G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hijacked is a bit much. Just a few statements about baseball, harmless and no hijacking intended whatsoever. A little MLB talk won’t wipe out a thread…
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
These are from the Catechism:
1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42 (Trent)
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50 (St Augustine)
Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51 (St Augustine)
P
Pug
Guest
This could be a point of contention between OP and his friend. It depends on how those words are interpreted.
We can be and indeed are held accountable, and God is just. Both sides will agree to this, I think. Also, grace does not negate our will, like force of violence. Our will is not an inanimate thing. Rather, it must cooperate or conform, or some similar word.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Agreed - just a slight detourHijacked is a bit much. Just a few statements about baseball, harmless and no hijacking intended whatsoever. A little MLB talk won’t wipe out a thread…
F
fhansen
Guest
It’s been interesting for me in any case because I learned more about the issue. Pelagianism and Semi-Pelaigianism both claim that man can will to follow God without any help from Him while Catholicism claims that man can’t will to follow God precisely because we lost His help (grace) in the beginning -by rejecting Him as God. But the Good Shepard will still go after His sheep, desiring to rescue His wayward creation.
If Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism both claim that man can, of his own natural will, turn himself towards God, much of Protestant theology tells us that man can play no roll whatsoever in following God. Catholicism, OTOH, states that while God alone can turn man’s heart back towards Himself, man must carry on from there, still with Gods help but increasingly on his own-a process-kind of like a child learning to walk. And we’re told that it’s imperative that we do this, ultimately turning fully to Him, because sin and heaven are mutually exclusive; sin is the rejection of God’s will, after all.
So God is quite interested in our wills and they must play a role; our wills are the problem to begin with-and simultaneously they’re the prize from God’s perspective-man freely fell and he must freely rise, to the extent he’s able. If loving God with ones whole heart, soul, mind, and strength fulfills the commandments, making man just, and if love is a matter of the will, then of course we must willingly choose life/love/goodness-we must choose to follow God-we’re *obligated *to-rather than choose death as our first parents did.
The point is that we* can* fulfill the Law-and God’s always been after that in man-but only to the extent that our relationship with Him is restored.
To paraphrase St Augustine, Man can’t be saved without God but God doesn’t save us without us .
P
Pug
Guest
I have learned more about Semi-Pelagianism, too. For instance, I read in the old Catholic Encyclopedia that the word itself wasn’t coined until the late 1500’s, which helps me realize that when someone chooses to charge me with with Semi-Pelaginaism, there is a chance that they are really charging me with something within that time era, probably the charge of being a follower of Molina or someone after him, so in that case I am wasting time trying to figure out why they connect me to Pelagius, a much earlier figure. I am sort of a Thomist on this topic anyway (predestination, grace), and not a Molinst, so the charge, however they chose to phrase it, seems inexplicable from my perspective.
Do you suppose this charge of being Semi-Pelagian is more likely to come from a person who agrees with TULIP? Most Protestants are not TULIP people, as far as I know. For those who have not heard of TULIP, go to Wikipedia here for that.
I agree with you that God is quite interested in our wills!
There is will in our love, and we are to love God and neighbor. I don’t see how it could be love if it were not willed with our wills.Your quote from Augustine reminds me of a portion of the sixth session of the Council of Trent: It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.
(hand-typed, so there may be typos)
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
You can use the bible to explain that we believe that works play a role in our salvation, which occurs by grace alone through faith, and to say that they do not is to ignore scripture (already cited above by other posters). In no way do we say that we earn salvation. Salvation is a gift. The dispute is over the necessity of a response to that gift. Is it just assent of the will, or is there more required. Catholics would say the latter, as would many protestants. Some protestants of a more strictly construed sola fide school would say the former. The “Beginning Apologetics” booklets by San Juan press have a pretty good succinct discussion with citation to scripture as well, in Volume 1. You could also try directing them to the Catholic.com website to search various articles there as well.
Peace,
Robert
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
What role do they play? How many good works plus faith earns your way to heaven? Paul tells us that to break the least of the Law is to break all of it. To live by a merit system is to revert to the Law and incur the wrath of God. So I’m trying to make sense of a system in which Paul tells us we are justified through faith. He tells us in Philippians 3 that he jumped through all the works-based earn your way to heaven ascetic law-abiding works-driven quest for salvation and he tells us that it’s “rubbish.” He tells us we are saved by faith and calls the Galatians “stupid” and pig-headed for wanting to revert to the old ways of pharisaic law-driven works-hunting. The Pauline language is easy to follow with faith. How does God measure our works if we’re no longer under the Law but under grace and faith? How many works do you have to do? How will He judge you based on this merit system? I hear constantly people make reference to James and works but Catholics in here do not make as good an argument for a works-driven system as Protestant make their case clearly with faith alone. The Protestant system is coherent and logical and the Catholic position is murky from the way I read it in here. It’s a steady back and forth system of receiving grace in confession, committing mortal sin makes the justification disappear in which you have to return to confession to get it back and sanctification must take place to give you final justification. If you’re not “there” yet you go to purgatory and steadily purge away your vestiges of sin and imperfection until you finally get justified and glorified in a theosis with God. Where do we see this in Scripture? Paul’s imputation-style language seems more in line with the NT and the New Covenant.
F
fbl9
Guest
gurneyhalleck1. the faithful Jews of old where saved but heaven was not open to them yet.
Those faithful Jews also kept the “law” in faithfulness.
After Christ the Jewish religion was fulfiled by Christ and was no longer useful any more.
St.Paul was speaking of the rituals and other observates of the Jewish religion.
Those faithful Jews also kept the “law” in faithfulness.
After Christ the Jewish religion was fulfiled by Christ and was no longer useful any more.
St.Paul was speaking of the rituals and other observates of the Jewish religion.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well of course Paul was talking about Judaism, yes. But the Law is the Law. We either work under the principle of earning merit by our actions, doing good works, or we live by faith. The Pharisees thought they could, by observing rituals, fasts, feasts, and keeping the rules, earn their favor with God. The Catholics seem to be saying, “I go to Mass and never miss a holy day of obligation. I fast at lent, fast before communion, use NFP, refuse to enter the house of people who cohabitate, go to confession, go to adoration, was married in the Church, made a pilgrimage to a shrine, adored a relic, did some indulgences, now I’m doing these good works pleasing to God and will be saved by them.” What’s the difference between that approach and “I observe the Sabbath each week, don’t eat pork and stay kosher, strain the gnat, ritually bathe, refuse to eat in the house of a gentile or touch one, I always sacrifice in the temple when I sin and make a sin offering, obey the rules, live by the Law of Moses, am pure ritually, and listen to the leaders. I am earning my way to salvation.” I see little difference.
Paul makes it clear in Philippians 3 that he lived that life of works and trying to earn his way and that life was “rubbish” to him; he turns to faith and operates under grace in his approach to God, not works.
So I don’t see how many works one much achieve to merit one’s way to the top. We hear Catholics argue that James was so in favor of works but that’s cloudy. How many works must we do? What’s the formula that we need for salvation? How many works before God is pleased? does this sound Pauline? It seems to put too much on us and not enough in simple faith in Christ’s salvific act already accomplished for us?
Paul makes it clear in Philippians 3 that he lived that life of works and trying to earn his way and that life was “rubbish” to him; he turns to faith and operates under grace in his approach to God, not works.
So I don’t see how many works one much achieve to merit one’s way to the top. We hear Catholics argue that James was so in favor of works but that’s cloudy. How many works must we do? What’s the formula that we need for salvation? How many works before God is pleased? does this sound Pauline? It seems to put too much on us and not enough in simple faith in Christ’s salvific act already accomplished for us?
P
Pug
Guest
“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” There is no, “oh, I have met the quota so I can stop following Jesus now and go follow Mammon/Satan/Molech/.” Rather, we have things like James 1:12 Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.
As St. Paul might say, let us press on toward the goal. (vague reference to Philippians)
If that doesn’t help clarify the trend in my thoughts, try Hebrews, For you need endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think this is the big quandary that our Reformed brethren have been unable to resolve. We still have a tendency toward sin, which they call “the flesh”, and my Latin brethren call “concupiscence”. I think what you are describing above is that when we go to confession and are forgiven, we are “restored” to right relationship with God (eternal penalty of the sins is set aside), but then we fall “70 X 7” into the same. This is where the grace of the sacrament of reconciliation is helpful. In participating in that sacrament, we are “healed”, as the Scriptures state in James. For some, this healing is full and final at the first moment of repentance. For others, especially with those intractible sins, the healing can be very gradual.
The tendency toward sin, in and of itself, is not sinful. And what we do with those temptations and thoughts is what matters.
Because baptism is completely efficacious. And you are right about the accounting language. It is just that the Apostles did not teach that He “doctors” the books. When he credits us, he actually fills the account.
I see your point. This is exactly why Catholicism teaches that we have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. There are some elements that are completed - for example, in baptism the eternal penalty of our sins is completely and truly taken away. The HS is daily at work in us, transforming us into His image and likeness, so that our inner righteousness grows every day that we walk by the Spirit, and not by the flesh.
Yes, it does seem to make more sense. Except that the scenario you give here is not always the case. Some people actually do achieve righteousness, and never return to the sins of the past. Personal holiness is possible, and expected.
The two are not contradictory. We are saved by grace, through faith, for the works that God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. We are judged by how well practiced the “obedience of faith”. Our ability to do this comes from that “alien righteousness”, and not of ourselves, lest anyone can boast.
Yes, they most certainly did. And it does seem that the people were not getting the message of grace as the Apostles taught it. One is either in a state of grace, or not. If one is not, then there are no amount of “good works” that will gain any reward. If one is, then every action we do as we walk by faith will perfect us to His service.
Works cannot be separated from the free grace of Christ because the grace that produces salvation also produces the works that evidence it. Saving faith is faith that works.
How can these works, created in and through us by grace, “earn” anything? They are the gift of God in and through us. They are our duty to Him who saved us by His blood.
I think you misunderstand the treasury of merit. No one qualifies for “merit” apart from grace.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I never meant to imply that there’s a point at which a Christian stops his following of Christ or stops doing good works. I simply am trying to say what is the formula? Calvinists would tell you that Paul is talking about perservering to the end in faith, not in doing works to prove anything or earn anything. If we make it about us and try to earn God’s mercy, we’ll fail every time because Paul says we are all sinners, “there is no one just, not one.” If we are under grace, joining grace to good works, how will this save us? In Galatians Paul reproves the Galatians for receiving justification through faith only to return to the merit system of earning one’s way to the top with good works, following the rules, ritual purity, jumping through hoops and earning merit badges. Paul tells us the Law was the “disciplinarian” that condemns, doesn’t save. “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian. For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.” Now of course Paul is referring to the Law of Moses, the Jewish Law. But in reality the problem I have in Catholic theology is that the penitent is living under a system of works. On CAF day in day out James 2 is quoted and referenced over and over and Romans is only mentioned by Protestants. There’s such an emphasis on works and an enthusiasm about it. But Paul tells us we are saved through faith. Many Protestants surmise from the Greek that James is talking about temporal salvation. It’s an interesting theory at least. But what I see in Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and even in James is the fact that to break the least of the Law is to break all of the Law. Jesus tells us to fantasize about adultery with a woman is akin to actually sleeping with her. both are adultery. With that established, how can we not live breaking the Law in perpetuity? We are all doomed if our salvation is contingent upon our works!
For by grace you have been saved through FAITH, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works so that no one may boast…" Ephesians 2:8-9 I fail to see how a merit/works-driven system can be defended after reading such statements by Paul?
For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it—James 2:10; that being said, I am doomed. I cannot be this perfect.
It seems that James is admonishing us to do good works because faith and works should be together. Is he saying God will judge us salvifically in eternity for our works or that evidence of our faith is manifested in the charity, love, and concern we have for others? I understand we must walk the walk but the formula for actual eternal salvation seems to be faith, period? And with Paul’s tent-maker imputation language it’s tough to argue for a works-based approach.
I say all this as a seeker. I truly want to understand and am open to the Catholic thinking on these issues. I’m open and love to hear all viewpoints. At this point I’m just not convicted of the catholic approach. I’m all ears to everyone, trust me!
For by grace you have been saved through FAITH, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works so that no one may boast…" Ephesians 2:8-9 I fail to see how a merit/works-driven system can be defended after reading such statements by Paul?
For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it—James 2:10; that being said, I am doomed. I cannot be this perfect.
It seems that James is admonishing us to do good works because faith and works should be together. Is he saying God will judge us salvifically in eternity for our works or that evidence of our faith is manifested in the charity, love, and concern we have for others? I understand we must walk the walk but the formula for actual eternal salvation seems to be faith, period? And with Paul’s tent-maker imputation language it’s tough to argue for a works-based approach.
I say all this as a seeker. I truly want to understand and am open to the Catholic thinking on these issues. I’m open and love to hear all viewpoints. At this point I’m just not convicted of the catholic approach. I’m all ears to everyone, trust me!
G
guanophore
Guest
Our faith is perfected by our works. A faith that does not express itself in the obedience to God’s commandments is not a saving faith.
This is quite true. That is why “how many good works” is a useless question. The issue has to do with the Source of the works. Do they emanate from His grace at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure, or are they works of our flesh?
By the state of our heart when we are doing the works. Are we doing them for selfish gain, or are we doing them out of our love and devotion to Him?
This is impossible for any Catholic here to answer, since Catholicism does not teach a merit system.
I should hope not! The Apostles did not teach a “works driven system”, so if a Catholic were to make an arguement for it, they would have demonstrated themselves to have fallen into the heresy of Pelagianism.
I suppose it might seem that way if a person really had no faith or personal experience of actually becoming transformed by grace. Jesus wants to free us from sin, not have us run around a hampster exercise wheel!
I think the demonstration of purgatory from scripture is beyond the scope of the thread. However, I did read the scripture above from Corinthians where it states that all that is not holy is burned away from the saved person, so they can enter Heaven. Nothing unclean can enter heaven.
F
fhansen
Guest
The formula is that we are to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. This is the positive way of saying, “Thou Shall Not Sin”. And this love inherently includes its’ expressions-works of love-or it’s not the real thing. It also includes faith, as well as hope, and is in any case the full sanctification of man-that which makes him just. With love, there’s no quota for works-it simply expresses itself-it can’t help expressing itself.
In order to help us achieve this sanctification the Church has sacraments, vehicles of God grace, so to speak, one being Confession or the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The beauty of this sacrament is that it provides a means to confess our sins as scripture says we should and to know we’re forgiven and receive the grace to continue to fight our battle against sin. How truly contrite we are depends on us-but God knows the heart-we can be anywhere from genuinely sorrowful and willing to change to complete hypocrites with no desire to change at all.
In the end Gods purpose is to simply end up with the beings He created us to be in the first place. He does this by a process, by writing His Law-the Law of love-on our hearts and in our minds, not without our cooperation, fulfilling the New Covenant promises of Jer 31.
The alternative is that He created man, giving him a nature which necessarily included laws, laws He knew man couldn’t fulfill, then blamed him for not fulfilling them, then later on decided to not only forgive man for not fulfilling them but to no longer expect him to fulfill them!
It’s like saying, “Your sins are forgiven, go, and keep sinning, I’ve abolished the Law in spite of what my Son told you-your faith is sufficient”. What a capricious and anti-logical God that would be. Sinners don’t enter heaven, according to scripture. How could they?- sin and heaven are mutually exclusive, for the same reason that sin and grace and sin and love are mutually exclusive. Sin is the rejection of Gods will, after all.
In Protestant theology, generally speaking, man needs Gods grace in order to have faith in Him; and this faith alone saves him. In Catholic theology faith is only one part of the solution-the beginning part. Man needs Gods grace in order that he may fulfill the commandments, so he may be perfect as the Father is perfect, as Jesus tells us we must in the Sermon on the Mount. For what possible reason would God want anything less for us?
P
Pug
Guest
There is a lot of meat in your post, so if I miss a part you want an answer to, just ask it again!
Yes, the quotes I gave in my last post might be said to be about faith, but it depends on what all you encompass with the word. Notice my quotes contained things about loving God and doing his will and denying yourself. Oftentimes, Catholic polemics are directed at those who say (or perhaps at those who the Catholic is confused into thinking is saying) that having a faith of the lips only, absent having your heart transformed by love of God and that truly cries, “Abba! Father!” still saves. Some of those enthusiastic James quotes result from this.
Did you see, Catholics can quote Romans! Look at the context of the Abba, Father quote. It is Romans 8. …for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live… We are joint heirs with Christ, if in fact we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.
Even with grace, the Church says we can’t avoid all venial sin as we go through life. This could really be about two things for you (at least). You could be having trouble with our idea that a venial sin does not destroy charity/love from within our hearts, while a mortal sin does. You may be seeing all sins done while walking according to the Spirit as mortal. Or, it could be that you feel like we are saying the Christian is somehow abandoned after they are justified, and he has no help to keep on course. But God gives the Christian sufficient grace to stay on course. After he died for us, he is not going to abandon us! We will struggle as you say with things like “custody of the eyes”, but to struggle some is not the same as to break our friendship with God.
I’ve got to go to work, so let me know which it is, and I can write more.
Your question about a formula is difficult for a Catholic to understand, since we do not naturally view perseverance in following Christ with a formula. We do not persevere in the faith in order to prove or earn anything. We believe perseverance to the end is a grace. Yes, we cooperate with it, but it is a grace. It is called the “grace of final perseverance”. If a Catholic (any Christian) were to refuse to continue walking in Christ, that would be a problem. Maybe I am telling you a formula after all: fight the good fight, keep the faith, or work out your salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Yes, the quotes I gave in my last post might be said to be about faith, but it depends on what all you encompass with the word. Notice my quotes contained things about loving God and doing his will and denying yourself. Oftentimes, Catholic polemics are directed at those who say (or perhaps at those who the Catholic is confused into thinking is saying) that having a faith of the lips only, absent having your heart transformed by love of God and that truly cries, “Abba! Father!” still saves. Some of those enthusiastic James quotes result from this.
Did you see, Catholics can quote Romans!
Look at the context of the Abba, Father quote. It is Romans 8. …for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live… We are joint heirs with Christ, if in fact we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.We cannont earn God’s mercy. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Catholics agree with this point.
It is true we cannot keep every point of the law, and from the perspective of the Law, you have to keep it all, every detail, or you have transgressed. We are under the law of liberty, though, not the Law. James 1:25 But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act – they will be blessed in their doing. The requirements of the law have been fulfilled for us by Christ. We are fine if we walk according to the Spirit.
Even with grace, the Church says we can’t avoid all venial sin as we go through life. This could really be about two things for you (at least). You could be having trouble with our idea that a venial sin does not destroy charity/love from within our hearts, while a mortal sin does. You may be seeing all sins done while walking according to the Spirit as mortal. Or, it could be that you feel like we are saying the Christian is somehow abandoned after they are justified, and he has no help to keep on course. But God gives the Christian sufficient grace to stay on course. After he died for us, he is not going to abandon us! We will struggle as you say with things like “custody of the eyes”, but to struggle some is not the same as to break our friendship with God.
I’ve got to go to work, so let me know which it is, and I can write more.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
But if we are dependent on sanctification for final justification, how many people do you meet in your life, Catholic or Protestant, who seem sanctified and holy, pure, and truly showing the fullness of the grace God has given them? Precious few. Paul and James tell us to break the least of the Law is to break all of it. If we are to look at things from a “walk the walk” and “prove it!” standpoint, how many people will God find favor with? Protestants are not of the mindset that God doesn’t expect them to behave, cooperate in grace, and live the moral life. I think we all know that; but where they differ is the belief that the eternal consequences of sin, the salvation we get from God is not through our own works but through faith and grace alone. Sanctification follows and the real Christian naturally cooperates and lives a moral life to the best of his ability, but not to earn his way to heaven lest anyone should boast but rather because it’s a mature and loving relationship. Take marriage for example. I don’t do nice things for my wife just because if I don’t she’ll get angry with me; I do it because I love her. I do nice things for my boss out of respect and thanks and duty not because I’ll earn points with her. So I don’t think Protestants feel they can live the moral-free life. That’s about as fair to say as the common anti-Catholic sentiment that “hey, you Catholics think you can go out and cheat on your spouse then just go to confession and wash it away, huh?” or “hey, Catholic mafia go blow somebody away then just go to confession, right?” I think both sides are sincere in their love of God, just view salvation differently.
If salvation is dependent on our works, since NO ONE is pleasing to God Paul tells us in Romans and all are sinners and the wages of sin is death, we will all die based on our works and “cooperation” with God. If I walk out of the confessional after confessing I looked at pornography, then I look at a woman lustfully on the street I am already in sin. Jesus says to dream of adultery in the heart or lust in the mind is the same as doing it. So I’m right back. The minute I leave the confessional I’m still a sinner and fall short of God’s glory.
I just don’t see evidence of infusion of grace in the Catholics I know or the Orthodox for that matter. Nobody is pleasing to God enough to merit anything. God does expect our cooperation but in the order of faith. I just can’t see how the judgment of God works out with our works being part of the measuring stick. Paul lived under that merit, law-based, works system and in Philippians calls it rubbish?
If salvation is dependent on our works, since NO ONE is pleasing to God Paul tells us in Romans and all are sinners and the wages of sin is death, we will all die based on our works and “cooperation” with God. If I walk out of the confessional after confessing I looked at pornography, then I look at a woman lustfully on the street I am already in sin. Jesus says to dream of adultery in the heart or lust in the mind is the same as doing it. So I’m right back. The minute I leave the confessional I’m still a sinner and fall short of God’s glory.
I just don’t see evidence of infusion of grace in the Catholics I know or the Orthodox for that matter. Nobody is pleasing to God enough to merit anything. God does expect our cooperation but in the order of faith. I just can’t see how the judgment of God works out with our works being part of the measuring stick. Paul lived under that merit, law-based, works system and in Philippians calls it rubbish?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Fhanson and Pug, thanks so much for your awesome replies so far!
gurney
gurney
T
traillius
Guest
Sola fide leads only to the place of no accountability. I don’t like that place, for me or anyone else. You want to live there, its your choice. I don’t want to be where you don’t need to do something. Sounds insufficient to me. But enjoy. Its like saying, you need to have cake to have a birthday party, but if you add ice cream to the cake, its no longer a birthday party. Understandable, but wrong.
I
ignatius777
Guest
I have tried on a number of occasions to engage protestants about the differences between whats “necessary” for salvation and whats “sufficient” for salvation but they seem to drop away from that discussion rather quickly.
- Status