the instrumental means, which is faith, in order to substitute that for works. I referenced Rm. 4:16 which defines this: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;” while i went on to ref. Rm. 11:20: “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” Faith is the instrumental means in contrast to works, and even if you made a restriction to the latter which Paul did not, then faith would still be the means to appropriating justification. Its time to acknowledge that.

while Rm. 7:12 and Gal. 3:21 are obviously not referenced as contrasting works versus grace but they are used to argue that if there was a way to merit eternal life by works then it would have been by the law, in which one has faith that God will justify him on account of his works-righteousness

No, it is still not by law. Sainthood by definition is heroic virtue: something done out of pure love without conscious regard of one's salvation.

In the Bible all believers are called saints, (Acts 9:13,32;41; 26:10; Rm. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25,26,31; 1Cor. 1:2; etc.) and no distinction is ever made in regards to postmortem destination.

One does not, for example, get saved by doing charity work now and then, but by becoming internally out of habit (as a "new creature") a charitable person. Sorry if I neglected to make it clear earlier.

So one merits eternal life by his goodness and his works, and so “to him that worketh not” only refers to works of wrong motive, and Abraham was justified by a good heart and works, though the contrast is with faith, while you make the effects of justification to also be its cause! Thus your translation: “To him that worketh not with impure motive, but believeth on Him that justifieth the unGodly, his good heart and works of faith are counted for righteousness.” I just cannot find it in the Greek.

Eph. 2:9,10 ... do not mention works of the law

No, but it only mentions works negatively in v.9 to contrast it with grace.

So “by grace are ye saved through faith..not of works” is contrasting the works with grace, not faith, although faith and works though both are instrumental means, and grace is the dispensation rubric under which both faith and works are exercised. And you are accusing us of engaging in exegetical slight of hand.

The next paragraph was part of the argument and gave two examples.

and I adressed them, or did I misunderstand which ones?

Thus you must attempt to restrict “works of righteousness” “not of works,” “not according to our works,” and “to him that worketh not,” to only applying to a certain kind of works, contrasting that with “works of faith,” while the Biblical contrast is broadly between works of any kind versus faith

But that "the Biblical contrast is broadly between works of any kind versus faith" is still to be proven. Please explain where do you see that. I did point out how the context always qualifies the non-salvific works.

Honestly, that is like the thief who complained that he could not find a police station. You context argument simply consists of finding the fruit of faith in a verse following one which is contrasting faith and works, and then stating that the contrasts is between grace vs works, but which ignores the distinction between the two instrumental means which is being made.

Christ did not got the cross simply because He is loving

Yes, He did. God is love. That is all God does: He loves.

Here you are ignoring the word “simply.” Love was the motive, the cross was the method, but the atonement was the necessity. So great salvation by the Great God and Savior, so for great sinners as you and me. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to the glory of God the Father.

the classic Protestant doctrine of sola fide preaches that the kind of faith that is salvific is one that shows forth things which accompany salvation, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) Not because they merit it, but because that is the character of saving faith

Very well, but that then denies Faith Alone. It has to be faith whose character it is to do good works, -- faith + works.

By now i hope you realize it really does not, though its emphasis is a reaction against Rome's institutional system of sacramental works-righteous.

You left out [2 Tim 1:9], “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace..."

That is another contrast between works and grace. It is not a contrast between works and faith. It makes my point.

It is grievous but revealing how must not only render “not according [or because] of works” to be distinguishing grace vs one kind of works yet equating grace with another kind of works. Paul has just affirmed Timothy's salvation as being due to genuine faith, (2Tim. 1:5) while the verse is actually referring to or encompassing heir election, which was because of any works they has done according to Rm. 9.

Annalex: So no, I do not see a prooftext of faith and good works being "either one or the other".

daniel1212 : As concerns what the basis for justification is, that should be obvious.

I am sorry. If it were "obvious" to me I would not have asked. I still don't see any proof from scripture that faith and good works are mutually exclusive as "the basis for justification".

The effective basis is Christ and His blood and righteousness, while the instrumental basis for appropriating it is either works-merit which would include any such system, in contrast to man abssing himself as one unable to escape hell/merit heaven as God must be holy and just, and casting himself on the mercy of God in Christ, who met the demands of each as scapegoat/atonement, "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. " (Romans 3:26-27)

I, in fact, can supply a few direct scripture passages that say, if taken at face value that good works ALONE are the basis for justification (Matthew 25:31-46, primarily, but there are several passages to that effect.) ... and which merit eternal life. "Possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat...". Note that causative "for".

As for texts such as Mt. 25:31-36, though some see this as referring to the kingdom age, that and other texts certainly would seem to support a works=salvation soteriology, while the publican simply humbled himself before God, trusting in his mercy to be justfied, and John has texts such as Jn. 6:29, while Acts has faith expressed in baptism resulting in regeneration, as well spontaneous conversions before baptism. All must be reconciled, and Romans and the epistles mainly provide the theology which is largely missing in the gospels, including ecclesiology. And by which all can be reconciled, with grace giving a virile faith by which one is counted righteous, which is then lived out if salvific, doing works such as Mt. 25 refers to, loving your brother as well as your enemy, and who have the right to the tree of life on the basis having a kind of virile faith which bears fruit of obedience.

While faith and works are distinguished as regards how justification is appropriated, the two are synonymous as characterizing the redeemed. And like Jesus said, “For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?,” (Mt. 9:5) though they were two different events, yet in result they were concomitant, so it is also allowable for faith and works to be used thusly as regards cause and effect.

this confession can be by mouth as well as by “body language” such as in baptism.

And by good works. It is therefore not only confessional. confession of faith is merely a start. Consider 2 Peter 1:2-10.

Yes and no; “confessional” in Rm. 10:9 specifically refers to mouth and promises salvation, but confess cannot be restricted to mouth and includes living it out. (1Tim. 6:12; Heb. 11:3

But what if the person is mute, and immobilized, and all he/she can do is think?

Well, the Good Thief was immobilized, literally. He still defended the innocent and did penance for his sins. As a thought experiment, I can grant you that good work may be a bare internal prayer for the good of a neighbor, for any other expression of virtue is physically impossible. It is still heroic virtue -- works.

I agree that prayer is work (indeed), but besides the idea of penance (see here on that) what God says all along is that "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit," (Psalms 34:18) and this is an example of this, as is the penitent publican who went down to his house justified. While God can call some to turn away from sin first, (Acts 24:25) and one must want light over darkness, yet the Bible plainly promises salvation to those who believe, without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering. (Acts 2:38; 10:42ff; 16:14-15)

what James does not say is that such works of faith merit eternal life

He said "justified". That means eternal life. Here is the passage:

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Of course St. James is not saying that Abraham was justified by merely offering up Isaac, i.e. by works alone; it is by works cooperating with faith that he was justified.

Again, the problem is your interpretation places James in direct contradiction to Moses and Paul, and not matter how we render it here justification is plainly is declared to be procured by faith not merit. v.22 has a Abraham with a “virile faith” showing he is that he really is the father is was declared to be, and the word for “by” is used 759 times and is also translated “with” (Mt. 12:20) It is understood that they work together, and see my comment on forgiveness and healing.

Souls are not saved on the basis of their own holiness, but faith which is imputed for righteousness

No, not "imputed". That perhaps is the root of Protestant error. A holy man is a new creature, he truly is. Of course that holiness is of Christ, -- partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) but souls are saved solely on the basis of holiness. See again Matthew 25:31-46.

No, “imputed.” whether you like what the Holy Spirit used or not, that is what the word is, not “infused” or “transformed,” And despite your incongruous attempt to set declarative righteousness in opposition to being regenerated, there is no conflict between them, while “partakers” (companions) does not refer to justification but living it out.

poorer spirituality

I don't know how you compare these things, but what I witness in Protestantism is not spirituality but elevated emotionalism.

That is not what i had in mind but things like the things the link dealt with. As for emotionalism see below.

a modern day Berean would likely not become an Roman Catholic

Most Catholic converts are exactly converts along the Berean model: they study the scripture and they discover that on all the Catholic distinctives it is the Catholics who take the Bible on face value and Protestants need to build complex sophistry to get from "not by faith alone" to "by faith alone" or from "this is my body" to "this symbolically represents my body".

You have amply demonstrated the meaning of sophistry, sorry to say, while Rome's literalizing the allegorical in the Lord's supper is manifestly self-refuting.

Rome's assertion that Catholicism manifests a greater degree of grace, but based on what research i have, converts to evangelical churches most typically usually do not primarily site doctrinal issues, but relational, with 90% of former Roman Catholics saying it was a spiritual search for a more direct, personal experience with God

Both are true. Catholicism is means of uncreated grace. This is not something people can easily relate to. Catholic service is impersonal and unemotional. A good priest, for example, is one who serves as if no congregation was present at all. He, in fact, would do well to have his back to them. If one wants an emotional involvement, especially if "personal" means a separation from the Communion of Saints, he is not ready for the Church, and very many aren't.

Showing lots of emotional can be carnal but it is not unBiblical. Maybe David went a bit overboard but was sincere, and Michal was the one punished for her self-righteous censure. (2Sam. 6:20-23) Worship in Israel had shouting, music, etc., was not characteristically a solemn thing, (Ps. 47:1) while the apostles were sometimes beside themselves, (2Cor. 5:13) and the type of meeting in 1Cor. 14 was a communally participatory Pentecostal service. Closest thing in Roman Catholicism i found was in the charismatic meetings, though raised in a typical Irish Yankee family i was rather taken back at first.

There was also a preaching type of service in the New Testament church, as in Acts 20:7-9, but as for weekly service with a priest with his back turned to the people, that is not in any description of the New Testament church.

it would be wrong to impugn the transformational misanthropic self-effacing "me, filthy rags", followed by the bolt of lightning proclamation "I have been saved!" type conversion, as it is entirely Biblical.

The Psalm says, "I humbled myself and the Lord saved me". As St. Symeon the New Theologian put it "I neither fasted or slept on bare ground or kept vigils but ... I did no more than believe and the Lord accepted me" (On Faith -- I don't have an online reference). Humility is good, the way Protestant communities of faith practice it is infected with the Total Depravity nonsense (I know, you don't subscribe), ostentatious and often grotesque. But, yes, the idea is totally biblical. Christ humbled Himself.

Do you disagree that al have sinned, and that the whole human race of accountable souls “are all under sin,” “all gone out of the way,” and so “all the world may become guilty before God,” as stated in Rm. 3:9-19) and that “in me [and you] (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing,” and are damnable and destitute of any way of escaping our just punishment in Hell fire or deserving eternal life, but must by saved by the mercy of God in Christ, by His blood and righteousness?

I agree that man is fallen, sinful by nature, damnable and unable to repent and call upon Christ to be saved. (Jn. 6:44; Acts 11:18) But i do not see man as damned due to what Adam did, but because they yield to their inherited Adamic nature, according to the light they have.

what you not find is souls being treated as if they were Christians due to infant baptism and perfunctory professions, which prevail in institutionalized religion of any camp

You are a Christian, moreover, born again Christian, and once-saved Christian thanks to infant (or any other) baptism. You are saved again thanks to a confession no matter how perfunctory. That is because, no matter where you put "works" in the plan of salvation, the Holy Mysteries of Baptism, Confession, Eucharist are not our works. It is God Who works, "according to his own purpose and grace". I know you don't have it, but you should not brag of not having it.

The idea that a mere perfunctory confession saves is more heretical than supposing infants are born again by proxy faith. As for me “not having it,” have been there, and done that, both in perfunctory manner and sincere from the heart, and that is one reason i know it is in critical deviation from gospel faith.

the typical Catholic is politically and morally less conservative and more liberal.

It si neither here or there, even though it is in a way true. I simply said that we all agree as a practical matter on what is right and what is wrong. As to conservatism, Catholicism does not necessarily match American Conservatism shaped after all by mostly Evangelical Protestants. Also, it is helpful to distinguish "cultural Catholics" to are Catholic because they are Italian or something, and committed, Rosary-praying, in-church-every-chance-they-get Catholics. Then tend to be overwhelmingly conservative and in the genuine sense of the word.

It is true that American Conservatism is mostly shaped by mostly Evangelical Protestants and that Catholicism does not overall match it, but liberal moral and social views predominate where it does. And since the OTC which you would have us convert to include them, then it is not simply official RC faith that is the issue, but the church itself and what it effectually promotes.

You stated before there were not two classes, and Rome does not treat them as such, whatever else is said, and when she boasts of her numbers she is including them.

Total depravity of man and limited atonement are not uniformly held;

Thank God, no. But whty do you think that theological idiocy developed on the Protestant soil in the first place?

TD need not not mean utter depravity, but can mean that while man is depraved in every part of his being, he is not a bad as he could be, nor unable to do objectively “good” things, which is by God's common grace, but his motive is not the “good of their glory of God or as consistent with His will. Saul of Tarus was seeking to serve God, but not in accordance with His truth. And we all agree man cannot come to Christ unless he/she is drawn (the word does actually means dragged as like a net) and repentance is granted. (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18)

As for idiocy, often this is a manifest by those who make bold statements based upon a superficial understanding of the issue, but if we really get into theology, we often realize that such doctrines are the result of souls honestly seeking to be consistent with Scripture, and that included some in Roman Catholicism, and TD is no more unreasonable than original sin, which is where it comes from. And as with LA, you need to first look to Catholics and its soil for those.

But (do) you seem to have a real aversion to yourself being a sinner who is worthy of Hell and unable to save yourself except by the mercy of God in Christ, by His blood and righteous, not matter how it is appropriated?

if there is any group that between the two at issue that is “very much about practice” it more evangelicals

Yeah. Perhaps, that is compensation for bad theology. I wondered the same thing, even on this thread.

So its not really about evangelical not working out their faith, but about not working out Rome's.

On the other hand, Catholic contribution is often overlooked because it comes in form of schools, universities, hospitals, foreign aid, -- all things done institutionally and not through local, visible effort.

And “government issue” too easily fosters overall complacency.

the Inquisitions

I am a big fan, so don't knock them.

Sounds ominous. But before you turn us in see below.

One thing you probalby agree wrong with Protestantism is no way to discipline outright heresy. Nothing would prevent Protestants to develop modern and enlightened ways to deal with its own bad apples and they are perfectly free from any medieval baggage the Holy Inquisition might have.

Nothing but the Bible. Please show us where the New Testament ruled over those without or used physical punishment to disciple its members. Paul and the early church had nothing to do with disciplining those without, and besides passive disfellowship, he used spiritual power to discipline members. (1Cor. 5:5,12; 1Tim. 1:20)

You can try to extrapolate sanction for the church using the sword of men out of the disciples being given two swords, (Lk. 22:35-38) but even them two was said to be enough, and those that live by it shall die by it, (Matthew 26:52) and what the New Testament clearly states and examples is that Jesus kingdom is not of this world, and if it were then His disciples would physically fight, (Jn. 18:36) while instead “we do not war after the flesh: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds,” (2Cor. 10:3,4) as we in the true church “do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph. 6:12). Apostolic power, which Rome vainly seeks to claim, was established by ear constant manifest supernatural power, along with Scriptural conformity and complementarity in character and doctrine, and the rod they used to discipline was not a physical one, but spiritual. (Acts 5:1-10; 1Cor. 4:20)

Rome in contrast, persecuted Bible Christians, just as “he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit,” (Gal. 4:29) using the sword of men which the Holy Spirit sanctioned the civil powers to use, (1Pet. 2:13,14) not the church, and its use of it by both Roman Catholic and Protestants has resulted in a lasting negative testimony.

alleviate poor souls in her mythical purgatory

An indulgence, by the way, is a good example of practicing heroic virtue that we spoke about earlier. Didn't you just get done telling me that works done to advance one's own salvation are like working for wage? Well, here's one work one can do that is demonstrably not wage. Further, the Prutgatory is wholly biblical, check 1 Cor 3:8-15. It surely is more biblical than Faith Alone.

Resorting to 1 Cor 3:8-15 is an admission of defeat, as that text is specifically about the works being burned up and one losing rewards. "Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.” “If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:8,14-15) Purgatory on that other hand, is about the interior self being purged, based upon some verses which are about punishment, or wrested out of text speaking about the need for holiness to see God, while the New Testament only reveals believers going directly to be with the Lord upon death, as long as they die in faith. Even Augustine disagrees with you, though he if off as well.

Holding the church to be a material means of salvation is one thing; holding that taking part in the Lord's supper is necessary to have life in you, which many RC's erroneously suppose Jn. 6:53 means, is another

That is what "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh ... He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day", -- means.

That is literally in-credible. To prove your conclusion, please show where taking part in the Lord's supper was preached as the means to get life in you.

Again, we read what is written, Protestants build up long sophistries to run away from clear scripture. We can have a separate discussion on the words of Institution in the light of John 6, but for a brief note on that, please do not think that because "the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life" it means that the "food indeed" became all spiritual food toward the end of the chapter. The Eucharist is not something from which the stomach profits, -- that is what it says. That is what "spiritual" means, one that feeds the soul.

If you understood the meaning of the word “sophistry,” and could allow yourself to think objectively, which you are not allowed to do, then you could recognized that is the Roman Catholic argument which again i have already extensively dealt with. Salvation is always given by believing on Jesus in Acts, consistent with John, while living by eating Jesus flesh is analogous to how Jesus lived by father, which was by His word, (Mt. 4:4) and thus to do His will was Jesus “bread,” (Jn. 4:34). The very idea that physical food feeds one spiritually is antithetical to the gospel of John in particular, and life under the New covenant. Jesus would ascend up to Heaven, but His word remained - and not something about “transubstantiation, but the gospel give eternal life (1Cor. 15:1-4) - and it is His words that are Spirit and life. (Jn. 6:62,63)

Sorry for the typos -- I got to run off to work.

While your wresting of Scripture is not good, you sure must be able to type much faster than i, and this may be taking took much time.

This was supposed to have been posted first.

it is a faith which works by love that is salvific which the Reformers taught.

Then it is not faith "alone".

The full phrase is justification by grace alone through faith alone, and again, it is not of a character that is alone, but alone as the procurative means of appropriating IR, though it may be concomitant with an outward expression.

I am fine, by the way, with the Joint Declaration on Justification that clarifies that the differences betweent he Lutherans and the Catholics on Justification are mostly matter of terminology.

Which shows the degree of interpretation her definitions can allow for, and what is notable for what she did not say, and not only what she did, while Rome is better than most at nuanced language. I will have to go through it more carefully myself. Critical opinions here and here.

What is typically not comprehended is that in making technical definitions, works as a basis for appropriating salvation, or as the basis for one's essential acceptance with God are made distinct from faith, as no merit can be allowed, merit which the law was based upon, and as would grace enabling merit or choosing one's ejection, and therefore justification is by “the righteousness of faith” by grace, appropriating IR. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” (Gal. 6:15)

But as regards the character of that faith, no separation can be made. “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” (Gal. 5:6

Rome comes close to the sola fide position in holding souls as being initially justified apart from any merit, or in baptism by desire, and affirms “God's unconditional justifying grace” but then has them meriting eternal life through her sacramentals.

But no other Protestant denomination joined Lutherans in that, and the insistence on (1) works being separated from salvation acheived in one's life at the point of conversion, and (2) produced by one already irrevocably saved -- is very common, just review this thread.

By now you have read enough to see why distinctions in terminology are made, and it is also important to realize that this was not a comprehensibly settled issue in the early post New Testament church, and early fathers seemed to teach sola fide, as seen here, as well as works such as baptism being a necessity. “We, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Clement of Rome, ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32. But both sides employ them, sometimes leaving out parts or others that do not serve their polemic.

But the main thrust in N.T. Gospel preaching was that man was depraved, damned and destitute of any means to save himself by his own merits, as that would require fully keeping the law, “going about to establish their own righteousness,” (Rm. 10:3) which actually condemned them as they came short of it. Thus, being just as helpless to justify and save themselves as Abraham was to birth a child, they needed to cast themselves upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting in His power and ability to save just as Abraham did. Yet as the manner of faith that comes from God is not merely intellectual, but is confessional, (Rm. 10:10) so the salvation decision was initially expressed in baptism, typically as concomitant with that decision. If this could be effectually preached by Rome, a vast difference could be made. And if baptism by desire is allowed, which Rome does, then it testifies to one being saved without works, though the faith that is counted for righteousness is pregnant with them. To disallow such as justifying would be akin to abortion.

Why don't you start explaining that works are an unseparable part of saving faith to your fellow Protestants rather than defending their heresies wholesale.

Inseparable as to nature of saving faith. The basic problem is mainly with Rome herself, while for all its talk about how it believes in “works,” it primarily promotes common complacency, and while they attack evangelicals as preaching a religion of “faith alone,” research and prima facie evidence shows they manifest far more fruit of regeneration in relation to their size. And what takes up most of the time is correcting the false idea that the Reformation taught a type of faith that does not show forth fruit corresponding to repentance.

Luther himself censured such faith without works:

But Satan,..hath raised up a sect of such as teach that the Ten Commandments ought to be taken out of the church, and that men should not be terrified by the law, but gently exhorted by the preaching of the grace of Christ. (Preface to Luther's Commentary on Galatians)

Reformers such as Carlstadt, Zwingli and Wesley etc , denied that the moral law was abrogated by grace, and taught that they were the ongoing standard of the sanctified life.

But besides contending against the false gospel Rome officially and effectually conveys, i have, even recently and in (my usual) extended manner corrected a leader who taught one is saved as long as they believe God's promise of salvation, even if they live contrary to it. He himself is a proven man of integrity who sacrificially serves the Lord in a Ind..Baptist church, which, like him, is predominantly that of a sacrificial dedicated workers for God, despite holding to thus confused idea. And as i opposed that aberration ,so Rome's, as my conscience should always be captive to the Word of God, and not do otherwise. God help me. Amen.

*Extended:

A historical perspective might be helpful in all this. Luther (TIME: fair article) was a diligent monk laboring to make himself pleasing to God, practicing extreme penance and seeking to crucify his sinful nature and be found with a faith that qualified for Divine favor and eternal life, but could not. While such efforts would be a rare for Catholic today, who would say he misunderstood Roman Catholic doctrine, but the right emphasis on the sinful condition of man and holiness of God was useful to sell indulgences, and doctrine was more open to interpretation before Trent. But “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and reading that “the just shall live by faith” he realized that full acceptance with God was by faith in His mercy in Christ. Luther would later ask if the Pope had power to release souls from Purgatory, and that for money (an abuse, but implicitly sanctioned), why would he not release all as an act of mercy? Other theologians also regularly posted issues seeking debates. Later Roman Catholic theologians would substantially favor Luther, and today he might be handled like a Han's Kung.

Yet the contention with Rome is not on the emphasis on works, nor that such are necessary if faith is salvific, nor even that eternal life is given to those who have them, but that man's justification is due to them actually being a righteousness due to an inherent righteous effected by regeneration, versus imputed righteousness appropriated by faith being the basis for justification. Yet if the conflict stopped there then in effectual terms it might only be a technical distinction which no convert coming to Christ need be aware of, if preaching convicted him of his depraved, destitute and damnable condition, and he trusted Christ to gain him a salvation he could not merit, with him then living out a life zealous of holiness and good works in response, and such might be akin to holiness Pentecostals.

But what Rome's position means is that of justification by an actual constitutional change in heart being appropriated by baptism, and that typically being by proxy faith, by which he/she counted a Christian, and then by participation in the sacramental life of the RCC, they are accounted to have truly merited eternal life by their very works of faith, (Trent, Chapter XVI) rather than faith counted for righteousness. And with the Catholic typically having to go through personal purgatorial purifying by fire to gain finally be with the Lord (which presumes the Thessalonians must have arrived: 1Thes. 4:17)

And if it stopped there Rome might like a doctrinally tweaked Trinitarian, sacramental “Jehovah's Witness’s,” but again, rather than souls being convicted of their destitute and damnable condition and trusting Christ to save them by His blood and righteous, and being unaware of how this takes place, even if justification did take place by an actual change of heart, with converts then living out a life zealous of holiness and good works in order to keep it, what Rome's infused righteous has degenerated into is souls believing they are Christians from infancy, and infused with trust in merits and the power of the RCC to gain them eternal life, effectually if not officially fostering common complacency and promoting perfunctory professions and participation in practices promised to pardon or perfect her people.

It also teaches that The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins (emphasis mine) (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions #1265, 1269, 1277, nihil obstat and imprimatur).

And curses those who deny it should be offered “for the living and dead for sins, pains, satisfactions and other necessities.” (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chp. II, p. 180, Canon III). Of course, the immutability of these anathemas are another thing that Roman Catholics disagree on.

Some of all this is reaction as well as accommodation of competing faiths, and there is evidence Rome was not all settled on their issue, and Luther was not teaching something radical (and he included baptism as a salvific work of God). And the sola fide doctrine itself is a reaction against the perfunctory nature Rome's sacramental system fell into, as well as the power which the church assumed. And as is typical with needful reactions, the emphasis upon faith has resulted in an overreaction, in which baptism and the place of works has become marginalized among many, more recently than before. Yet evangelicals overall emphasized holiness and works, and paradoxically even among those in which works were not seen as necessary to saving faith can be said to have traditionally shown more evidence of religious commitment than their institutional counterparts, even if the latter emphasized the place of works.

Overview of book on historical dealings with heresies.

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.