Faith Alone Obliterated (article)

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is an apologetics article which can be said to obliterate the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/faith-alone-obliterated.html

Thoughts?

 

[MariaG]

Here is an apologetics article which can be said to obliterate the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/faith-alone-obliterated.html

Thoughts?

Thanks.

 

[toaslan]

read it, it’s good. Thanks.

 

[NonNobisDomine]

Poorly written and hardly obliterated

 

[duffyk4]

Poorly written and hardly obliterated

Care to elaborate?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Poorly written and hardly obliterated

As duffy said: Please elaborate, regardless of how ‘harsh’ (though keep things balanced as well).

 

[Pwrlftr]

Here is an apologetics article which can be said to obliterate the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/faith-alone-obliterated.html

Thoughts?

I think it may be a bit presumptious to assume you obliterated “sola fide” in a few paragraphs but thought it was a pretty good article.

I do disagree that Paul is only referring to the Mosaic law when he is talking about “the law” or “works of the law”. For more information on this you can research this at Robert Sunngenis’ website www.catholicintl.com.

 

[Murphs10]

I think it may be a bit presumptious to assume you obliterated “sola fide” in a few paragraphs but thought it was a pretty good article.

St. James does it in one verse. However, it would be presumptious to assume to be able to correct the misreading of Paul and the life of Abraham in a few paragraphs, but I think the article does a good job.

 

[Pwrlftr]

St. James does it in one verse. However, it would be presumptious to assume to be able to correct the misreading of Paul and the life of Abraham in a few paragraphs, but I think the article does a good job.

I agree. I think it was a pretty good article, probably much better than I could put together.

 

[Pax]

Thanks Nick,

I always pick up something good to chew on from your work.

God bless.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I do disagree that Paul is only referring to the Mosaic law when he is talking about “the law” or “works of the law”. For more information on this you can research this at Robert Sunngenis’ website www.catholicintl.com.

Is there a specific article there you have in mind at Sungenis’ site?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I think it may be a bit presumptious to assume you obliterated “sola fide” in a few paragraphs but thought it was a pretty good article.

I do disagree that Paul is only referring to the Mosaic law when he is talking about “the law” or “works of the law”. For more information on this you can research this at Robert Sunngenis’ website www.catholicintl.com.

The title was more for attention grabbing rather than to be an indication that the article covers the entire doctrine in all its facets. As for Sungenis’ work on this, nothing the article says is significantly at odds with what Sungenis would claim. Sungenis really only objects to the reading that “Works of the Law” are ceremonial works (e.g. circumcision) only and not rather the whole Law (i.e. including moral actions). But the article doesn’t limit ‘works of the law’ to only ceremonial works.

 

[CThomas]

Catholic Dude, I think what rankles the non-Catholic a bit about it is the combination of the extremely, um, provocative title (would you be so ready to dismiss such a title as innocuously “attention grabbing” if it had claimed to “demolish” or “destroy” Catholicism?) coupled with an extremely run-of-the-mill articulation of an argument we’ve all seen lots of times before. Not to say that there aren’t interesting things to say on both sides of that important debate, but I’m not sure anything in that piece contributes anything novel or unusual, or even expresses old points in a particularly interesting or powerful way, in making a point that has been part of the debate going on for many centuries now.

Always good to see folks thinking about these vital questions, however.

Best regards,

CThomas

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic Dude, I think what rankles the non-Catholic a bit about it is the combination of the extremely, um, provocative title (would you be so ready to dismiss such a title as innocuously “attention grabbing” if it had claimed to “demolish” or “destroy” Catholicism?) coupled with an extremely run-of-the-mill articulation of an argument we’ve all seen lots of times before. Not to say that there aren’t interesting things to say on both sides of that important debate, but I’m not sure anything in that piece contributes anything novel or unusual, or even expresses old points in a particularly interesting or powerful way, in making a point that has been part of the debate going on for many centuries now.

Always good to see folks thinking about these vital questions, however.

Best regards,

CThomas

Hi CThomas,

The article covers an issue that Sola Fide rests upon, even though much more could be said (i.e. it wasn’t exhaustive). It’s attention grabbing but it’s also factual in a true sense.

I’ve been studying this issue in depth for a few years now, especially from Protestant sources, so when I write on it I say things that get to the heart of the dispute. Also, a lot of what I say is not “run-of-the-mill” in that I consider them pretty solid arguments. I think we’re living in an age where good arguments are making breakthroughs as people are finding out the old arguments either weren’t solid enough or weren’t as available to as wide an audience.

I’m always open for people to take on what I’ve said and refute what they think are bad arguments or even errors. In this case, the goal of the Protestant would be to show “works in general” are what Paul was going after (especially in places like Romans 4:4f), yet I’ve shown that simply is faulty logic.