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.
Then if you believe that, you make Jesus Christ a liar, for he said, that he will never leave us nor forsake us.
It is not God that is faithless, but man. It is man that will forsake God - the Christian God does not forsake man. That is what separates Calvinism with its double predestination from Christianity from 2000 years ago.
Jesus brings us salvation - He is always true. It is man that is faithless. Let us turn to:
Luke 15: 11 Then he said, "A man had two sons, 12 and the younger son said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.' So the father divided the property between them. 13 After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation...
18 I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers."' 20 So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him. 21 His son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.' But his father ordered his servants, 'Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast, 24 because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.' Then the celebration began.
This is the lesson of salvation from God. God will always accept us. It is we who reject God.
The bible also tells us that we are " sealed " with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. ( * Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. * )
The meaning of seal is not to put into a baggie, but to mark as a method of identification or authentication. It is a mark of God's promise to us; it does not mean that we will collect on that promise if we reject it - see the Prodigal Son.
Get this straight, and get this good
I do not take or eschew action at the direction of the likes of you.
the blood of Jesus Christ is HOLY ! and Powerful to save and keep those whom the father has saved and loved.
I see that you are blessed with the heresy of modalism too. However, the sacrifice of Jesus is sufficient for all men, yes. Not all men will accept it.
You profane with contempt and profess by claiming that someone can lose their Salvation, that you ? profane with contempt towards Jesus Christ and make the blood of Christ inferior, something that is polluted, defiled, contaminated, something that is as common as the blood of bulls and goats.
No, I merely read my Bible. Here are some verses:
Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' 23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.'
If you cease to do what the will of God is, you will lose salvation.
Luke 8: 11 4 "This is the meaning of the parable. The seed is the word of God. 12 Those on the path are the ones who have heard, but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy, but they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time of trial.
Verse 13 says that one may lose one's salvation.
Revelation 2: 4 Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. 5 Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
Jesus tells John that unless the Ephesians repent, they do not have salvation.
Revelation 22: 18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
If they commit this unforgiveable sin, they will lose their salvation.
You are actually putting in disregard and contempt the spirit of Grace, and saying that the Holy Spirit has no power to keep those whom the father has put his spirit upon, that is profaning the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for the Stockholm Syndrome view of God. If you expect to be hijacked and then love your hijackers and all those who are not hijacked will not love the hijackers, then at least get your terms correct when posting. Your post does not reflect Christianity either now or 2000 years ago. If you insist on sealing being locked in a baggie, realize that that was never the meaning throughout the last 2000 years. A novel introduction by a fringe group, only.
Consider the case of the pastor of one of the largest Catholic parishes in San Francisco. Eleven men accused him of having sexually molested them when they were boys. In March of 1994, following an investigation, the bishop of San Francisco relieved the priest of his duties. The following year the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office brought criminal charges against the same priest, charging him with having embezzled $251,000 from Catholic parishioners and from the Church.
If these offenses did in fact occur, would the debauched condition of the priest invalidate the thousands of sacraments performed by him during the two decades that the crimes spanned? Did parishioners whose children had been baptized by him begin inquiring whether their children should be rebaptized? Did those who had given money for Masses to be said for their deceased relatives in purgatory start asking for refunds? Did Catholics who had confessed their sins to the priest begin to wonder if their transgressions had really been absolved?
Roman Catholicism teaches that sacramental grace is dispensed from the work performed. The ability of a rite to confer grace is independent of the spiritual condition of the minister who performs it. Consequently, the sacraments this priest administered are valid according to Roman Catholic teaching.
One of the most shameless applications of this Roman Catholic doctrine rocked Ireland in November of 1994. A 68-year-old Roman Catholic priest had a heart attack while visiting the Incognito, a gay bathhouse in Dublin that advertises itself as “Ireland’s most famous male-only sauna club.” Responding to calls for help, two other Catholic priests emerged from private rooms in the club to give the dying man the Last Rites.
One must ask, Is this Christianity? Would the Church have us believe that two men, interrupted in their homosexual activities, can benefit a third man dying on the tiled floor of a gay bathhouse by performing rituals over him?
Whooo. That is a tough one. I have six kids, myself, and the oldest three serve at Mass, yet I am leading the effort in the diocese to erase the tributes to the past bishop - not because he was ever proved guilty, but because he enabled a couple of predators. The current bishop knows me a whole lot better than he really would like, let's put it that way. I embarassed him at a diocesan meeting on Sunday and put his sorry ass on the spot about a number of issues. It is not about the hierarchs (the Eastern Orthodox have this handled better than we do), it is about the Deposit of the Faith in the people of God. The saying goes back to the third or fourth century: the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. We believe it true.
Remember the parable of the talents - to whom much is given, much is expected.
The Church teaches that because every man is a sinner, the efforts that a sinful priest makes in distributing the Sacraments are not about him, but about the perfection of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit who watches over the Church of Jesus Christ and the faithful. So, bad priests can still go through the Consecration of the Eucharist, for example, because it is not him that does anything, but the Holy Spirit, on whom we depend.
Let us look at it from a once saved always saved perspective. If the individual is a true believer, he will still sin and sometimes sin grievously, admits the belief. What if that sin includes homosexual promiscuity in bathhouses? Does that invalidate the OSAS belief? Or does one believe that no sin is permitted? If so, show me the man. Jesus didn't find one.
Or the Calvinist predestined to heaven belief. Even Calvin says that the elected selected elite will sin. Does that include bathhouses? How do you know?
For us, we have the Gospels and the rest of the NT through the prism of the Gospels and the OT through the lens of the New. And we have the Church given to us by Jesus and commissioned by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Is the Church culpable in thousands of incidents over the years? You bet. Does that make these three odious gentlemen right? Nope. They are all going or have gone to their Judgement.
With a theology MS I know the verses you quoted and could give you even more, in Koine Greek if you like. I still say simply read John 6:29 and take it at its obvious face meaning without playing games with it or deconstructing it. If, however, that isn’t enough, just go on being busy busy busy with works. Except your works (deeds) will never be enough.
I asked you: Do you mean to say that you just picked up a Bible and came to the conclusions about the Trinity, Jesus Christ in the Godhead, etc? --> I doubt it, you would have been given pre-conceptions about this, you would have been taught by a number of folks, read different opinions, commentaries, heard from various pastors.
You most definitely would not have come with a blank slate and had all your concepts of Christianity. Is that not correct?
And you are a flame-baiter. I have no interest in wasting time with a person who twists words around and waves a bloody flag. Have a good life and do not ping me again
The two sinners did not "benefit" the third sinner, but it was the Holy Spirit in the action of the Last Rites that did the "benefits".
The priest, i.e. the ministerial priest (as we are all a royal priesthood, lay priests if you will) are still sinners. They have no special abilities -- they are in the end tools and yet also sub or assistant shepherds to the Main Shepherd (i.e. Jesus Christ)
We are not a group that depends on the pastors, we are dependent on the One Lord, Jesus Christ, so if there are debauched criminals or worse as priests, that failing of the asst. shepherds does not detract from the Main Shepherd's goodness.
A final note -- these "asst. shepherds" who do not do their duty well will burn in a hotter part of hell than an ordinary sinner -- not only did they fail as sinners and not repent, but they failed in their duty to shepherd His flock.
Excerpts? Oh, you mean your cut and paste selections from your Catholic propaganda sites. Do they convince me to reject Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works. Of course not. They are lies as the RC Chruch is like its father of all lies - the truth is not in it. Only death, destruction and child molesting.
2. Have you even read any of St. Augustine's works?
3. I very much doubt it as you would never make the error of saying Because Augustine’s position on faith and salvation is the exact same as Calvin’s if you had ever read Augustine -- but you haven't read anything by Augustine, correct?
4. After you read Augustine, try and answer how someone who said that 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 could in any way agree with Calvin's sola fide.
Do read a little, circlecity, before spouting off. Otherwise, you are just repeating what your non-Church groups repeat, what was taught to them by Satan, the Father of lies.
Let's go back to your post 65 where you say Did Augustine actually read the Bible? Because Augustine’s position on faith and salvation is the exact same as Calvin’s. In fact Augustine is the primary source, along with scripture, cited by Calvin as authority for his position.
Now, if you believe that Augustine's position on faith and salvation is the same as Calvin's, then why does Augustine say the statements below?
From St. Augustine, "A Treastise on Grace and Free Will" where Augustine wrote:No swathes from any sites -- only what +Augustine himself says in his books --> have you ever read them? If you had, you would realise that Augustine was far from being Calvinist. In fact Augustine was you could say hyper-Catholic. He specifically rejected Sola Fide as we see above.
- FAITH WITHOUT GOOD WORKS IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION. (caps are his!)
- 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 --> note +Augustine is saying that to believe in faith without works is unintelligent. This is the antithesis of sola fide
Now, it seems we have Mormon beliefs being used to attack Catholicism
Do you not read what I post? Don’t accuse me of obfuscation if you don’t comprehend what I write.
You asked: “Did you gain from the teachings of others? Whether by word, by books etc.
I answered: “One can look at the ideas of most anyone, then study to find if some, most, or all of what they teach is truth. Surely your following the Pope wouldn’t cause you to kiss the Koran and claim you all serve the same God.”
Now, Was God’s first act of creation a mess?
you did not just take up a Bible alone and come to all of your conclusions, that IS definite.
My answer -- no. What do you believe? You said that you believed that something was created before the first day, correct?
All were of course, 24-hour days., right?
There is an inherent problem contained in that statement. You are saying that the scriptures are insufficient along with guidance by the Holy Spirit. It’s indicative of those who follow man rather then God. I’ve had many like you who have tried to “teach” me. As in all false teaching there are some truths but then lead to error or deception. It’s the way Satan works.
however, Calvinism with it's hindu beliefs in karma etc. 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.
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.