Featured A Jehovah's Witness is at my Door!

That is blatantly false. If not, you would believe what Luther put his life on the line for--sola fide. You would believe that salvation is by faith and faith alone. One cannot earn salvation by their own merits. You do believe that and don't believe salvation is by faith. Why post lies?

 

Do you even know what the Catholics disagreed with Luther about from his Thesis?

And sola fide isn't taught in scriptures which is why Luther wanted to take out the book of James. Fortunately, for Lutherans, Luther's companions persuaded him not to change the NT.

 

The book of James has nothing to do with sola fide. It was written to Christians and is speaking about the practical Christian life, not salvation.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

There is sola fide. That along with Romans 4:1-5 teach sola fide, an irrefutable doctrine, one which the RCC cannot refute. You simply deny it. You deny the Scriptures on this very basic doctrine, and in so doing deny the very basic doctrine of salvation itself.

 

It absolutely does. You can't get clearer than the book of James

You hold to a forensic view of Justification do you not? Therefore do you not hold that to be saved you must be justified? And to be justified james says does not happen by faith alone.

Note Romans 5 does not say Faith Alone

What kind of faith? Well, Paul makes it clear at the very begining of his letter to the Romans

The kind of faith which brings about obedience. Not an arbitrary belief that what God says is true but one that is acted on.

And by the way there are only 6 points of Luthers 95 point theses which Catholics disagree.

 

If you refuse to take note of the purpose of why James wrote his epistle then you will forever remain ignorant of the meaning of the passage and remain in that ignorance spouting off ignorantly the RCC line of Justification by works when the book does not teach that. The book was written to Christians--"my brethren" a phrase which is repeatedly mentioned.
The key verse in the passage is when James makes the challenge:
"Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
--Then he goes on to demonstrate that works are a result of genuine faith.

Romans 5:1 does say "faith alone," else it would include what it left out. You can't make arguments from silence. We are justified by faith (alone). Not justified by faith and green cheese; faith and watching TV; faith eating green grapes; etc. You can add whatever you want into that verse if we use your hermeneutic, but Paul didn't leave that door open. He closed it. We are justified by faith, and faith alone. You can't add anything when there is nothing to add.

Being justified by faith alone will bring about obedience. It is the only kind of justification that can bring obedience. There is no other justification.

To be justified by works or one's own merit is a slap in the face of Jesus, the greatest insult he could ever receive. It is saying to Christ that His sacrifice failed; his payment to the Father was not satisfactory; His blood was not sufficient; in short--Satan won, and Christ failed.
He shed his blood and because his blood was not sufficient you, by your works, had to help Jesus pay the penalty for our sins. That is just absurd! But that is what the RCC doctrine boils down to. It is blasphemous.

And that is why justification is by faith alone. There is nothing we can do to merit salvation; nothing.

 

ThinkingStuff...

You posted...

Yes, Catholics DO believe that they can earn salvation by their own merit.

Catholics can fool some people, but not me. (and many others on this board)

I was born catholic, grew up catholic, and was a catholic in my early adulthood.

Catholic schooling grades 1-8.

Alter boy.

Mass every sunday.

Confirmation.

1st communion

Endless rosaries.

Chatichism classes,

CCD classes, etc etc etc...

I was fully indoctrinated.

The concept of ((earning)) salvation, through our merit, permeates literally EVERYTHING in Catholicism. It is all encompasing.

I was there. I experienced every bit of it.

You cant fool me.

 

Think this is the part of grace/Justification that drives our RC friends "crazy"...

that when a sinner calls upon the name of jesus, when he receives Him by faith alone, at that very moment forward, god the father sees that sinner clothed in the rightousness of christ, and God sees him Exactly as He sees Jesus in regards to keeping the Law , so God can and does freely declare the sinner justified, and now a saint!

 

ahhhhhh, what are you talking about? I am talking about their own documents! Their own documents are nothing but personal opinions. The ECF's are nothing but personal opinions. The counsels are nothing but personal opinions. The Pope's words are nothing but personal opinions. The so-called magisterium is nothing but the production of uninspired personal opinions.

I am familiar enough with the ECF's to know what you can and cannot show from them. ALL you can show is a line of personal opinions and many conflicting opinions at that.

It does not matter what anyone said about the Bible at any time because all of what the have said is nothing more than UNINSPIRED personal opinions.

Moreover, who has recorded every view that was ever taught by every man or group in the last two thousand years????? NOBODY! Secular history is INCOMPLETE, UNINSPIRED, thus BIASED and more often wrong than right.

Indeed the whole magisterium process is nothing but selectivity of personal opinions by majority personal opinion!

 

As much as I value the writings of the early Eastern fathers, if their views contradict scripture, I must follow scripture, as scripture contains the only apostolic writings that we have.

 

The issue was over "works" in justification of the "ungodly" by faith before God not "works" in the life of the church member as that is what James deals with. James is addressing professed saved baptized church members and the character of the daily life and how it affects others. Paul is dealing with the lost man in Romans 3-5:2 and how they are justified as "ungodly" before God.

However, Rome repudiates justification of the "ungodly" by grace alone thorugh faith in Christ alone without works and you know it.

 

It does!

and again

and again

However, once in the ark of salvation we can please God and do his good will by the graces he gives us. Here it is important to be specific what we are talking about.

If the Catholic Church had accepted all of Luthers Reforms we would be Lutheran. The fact is though Luther was a good theologian he wasn't 100% correct either. And, this being my own opinion of the man. I believe he was a bit prideful and possibly bi-polar. He was right about many things. And reforms needed to take place. And reforms did happen and there are Catholic Reformers who emerged because of Luther and the Reformation. But there are still points of dispute between us such as the number of Sacraments. Luther himself couldn't agree with himself about that either as he changed his number over the years.

 

I'm not trying to fool you. Just speaking the plain truth. I was raised Catholic as well and left the church for much of the same reasons you left it. However, in both our cases we were mistaken. I just showed in the previous post that the Catholic Church doesn't believe that we can earn our salvation. However, what is important is what part of salvation we are talking about. Salvation is more than being put in a proper relationship with God and attaining heaven. If that is all we are talking about when speaking of salvation then Catholics would agree with you. However, salvation also encompases our sanctification, our daily laying down our lifes and carrying our crosses, our daily transformation into the likeness of Jesus Christ. When we are mentioning these specific things in salvation then we participate in them. We participate in our sanctification, we participate in daily laying down of our lives, we Participate in being transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ. And even in that participation Catholics agree that we couldn't even do that with out the Help of the Holy Spirit and the graces God gives us to accomplish that. When it really comes down to it the real difference in your faith now then being a Catholic is you believe it is impossible to Apostate Catholics (like Armenianist) disagree with you. All that other stuff. Being an alter boy thats just dressing. Just because you were an alterboy and knew how to perform a ceremony doesn't mean you have faith. Just like many lectionaries (people who read the scripture during mass), don't necissarily means they know the faith.

 

See it shows how little you know. I'm not driven crazy by grace or justification. I don't even have a problem with recieving Jesus by faith. What I do have a problem is that you define faith a something that is heart felt in your gut belief that something is so and seperate that from the final equation of faith. That one acts on what they have faith in. Which James is getting at. Look at the Context of James. In James chapter 1 James is discussing to fellow christians that they need to live rightly. And to do this they need to focus on scriptures

Just a note about the above passage. It is clear he is speaking to fellow Christians. If James were a baptist we wouldn't have said "the implanted word which has saved you." But no he doesn't say that he says "which is able to save you" as if they hadn't acheived salvation yet. Then look at what he says

emphasising as I have shown Paul to have done that Faith must be acted on. Do what scriptures tell you else you forget who you really are. And if you act on your faith you will be blessed. Then look at how he presses the argument in James 2

He goes on to show that not only do they need to act on the scripture but when they have people come to "church" that if they show partiality because of their wealth and attire then they sin and as we all know if you break one aspect of the law you've sinned against the whole law so these people who do that would have broken the law and sinned against God. And then he makes his point very clear when he continues his argument for right living when he says

I think thats pretty clear. James doesn't disect faith from the actions of that faith as you do. Which is why he says

 

I am talking about their own documents. And they don't need to be inspired to acurately represent what they believe, observe, and acknowldedge about the events they lived with in. For some reason you keep referring to inspiriation which applies to scripture. Inspiration doesn't apply to the ECF. What the ECF do supply is a testimony to their belief. So I can point and say well what I believe was also believed by so and so and you can see a line of that belief being traced back to the apostles themselves. So whether they are inspired or not is really irrelevant. In fact, I will say their writings aren't scripture. Scripture has a distinctive inspiration as being the word of God. What the ECF do once again is testify to their belief about the scripture. And that is the argument. As I said before Tradition is handed down from one generation to the next. Doctrine is handed down one generation to the next. So when it comes to us (the bottom of the line) I already have a doctrine. I don't need to reconstruct a doctrine as one has already been handed down. And I can say that I can show you evidence of that believed throughout all the generations of the Church back to the starting point of the Apostles and Scripture. And I can also say that when I look at history and factual documents and testimonies to that Christian faith I don't get the baptist sense but rather the Catholic sense. So you see when I refer to the ECF or history there is no inspirational requirement. When I talk about scriptures there is.

 

You need to read James again. I've commented to Yeshua1 on the context of James.

 

It is all about definitions of "grace" and "works."

The Bible classifies all works under only two categories "good" and "evil."

The Bible defines the source of EVIL "works" in regard to man to be whatever issues from his heart - evil thoughts, evil words and evil actions - (Mt. 15:19). Hence, contrariwise GOOD thoughts, good words and good actions are synonmous with good "works."

Works originate from man's heart. Evil works originate from an evil heart. Good works originate from a good heart. The condition of the heart determines the nature of the works. If the tree is corrupt so is the fruit. If the tree is good so is the fruit.

The Commandments of God are definitive as to the difference between "good" versus "evil" works - 1 Jn. 4:6. The Law of God has but one immutable eternal definition of "good" works and to "come short" of that definition is sin and thus failure for anything that comes short to be called "good" by God.

The law simply reveals "the righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21) as God's own personal righteousness that is the standard of "good." That is why Jesus could say "there is none good but one and that is God."

God's righteousness is without sin entirely and altogether eternally without any need of repentance and thus no necessity for forgiveness. It is sinless perfection and that is precisely why James says that to fail but in "ONE POINT" is to complete fail every point. Thus the righteousness of God EXCEEDS the best that either fallen or regeneated man can produce as God's righteousness is "be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven IS perfect." That is "the glory" of God - His holiness and anything that "comes short of the glory of God" is sin - complete and utter failure.


This can be easily seen by the Just demands of God against sinners.

God's just demands against sinners requires ETERNAL DEATH due to sin. The "ungodly" cannot possibly participate in satisfying this just demand against sin without spending eternity in hell. Hence, it is impossible for any man to satisfy this demand by anything he can do EXCEPT spend eternity in hell paying for sin. Hence, either a substitute satisfies this command completely or the sinner satisfies this demand eternally - no other options! Temporal time in hell (purgatory) does not satisfy an "eternal" penalty. Either Jesus "finished" it on the cross "for" sinners or sinners will spend eternity in hell paying for it themselves.

Hence, there is no divine ENABLEMENT that man by his own works can satisfy God's just PENAL consequences for sin.

However, that is precisely what Rome teaches. Rome teaches that man can be enabled to satisfy the PENAL consequences of sin through confession, pennance, chastisement and utimatley in hell itself (purgatory) for a temporal period. This is a complete denial that Christ "finished" the penalty of sin.

Thus, the just demands of God against sin prove that condemnation can only be satisfied by a SUBSTITUTIONARY man and his death "for" sinners.

Just as the NEGATIVE just demands of the law cannot be satisfied any other way than by SUBSTITUTION neither can the POSITIVE demands of the law be satisfied any other way than by SUBSTITUTION. The law demands a life of righteousness that EXCEEDS the best of naturalized men (Mt. 5:20) but EQUAL to the best of God (Mt. 5:48) and to "COME SHORT" of this glory of God - His holiness - is the definition of sin of ommission (Rom. 3:23). To fail only in "one point" of the law is to fail in EVERY POINT (James 2:10-11) and thus again "come short" of being "perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Hence, the just requirements to "inherit" eternal life EXCEEDS the best of regenerated men as regenerated men can only be enabled to produce INCOMPLETE righteousness whenever the Spirit enables the new man to be expressed in their thoughts, words and actions. Moreover, the life of the regenerated man is not designed to satisfy the just demands of God's righteousness as that has been satisfied fully by Christ. The life of the regenerate is designed to be a witness of salvation by Christ and experience the salvation provided.

In all practicality Rome denies that Christ satisfied the RIGHTEOUS demands of God fully for anyone but rather IS fulfilling them through personal obedience of sinners to the commandments of God and IS being justified by a substandard "righteousness" that never measures up to God's own righteousness but always "comes short" of that glory. Thus the sinless life of Christ avails nothing "for" the sinner except to enable him to a life of partial and incomplete and imperfect obedience.

Thus in all reality, Rome repudiates that Christ "finished" or satisified satisfaction God's righteous demands in behalf of sinners. Just as sinners cannot go back and get upon the cross to help satisfy the penalty of sin neither can they help satisfy the standard of God's righteousness as the former is ETERNAL and the latter is ABSOLUTE SINLESSNESS. If it is not imputed by faith and counted as righteousness it is not obtained at all.

 

Of course I'd have to agree.

The primary issue here is that the bible is not a dictionary. It may distinguish between two things it doesn't define those two things. The bible is primarily revelation. It can reveal and distinguish between good and evil but fails as a dictionary. It can contrast two things; Good and Evil.

Ok.

Ok.

ok.

I think you made a logical leap here. The law not only reveals the "righteousness of God" but also the standard to which one should attain. In short it is the standard of righteousness. The messuring stick.

I think you need to be clear what you mean here. God certianly in his righteousness is himself without sin and has no need himself of repentence. But I'm not sure that is what you are saying. Or are you refering to the distinct quality "righteousness" as in "God's righteousness" apart from God himself.

No, I'm not sure what you are exactly trying to say but what James is saying to to violate one part of the Law the standard of righteousness is to violate the whole thing thus by one "minor infraction" you've broken the entire standard and thus are guilty of breaking the whole thing. Thus you are a sinner by doing so. And his referrence is specifically with Christians applying preferential treatement.

Again I think you need to be clear. Are you speaking of the distinct aspect of righteousness or of God himself? Certainly, nothing man can do can produce God's righteousness however that doesn't mean that God himself working in his power who joins himself to man through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cannot produce righteous "works" with the man following God in obedience.

The fact that in our own ability we cannot attain perfection doesn't mean Jesus doesn't want us to aspire to that perfection working in the grace given by the Holy Spirit. An example if you would allow me ... If I were to attain perfection in this life it would have been because of the Holy Spirit, and the graces he provides and not my ability.

Hence, there is no divine ENABLEMENT that man by his own works can satisfy God's just PENAL consequences for sin.

Now you once again get into the problem of definition. The consequences of sin are death as you have stated. Man cannot remidy that consequence by anything he does of his own. The only remedy for that is the redemptive work of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is a little tid bit of the Law (Torah) you have over looked. Your focus is soley on sin vs. not sin. But the Law (Torah) clearly states another aspect of sin not dealt with in your process. What I'm speaking specifically about is restitution. Exodus 22

We see this consept in the NT Luke 19

If we were just talking about sin and being put right with God, By faith Zacchaeus already had that but we see he made restitution. We see also that before one can bring their sacrifice to the Lord that we must make things right with anyone we have anything against. It is this aspect to which the Catholics are speaking. Also when we sin we often act like Adam and Eve who hid themselves from God. Though we are forgiven for our sins it is good practice to get our minds straight by disciplining ourselves into continuing to avail ourselves of God presense in our lives rather than run from it. It is also that to which the Catholic Church is speaking. So, once again you have found you are misinformed. So to inform you let me point a few things out

and finally to the point

See penance doesn't pay for our sins but restitutes people we have harmed and places us back in a proper frame of mind to continue following God. Therefore you are speaking to another matter to which we don't disagree which is Jesus forgives us our sins and makes that effectual by the death and resurrection at Calvary which a once and for all sacrifice.

 

The Scripture is not a dictionary but it does contain definitions. For example, it defines sin as the transgression of the law (1 Jn. 4:6). It defines sin as failing in "one point" of the law (James 2:10-11). It defines sin as coming short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). It defines sin by contrast, comparison and examples. The same is true of many other things such as "grace" and "faith" and other terms.

Where do you believe "righteousness" originates from? From non-living matter? From cultural mores? Does not the Bible say God IS rightoeous and He IS holy! Romans 3:20 says the righteousness revealed in the Law and by the prophets and in the life of Christ is "the righteousness OF GOD." Does He not say "Be ye holy AS I AM Holy? If that is not a direct reference to his own PERSONAL righteousness as a MORAL quality than what is? Moreover, what command would God ever give to men that does not stem from, harmoinze with the same moral attributes found in God's own Person and his own fellowship within the Divine Persons? Isn't "love" simply the summation of all the Law and prophets and does not Scripture say "God IS love"?

My grandchildren are here so I have to go. Finish later.