Faith alone or not?

[moondweller]

Moon,

Read the following paragraph closely. After doing so, would you agree with it? A simple yes or no would be sufficient.

“Man can be saved by faith alone. Our faith in Christ makes His merits our possession, envelopes us in the garb of righteousness, which our guilt and sinfullness hide, and supplies in abundance every defect of human righteousness. Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have a stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, that sin cannot tear you away from Him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”

First of all, let’s get the quote accurate. Luther was writing to his intimate friend Melanchthon who very well understood Luther’s style of preaching. Here’s the quote:"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world."Luther was prone to strong hyperbole, this quote being a good example of it. The reason you can’t grasp his hyperbole is because Luther is stressing GRACE, and you, being works oriented, cannot grasp Divine GRACE. Luther is not stressing sin, but God’s infinite GRACE through Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in His body (1 Pet. 2:24). Here’s another translation of his letter:13. "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner."Again, you see his strong use of hyperbole to make his point. Luther was not corrupt, it’s you who try to corrupt him. The sin is yours, not his. The point he was driving home, via hyperbole, was not not to go out and boldly commit multiple sins everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the reality of sin in our lives. Those very sins which Christ Himself bore 2000 years ago in His body on the cross, and through faith in Him the believer has complete and perfect forgiveness (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14).

Here’s what he said about FAITH:""Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.“And congruent with this statement he wrote:”"Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith."That is, a mere “said” faith like James wrote about in the second chapter of his Epistle (2;14).

So, do I believe Luther’s quote the way you’re trying to present it, the way you try to corrupt him. Your answer is “NO.” I would not corrupt him as you do. That sin is yours, not mine. Now go confess it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Luther was not corrupt, it’s you who try to corrupt him. The sin is yours, not his

Reformation History 1301

 

[ignatius777]

First of all, let’s get the quote accurate. Luther was writing to his intimate friend Melanchthon who very well understood Luther’s style of preaching. Here’s the quote:"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world."Luther was prone to strong hyperbole, this quote being a good example of it. The reason you can’t grasp his hyperbole is because Luther is stressing GRACE, and you, being works oriented, cannot grasp Divine GRACE. Luther is not stressing sin, but God’s infinite GRACE through Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in His body (1 Pet. 2:24). Here’s another translation of his letter:13. "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner."Again, you see his strong use of hyperbole to make his point. Luther was not corrupt, it’s you who try to corrupt him. The sin is yours, not his. The point he was driving home, via hyperbole, was not not to go out and boldly commit multiple sins everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the reality of sin in our lives. Those very sins which Christ Himself bore 2000 years ago in His body on the cross, and through faith in Him the believer has complete and perfect forgiveness (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14).

Here’s what he said about FAITH:""Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.“And congruent with this statement he wrote:”"Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith."That is, a mere “said” faith like James wrote about in the second chapter of his Epistle (2;14).

So, do I believe Luther’s quote the way you’re trying to present it, the way you try to corrupt him. Your answer is “NO.” I would not corrupt him as you do. That sin is yours, not mine. Now go confess it.

So you believe faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, correct?

You must if you believe faith without works is dead. And if faith is dead it cant possibly have the power save can it? So Faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. This fits PERFECTLY what James tells us that we are saved by works and not faith alone! Amen MD and welcome home!

 

[paul_c]

First of all, let’s get the quote accurate. Luther was writing to his intimate friend Melanchthon who very well understood Luther’s style of preaching. Here’s the quote:"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world."Luther was prone to strong hyperbole, this quote being a good example of it. The reason you can’t grasp his hyperbole is because Luther is stressing GRACE, and you, being works oriented, cannot grasp Divine GRACE. Luther is not stressing sin, but God’s infinite GRACE through Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in His body (1 Pet. 2:24). Here’s another translation of his letter:13. "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner."Again, you see his strong use of hyperbole to make his point. Luther was not corrupt, it’s you who try to corrupt him. The sin is yours, not his. The point he was driving home, via hyperbole, was not not to go out and boldly commit multiple sins everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the reality of sin in our lives. Those very sins which Christ Himself bore 2000 years ago in His body on the cross, and through faith in Him the believer has complete and perfect forgiveness (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14).

Here’s what he said about FAITH:""Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.“And congruent with this statement he wrote:”"Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith."That is, a mere “said” faith like James wrote about in the second chapter of his Epistle (2;14).

So, do I believe Luther’s quote the way you’re trying to present it, the way you try to corrupt him. Your answer is “NO.” I would not corrupt him as you do. That sin is yours, not mine. Now go confess it.

Luther was apparently a man of many contradictions. He was an advocate of sola scriptura, but did not hesitate to alter it. Adding “alone” to Corinthians and relegating 7 books of the old testament invalid as scripture. He also, famously called St. James Epistle the Epistle of Hay because he didn’t agree with it.

He was also an advocate of Sola Fide, yet as you can see from his quote above, he believed that Faith wasn’t meaningful if it wasn’t completed by works.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Have you really left us?

It’s my fault. Calvin hasn’t been a member very long but he (she?) has left two threads after I posted.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Reformation History 1301

Oy vey!!! :bigyikes:

 

[moondweller]

So you believe faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, correct?

Incorrect. Nor did Luther in those quotes. That’s why you shouldn’t be reading other people’s letters.

You must if you believe faith without works is dead. And if faith is dead it cant possibly have the power save can it? So Faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. This fits PERFECTLY what James tells us that we are saved by works and not faith alone! Amen MD and welcome home!

You fail to understand both Luther and James. Now why doesn’t that surprise me?

 

[ignatius777]

Incorrect. Nor did Luther in those quotes. That’s why you shouldn’t be reading other people’s letters.You fail to understand both Luther and James. Now why doesn’t that surprise me?

I notice you offer no alternative explanation of… we are saved by works and not faith alone. No offense but your good word that I am misunderstanding just doesnt really stand for much

Why dont you “enlighten” us how a DEAD faith, that is a faith without works, has the power to save while at the same time uttering a belief that works has no impact on our salvation. This should be intersting but I bet I dont ever get that explanation

 

[Cat_Herder]

Incorrect. Nor did Luther in those quotes. That’s why you shouldn’t be reading other people’s letters.

Then stop reading Paul’s letters.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 3:15-16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[ignatius777]

Luther was apparently a man of many contradictions. He was an advocate of sola scriptura, but did not hesitate to alter it. Adding “alone” to Corinthians and relegating 7 books of the old testament invalid as scripture. He also, famously called St. James Epistle the Epistle of Hay because he didn’t agree with it.

He was also an advocate of Sola Fide, yet as you can see from his quote above, he believed that Faith wasn’t meaningful if it wasn’t completed by works.

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

 

[moondweller]

I notice you offer no alternative explanation of… we are saved by works and not faith alone. No offense but your good word that I am misunderstanding just doesnt really stand for much

Go back and do a search for all my posts. You’ll see many, many posts of mine on this forum explaining James 2. It’s the most discussed Biblical chapter on this entire forum.

Why dont you “enlighten” us how a DEAD faith, that is a faith without works, has the power to save while at the same time uttering a belief that works has no impact on our salvation. This should be intersting but I bet I dont ever get that explanation

James is talking in the context of a mere “said” faith. Not a true faith (2:14). Works have no impact on one’s justification. But the faith through which God Himself justifies the “ungodly” (Rom. 4:5) will demonstrate works. Such as Abraham who believed in the Lord and He (the Lord) credited it (his belief in Him) TO HIM as righteousness (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:1-6). Which, btw, is the ONLY recorded place in the O.T. where God justified Abraham. And that was on the basis of faith ALONE. Even James had to quote that verse (Gen. 15:6). There is no other. Abraham was justified by God only ONCE. And that’s recorded in Gen. 15:6. And that was long before he was willing to offer up his son Isaac. Abraham’s faith matured (perfected), but he was justified only ONCE. And that through faith - ALONE.

 

[moondweller]

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

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?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Go back and do a search for all my posts. You’ll see many, many posts of mine on this forum explaining James 2. It’s the most discussed Biblical chapter on this entire forum.James is talking in the context of a mere “said” faith. Not a true faith (2:14). Works have no impact on one’s justification.

[BIBLEDRB]Gal 5:6[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 13:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Jn 14:15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 19:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 5:8[/BIBLEDRB]

If you say only those who believe are saved, I’ll let you figure out what it means to be worse than an unbeliever or infidel.

Abraham was justified by God only ONCE. And that’s recorded in Gen. 15:6. And that was long before he was willing to offer up his son Isaac. Abraham’s faith matured (perfected), but he was justified only ONCE. And that through faith - ALONE.

If your analogizing to Abraham proves anything, it proves too much.

Don’t you define “faith” as the absolute trust in Christ’s saving work on Calvary—which had not yet happened in Abraham’s time? If Abraham can be saved through faith, then why not any Jew? Or Muslim? Or Deist?

Whatever happened to all salvation being through Christ Jesus and Him alone?

 

[Pax]

What is the way Jesus said you will recognize a Christian or a false prophet? Hint: fruits. Can Jesus recognize a believer and a non-believer without ever seeing a single fruit? Yep. Can man w/out seeing the fruit? No. Then what is James contexually talking about when he says Abraham was justified by works; was he speaking in the context of “before God or before men?” Think about the context of visable fruits; God des not justify on the basis of works and that is what Paul said explicitly, which is why you cannot reconcile the two when you use you reasoning of the context that the works of Abraham were proof before God in the context of James. Wannan play connect the dots

Calvin 95 in Christ,

Yes…I think I do want to play “connect the dots” and I plan to do that for your benefit in this post.

Please be advised that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that James is somehow talking about justification “before men.” James never says any such thing and the context of Abraham actually provides a scriptural refutation for that view. The idea of “justification before men” is nothing more than a fiction promulgated by those that argue justification/salvation by faith alone.

Please be advised that a reading of Genesis 22 utterly destroys the conflation to which you cling. In the narrative Abraham takes Isaac and some of Abraham’s young men, presumably servants to the land of Moriah to follow the Lord’s instructions to sacrifice Isaac. Your theory falls apart when we reach Genesis 22:4-5 where it says:

On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. **Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the *; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.”

Please note that these young men did not know what Abraham was going to do, and that they were not present, nor did they witness Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac, or the angel’s call that prevented Abraham from sacrificing Isaac. None of this was witnessed by men. Abraham was justified before God and not before men.

I always find it amusing when presented with the “justification before men” argument. It is such a blatant example of eisegesis which the actual scripture clearly denies and refutes. Unfortunately, you were taught this and accepted it because it fits with your doctrine. Please reconsider. Likewise, you did not refute anything I gave you on James in any of your posts.

Have we connected the dots?

God bless.

 

[Tomster]

Thanks Paul.

To sum up, Protestantism makes of the forgiveness of sin merely a concealment of it, so to speak, and of sanctification a declaration of justification, or an external imputation of the justice of Christ. The Church teaches that justification consists of an actual obliteration of sin and an interior sanctification: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity” (1 John 1:8).

The contrast between Protestant and Catholic doctrine, as well as between Protestant doctrine and Scripture, here becomes very striking. For according to the teaching of the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers becomes an interior sanctifying quality in the soul itself, which makes it truly just and holy in the sight of God.

The Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrine on justification reaches its climax in the proclamation that “fiduciary faith” is the only requisite for justification (sola fides justificat). As long as the sinner firmly clings with the “arm of faith” to Christ, he is and will ever remain regenerated, pleasing to God, the child of God and heir to heaven. Faith, which alone can justify, is also the only requisite and means of obtaining salvation. Neither repentance nor penance, neither love of God nor good works, nor any other virtue is required, though in the just they may either attend or follow as a result of justification: “Indeed, neither contrition nor love, nor any other virtue, but faith alone is the means by which we can reach forth and obtain the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the remission of sin.”

Given that neither charity nor good works contribute anything towards justification - inasmuch as faith alone justifies - their abscence consequently cannot deprive the just man of anything whatever. THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY DIVEST HIM OF JUSTIFICATION, NAMELY, THE LOSS OF FIDUCIARY FAITH OR FAITH IN GENERAL in which case would explode the theory of OSAS.

Since our esteemed adversaries have denied the literal words of Jesus in so many passages of Scripture, John 20:21-23 as only one example, it is evident they have lost faith in Him.

Moon,

Response!

Now!

 

[moondweller]

If your analogizing to Abraham proves anything, it proves too much.

That’s a silly statement.

Don’t you define “faith” as the absolute trust in Christ’s saving work on Calvary—which had not yet happened in Abraham’s time?

Another silly statement.

If Abraham can be saved through faith, then why not any Jew? Or Muslim? Or Deist?

They can. They just need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and they will be saved (Act 16:30-31; Jn. 3:14-18; 5:24).

Whatever happened to all salvation being through Christ Jesus and Him alone?

Nothing:John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

John 10:9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."There is no other way, and it’s by faith alone in Christ alone.

 

[moondweller]

Moon,

Response!

Now!

There’s no evidence at all that I’ve lost faith in Christ. ALL my posts state to the contrary. OTOH…

 

[Tomster]

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.

Moon,

Response!

Now!

 

[Tomster]

There’s no evidence at all that I’ve lost faith in Christ. ALL my posts state to the contrary. OTOH…

Moon,

That’s not a response.

Respond!

Now.

 

[Tomster]

What amazes me is the fact that Moon and Calvin agree on some of their Protestant oral traditions and disagree on others.

I’d like to see them each post a list giving us what they believe to be the essentials and non-essentials of the Christian faith. Wanna bet there would be some differences? Did I say some? I would bet their would be a great many differences.

Another thread perhaps.

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.