Posted on 02/27/2011 8:08:19 PM PST by Natural Law
Faith Without Works? Do Calvinists Actually Read the Christian Bible? Is anyone as mystified as I am at this contradictory and unbiblical Calvinist “Sola Fide” idea that faith without works is sufficient for salvation? How can Calvinists reject James Chapter 2 which states that; “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14) and "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). To do so is antithetical to Scripture.
The Calvinist rejection of James is at best substitutional, permitting Calvinists to conclude that works naturally follow from and are only a result of true faith thus requiring no conscious commitment or consideration. The result is a negation of the call to Beatitude and a rejection of the obligations of the Second Greatest Commandment issued by Jesus Himself.
Borrowing from Hinduism many fringe Calvinists actually practice a form of the Brahiminst caste system in which they profess that their own Salvation was secure from the beginning of time and no obligation exists toward the less fortunate and needy because God rejected their election from the beginning of time.
The substitution of actual, contextual Scripture for the more flattering personal interpretations is a return to the Gnostic heresies that the Church successfully rejected more than a thousand years earlier. They attempt to seek truth through Scripture on their own despite the admonition of Peter who stated; “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).
Faith alone is insufficient. Adam and Eve had faith yet fell. They spoke directly with God yet succumbed to sin. What about Paul, whom many Calvinists give greater credence than Jesus, when he says; "And if I should have prophesy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13: 2).
Perhaps the citations some will more closely identify with; the demons whom Jesus expelled.
"And behold they [the demons] cried out saying: What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" (Matt 8: 29).
The demons had faith certainly equal to that of the Calvinists. Not only do they profess that Jesus is the Son of God, but they also have a profound knowledge of Scripture and profess belief in the final judgment. Peter didn’t profess that Christ is the Son of God in Matthew 16:16-- eight chapters later. Why didn’t Jesus didn't make the demons the rock on which He built His Church? He required Works to build His Church.
Ancient apostolic, liturgical chr*stianity rejected the Torah as "vain works" while substituting their own ritual/legal system. Calvinists (and other Protestants) recognize the inherent hypocrisy and merely take the antinomianism of classical chr*stianity to its logical conclusion.
There is nothing Protestants say about Catholic rituals and "works" that Catholics and Orthodox hadn't been saying about the Torah for fifteen hundred years (beginning in the "new testament" itself).
Then there's the little issue of J*sus' title of "savior." If one isn't assuredly "saved," one doesn't objectively have a "savior."
You changed the issue to avoid the point. Predestination is not the issue being discussed. Sola Fide is the issue and Augustine and Calvin’s position on the issue of Sola Fide is identical. Those who can’t rebut the point change the subject.
>> then you do “care” what the Church teaches<<
I’ll repeat my answer. No, I don’t. Clearer now?
CB : No, I don’t
Cronos Why don't you believe that we are saved by God's grace?
CB responding to post 94: No, I don’t. Clearer now?
that doesn't answer the WHY you don't believe we are saved by God's grace.
When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance" (St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16).And Augustine wrote that
CHAP. 18.--FAITH WITHOUT GOOD WORKS IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION.Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle's statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed "a vessel of election" by the apostle, who, after declaring that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision," adds at once, "but faith which worketh by love." It is such faith which severs God's faithful from unclean demons,--for even these "believe and tremble," as the Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives,--the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated "eternal life" itself as His gracious "gift."
CHAP. 19 [VIII.]--HOW IS ETERNAL LIFE BOTH A REWARD FOR SERVICE AND A FREE GIFT OF GRACE?
And hence there arises no small question, which must be solved by the Lord's gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: "Then He shall reward every man according to his works:" how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously, as the apostle himself tells us: "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt;" and again: "There is a remnant saved according to the election of grace;" with these words immediately subjoined: "And if of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace"? How, then, is eternal life by grace, when it is received from works? Does the apostle perchance not say that eternal life is a grace? Nay, he has so called it, with a clearness which none can possibly gainsay. It requires no acute intellect, but only an attentive reader, to discover this. For after saying, "The wages of sin is death," he at once added, "The grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
CHAP. 20.--THE QUESTION ANSWERED. JUSTIFICATION IS GRACE SIMPLY AND ENTIRELY, ETERNAL LIFE IS REWARD AND GRACE.
This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: "Without me ye can do nothing." And the apostle himself, after saying, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;" saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men's boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." What is the purport of his saying, "Not of works, lest any man should boast," while commending the grace of God? And then why does he afterwards, when giving a reason for using such words, say, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works"? Why, therefore, does it run, "Not of works, lest any man should boast"? Now, hear and understand. "Not of works" is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Now he does not here speak of that creation which made us human beings, but of that in reference to which one said who was already in full manhood, "Create in me a clean heart, O God;" concerning which also the apostle says, "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God." We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, "in the good works which" we have not ourselves prepared, but "God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God's grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this thereforeis also that which is given to it, because it is its reward;--grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God "shall reward every man according tohis works." (A Treastise on Grace and Free Will)
And you didn't arrive at this conclusion on your ownsome as you were already imbibed with certain details before you even picked up a Bible. All of us were.
St. Augustine was also for a lot of Catholic doctrine. I find it funny that many ill-read Calvinists think that Augustine was in any was a precursor of Calvin!
Your question can’t be answered as you phrased it unless you answer the question of whether you believe His first act was to create a mess to then have to begin putting it in order.
If you believe that verses 1 through 3 were all in the same 24 hour day. Then you must conclude that He first created a mess. If that is what you believe then I would have to disagree with you in that verse 1 is not included in the first day and would then answer no to your question. If you say that verse 1 is not included in the first day then I would answer yes to your question.
God created a world that was destroyed prior to verse 2 and the world as we now know it was reorganized in seven days with the addition of newly created forms of life and will again be reorganized at some future point.
Now, answer my question. Was God’s first act to create something that was a mess?
In all of his writings against Plegius Augustine took the position of Sola Fide. He specifically rejected even the semi-Pelagianism which the Catholic church clings to today. Calvin documents it very will in the Institutes and it’s right there in his collected writings against Pelagius.
Nobody seriously considers the author of those statements a legitimate Christian.
LOL....... YES
The NT letters were written to a specific audience for a specific purpose. .
Proper hermeneutics requires looking at the audience, the culture . the context , the circumstances ,the literary form etc..
No where in James does it say to be saved you must do ABC ... that is because the audience was already saved..
I’m really concerned with your reading comprehension. If you look at my previous post I have shown from scripture that we ARE saved by Grace through faith. I believe what the Bible says. If the “Church” happens to have that belief along with other heretical beliefs doesn’t cause me to believe in the “Church”. To try to imply that because I don’t put my faith in the “Church” is cause to think that I don’t believe something is really getting desperate on your part imo.
You are wrong on a number of accounts. The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. Each preceding colony had a similar governing charter.
To draw any pride from the actual contents of the Mayflower Compact or to fabricate any parallels to the US Constitution is an exercise in lunacy. It set forth no rights for the colonists nor any limitations on the colonial government. In practice it codified a socialist experiment that resulted in the deaths of two thirds of the original colonists because like the flawed Calvinist doctrine works were not required. It was also the most oppressive and intolerant colony on the continent.
Lastly, the Compact gives specific reference to Virginia, the original location. Plymouth was chosen as a location because the terribly off course Mayflower had run out of beer and would go no further.
>>So clearly we must “endure” in our Faith to the end, not reject our God-given salvation<<
When you add that clarification I see we agree. I love that you pointed out the apparent contradiction between Rom 10:13 and Matt 7:21. I say apparent, because as you and I both know, when one reads ALL of the words of Christ and the apostles, one gets to “know” Him and apply the correct context to the scriptures quoted.
Certainly you admit people can confess that Jesus is Lord and still be non-elect. so if you are going to make suppositions about someone's heart contrary to what they say this certainly doesn't 'prove' anything as you initially stated works prove faith.
BTW, were you raised Calvinist? I was. Most Calvinists who fight for it converted to it. Doesn't prove anything but I find it very interesting.
You would have to explain that convoluted belief to me. Are you saying that people who don’t claim Jesus as their Lord and Savior still confess Him to be Lord and Savior or are you saying even if someone is non elect (per Calvin) they still claim Jesus as Lord and Savior?
“Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).
And we are supposed to let this one verse by the Apostle to the Circumcision negate everything that the Apostle to the UNcircumcision said?
Perhaps we should just tear out of our bibles anything PAUL said about WORKING for your salvation and run with James’ one little letter.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the WORKS OF THE LAW: for by the WORKS OF THE LAW shall no flesh be justified.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto GOOD WORKS, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Tts 3:5 Not by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS which WE have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
so why is it that this one little letter from James (which was not accepted by the church for 200 years) carries more weight than all of Paul’s letters? Is it because still have a desire to EARN their salvation?
From Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther...
As to myself, I openly confess, that I should not wish “Free-will” to be granted me, even if it could be so, nor anything else to be left in my own hands, whereby I might endeavour something towards my own salvation. And that, not merely because in so many opposing dangers, and so many assaulting devils, I could not stand and hold it fast, (in which state no man could be saved, seeing that one devil is stronger than all men;) but because, even though there were no dangers, no conflicts, no devils, I should be compelled to labour under a continual uncertainty, and to beat the air only. Nor would my conscience, even if I should live and work to all eternity, ever come to a settled certainty, how much it ought to do in order to satisfy God. For whatever work should be done, there would still remain a scrupling, whether or not it pleased God, or whether He required any thing more; as is proved in the experience of all justiciaries, and as I myself learned to my bitter cost, through so many years of my own experience.
You are wrong. The Mayflower Compact was the Pilgrim's own form of government. A charter, in contradistinction, was a grant of authority (permission) from the king that they, the colonists, were allowed to start a colony.
To draw any pride from the actual contents of the Mayflower Compact or to fabricate any parallels to the US Constitution is an exercise in lunacy.
Then a lot of eminent historians must have been and must be lunatics in your book. As to which comparison is akin to lunacy, this one, or yours where you have Calvinists borrowing from Hinduism and actually practicing a form of the Brahiminst caste system, I will let the independent reader judge.
It set forth no rights for the colonists...
Rights do not come from what is set forth in constitutions - they come from God. Every Calvinist understands the difference and takes it for granted.
...nor any limitations on the colonial government...
The simple fact that it was signed by 41 of the male passengers proves beyond cavil that the authority to make laws in the colony was also based on the inhabitants consent to be subject to those laws, which is itself a limitation on government. The Plymouth Colony became the most democratic colony at that time, since every adult male head of household was a shareholder in the company and had the right to vote for governor of the colony. It was the first document in American history to form a government based of the concept that government should derive its power from the “consent of the governed.”
In practice it codified a socialist experiment that resulted in the deaths of two thirds of the original colonists...
There is nothing inherent in the Compact that codified socialism anymore than there is anything in our present Constitution that codifies socialism. However, unlike the present day, they abandoned their experiment in socialism after the first year because they got a clue from starving to death that socialism doesn't work.
...because like the flawed Calvinist doctrine works were not required. It was also the most oppressive and intolerant colony on the continent....
So they had such zeal as missionaries that they risked their lives to come here, and they were such zealots in their religious convictions to the point that they became "the most oppressive and intolerant colony on the continent", in your words, but they didn't believe in works? Your accusations on this count are incoherent and self-vitiating.
Daniel Webster speaking of the Mayflower Compact said,
Society, civil rule, the civil state, cannot exist, while every man is responsible to nobody and to nothing but to his own opinion. And our New England ancestors understood all this quite well. Gentlemen, there is the "Constitution" which was adopted on board the Mayflower in November, 1620, while that bark of immortal memory was riding at anchor in the harbor of Cape Cod. What is it? Its authors honored God; they professed to obey all His commandments, and to live ever and in all things in His obedience. But they say, nevertheless, that for the establishment of a civil polity, for the greater security and preservation of their civil rights and liberties, they agree that the laws and ordinances, and I am glad they put in the word "constitutions," invoking the name of the Deity on their resolution; they say, that these laws and ordinances, and constitutions, which may be established by those they should appoint to enact them, they, in all due submission and obedience, will support.This constitution is not long. I will read it. It invokes a religious sanction and the authority of God on their civil obligations; for it was no doctrine of theirs that civil obedience was a mere matter of expediency. "In the name of God, Amen: We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, and Defender of the Faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the heathen parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid, and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
Daniel Webster - The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States
Lastly, the Compact gives specific reference to Virginia, the original location. Plymouth was chosen as a location because the terribly off course Mayflower had run out of beer and would go no further.
Which is further proof of your error; because the new location for their colony was outside the areas claimed by the two chartered joint-stock companies, they considered themselves technically independent and created their own government under the Mayflower Compact.
“In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties.” Groen van Prinsterer“The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty, for in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed was a part of his army, and his most faithful ally in the battle.” - George Bancroft
“[Calvinists] are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world.” - Hippolyte Taine
“John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” - Leopold von Ranke
“He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.” - George Bancroft
"The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as "The Presbyterian Rebellion." An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere."
George Bancroft - Presbyterians and the Revolution, p. 49.
If we can lose our salvation, then our eternal life is not eternal. Who would then qualify? Not the sinner, because a sinner doesn’t follow the path of God’s Plan, he has missed the target. Is it the sinner who returns to God after having lost his salvation? No, because that would require the perfect sacrifice to be offered again. So if it is possible for anybody to lose salvation, nobody will have it because 1) we are all sinners, and 2) since God knew this from eternity past, and if this is what He really meant, then He has been a liar to man all along, making any promise he has given to not be trustworthy.
So who follows and accepts salvation may be lost? Those who lack faith in Christ and His work on the Cross.
The whole argument of Faith versus Works, discussed in an either or manner, is frankly more than a little bit silly. There is perhaps no greater confusion among Roman Catholic Christians and Evangelical Protestant and Pentecostal Christians than that held over the controversy of faith versus good works.
There is no doubt or Catholic argument that the Bible is clear that faith holds a first and prominent role in the Salvation of every person. But the Bible is equally clear on the necessity of good works in the lives of the faithful and intimately Salvation. Jesus preached the necessity to feed, comfort, heal, visit, to give alms, to pray and to pray for, and to forgive. All of these are works.
James wasn’t alone in this message either. Every Apostle who put pen to paper taught a similar message, including St. Paul. We will be judged by our deeds; works and sins.
If as the Protestants say that Paul’s message alone was for the gentiles, a point that I do not concede, and that his letters were to the Church, that is the community of the saved, why would he have spent so much time and ink calling us to works and admonishing and correcting those who continued to sin.
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.