Faith Alone

[ryanoneil]

You don’t agree with me guanophore, as evidenced by all of the qualifications you add to whatI say.

guanophore is correct and scripture proves it

Scripture says that a man is justified by faith, and not by works.

Not justified by works of the Mosaic law. If you insist this verse includes works done under the system of grace, then scripture condradicts itself. (per James 2:24)

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Mat 12:36-37

As James says, we must be doers of the law, and not hearers only, deceiving ourselves.

Peace

 

[sandusky]

Not justified by works of the Mosaic law. If you insist this verse includes works done under the system of grace, then scripture condradicts itself. (per James 2:24)

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Mat 12:36-37

As James says, we must be doers of the law, and not hearers only, deceiving ourselves.

Sorry, Ryan, however, I’m not following you.

In what way are you saying “scripture contradicts itself?”

Also, James says hearers of the “word” (logos), not “law” (nomos).

 

[guanophore]

Sure, it’s that TYPE of Faith, “Faith that works” as opposed to Faith that doesn’t (James “even the demons believe”). The works do not determine the final destiny, but are evidence of the TYPE of Faith.

Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his **wage **is **not credited **as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, **his faith **is credited as righteousness,

I think Paul would disagree with your understanding.

If you agree with me that Paul is speaking of the type of faith that works, why do you think he would disagree?

Rom 1:4-5
Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the **obedience of faith **among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name…"

Rom 16:26
“…according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith…”

Saving faith is an obedient faith. Paul’s gospel was called in the NT “The Way”. It is a way of life in which those who believe bear fruit that befits repentance.

Paul does not separate the grace that credits us as righteous from the grace that produces good deeds:

Titus 2:13-14
" He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds."

Those who are redeemed from iniquity and are purified are produces of great volumes of good fruit. These are all part of the same “saving faith”.

 

[santodomingo]

Hello everyone,

Sorry to barge in on a thread that´s been going for 60 pages, but I´ve read quite a lot of the posts and I wanted to add my penny-worth.

I´m shocked to read that moondweller, a “sola fide” believer, thinks it is unnecessary to love God to be saved. I hope I have understood the arguments here, and that I haven´t missed anything crucial. Did he/she really write that love, as well as works, was NOT required for salvation?

If this is the case we must face a terrible consequence of this argument; Satan will be saved!!!

Satan believes that Jesus is the Saviour. If no good works and no love are needed, Satan and all his demons will be saved.

 

[ryanoneil]

Sorry, Ryan, however, I’m not following you.

In what way are you saying “scripture contradicts itself?”

Also, James says hearers of the “word” (logos), not “law” (nomos).

I don’t believe scripture contradicts itself, but you said

sandusky:

Scripture says that a man is justified by faith, and not by works.

Scripture also says See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

The two must reconcile with each other, or Scripture condradicts itself.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Mat 12:36-37

The same with Matthew. Here words justify. Scripture does not limit justification to faith alone.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

You don’t agree with me guanophore, as evidenced by all of the qualifications you add to what I say.

I think there is some common ground, sandy.

Scripture says that a man is justified by faith, and not by works.

And I agreed with you that we are justified by faith. I just added that this faith is a faith that works. It is the faith that works which justifies. It is not appropriate to separate the two from one another.

We are saved by faith, faith working through love. Jesus said we will have eternal life if we keep the commandments, especially the first two, which sum up the rest. We can only keep the commandments by grace, through faith.

“You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” James 2:8-11

This passage is written to believers, and makes it clear that believers can transgress the royal law of God, thereby commit sin, and be convicted as transgressors.

In no way is Paul endorsing paganism, this speech is actually a very strong and very Jewish attack on the smug complacency of the Athenians. Paul’s knowledge of Athenian culture is pressed into action, not in order to agree with them, but to point out their failings.

Paul is a great polemecist, and often opens his sermons by finding agreeable ground. In this case, he found elements of God’s eternal truth expressed in their paganism. I agree with this point you are making, but it seems that you are making it to avoid the point I am trying to make, which is that God has fashioned man so that man seeks for HIm. This desire to be in fellowship with God is part of His image and likeness in which we are made. It cannot be “unmade” just because our nature is wounded by original sin. You are trying to assert that man does NOT seek for God, because “his heart is only evil continually”. This scripture shows otherwise.

Paul finds himself engaged in a dispute with

That the marketplace debates resulted in more misunderstanding than enlightenment is seen by the fact that they regarded Paul as a babbler.

Also, they accused Paul of advocating foreign gods, (see, however, on v 21)—a serious crime. The same crime of which the great philosopher Socrates had been accused, and that also in Athens, some 450 years earlier ultimately leading to his death.

All true, but again avoiding the point. God has built into mankind the desire to seek for Him, an the ability to find Him even in creation. This is the foundation of paganism. Although mankind cannot enter into relationship with God through the things that have been made, God does reveal Himself and is recognizeable there. Why would God bother, if it were not possible to perceive HIs divine nature in creation?

Along with you, many read the statement what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you, as Paul saying that these pagans were doing well—that, in their ignorance, they were worshipping the true God,

No, sandy, you misunderstood me. My point is that man does not have total enmity with God, but seeks after HIm to find HIm, and yearns to known HIm, though He is unknown. I am not justifying paganism, or implying that they do “well”. I am showing you that scripture does not support the Reformed notion of total depravity.

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

Scripture also says See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

The two must reconcile with each other, or Scripture condradicts itself.

There is no contradiction. James presents a character who “says” he has faith, but James notes that while that one “says” he has faith, he has no works to prove it.

Thus he employs the phrases, “you see,” several times, and the “See how…” that you use above, and the terms “you show me your faith…I’ll show you my faith,” the one cannot show his faith, as he has no works, however, James is able to show his faith by his works.

James 2 is not a treatise on how one is saved, rather, it is a treatise on what a saving faith looks like—it works, and is obedient to God’s commands.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Mat 12:36-37

The same with Matthew. Here words justify. Scripture does not limit justification to faith alone.

Ryan, will you please present any infallible church teaching that says that a man is “justified by his words” to salvation?

You’re taking that passage out of context, and trying to make it say what you want it to say based upon one word appearing in the passage.

Christ is not presenting a treatise on justification, rather, He is saying that a man’s words reveal the content of his heart.

But I’m still curious if your church teaches that by “words you have been saved.” I don’t think that it does.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

And I agreed with you that we are justified by faith. I just added that this faith is a faith that works. It is the faith that works which justifies. It is not appropriate to separate the two from one another.

But that’s not faith alone, guanophore, though you seem to have worded it as such.

Do you believe that a man is saved by faith alone, or by faith + works?

guanophore:

I agree with this point you are making, but it seems that you are making it to avoid the point I am trying to make, which is that God has fashioned man so that man seeks for Him.

Will you explain, then, what you think Paul means in this passage, especially the words in blue:**Romans 3:10-18

as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;

There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;

All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”

“Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,” “The poison of asps is under their lips”;

“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;

“Their feet are swift to shed blood,

Destruction and misery are in their paths,

And the path of peace they have not known.”

“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”**What does Paul mean, “there is none who seeks for God?”

guanophore:

All true, but again avoiding the point. God has built into mankind the desire to seek for Him, an the ability to find Him even in creation. This is the foundation of paganism. Although mankind cannot enter into relationship with God through the things that have been made, God does reveal Himself and is recognizeable there. Why would God bother, if it were not possible to perceive HIs divine nature in creation?

No, sandy, you misunderstood me. My point is that man does not have total enmity with God, but seeks after HIm to find HIm, and yearns to known HIm, though He is unknown. I am not justifying paganism, or implying that they do “well”. I am showing you that scripture does not support the Reformed notion of total depravity.

While man is made by God to worship God, the fall has rendered man unable to do so, and those who do, can only do by a supernatural act of God on their behalf—none who seeks after God.

Since unregenerate man refuses to worship God, and since God has made man to worship, man will worship something, but apart from God, man will not worship God because he is in the flesh, and those in the flesh are enmity with God (Jn 3:44; Rom 8:7-8)

Both the statement by Christ, and the statement by Paul speak to man’s inability to come to God, and to please God because of unregenerate man’s hostility toward God.

But man must worship, therefore, he worships himself, the world, any idol that he can construct**Isaiah 45:20

“Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you fugitives of the nations; they have no knowledge, who carry about their wooden idol and pray to a god who cannot save.**That’s what the Athenians who Paul encountered were doing—praying to gods who cannot save; and in so doing, bearing witness to the faithful word of God that they have no knowledge and no understanding (cf Rom 3:11).

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

The smiley was reflective of my feeling of pity for you, Phil, in that you presented yourself as a pitiful victim, IMHO.

My statements were aimed at getting you to respond to something which you had introduced and which seemed important to the topic. BTW, you smile when you feel pity for someone? Interesting.

If men are robots, Phil, they are so as a result of the fall, and, in a way, because of the fall, they are robots whose “program” is written in the “code” of Sin.

This statement is precisely why I wouldnt let this topic go. Your original statement that "men are not robots " seemed inconsistent with your theology IMHO. And now, following repeated pressing to find out how the “desires of the heart” guide man’s will you do an apparent about face and imply that - lo and behold - men are, in fact, robots as a result of the fall. I mean you cant claim that “men are not robots” and then follow up with, “If they are robots, they are so because of the fall” and expect anyone to understand you, IMHO. Then again, Im not particularly gifted intellectually.

The difficulty that you, and all Catholics have, is that you don’t believe that the “thoughts and intents of [unregenerate] man’s heart are only evil continually,” (Gen 6:5).

You are correct, I dont believe that in the absolute sense which is required to rationalize your theology. In fact, Scripture refutes that notion in short order: Gen 6:8&9 “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD…Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.” In any event, anyone to whom this comment was directed was eliminated by the flood. So your point would be…?
(

Sorry for referring you to Scripture, Phil; I know how much you disdain my doing so.)

No, I dont mind at all. I just find that we all use Scripture interpretively and add or subtract from it to cater to our whims. Like when you added “unregenerate” to Gen 6:5.

The reason you don’t believe that, and all of the other scriptural statements verifying that, is because your church contradicts that revelation from God; therefore, IMHO, your tradition keeps you from the truth.

Should I obviate God’s sovereignty and alter the desire of my heart in the exercise of my free will to accept your opinion as truth or should I follow what I believe God has placed in my heart and reject it? Let me guess: the choice is not mine!

He freely chooses evil; there is no one coercing him; however, how is the “freedom” to choose only one thing, freedom?

Thanks for the link. I am going away for the weekend and will not be around to play apologetics, but I will take a look at this through my fallible mind and see what thoughts God chooses to place into my mind to influence my desires to exercise my free will to agree or disagree with what it says. Then, perhaps God will direct my desires to exercise my free will to report back. My head is spinning…:whacky:

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

My statements were aimed at getting you to respond to something which you had introduced and which seemed important to the topic. BTW, you smile when you feel pity for someone? Interesting.

Philthy:

This statement is precisely why I wouldnt let this topic go. Your original statement that "men are not robots " seemed inconsistent with your theology IMHO. And now, following repeated pressing to find out how the “desires of the heart” guide man’s will you do an apparent about face and imply that - lo and behold - men are, in fact, robots as a result of the fall. I mean you cant claim that “men are not robots” and then follow up with, “If they are robots, they are so because of the fall” and expect anyone to understand you, IMHO. Then again, Im not particularly gifted intellectually.

You do miss the point.

Men are not robots in respect to God’s direction of their will to fulfill His will and His purpose; if they’re robots at all, it’s the fall that makes them such in that on the basis of the fall’s corruption of man.

Philthy:

You are correct, I dont believe that in the absolute sense which is required to rationalize your theology. In fact, Scripture refutes that notion in short order: Gen 6:8&9 “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD…Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.” In any event, anyone to whom this comment was directed was eliminated by the flood. So your point would be…?

I see; so the Gospel according to Phil is that those pre-flood humans are much worse than us post-flood humans, and especially us 21st century post-flood humans.

After all, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, and we do so much more than that, correct, Phil?

Furthermore, if Noah found favor in God’s sight, is in the same manner that anyone finds favor in God’s sight, and that is by the will and pleasure of God.

Noah was “elect” to build the ark at God’s command in the same way that Mary was elect to bear the Messiah; again, that’s by the will and pleasure of God, and not from anything special, righteous, or attractive in themselves.

Philthy:

I just find that we all use Scripture interpretively and add or subtract from it to cater to our whims. Like when you added “unregenerate” to Gen 6:5.

That was to help you understand, Phil; apparently it failed.
Philtju:

Should I obviate God’s sovereignty and alter the desire of my heart in the exercise of my free will to accept your opinion as truth or should I follow what I believe God has placed in my heart and reject it?

Philthy:

Thanks for the link.

It’s not a link, Phil.

 

[guanophore]

James 2 is not a treatise on how one is saved, rather, it is a treatise on what a saving faith looks like—it works, and is obedient to God’s commands.

See? We are in agreement on this!

present any infallible church teaching that says that a man is “justified by his words” to salvation?

Christ is not presenting a treatise on justification, rather, He is saying that a man’s words reveal the content of his heart.

But I’m still curious if your church teaches that by “words you have been saved.” I don’t think that it does.

We agree that the scripture is inerrant, right? Scripture says that, if I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord, then I will be saved!

Scripture also says that I will not be able to say “Jesus is Lord” without the HS, therefore, these words speak that which fill my heart (faith unto salvation).

 

[sandusky]

See? We are in agreement on this!

That doesn’t answer my question; do you agree with me that one is saved by faith alone; or do you believe that one is saved by faith + works?

guanophore:

We agree that the scripture is inerrant, right? Scripture says that, if I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord, then I will be saved!

Scripture also says that I will not be able to say “Jesus is Lord” without the HS, therefore, these words speak that which fill my heart (faith unto salvation).

Apparently you can’t provide any infallible church teaching that a man is “justified by his words” to salvation; is that correct?

 

[guanophore]

Do you believe that a man is saved by faith alone, or by faith + works?

Personally, I don’t like either one. I prefer “faith that works”.

Will you explain, then, what you think Paul means in this passage, especially the words in blue:Romans 3:10-18

as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;

There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;

All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”

“Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,” “The poison of asps is under their lips”;

“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;

“Their feet are swift to shed blood,

Destruction and misery are in their paths,

And the path of peace they have not known.”

“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”What does Paul mean, “there is none who seeks for God?”

This passage needs to be understood from it’s context. The psalm from which it is taken begins “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’”. The passage speaks about unbelievers. Paul uses it to say that unbelievers are in the same boat, whether they be Jewish unbelievers, or Gentile.

If this passage applied to EVERYONE, then the other half of the same psalm, which speaks of the righteous, would make no sense, as would a number of other passages that affirm the presence of righteous people.

While man is made by God to worship God, the fall has rendered man unable to do so, and those who do, can only do by a supernatural act of God on their behalf—none who seeks after God.

I agree with everything you say here but the last few words. The passages I quoted show that people who are unable to worship God still seek HIm.

Since unregenerate man refuses to worship God, and since God has made man to worship, man will worship something, but apart from God, man will not worship God because he is in the flesh, and those in the flesh are enmity with God (Jn 3:44; Rom 8:7-8)

Unregenerate men worship because God has built worship into us. I agree that it is not properly directed until we are in Christ. The fall did not obliterate the character that God created in us, just made us unable to live in accordance with the divine image.

Both the statement by Christ, and the statement by Paul speak to man’s inability to come to God, and to please God because of unregenerate man’s hostility toward God.

True, but that does not prevent people from seeking and yearning for God. People have an inner desire to be right with God, even though we cannot effect it in ourselves.

But man must worship, therefore, he worships himself, the world, any idol that he can construct

Isaiah 45:20

Yes, the inner compunction to worship is part of being made in the image and likeness of God. We have an inner compass that yearns to be centered upon that which is Holy. The fall has prevented our compass from properly guiding, and our nature from properly following it.
​

​

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Personally, I don’t like either one. I prefer “faith that works”.

As I said, you really don’t agree with me, however, you want to appear as though you do for the benefit of your “lurking” audience, so that they can see that Catholics are, at heart, and by doctrine, really protestant!

guanophore:

This passage needs to be understood from it’s context. The psalm from which it is taken begins “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’”. The passage speaks about unbelievers. Paul uses it to say that unbelievers are in the same boat, whether they be Jewish unbelievers, or Gentile.

If this passage applied to EVERYONE, then the other half of the same psalm, which speaks of the righteous, would make no sense, as would a number of other passages that affirm the presence of righteous people.

If Paul were expositing that Psalm, only then would you have a point; however, since Paul is not expositing that Psalm, your point is meaningless, and it’s wrong.**Romans 3:9

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin**

(cf Rom 3:19, 23; Gal 3:22)That’s the immediate context for Paul’s usage of the OT verses which he presses into service in vv10-18, and which he pulls from six different Psalms, and one of the major prophets.

guanophore:

I agree with everything you say here but the last few words. The passages I quoted show that people who are unable to worship God still seek HIm.

You are contradicting the HS’s statements in Rom 3:11, guanophore; there He says that “none seek for God.”

guanophore:

True, but that does not prevent people from seeking and yearning for God. People have an inner desire to be right with God, even though we cannot effect it in ourselves.

You are again contradicting the HS’s statements in Rom 3:11, guanophore; there He says that “none seek for God.”

guanophore:

Yes, the inner compunction to worship is part of being made in the image and likeness of God. We have an inner compass that yearns to be centered upon that which is Holy. The fall has prevented our compass from properly guiding, and our nature from properly following it.

You do it once more.

 

[Pax]

Sure, it’s that TYPE of Faith, “Faith that works” as opposed to Faith that doesn’t (James “even the demons believe”). The works do not determine the final destiny, but are evidence of the TYPE of Faith.

…

Interesting and odd spin on James.

You say that “works do not determine the final destiny, but are the evidence of the TYPE of faith.”

Is this what James says? No…instead, James says:

“You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,”[James 2:22]

And James also says:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”[James 2:24]

James says nothing about works being evidence of the type of faith. He clearly tells us that works** “complete”** faith, and that works “justify.”

I see nothing in your statements that are congruent with those of the apostle.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That is what one says when one cannot substantiate what one believes.

This response of yours is ridiculous and I wont continue that level of discussion. My comment had nothing in it that would logically lead to a response such as yours here. If anything it is muddying of the waters on your part.

Scripture is clear that the new birth is transformation; that’s not the issue. What I’m waiting for is the substantiation of “grace,” and “righteousness” as “substances” infused into the believer.

The issue is whether or not justification in founded upon an inner transformation of the soul or whether it is founded upon a legal declaration on the basis of an alien righteousness.

I gave a list of passages that mention grace and which can only be taken in the sense of it being infused into the individual. My favorite passage in this case is Titus 3:4-7,He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7**so that, having been justified by his grace
**It is very clear here the phrase “justified by his grace” corresponds to “washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit”. Grace is not merely showing favor. Same goes with the Eph 2 quotes, “by grace you have been saved” cannot be merely showing divine favor otherwise the passage “made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved” would not make sense.

Rebirth as inner transformation is not an issue.

Inner transformation is the issue because if it is not then you have no reason to introduce imputed righteousness. It would be as absurd as saying washing a stain out of a carpet is not enough, we must cover the previously stained area with a oriental rug. Covering with the rug is superfluous if the stain has been removed. If someone is made righteous there is no need for them to have an alien righteousness imputed to them.

Also, you insist that the Spirit being “poured out on us” evidences “infusion into the believer.” The text says, “poured out on (as opposed to “infused into us”) us.

As for the “poured out on” versus “poured out in” you are leaving out the part “hearts”, the love of God has been poured out on/in our hearts" at which case I see no significant change of meaning. Whether the love of God is poured “on” or “in” or “into” our hearts doesnt seem like that drastic of a difference, especially considering “heart” here is figurative way of saying our soul. You appear to be appealing more to what your favorite Protestant commentary has to say and interpret.

Further, here is a list of most of the major Bible translations, none of them use the term “on”, they either use “in” or “into”:
bible.cc/romans/5-5.htm

Then substantiate, rather than assert, that grace is more than showing favor, but that grace is, in fact, an infusible substance.

I gave a list of passages which would be absurd if grace was merely showing favor. Ironically you respond as if I never substantiated, you respond as if I never posted passages, you brush off the passages outright. Here is a powerful one:
Heb 13 9Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.
How can grace “strengthen” something if it is an external favor?

Can you cite any councils, infallible or otherwise, which confirm your definition?

There is no significant difference in the terms “infused grace” and “infused righteousness”.
Here are some quotes from various parts of Session 6 (decree on Justification) of the Council of Trent which uses the terms almost interchangeably. Note that the older term for “righteousness” is “justice” (hence the term “justified”): This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just

Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, however, I believe that you are insisting that this is an “infusion of grace and righteousness;” yet, the passage does not mention “righteousness,” and of the grace it is said that the believer stands in the grace, rather than the grace being “infused into the believer.”

If you take the passage as a whole, reaching its climax at verse 5, you would see this is more than showing favor or standing in a favorable light, you have the Holy Spirit indwelling in you.

The proof for the Trinity and for the imputation of righteousness is more than adequate; however, the same cannot be said of “infusion of grace and righteousness.”

Ah, this is just what I was hoping you would say. The plain truth is that there is no Biblical foundation for the phrase nor concept of “imputation of righteousness” or “imputation of the righteousness of Christ” as Protestants define it.

You have already admitted there is plenty of talk in the Bible about an inner transformation (though we disagree on when and how), but you cannot cite passages making a solid case for imputing an alien righteousness to an unrighteous person.

If you believe there are such passages, go ahead and list the top 5 passages that demonstrate the concept of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the account of a sinner.

To which passages are you referring? :ehh:

Passages like Titus 3:4-7; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 2:5; etc
In those passages we see people getting saved, with a inner transformation clearly described, yet there is no “imputed righteousness” component mentioned.

sandusky:
Your statement, which I’ve highlighted above, is the result of a faulty anthropology, IMO.

Witness God’s indictment of man through the apostle: **Romans 3:10-18

10 as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,” “The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”; 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 Destruction and misery are in their paths, 17 And the path of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”** You don’t believe that, and neither does your church teach that.

Rightly understood, that’s "bad news,” and that bad news must be rightly understood
before the true good news can be rightly embraced.
This, unfortunately, is a total dodge of post 835.
Your comment does not flow from what I said in post 835 and is nothing more than changing the subject. I presented a clear case of the usage of logizomai in the Bible, to ignore how the Bible uses the term will only result in faulty understandings on your part, not mine.

All your passage above shows is that man is born in an unrighteous state, it neither says nor intends to say that a person cannot become righteous later on in their life. When it comes to Abraham, he was already a believer and living a life of obedience to God as early as Gen 12, this did not start in Gen 15:5-6.

 

[ryanoneil]

There is no contradiction. James presents a character who “says” he has faith, but James notes that while that one “says” he has faith, he has no works to prove it.

Thus he employs the phrases, “you see,” several times, and the “See how…” that you use above, and the terms “you show me your faith…I’ll show you my faith,” the one cannot show his faith, as he has no works, however, James is able to show his faith by his works.

James 2 is not a treatise on how one is saved, rather, it is a treatise on what a saving faith looks like—it works, and is obedient to God’s commands.

Faith + works. A person is justified by faith and works acting together, which comes solely from God’s divine grace.

James uses “ergois agathois” not “ergon nomou,” found in (Rom 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16). We are talking about different works here. Works of love and works of the law are different.

Faith justifies initially, but good works perfect and complete justification.

Ryan, will you please present any infallible church teaching that says that a man is “justified by his words” to salvation?

You’re taking that passage out of context, and trying to make it say what you want it to say based upon one word appearing in the passage.

Christ is not presenting a treatise on justification, rather, He is saying that a man’s words reveal the content of his heart.

But I’m still curious if your church teaches that by “words you have been saved.” I don’t think that it does.

I doubt there is an infallible church teaching saying that. Mat 12:37 is another example of justification as an ongoing event (not a one-time event)

Jesus never teaches that “faith alone” leads to salvation. He always focuses on “works”, in a system of grace, to obtain salvation. The Bible is clear that we must add works to our faith to obtain salvation.

“ergois agathois” not “ergon nomou!” This is the key paradigm of the biblical teaching on justification.

Peace

 

[Sean_Boyle]

That doesn’t answer my question; do you agree with me that one is saved by faith alone; or do you believe that one is saved by faith + works?

God’s Grace! one is saved by God’s grace.

Faith includes many things. One of the calvinist even described a saving faith as a humble faith. Why discribe “faith alone” any other way if “faith alone” saves.

 

[guanophore]

As I said, you really don’t agree with me, however, you want to appear as though you do for the benefit of your “lurking” audience, so that they can see that Catholics are, at heart, and by doctrine, really protestant!

No, sandy, I want to be clear that the Apostolic teaching has ALWAYS been that we are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works. I understand that this point was lost on Luther. He decided that the best way to have clarity was to break from the authority appointed by Christ. It is never right to divide the Body of Christ into factions.

If Paul were expositing that Psalm, only then would you have a point; however, since Paul is not expositing that Psalm, your point is meaningless, and it’s wrong.

That is a strange criteria to use. Of course he is expositing the Psalm! He is explaining that the fool who thinks in his heart that there is no God is lost, whether he is one of God’s chosen (a Jew) or a Pagan (Gentile). There is no distinction, is his point.

Romans 3:9

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin

(cf Rom 3:19, 23; Gal 3:22)That’s the immediate context for Paul’s usage of the OT verses which he presses into service in vv10-18, and which he pulls from six different Psalms, and one of the major prophets.

Right. Faithlessness in God is a sin, no matter what group of people.

You are contradicting the HS’s statements in Rom 3:11, guanophore; there He says that “none seek for God.”

It would be difficult, don’t you think, for a fool that says in his heart “there is no God” to seek for God? As I have pointed out, and you have agreed, they seek anyway, but end up becoming their own God, or making idols out of other things. Worship is innate.

You are again contradicting the HS’s statements in Rom 3:11, guanophore; there He says that “none seek for God.”

Scripture does not contradict itself, sandy. There are many righteous people mentioned who seek diligiently for God. These passages must be understood in the light of t he whole. Jesus Himself affirms that there are righteous, when He states that He did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

You do it once more.

God did not change His plan of salvation, only fulfill it. God has always justified men by faith. This is a fact that my Reformed education has made clear to me. Even before the coming of Jesus, the just are made righteous by faith. Heb. ch. 11 is full of examples of such persons, those who diligently sought for God, and whom God justified by grace, through faith. You cannot say such persons do not exist unless you throw out that chaper, and many other verses that refer to the righteous person.