Faith Alone Is Enough to Save us?? Nu-Uh!...

[SSTeacher]

i would like to know who out there believes this?? and why? i would like somebody to explain why people think this?? thx! =]

have a good one!

p.s. “14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” James 2:14-17

Hi Brooke,

In the year 2000, I cast aside my deism and stepped tentatively into Evangelical Christianity whereupon I was introduced to the idea that Evangelical Christianity was completely different from religion of any kind. Religion, so I learned, is doing things for God whereas Evangelical Christianity is the celebration of what God has done for us. From this premise flows the idea that salvation necessarily must be assured once one believes because it is God and God alone who does the saving and God cannot fail. God gives the individual the gift of faith and the individual accepts that divine gift. The gift of God is not the dead faith Saint James discusses, which is nothing more than lip service; rather the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. The gift of God is saving faith or justifying faith i.e. a vibrant living faith that wells up and bursts out of a person in acts of agape love – and, according to the Bible, love never fails.

I daresay informed Catholics find such a view simplistic and even presumptuous and there is no good reason why they should not say so but I would contend that once one appreciates that other people may, by the grace of God, have been allowed to develop different presuppositions from oneself it ought to become easier to understand why people think along such different lines at which point I would hope to see the snide remarks and self–congratulation dissipate. The different presuppositions held by Catholics and Evangelicals doubtless account for the way Catholics and Evangelicals regularly talk past each other whenever this subject is adduced – not an uncommon occurrence on this forum.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[promethius]

Venia is “pardon”; the Latin for “grace” is gratia. Salvation solà gratià - or gratià solà, which brings out the emphasis better perhaps - is much more explicit than what has just been mentioned: for how could there be salvation without pardon ? These are different aspects of the economy of salvation through Christ, & must not be confused or diluted or identified. Any more than grace, pardon or faith should be.​

Thank you, most informative

Insistence that faith is alone, has the advantage of ruling out any recourse to a doctrine of salvation through or by good works or by any kind of merit.​

I entirely disagree. The bible clearly defines that we are saved by GRACE alone for a reason, because it isn’t from faith – which is a characteristic of the self. Grace flows from God, it is something external to ourselves. Grace is salvation that we can do nothing to attain.

Good works before justification are absolutely worthless as a foundation for justification - good works after justification, are valueless for justification, because there is no justification to be earned; it can come only as a totally free gift of God, & has been given already: otherwise the justified sinner would not be a Christian at all, but only a sinner outside Christ.

This is what the catholic church has taught for 1,976 years. Welcome to the flock

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

“Nuh-uh” is immaturity. Ebonics is a dialect. One is not a “next step” from the other.

Please tell me you’re joking, not serious…LOL

 

[JonNC]

Your church already conceded that justification by faith alone is a legitimate biblical teaching. Go read the Joint Declaration on Justification between the Vatican and the Lutherans.

One of the great things about the JDDJ, in my opinion, is that it was written and intended as a document of agreement and convergence of belief, not a concession or capitulation by one side or the other. As far as it goes, the JDDJ says that while over the centuries we have expressed things differently, we now together recognize a common faith and understanding.

Catholics will never say “faith alone”, and Lutherans will never say “faith and works”. But together we can say: “By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

The document is certainly not a tool with which to challenge one side or the other.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

As noted in the joint declaration on justification, Catholics and the bulk of protestants actually agree that it is by God’s Grace that we are saved, as we are unworthy in and of ourselves of meriting salvation (either by faith or by works, they are not enough). **Rather faith is the conduit by which Grace enters our lives, and holy lifestyle is the means by which we grow our faith into a strong living body./**QUOTE]

I like this analogy. I think this is something most Catholics and Lutherans (and others) can agree on.

Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer ]
Insistence that faith is alone, has the advantage of ruling out any recourse to a doctrine of salvation through or by good works or by any kind of merit.

 

[Eleve]

Please tell me you’re joking, not serious…LOL

Actually, I’m all too afraid that you’re serious. Do you really think that failure to mature into one language standard is comparable to acquisition of a different language standard? Do you really think that one language standard can be superior to another? By what measure? Its origin among white people?

 

[JonNC]

Actually, I’m all too afraid that you’re serious. Do you really think that failure to mature into one language standard is comparable to acquisition of a different language standard? Do you really think that one language standard can be superior to another? By what measure? Its origin among white people?

Off topic. And the last sentence is, at best, inflammatory.

And yes, one language standard can be superior to another, if one of the two limits the ability of the user to develop their full, educational, economic, and social potential because it limits their ability to access the opportunities of the singular culture at-large.
As a teacher, I spend a good amount of time helping youngsters differentiate between casual language (slang or dialect) from formal language required to be successful. To allow people to believe that their language standard, be it southern mountain or Ebonics, is effectively equal to standard English usage and pronunciation can result in a dangerous disability.

Jon

 

[promethius]

Actually, I’m all too afraid that you’re serious. Do you really think that failure to mature into one language standard is comparable to acquisition of a different language standard? Do you really think that one language standard can be superior to another? By what measure? Its origin among white people?

No need to turn that into a race debate. Perhaps the original post on nuh-uh vs. di-int was simply an error of someone’s lack of knowledge of what words actually constitute ebonics. That doesn’t make someone a racist. I don’t know whether or not certain words are in the farsi language. That doesn’t make me racist against persians.

I would think that if you really wanted a clarification that christian charity would call that you give the benefit of the doubt and ask for one rather than going on attack mode and then instantly throwing out the accusation that someone is racist. Now instead of an opportunity to show someone something and perhaps help them to grow in understanding, you’ve only built up a wall by which that person doesn’t want to listen to you, and you did it by aggressively attacking rather than responding in charity.

 

[Brooke]

Sola Venia is latin for (if I did my translation correctly) “Grace Alone.” As noted in the joint declaration on justification, Catholics and the bulk of protestants actually agree that it is by God’s Grace that we are saved, as we are unworthy in and of ourselves of meriting salvation (either by faith or by works, they are not enough). Rather faith is the conduit by which Grace enters our lives, and holy lifestyle is the means by which we grow our faith into a strong living body.

oooo, i see now… yes i believe that it is God’s grace that will save us. but i dont believe that is enough either… Faith is of course necessary, and works. that is why we have the 10 commandments… yeah?

 

[Brooke]

Any thread that contains the colloquialism “nuh-uh!” scares me already! lol

What’s next? “You believe in sola scriptura! Oh no you dih-ihnt!”

or

“Sanctification leads to justification, true dat, true dat!”

lol so what is your opinion on this??

 

[Brooke]

Actually, I’m all too afraid that you’re serious. Do you really think that failure to mature into one language standard is comparable to acquisition of a different language standard? Do you really think that one language standard can be superior to another? By what measure? Its origin among white people?

That is just wrong… I seriously did not believe the way I wrote the title of my thread would bother most people.

To all out there: My sincere apologies for my ‘immature’ writing format.

 

[Brooke]

And I truly think this is what Luther and the Lutheran reformers were concerned with. I think they were, at least in part, reacting (say over-reacting if you wish) to practices of their time that appeared to be works salvation. The Church may not have sanctioned it, but it was there nonetheless.
It isn’t there anymore, and we need to build on efforts like the JDDJ to continue to bring us together.

Jon

Ok, so maybe they were concerned with it… but did that really mean they had to leave the Church?

Romans16:17-18 “17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.”

John 8:46-47 " 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

The Church was guided by the apostles anyway, right?

John 20:19-23 "19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1 corinthians 1:10 “10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

Acts 1:7-8 "7He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

 

[Eleve]

No need to turn that into a race debate. Perhaps the original post on nuh-uh vs. di-int was simply an error of someone’s lack of knowledge of what words actually constitute ebonics. That doesn’t make someone a racist. I don’t know whether or not certain words are in the farsi language. That doesn’t make me racist against persians.

True enough, but after I pointed out that this is the case I was dismissed as joking or crazy. After that, I admittedly got more aggressive than I should have, but I stand by my belief that it’s wrong and harmful to treat Ebonics as “worse” than other colloquialisms.

And yes, one language standard can be superior to another, if one of the two limits the ability of the user to develop their full, educational, economic, and social potential because it limits their ability to access the opportunities of the singular culture at-large.
As a teacher, I spend a good amount of time helping youngsters differentiate between casual language (slang or dialect) from formal language required to be successful. To allow people to believe that their language standard, be it southern mountain or Ebonics, is effectively equal to standard English usage and pronunciation can result in a dangerous disability.

Standard written English is obviously circumstantially, pragmatically superior because it interfaces with business culture (I don’t know what you mean by “singular” culture, as there is obviously more than one). The vibe I got from Gurney’s post, though, was that Ebonics is uncircumstantially inferior to other forms of English — and not just standard English, but colloquialisms. That I will absolutely criticize.

My intent wasn’t to attack Gurney personally, but to criticize a particular statement that I think is harmful. I went over the top with some of the inflammatory rhetoric that Jon caught on to. For that, I apologize.

Brooke, I wasn’t personally bothered by the “nuh-uh,” and I don’t think that you’re immature; in fact, I’m impressed that you have Scripture at the ready to defend your beliefs. I was trying to connect with what Gurney was saying, but I think I ended up twisting it to the point where I expressed something that neither of us meant to say. For that, I apologize.

Lastly, Jon is quite correct in noting that I’ve taken this thread off-topic, and that’s something that’s annoyed me quite a bit in other threads. So, for a third, time, I apologize, and I’d like to either drop or move elsewhere conversation relating to race and language. But, if I’ve upset you unduly and failed to make amends, please feel welcome to PM me.

 

[Brooke]

One of the great things about the JDDJ, in my opinion, is that it was written and intended as a document of agreement and convergence of belief, not a concession or capitulation by one side or the other. As far as it goes, the JDDJ says that while over the centuries we have expressed things differently, we now together recognize a common faith and understanding.

Catholics will never say “faith alone”, and Lutherans will never say “faith and works”. But together we can say: “By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

The document is certainly not a tool with which to challenge one side or the other.

Jon

Acts 5:29-32 "29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Acts 15:6-8 "6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. "

Acts 15:22-28 "22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: "

the apostles had the power… they together decided… right?

and they say in the letter that others went and preached without their consent which was not right… that is the purpose of the letter.

 

[promethius]

oooo, i see now… yes i believe that it is God’s grace that will save us. but i dont believe that is enough either… Faith is of course necessary, and works. that is why we have the 10 commandments… yeah?

I would not say that that is the correct verbage. We are saved 100% by grace because sin is something we cannot overcome. Nothing we can do or have of our own accord is able to save us.

However, faith is the vessel through which Grace flows into our lives, and works is kind of like the fertilizer that helps to grow our faith, in turn opening us to receive God’s grace.

 

[Eleve]

Ok, so maybe they were concerned with it… but did that really mean they had to leave the Church?

Luther was excommunicated by Church authorities and outlawed by civil authorities, so he did have to in the sense that he was given no choice.

 

[promethius]

Luther was excommunicated by Church authorities and outlawed by civil authorities, so he did have to in the sense that he was given no choice.

yeah, you kinda got us on that one uch:

we’re just talking about pope leo X in the apologetics forum, and it’s pretty well recognized that if we could have had a different pope leading through the reformation, it might not have gone as it did. Not to say that he taught fallable things, he didn’t, but he certainly wasn’t the leader the church needed at the time.

 

[Brooke]

Luther was excommunicated by Church authorities and outlawed by civil authorities, so he did have to in the sense that he was given no choice.

The Church appointed by Jesus to the disciples has the right to forgive or not to forgive sins to man. so the Church had the power to excommunicate him. but the reason they did so was mainly because he had already said his plan: to get married and continue as bishop , which was not allowed…

what else could have the Church done??

and because of this, luther left the Church. but you must admit? he did this because of what HE wanted… not what was right… and when he became ordained, he made the promise that he would live only for God… once married your not 100% devoted to him… ?

Romans 16:17-18 “17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.”

 

[Eleve]

The Church appointed by Jesus to the disciples has the right to forgive or not to forgive sins to man. so the Church had the power to excommunicate him. but the reason they did so was mainly because he had already said his plan: to get married and continue as bishop , which was not allowed…

what else could have the Church done??

I’m not saying that the Church was right or wrong; I’m saying that the Church and Emperor took matters out of his hands.

and because of this, luther left the Church. but you must admit? he did this because of what HE wanted… not what was right…

I’m not a Christian, so I don’t have moral opinions on ecclesial matters. On the other hand, I think Lutherans would say that what he wanted was right.

and when he became ordained, he made the promise that he would live only for God… once married your not 100% devoted to him… ?

Catholics consider marriage to be a Sacrament, which to me indicates that it is not contrary to devotion to God. Consider that there are married Catholic clergy in the Eastern churches.

How much do you have to give up to be 100% devoted to God, anyway? If you watch television and drink other than bread and water (or the Body and Blood, perhaps), does this indicate a deficiency of devotion? In reality, I think that no person other than a martyr is totally devoted to God, and in this life I don’t think that anyone is called to be.

 

[Brooke]

Catholics consider marriage to be a Sacrament, which to me indicates that it is not contrary to devotion to God. Consider that there are married Catholic clergy in the Eastern churches.

Yes this is true. and i do not understand why this has happened yet. i believe in the eastern churches they took a vote and decided it would be ok. yet, when luther left the Church because of the marriage sacrament, nobody had voted that this was ok… therefore so many people were against it. and i think he should have just gotten married but not continued to be priest…

How much do you have to give up to be 100% devoted to God, anyway? If you watch television and drink other than bread and water (or the Body and Blood, perhaps), does this indicate a deficiency of devotion? In reality, I think that no person other than a martyr is totally devoted to God, and in this life I don’t think that anyone is called to be.

yeah, none of us may be 100% devoted… yet, he had made a promise to try his best to follow the word of God. And promised to remain celibate… and when you promise something to God, you are supposed to keep that promise. no?