FK: "... I ask what exactly you believe the Protestant term "Sola Fide" means?"
Kosta: "Saved by faith and not works."
OK, I just wanted to clarify whether you thought that Paul was actually preaching error, i.e. that Paul subscribed to Protestant error. It "appears" you do hold that view. Of course our side would say that active error is not preached anywhere in the Bible. :)
+Paul was an apocalyptic Jew and believed the "end" was at hand. That's why faith was much more important than works, as there was no time for works (of faith) but faith itself was a priority.
Whether he knew it or not, John the Baptist preached exactly the same thing:
Matt 3:1-2 : 1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
This has always been a standard method of preaching. It is meant to combat the human instinct to blow off today what can be done tomorrow. What the listener often does not not understand is that there may very well BE no tomorrow. Therefore, I do not think that Paul really thought the the end times were imminent in his time. Rather, he was using a technique. Even supposing that he did believe it, I don't believe he would fudge on core doctrine (if he believed that works were necessary for salvation) because there was no need to. With just a few extra words, he could have preached to have faith AND do works for salvation. It would have been easy, but he didn't do it. If he thought the end was really imminent he wouldn't have taken the time to write letters, knowing that it would be weeks or months before they were delivered and disseminated to his audience. Paul knew to preach faith because he knew that works would necessarily flow from true faith.
Yes I do. I mentioned numerous instances, the latest one was that God raised Jesus (the Church says Jesus rose). You answered that it was the divine nature of God that raised Jesus. Jesus and God are one Person. Jesus did not need "God" from the side to resurrect, just as he did not need the Spirit to "guide" Him in the desert, nor was he without the Spirit until His Baptism as the Gospel implies. His own divinity was sufficient to raise Himself.
Many a heresy sprang out of the words chosen by the Apostles, and much rationalizing took place to deny what otherwise seems obvious.
Whether he knew it or not, John the Baptist preached exactly the same thing
Yes, they were all apocalyptic Jews. Jesus comes across as one too. Apocalyptic Judaism emerged about 3rd or 2nd century BC. Sanhedrin, the Sadducees in charge of the Temple, on the other hand, held the "orthodox" line, accepting only the Torah as the Scripture, denying angels and resurrection.
This has always been a standard method of preaching
Among apocalyptic Jews, yes. But not 'away,' because that sect was of relatively recent origin.
Therefore, I do not think that Paul really thought the the end times were imminent in his time
It is quite clear that the Apostles believed the end was near or imminent. It is also quite clear that Jesus taught in that style.
I don't believe he would fudge on core doctrine (if he believed that works were necessary for salvation) because there was no need to.
Works for profit are not; but spiritual works are because they are an external expression of faith.
If he thought the end was really imminent he wouldn't have taken the time to write letters, knowing that it would be weeks or months before they were delivered and disseminated to his audience
That would be self-defeating. You do what you have to do and let God do the rest. he wasn't going to second-guess God, FK.
It seems that Gentiles are making the same mistake that the Jews did, 'stumbling' over the faith alone issue (Rom.9:30-32)