Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
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
There IS a verse that states it.....
Ephesians 2:1-10 1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
It doesn't say *works of the Law*, it just says works, period. It's all about God and Him GIVING us salvation.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.
ping to post 7,061
Well, you got it:
YOU ARE DENYING THE OBVIOUS.
Hoss
But Catholicism is. Lots of them.
Which is why people are leaving the Catholic church in droves.
Chesterton was smart but he was not an infallibly inspired man. I stand by my assertion that the Catholic Church did not give the world the Bible, God did. What is nonsense is assuming the entire world owes allegiance to the RCC because they insist they did produce the Bible and can be the only interpreter of its message.
Davidic line had to be based on the father-son genealogy and it had to go through Solomon (1 Kings 1:30). Only Solomon's line is to rule on the throne of David forever. (1 Chronicles 22:9-10). That takes Nathan out of the equation.
Being Jesus' stepfather is irrelevant considering that Joseph's royal inheritance was disqualified because of the curse (Jeremiah 22:28-30).
Besides, adoption is not an option in assuming the Davidic throne. There are other examples of this. A Kohane (priest) can adopt a son but that son cannot become a Kohane. The priesthood is transferred only by a physical (chromosomal or "blood") inheritance.
Besides, Jesus repeatedly told everyone that his Father is in heaven and not of this world.
Below and the following 3 are the latest responses to an exchange that has its beginning a month or more ago, and as far as i know i am finally up to date in up in my responses (which takes me days to do). I do not seek to add or subtract for God words, and hope i do not, but to respond in the fear of God, and while this examination is a centuries old controversy, which is often subject to over simplification, hopefully we have cleared up some misunderstanding. Yet I am the only one who is allowed to examine things objectively and come to a different understanding, and while this has been has been edifying and has made things clearer, i am not sure if much further extensive exchange with you is worth engaging in.
It is certain that souls in Acts did not know much fine points of theology, but they were convicted of their damnable and destitute state as sinners before a holy and just almighty God, unable to escape their just damnation or gain glory except by looking to God for His mercy in the Christ foretold by the prophets in Scripture. And that the moment they placed their repentant faith in Him to save them by His blood and righteousness, they would be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit, God “purifying their hearts by faith.” (Ats 15:8,9)
This is what evangelical faith overall has historically preached, with its transformative conversions, and that this faith results in works of faith by the Holy Spirit, which the church edifying souls to do. But it is this often immediate conversion and simplicity in Christ with its evident regeneration that Rome militates against, at times literally by the sword of men, turning the grace of God into a vast autocratic bureaucratic system, with more of a form of the new birth rather than the Biblical relativity. Certainly evangelical churches come short of the prima New Testament church, and i certainly do, but within such are those who mainly represent the remnant that are evidentially saved, and their unity is of the Spirit, not by implicit trust in men which cults require, and they preach Christ, not their particular church.
If Rome preached the kind of gospel that convicted men if their desperate need to be saved by Jesus blood in the light of their sins and unworthiness and inability to morally merit eternal life, rather than presupposing them to be Christians (mainly) by paedobaptism, and then fostering confidence in the power of the church and their own merit for salvation, then we could have some fellowship in the Spirit. And i thank God there are a few who look past the trappings of religious form and find Christ. But as faith without works is dead, obedience to Christ will require dissent from Rome, resulting from her presupposed supremacist position over the Scriptures and declaration to be so. May all know "the grace of God in truth." (Col. 1:16) Thank you for your patience.
you are ignoring that this justification by faith out of a poor and contrite heart is contrary to one meriting eternal life
It is not contrary. One does work pleasing God out of love of God and this merits eternal life because God promised it will. You insert the meaning of "merit" as in "demanding by rights". But the merit of good works rests on the sovereign grace of God,-- at least that is what the Church teaches.
It is you who keep asserting the same, inserting works-merit into texts in order to fit your doctrine, so that the one does works of faith which justify, but the unGodly cannot do such works until they are justified.
"{2} For if Abraham were justified by works [except works of faith and love], he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God [and did works of faith and love], and it [they — works of faith and love], was [were] counted unto him for righteousness. {4} Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt [owed, to be recompensed]. {5} But to him that worketh not [excepting works of faith and love], but believeth on him that justifieth the [Godly] unGodly, his faith [and works of love], is [are] counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:2-5)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it [they — your works of faith and love], is [are] the gift of God: {9} Not of works [except works of faith and love], lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
The mention of works in v. 10 which are the result of faith does not negate the distinction as to what saves. Souls are saved by grace to do good works; they do not do good works to be saved, though their works testify that are saved and will be rewarded.
a saving faith is not of a character that is alone, but is or will be accompanied by works
I know you wrote a long syllogism designed to obscure this plain biblical teaching, but that short statement alone is sufficient to say that in order to save anyone, faith must be accompanied by good works, and so we are not saved by faith alone. It is not complicated.
Unlike your superficial consideration of texts. It is not complicated; the faith that saves is of a nature that works, else you must discard baptism by desire.
Without the precise distinction men will presume their works merit justification, essentially like men presumed works of their law did.
Why should they not presume that their good works merit justificaton if the Bible tells them they do (Matthew 25:31-46),
That does not say that, their good works merit justification, but describes Jesus blessing them who lived out their faith. Just as Jesus blessed faith (Lk. 8:13) and said “thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace” (Lk. 7:50; cf. 18:42) so He can just as easily bless faith manifested in works. Such souls were justified by faith, and by faith they overcome, and it is through faith and patience one inherits the promises. (Heb. 6:12)
and the Bible tells them the works done out of a legal obligation do not (Romans 3:28)? All they need to do is to read the scripture once in a while and listen to Protestant sophistry less, and they will know what God wants of them in order to place them to be with Him in heaven.
Again you are reading what you need to into the text, as Rm 3 places all under the law, directly or indirectly, by letter or intent, showing no one could merit justification, but that “Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin,” so that “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rm. 3:9,19) and in need of justification through faith. And Abraham's works were excluded even though they were done before the law. God justifies the unGodly faith, (Rm. 4:5) not Godly who do works of faith and love.
You miss what “therefore” [in Romans 12:1] establishes, a justification by faith not merit
No it doesn't. The previous discourse is about sovereign grace, not any kind of "faith alone": The same pattern as in Ephesians 2:4-10: God in His Mercy and Grace chooses to save us, therefore "walk in the good works that He had prepared for you". This passage, cited above, unlike Ephesians, does not mention faith even in passing.
You continually assume no distinction is being made between faith and works when they plainly do as regards the means through which one is saved, that being a faith which works by love, not works gaining salvation. Rm. 9-11 is about sovereign grace, defining grace in election as excluding works or human merit based upon penance or holiness or merit. The texts you posted (Rm. 11:32-36) only describe the conclusion of a long dissertation in which faith/believe is mentioned 11 times, As posted before,
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (Rm. 9:11,15,16)
“What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.” (Rm. 9:30)
"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. {6} And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. {7} What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded " (Romans 11:5-7)
As concerns salvation, “the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise..The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rm. 10:6,8-13)
That said, the relationship between grace and human freedom, which is behind this issue, is an age old one which is not fully resolved in Roman Catholicism itself, as seen in “Congregatio de Auxiliis.”
here again it is faith, with cps 11-15 exhorting living out that faith, as faith that justifies is of a character that will follow Jesus
But nowhere does St. Paul offer that that faith is unaccompanied by works.
Of a kind of faith, this is true. But again, “To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rm. 4:5) refers to works of the law and those apart from it, such as uncircumcised Abraham did, but Abrahamic faith is of a quality that responds to the will of its Object in obedience.
The idea that works "live out our faith" is not in itself heretical. It is even common sense: one cannot do works of self-denying love unless one had faith. But you continually make the assumption that because good works require faith as a necessary component, works do not "merit justification" as you favorite expression is. Works and faith form a single package and together they merit justification -- not as a debt to us but as a sovereign will of merciful God.
Justifying faith is not without works in that it will express them, but that does not mean faith absolutely must first manifest works before it justifies one, though such expression may be the event in which one is saved. Again, it is by faith in the mercy of God in Jesus Christ the righteous, that He will save the unGodly by His blood, that one procures justification by. This kind of faith may be realized in an act of obedience, but can precede such, which is why baptism by desire is allowed. And neither faith or works merit justification.
Chrysostom (349-407): “For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.” NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2.
But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27.
As for what merit can refer to,
“..we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” — Trent, justification, CHAPTER VIII.
These vehicles of grace, of course, are in no way exclusive. If one makes use of a particular form of spirituality, good. If he makes use of another, that is hs choice also. The necessary sacraments fopr a baptized Christian are the Confession as needed and the Eucharist "as often as you shall eat this" (1 Cor. 11:26).
In the Bible, the only thing it reveals about the postmortem state of a believer is that they immediately go into the presence of the Lord at death, or when the rapture occurs — if they are indeed a believer, and holiness be a characteristic of one. Paul makes no distinction between himself and other believers as regards his location after death, which he surely would have if such were the case, and your proof text for believers suffering purification has been shown to be invalid. And the Bible shows that it is in this life that purification takes place. (Job; 1Cor. 11:32)
(Luke 23:43) "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
(2 Cor 5:8) "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."
(Philippians 1:23) "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:"
(1 Th 4:17) "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
(Hebrews 12:11) "Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."
whoever promotes works as meriting eternal life ... is under a curse
... is merely reading the Holy Scripture as written. I understand that an anathema is an umpleasant thing to be under, but it is there, not unlike canonical scripture, for your benefit. Compare:
|
James 2 |
Trent (Session 6) |
|---|---|
|
[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? |
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. |
Faith alone does not deny that preparatory works is required to be done so that he be prepared and disposed to obtaining the grace of Justification, but that He is moved, granted and gifted to believe. And that such a faith is one that endures, bearing fruit.
The doctrine of Faith Alone, whether in its wooly "classic Protestantism" form or in the crass despiritualization of modern Protestantism is contrary to the direct instruction of the Bible.
That justification is instrumentally procured by faith alone (but not one that is alone)
.. is merely reading the Holy Scripture as written.
|
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {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, {7} Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. " (Romans 4:2-7) "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" (Romans 4:11) |
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. Canon 32, short version: "If anyone says that the good works of the one justified...that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit...the attainment of eternal life itself...let him be anathema." |
As regards anathemas, that is what you have placed yourself under by damning all Protestants. (Prv. 17:15; Gal. 1:6-8)
Yet Catholic answers disallows that as regards judicial penalty “Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.”
Likewise RCA~ David MacDonald states, The anathemas were only declared against people who already belonged to the Church. They did not apply to someone say in Japan who had never heard the Gospel. They did not apply to Protestants who never belonged to the Catholic Church, which means it almost never applied Protestants after the Reformation...The current Catechism does not mention anathema, it only references Trent. Nowhere in its text does it use the word "anathema". This anathema issue was put to bed by 1983 Canon law. The anathemas per se do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication.
And while doctrinally they make one an excommunicated heretic according to Rome, this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323). And as the majority of Catholics no longer believe in the real presence (among other things), then much of her own house is heretical.
And as relates to Trent versus the Reformers, John Neuhaus states,
Most scholars, whether Catholic or Protestant, agree that they did not understand the Reformers, especially Luther and Calvin, adequately. And there is slight disagreement, perhaps no disagreement, that the Reformers, especially Luther, could have expressed themselves more clearly, carefully, and consistently...Most scholars, whether Catholic or Protestant, agree that they did not understand the Reformers, especially Luther and Calvin, adequately. And there is slight disagreement, perhaps no disagreement, that the Reformers, especially Luther, could have expressed themselves more clearly, carefully, and consistently.. . the Catholic Church, knowing that all theological formulations fall short of expressing the fullness of truth, trusts the continuing guidance of the Spirit in a course of doctrinal development toward the ever more adequate articulation of God's Word relative to the questions posed by the time . . . In the intervening years, and especially in the theological dialogues of the last thirty years, Reformation Christians have made a convincing case that what they mean by sola fide is not what Trent condemned. — Evangelical and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995, Neuhaus' chapter, "The Catholic Difference," 175-227; quote from 209-210:
Your FM once again ... i included Rm. 4 already
I don't know what FM is, and your link is not helping.
Fundamental Misapprehension regarding distinctions and what sola fide means.
You did include Romans 4 now, and I explained in the first part of the responding post that Romans 4 is wholly in the context of works of the law, so it does not address the issue of the role of good works.
As explained, it is not, as Abraham was justified before the law, and not by good works which he did prior to the law, and before circumcision.
Protestant sola fide does teach that a "soul is counted righteous because of faith," but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of a faith WHICH IS alone, or by merit of works
All this looks like an attempt to verbalize "We are not saved by faith alone" while avoiding a direct contradiction to the Protestant heresy, each flavor of which still says "we are saved by faith alone".
No, but if we want to contest sola fide then their definitions must be dealt with, and in which the component of a justified soul which is the instrument of justification is precisely God-given faith, but again, of a type that confesses Jesus is Lord in word and deed.
evangelical faith was largely responsible for the Christian character of America
Yes, it is. It is also responsible for the de-Christianization of America underway today. I would agree that Protestantism produced some good fruit, especially in its earlier and less "evangelical" forms. Protestantism was an experiment. Man learned the Protestantism's lessons. It is now falling apart because the experiment is over. The traditional Protestant denominations, Presbyterian, Congregational Anglican and Methodist -- those that built America -- are tapering off; they are being replaced by a collection of self-styled communities that function as social clubs where a boring sermon Sunday morning is a price of admission.
And when faced with the fact that Catholic faith in Catholic countries unceasingly had fared bad, and that comparatively Roman Catholics in this country are far behind evangelicals in works of faith, you will say it is not the fault of the faith but of the people not obeying it. Likewise Evangelical faith, which has not been tried and found wanting, but increasingly found wanting to be tried in the modern world. If one went back and examined what was overall preached and expressed one will see relatively much more on holiness and consecration.
In France (76% Catholic ) only 12 percent say they go to church on Sunday (5 percent in Paris), in Ireland (90% Catholic) less than 50 percent attend Mass even once a month, in Italy (97 % Catholic) church attendance has fallen to 30 percent,
The first distinction which needs to be made again is that of the basis for justification, imputed (declared) righteousness procured by God-given faith (qualified as to its confessional character) in Christ and His blood, (Rm. 3:25-4:1-24) versus making justification to be on the basis of infusion, of an actual righteousness, and eternal life life gained by merit of works.
You derive the imputed character of grace from Romans 4:7, but that is a citation from the Old Testament, and brought in by St. Paul to contrast grace to the works of circumcision (v 10). The infused and transformational grace is taught everywhere else in the New Testament, including in the thematically close to the Romans Galatians: "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal 6:15). Jesus, of course, minced no words on that: "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt. 5:48).
This is missing it. The fact that Rm. 4:7 is from Ps. 32:1,2 and contrasts circumcision does not negate imputed righteousness as being something credited versus an actual interior holiness (though the convert has that also), but it confirms it. The reason Paul invokes this is not to contrast the IR of the New Covenant with that which Abraham received before circumcision, but to illustrate it as being just that, with this righteousness preceding the work of circumcision, with faith being counted for righteousness. (Rm. 4:9-11) Thus all who will effectually believe are justified by such faith as will be baptized.
Nor does this ref negate what is to be the result of this declarative righteous with its heavenly position, as being so under grace the believer is both rightly motivated and enabled to pursue fulfilling their righteous of the law. (Rm. 8:4)
you cannot have Moses and Paul both stating that Abraham was justified in Gn. 15:6, with many other verses stating justification is by faith, and never saying that justification was procured by any kind of works
St. Paul refers to the crossing of the desert described in Gen 12 as well as the birth of Isaac, and St. James-- to the sacrifice of Isaac. As St. James explains, all these are instances where works of faith cooperated with confessional faith and made the faith perfect. So the statement that the Scripture "never says that justification was procured by any kind of works" is simply not so.
That other verses state justification is by faith, and never say that justification was procured by any kind of works is true. The fact that Abraham did works of faith but that it was his faith which was counted for righteousness affirms that it was not works but faith that instrumentally appropriates justification, but again, it is a working type of faith.
if that means that making a manifest response such as Gn. 22 evidences is absolutely necessary to be justified then Gn. 15:6 must be rejected as being a present justification, and thus Abraham was not saved until such an expression
There is a string of manifestatons of faith starting with Gen 12, on to Gen 15 and then Gen 22. You are trying to single out one episode and declare that uniquely salvific for Abraham. That is not an objective reading of the scripture, but prooftexting: proclaiming one passage as supporting some extreme position and ignoring others.
Rather, i have dealt with all the main verses on justification by faith, while in response you sought to ignore or misconstrue distinctions in them, and use James and Mat. 25 as your real proof texts, while you misrepresented sola fide as teaching a faith with no prep work or a faith that does no works. In the above, i was responding to the premise of your use of Ja. 2, in which the example of Abraham's justification is Gn. 22, and pointed out that this would deny Gn. 15:6 as faith being what is counted or righteousness. If we allow a faith-works prior to that then it still denies Rm. 4, as in contrasting faith with works as justificatory, it refer to Abraham's works prior to justification. "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? {2} For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. " (Romans 4:1-3)
The fact is that justification is a process that typically lasts a lifetime. Moments of pure declarative faith are parts of justification,. They are not the whole of justification.
This is different than the contention that Abraham's justification was never by faith alone, but which produces works. We agree with growth in sanctification, and i can allow that one is justified upon faith-works in the sense that such confirms the justifying nature of faith. But apart from teaching that lost men are “dead in sins” and unable to escape his just damnation and gain glory on the basis of his own goodness or worthiness, and so must trust in the Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless blood, then what happens when emphasizing justification by ones goodness and works of faith is that souls will see themselves as worthy of eternal life due to their self-perceived merit, and escape the abasement and contrition which heart looks for salvation by faith.
If you pardon a long quote: ...
One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and ..
Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.
..The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4—three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.
But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.
But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)
James thus tells us "[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified ... when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Abraham therefore received justification—that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac.2 The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18—seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.
Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.
SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
This affirms Sola fide, as it does not need to hold that Abraham was not justified prior to Gn. 15:6, but that as your (? - the link says it is not there) post teaches, Abraham had indeed received justification by faith before Gn. 22. He did works before that, but Paul states it was not his works but his faith that was counted for righteousness. He first needed to be justified to do works in response to grace.
What your post says is not that Abraham was first justified in Gn. 22, but that “he also received it afterward”, “that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac” in Gn. 22. I can concur with this as in the established sense above. But what the issue then becomes is the doctrine of increasing one's justification. Sola fide certainty believes one is to grow in holiness, and that holiness is a necessary attribute of salvific faith. Believers have a heavenly altitude, but such faith also is to increasingly work toward a heavenly attitude. However, the increased justification per Rome is part of her justification based upon an actual interior “infused” holiness, and i can understand how this can be derived. Under sola fide being washed, sanctified and justified is also one event, but the difference is that the righteousness imputed is of Christ, and can never been improved upon, though its outworking must. As the iniquity of us all was laid upon Him, that (thank) “God made Him who knew no sin to become sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2Cor. 5:21) [“ginomai” = “came,” “become,” etc. is rendered into “might be made”]. But a believer is also being saved, and his should progressively become more established in the faith, and moving toward its realization.
man is not justified by faith alone in the sense that it is not an inert faith that remains without evidences, which James is opposing, but one that overall enduring responds by works.
Verbalize all you want -- that statement still confirms that works are a necessary component of faith.
It is not needless definitions, but necessary to distinguish what actually procures justification, though they are indeed inseparable in cause and effect outworking. So is God and His Word.
“no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. [But] Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2006,10)
So, what is unclear about that?
Not unclear, but contrasts the unmerited initial grace of forgiveness, which is sola fide, versus salvation by grace through merit. If the first is granted, then the latter can be accepted as eternal life also being a “reward” for God-given faith as manifested by works.
it is you who are using a specious substitution here, ignoring the actual means by which justification by IR is appropriated by God's grace (“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” — Rm. 4:16), which is by God-given faith in Christ and His blood, so you can teach salvation by grace through merit, while the very verse you want to hijack to that end is about election NOT being a result of any merit of man!
Of course grace is not by any merit of man. Where did I say any different? But grace is not faith -- obvious in the case of a child you yourself bring up. It is true that faith is our response to grace, -- but so are our works (Eph 2:10).
Grace grants repentance and gives justifying faith, which works.
What this [Col 1:24] does not support is a type of bank account or “treasury of the satisfaction” won by Paul which he deposited into for future withdrawals via Rome
Why doesn't it (I assume you mean "treasure of merit")? St. Paul says that his suffering in some mysterious way builds up the Church and united with the suffering of Christ. But Christ's suffering is our treasure. Christ asked us to "build treasure in heaven" (Luke 12:33). Col 1 makes that request tangible to us. There are plenty other quotes from Paul where he not only describes his own suffering by urges others to "mortify the deeds of the flesh".
I have already responded to Col. 1:24 and “some mysterious” is what is clear in Col. 1:24, and it best relates to his enduring afflictions in building up the body, and to which he often referred to. (Eph 3:13; Phil 2:17; 2Tim 2:10) While we are affected by the condition and works of others, as per Jn. 4:38 and 1Cor. 12:26) this is not that of a heavenly deposit out which Rome formally dispenses indulgences for full or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. And the power to bind and loose is never autocratic or exampled as doing such, but must be soundly Scriptural and includes both the miraculous as well as the declarative sense. (1Cor. 5:5; Acts 9:40; 13:10,11; 14:9,10; 15; Ja. 5:15)
To reiterate and expand upon what i said before, Scripture reveals the postmortem condition of the redeemed to be with the Lord, with no distinctions being made between such a man as Paul versus the Corinthians. The treasure in heaven corresponds to the rewards laid up for the elect. (Mt. 10:42; 16:27; 2Tim. 4:8; 2Jn. 1:8; Rev. 11:18) But there are different degrees of rewards according to one's labor, and as regards grief, there will be loss by works being burned up. (1Cor. 5:15) Likewise there are different degrees of punishment for the lost (“many stripes” vs fewer), according to their works, depending upon grace given. (Lk. 10:12; 12:48; 2Pt. 2:13)
The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sin. The teaching of the existence of the thesaurus Ecclesiae and of the Church’s power over it was developed by the Scholastic Theologians at the beginning of the 13th century (Hugo of St. Cher), and was officially proposed by Pope Clement VI in the Jubilee Bull ‘Unigenitus Dei Filius’ (1343), and later by Pope Leo X in the Indulgence Decretal ‘Cum postquam’ (1518). (Ott)
The idea of the ToM and Indulgences are not justified by Scripture but are part of Romes evolving theology based upon her presumption that “No limit is placed upon this power of loosing,” which includes binding the Bible to loosing gambling as a mean of ecclesiastical support (though not dogma, it flows from it), and which power is based upon the premise that whatever she infallible defines is infallible.
The criminal on the cross or the penitent publican hardly can be said to have had confidence in their own works as meriting eternal life
St. Dismas did works of faith and mercy, and Christ promised him eternal life. He defended the innocent Christ, did penance for his sin, and asked Christ to "remember him". Perfect Catholic conversion story, that includes in one whole faith and good works.
Again, one must obey light if he will come to Christ, (Jn. 3:19-21) and that is not contrary to sola fide, and it was not merit of works that procured justification here any more than it was for the penitent publican of Lk. 18, as Scripture promises that “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” (Ps. 34:18) Scriptural historical Protestant conversion. If Rome only fostered such then both would be in fellowship.
You make works being the cause of justification
Grace alone is the cause of justification. I never said any different.
As said, grace is what faith and works operate under, but essential initial justification is procured by faith, of a type that will show works.
[your] attempt to restrict [salvific works] to motive is untenable
So you say, but I see no reason it must be so. It is rather typical for Paul to contrast works of the law to faith and grace and go on to urge people to do good works. Making that distinction I am in good company.
No, your company is with those who confuse effect with basis or actual instrumental means, as again, the exhortation to do good works follows the contrast between works meriting justification, versus faith.
Rome has works meriting (recompense owed) eternal life
You liek to insert that "merit" everywhere. Works merit salvation in the simple sense that works are the basius on which sovereign Christ grans us salvation (Matthew 25:31-46). No, Christ does not owe us anything. The Church does nto teach that He does. The Church simply takes His words at the face value.
Rome is the one which bases its soteriology upon such “proof texting” or Scripture wresting and not sound exegesis, in which Scripture interprets Scripture, working to reconcile all together. In which we see the faith of those being rewarded as manifested by their works.
Rewards are is something given to the lost or saved for their works, and it can be said to be a reward of a faith (Heb. 10:35) which works by love, yet eternal life is an entirely unearned gift. (Rm. 5:15,16,18; 6:23) Rome does hold that eternal life is “a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus,” but its system by which one typically becomes a Christian as an infant by purely unmerited grace, with afterward believers also gaining eternal life by meritorious good works by God's grace, with its emphasis upon personal merit and the power of the Church, with the latter being a vast bureaucracy managing a complicated soteriology, promotes confidence in both as the basis for attaining eternal life.
This militates against the need for a Biblical day of salvation such as the Holy Spirit provides multiple examples of, typically being immediate conversions, with its abasement of self and its consciousness of negative salvific merit and instead of a deserving of damnation, and thus a reliance upon the mercy of God in Christ to be freely justified. Out of which faith flows faithfulness, with all the members of the church helping this growth, but being Scripturally centered and dependent upon God's manifest power and not the arm of the flesh or particular self-promotion. It is one thing to do works out of gratitude for having eternal life as a free gift after many offenses, and then seeking to walk accordingly in the love and fear of God, and to be found in Him without spot, and blameless on the practical level (as he is so on Christ), and it is another to have confidence that your good life and works make you worthy, and in an an entity which basically bills itself as a life insurance company but whose claim to supreme authenticity is overall Scripturally and testimonially presumptuous.
In one sense believers are to seek to walk “worthy” of eternal life, and faith as manifested by works is recompensed, and the interdependence of the church works toward this working out of faith, but Rome has largely effectively turned this into an intricate and complicated systematized salvation, instituted and maintained by an autocratic magisterium which fosters faith in herself, and which effects mere religion over regeneration with its manifest evidences.
grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast
Indeed, grace is not of works and we shouild not boast of our works as if it is them that produced grace. We are certainly saved through faith as it is through faith that we do the works that God had prepared for us (Eth. 2:10). This passage is a perfect expression of Catholicism, and it flatly cotnradicts "Faith Alone"
No, it only flatly contradicts your straw man of it, and any claim that you are dealing with the matter objectively. For the _time, sola fide does not mean faith which is alone, while for all her emphasis upon works of faith, it is Roman Catholicism that manifestly comes behind sola fide evangelicals, which it claims are the ones deficient in grace, and not worthy of the title “churches” in the proper sense, while the latter manifests more of the qualities which are the basis for the claim to be a church.
You mean in 1546 when it first infallibly finalized according to Rome (this has been documernted in previous debates here)? If that is the case, and it includes teachings and practices that were established then, it would include prayers to the departed, purgatory, indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, the secular power of the pope,.. but as these were not something that were either not present or not settled doctrines in the early church circa 325, and as more would come as a result of development of doctrine, and which owe themselves to Rome's AIM over warrant of Scripture, then your question should have been, what is so distinct about basis for the claims of Rome versus what the Scriptures reveal?
The answer is that the Holy Scripture is that part of the Holy Tradition that was available in written form by the close of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, was wholly consistent with the Deposit of Faith as the Church knew it to be, had clear Apostolic or near-apostolic authorship, and was used in the Liturgy.
In principle this is not necessarily a problem, but what Rome derives from that is. If we consider how the faith and the Scripture came to be, then we see that it was because God supernaturally revealed Himself to a man and to men, and confirmed their faith and moral character by the same means, which became a standard for others, and which was passed down by oral tradition, testifying to who the “God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob” was. God later abundantly and overtly confirmed the authority and words of Moses, whose life confirmed he had the same God as Abraham, and who was responsible for putting the law into writing (though approved Roman Catholic scholars subscribe to the liberal “JEPD" hypothesis) codifying and adding complementary laws to that which came before it. That then became the standard by which further revelation was examined and substantiated by, which was a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.)
The authority of Jesus and the apostles who also added complementary revelation was likewise confirmed by a holiness and teachings and Divine attestation which was Scriptural, with them substantiating their claims by Scripture (Mt. 22:42-45; Jn. 5:33-36,39; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 10:37-43; 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 1:2; 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) and God's manifestly supernatural working, confirming the writings which had already been progressively established as being from God (but without an assuredly infallible magisterium). And upon this testable basis is all authority manifest, in proportion to its claims, not pedigree or high sounding claims. (cf. 1Cor. 4:18-21)
Their story and revelation was subsequently written down, it being the practice to write down what God had revealed, and which records were progressively overall established as being from God, with Him giving attestation to them, directly or indirectly, including by believers realizing things which corresponded to the claims of Scripture, which in turn confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures. Councils basically ratified what had been largely manifest as being bread from heaven, but it was and is the Heavenly qualities of Scripture that resulted in their enduring acceptance among those who are born again by it.
The rest is the beliefs that the Church held, at least in the sense that she collectively could tell orthodoxy from heresy. For example, as the trinitarian and christological dogmas were decided, they were decided based on the sense of orthodoxy that the Church possessed internally, rather than on the written Word. To that, over time, doctrines are added that clarify points not clearly expressed earlier, or points referring to the issues of the day that come along. For example, the Church could not develop doctrines to do with medical ethics till very recently when certain medical possibilities became reality. That latter part is the teaching of the Living Magisterium.
That Christians and the ecclesiastical magisterium are to judge truth claims and formulate doctrine is Scriptural, but the problem is that an assuredly infallible magisterium itself cannot be judged, but its claims are as from God Himself, and assume the implicit trust He alone is worthy of. Simply because He used men to manifest His power and truth does not render them assuredly infallible, but by such presumption the AIMs claim to authority rests.
The premise that the establishment of divine holy writ required an AIM is false, as is the position of this AIM to effectively being a higher authority than Scripture. Truth is established by its demonstrable conformity to what was prior established by the aforementioned means, and its attestation, by “manifestation of the truth.” And where the gospel is preached evident Biblical regeneration is realized, with its accompanying effects.
Tares are allowed to grow among the wheat, and the discernment of men is appealed to in establishing authority rather than requiring implicit faith in an AIM, infallibly claiming it is infallible, because the New Testament church is constituted to overcome by spiritual means and unfeigned faith and testimony, not by particular ecclesiastical self promotion and fostering confidence in itself.
Annalex: Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
Daniel: And they say they same for Rome
Yes. So we are not Lutheran and they are not Catholic. These demarkations, by the way, do not exclude arguments that are "Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to". They simply mark doctrines that are inacceptable for the benefit of the flock on either side.
What i am saying is Scripture strips her claim to be assuredly infallible, and require her to establish claims and authority by Scripture and it attestation.
your distinctions [between temporal authority of the Jewish rabbis and eternal character of Christ's Church] are irrelevant here
I don't see how the fact that some typological comparisons can nevertheless be drawn between the two, makes the distinction irrelevant.
Because what this shows is that the promises of God are eternal, and will be accomplished even by putting down one instrument and raising up another. The temple ordinances were forever, as is the commands to the church, God promises will be fulfilled, but Mt. 16:18 does not established Rome as the OTC, but His church is perpetuated by the obedient in faith, and His promises will be realized by the same. The error of the Pharisees was that of assuming formal historical decent conferred validity, and that their position allowed them to teach things which had no Scriptural warrant and were contrary to it. Of course, those who assume a formulaic infallibility render this charge to be ipso facto invalid.
In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching [used the scripture]
Yes. So does the Infallible Living Magisterium fashioned after the Holy Apostles. It is the function of the Church, among others, to persuade rather than to simply proclaim doctrines.
Cults claim the same. But the validity of them is not established by its means.
You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it [etc...]
I am not sure I understand that paragraph, -- I have difficulty grammatically parsing it.
An authority which claims to infallibly define both the extent of Scripture (the canon) and its meaning is effectively making themselves the superior authority over it.
The Church Fathers defined what the Scripture is. The Magisterium today is not them, even though it succeeds them. It can, in a thought experiment, go into apostasy. We have a divine assurance that it won't. So far it hasn't. If the Magisterium commits an act of apostasy, we shall find out, -- maybe not everyone, but some informed remnant will find out, and we'll know them by their orthodoxy. This is a part of normal live functioning of the Church where parts self-correct. Consider, for example, the near-apostasy of the Vatican II and how it is being corrected in the past two pontificates quite nicely by forces of traditionalism, often lay traditionalism.
The magisterium is beyond the possibility to err when it defines something in accordance with its criteria. Those who would accuse it of erring in such a case cannot possibly be right without impugning upon the very doctrine of infallibility so that other teachings could be judged as in error, and affirming Luther was right. And your sedevantists will strongly argue Rome is in apostasy.
The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased
No, it is not constant, because the Church lifted the centerpiece of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15) and Jesus himself taught His Church to read the Old Testament critically abd be aware of its limited pedagogical nature (Matthew 5-7, Mark 10:5). Yet the Church herself enjoys the promise of infallibility from Christ because she is sent by Christ as Himself (John 20:21, Luke 10:16, 1 Cor 4:16, as well as, of course, Matthew 16:18).
It is transcendent as per above, and Rome lost what she presumed, while the faith is preserved as it was in the Old Testament, not only by those who occupy the office of overseers but by God raising up men who correct them, with Scripture and God attesting to their correction. Men like Huss were such but whom Rome killed, like as did the Jewish magisterium to its reprovers, and Rome persecuted or killed some of her own.
Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter
"Prefigurement" it surely was, but it is Christ's Kingship that "will have no end". You are arguing from a type.
Those are not my words, but those of Roman Catholic apologists as yourself. One more disagreement. But it is Christ's Kingship that shall have no end.
they [bad popes] cannot lay claim to saving faith
So? It is quite possible that there were some popes that went straight to hell.
So?? If such cannot qualify as Christians they cannot be real church members let alone successors to Peter. This is not the Old Testament.
It is not obvious from any scripture you cite. Were there a verse that said, in context "Man is saved by faith alone, and not by anything he does, not out of legal obligation, nor out of love of God, nor out of love of neighbor", and I still denied it, you then could say "you are denying the obvious".
When it says “not by works” “to him that worketh not” and “not by works of righteousness” it is NOT because Paul forgot to make the exception you seek, nor to exclude works from being what faith effects, but because it excludes merit of man's works-response as being the basis of justification, and it is also not the actual instrumental means of justification, even when manifested in works.
The best thing that can be said for Luther's system is that it made sense for someone who, in the grips of despair, wanted to retain some proximity to the Holy Word. But his system is not obvious, and in fact is scripturally wrong. It was not obvious even to Luther himself, -- had it been he would not try to mistranslate the Bible to get his theological fantasy some fake biblical footing.
The strategy of RCAs to attack Luther, which includes many exaggerations or false charges, to negate sola fide is a failed one and attests to a weak argument. His own theology was in development, and unlike te pope, he is not needed to teach sola fide, but his means and the validity of what he began to recover is established, though it is a polemical tactic of RCA to misrepresent Sola fide, as you have. It is Rome's system that is scripturally wrong, and had it been he would not have exalted herself above Scripture and try to get their theological fantasies some fake biblical footing, while militating against Biblical literacy among the laity, while today most of her commentators take other tact, which is basically “hath God said?” by their liberal interpretive hermeneutic.
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
For support you cite several passages from Romans 4, which indeed explain that "to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt". That is, of course, Catholic teaching: if you are owed something due to your work, that is not how salvation operates, being only "according to grace". You omit the central part that explains that the Christians get Abraham's inheritance through faith rather than through the work of circumcision.
You are behind in my posts, and that is not at all contrary to sola fide here, but establishes it, as it was not because he did works of merit that he received his justification.
That, too, is Catholic teaching. Christians are foremostly community of faith.
That is not the issue, though their comparative lack of faith-works while her apologists attack sola fide as being contrary to fruitful faith is.
However, Romans 4 does nothing to discredit the salvific nature of works of love in general. I do not see anywhere in Romans 4 a teaching "contra ability and contra merit".
You may not be able to, but if a man cannot birth a nation, and is justified not because of his works but by faith, then it is "contra ability and contra merit."
your version must constantly substitute what Paul is precisely contrasting, a system of works-righteousness versus faith
I see the contrast between a system or works-righteousness and grace, which is the Catholic doctrine of salvation by grace alone. I do not see contrasting works of love and faith, in Romans 4 or anywhere.
Of course not, as works are excluded, including Gentiles and without any qualification as to what kind of works, because they are not the basis by which one is justified. And though faith and works go together as an effect must have a cause, i see faith as being the cause of fruit and procurative instrument of justification, even when manifested in works.
Annalex: 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.
Daniel:Indeed he is the latter, but you wrongly contrive to set the two in opposition, as they are one event
Ah, good. Justification and sanctification is rather one process, but therefore you agree that imputation -- wherever the expression is used -- is not meant to negate a real and fundamental change in the believer. "You are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God", 1 Cor 6:11, as you point out.
Surely you should have know that. In fact, Calvinism holds that regeneration precedes faith and repentance washing, justification and sanctification, though all occur at the same time. In Arminianism it is also one event, and neither event excludes preparatory work or the growth in holiness which saving faith is to effect.
So you agree that works done seeking [to] merit eternal life — and under the law they trusted God that this was the case — are a wage and invalid.
I would say that such works are works of obedience that configure the soul properly overtime. In isolation, they are not salvific, but when they become a moral habit, -- a virtue -- they become works of pure love, when the worker does not even realize he is doing something for Christ (Mt. 25:37-39).
So one must be justified in order to do works that will justify him.
Thus according to you works do merit eternal life but such can only [be] those done with a motive to merit eternal life
I am not sure I am parsing your grammar right, see if that [be] is in the right place. No, I don't agree. A righteous man does not feed the hungry because he is getting something for himself, even spiritually. He is feeding the hungry because he loves him who is hungry. That is the state of mind of a saint: heroic virtue, works done out of moral habit rather than out of any calculus.
I agree that should be the case, but i dare say a survey of why Roman Catholics hope to go to heaven and why they do good works in that regards will reveal that their church is effectually fostering doing works in the hope of gaining eternal life, not a love that is disinterested in anything but love for God and man.
this was Paul's argument although he simply contrasted the system of works-merit with faith. Sorry, it is just not there.
Where? Nowhere is the distinction between works of love done in obedience of moral law, and works of love done out of love apparent in Paul's writings. He is discussing circumcision in Romans 4, something that under no stretch could be seen as a work of love.
Arguments from silence can be wrongly used for many things, but what we see in Paul's exclusion of procuring justification by works by a good man prior to the law, (Rm. 4:1-3) and before circumcision, (Rm. 4:10,11) which corresponds to baptism, as well as works of the law, (Gal. 3:11,12) as well as “works of righteousness,” (Titus 3:5) and just “not be works.” (Eph. 2:8,9) Yet you want to restrict this so as to allow works of love, but those world of love cannot be done apart from having justifying faith which causes them. While works as a testimony to faith can be said to justify one as confirming a living faith, they are not the instrumental cause of procurement.
That distinction that you refer to exists, but it is never discussed anywhere in the Bible. Abraham is justified in offering Isaac up, but nowhere is the disctinction you draw in the actual scripture. We are left to wonder whether he did the sacrificing out of love of God or out of obedience to God. He simply did it and it counted him for righteousness.
After also having been justified by faith. This was touched on on a previous response.
Grace is the rubric under which salvation is accomplished, which you try to equate it with the instrumental means, which is faith
I did not equate grace with anything, surely not with faith. Grace elicits three responses in us, the response of faith, the response of love, and the response of hope. We are not saved by any response in isolation, but by grace alone.
Grace is what God show, faith is what He gives in grace, and works of God are what grace effects through faith.
faith would still be the means to appropriating justification
It is, but it is not the only means. Faith and works of love are the necessary responses to grace (Eph 2:4-10).
No, the head is justificatory faith, and works inseparably follow.
In the Bible all believers are called saints
No, we don't know that "all" are thus called. Some, perhaps, most are indeed addressed to as saints (or holy men). Some are said to be simply "called to be saints"; this indicates that they are not saints yet. It is possible today to call someone a living saint as well. We are being sanctified. If your point is that the modern usage of "saint" is formalized and Paul's was informal, I agree.
Yes they are all referred to as saints, but it was informal, and the term lacks any formal use as in a canonized saint. And an examination of the word for saint will clearly show it is used for any believer. Paul was “called an apostle” and the Corinthians were “called saints.” (1Cor. 1:1,2) The words “to be” are not in the Greek but are supplied, as the KJV also shows by placing them in italics, and saint refers to what they were as well as what they are called to be, to be practically what they are positionally in Christ.
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.”
One merits eternal life by his goodness and his works and his faith, but not by works alone and not by faith alone.
No. "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the , his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) One must be made Godly in order to do works of faith and love.
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
Yes. It is plain in the text.
Only by esisgesis do we read, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, but by works, lest any man should boast.” As election is not by our choice, and repentance is granted, and faith is given, then it is not of works though they follow. It is true that one's true goodness and works of faith are only by God's grace, but one must be in Christ to be and to do such, which is appropriated by God given faith, even when expressed in baptism.
[Your] 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.
Depends. In Tutus 3:5-8, for example, works of justice (v 5) are contrasted with mercy, baptism (v 5), and grace (v 7). Then good works are urged (v 8). In Eph 2:4-10 grace (vv 4-8) is contrasted with works (v 9); then, perhaps so that we don't, God forbid, go Protestant and think that works are opposed to faith, St. Paul points out that good works prepared for us are a manifestation of grace (v 10). ]
You have, “not by works of righteous that we have done, but by works of righteous that we did in faith, He saved us.” You continue to not only use Scriptural exhortations to do works as a response of being saved in order to negate prior distinctions that works do not save them, and also continue to insist, despite much evidence and my own affirmations, that Protestants think that works are opposed to faith. The latter begets the former.
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith: “Although temporary believers and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and (in a) state of salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish; yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.” Philadelphia Confession of Faith, Chapter XVIII, Article 1.
But generally, yes, anyone arguing scripturally against Protestant heresies should examine Protestant prooftexts in context, using a good translation (Douay is best unless one reads Greek). Every time one would find that either the very prooftext is not saying what the Protestant exegete would have you believe it says, or the larger context would clarify the meaning so that the intended impact is the Catholic doctrine, rather than the defended heresy. It is not difficult, and it is a shame that so many Catholics would shy away from biblical arguments.
Your argumentation here much shows the opposite, and as you are forbidden to you allow Rome to be wrong, your conclusions are required.
Christ did not go to the cross simply because He is loving
Yes, He did. God is love. That is all God does: He loves.
Love was the motive, the cross was the method, but the atonement was the necessity
Yes. But it is still, simply, love. Love is not only a feeling, it is what you do, the greatest of all virtues.
The issue was why Jesus went to the cross. Motive and means.
distinguishing grace vs one kind of works yet equating grace with another kind of works
If that is what you read from what I wrote, I ddi not write it very well. However, re-reading my "[2 Tim 1:9] is another contrast between works and grace. It is not a contrast between works and faith" I do not see how you woudl reach the conclusion that you reached. Grace is something God does. Works and faith are something man does. Grace cannot be equated with anything man does or thinks or feels; it is grace.
Grace is not what God does, it is what He shows by doing something, that by grace through faith saving sinners. 2Tim. 1:9 is between faith and works, Timothy being saved by faith, (v. 5) while his calling “in Christ Jesus before the world began” was purely by election as per Rm. 9.
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
There are three responses to grace: faith, love (or charity) and hope, and all three interconnect in the person. To think that one is saved by faith alone without the works of love is one disordered response (works become unnecessary), to say that one can merit heaven for being a nice guy is a disordered response (faith becomes unnecessary), and to say that one has been saved already (hope becomes presumption) is a disordered response as well. Either of the three disorders is also a sin, of sloth, of pride, and or presumption.
To think that one is saved by a kind of faith that will not work by love is wrong, as is supposing the works make him morally worthy, or that works of faith justify one initially, a he must be justified to do such works. Also, denying that he is presently saved means he is not. Faith is not doubt, and 1Jn. 5:13 refers to the criteria by which the believer may know he is saved. Trent itself allows for assurance by “special revelation,” while it does disallow that one can know he “either cannot sin any more, or, if he does sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance.”
Of course, if one reads Romans 3:26-27 correctly, then he would realize that "believing in Jesus" is more than having faith alone, it also means believing in His moral instruction, which deals primarily with right works.
You will not get that out of Rm. 3:26,27, but you will if you continue on in Romans, and anyone reading my words will see i often affirm the same, as Sola fide does, despite the constant misrepresentation by RCAs. Faith saves but it is a kind of faith that works by the Spirit.
Mt. 25:31-36, [...] and other texts certainly would seem to support a works=salvation soteriology,
Yes. Directly they do; one surely can see that works of love described therein cannot happen in one who does not imitate Christ, in his own works of self-denial, and so has faith in some inchoate level.
I went on to say, “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 [as] spontaneous conversions before baptism.” Before works of faith by the redeemed can be expressed, they must be redeemed by God-given faith, as Cornelius and household were, though that faith may be realized in the course of obeying a command from God.
All must be reconciled, and Romans and the epistles mainly provide the theology which is largely missing in the gospels
Reconciled, they are. Controverted they are not. There is nothing in Romans or any other epistle that teaches anything Matthew 25 did not contain. Romans 2:7-10 is a Reader's Digest version of Matthew 25:31-46, written wihtout a hint of "reconciling" it to anything even vaguely Protestant. We are saved by works of love and faith together. We are not saved by faith alone. There is nothing in the Epistles that teaches Protestant theological error either. And how can it be? It is impossible to read Matthew 25:31-46 and not conclude that the primary basis of salvation is good works.
It is impossible to practice sound exegesis when one ignores genres and forces a description to determine a doctrine over a theological treatise on the matter. Again, while faith and works are inseparable in cause and effect, when the actual issue of what means procures justification is dealt with then it is faith. It is impossible to read Rom. 3-5; Eph. 2:8-10; Tits 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9 and not conclude that the means by which one is justified is faith, which is Protestant soteriology, as is that this faith in one that is fruitful by nature. In contrast, what you have is a soul being justified by works of faith which he cannot do until he is justified. You cannot have God justifying the unGodly which worketh not, and then have him justified by doing works of love as a response to being justified, unless we ar talking about justification in a another sense.
In an evidential sense it can be said one is saved by faith and works, for if the former will not effect the latter, if able, then it is sterile and not salvific. And a faith that works by the Spirit is what evangelical Protestant faith has overall shown, in contrast to Rome's predominate religious effects with her salvation on an installment plan thru reliance upon an autocratic self-proclaimed infallible entity which she seeks to extrapolate from Scripture, but it based upon her own claim to be infallible.
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
Are you saying that it is possible for one to be counted righteous but then not have faith that is salvific?
No, and not at the same time if i were, but here i was simply affirming (again) that if a faith is salvific then it must be one that is fruitful by nature.
If you were to simply say, on the other hand, that "grace gives us a virile faith, which is lived out, doing works such as Mt. 25 refers to" -- you'd be saying what the scripture is saying, and be sterling Catholic with that.
What Rome turns that into is another thing. Sola fide does teach that "grace gives us a virile faith, which is lived out, doing works such as Mt. 25 refers to," except that it holds that justifying faith is not because it expresses works, but it does works because it is fruitful by nature, being by nature a good and perfect gift from God, (Ja., 1:17) and is preceded by conviction and desire, that also being enabled by “the God of all grace.” This means justification occurs before works of faith, as one could not have such until he is justified and born again. And as said, if baptism by desire is allowed, Rome would hold to a pure faith appropriation of justification.
While faith and works are distinguished as regards how justification is appropriated, the two are synonymous as characterizing the redeemed
Faith is not exactly works, but the two are not in opposition in justification either (grace is in ontological opposition to both faith and works, which two are proper responses to the former).
Grace is the undeserved, unmerited favor of God, shown to man not because he morally deserves it, by which favor God gives faith, and which causes works, “faith which worketh by love,” showing the “obedience of faith” (Rm. 16:26) in motive response to grace. What we believe determines our actions, and why we believe is because God awakens sinful man to see his condition and need, and grants him faith to be saved, resulting in seeking to do the will of the Object of faith.
It is possible to do works but not out of love, and so contrary to the faith; it is possible to have faith as intellectual assent without doing any works.
That mere intellectual faith, that will not work, is not salvific, has never been in dispute, but God justifies the unGodly by a faith that will work, yet presently has no works of faith, as he had not yet come to faith. The “work of God” which justifies is believing, (Jn. 6:29) but which is manifest in doing.
Works co-operate with faith and make the faith perfect and together they justify a man (James 2:21-22).
They do as in establishing that is saved as a possessor of justifying faith, which being from God is perfect before expression, but is made perfect in the fulfilled by works. A prophecy from God is true from the beginning, but it is made “perfect” by its literal manifestation. Sinful man has no moral merit by which he may be justified, no matter how many works he may do, so he must place all his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, not confidence that his works or church affiliation will save him. Until he/she has that conversion, they are yet in their sins. Abraham was justified because he believed God to do what he could not do, and not by his works, though his works establish that faith as salvific. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Rm. 10:10)
It is telling how most refuse to even acknowledge this.
(1 Th 4:17) “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
Thanks for this post. The above verse, though I have read it multiple times, just now struck me as another proof from Scripture that a place/state of “Purgatory” cannot exist. “So shall we ever be with the Lord”, very clearly does not mention any intermediate situation but says those who are taken up to be with God during what we call the Rapture do not first have to be cleansed from the “temporal residue of their sins” before being in the presence of the Lord.
Only if you believe that you are pure enough to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Are you without sin right now?
Yes. That is when it starts, with internalized faith. That is what I said.
the Bible plainly promises salvation to those who believe, without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering. (Acts 2:38; 10:42ff; 16:14-15)
Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
"without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering" is your arbitrary qualification on what "do penance" must in your opinion, mean.
[42] And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. [43] To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him. [44] While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. [45] And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. (Acts 10)
I don't see anything about salvation predicated or not predicated on penance in this passage, other than "judging" ordinarily implies some form of temporal punishment.
[14] And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, did hear: whose heart the Lord opened to attend to those things which were said by Paul. [15] And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (Acts 16)
Yes, but baptism of an adult mandates penance (Acts 2:38).
the problem is your interpretation places James in direct contradiction to Moses and Paul
No it doesn't because St. Paul never taught "justification [...] to be procured by faith not merit". He taught that is if offered for no merit of ours, -- that is, offered in grace -- but he never taught that it is apprehended by faith alone (Eph 2:5-10).
despite your incongruous attempt to set declarative righteousness in opposition to being regenerated, there is no conflict between them
Well, so long that you understand that regeneration is real and not merely imputed in some formal sense, I will not argue over words. There is a brand of Protestantism that reads "imputed" as in opposition to transformative justification; that one is in error.
Rome's literalizing the allegorical in the Lord's supper is manifestly self-refuting.
I don't know how you can call anything that requires kilobytes of inane commentary "refuting". I would think that reading the actual gospel which says things like "flesh indeed" and "this is my body" is self-evident.
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.
That is consistent with the Mass being a sacrifice to God (not a repeated sacrifice but a sacrifice), where the priest leads the congregation rather than opposes it. It also excludes the false understanding of priesthood as ministry to men. But I agree that there is no fixed position of the priest that would be apparent in the scripture, and in fact, like it or not, most Masses nowadays are served ad populum.
Yes. That mercy can come sooner for some according to Christ's grace, such as His mother, but as human material in general, yes, I agree. That is Catholic teaching.
man is fallen[...] because they yield to their inherited Adamic nature
I wouls be careful with the word "nature" though. A Catholic would say "condition" or "state". Christ has human as well as divine nature, and His nature is not fallen. The human nature is not fallen, man has fallen away from his nature, which is as perfect as God made it.
Annalex: 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".
Daniel: The idea that a mere perfunctory confession saves is more heretical than supposing infants are born again by proxy faith.
So in your mind it is a human effort that forgive sins. So who has works salvation now? The Church is empowered to forgive sins (John 20:23). There are many ways to invalidate confession, lack of contrition is primary one. But a confession done properly -- that is, the sins are told as they are remembered and contrition is expressed sincerely -- is valid if the priest absolves the sin. The Church supplies what was lacking in the penitent, if anything.
The infants are cleansed by baptism for a similar reason, because it is God Who provides the "laver of regeneration". The faith of the sponsor is necessary but it is not the faith that cleanses, it is the Sacrament itself, ex opere operando.
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
I don't know what OTC is (I know you probably explaiend it somewhere but it doesn't come to mind). The statement though is wrong insofar as you mean "because the Catholic Church has political liberals in it I don't want it no matter hat faith you have". It is wrong in the same sense as saying "because there are political liberals in that hospital I will treat my wounds at home". you just don't know what church is.
TD[Total Depravity of man] is no more unreasonable than original sin, which is where it comes from
I agree that some aspects of total depravity doctrine are bridgeable with Catholic teaching on original sin and therefore bridgeable with the Scripture. Others are not. That it originated, such as it is, from "souls honestly seeking to be consistent with Scripture" is neither here or there. Perhaps Calvin honestly sought something, perhaps not. The end product is bunk.
For a thorough treatment of the TULIP doctrines and in what part they are Catholic (in some ways all five are) see A Tiptoe Through TULIP
(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?
No, I do not have such an aversion. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. So those outside of it by the time they die according to their heart will not be able to save themselves, and those in it by the time they die according to their heart will be saved by the blood and righteousness of Christ, and again not because of anything in them as creature.
its not really about evangelical not working out their faith, but about not working out Rome's.
It is about theological error of Sola Fide. We "in Rome" have no problem with Evangelicals' good works as such and on some of these works, -- e.g. pro-life causes and the role of religion in public square -- we can cooperate.
Paul and the early church had nothing to do with disciplining those without
So did the Inquisition, at least as conceived. It is an internal ecclesial court whose top penalty is excommunication of errant Catholics from the Cathoic Church.
Rome in contrast, persecuted Bible Christians
But you are not "Bible Christians". You have some beliefs that are Catholic and then you have some beliefs that you need kilobytes of verbosity to paper over the chasm between Protestantism and the scripture.
1 Cor 3:8-15 [...] is specifically about the works being burned up and one losing rewards [...] Purgatory on that other hand, is about the interior self being purged
The passage in 1 Cor 3:8-15 equates the man to the building and then the inferior stuff is purged by fire from that building. So yes, the allegory of the building refers to the purification of man interiorally.
To prove your conclusion, please show where taking part in the Lord's supper was preached as the means to get life in you.
Why, in John 6 in several places Chirst says that "eating His flesh" gives eternal life, and that He will give us His flesh to eat. Then, at the Last Supper He did. Then, at Golgotha, He gave His life in order to give us eternal life. What is not clear about that?
The very idea that physical food feeds one spiritually is antithetical to the gospel of John in particular
Well, the Eucharist is not simply physical food: "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing". But the spirit is fed in the Eucharist, as the gospel says: "my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him".
I am sorry, I did not commit to memory your system of acronyms and really would not want to go back and find the decoder that you once provided. What is IR? If you were to say that good works MUST be concomitant with faith, you are saying what the Catholic Church teaches, namely that works are necessary for salvation. How you say it, that works merely may accompany faith, you are off the biblical grounds of Eph. 2:5-10, Romans 2:7-10, Matthew 25:31-46.
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.
The sacraments are not works at all, bacause it is God Who does all the saving work. "Sola Fide" could mean something Catholic as follows: True or mature faith in Jesus Christ would embrace the entirety of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and that necessarily would involve developing the virtues of good works as a corollary. So we can, at a risk of becoming sloppy of language, say that we are saved by mature faith alone. However, I don't think anyone who takes the Holy Scripture seriously should contemplate a language merely to please the Protestants. The scripture plainly says that we are not saved by faith alone, so we are not.
early fathers seemed to teach sola fide, as seen here
I scanned your link and saw phrases like "In him and by their faith in him they were saved", which are clearly scriptural. I do not see anything that says that we are justified by faith ALONE. Again, this is what both the scripture and the consensus patrum teach:
St. Clement does say "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", but that passage is immersed in several chapters that urge good works: "let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength". So clearly, to St. Clement, faith includes good works rather than is separated from them.
if baptism by desire is allowed, which Rome does, then it testifies to one being saved without works
This is a non-sequitur on two levels. First, like I mentioned before, sacraments are not works to begin with. To be sure, to hold a baby and dunk him in water, etc is work, but the real saving work of baptism is done by the Holy Ghost: mothers wash their babies every day and that operation does not save them. Second, that is is possible in some scenario to be saved without works (nailed to a cross like St. Dismas, paraplegic, etc.) does not disprove the general proposition that works are ordinarily required for salvation.
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
Ah, good. Thank you.
The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins
That is because the Mass IS the Cross.
On the rest of your "extended" quote, I generally would agree that a nuanced position on justification can be found among Catholics and Lutherans (as well as Anglicans and Methodists), but any such position would not leave any content worth calling "faith alone". It may be "faith manifested by good works", or "faith which leads to good works" or something like that, but never "faith alone".
They are not disqualified. They are not as holy as works done purely out of love, but they are not done to a temporal reward either, so about them it cannot be said "they have received their reward" (Matthew 6:2). They still contribute to man's salvation.
Choice of vocabulary reflects the reality. When Christ told the Apostles to "do this" (Luke 22:19) He did not tell them anything about the ritual of the Last Supper. He simply said to do what He did. That is the difference between sacrament and ritual. Words mean things.
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.