Faith Alone

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

You MISUNDERSTOOD what I was doing. There are key concepts that Sola Fide articles NEED to address, to FAIL to address these concepts means that article will undoubtedly come to erroneous conclusions about what Scripture teaches.

For example the word “impute” is a central concept to Sola Fide, but for some reason NONE of those articles looked into the usage of “impute” in the Bible to see if their interpretation of “impute” means what they claim. To FAIL to address a concept like that is as if you wrote an apologetics article and neglected to make a reference to Genesis 15:6.

Dude, where in scripture do the words **“infuse with righteousness,” “infused with righteousness,” or “infusion of righteousness,” **or, for that matter, any of those combinations with the word “grace” appear?
Catholic Dude:

You cant be unconvinced considering the last time we had the Abraham argument you so clearly painted yourself in a corner that you couldnt even answer single and direct yes or no questions.

Better yet, in scripture, do any combination of the words “righteousness,” or “grace,” appear with any form of the word “infuse;” give me a direct yes or no answer, please?

 

[moondweller]

I hope that what I have shown you already is enough to make it clear that God’s gifts are not taken back by God. Instead, it is us that throw them away. There are things that we can do to separate ourselves from God and that will bring damnation. That part is all our own doing.

I think Paul provides you with the best answer:Eph 1:15-21 "For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which {exists} among you and your love for all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention {of you} in my prayers; [that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. {I pray that} the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. {These are} in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly {places,} far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

 

[Pax]

Carefree??? Of course not!!! Still in flesh, we still sin. Nobody can be sinless. The only person was and is Jesus. Once you accept him as your Lord and Saviour, he comes and lives in your heart. He will give you descernship (msp?). It is Him who lives through you because He is ALIVE. Walking in faith.

Jesus sacrifice IS sufficient for the sins of all men of all times. The reason why some people do not attain salvation is because they do not believe in the gospel when preached to. You have to believe with your heart and confess with your mouth that you believe what Jesus did at Calvary. The Gospel in other words. Jesus made it so simple.

You failed to answer me in the complete fashion of the questions I posed. Since you believe that believers are still prone to sin, a concept that Catholics agree with, it is now necessary for you to answer the crucial question that I posed.

Is it necessary for the believer to be repentent after committing sins subsequent to justification?

 

[Pax]

Dude, where in scripture do the words “infuse with righteousness,” “infused with righteousness,” or “infusion of righteousness,” or, for that matter, any of those combinations with the word “grace” appear?

Better yet, in scripture, do any combination of the words “righteousness,” or “grace,” appear with any form of the word “infuse;” give me a direct yes or no answer, please?

We have already discussed this issue and I gave you all of the info needed on infused versus imputed from scripture.

 

[Pax]

I think Paul provides you with the best answer:Eph 1:15-21 "For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which {exists} among you and your love for all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention {of you} in my prayers; [that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. {I pray that} the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. {These are} in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly {places,} far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

I love this quote from scripture. It is one of the verses that I use when discussing the power of God’s grace within us unto salvation.

The passage that you have chosen is not a refutation of anything I have said. Instead, it is supportive of all that I have said concerning Eph 2:10.

 

[guanophore]

Then based on your definition if one returns to a sinful lifestyle it is evident that he never was saved; he never had “saving faith” since, as you say, that faith forsakes a sinful lifestyle. You cannot lose what you never had. You cannot fall from where you’ve never been.

Yet we see many examples in scripture where people did forsake the lifestyle of sin, then returned to it. This is why we say that a person can fall from grace, and be cut off. I agree, one cannot be “cut off” if one was never attached. One cannot aposasize if one has never embraced the life of faith. This is why we believe that those who have partaken of the life of grace, should they spurn it, are in a worse state then they were at first.

 

[guanophore]

We know that when one is saved by grace, through faith, not as a result of works, that he is then “created in Christ Jesus” for good works.

So, does God, upon loss of salvation, un-create him? Being “in Christ” does God then reverse him back to again being “in Adam;” once again dead in his trespasses and sins?

No, the seal that is placed on the believer is permanent.

" For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." Rom 11:29-30

For those who choose to persist in sin, God will give them over to their desires.

“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.” Rom 2:9-11

Having been redeemed (purchased) by precious blood, does God un-redeem him; sell him back to his previous state of slavery?

Scripture is clear that the one who sins becomes a slave to sin. If one yields one’s members to sin, then one will become enslaved by it.

 Having been **reconciled** to God, does God then *un-reconcile* him; return him back to being, once again, an enemy of God?

Embracing the sins that one has forsaken will, indeed, make one again an enemy of God.

Having been **regenerated** by the Spirit, does the Spirit *un-regenerate* him?  Where he was once **made alive** by the Spirit to the things of God, does the Spirit then *spiritually kill* him off again?

Indeed not! It is sin that kills the life of the Spirit. The wages of sin are death.

Having been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, does the Spirit un-baptize him out of Christ’s body?

No, once a son is adopted, he is still a son, even if he turns wicked.

“Accursed children! 15 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray;” 2 Peter 2:14-15

Can you show me by example in Scripture where God ever un-creates something He’s created?

God chose Saul, annointed him King, then regretted it.

10 “have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments.” 1 Sam 15:10-11

He tore the Kingdom from Saul, and gave it away.

Where Christ ever sells back that which He purchased with the price of His own shed blood? Where the Spirit takes away life rather than gives it?

Jesus will never sell that which He has purchased by His own blood.

“By no means! Let God be true though every man be false” Rom 3:4

However, God has ordained that the wage of sin is death. If one refuses to embrace the payment that He has provided,then one will die.

“How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things." Acts 5:9-11

Do you think that God will embrace one who lies into eternal life?

]I think what you utterly fail to understand is what a “Christian” actually is according to divine revelation. What, by the power of God, divine salvation actually entails. Nor will you ever know as long as you continue to believe your works have anything, or everything, to do with it.

I agree that there are many Catholics who really fail to understand what it means to be created in Christ, to be transferred from the Kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, and the notion of placing our thoughts above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. It is hard to live by faith, whether one is baptized as a Catholic or not. However, ones deeds have everything to do with living as a Christian. Your statement seemst to imply that “works” have nothing to do with being a Christian, and this is contrary to Apostolic Teaching.

 

[guanophore]

No. An apostate never has believed. When the gospel is lost, so is the ability to believe it unto salvation.

LOL!!!

I look forward to a new and innovative definition of the word “apostate”.

The gospel can’t get “lost”.!

Not at all. God justified Abraham upon belief in Him. He had already made an unconditional covenant with him to bless him.

Based on what you’ve written here, according to your theology God is not perfect. He is constantly in need of learning based on man’s actions. That’s not the God of the Bible.

God has chosen to interact with mankind. God changes His course of action based upon man’s choices. God made Saul king, then regretted it. God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but was willing to spare them based on the prayer of Abraham.

God is always faithful to His covenant, even if man is faithless.

 

[guanophore]

So did Jesus take care of all the sins we have committed, are committing, and will commit? Yes, on the cross at calvary. Once and for all. He said, “It is finished.” He will remember your SINS no more. The only sin he does not forgive is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I am sorry, csandoval, but you have been misinformed. Yes, Jesus work of redemption on the cross is finished, but ours is not. We are called upon to live a life worthy of the calling to which we have been called. Christ’s sacrifice is timeless, but our sins are also. If we choose not to apply the redemption made available on the cross, then we will pay for our sins - those we committed in the past, the present, and the future.

Scripture and the Apostles do not teach anywhere that we are no longer responsible for our deeds. Not all the sins of everyone are covered, but only those who are “in Christ”. To be in Christ means that we obey Him, cease from sin, and persevere until the end. Only those that do this will receive the crown of righteousness.

 

[Holly3278]

This verse from the Bible totally refutes the claim of salvation by “faith alone”:

James 2:24 RSV You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Did you know that James 2:24 is the only verse in the Bible where the phrase “faith alone” appears?

 

[moondweller]

Your statement seems to imply that “works” have nothing to do with being a Christian, and this is contrary to Apostolic Teaching.

I never said works have nothing to do with being a Christian. Works have nothing to with God saving you: “by grace, through faith, not as a result of works.” That, guanophore, is Apostolic teaching at its purest.

 

[moondweller]

LOL!!!

I look forward to a new and innovative definition of the word “apostate”.

The gospel can’t get “lost”.!

You’re wrong, guanophore. Especially when the gospel of grace is supplanted by a “gospel” of works. The latter produces apostates (by the millions).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have read your article and I find some erroneous reasoning and substantial omissions.
You are right that Protestants and Catholics mean different things by justification. To most Protestants justification is part of salvation but not the whole of it. You then proceed to compare the Catholic view with the Protestant view without considering the other parts of the Protestant position that are relevant to a full understanding of Protestant belief.
In particular you stress the distinction between imputation and infusion without acknowledging that Protestantism does recognize an infusion, resulting in an actual change of the person as part of salvation. This is the concept of regeneration which refers to the spiritual rebirth and the infusion of a new nature into a man through the Holy Spirit. I am not a Calvinist but you do quote from a number of Calvinist sources on a selective basis. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin deals with regeneration as part of repentance.
(continued)

I quoted two major sources of Protestant belief, the Westminster Confession (Calvinist) and the Book of Concord (Lutheran) which BOTH explicitly reject the notion of justification being on the basis of infused grace.

Further, I made sure to include a paragraph stating that Protestants believe sanctification DOES take place but that it began AFTER justification had taken place.

This is a critical distinction which I made in my article and you misunderstood.

On the key issue of justification, the classical Protestant position is adamant that infused grace has no part.

To include infused righteousness at the time of justification makes imputation of an alien righteousness superfluous.

As for the issue of regeneration in Reformed theology, that is an issue in which I cannot find a straight/consistent answer for. The Reformed Ordo Salutis for this part is: regeneration (infused grace), justification (imputed grace), sanctification (infused).
If regeneration involves infused grace then the idea that imputation is still necessary is an illogical next step, I have found various “explanations” for this but they never take it to its logical conclusion, this is why some Lutherans reject the idea that regeneration comes before faith or justification because they are adamant that justification is not based on anything in our soul.

 

[guanophore]

This is a very interesting passage containing contradictions within itself.

But seeing that all the desires of the flesh are enmity against God, the first step to the obedience of his law is the renouncement of our own nature.

This perception is one which is based on the erroneous notion of total depravity. This is false because God created man, then proclaimed His creation “good”. While humanity is separated from fellowship with God, and wounded by the consequences of original sin, not all of our desires are at enmity against God. On contrary, our hearts are restless until we rest in God, for by Him were were created to love and to serve Him, and we cannot find peace without Him. Even Calvanists admit that we have a God sized hole in our hearts.

Again, “Put ye on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life.

Here, Calvin contradicts himself. First, he says that “all the desires of the flesh are at enmity with God”. Here he says that humans are, indeed, made in “the image of God that created him.”

Such an image can be marred, but not unmade. Calvin also speaks to “restoration”, by which he affirms that man, in his created state of grace, was a reflection of his creator. It is to this image that God intends to restore us. Why “restore” something that is totally depraved?

All writers of sound judgment agree in this,

I had forgotten about this phrase. It gave me such a chortle!

Augustine himself dose not always refrain from using the name of sin, as when he says, “Paul gives the name of sin to that carnal concupiscence from which all sins arise. This in regard to the saints loses its dominion in this world, and is destroyed in heaven.” In these words he admits that believers, in so far as they are liable to carnal concupiscence, are chargeable with sin.

Perhaps I misunderstand Calvin here, but it is not right that the tendency toward sin is a sin itself.

We admit that these remains, just as if they had no existence, are not imputed, but we, at the same time, contend that it is owing to the mercy of God that the saints **are not charged **with the guilt which would otherwise make them sinners before God.
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.iv.html

So, are they chargeable with sin, or not?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So Calvin recognizes that righteousness is infused into us as part of salvation, but he distinguishes regeneration from justification.

Nothing in my article misrepresents this issue, the point stands that Protestants believe Justification is not on the basis of the status of our soul and that is why an alien righteousness must be imputed.

He also recognizes that we cannot be considered completely righteous because of the concupiscence which still remains within us. This concupiscence is a primary reason that justification is viewed as imputed righteousness because, by God’s standard, righteousness would be perfection.

I actually made this point as clear as I could in the first few chapters, and this is why Catholics and Protestants see justification very differently.

Several passages make clear that we can never truly be completely righteous in this lifetime.

Hogwash. This is a grave Protestant misunderstanding and error, founded on the misunderstanding of salvation. Two passages that come to mind contradicting your claim are:1 Jn 1 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

1 Jn 3 7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he [Jesus] is righteous.

So according to Hebrews we are not perfect since that would mean that we would not be conscious of sins.

This is the Protestant error of equating temptation and concupiscence with actual sin itself. A person can be truly righteous and still be tempted, it is when he gives into temptation that he sins and becomes unrighteous.

James tells us that any violation, which does not seem to exclude what Catholics would call venial sin, makes us guilty of all.

That is ripping a passage out of context. James says if you judge others you will be judged by the strict standards of the law which requires 100% perfection. That is why he tells them to adhere to the law of Christ. This isnt about venial versus mortal sin.

The Psalmist tells us that no one alive is righteous in God’s sight. This all would show that, although we are infused with a new spirit and nature, we are not truly made righteous because we can still sin and are, therefore, not perfect.

That is saying no man is righteous in and of them self, man was not righteous his whole life and in fact was unrighteous until he repented. The idea that we are not truly righteous because we can still sin is a bogus claim. For example:Lk 1 5In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

James 1 12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

With respect to the meaning that impute may have in other parts of Scripture, it is not really relevant in dealing with it in the matter of justification.

It most certainly is relevant because as I show in my article TWO key issues come to light when examining the usage of “impute”: (1) It does NOT always mean imputing an alien status, and (2) it is most often used in reference to the actual status and not an alien one. Given this a Protestant cannot turn to the very important Gen 15:6 and claim imputed alien status as if that was the plain reading of the text.
To make matters WORSE I quote from people like Calvin who “prove” impute means an alien status when the true analysis of its usage says just the opposite!!

What is important is the context in which it is used, particularly in Romans 4, and whether, in relation to the rest of Scripture, in such a context it can mean actually being made righteous.

BINGO! And that is why the Protestant position is utterly destroyed on this point. There is ZERO in the context of Gen 15:6 that indicates Abraham was considered righteous but in fact was unrighteous. To read Gen 15:6 and say Abraham was actually unrighteous is pure eisegesis and the worst foundation to build Sola Fide off of, yet that is just what happened. ON TOP of that I make an appeal to Abraham’s faith before Gen 15 which is where people like you and Sandusky have gotten entangled in previous conversations because you cant explain Abraham living a God pleasing life and yet not be justified (not considered righteous) until Gen 15.

As seen, while an infusion does take place in regeneration, by which we are cleansed from sin and a new nature imparted, we still have part of our old sin nature or concupiscence within us.

This is not the teaching of Scripture but rather the Protestant misunderstanding of it and a erroneous conclusion by assuming what it does about justification.

Thus, while we may be viewed as more righteous, we cannot truly be said to be righteous.

That goes flatly against the plain passages I have provided above. What does “cleanse us from all unrighteousness” mean except the person no longer has what makes them unrighteous.

It should be noted, however, that even if a statistical evaluation of the word impute is of value, one quarter of the times that it appears in the New Testament is in Romans 4 and other places dealing with imputation of righteousness. To leave such a large part of the usage out of the evaluation is questionable.

This is a truly fair point to make. But that still doesnt help the Protestant case because the evidence we can garnish from the other passages. At that point the Protestant NEEDS to make a solid case for why “impute” doesnt follow the general usage, and until and unless that is done they have no business (from a purely honest and fair perspective) insisting that “impute” means imputing an alien status. Anything short of addressing the fact of the general usage of impute and then making a case why it doesnt follow that is pure eisegesis. It is pure eisegesis ESPECIALLY considering the typical usage results in a perfectly intelligible interpretation of such passages as Gen 15:6.

With respect to Abraham and Genesis 12, it is not really a problem for a non-Calvinist who does not accept once saved always saved.

This isnt about OSAS, OSAS is only a small part of the issue. The issue is how Abraham was pleasing God all those years before Gen 15 but was not actually justified until Gen 15.

Justification can be viewed as a conditional verdict that remains in place so long as saving faith endures. It is a pronouncement of innocence and righteousness that is continually being made.

That is why my article focused on classical Protestantism. What you advocate is somewhat Lutheran but not true to the classical Protestant teaching on justification as a whole (I mention this in my article). If you are pronounced innocent/righteous due to an external factor then logically whatever you do has no bearing on that pronouncement.

It would be as if a child was covered in mud but was considered clean by the parent because a white blanket covered the mud from the parents eyes. Whatever goes on under the blanket plays no role in whether the child is viewed as clean.

Catholics say this is unacceptable and Catholics that the child must be washed first, removing the mud, making him truly clean in the parent’s eye. Should the child disobey and go play in the mud again they are seen as unclean by the parent and must be washed again or punished for their disobedience.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Dude, where in scripture do the words “infuse with righteousness,” “infused with righteousness,” or “infusion of righteousness,” or, for that matter, any of those combinations with the word “grace” appear?

You either are attempting to confuse the issue…or you really dont get it.

Infused grace means God’s grace entering your soul making it righteous. Rom 5:5 is a classic passage for the Catholic understanding of Sanctifying Grace: The love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Spirit which was given to us. The INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit in our soul which formerly did not indwell!!! That is the essence of sanctifying grace. The term “infused” is merely used to express the concept that this is put into you rather than an external status being counted in place of your soul.

Picture a stain in a carpet. Infused grace would be equivalent to a detergent lifting the stain from the carpet while imputed grace would be as if a beautiful oriental rug were placed on the carpet to hide the stain.

Anytime the Bible talks about “purifying the heart” and other similar phrases that can only logically mean an infused grace, not imputed grace.

Better yet, in scripture, do any combination of the words “righteousness,” or “grace,” appear with any form of the word “infuse;” give me a direct yes or no answer, please?

This isnt about the term “infuse” appearing in Scripture, it is about the concept. The term “impute” doesnt actually appear in Scripture, it is an ENGLISH translation of Greek and Hebrew words which could just as easily be translated “counted”, “reckoned”, “etc”. My article goes into the details of this.

---

 

[csandoval]

I am sorry, csandoval, but you have been misinformed. Yes, Jesus work of redemption on the cross is finished, but ours is not. We are called upon to live a life worthy of the calling to which we have been called. Christ’s sacrifice is timeless, but our sins are also. If we choose not to apply the redemption made available on the cross, then we will pay for our sins - those we committed in the past, the present, and the future.

Scripture and the Apostles do not teach anywhere that we are no longer responsible for our deeds. Not all the sins of everyone are covered, but only those who are “in Christ”. To be in Christ means that we obey Him, cease from sin, and persevere until the end. Only those that do this will receive the crown of righteousness.

Yeah. But are you going to be able to do that??? Cease from sin??? I don’t think so. You are going to keep on sinning because we are still in the flesh. That is why God gave us the Ten Commandments. To let us know and see for ourselves that we cannot keep them. We are reconciled with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only way. When we accept Him as our Lord and Saviour, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit.
We are not under the Law anymore but under Grace, which, by the way, we don’t deserve but it is because He loves us so much and everyday I thank Him for that. Thank You Lord Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

I think what you utterly fail to understand is what a “Christian” actually is according to divine revelation. What, by the power of God, divine salvation actually entails. Nor will you ever know as long as you continue to believe your works have anything, or everything, to do with it.

I never said works have nothing to do with being a Christian. Works have nothing to with God saving you: “by grace, through faith, not as a result of works.” That, guanophore, is Apostolic teaching at its purest.

I am relieved to find that I misunderstand your statement about one’s behavior having nothing to do with one’s identity as a Christian.

However, works do have plenty to do with God saving us. He saves us FOR those works. It is the expression of who we are, once we are regenerated, that God uses to bring the world to Himself. By our fruits are we known. By our love, everyone will know that we are His. This is part and parcel of God’s plan of salvation for man.

 

[guanophore]

You’re wrong, guanophore. Especially when the gospel of grace is supplanted by a “gospel” of works. The latter produces apostates (by the millions).

The gospel of grace cannot be supplanted. God’s word is powerful, and accomplishes that for which it is sent. The introduction of error does not nullify the Truth. On the contrary, it is with division that the Truth is more clearly seen.

I am still waiting for the innovative definition of an apostate.