Faith Alone

[guanophore]

 he who does not believe has been judged already, **because he has not believed** in the name of the only begotten Son of God."[/indent]

Actually it is this passage that makes me confused on Sandusky’s belief that infants can be saved.

Rather than faith in Christ alone, the lawyer appealed instead to his own works, his own righteousness, thinking that by them God would be indebted to him for life eternal.I asked about a “divine scorecard” he could access so that he might know just how close to the mark he is getting, or how far he was missing it.

I am glad that we can agree that the notion of a “scorecard” is really a self centered rendering, and not consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

The word “merit” has no place in my understanding of Biblical soteriology.

Since your truncated set of scriptural writings relies more on the Greek than the Latin, perhaps your study would be more benefitted by using the word “reward”? Both words render the same concept.

Can you show me the Scriptures that use the word “merit” in connection with salvation? Can you show me where the word “merit” is used at all in the N.T.?

He did a good job of that above, I just read them. Perhaps you missed some of the posts? As to the linguistics, see my comment above.

“created in Christ Jesus FOR good works” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). Good works were prepared only for those who have been gifted salvation, according to grace, through faith, not as a result of works

As I noted in my previous post, this is written by a CAtholic, for Catholics, and it represents Catholic teaching. You appear to be having a hard time understanding Catholic teaching. Catholics do not separate the grace that saves from the grace that produces the works for which we are saved. For Catholics, they are all gifts originating from the same Source.

 

[guanophore]

I wonder if St. Paul’s in heaven shaking his head: “You know Jesus, if I had known so many people were going to twist my words to contradict Yours, I would have never written a thing.”

Chuck

I am sure he is doing exactly that. Remember how how, when he found out people were quibbling over who baptized them, he was glad he did not baptize more people?

Translation: There is no biblical basis for the immaculate conception.

Catholics find a great deal of biblical foundation for all the doctrines. None of the Doctrines of the Catholic faith, however, are on a “biblical basis”. All are based on the foundation, which is the Apostles and prophets, with Christ as the Head of the corner. That, I think, is why we see the biblical basis where those whose faith is based elsewhere do not.

However, that is off topic here. You still have never answer my question:

“…the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves…” Luke 7:30

How did the lawyers and Pharisees do this? According to Calvin, God purposes some to life, and some to perdition. According to you, people choose what God has purposed. How do you dispense with this verse?

I hope you do enough to demand of God that you be finally saved (cf Rom 4:4ff).

How could anyone who calls himself a Christian hope for such a thing? That is like saying you hope someone goes to hell, since you know that people cannot merit salvation!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Nice pat on your own back, Dude.

I’ll offer a few links of my own which present hundreds of articles on Justification: The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

Classic essays on Justification

James vs. Paul

Contemporary Essays, and Articles on Justification

Justification and Sanctification

Critiques of Roman Catholic Teaching on Justification

There might be “hundreds of articles” out there BUT if they dont address they KEY issues then your case means nothing. I will go through those articles you linked to and KEEP AN EYE OUT to see if certain issues are even mentioned, like Abraham in Gen 12, the Greek word for “reckoned” in “reckoned as righteousness”, where the concept of “Righteousness of Christ” imputed is taught, imputed versus infused grace, etc. IF IF basic issues like those are NOT addressed then those articles are of no value.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Nice pat on your own back, Dude.

I’ll offer a few links of my own which present hundreds of articles on Justification: The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

Since these are not specific articles you are linking to I will go over the top three listed for each link.
I went though the first three articles listed and here is what I found by doing a quick search for the key issues:

First article:
desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/OnlineBooks/ByTitle/1592_Counted_Righteous_in_Christ/

• I did not see any in depth look into the Greek word for imputed “logizomai”, there was one sentence that briefly mentioned it.
• I did not see Abraham in Genesis 12 mentioned.
• The term “infused” appears only twice within a page of each other, it is barely touched upon.
  With issues like these not addressed an improper conclusion is bound be drawn up by the Protestant.

Second article:
gracesermons.com/robbeeee/imputed.html

• No mention of Abraham in Gen 12.
• No mention of “reckoned”
• Brief mention of imputed versus infused
  This article did immediately realize the issue was about imputation versus infusion, but it was only about a page long with no significant Bible passages mentioned and no time spent delving it, it only scratched the surface.

Third article:
reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Active%20Obedience.htm

• I saw no reference to Abraham in Gen 12.
• I saw no reference to the Greek word for “reckoned”.
• No mention of “infused”
  This article did not address any of the major issues.

[

Classic essays on Justification

](http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Justification/Classic-Essays-on-Justification/)
First article:
horatiusbonar.com/downloads/hb-ter.pdf

• No reference to Abraham in Gen 12.
• Touches a little bit upon infusion, but not much depth.
• It very deceptively looks into the way “impute” is used in Scripture by only quoting a few references where it occurs and concludes by saying it is a very clear teaching of Scripture.
  The fact this article shamelessly pretended to give us a fair and unbiased look at what Scripture really teaches on the usage of the term “impute” is a good indication much of it is built on sand.

Second article:
apuritansmind.com/Justification/EdwardsJonathanJustification.htm

• No mention of infused.
• Gen 12 is mentioned once but in passing and not addressing the issue of Abraham’s justification
• The usage of “impute” in the NT is not discussed.
  Basically the same as the other articles I have looked over.
  Third article:
  presenttruthmag.com/archive/III/3-4.htm
• No mention of any of the key issues.
  This was a one page article of some quotes by Luther that merely told how SF was very important, nothing beyond that.

If these key issues are not going to be addressed then it is almost guaranteed that these “explanations” of the Protestant doctrine of SF are founded upon presumption and eisegesis, rather than going by what the Bible really says.

[

James vs. Paul

](http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Justification/James-Vs-Paul/)

First article:
biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-james2.htm

• Abraham isnt even MENTIONED in this article and it deals with James 2 versus Rom 4!!!
• None of the other issues addressed
  Another one of the “hundreds of articles” that are only about one page long which doesnt give enough room to cover much of anything.

Second article:
tecmalta.org/tft219.htm

• None of the key issues addressed.
  Same as the other one page articles except this went into a tiny bit more depth and was about 2 pages long.

Third article:
lgmarshall.org/Pink/pink_justification.html#chapter9

• Briefly mentions infusion (but makes erroneous claims about it).
• No mention of Abraham in Gen 12
• Does not look into the usage of “impute” in the Scriptures.
  This article likewise failed to address the key issues.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

continued

[

Contemporary Essays, and Articles on Justification

](http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Justification/Contemporary-Essays--Articles/)
First article:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_199712/ai_n8773936/print

• This article DOES touch upon infused grace, and it gave a fair presentation of the Catholic side.
• No mention of Abraham in Gen 12 (it mentions Gen 12 but it is obviously a typo because the quotations are Gen 15:6.
• No mention of how “impute” is used in Scripture.
  This was basically an ecumenical paper, it was a lecture given in a Catholic-Evangelical meeting. This paper was more about listing the common ground and differences and not about defending one or the other sides.

Second article:
theologian.org.uk/doctrine/union.html

• Does not mention any of the key issues.
  Typical of the many articles already quoted.

Third article:
gty.org/Resources/Print/articles/22

A very short article that has a small paragraph pointing out infusion, but other than that none of the key issues are discussed.

[

Justification and Sanctification

](http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Justification/Justification--Sanctification/)
First article:
monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sanct_just_ryle.html

• No key issues dealt with.
  This was a short two page article insisting there was a difference in justificaiton and sanctification that hardly quoted any Scripture (not even 1 Cor 6:11, the only place in Scripture where both “justified” and “sanctified” appear).

Second article:
anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Doctrine/justsanct1.htm

• Mentions Gen 12 in passing, but doesnt address the issue of Abraham’s faith at this time.
• Does a good and fair presentation of infusion and quotes Trent.
• I did not see anything about the usage of impute in Scripture.
  This article was probably the best I have come across so far, but itself has problems by not going over two of the key issues. It does mention 1 Cor 6:11, but it does so only in passing.

Third:
homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aksancjust.htm

• None of the key issues addressed.
  A very brief article about the difference between sanctification and justification but mentions almost no Scripture.

[

Critiques of Roman Catholic Teaching on Justification

](http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ion/Roman-Catholic-Teaching-on-Justification/)
First article:
wscal.edu/clark/regensburg.php

A brief historical look at the Catholic and Protestant positions. It was not really a defense of either side and Scripture was not used.

Second article:
covenantofgracechurch.org/modules/smartsection/print.php?itemid=13

• Abraham in Gen 12 not mentioned.
• A brief mention of infusion.
• No look into the usage of “impute” in Scripture.
  This was baiscally another historical look at the differences of each side. It didnt really look at Scripture.

Third article:
bereanbeacon.org/AlignmentWithApostasy.htm

• No mention of Abraham
• No look at usage of imputation
• Fair references about infusion.
  This article was a historical/sociological paper about Evangelicals “selling out” to Catholic theology, not really a defense of any kind (not much Scripture quoted).

All in all, I have gone over about 18 Protestant articles which you linked to. None of them addressed the Abraham in Genesis 12 and none looked into the usage of “impute” in scripture. A good bit of news is that many of them mentioned the distinction between infused and imputed grace, but only a couple went into any depth.

If you have any articles you think I should read, that decisively prove the Protestant case, please post them rather than sending me to sift through articles which range from (mostly) lousy to (a few) good.

 

[Pax]

Amen…Acts 13:38-39

“Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that THROUGH HIM forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and THROUGH HIM everyone WHO BELIEVES is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed THROUGH THE LAW OF MOSES.

I and all Catholics concur whole heartedly with this passage. By the way being freed from sin means being freed from committing sin. We are no longer enslaved to it. The Old Law could not free us from that enslavement. Faith in Jesus and being reborn as a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works is another iteration of that point.

 

[Pax]

You’re going to dictate what Jesus can say? If Jesus had said he could inherit eternal life by keeping what the Law demanded, THEN He would have lied. He didn’t. It was the lawyer who was deceptive. He got the answer he needed from Christ. You have too.

Why would you pose such a ridiculous question in response to my post? Likewise, can’t you simply take the point of the post as it was written? This is simple logic. If your doctrine were true, Jesus would have answered the question differently and I gave examples of the necessary statements that would be required to support “your” perspective. Since Jesus didn’t answer in the fashion that supports your perspective, then it is clear that your perspective is the incorrect one. Instead, Jesus makes it extremely clear that love of God is essential to salvation.

Anyone that denies the necessity of love for salvation is simply ignoring this passage and others, or they are twisting and squirming in an effort to force a spin on the passages that simply isn’t there. Non-Catholics speak of the perspicuity of scripture. I think that you should apply the simple reading test to scripture. If you do so you will see that we must love God in order to be saved.

 

[sandusky]

All in all, I have gone over about 18 Protestant articles which you linked to. None of them addressed the Abraham in Genesis 12 and none looked into the usage of “impute” in scripture. A good bit of news is that many of them mentioned the distinction between infused and imputed grace, but only a couple went into any depth.

If you have any articles you think I should read, that decisively prove the Protestant case, please post them rather than sending me to sift through articles which range from (mostly) lousy to (a few) good.

Mr. Dude, I know the length of many of those links you claimed to have read, and don’t see how you could have done them any justice whatsoever in the amount of time that you’ve claimed you spent on 18 articles.

Piper’s book alone, which is linked in its entirety takes months to get through and digest because of all of the exegesis of Romans.

Speaking of explanations of the texts, and exegesis of the original languages, that is noticeably missing from your article.

What you have done in your writing is what you do on this forum—list a few verses and then exclaim, ***“See, they support the Catholic position,” *** or "See they don’t support the Protestant position."

IMO, very amateurish.

As always, I’m unconvinced by any of your “same old arguments.”

 

[sandusky]

Non-Catholics speak of the perspicuity of scripture. I think that you should apply the simple reading test to scripture. If you do so you will see that we must love God in order to be saved.

I find that the simple reading of scripture of which you speak makes clear the fact that until one has been saved, one cannot love God, but is rather God’s enemy.

 

[sandusky]

None of the Doctrines of the Catholic faith, however, are on a "biblical basis". All are based on the foundation, which is the Apostles and prophets, with Christ as the Head of the corner. That, I think, is why we see the biblical basis where those whose faith is based elsewhere do not.

Thank you for that candid admission.

 

[guanophore]

I find that the simple reading of scripture of which you speak makes clear the fact that until one has been saved, one cannot love God, but is rather God’s enemy.

I do agree that one cannot “see” the kingdom of God until one is born again. Once that happens, a person’s heart can be turned back to God, and his faith makes it possible to please God. What is different, I think is that OSAS folks believe that salvation happens at one point in time, for all time, where the Apostolic teaching is that we have been saved at the point of regeneration, are being saved now, as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and will be saved on the last day, if we endure till the end.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for that candid admission.

You are most welcome! It was learning that the true Church is the one that is based upon Christ, and not the various interpretations of men of the Holy Writings that ended my sojourn in Protestant communities, and enabled me to return to the faith into which I was baptized.

Once it is clear that Catholicism is founded by Christ, and not other men (reformers) and that the NT is produced by Catholics, everything written there falls into place with the Apostolic doctrine.

The reformers found it necessary to abandon the Apostolic succession in order to justify changing the teachings that had been faithfully handed on, and which they decided to reject.

 

[moondweller]

when Paul says “not as a result of works” he means God did not give to us salvation because of something we did.

That’s right. Salvation is gifted, by grace, through faith, not as a result of works.

it was by no means anything we did to cause Christ to come down to earth and redeem us.

That’s true as well. However, God saved the redeemed by grace, through faith, as a gift, not as a result of works.

but it was by Gods Grace that he would fulfill his promise not just to abraham’s blood decendents , but to all who would believe through faith.

Actually, to those who are of “the faith of Abraham.” The promise is that he (Abraham) and his believing descendants (Jew and Gentile) would be heirs of the world:Rom 4:13-17 "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of law (meritorious works) are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for law (system of merit, works) brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason {it is} by faith, in order that {it may be} in accordance with grace, so that the promise (heir of the world) will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all…"Abraham believed for all of us. That is, he believed a promise that included us all - i.e., all who believe.

There exists a great household of faith made up of all those who now share Abraham’s inheritance, based on FAITH. Paul says of believers this side of the cross:Gal 3:29 "For if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.“And one man has rightly said:God lodged the promises in Abraham: Christ fulfilled the conditions (of redemption), and we share the benefits! Abraham got us by promise; Christ bought us by blood” (see 1 Pet. 1:18-19; 1 Cor. 6:20).All according to God’s grace, through faith, gifted, not as a result of works.

what would happen to a believer if he remained in fornication?

Can a believer, “created in Christ Jesus,” live a life of fornication? The creation and the lifestyle are mutually exclusive. A believer might fall into an act of that sin, but he cannot live in it.

Romans 11:17-22 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness * of the olive tree,

The broken branches refer to unbelieving, national Israel. The wild olive shoot (singular) refers to believing Gentiledom. Gentiles are grafted into the root (the Abrahamic covenant of PROMISE) upon belief in the gospel message of Christ. Jason, why were the natural branches broken off from the covenant of promise? Paul answers that for you right there in the passage you quoted:

"They were broken off because of their unbelief,

And he warns Gentiledom (the unnatural olive branches grafted into the covenant of promise through faith):"but you stand fast only through faith. So (Gentiledom) do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches (because of their unbelief), neither will he spare you (Gentiledom).That is, if you do not stand fast through faith - apostatize. This is a general warning to Gentiledom, not to individual believers “created in Christ Jesus.” God does not “un-create.”

God prepared good works that we should walk in them.

That who should walk in them, Jason? Answer: Those who were saved by grace, through faith, as a gift, not as a result of works, and are now created in Christ Jesus. But those works do not save them, nor were they “created in Christ Jesus” by them. God Himself does the saving and God Himself does the creating.

it is our perserverance in good works and love that prove our faith is true.

Prove to whom? God?2 Tim 2:19 "Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.”

 

[moondweller]

I don’t know about a “scorecard”. Certainly there are criteria by which we may measure ourselves.

“For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.” 2 Peter 1:5-9

We can know that we are progressing. I am sure that you would agree with this, but the difference is that Protestants separate salvation (justification) from sanctification, which Catholics do not.

But Scripture does, and that’s where you err. The character list is for those who are of the faith (v. 1) and have been called to His own glory, granted magnificent promises and have become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped (past tense) the corruption that is in the world by lust (2 Pet. 1:1-4). Peter does not say that the one who lacks the qualities listed lost his calling, his salvation, his inheritance (to the contrary, read 1 Pet. 1:3-5), but "is blind or shortsighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. Justification gives the believer a new standing before God: righteous. Sanctification is both objective and subjective: (1) a new position “in Christ” (Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 2:11; 10:10, 14), and (2) a process being worked out daily by those who are (have been) saved, justified, and reconciled to God through faith in Christ - to whom that list is addressed.

Why “strive” for holiness if it is all a gift?

That our present condition might reflect our heavenly position and glorify Christ who purchased us with His blood.

The saving faith is a faith that works (loves) and perseveres (endures to the end).

So then you agree that one cannot lose salvation. If one does not love and persevere to the end, then his faith was never genuine “saving faith”(according to your definition).

These qualities of saving faith cannot be separated from initial justification.

You chide Protestants for the word “alone” (yet in context it’s completely justified), however, you add the word “initial” to justification without any contextual support.

God bestows upon us the gift of salvation by His grace.

Then we agree. As Paul says, “…not as a result of works.”

When we receive this gift, and respond by doing works that befit repentance, God rewards us for our faithful service. this is not the same as “earning” salvation as you imply.

That’s right, because the rewards (bestowed at the judgment seat of Christ) have nothing to do with God saving us “by grace through faith” in Christ - completely apart from works. However, if salvation itself is the reward, then you have added merit to your soteriology, which is anti-Biblical.

It seems this way to you I think because you conceive of salvation as something that happens at one point in time, for all time.

Eph. 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith…”

Titus 3:5 “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,”

Heb 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.We are saved by grace and kept by grace.

Such a renderning mauls the context. The lawyer is clearly asking about eternal life.

Yes, this so-called expert of the Mosaic Law asked about eternal life, not at all out of sincerity, but “to put Him to the test.” When Satan put Jesus to the test He responded to him from the Mosaic Law saying: “It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Deu 6:16). Do you think Christ didn’t know that man’s heart and the motive/motivation behind his questioning? He was self-deceived and when given his answer he, self-righteously, tried to justify himself (Lk. 10:29).

I didn’t “maul” the context, guanophore, you, however, fail to understand the spirit of it. If you did you’d understand the story of the good Samaritan and not try to justify the actions of the priest and Levite. The victim was not dead and traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho he was no doubt a fellow Jew. Keep in mind, in that day Jews despised Samaritans, as did that Lawyer who thought he was justified by the Law.

 

[guanophore]

.Can a believer, “created in Christ Jesus,” live a life of fornication? The creation and the lifestyle are mutually exclusive. A believer might fall into an act of that sin, but he cannot live in it.

If a believer does return to a life of sin, then he has fallen from grace. Faith will not save the one who persists in sin. Saving faith is that faith that forsakes the sinful life. He has spurned the Son of God, and crucified Him afresh, and there remains for that one no sacrifice for sin (he will pay for his own sins in hell).

moondweller:

So (Gentiledom) do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches (because of their unbelief), neither will he spare you (Gentiledom).[/indent]That is, if you do not stand fast through faith - apostatize. This is a general warning to Gentiledom, not to individual believers “created in Christ Jesus.” God does not "un-create.

“general warning to Gentiledom” ???

Rom 11:20-22
So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.

He is speaking specifically to those who have been grafted in by faith. These are Christians, and he is telling them not to be proud that they are grafted and the Jews were not. No, God does not “un-create”. but He will CUT OFF those who fall from faith.

"Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His

**," and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.”

Don’t you ever wonder why such passages are written, if it is so impossible for a Christian to behave wickedly?**

 

[guanophore]

But Scripture does, and that’s where you err. Peter does not say that the one who lacks the qualities listed lost his calling, his salvation, his inheritance (to the contrary, read 1 Pet. 1:3-5), but "is blind or shortsighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.

Oh, I agree that the list is made for believers. But if a person becmes blind and shortsighted, and forgets that he has been cleansed will soon fall from grace. “… you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18 Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich, and white garments to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see.” Rev 3:17-18

Those who do not turn away from sin, even after they are sealed with the promise, will stain their garments. Some may lose their garments all together, and be found naked. We already covered what happens to those not properly attired:

Matt 22:13-14
3 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen."

*Justification* gives the believer a new standing before God: righteous.  *Sanctification* is both objective and subjective: (**1**) a new position "*in Christ*" (Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 2:11; 10:10, 14), and (**2**) a process being worked out daily by those who are (have been) saved, justified, and reconciled to God through faith in Christ - to whom that list is addressed.

This is a Catholic rendering. Catholics just don’t separate out the grace that justifies from the grace that sanctifies. To us, it is all the same grace, working the same change.

That our present condition might reflect our heavenly position and glorify Christ who purchased us with His blood.

This does not make any sense according to your theology. If we are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, then any “striving to add” is adding to grace, and therefore, inappropriate. If God is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, then there is no need for us to “strive” at all!

So then you agree that one cannot lose salvation. If one does not love and persevere to the end, then his faith was never genuine “saving faith”(according to your definition).

No, we do not agree. I think of salvation as a river into which one enters at baptism. If one remains in the river of life to the end, then one will be saved. One can get out, and wander far, and return, and still be saved (as was the prodigal son). Some enter the righteousness of God in Christ, are sealed, walk away, and never return. One cannot be saved if one departs from the Source of the eternal life.

You chide Protestants for the word "alone" (yet in context it's completely justified), however, you add the word "*initial*" to justification without any contextual support.

I see your point. This is done because we take all the teaching on salvation as a whole, and it is clear that it is possible to begin, and not finish.

Then we agree. As Paul says, “…not as a result of works.”

Yes.

That’s right, because the rewards (bestowed at the judgment seat of Christ) have nothing to do with God saving us “by grace through faith” in Christ - completely apart from works. However, if salvation itself is the reward, then you have added merit to your soteriology,

Actually, leaving the concept of “reward” out of a soteriology would be non-biblical. There are very few passages about rewards that are not connected to salvation.

We are saved by grace and kept by grace.Yes, this so-called expert of the Mosaic Law asked about eternal life, not at all out of sincerity, but “to put Him to the test.” Do you think Christ didn’t know that man’s heart and the motive/motivation behind his questioning? He was self-deceived and when given his answer he, self-righteously, tried to justify himself (Lk. 10:29).

Oh, I agree! I am just contending that Jesus gave him a clear and accurate answer. He stated that, if he followed the commandments, he would live. This is a true and accurate statement about salvation.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t “maul” the context, guanophore, you, however, fail to understand the spirit of it. If you did you’d understand the story of the good Samaritan and not try to justify the actions of the priest and Levite. The victim was not dead and traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho he was no doubt a fellow Jew. Keep in mind, in that day Jews despised Samaritans, as did that Lawyer who thought he was justified by the Law.

Well, perhaps we could address this in another thread. I did one of my master’s papers on this passage, and it is very dense.

For the topic of this thread, it is clear that Jesus is saying it is required for us to love our neighbor. He is defnining what a neighbor is, and how that love is to be manifested. Faith, apart from such love, is not saving faith.

 

[Pax]

I find that the simple reading of scripture of which you speak makes clear the fact that until one has been saved, one cannot love God, but is rather God’s enemy.

I have never argued that faith was not essential. I have never argued against faith as the root of our salvation. I am simply arguing that we are not saved by faith alone. The demons believe and shudder. They do not love God and are at enmity to God.

 

[Pax]

moodweller,

Can a Christian fall from grace?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Calvinsits: can man cooperate with God when it is His will for man to perform good works that He wills?