Posted on 10/13/2013 12:01:40 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Expounding on the importance of our actions for salvation is, I suppose, my primary “thing.” I have been in so many informal debates over the issue that I have started to lose count of them. I have written about the topic many times. And often, I become angry (like God in 1 Kings 11:9-10) at the mere thought of sola fide (“faith alone”), because I know that it is completely contrary to “what the Lord [has] commanded.” But why?
“Faith alone” was, without a doubt, the primary reason that I left Protestantism. Even though I was ill-educated in theology at the time, I knew that it was illogical.
I like to think of sola fide in terms of criminal law. Imagine that someone went before a judge and was proven guilty of heinous crimes, but then pleaded to the judge that he believed in the judge's authority to convict him and so the judge should not do so – and had that as his only defense. Should the judge convict him – to any degree – or should the judge completely let him off, and then give him a reward?
Do you find the “faith alone” argument compelling in such an instance? I do not. Of course, a “faith alone”-r would say that there is some sort of significant difference between such a scenario in terms of temporal law and such a scenario in terms of eternal law, but there really is not. Protestant arguments for the belief simply do not stand in the face of such scenarios or substantial scrutiny.
I strongly believe that sola fide is at the heart of many Western problems. Self-professed Christians have used it as an excuse to not care for the disadvantaged, to engage in profane sexual activity, etc. – the list goes on and on.
Martin Luther told his followers to “sin and sin boldly” (among other things, as I have documented) because he taught that we are saved solely by our faith in the power of Jesus Christ, apart from our actions. This method of thinking has been adopted by millions of Protestants since his time. But is it supported by the Bible? No. See Hebrews 10:26-27:
“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.”
“Faith alone” has had a terrible impact on society. People often now shy away from discussing religion or morality with others, fearing conflict. Take, for example, something that transpired between a Lutheran family member and me. After I privately and politely informed her that she had committed a grievous sin (like we are called to do – see Matthew 18:15-17, Galatians 6:1, and Ephesians 4:15), she immediately jumped to the “Who are you to judge?” defense and paired it with the “Jesus paid the price” line. I am sure that, for many Catholics, such occurrences are unfortunately familiar.
God has written in our hearts (Romans 2:15) that we should serve Him and others, not our selfish desires -- and we will be punished if we defy Him. The necessity of both good works and abstinence from grave sin gives our lives concrete meaning. If someone takes away the eternal significance of our actions, they rob us of any real purpose: we all just become random, faceless, unimportant beings.
Sola fide does not work either logically or practically; it fails on all counts. Now, you know why I hate it.
(All verses are from the NASB translation.)
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
People are purified by their attitude towards their suffering. People are purified when they offer their suffering to God, and ask forgiveness. God does not withhold forgiveness - he merely waits for us to receive the forgiveness He is always offering us forgiveness out of pure love for us.
We are made in the image of God, not the image of sin. Our sins are finite, but our souls are infinite. To satisfy all those who thirst for blood, we will all die sooner or later, and then our blood will be offered back to God. But even animals do that. Only human beings can offer their lives, and not just their deaths, to God - all their joys and all their sufferings and all their efforts, moment by moment, day by day.
That is the sacred offering of the heart that attracts the responding love of God that can actually be experienced in this lifetime, now, every moment of every day, forever. That is the true sacrifice of love from which God creates the fire of soul purification that eventually returns us to God. That is Grace.
And that is my belief, and my understanding, and my personal experience.
I’m a calminian Methodist.
Mostly, though, I’m just a Christian who thinks God keeps His promises. If God says that a John 3:16 kind of faith leads to a John 3:16 kind of eternity, then I believe Him.
You do have to go through an obedient life as He instructs with grace and mercy being your constant need, but He is with you on the journey supplying your need.
Methodist Wesley was big on loss of salvation. Methodist Whitfield was not. Wesley dealt with God’s promises by his belief that God can give assurance of salvation by growing you to the point that you will not fall. Whitfield was a Calvinist and dealt with it by saying that God will not permit true believers to fail. I’m more on Whitfield’s side, but we too often forget that it’s not slam/bam, but that there’s a life of scores of years sometimes to be lived with all its ups and downs.
In all that God is faithful to keep His promises.
It depends on the Catholic you're talking to.
It IS a works based salvation. They tip their hand when you see their response at the thought of salvation by faith alone.
Paul wrote to those in Rome, called to be saints, not all Romans but Christians.
Romans 1:7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the insight. God’s blessings on you and yours.
Thank you, NT. May God grant us the grace to follow Him more closely.
“WHO the Book of James was written to. “
At first this question just bored me now it is going more down the rabbit hole so that it annoys me. The Book of James, or the “epistle of straw” as Martin Luther slammed it. Why is this important? Who was James? One of the 12 disciples of Jesus? He was trained by Jesus? So you ask who this is written to and you can’t figure that one out? If I can’t talk to the master himself, at least let me hear from someone who was close to the master and that was James. Certainly not Martin Luther who wanted to silence James.
If you cannot clarify what rich irony you see in Christians squabbling over the interpretation of scripture, as if (i suppose) everything must be equally clear, and as if any ambiguity is contrary to gaining true followers, than I am not going to play your game and guess what you all meant. For unlike Scripture, you simply do not warranted the seeking of truth that is necessary for proper receiving, nor provide sufficient context to make more than a guess.
No. I can figure this one out. All I have to do is READ WHO IT'S SENT TO. Right there, in the VERY FIRST verse. Sorry to "bore" or "annoy" you with THE TRUTH.
However, your own approved American Bible commentary states,
The person to whom this letter is ascribed can scarcely be one of the two members of the Twelve who bore the name James (see Mt 10:2–3; Mk 3:17–18; Lk 6:14–15), for he is not identified as an apostle but only as “slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1). This designation most probably refers to the third New Testament personage named James, a relative of Jesus who is usually called “brother of the Lord” (see Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). He was the leader of the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem whom Paul acknowledged as one of the “pillars” (Gal 2:9). In Acts he appears as the authorized spokesman for the Jewish Christian position in the early Church (Acts 12:17; 15:13–21). According to the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 20, 9, 1 ¶¶201–203), he was stoned to death by the Jews under the high priest Ananus II in A.D..... 62.
Paradoxically, this very Jewish work is written in an excellent Greek style, which ranks among the best in the New Testament and appears to be the work of a trained Hellenistic writer. Those who continue to regard James of Jerusalem as its author are therefore obliged to suppose that a secretary must have put the letter into its present literary form. This assumption is not implausible in the light of ancient practice. - http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=James&ch=
If I can’t talk to the master himself, at least let me hear from someone who was close to the master and that was James.
The weight of Scriptural revelation is not ranked by how close the writer was to Christ, else 3 gospels must be marginalized as compared to John. And the one who penned most of the NT, and whom your own pope stated "laid down the cornerstones of our religion and our creed," was not one the original 12, but saw (1Cor. 9:1) and learned from the Lord via special revelation. (Gal. 1:12)
That’s an easy one!
You are justified if you are struck by lightning immediately after leaving the confessional.
There is no contradiction. You just choose to ignore that part of Scripture that contradicts your man-made belief.
And it's all because of 2 Tim. 2:15. If that verse of scripture is not heeded, the result is what happens when people try to force James 2:24 into the dispensation of the grace of God.
And if you don't believe that, just try to explain it any other way, and make it FIT into our time. Without twisting yourself into a pretzel of confusion, frustration, and denial.
>> May God grant us the grace to follow Him more closely.
Amen.
To satisfy all those who thirst for blood, we will all die sooner or later, and then our blood will be offered back to God. But even animals do that. Only human beings can offer their lives, and not just their deaths, to God - all their joys and all their sufferings and all their efforts, moment by moment, day by day.
What on earth is that supposed to mean? We can't offer our blood to God. If we could, Jesus would not have needed to die.
Our blood is tainted by sin and can do nothing for us. It cannot pay the debt of sin we owe.
And what do animals have to do with any of it?
That is the sacred offering of the heart that attracts the responding love of God that can actually be experienced in this lifetime, now, every moment of every day, forever. That is the true sacrifice of love from which God creates the fire of soul purification that eventually returns us to God. That is Grace.
We are not and cannot offer God anything which will provoke forgiveness from God. It does not attract the responding love of God. He loves us. Period.
He loves us enough to die for us and pay the penalty for our sin that we cannot pay ourselves. There is nothing that we can do to make Him love us, love us more, or encourage a response to Him.
We love Him because HE FIRST loved us. He initiated. WE'RE the responders.
And then we get to what the definition of "is" is.
...only if a person TRIES to make two different dispensations into ONE.
Shucks, I guess there is nothing new under the sun. Wait....that's been used as well.
If I could have been born just a little earlier perhaps an apple would have fallen out of a tree and I could have been the one to discover gravity. ;O)
“There is no contradiction. You just choose to ignore that part of Scripture that contradicts your man-made belief.”
Says the guy who ignored the scripture completely earlier :/.
There is no belittling here. You had quoted a scriptural saying love of God and love of neighbor) to essentially all what needs and hence this helps undermine the need for the Catholic Church. Each person can simply “ experience” the infinite, whatever this experience means, and nothing further in the form of beliefs, rituals, and the forgiveness of sins is needed.
My riposte to you “not so fast and not so easy” was to demonstrate that in His last days on earth, Christ issued what has come to be known as the “Great Commission” which was left out in your facile analysis. His disciples that included Peter and the rest of the apostles carried this mandate by writing letters to various groups expounding and explaining this teaching. Hence we have the letters of Paul, Peter, and James etc to varied groups and pagans and who knows some pagans who had “experienced” God or the “infinite” by worshipping stone gods or animal depictions of god.
The apostles and disciples of Christ preached not multiple truths but one truth that was to last till the end of time to all peoples. Hence he called Peter the rock upon which he built His Church so that His truth of eternal life will be properly understood and reach all corners of our planet. This is the parable of the mustard tree.
Accepting this is not what you call a blind “declaration of faith.” This is faith supported by reason.
This leads to the Church and its central beliefs including the Eucharist and its celebration in the context of the Catholic Mass. This, is not dogmatic as you appear to imply. Nor is this “bible pounding” to use your phrase. This is based on scripture, tradition, reason, and revelation. This is why you have a long list of Nobel laureates, celebrated philosophers, sculptors, painters, astronomers, renowned mathematicians, scientists, poets, and authors who have embraced the Catholic faith after examining its central tenets.
Likewise for the long list of atheists, agnostics, communists and leading theologians from Lutherans like Richard Neuhaus to a former Chief Rabbi of Rome, to Anglican scholar, Henry Newman having spent a lifetime of religious search and inquiry, converted to the Catholic faith. To say, all these individuals made these conversions without using their faculties of reason and intelligence does not deserve serious argument. Indeed Pope Benedict XVI is the lead proponent of the the theory that the strands of both faith and reason must be braided to support one’s faith.
Do not take this personally, but for you or anyone else to assert that: “The only value of His teachings - any and all of them - are to enable a person to reach God, who is also infinite” exposes the nonsense. Or to quote Chesterton, “he who believes in everything, believes in nothing.”
Here’s why this line of reasoning that you take is worse than absurd. It means that each person can have his or her “own” idea of God and the “infinite.” and presumably that there are “many paths” to eternal life. If this were true, then we have a sadistic God who sent His Son to be tortured and brutally crucified to show us just another path. In short, we could all have done well without Christ, His apostles, and His Church. We can all join hands and do a kumbaya because Jesus is no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite like the cosmos or the adherents of New Age philosophies. Buddhism and Hinduism that pre-dated Christ are all paths that open up this “infinite” connection to God.
Now if this expostulation reduces your views to absurdity it is not to “belittle” you but to show why your “reasoning” on Christ makes no sense.
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.