Debate on Romans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That don’t work for you faith aloners either.

you who point the finger “well you believe the thief on the cross went to hell he did not have works…”

Catholics believe you need works faith and works BUT God is not bound by what he commands of us

Lets turn this around you believe Faith is absolutely necessary but what about the baby who dies before they have faith? 🤷

You got the example of the death bed conversion

We got the example of the baby death bed no conversion

The answer to all this is God is not bound by what he call us to do faith and works.
I do not claim to have all the answers. I don’t think anyone can do that since God’s ways and thoughts are far beyond us. The most I can do is try to understand what I can as the Holy Spirit guides me. I am not here to condemn any other Christian’s beliefs. I am here to share mine and attempt to gain better understanding if I can.

I do have a problem though with dogmatic statements being made and then saying God is not bound by them. I do not limit God, He is not bound by anything, but I can’t accept as dogma something that has exceptions. It may be an attempt to explain but it does not set out an absolute truth since truth doesn’t have exceptions.
 
St Augustine was a Catholic Bishop with a capital C. Im not sure what you are attempting to imply by invoking him, but one thing is certain: Augustine was Catholic and held the same view of Justification as the Church. Treht has perhaps articulated that position more clearly than during Augustine’s lifetime, but if Augustine were alive then (or now) he would affirm exactly what the Church teaches even if it meant dismissing some of his personal opinions.
I do not find it particularly helpful to basically say that Augustine couldn’t mean what I think he means because he was Catholic and wouldn’t mean that. I do think that the Catholic Church has reduced the scope of what is orthodox compared to what would have been acceptable at the time of the church fathers. From what I have read so far I don’t think that they would say that either the present Catholic Church or the Protestant Churches were unorthodox. That is just my opinion.
 
40.png
SyCarl:
I do not claim to have all the answers. I don’t think anyone can do that since God’s ways and thoughts are far beyond us. The most I can do is try to understand what I can as the Holy Spirit guides me. I am not here to condemn any other Christian’s beliefs. I am here to share mine and attempt to gain better understanding if I can.
Amen, brother. You dont owe me anything and I dont have all the answers either.
I do not limit God, He is not bound by anything, but I can’t accept as dogma something that has exceptions. It may be an attempt to explain but it does not set out an absolute truth since truth doesn’t have exceptions.
God is bound by God. For example, God has bound himself to the forgiveness of sins if we confess them. In Catholic theology God has bound himself to regenerating those who undergo the sacrament of Baptism and to forgiving their sins. This does not mean that God is bound to retain the sins of anyone who does not get baptized. He may, for reasons he alone discerns, and by His sovereignty forgive the sins of someone who never received the Sacrament of Baptism. God has bound Himself to the Sacrament, but He is not bound by them. Just as the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, he is Lord of the Sacraments as well.
Thats not really a biggie…
 
I do not claim to have all the answers. I don’t think anyone can do that since God’s ways and thoughts are far beyond us. The most I can do is try to understand what I can as the Holy Spirit guides me. I am not here to condemn any other Christian’s beliefs. I am here to share mine and attempt to gain better understanding if I can.

I do have a problem though with dogmatic statements being made and then saying God is not bound by them. I do not limit God, He is not bound by anything, but I can’t accept as dogma something that has exceptions. It may be an attempt to explain but it does not set out an absolute truth since truth doesn’t have exceptions.
You may not have all the answers but someone who believes you must have faith a (dogma) cant have exceptions for a child who dies without faith. That child is doomed for hell because fath alone has no exceptions.

You may not have the answers but you have to at least admit that a faith alone without exceptions means a child who dies without faith goes to hell

Is this what you believe? If you are here to share your beliefs Im all ears. May disagree but im at least willing for you to share your beliefs
 
God is a God of love. If he were not of love, he would not have told Noah to build a boat. He would have definitely wiped the human race off the face of the earth. How many times have we read the term “stiff necked people”? While that was directed at the Jews, I have no doubt it fit all of civilization, and not just the Jews.

Faith is a great starting point. If someone has a true deathbed conversion, I think they would be saved by a Baptism of desire. I believe that little babies and ignorant people can be saved also, because I believe that God is a God of love.

We are bound to obey God and participate in his Sacraments, God is not. Face it, God could save a rock if he wanted to.

Beyond deathbed conversions, we are called to obedience. We disregard the call at our own peril. Works are certainly bound in with faith in our salvation journey.
 
You may not have all the answers but someone who believes you must have faith a (dogma) cant have exceptions for a child who dies without faith. That child is doomed for hell because fath alone has no exceptions.

You may not have the answers but you have to at least admit that a faith alone without exceptions means a child who dies without faith goes to hell

Is this what you believe? If you are here to share your beliefs Im all ears. May disagree but im at least willing for you to share your beliefs
I do not claim that faith alone is a dogma. I believe it applies to those who are capable of faith and have had an opportunity to learn of it. I trust that God deals with those incapable of faith in accordance with his love and justice. I also know that He does what is right with those who have never heard the Gospel.
 
I do not claim that faith alone is a dogma. I believe it applies to those who are capable of faith and have had an opportunity to learn of it. I trust that God deals with those incapable of faith in accordance with his love and justice. I also know that He does what is right with those who have never heard the Gospel.
Indeed, that is very similar to the Catholic teaching on invincible ignorance. I typically ask what would happen to the hypothetical righteous Jew living in 33 A.D. in Rome who died not having had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. He was faithful, righteous, and died without the benefit of knowing Christ. It is the hardest case I can think of; I believe the only answer is, “We don’t know, but God keeps His promises, is infinitely merciful and infinitely just, and all we can say is that whatever happened was precisely what ought to have happened.” That’s invincible ignorance, as I understand it—the recognition that the New Covenant is not a death sentence, but a death sentence commuted, and that God is not arbitrary in the commutation.

Mileage will no doubt vary.
 
I do not claim that faith alone is a dogma. I believe it applies to those who are capable of faith and have had an opportunity to learn of it.
I don’t see how someone can call faith and works a dogma but can’t call faith alone a dogma

You say it only applies to those who are capable. But a catholic says this about faith and works

I don’t know but I’m just not getting your point
I trust that God deals with those incapable of faith in accordance with his love and justice. I also know that He does what is right with those who have never heard the Gospel.
Amen
 
I don’t see how someone can call faith and works a dogma but can’t call faith alone a dogma
I guess I would call faith and works a dogma because my reading of Trent is that they anathemized anyone who does not accept it. Therefore I could not hold my belief and be a Catholic. While some might disagree, I don’t think that you should be cursed if you don’t believe faith alone.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
 
I guess I would call faith and works a dogma because my reading of Trent is that they anathemized anyone who does not accept it. Therefore I could not hold my belief and be a Catholic. While some might disagree, I don’t think that you should be cursed if you don’t believe faith alone.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
that makes better sense. Except your not cursed SyCarl unless you knew what the Church taught believed it to be true and then rejected it.
 
…
…
The reformers said “faith alone but not faith that is alone”. I agree with this.

…
…
I have a real problem with this, and everytime I hear it the scriptural alarm bells go off loudly in my little head.

Scripture, by way of James, associates the words “faith” and “alone.” There is no other place in the entirety of the bible where the two words are found together other than in James 2:24.
In that verse James clearly says:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

It disturbs me greatly when I hear a doctrine that is in direct contradiction of that terminology, and then hear the words you stated or something very similar. James was an apostle and he gave us the inspired word of God. This phrase and the context surrounding it leave no room for misunderstanding it.

If James meant what “sola fide” supporters believe then he never would have used his terminology. He would have used yours.
 
I would not presume
to judge my salvation. I put all my trust in God and hope that I am living the way He wants me to. However I do not put any trust in my works. I may be doing them for the wrong reasons as the Pharisees or hypoctites did.
Even Paul was not prepared to judge himself. That is for God.
I hope I always remember that anything I do that might be good, is something that I already owe to God.

SyCarl -

AMEN! 👍 I had missed this post. Had I not I would certainly have taken the time to acknowledge that we see “eye to eye” here and can be grateful for that! I’ve been interacting with the OSAS crowd for too long and I’m afraid I had unjustifiably lumped you into that category…
 
40.png
SyCarl:
But the real point of faith alone is not to deny that works follow faith but to assert that our works do not merit salvation.
I would like to comment on this further. It seems to me that the REAL point of faith alone is NOT merely the assertion that our works do not merit salvation. It is primarily a doctrine which has as its goal the DETERMINATION of whether one is saved. It provides a degree of comfort for its adherents to rest assured that they are, in fact, saved. And for this reason it is often linked with the doctrines of blessed assurance, eternal security, OSAS, etc.
A critical question that confronts someone who considers the doctrine of sola fide is, “Do I have salvation faith?” since the answer to that question allows for the determination of whether one is saved by faith alone. Scripture certainly indicates that there are a number of things that constitute the content of what is to be believed by the faithful. But Scripture certainly does not limit the discussion of salvation to this aspect of faith. Scripture is very clear that our actions are intimately related to our faith. If this were not the case, there would be no need to hear the oft repeated "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone"(Statement 1). To me, this statement is as clear an indication of just how precariously close faith and works are presented in Scripture. If that were not the case, it would never be presented by sola fide adherents in defense of their doctrine in the context of “faith and works” discussions.
But if one really stops to think this statement through it seems to contradict the very notion of “faith alone” that many profess. For the purposes of illustration, let us begin by reconstructing the above bolded statement to:
“We are saved by faith that is not alone” (Statement 2) This is the equivalent statement, shortened and edited for clarity. We are trying to draw closer to the nature of saving faith - to intellectually grasp it, if possible. And what is intended in this statement, exactly, that accompanies faith, that excludes it from being alone, and renders it as salvific? The answer is good works - the good works that Scripture is so filled with - the good works that we were created for in Christ that God prepared before hand that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10) This allows a further clarification of the above statement:
"We are saved by faith that produces good works" (Statement 3)
If I’m not mistaken I dont think that I have yet contradicted Catholic or Protestant theology - we would all agree so far. Unfortunately, however, I believe the direction we next head in will cross some lines - mysteriously, IMHO.
One empirically logical conclusion of our edited statement above is that “Faith that does not produce good works does not save us” (Statement 4) Unless Im mistaken (I gladly welcome anyone to point out my error), this is the line that “faith aloners” cannot cross. They accept Statement 1and 2, often accept the contextual application in Statement 3 (not alone = accompanied by good works) but they will not accept statement 4 even though it is statement 3’s logical equivalent. When asked why they dont accept Statement 4 the answer is usually along the lines of “Because we are saved by faith alone…” and it’s quite clear that Statement 4 does not allow for the comfortable separation of faith and works that the ideologically and liguistically looser “salvation by faith alone” does. And this brings us back to my initial claim: the doctrine of sola fide is primarily aimed at providing assurance of salvation.
At this point I remain confused by the doctrine of Sola Fide and whether Statement 1 is actually a genuine reflection of it. If it were, then statement 4 would be accepted unconditionally, but it is not. Whats up with that?
 
Hey SyCarl,

2nd on what Philthy said. While we might not agree on everything, you are most definitely a breath of fresh air! 👍
 
Hey SyCarl,

2nd on what Philthy said. While we might not agree on everything, you are most definitely a breath of fresh air! 👍
Hear, hear—SyCarl has a long history of playing it straight and engaging in constructive dialogue, even when we disagree. Thank you, SyCarl! 👍
 
Unless I’m mistaken, neither the Bible nor the Church teaches that faith produces good works.
Yes—the Church teaches that grace produces good works, through which we merit more grace.

It all starts with faith, though, since the initial justification and the grace it imparts is a product of either our faith or that of our parents depending upon when we were baptized.

Moreover, good works do tend to be works associated with faith, so there’s a relationship there which Philthy streamlined.
 
With all due respect, none of that means that faith produces works.
 
With all due respect, none of that means that faith produces works.
Faith is a prerequisite for producing good works. The point, however, is that the claim by sola fideists that “we are saved by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone” turns out to be a farse.
 
With all due respect, none of that means that faith produces works.
It does indeed, in this sense:

What if you or your parents had lacked faith?

Would you have been baptized?

Had you not been baptized, would you have been justified?

Had you not been justified, would you have been capable of good works?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top