Faith alone or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
moondweller said:
There’s no evidence at all that I’ve lost faith in Christ. ALL my posts state to the contrary. OTOH…
Click to expand...
Moon,

Re-read John 20:21-23. They are the plain, literal words of Jesus. You have denied these words. You have denied Him.

Or are we to take these words of Jesus in a way that is different from the literal sense?

Please guide us, in your own fallible way, the way these words should be interpreted?
 
Tomster said:
Moon,

Care to talk it over with Calvin first before you respond? You know, get his oral tradition then the two of you can compare notes and come to some agreement.
Click to expand...
We have no differences when it comes to salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.
 
Tomster said:
Did the apostle Paul teach justification by faith alone? For those who propose that he did, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywher in his New Testament writings? A thorough study of his epistles reveals that Paul used the word faith and its cognates over two hundred times in the New Testament, but not once did he couple them with the adjectival qualifiers alone or only. Are we to believe that though he intended to teach justification by faith alone, he was never convinced that he should emply the attributes of the word alone to express explicitly what he invariably meant? What would have curtailed him from such an important qualification if indeed the solitude of faith in regard to justification was on the forefront of his mind?

A second reason that leads me to pose this critical question is that Paul used the word alone more frequently than did any other New Testament writer. Many of these instances appear right alongside the very contexts that contain teachings on faith and justification. Thus it is obvious that even while Paul was teaching about the nature of justification he was keenly aware of the word alone and its qualifying properties. This would lead us to expect that if Paul, who is usually very direct and candid in his epistles, wanted to teach umambiguously and unequivocally that man was justified by faith alone, he would be compelled to use the phrase if he thought it would help make his point indisputable. Moreover, since Paul’s writings were inspired, we must also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit likewise knew of the inherent qualifying properties of the word alone but had specific reasons for prohibiting Paul from using it in connection with faith.

Thirdly, although the Holy Spirit prohibited Paul from using the phrase faith alone, He intentionally allowed James to make a clear and forceful point to the contrary by inspiring him with the words "man is justified by works and NOT faith alone: (James 2:24). This unambiguous negation comes at the precise point in the epistle where James questions whether faith, by itself, is sufficient for justification. Comparing Paul and James leads us to believe that Paul avoids using the phrase faith alone becayse: (1) Paul’s use of the word faith is pregnant with theological meaning and implications that absolutely preclude it from being coupled with the word alone; and (2) it would have created an obvious and acute contradiction in holy writ for one author to say, “a man is justified by faith alone,” while another is saying the exact opposite, namely, "man is not justified by faith alone.

With these facts from Scripture in the background, we submit that the burden of proof rests upon those who insist that the doctrine of justification be taught by using language that Scripture itself does not use. Although Protestantism proposes that the qualifying language “justified by faith alone” is appropriate to use because of the specific nature of justification, it is painfully obvious that, irrespective of what the true understanding of justification should be, Scripture intentionally chooses not to use such language. Precedence should be given to this undeniable fact when attempts are made to resolve this controversy. Since Scripture deliberately uses the converse phrase (“not by faith alone”) when the issue of the solitude of faith is interrogated, it apparently realizes and concludes that the expression “justified by faith alone” is not the correct way to teach the masses how man is justified before God. We are forced to reflect on this issue more seriously when we realize Scripture’s own insistence that its words are chosen very carefully, and that it makes such choices precisely because it “foresees” the impact and implication of its teaching. Moreover, Scripture teaches that Paul " . . . wrote to you with the wisdom given to him . . ." (2 Peter 3:16). We propose that it was this God-given “wisdom” which prevented him from joining the word Alone with faith, wisdom that is as good for us as it was for him.

Suggested reading for you: The Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Prodigal Son.
Click to expand...
Moon,

Read the whole post and respond. Selective reading is what gets you into trouble time and time again.

Read it all.

NOW!
 
ignatius777 said:
You can stop at the truth that Luther added to scripture which should be all you need to know about the father of the “reformation”. Instead of the reformation it should be called the heresy
Click to expand...
Exactly! 👍

Man-made oral traditions.
 
Tomster said:
Moon,

Re-read John 20:21-23. They are the plain, literal words of Jesus. You have denied these words. You have denied Him.

Or are we to take these words of Jesus in a way that is different from the literal sense?

Please guide us, in your own fallible way, the way these words should be interpreted?
Click to expand...
I have not denied those words, nor Him. You are quite arrogant to equate your words with His. and Him with you. That’s blasphemy and heresy.
 
moondweller said:
I’ve read both “The Sermon on the Mount,” and “The Prodigal Son” (which I’d rather call “The Gracious Father.”
Click to expand...
Please give us your fallible exegesis regarding what happened to the younger son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.
 
Tomster said:
Did the apostle Paul teach justification by faith alone? For those who propose that he did, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywher in his New Testament writings? A thorough study of his epistles reveals that Paul used the word faith and its cognates over two hundred times in the New Testament, but not once did he couple them with the adjectival qualifiers alone or only. Are we to believe that though he intended to teach justification by faith alone, he was never convinced that he should emply the attributes of the word alone to express explicitly what he invariably meant? What would have curtailed him from such an important qualification if indeed the solitude of faith in regard to justification was on the forefront of his mind?

A second reason that leads me to pose this critical question is that Paul used the word alone more frequently than did any other New Testament writer. Many of these instances appear right alongside the very contexts that contain teachings on faith and justification. Thus it is obvious that even while Paul was teaching about the nature of justification he was keenly aware of the word alone and its qualifying properties. This would lead us to expect that if Paul, who is usually very direct and candid in his epistles, wanted to teach umambiguously and unequivocally that man was justified by faith alone, he would be compelled to use the phrase if he thought it would help make his point indisputable. Moreover, since Paul’s writings were inspired, we must also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit likewise knew of the inherent qualifying properties of the word alone but had specific reasons for prohibiting Paul from using it in connection with faith.

Thirdly, although the Holy Spirit prohibited Paul from using the phrase faith alone, He intentionally allowed James to make a clear and forceful point to the contrary by inspiring him with the words "man is justified by works and NOT faith alone: (James 2:24). This unambiguous negation comes at the precise point in the epistle where James questions whether faith, by itself, is sufficient for justification. Comparing Paul and James leads us to believe that Paul avoids using the phrase faith alone becayse: (1) Paul’s use of the word faith is pregnant with theological meaning and implications that absolutely preclude it from being coupled with the word alone; and (2) it would have created an obvious and acute contradiction in holy writ for one author to say, “a man is justified by faith alone,” while another is saying the exact opposite, namely, "man is not justified by faith alone.

With these facts from Scripture in the background, we submit that the burden of proof rests upon those who insist that the doctrine of justification be taught by using language that Scripture itself does not use. Although Protestantism proposes that the qualifying language “justified by faith alone” is appropriate to use because of the specific nature of justification, it is painfully obvious that, irrespective of what the true understanding of justification should be, Scripture intentionally chooses not to use such language. Precedence should be given to this undeniable fact when attempts are made to resolve this controversy. Since Scripture deliberately uses the converse phrase (“not by faith alone”) when the issue of the solitude of faith is interrogated, it apparently realizes and concludes that the expression “justified by faith alone” is not the correct way to teach the masses how man is justified before God. We are forced to reflect on this issue more seriously when we realize Scripture’s own insistence that its words are chosen very carefully, and that it makes such choices precisely because it “foresees” the impact and implication of its teaching. Moreover, Scripture teaches that Paul " . . . wrote to you with the wisdom given to him . . ." (2 Peter 3:16). We propose that it was this God-given “wisdom” which prevented him from joining the word Alone with faith, wisdom that is as good for us as it was for him.

Suggested reading for you: The Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Prodigal Son.
Click to expand...
Moon,

Why did James say “man is justified by works and not by faith alone”?

Answer please Moon!

Now!
(Hint: the answer is in the post I provided for you. Read it!)
 
Tomster said:
Please give us your fallible exegesis regarding what happened to the younger son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.
Click to expand...
Hint: Living in his Father’s house this son had EVERYTHING that belonged to his Father. He threw his inheritance away and went out and lived a sinful life. He realized that he threw away his inheritance (salvation: life in his Father’s house) away, came home, confessed his sins to his Father and was forgiven and then salvation was restored to him. GET IT!

The prodigal son was saved, LOST IT THROUGH SERIOUS SIN, but was restored through the mercy of his Father.

duh!
 
Tomster said:
Hint: Living in his Father’s house this son had EVERYTHING that belonged to his Father. He threw his inheritance away and went out and lived a sinful life. He realized that he threw away his inheritance (salvation: life in his Father’s house) away, came home, confessed his sins to his Father and was forgiven and then salvation was restored to him. GET IT!

The prodigal son was saved, LOST IT THROUGH SERIOUS SIN, but was restored through the mercy of his Father.

duh!
Click to expand...
This parable drives protestants crazy since it clearly refutes sola fida
 
moondweller said:
I have not denied those words, nor Him. You are quite arrogant to equate your words with His. and Him with you. That’s blasphemy and heresy.
Click to expand...
Since you have now admitted that you have not denied His words I am glad that you have accepted the fact the Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins.

You are starting to come around Moon.

Now, the next question we all put forward to you is why do you think Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins? Obviously, Jesus thought it was important to do so. Could it be that serious sin can prevent us, in the final analysis, from being saved? Why did the Prodigal Son return to his Father’s house and ask for His forgiveness?
What did the Prodigal Son realize WAS WRONG WITH HIS STATUS WITH HIS FATHER?
 
ignatius777 said:
This parable drives protestants crazy since it clearly refutes sola fida
Click to expand...
Yes, it does drive them crazy.

And equally important so does the Sermon on the Mount. For in it, Jesus in His most wonderful way, gives us His blueprint for the way we are to travel in this valley of tears.
It is His most holy “to do” list.
 
moondweller said:
Quoted from 10 Martin Luther Myths:"6. Luther Added The Word Alone To Romans 3:28

This is frequently brought up by the zealous defenders of Rome. Luther is said to have been so careless and outrageous with his translation of the Bible, he simply added words to make the Bible say what he wanted it to. Luther gave a detailed explanation of why the passage has the meaning of alone,and this explanation has been available online for years. This charge also shows an ignorance of church history. Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out, “…[T]wo of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.” Fitzmyer lists the following: Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, Thomas Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine [Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361]."Are you going to call these men heretics, Mr. Ignatius? Can you talk and type with your foot in your mouth?
Click to expand...
Sure, Luther gave a detaild explanation of why he added Alone. its here in German and english:bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

Have you read it? Do you find it compelling that he calls his Catholic ccritics “Asses” and asserts he knows better than all of them? Do you find it compelling when he admits to knowing that the word Alone isn’t in the original text but that the context demanded it?
And sure it was demanded by the Context, “IF” your point was to defend a new theology.
In his words:
But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (2) For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.

and:
let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry, like Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Snot-Nose, (4) and such like them, who set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. Truly a donkey does not have to sing much, because he is already known by his ears.

And I found the same Reformed Apologetics article you apparently used. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html It lists all those sources with one line quotes without describing the context of the discussion. Thus it must be when you are twisting the truth.
 
ignatius777 said:
From my reading of scripture a “dead” faith is one absent of works. Is that your understanding as well?

Can a person be saved with “dead” faith?
Click to expand...
Which makes me think of the type of faith the devils have.

In the Book of James we read that even the demons believe and shudder. Why does James add demons to the discussion?

In Hebrews 11:6, we discover, that faith has two basic components. First, one must believe that God exists. The demons have this component. However, they do not have the second component, that is, they do not aspire to God as “the rewarder of those who diligently seek him.” Diligently seeking God requires that they work to please Him - something the demons will not do.
 
Tomster said:
Which makes me think of the type of faith the devils have.

In the Book of James we read that even the demons believe and shudder. Why does James add demons to the discussion?

In Hebrews 11:6, we discover, that faith has two basic components. First, one must believe that God exists. The demons have this component. However, they do not have the second component, that is, they do not aspire to God as “the rewarder of those who diligently seek him.” Diligently seeking God requires that they work to please Him - something the demons will not do.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me…lets see what MD has to say. I wonder if I will get answers to my questions
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top