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
Constitutions are easily ignored unless there is strong enforcement.
Some easily checked examples of state religions existing under constitutions that supposedly guaranteed religious freedom:
www.wordiq.com/definition/Proselytizing
“Issues involving proselytism
Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the rise of democracy in the Eastern Block, the Russian Orthodox Church has enjoyed a revival. However, it takes exception to what it considers illegitimate proselytizing by the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious movements [2] in what it refers to as its canonical territory.
Greece has a long history of conflict, mostly with Jehovah’s Witnesses but also with some Pentecostals over its laws on proselytism. This situation stems from a law passed in the 1930s by the dictator Ioannis Metaxas. A Jehovah’s Witness, Minos Kokkinakis, won the equivalent of US $14,400 in damages from the Greek state after being arrested repeatedly for the ‘offence’ of preaching his faith from door to door. In another case, Larissis vs. Greece, a member of the Pentecostal church also won a case in the European Court of Human Rights.
2. Starks, R & W.S. Bainbridge The future of religion: secularization, revival and cult formation (1985) Berkely/Los Angeles/London: University of California press”
Other groups like Baptists too have come under attack for speaking to others about their beliefs.
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that unsaved people can get to Heaven? That goes against the Scriptures which tell us that nothing imperfect can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Or are you saying that this unsaved man will have rewards in Heaven apart from his eternal Judgement to hell? Nothing from Heaven passes to hell - remember that the damned man was denied even a drop of water touched onto his tongue. What exactly are you trying to say?
True, we have some supposedly failed Catholics on FR who routinely show massive ignorance of the Faith as well. I'll never forget that acapella Church of Christ preacher hurl at me that if English was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for America. And he meant it, too. I don't know how far he was expecting to go, but I was helping (!!!) his mood along in a rather spirited religious debate (heh heh heh).
Certainly possible. I've been impressed by the extent that they have opened and are opening, though.
That's my cat you ninny. She lost her teeth and I made use of a set of false teeth left behind by my grandmother.
As long as you don't mix them up with yours. :)
And some then continue in the same vein as the persecutors of the early Church in Rome.
Very good.
Let us not forget that the infallible magisterial teaching is not a day-to-day governance of the Church. Bad popes generally left no lasting legacy.
They influenced the general actions and perceptions of the Church - the (now) waning liberal influence for example which came out of the 1950s and 1960s.
As written by whom? The original authors? The current NIV? You have made an excellent point that if one does not interpret through the eyes of the consensus patrum, then that interpretation can support, why, any heresy that can be imagined by men, and influenced by the lord of this world.
Is that a candy necklace?
What I mean is that the rich young man was convinced of his own righteousness - like many are - and Jesus, who knew his heart, revealed to him the one area he had not even considered and that was his love of money. This love of material wealth was so strong that the very idea of, if by following Christ it meant he had to give it up, he chose instead to forsake Jesus. What I am not implying, and what I don't believe Jesus was either, is that people can be good enough to get to heaven on their own merit.
When Jesus told him to give all he had to the poor and follow him and great would be his reward in heaven, he was not saying those who do this are saved in that action of giving to the poor, but that those who follow him AND do these good works will have a great reward in heaven. Remember when he said anyone who gave up houses or lands or mother or father, etc., for Christ's sake would receive a hundred fold in this life and in the one to come.
So even though he had faith in Jesus, it was not enough?
When Jesus told him to give all he had to the poor and follow him and great would be his reward in heaven, he was not saying those who do this are saved in that action of giving to the poor, but that those who follow him AND do these good works will have a great reward in heaven. Remember when he said anyone who gave up houses or lands or mother or father, etc., for Christ's sake would receive a hundred fold in this life and in the one to come.
So faith is not enough? There must be works? This is a strong Catholic admission from you, dear bb. Don't worry, I won't tell the harpies...
Goodness! If you don’t know, who does?
Perhaps you could take it off and tell us.
Yes, I think it is possible to distinguish currents in Protestantism, where some believe in fact in the same salvific role of good works as Catholics do, but somehow combine that with the slogan of “faith alone”. The reason I allow myself a generalization is first, because I simply cannot presume the position of arguing for one Protestant comunity against another Protestant community. To me, as Catholic, they are all to differing degrees heretical. Secondly, the cornerstone of that heresy is Luther’s ideas of the supposed dichotomy between the law and the gospel which then allowed him to formulate “faith alone”. I think that all Protestant communities of faith are infected by that fundamental error. How they reconcile that with the obvious calls for sanctity and repentance thoughout the gospel is a certain art where each Protestant is his own pope, thus generating the ever-splitting Protestant theological movement. But the error is common to all.
As you must defend a church which loves to have the preeminence, and you must consider all who oppose it as heretical, and must never allow that they may be right, and thus a generalization which is not the majority position among those you contend with is convenient. Believing that saving faith must be of a type that produces fruit is not a mere “current,” but as I have abundantly substantiated (such as in post 5825 to you, to which i much more may be added) historic Protestantism broadly taught that a faith without works is dead, in addition to showing that this is consistent with the fact that justification is most precisely by faith. And while some deny the degree of freedom of will afforded man in choosing to deny the faith, it is Rome who engages in the most “artistry” in having believers merit the gift of eternal life via her sacramental system.
Nor is each Protestant his own pope, as they do not claim papal formulaic assured infallibility, but appeal to the Scriptures as the only objective source which is wholly infallible and are to rely upon its means of persuasion. And Scripture itself affirms men to judging what is taught by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) and its attestation, as well as to ascertaining their own status as believers by what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)
And despite what it is claimed to do, those in Rome do not even know the infallible status of multitudes of pronouncements, but it is generally concluded that very little of the Bible has been defined, while exhibiting far less in exegetical endeavors than those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture, while Roman Catholics can have varying degrees of dissent among those that are not infallibly defined, and have great liberty to interpret Scripture outside such. In addition, overall her teaching itself requires some interpretation, both of which engage private interpretation (PI), and her members evidence less unity in core truths and moral values than those within evangelicalism.
Meanwhile, the unity Rome has by implicit trust in her AIM is not greater than those in cults which also look to a supreme magisterium over Scripture, and is of less quality than that which is results from faith in the evangelical gospel and supremacy of Scripture, despite different “tribes.” Moreover, the premise that such is needed to preserve the faith and to establish writings as being Scripture, as well as the basis for Rome's claim to be such, has been shown to be manifestly false, while Romes AIM rests upon her own infallible declaration that she is such.
Unity in the Bible did not come from implicit trust in an AIM, but men were persuaded by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) by a holiness and teaching which were in conformity with the Scriptures, along with Divine attestation of the faith, including the transformative effects of believing the preaching of what you seem to malign as the “misanthropic self-effacing me, filthy rags” gospel of grace, by which those who thus humble themselves are exalted. (Lk. 18:14)
The gospel preaching in the book of Acts called souls to repentance, but it was a basic repentance of faith
I, incidentally, don't agree with that. The accusation of the Jews was indeed collective, but it was utterly grave: "let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified" (Acts 2:36).
The “basic repentance of faith” was in regards to turning to Christ as Lord and Saviour, out of which a life which corresponded to that faith came, rather than a detailed list of all the sins they had to quit in order to come to Christ, as only be doing the latter with a contrite heart can they walk in victory over sins.
The sermon then calls them not to simply declare Jesus as Lord and Savior -- after the Evangelical fashion -- but rather "Do penance [or if you wish, "repent"], and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins". Further, this echoes the words of St. John the Baptist, but the kind of penance he called for is not in any way "basic" or matter of "recognizing" the lordship of Christ. Rather, he wore a hairshirt, fasted and was a celibate hermit,-- the harshest forms of penance known to us.
Where in the world do you get penance (voluntary self-punishment) out of repentance in Acts 2:38? The DRB wrongly renders it as such, while the official Roman Catholic Bible rightly states “repent,” and the word occurs 34 times, and essentially means a change of mind. While this results in a change of life, it is used in distinction from the actual works, as in Acts 26:20, “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet [corresponding to] for repentance.”
Peter is not telling them to go do works of self affliction and be baptized to be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit, but to repent from their unbelief and believe on the One they crucified, which faith decision is signified by being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. That he did not tell them to do penance to be saved is clear, as what they did not do to be born again was go out and do works of self-affliction, but were immediately baptized, which signified repentance. And which they then evidenced by continuing in the faith.
As for how the Baptist lived, you are mistaking what practically results from conversion with with what is required to be converted. The Baptist did so to chasten himself, and thus Paul worked to keep under his body, and historic evangelical preaching abounded in this call to self denial.
SS type churches
I am not familiar with the acronym in this context, what does it mean?
Sola (not “solo”) Scriptura, or the supremacy of Scripture, in which the Scriptures are the only supreme and assuredly infallible objective authority on earth for spiritual truth and morals, normally formally sufficient to save, and materially providing for the church and its magisterium, but it and all other mortals and teachings are subject to the Scripture. This is set in contrast to “Sola Ecclesia,” in which the Roman Catholic assuredly infallible magisterium (being infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallible defined criteria) is the only supreme, assuredly infallible authority on earth.
while it has its share, Catholicism has its equivalent
The difference is that there are not two Catholicisms. There are liberal Catholics.
...and the majority in the West.
On the other hand, the Protestant communities that would categorically separate faith from works, exist and they are full-fledged self-sustained communities, independent from those who, like yourself, de facto take a Catholic position on inseparability of faith and good works.
And Roman Catholics show more concern over a liberal Catholic who becomes a conservative born again evangelical than when he was a nominal Catholic. But as explained, even more recently, and evidenced, the overall historic evangelical Protestant position has been that faith and works are separate as far as to what actually procures justification, as this is what Scripture most clearly teaches when it precisely deals with how one is justified, that faith is counted for righteousness, “not by works of righteousness which we have done,” being “not according to our works”, “not of works,” that “God imputeth righteousness without works,” but is granted “to him that worketh not.” (Rm. 4: 5,6; 9:11; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) Etc.
And i also explained that Protestantism also has historically affirmed the inseparability of faith and good works as concerns what kind of faith is salvific, and this need not be artistry, but making eternal life something that is merited, though it is also a gift, is.
As for there being a lack of uniformity concerning this, this is true. The biggest division in Protestantism is between dead liberal institutionalized churches, with more perfunctory professions than manifest conversions, versus those who not only officially hold to SS but to its overall literal, historic interpretation and preaching to convert souls, which evangelicalism is marked by. Within the latter you have two major divides, that being regarding predestination with its typical position on security and usually eschatology, and the perpetuity of “sign gifts,” but both preach that man is must be converted by faith in Christ, not by merits of works, while those that hold that saving faith need not be of a character that is marked by obedience have always been in the minority, as are those who deviate from core essentials such as the Nicene Creed articulates.
However, what do divisions prove as regards the best basis for Biblical unity? What Roman Catholics attempt to do is attack SS because it results in divisions, and instead they promote implicit trust in the Roman Catholic magisterium, by which they claim unity. However, this was not how Biblical unity was realized, as stated in a previous post. And yet comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized, but SS can result in a transdenominational unity that is manifestly effectual to the salvation of souls. As for the unity of Rome, its means is the same as established cults, that being a supreme authority over Scripture, and both owe their allegiance to such for their unScriptural aberrant doctrines, which those who hold to SS typically contend against, even as they strongly contend for the Scriptural truths we both agree on.
The Roman Catholic may argue that cults such as the LDS do not have the historical evidence for their claim, but the efficacy of this argument depends upon the interpretation that formal historical descent is a basis for authenticity, which it is not (and never was totally). And while Rome may argue otherwise, she cannot appeal to the Scriptures as the supreme judge on the matter, as she claims to be their latter, and in reality her claim to be correct is based upon her claim that she is correct, when speaking in accordance with her criteria for being infallibly correct.
And the faithful preacher exhorts works in the same order as the Bible doctrinally does, after establishing the means to salvation and the state the believer has as a result, and with the motive to glorify God.
See, that part is still not biblical. There are some passages where sanctification is given in a certain order, and the person obtains the gift of faith first, then is driven to good works, then his faith matures, and "makes sure his calling and election (2 Peter 1:2-10 comes to mind, or Philippians 2:12-13). That would be Catholic teaching. But this sharp distinction that one is saved on faith alone and then proceeds in good works, not to "make sure" the salvation, but solely in order to glorify God, -- is not in any scripture that I am familiar with
You wrongly assume i do not hold that the believer must continue in faith. The distinction you make is that the believer goes in faith in order to glorify God, assuming this is in conflict with making his calling and election sure, which it is not. While believers are to go “hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end,” (Heb. 3:6) and go on to perfection, (Heb. 6:1) believers are to do all things to the glory of God, (1Cor. 10:31) and growing in perfection also means coming to the place where the motive for the believer is not fear of punishment, but only out of love for God. (1Jn. 4:17-19) And paradoxically, while 2Pt. 1:1-10 teaches how to be “make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (v. 10) and 1Jn 5:13 teaches provides for knowing one posses eternal life, yet Rome disallows being confident you are saved, “that he is among the number of the predestined,” — “except by special revelation,” (no inconsistency there). — Trent, Chapter XII: “Rash presumption of predestination is to be avoided.”
At best you are inferring that from passages that also allow for Catholic interpretation, whereby salvation, justification and sanctification are aspects of a single process rather than consecutive stages
You confuse positionable sanctification with practical sanctification, but both are Biblical, as is that that former is to lead the latter. However, Rome is the one who is unScriptural here, as it has the convert being made actually righteous in heart by “infused righteousness” via baptism (sprinkling) — usually as infants via proxy faith by which they are born again (so there should be a manifest change in Catholic kids compared with evangelical one) — and so he is formally justified by his own personal righteousness and holiness (causa formalis). This is in contrast to righteousness being imputed to him, that of faith being counted for righteousness, with the believer thus being positionally translated into the kingdom of God, (Col. 1:13) and made to sit together in the Heavenly, (Eph. 2:6) being risen with Christ, (Col. 3:1) even though the man's own holiness still comes short of the glory of God.
But as he is positionally righteousness, thus he is exhorted and enabled to live it out: “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:” (Phil. 3:21) “ If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:25)
I'll probably have the stamina for this first post, but not for the second. Understand that often in your posts I agree to much, so if I do not respond to some passage that is because I do not find enough to disagree upon.
Stamina is an issue here as well, and i am glad if there is some agreement and dispelling of misconceptions or misunderstanding.
based upon faith, presumably due to some evidence
Yes, and the evidence is twofold. First, it is the scriptural evidence (like the Bereans). I do not see anything in the scripture that the Catholic Church does not teach, -- as opposed to things some interpretations insinuate contradict the Church, while the Church has its plausible explanation that fits the context better.
“I do not see” and “plausible” are expected, as first, to be a faithful Catholics, you are not to doubt her infallible definitions or seek to ascertain whether such are true.
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit..he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature.” “Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense?” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York)
“...having once found the true Church, ...having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all.”
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”
“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-----questions of religion-----to an authority located in Rome.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?"
“..our act of confidence and of blind obedience highly honoring to Almighty God,..”
— Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914
In addition, Scripture is disallowed by Roman Catholicism as the means to ascertain truth, and her infallible definitions do not render her reasoning and Scripture arguments to be infallible, but only the definition, so you really do not need to do as the Bereans did, according to Rome that is.
Second is the guidance of the Holy Ghost manifest in continuing survival and adaptibility of both the Catholic Church and her Eastern sister Orthodox Church. That is contrary to the spirit of the times so perfectly catered to by the Protestantism. No other pre-medieval institution survives today in such historical authenticity.
And yet the primary Orthodox disagreement is a fundamental one, the very primacy and infallibility of the pope upon which Rome rises and falls. As for historicity, other religions are even older, while the Lord Jesus said to let the tares remain with the wheat until harvest. Thus the endurance argument does not establish who the OTC is. Moreover, i already refuted the idea that formal historic descent is determinative or a basis for authenticity, while Biblically substantiated evidential faith is.
One coming close is the Roman Republic, but you win no arguments today in the American Senate by saying "Romans did it" or "Cicero wrote it". An analogous argument today in the Catholic Chruch has not lost any potency -- it usually wins.
“Usually wins??” Only as defined by her, who has lost her vast secular power (except for a few guards) and forgeries were exposed, both of which it owed much of its power to, and is left with largely liberal adherents, while she regularly loses members to evangelicals, as well as lawsuits due to her degree of homosexual priests.
Rome is the OTC
OTC is Old Testament Church? We don't claim it.
No, OTC means One True Church. Sorry; i like to abbreviate terms i often use and i presumed you understood, but it is good you asked.
in no place do we see the church being promised that it would be infallible whenever it universally spoken on faith and morals, in union with the Pope, while Jesus reproof of magisterial presumption teaching things which were contrary to Scripture, some of which they could have argued was derived from it, argues against Rome's presumption in doing likewise
We see the promise of not failing in Matthew 16:18, in Peter having the prayer of Christ to confirm his brethren in Luke 22:31-32, -- the promise made even more substantial because it contains the admission of human frailty of all Pertine successors, starting with Peter himself.
No, that is called a extrapolation, as what you see is a promise made to an individual, not to posterity, and whom Scripture does not establish as being the rock upon which the church was built, but which is one of the most abundantly substantiated truths as concerns Christ being it. (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Mk. 16:4; Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16)
Nor is there any successor for an apostle except Judas, which had to be a personal disciple of Christ, and which was to keep the original number of the foundational apostles. (cf. Rv. 21:14; Eph. 2:20) And that choice was by casting lots, not voting. But when James the brother of John died (Mt. 10:2; Acts 12:2) no successor is mentioned, nor a provision made for selecting one as was made for Judas. It is incongruous that the Holy Spirit of truth would not have made that manifest if it were to be so, while the criteria for ordaining elders/bishops (same office, and not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) was faith and character, (1Tim. 3:1-7) which would exclude many papal successors from even being church members. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
As I admit, were I to see a scripture that is in contradiction to the teaching of the Church, that would possibly destroy my faith, -- but it would by the same token destroy my faith in the Scripture also, because one cannot have faith in the product while not trusting the deliverer of the product. But I do not see such contradiction, and I sure asked you Protestants to show it to me. I see perceived contradictions, but nothing I cannot see with a Catholic eye as a harmony.
The very idea that preservation of the faith requires an AIM is a contradiction, as it did not for a couple thousand of years before Christ, and the majority of the Bible we now have was recognized as Scripture without one as well.
As for the “Catholic eye, you are being honest, which is good, but its credence means little when one considers the restrictions it requires as state above.
insofar as belief that the Roman Catholic magisterium “eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations” (see below) this is a rather specious claim, as [7 points follow]
Well, it eliminates doubt where the Magisterium desires to eliminate doubt.
So as very little of the Bible has been infallibly defined (7 verses according to Catholic Answers) and confusion continues even over how many pronouncements are infallible, and some disagreement in mind is allowed in other teachings, we must presume it does not see eliminating substantial doubt a priority. And you won't get far in any most evangelical denominations if you disagree with fundamentals either, and historically those who have were marked as heretics.
For example, one who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (belief coming form the Holy Scripture) or efficacy of prayer to Mary and the saints (Holy Tradition) or the intrinsic evilhood of abortion (Living Magisterium) cannot make a reasonable mistake of being Catholic. Where there is leeway is because the Apostolic Church does not intend to have a single determination (e.g. what language to use in the liturgy, whether married men can be priests, whether the donkey literally spoke to Balaam, whether divinely authored evolution is a possibility).
There is much more, and allegorizing historical accounts, or counting them as fables, which approved Roman scholars do, and disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses, is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Both certainty and incertainty serve the same purpose, to lead men away from error and allow healthy exchange of ideas at the same time.
This is a rare statement from a Catholic, as their argument denigrates uncertainty and promotes Roman Catholicism as the solution to such, but which is inflated. And both Rome and evangelicals have their fundamentals of basically required beliefs, and contentions against cults, while allowing varying degrees of a disagreement in other things, so the real question is what is the best means of achieving unity: implicit trust in an church office or by the Biblical means of “manifestation of the truth,” and seeking to be like a Berean and continue to use their means?
the cult-like requirement of implicit trust in a teaching magisterium, which in times past implied loss of salvation by failure to do so
It still implies a danger of losing one's salvation. However, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is often misunderstood by Protestants because of their Faith Alone instincts.
No, EENS is yet disputed among Roman Catholics and Vatican Two is in contrast to the most historical understand of it, but Rome lost her secular teeth needed to carry out her animosity against men like Huss, Tyndale, etc.
We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46).
And rightly so, as how can faith or love be judged except by what it does?
One dissenting from the Living Church of the Living God endangers his salvation because of the sustenance that the sacrament of the Church would have given him.
And Mormons say the like, but implicit trusting man is what endangers one salvation. Only the Scriptures are declared to be wholly inspired of God and thus assuredly infallible, and the appeal to them within it presumes seekers of truth will be led by them. As for the “fulness of grace, more than one Roman Catholic priest seeks to convert evangelicals to enliven their pews, and those who convert to evangelism typically do so because the lack of life in the typical Roman Catholic church, though it presents a larger visible form. "For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. " (Ecclesiastes 9:4)
Though i myself had been raised and had practiced the faith as part of a very devout family, I became truly born again while still Catholic at age 25,, and remained within Rome for 6 years seeking to serve God and find life there (the closest being in the charismatic movement), going to mass weekly and other meetings, and i know the vast difference between being Biblically born again and being a Catholic in good standing. But i do not harbor any personal bitterness toward Roman Catholicism, yet i cannot justify some of her official teachings or what she overall effectually conveys. I must seek to be in heart and life in conformity with Scripture, though i come short, but Rome will not admit that she does in key doctrines and asserts that she is the OTC, based upon her own authority.
It is not a direct, or automatic result of his dissent. For example, a Protestant cut off from the living water of the Church still can read the scripture and be inspired to his feat of faith. If he follows the call to holy life, he will be saved and die Catholic.
Sorry, i found and find it to be overall more stagnant than living water. What typical passes for religion in Rome is perfunctory professions, and areas where she predominates are typically more liberal and exhibit spiritual complacency.
The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.
They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch.
So test the presumtion. I have not seen a verse that cannot be easily and in context explained, again, barring attempts at explainign the miraculous. Many tried, on this thread alone.
You made the assertion, now you must prove it. And again, as shown above, you are not to examine objectively what Rome has defined, so to be convinced otherwise requires disobedience on your part, which is a cultic bondage. And if they are not to examine both sides of the question to do so, the conclusion of such is dubious. While formal studies consistently show Catholics last in Bible reading, with one study (Rasmussen) also showing 44% of Catholics rarely or never read the Bible (apart from church), in all my years interacting with Catholics, and after being an active one who even evangelized then, i have found the typical cause the average Roman Catholic remained so that they were even close to acting like a Berean, but was due to cultural bond, and you admitted that was the bases for Catholic unity.
Catholics come in close to last in Bible reading, and substantially disagree with her and each other
You are inserting a Protestant yardstick to get a Protestantism-favoring response. The Catholic may not read the scripture because they do not get the essentials of the faith from the scripture alone. They hear the scripture in a larger percentage than in a typical Protestant sermon in the course of the Mass; they know the lessons of the scripture.
The devotion to reading Scripture is not a Protestant yardstick, but Biblical fruit, which texts like Ps. 119 encourage, and what you are declining into is sophistry. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle, and it has already been established that historically Rome did not encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and even discouraged it. Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. Also “at mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) While that is increased since before Vatican Two, more than one Roman Catholic apologist here will tell you that “Any way you cut it, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.”
The Catholics are not trained to deliver chapter and verse prooftexts. That skill is a sport, not knowledge.
It can be often seen they are not, but it is not a sport. Chapters are not the issue, but proof texting is, and the Lord and His disciples were good at proving their claims by Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Lk. 24:27, cf., 44). “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” “ ...he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts 17:2; 18:23; 28:23)
When a Catholic, such as the Catholic Answers crew, or even yours truly, gives the idea of learning scriptural prooftexting some attention, we do just fine.
No, they may try, as cults do, and which often is an exhibition those who “wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction,” (2Pt. 3:16), even then Rome's use of such is often treated as superfluous, and as a condescension to Protestantism.
There is not a verse in the New Testament that in context contraverts any Catholic doctrine. Whether many Catholics cannot prove it is not the point: the Priotestants, as I demonstrate daily, cannot prooftext their point either, and they sure try.
That you cannot find one is not surprising as you cannot examine things objectively without being disobedient, as per statements above, while the manner of extrapolation needed to get the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and Assumption, praying to the departed, mandated Priestly celibacy (except some converts), more resembles the work of cults. That is because these do not depend upon Biblical warrant, but that nebulous source called oral tradition, including Purgatory: “Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Appendix II, Article 2) And what such really rely upon is the self-proclaimed infallible status of her magisterium, by which she effectively adds to the canon, and such unwarranted teaching contradicts it by adding such to His words. (Prv. 30:6) And in so doing Rome she can and must define “ unanimous consent of the fathers” to be much less than what it should mean.
Just one example is that you will not find any example of prayers in the Bible or the description of the believers relationship with God, or anything in instructions on prayer that has anyone (except pagans) praying to anyone else in Heaven except the Lord, (not “our mother who art in heaven,”) or that warrants it, any nor any insufficiency in Christ that would advantage it, and is not like examples of any interaction between created heavenly beings with earthly ones, and is contrary to the relationship one has with God by faith in Christ, in which a believer has immediate access into the holy of holies by faith in Christ, who is uniquely able to help the believer, and ever lives to make intercession for them. (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 2:17,18; 4:14-16; 7:25; 10:19-22)
Catholic unity is based upon confidence in the church itself
Yes.
And the reliance upon Rome and her self-professed power disallows the faithful from allowing themselves to see things contrary to her, which is akin to cults. And again, in reality Rome's claim to authority rests upon self-proclamation of her supreme authority, not Biblical manifestation of the truth.
Which stands in stark contrast to the Protestant unity based on a few prooftexts from Pauline epistles that do not say what you pretend they say and came from the same Church in the first place.
In reality, evangelical unity is much based upon their transformational relationship with Christ due to conversion by faith in the gospel of grace, versus a church-based unity due to teaching they are Christians due to infant (typically) baptism. But your judgment must be dismissed as you cannot concede that anything in opposition to Rome's official teaching can be true, nor is your source argument valid. I myself try to examine claims objectively and let the truth led where it may, and try to hold things in suspension that i am not sure of and resist just following the party line.
But what is most clear and critical is, as described before, that man realizes his desperate need for salvation in the light of God's infinite holiness and his perfect justice, in which man is utterly unable to escape his just damnation or merit eternal life, and so with a repentant heart he must cast all his faith upon the Son sent by the Father to save sinners by His sinless shed blood and righteousness. And thus trusting in this risen Lord and Savior, he realizes immediate and ongoing effects in heart and life, which correspond to the claims of Scripture, including trials and persecution, as He follows His Lord by faith, looking unto Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith. To God be the glory.
And this is my burden and main reason for my opposition to mere forms or fallacies which are a substitute for it, while i must seek to be a better “living Bible” in heart word and deed that would promote such conviction and conversion.
All these prooftexts of "Faith Alone" are silly.
Not silly, but serious and substantiating, despite those who wrest them.
All, taken in context, speak of "works of the law" or "works of justice"; if you read around them they all at the same time urge good works.
This aspect has been clearly affirmed, yet here, as before, and what follows, you continue to exhibit your fundamental misapprehension of what “faith alone” teachers, supposing that this is opposed to works being required for obedience, and that the character of this faith is one that is marked by obeying these requirements, and that salvation being restricted to this type of faith does not mean salvation is not by faith alone as its procuring means, which in reality it is, but not by a faith which is alone. And thus when you see texts as “to that worketh not but believeth,” “not according to our works” etc., you reject it out of hand as meaning faith as the instrumental means of justification, and that it is by imputed righteousness, and seeing the works which result from such faith you think they merit salvation, you think you have disproved sola fide which affirms faith and works, but the latter being a fruit of justification imputed righteous, not the basis or means of it.
The difference is, of course, that works done out of legal obligation are thereby containing their own reward, -- Jewishness, when that legally mattered, in the case of the works of circumcising oneself and one's children, or generally social recognition and temporal freedoms that lawful life offers. Good works, on the other hand, are works done for no temporal reward and instead at a temporal cost: continence, constraint of the passions, denial of self. These, the Gospel teaches, are works that save alongside of faith because, like faith they are possible thanks to divine grace. This simple teaching is brilliantly illustrated by Eph 2:4-10:
This text is simply affirming what sola fide itself affirms, as i have affirmed, that salvific faith is not one that is not alone, but obeys, but what such texts do not do is make works meritorious for salvation, which Rome does, and hence you must attempt to insist Paul is only excluding works based upon motive, which he somehow forgot to mention when disallowing “works of the law” or “works of righteousness, etc.”
If a man did truly works according to law, due to legal requirement, it required loving God by obedience so that he could be found just before Him and not be cursed, (Gal. 2:20) which required grace and was by faith that he could be justified that way, and which is akin to hoping to merit eternal life by the merit of works as per Rome, but which is what is disallowed. And while there may also be other motives, it is incongruous that Paul would not have made a distinction as to types of works when disallowing them as the meritorious basis for justification. Thus the Bible according to the Spirit of Rome would read like,
“But to him that worketh not — for any other motive but to please God in faith that he could merit eternal life life by the merit of his works — but believeth on him that justifies the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Or “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works — hoping to impress others, or without a heart to please God and merit eternal life by grace — but according to His mercy He saved us — by sprinkling infants (typically) in recognition of their parents faith and thus regenerating them, so that they are just in His sight due to an actual internal righteousness (every mother's dream) and would go to heaven if they died, not be any merit of their own, (CCC 1282) but after baptism they are to merit eternal life by the grace of God dispensed thru Roman Catholic rituals, usually after an indeterminate time being made ready in purgatory, through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967) the least pain of which may surpass the greatest pain of this life, “(Aquinas T. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Appendix I, Article 1.) but out of which one be delivered through “the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints,” and “can always be applied to the dead by way of suffrage. (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; Norms, n. 1;3; cf. Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, Normae de indulgentiis, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1999, p. 21; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1471) "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. " (2 Corinthians 11:3) |
Salvation is by sovereign grace of God alone; that grace is not of works. We receive His grace for no merit of our own and our response is twofold, faith and good works. God plants in us the former and prepares us for the latter. We are saved by grace alone through faith and good works.
Meaning “salvation by grace through merit,” that by the grace of God one merits eternal life, even though it is an unmerited gift and not by or of works, though these follow, and “not of works” means not of works a regards how one appropriates imputed righteousness, which is justification by declarative righteousness gained by Christ, versus an internal holiness which makes us just in His sight, and then meriting eternal life.
Of course, it is also a historical fact that "Faith Alone" was a slogan that emerged out of the so-called reformation. People prior to Luther were suffiently informed in the Holy Scripture to know that according to it, we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24).
If you want to object to slogans, i might want to list some what Rome has come up with to describe unBiblical teachings, which are allowed as also claiming derivation from the Bible (which word itself is not in the Scriptures) or from it non-codified nebulous tradition, even when falsely claiming unanimous consent. But the same deny sola Scripture when showed that the only objective authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God and thus assuredly infallible are the Scriptures, versus a formulaic AIM. Likewise “faith alone” is disallowed, even when shown that it essentially means one must rest upon the mercy of God in Christ for salvation, not on any merit of his works, but which follow if the faith is true, they misconstrue it and confuse the basis for justification with its effects, and read contrasts into passages that are not supported by it, and which texts are contrary to justification by merit through any system of works-righteousness.
As for “sola fide,” the Reformation was not doing a new thing in teaching that man is justified by imputed righteousness , procured by a faith that results in works but is not merited by it, but articulating what is written. Nor was Luther the first to have “alone” in Rm. 3:28.
And as one researcher finds neither was Rome completely unified in its soteriology before Trent, and between extremes “were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification.” In reaction to the Reformation,”the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52.
Also, while church fathers overall did not seem to consider precisely defining justification to be an overall priority, behind my contention is the need for man to see his destitute condition and desperate need for salvation by casting all his faith on the Christ to save him by His blood and righteousness, and thus live that ought continually, which conversion confidence in ones works militates against. And historically evangelical faith has evidenced much more evident forth fruit of repentance and regeneration, in relation to its size, and rather than defending a church which fails in comparison, then manifest Biblical faith with its transformative conversions, not forms and perfunctory professions or trumpeting one church as supreme, should be our priority as we seek to be more ourselves.
Rather than teaching that a faith without works is salvific, it [historical Protestantism?] affirms Jame's teaching ...
No it doesn't. The slogan "by Faith Alone" is diametrical opposite of James 2:24.
No, James, who gave the definitive sentence in Acts 15, confirmed Peter's testimony in which Gentiles were saved by sola fide, being regenerated by faith in Christ, “purifying their hearts by faith,' (Acts 15:7-9), not gaining eternal life on the basis of meritorious works - although obedience (Acts 15:19-21) must follow a lived out living faith. Only by forcing James to make works meritorious for eternal life life can you convert his writings, and by making them to say that works of faith merited justification versus the faith behind them procuring IR, you place him in contradiction with the head theologian of the church.
That all the Protestant leaders, old and new, offer up some incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo of which that paragraph is a sample, is not surprising.
The Roman Catholic incomprehension is caused by the Roman mind meld, and whose plethora of pronouncements published in all their prolixity promotes a populace implicitly placing placating trust in her, and construes salvation by grace through faith with eternal life life being a gift of God into something man merits on an installment plan, through grace dispensed from Rome's treasury, replete with Indulgences and Novenas, “meriting for ourselves and for others the graces needed for...the attainment of eternal life.” (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010) And the “the term
But so long as the slogan stands, "Faith Alone", so do the anathemas of Trent stand.
And whoever promotes works as meriting eternal life, versus imputed righteousness procured by a type of faith which does obey, is under a curse, (Gal. 1:6-9) as are they who promote a faith as salvific which teaches saving faith is not one lives it out, and or promotes confidence in the power of a church to get souls into heaven, basically as long as they die in as members, an thus it is Rome who is under the anathema of almighty God for teaching and fostering confidence in one's works as meriting eternal life, while they overall have little!
You cannot believe "A" and "not A" at the same time.
Your FM once again, while Rome attempts to have a gift merited or owed by works of faith.
You cannot have one Scripture declaring that a soul is counted righteous because of faith, in contrast to merit of his works, (Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) and another (it is supposed) teaching that works merit eternal life, which Rome teaches. While she and her defenders seek to make eternal life both a gift to and a reward, the two are Scripturally opposed to each other. (Rm. 6:23; 11:6)
All three, Eph 2:8-10, Titus 3:1-8, 2 Timothy 1:6-10 mention the importance of faith and also of good works. You carved out parts that speak of faith and neglected to also look at the immediate context of each of the three major prooftexts that you offer.
Your FM once again.
(You wisely do not offer anything from Romans and Galatians here, because it must be clear to you that these speak narrowly of works of Jewish law).
No, i included Rm. 4 already, and dealt with “of the law,” but focused on these due to your attempt to read into them a contrast that is not there or warranted. Paul could have very easily used Gn. 22 if he was making your distinction, but he did not, and never makes the merit of the works of man the basis for man's justification in Christ.
So, no, the scripture does teach that "soul is counted righteous because of faith", but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of faith ALONE.
So, yes, the Scripture and 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.
Let us turn our attention to your other scriptural references.
"Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice". Indeed. Annalex believes that one must do good works because that is what God says in Matthew 25:31-46. Abram then believed God and crossed the desert on a near-suicidal mission. He also believed God and was ready to sacrifice his beloved son.
This i affirm, though i did not know Annalex was a rendering for Abraham:).
Catholic saints believed God when God said that that one must do good works and built universities and hospitals, and fought off the Turks. These were all works of faith. Faith without works is dead.
And contrary to the New Testament church, (1Cor. 5:12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 10:3; Eph. 6:12) Rome used to sword of men to rule over those without, and tortured souls who were reported to have deviated from the Catholic faith, and persecuted those who in conscience toward God dissented from Rome, and even killer her “own” who reproved them. Indeed faith with works is dead, and the wrong faith leaves men dead. And while early Protestants also wrongly used the sword of men to rule over those without, having learned this from Rome, yet evangelical faith was largely responsible for the Christian character of America, it being the “civil religion,” resulting in benefits all enjoy today and adding to the kingdom of God, while nations increasingly suffer as they cast off Christian faith and its ethos, and much of the church itself becomes much like the world.
Abraham was not saved by faith alone, but rather his faith co-operated with his works (James 2:23, Hebrews 11). We are not saved by faith alone.
His faith certainty did, but that is not what is in contention, key verse, while your conclusion compels converting Paul to what you perceive James is saying in order to reconcile it to Rome, but rightly dividing the word of truth (2Tim. 2:15) requires honestly seeking to reconcile Scripture with itself as light is given.
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. The latter is clearly rejected, as the exclusion of merit is what is behind Paul's contrast, and does not allow for grace enabling merit, as even justification by law-keeping was by God's grace. But “the law is not of faith” in the sense that “The man that doeth them shall live in them," (Galatians 3:12) so that one had to keep it perfectly to be just, versus faith in God mercy as an utterly unworthy sinner, justified by the merits of a Substitute versus merit of one's own works. And Rm. 11:6 , despite your attempt further on to reconcile it to the doctrine of merit by grace, contextually it defines grace as regards salvation as not based upon man's merit.
Next, as basically said before, 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, but always contrasting faith-procurement to works (though again, such faith surely must be of a character that expresses itself in obedience to its Object), and then have James saying he was lost until Gn. 22 when he did works which merited justification.
However, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” may be reconciled with Moses and Paul as referring to Abraham's initial justifying faith of Gn. 15:6 also being justificatory in its confirmatory or fulfilled status as manifested in works, showing “how” that 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.
But as said before, 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, and Rome's infants cannot be justified (and insofar as merit is concerned, the sola fide position is like that of Rome concerning infants, except that it is by imputed righteousness, and proxy faith is usually disallowed.) And the souls in Acts 10 were not purified by faith and regenerated until they were baptized, and baptism by desire cannot be allowed, which is consistent with sola fide, and if it is then it is allowed at all then it is contrary to what you have James teaching.
What seems most evident is that Abraham was initially justified in Gn. 15:6 by faith alone, while Gn. 22 shows him being manifestly justified, having a confirmed confessional-type faith, of the character that endures, which is the only type that is salvific. And thus it is that believers must be “followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” "For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. {37} For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. {38} Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. {39} But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (Hebrews 6:12; 10:36-39) "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; " (Hebrews 3:14) And thus the fundamental Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints, that the elect finally perseverance in faith, though Roman Catholic apologists ignore in construing the “sola” of sola fide to mean works have no place as regards faith, rather than it alone, versus works of merit, procures justification by imputed righteousness .
... is supposed to illustrate that eternal life is a gift rather than a reward. It is both, in fact: "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works" (Rev. 22:12, note that the rest of the passage speaks precisely of the reward of eternal life given to holy people).
This is part of Paul's continual discourse that eternal life is not of merit, not a recompense due to merit, And the CCC states that The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment.” While it tries to reconcile it with unmerited grace, the contrast it makes in so doing is duplicitous. “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)
Yet works are the barometer of faith, and thus Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him. (Heb. 5:9) And while works manifest who true believers are, who are not simply professors, there is a distinction between rewards because one did works by grace, versus eternal life being merited, and Rv. 22:13 conflates to Rev. 11:8, which corresponds to texts such as 1Cor. 3:13-15.
"And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace". Indeed. That is Catholic teaching: grace is not of works and we are saved by grace alone. You take a good and Catholic scripture that speaks of grace, and do a mental substitution of "faith" for "grace". That way, you can "prove" anything.
Thar may sound convincing to yourself, but 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! The context is why and how some are elected and others were not, which is answered (albeit not without mystery) as due to God's purely sovereign choice, "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; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:11-13) And why were the natural branches rejected and on what basis were the Gentiles accepted? “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” (Rm. 11:20)
One either has confidence that his own works merit him acceptance before God, or he realizes himself a sinner
Why, there is no either-or here. St. Paul himself considered himself worst of sinners and at the same time understood that his works "fill what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ".
Seriously. While Paul did try to be an approved servant (2Cor. 5:10) he preached acceptance via IR through faith, while using private interpretation you attempt to insert confidence in one's merit for salvation into a verse (Col. 1:24) with an obscure meaning, which Roman commentators surmise may refer to filling up the quota of Messianic sufferings need for His return, or perhaps something else, while Roman Catholic on Catholics answers also speculate (“clear as mud” one says), and some Protestant commentators as well as JP2 and Haydock Bible Commentary see it referring to the union the church has with Christ, and suffering with Him as believers are called to do till He come. I see as thus also, but more specific to Paul, he was foretold what things he himself would have to suffer, for Jesus name, (Act 9:18) and thus His church, and while there is no insufficiency in the expiatory sufferings of Christ in redemption, it is the believers part to endure all things for the elects sake, (2Tim. 2:10) working to keep them in the faith present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2Cor. 11:2)
What this 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. However, in a cause and effect sense men do benefit from the labor of others, as in Jn. 4:37,38) or suffer due to the contrary.
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. If we do, we are in serious error.
The apostle Paul clearly establishes that it is on the basis of God-given faith that one is justified by, not of works
Where, exactly? The prooftexts I am familiar with speak of works of the law but not good works of faith and love, to which St. Paul never tired of exhorting his reaers.
I have i deal with both “works of the law,” that if there was a way to merit justification it would have been by the law, as well as “work of righteousness,” and just plain “not according to our works,” and “not by works,” showing you that all you attempt to restrict them to motive is untenable. Read on below. Your attempt to do so is honestly like the pro-homosexuals who claim that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships in Rm. 1 are not condemned, only a certain other kind is in view. You make works being the cause of justification, and meriting eternal life, but what Paul teaches is that man's essential justification is by IR procured by faith, and though it is expressed by works, they do not merit it.
Consistent with what Paul himself taught elsewhere, what James is referring to is that the only faith that is salvific is the one that does work obedience, in contrast to one who simply professes but does not possess faith. Before Paul addressed the precise issue of faith versus works, he clearly stated, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13) And elsewhere he and other writers affirm that one can deny the faith by disobedience, (1Tim. 5:8; Gal. 5:1-5) and that it is those who obey Jesus who have eternal life. (Heb. 5:9) The key difference is that works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification.
Your examples are all good and teach the Catholic doctrine which you state well. Except, for no apparent reason, you conclude "works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification". That latter part is a theological fantasy not supported by scripture. If you substitute "grace" in that statement it becomes correct and Catholic, and also it then comes to reflect the scripture accurately. As you stated it, it reflects the Protestant error and nothing else.
The theological fantasy is yours, as Rome has works meriting (recompense owed) eternal life while the Bible plainly states, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. { But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Romans 4:4-6) Your issue is with the Holy Spirit's choice of words, not mine. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: {9} Not of works, lest any man should boast. {10} For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. " (Ephesians 2:8-10)
Notice the means by which one is saved, grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. Not grace through works, nor simply works that one does to boast, but “not according to our works” (2Tim. 1:9) but by God-given faith which appropriates IR. Men who could choose themselves to be elect, as well as those who merit eternal life by choosing to cooperate with God both can have a reason to boast over those who did not. But as regards salvation, no one may not.
salvation comes to the repentant who believe, (Lk. 16:9)
I believe you meant some different verse here. In general, yes, that is a true and Catholic statement that one who does penance and believes will be saved, because full and mature faith incorporates good works, including works of penance.
Sorry, two chapters off. (Lk. 18:9) But you are ignoring that this justification by faith out of a poor and contrite heart is contrary to one meriting eternal life, and one needing to do manifest works of faith in order to be justified in the first place, while i have already responded to the penance versus repentance issue.
"But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? {41} And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. {42} And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. {43} And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. " (Luke 23:40-43)
“Question. Dost thou believe that the Lord Jesus died for thee? Answer. I believe it.
Qu. Dost thou thank him for his passion and death? Ans. I do thank him. Qu. Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except by his death? Ans. I believe it.” And then Anselm addresses the dying man: “Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in his death alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to his death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord, between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if he shall say that thou art a sinner, say thou: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If he say that thou hast deserved condemnation, say: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and his merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If he say that he is wroth with thee, say: ‘Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thy wrath and me.’ And when thou hast completed this, say again: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and me.’” Anselm, Opera (Migne), 1:686, 687.
eternal life upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, (Jn. 5:24)
Yes, and what that faith really entails is explaned a few verses down, "And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment". Faith must be accompanied by good works. We are not saved by faith alone.
Again, that is true in the sense that a saving faith is not of a character that is alone, but is or will be accompanied by works corresponding to the will of its object, thus baptism is usually concomitant with the conversion event, but one is justified by IR through their faith which is behind its works, versus works being meritorious. Without the precise distinction men will presume their works merit justification, essentially like men presumed works of their law did.
the obedient are given eternal life after consideration of their works. (Mt. 25:39-41)
The judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 is not a judgement of the obedient only, but rather of everyone, even, "every nation". The "goats" are clearly not among the obedient as they violated the commadnment given to all in Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:33.
True, and as said,
Romans 10:9,10 also testified that it to is a faith which is confessional in quality that justifies
That is probably the best prooftext for Faith Alone as the explanation of the good works that go into that saving faith is deferred to the next several chapters. However, even in isolation, consider that the conclusion St Paul drives towards is that any one -- Greek or Jew -- can have the confessional faith. The polemics here is still with the Judaizers and the pruiported need to obey the Jewish law. but anyone who thinks that St. Paul preched salvation by faith alone in Romans 10 should skip over to Romans 12 and read things like "I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service". That supposedly purely confessional faith of Romans 10:9 turns out to be nothing short of a living sacrifice. Faith Alone anyone?
You miss what “therefore” establishes, a justification by faith not merit, while if you read my replies you should have known that Faith Alone is not a faith that is alone, but the straw man is polemically convenient for you, unless you fail to understand this. But having begun with a fundamental misapprehension you should not end with the same, supposing that Paul's “therefore” exhortation to respond to the great truths of justification through faith means that now he is teaching justification is procured on the basis of works of merit, which basis he had destroyed, and that the call to live out faith is in conflict with sola fide, supposing it holds to a type of faith that does not obey Acts 26:20, which it does not.
Extended:
Paul began by showing both the Gentiles and the Jews were guilty before God, (cps 1-3) and rather than meriting eternal life by better kind of obedience, he told them they needed justification by faith being counted for righteousness; That just as Abraham was utterly unable to effect or appropriate the promise of God, as his and Sarah's procreative ability was defunct, yet "He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; {21} And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. {22} And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. {23} Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; {24} But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; {25} Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. " (Romans 4:20-25)
The whole thing is about faith procuring justification; not on the basis of works-merit, nor by a faith that will not work, but faith nonetheless, as the man was helpless to do works to gain the promise, which physical helplessness corresponds to our inability to merit eternal life. Instead, one must believe and be counted as righteousness.
Next they were told, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Rm. 5:1) He then goes on to explain the transaction Christ made by the grace of God, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) {18} Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. " (Romans 5:17-18)
And therefore, since they were justified by faith, not by merit of works, the necessary question was, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? " (Romans 6:1) If one had received justified by merit of his works of faith, rather than grace saving sinful men by faith, this question would be superfluous. But if saving faith were of a character that was not to show forth fruit unto holiness and continue therein, and that living after the flesh was not a denial of faith that resulted in death, then what follows is also superfluous. And cps 6-8 tell how and exhort thereto. Unlike salvation by works of merit, in which the souls is ever seeking to merit heaven, those justified by faith are accepted in the Beloved, and risen with Christ, and seated in heavenly places, and translated in His kingdom. They therefore can deal with life from a position of strength, practically living out and becoming what they are positionally in Christ, having become “washed, sanctified and justified,” at conversion, and thus living it out. (2Cor. 6:11; Rm. 4:5; Acts 13:39; 26:18; 2Thes. 2:13)
Rm. 9-11 establishes that election is purely by grace, and the Gentles are warned that the because of unbelief they [the Jews as a whole; the natural branches] were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. (Rm. 20-21)
So 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, (Jn. 11:27,28) suffering with Him, putting to death the deeds of the flesh, as those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God, calling upon the Father in Heaven (not Mary, etc.), these being foreordained to glory. (Rm. 8:13-17,30) To His glory. Amen.
Annalex:If you don't believe the Church in her historical knowledge, why do you believe the Gospel?
daniel1212 : i have already answered it this vain argument, only to see it repeated
You will probably see it repeated many times even after I read and responded to what you wrote. Remember, I do not read ahead and respond when I get around to a particular post, usually about one week after it is posted, because there is one of me and many of you posting, and I don't skip serious posts.
Mine are indeed serious, I do respond methodologically likewise, but prefer to wait posting till i have finished my responses coming from one party. And the answer to the above is again below.
Why you will still see this argument repeated? Because your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.
Likewise in my responses, but you are unable to accept A and B from Scripture if you obey the requirement that you do not question the church.
It would indeed be wrong, -- completely un-Christian -- for me to thump the Catechism on the imaginary podium and shout, Obey the Living Magisterium! If I cite the Magisterium at all -- at times I do, typically, the Catechism, -- that is to explain what the Catholic Church really teaches.
Yet the Catechism is only infallible where it restates truths that have already been defined by the Magisterium, and though it also contains non-infallible teaching from the ordinary magisterium, and while it may define something many RC theologians might disagree with, such as "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth" (1994 CCC 2483), which the 97 version stops after “error,” and some things may change, yet its teaching still requires an assent of the will and intellect.
I do not expect anyone to obey the Church just because you have resolved to obey the Bible.
Whereas we can, by appealing to “manifestation of the truth,” and while Roman Catholics apologists condemn the PI method as relying upon fallible human reasoning if the conclusions conflict with Rome, they allow themselves to engage in PI when responding to evangelicals if it backs up Rome's claim, and also teach things that were not in unanimous consent of the fathers, as is required of Rome but liberally defined, yet the perceived conflation of the apologists rendering involves the very thing which is supposed to invalidate PI in interpretation of the Bible (which 2Pt. 1:20 does not refer to, nor is the AIM inspired like the prophetic writers).
I do, however, have every right to point out how the Protestant doctrines stand in stark contrast to the Bible at least on the subject of Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and the rejection of the properly offered Sacraments of the Church. This is simply asking for consistency. If you did not profess obedience to the Bible I would not be making biblical points at all, just like I would not argue scripture with a Buddhist.
There is no problem with asking us to be consistent with Scripture, but as for your consistency, you cannot accept the Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority on faith and morals or allow that such truth can be ascertained by it, as that power uniquely belongs to Rome's AIM, but you appeal to it as if it were able to in condescension to Protestants, in order to convince them that they cannot have assurance of Truth by it, but need to implicitly submit to Rome.
The hostile attitude to the historical witness of the Church is of course not a logical contradiction to the belief in the same witness when it happens to be recorded in canonical scripture.
You have not referenced what you are responding to, but i surmise you are attempting to invalidate the “stewardship of Scripture equals infallible magisterium” logic, which is refuted by Scripture (i.e. the Jews had no AIM), and is therefore not a valid deduction.
It is simply something worth asking: what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture?
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?
To your points.
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith
True. Neither does historical lineage alone ensure validity of Apostolic succession. Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
And they say they same for Rome, but Rome's clams are effectively based upon her own infallible declaration that she cannot be wrong, while the early church persuaded souls by manifestations the truth, by holiness and doctrines which were Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to, and grew by such, not by the power of the sword or forgeries which Rome owes much to for the growth of her papal power, and a magisterium that is assuredly infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallible declared formula, which fosters people bound by trust in her. In contrast, the evangelical church can only depend upon God and His Scriptures and the regenerative effects of its gospel to sustain it and grow.
unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals
This goes to the disctintion between the non-salvific nature of the works of Jewish law, the part on which, hopefully we all agree, and the absolute nature of the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Jewish law was given to the Jews and not binding on the Gentiles; as the Church discovered, once a Jew becoems Christian the Law of Moses was no longer binding on him either. The Jewish lawmaking authority was temporal, the authority of the Church eternal (Mt 16:18-19). So no parallel can be drawn between the rule of the Rabbis and the Church.
The issue is the principle of authority, and your distinctions are irrelevant here (though the Jewish magisterium was establishing moral law which condemned the Gentiles as well (Rm. 3:19), and they lost there authority due to their impenitence and rejection of God's Prophet, which also indicts Rome), as there certainly is a parallel for Rome's claims, thus your own apologists invoke it:
“Since Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra (with the authority of Moses), we recognize that the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself.” (Catholic Answers)
The Papacy itself did not start with the Catholic Church. It goes all the way back to Adam ...At the time of Jesus, the Prime Ministry in place was the CHAIR OF MOSES. The High Priest and the Pharisees were the Magisterium. What the Mosaic "pope" taught had to be obeyed (Mt 23:2-3)..The old chair of authority was established under Moses. The new chair of authority was established under Peter. Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th. - 5/20/2007
The principle of a continuing magisterium is sound, but the historical constant is that they did not have a Roman Catholic formulaic assured infallibility. Although the magisterium was important, without an Jewish AIM writings were established as Scripture, and God preserved the faith using prophets whose authority did not depend magisterial sanction for their authority, but upon Scriptural conformity and Divine attestation. Likewise Jesus authority, and thus when it was challenged or in establishing it and His teaching, He invoked John the Baptist, (Mk. 11:28-30) and the Scriptures and His own works. (Mt. 22:42-45; Jn. 5:33-36,39; Lk. 24:27,44) In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching . (Acts 10:37-43; 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 1:2; 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) And upon this basis is all authority manifest, in proportion to its claims, not pedigree or high sounding claims. (cf. 1Cor. 4:18-21)
3. Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority [similar point is made in 4 and the same answer applies]
It is. The Magisterium that rules against the scripture, were it to ever happen, would not be guided by the Holy Ghost and will ispo facto cease to be the Magisterium of the Church.
You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it. Rather, this can never happen because the magisterium is ispo facto infallible when speaking in accordance with its criteria, which is not that it must be shown to be Scripturally substantiated, but it claim to be so the it ispo facto is,m and any contention is ispo facto fallible. Moreover, “infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma,” and The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility” unless they were previously defined as such. — New Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility. Of course, such requires interpretation and ciould seem to contradict other statements.
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible
Yes. There are levels of speech uttered by the Magisterium, like there are levels of any speech. The Magisterium should be the judge of when the Magisterium intends to make an infallible statement and when it is ordinary teaching. This is just logical that the speaker is the judge of the intent of his speech.
6. This agins rests ont he idea that there is a direct analogy between the Jewish rabbinate and the Church.
The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased, just as Christ fulfilled the Old Testament and the church is the Temple.
That premise is false.
Who says? Has this been officially defined or does this rest upon your PI? Why should you be believed over other Roman Catholic apologists such as who say, “Matthew 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you (Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter.)”
the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects
Indeed, and that was the collective work of the Church.
And Old Testament writings where recognized by the Jews, thus it was wrong to disagree with them and thus you have no church, though since the one who vainly attempts to use this logic defines itself as uniquely the one who collected the Scriptures, based upon her self-authenticating infallible interpretation of what constitutes authenticity, then anything can be “proved.”
7. ...immoral, impenitent Popes
we don't know about "impenitent", neither you or I were their confessors. St. Peter himself was not exactly infallible in his ordinary life. The issue is not that we had bad popes, -- we certainly did, -- but the teaching the Magisterium produced, perhaps, despite these very popes. Let us not forget that the infallible magisterial teaching is not a day-to-day governance of the Church. Bad popes generally left no lasting legacy.
Yes, and so Hitler also *may* be in Heaven, but besides your special pleading your response ignores the issue, which is not that bad leaders do not invalidate an office, though its holders can be replaced, but that an unbeliever could not be a successor to Peter, as one cannot even be a true member of the church who was an unbeliever, and a successor for Judas even had to be personal disciple of Christ. And as impenitent adulterers, fornicators, extortioners, etc, are to be put away out of the church and are damned, (1Cor. 5:11-13; 6:9,10; Rv. 21:27) they cannot lay claim to saving faith. They may “profess that they know God; but in works they deny him...” More than one pope fit this description, but just one will suffice, which is,
Pope Alexander, who lived during the time of Martin Luther.
He was born Rodrigo Borgia near Valencia, Spain, the nephew of Callixtus, who made him a cardinal at the age of twenty-five (1456) and vice-chancellor of the Holy See (1457). As vice-chancellor, he amassed great wealth, lived an openly promiscuous life, and fathered seven children, both as a cardinal and the pope. Pius II, who had succeeded Callixtus and continued to support the rise in the church hierarchy of Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, had to warn the young cardinal to refrain from his practice of participating in orgies. It was, as Pius expressed it, "unseemly."
While a cardinal, he took as his mistress Vannozza de Catanei who bore him four children, including Cesare (born 1475) and Lucrezia (born, 1480). By the time he became pope in 1492, he had cast off Vannozza and acquired as a mistress the young Guilia Farenese, who was probably the mother of two or three additional children sired by Alexander. Before Vannozza, Rodrigo had fathered at least two children by one or more women whose names are lost to history.
Pope Innocent VIII died, and a political struggle ensued for the papacy. The bargaining was fierce, and when the votes were finally counted, Rodrigo Borgia, with the purchase of the vote of a ninety-six-year-old cardinal who no longer had all of his faculties, was elected. One of the six cardinals who could not be bought was Giuliano della Rovere, was to remain an enemy of the Borgias, and eventually would succeed Alexander VI as Pope Julius II, noted patron of Michelangelo, the "Warrior Pope."
But Rodrigo, now Alexander VI, had learned something from his predecessor, the misnamed Innocent VIII, who was the first pope to acknowledge openly his illegitimate children, loading them with riches and titles. Alexander took advantage of the precedent.
After a strong beginning as pope, reforming the Curia and forbidding simony --- which is, of course, the means by which he had purchased the papacy --- Alexander concentrated his efforts on his primary interests. These were, like Innocent VIII, the acquisition of gold, the pursuit of women, and the interests of his family. However, Alexander made his predecessor look like a rank amateur...
By 1500, Alexander's behavior --- with Cesare as a dominating influence --- became even more outrageous. Licentiousness and murder were the order of the day for both father and son.... [it gets no better)
There was in him, and in full measure, all vices both of flesh and spirit ...There was in him no religion, no keeping of his word. He promised all things liberally, but bound himself to nothing that was not useful to himself. He had no care for justice, since in his days Rome was a den of thieves and murderers. Nevertheless, his sins meeting with no punishment in this world, he was to the last of his days most prosperous. In one word, he was more evil and more lucky than, perhaps, any other pope for many ages before." --- Francesco Guicciardini (as reported in Chamberlain) - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/c/craftg/Hist127/ALEXANDER%20VI.pdf
No, the guy did NOT have faith in Jesus, hence, that is why he went on his way. The very thought of giving up what was the most important thing to him - his wealth - was unthinkable. Why else would he have refused to follow Jesus? Anyone who values anything in this life over eternity with the Lord is not thinking by faith. So, no, faith IS what is required of us. The kind of faith that trusts Christ so much that all else is loss without him. The kind that rests completely in his sacrifice for us as the only way to God. The kind that sees our own merit as nothing but dirty rags compared to what he did for us.
What I firmly believe has been lost in certain people's idea of salvation is that we are utterly powerless to save ourselves and that if Christ had not come to save us we would all be rightfully condemned to an eternity apart from God. No amount of human effort, work, giving, striving and merit can earn what can only be granted by a sacrifice of blood/life of a perfect, sinless man and that was Christ Jesus. He was obviously more than a mere man, he was God himself in human form, eyeball-to-eyeball, heart-to-heart, mano-y-mano to bring us into fellowship with him. All our good deeds can only be as evidence of our gratitude for his mercy and grace and as expressions of our love for him because he first loved us. When we, by faith, accept his unspeakable gift we are placing our trust in him alone to save us and that is how God intended it to be - we have no right to boast.
True, but unlike the gnostics, the Church proclaims what she knows from the housetops. We don't have secret knowledge. We just have knowledge.
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.