Faith Alone

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Im not sure how to interpret this smiley.

Are you unable to explain what you meant when you said:

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

Philthy:

It would seem that you are saying that the “desires of their heart” is what allows the exercise of free will which separates men from robots. However, if God controls the desires of the heart then men are no different from robots really. At least it seems that way to me - but I am not as smart or educated as you are and perhaps Im missing something. So I asked the simple question…

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.

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).

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

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.

Philthy:

which, though pleasant, leaves the question unanswered and your concept of free will flapping in the breeze. Whatever…

The clear teaching of scripture is that fallen man’s only desire is for evil.

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

 

[Pax]

The clear teaching of scripture is that fallen man’s only desire is for evil.

This is an absurd statement in light of scripture. I suggest that you make your best case for this “abolute” statement and then we will discuss it.

 

[guanophore]

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

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.

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).

As difficult as it is to find a charitable response for such a condescending post, I am going to answer this for the many lurkers reading the thread. You are right to say that Catholics do not believe that the divine image has been removed from man because of the fall. We don’t believe that because it is not Apostolic Teaching. Jesus taught that the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable, and when God made man in His own image, He declared His creation "good’. The fall wounded our good nature, but does not remove the reality that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Even the heart of man turned away from God still yearns for Him. We may be unable to free ourselves from the evil that enslaves us, but it does not mean we are all evil.

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

More condescending, snide and uncharitable remarks. He must be really hitting the spot, I guess.

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. The clear teaching of scripture is that fallen man’s only desire is for evil.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you wish, even if it contradicts the teaching of Jesus.

I have some questions for you, though

Gen 4:6-7
6 The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

Was Cain “unregenerate”? If so, then why was he bothered that his sacrifice was not received. If he was unregenerate, why was he offering a sacrfice at all?

Was God asking a rhetorical question? Was Cain unacceptable whether he had faith or not?

If he was regenerate, how can sin master him?

Next set of questions:

Acts 17:22-28
"Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26 From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him — though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,
‘For we too are his offspring.’

Would you not agree that Paul is speaking here to Pagans (unregenerate persons)?

Why were they moved to worship that which they did not know?
If all the desires of their heart were evil continually, why did Paul commend them for being religious?

Why did God create humans “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him”?

Why would God expect the unregenerate to search for Himself? If the desires of their heart are only at enmity with God at all times, why masquerade seeking the divine at all?

Why would Paul state that humans live and move and have their being in God if this is not possible for the unregenerate?

Such passages support the Catholic teaching that our nature is made in the image and likeness of God, and that we are capable of choosing the good. There is an inner part of our being that is restless until it rests in God. This is the image of Himself that He has made to dwell in us, since we are fashioned to live in fellowship with Him. Since you reject Apostolic Teaching, perhaps you will help me understand how you dispense with these passages?

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

Justification is ongoing, not a one time event.

Romans 5:1 states that, having been justified by faith, (a passive), the believer has peace with God (indicative). Justification is a one-time event. Sanctification should increase, but one is never more justified than he is at the moment of God’s justifying him.

ryanoneil:

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the promised land as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs of the same promise; for he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and maker is God. Heb. 11:8-10 proves Abraham’s justification occurred in Gen. 12:1-4

No it doesn’t. The HS superintends what the writer’s record, and it’s significant that the Spirit’s declaration of Abraham’s righteousness occurs in Gen 15, and not in Gen 12; neither does the writer of Hebrews declare Abraham’s justification from Gen 12, but only that Abraham has faith when he went out.

ryanoneil:

For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Rom 4:3 proves Abraham is further justified in Gen. 15:6.

No it doesn’t. Justification is a one time declaration by God, as Paul, also under the inspiration of the HS, cites Gen 15:6 with respect to Abraham’s justification and not to Gen 12 in his explanation of said justification.

ryanoneil:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” James 2:21-23 proves that Abraham is further justified in Gen. 22:1-18. These verses prove that justification before God is an on-going process, not a one-time event. It also proves faith and works.

No it doesn’t.

The tensing and the voice of the Greek (aorist, passive), indicates the basis of Abraham’s righteousness is God’s “reckoning,” righteousness to him; what the works have to do with Abraham’s justification (v21) is they “show” (in keeping with James’ use of, “I see…you see,” “show me…I’ll show you), that Abraham was indeed justified by God, and that God’s declaration of Abraham’s righteousness in Gen 15 is vindicated in Abraham’s offering of Isaac (Jas 2:23).

IOW, Abraham was already justified when he offered Isaac (cf Gen 15:6).

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Why were they moved to worship that which they did not know?
If all the desires of their heart were evil continually, why did Paul commend them for being religious?

Why did Paul evangelize them from their false gods to the “one true” God if they were truly seeking the one true God?

guanophore:

Why did God create humans “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him”?

If anyone is groping for God it’s because of His doing. Scripture is clear that no one seeks God apart from God’s doing.

guanophore:

Why would God expect the unregenerate to search for Himself? If the desires of their heart are only at enmity with God at all times, why masquerade seeking the divine at all?

That is a logical argument, and not a scriptural argument; however, that fits for you because, as you said a few days ago, Catholic doctrine has no Biblical basis.

guanophore:

Why would Paul state that humans live and move and have their being in God if this is not possible for the unregenerate?

Your question reveals much.

All creatures, whether regenerate, or unregenerate, saved, or condemned, are utterly dependant upon God for everything. You claim to have been to seminary so you should know that.

 

[sandusky]

This is an absurd statement in light of scripture. I suggest that you make your best case for this “abolute” statement and then we will discuss it.

I would suggest to anyone reading this that they read Luther’s The Bondage of the Will.

You’ll find nowhere, a finer explanation of the folly of “free-will” than Luther’s response to Erasmus.

 

[Pax]

You have not provided a scriptural proof of your “absolute” contention. Believe me, we can show that your absolute statement is false by way of scripture. I have covered Luther and Calvin before, but I will spend some time later to read the link you provided.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I"ll go ahead a filter eveything in you post that doesn’t have to do with “faith alone” directly. I’ll highlite that parts that don’t relate to the topic for you in blue.

Why do you add the word “initial” to justification? One cannot contextually justify it:Rom 3:24 "…being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Rom 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,In the first verse our justification is gifted by His grace (unmerited) and based on nothing other than the redemptive work of Jesus Christ (the cross). In the second, it states that we “have been justified” (a done deal) by faith, which is the grounds for our now having peace with God.

None of the writers ever imply that the justification the believer receives from God by faith, according to His grace, and based on Christ’s redemptive work, is only initial in nature. Nor can that conclusion be warranted by the wording or the context.

Now a verse like, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; the gift of God; not as a result of works,” explicitly restricts salvation to being “by grace” (alone) and “through faith” (alone). And to expel all doubts Paul adds, “not as a result of works.”

To expel all doubts, all Paul needed to do would be to add the word “alone” to faith, but he didn’t. So scripture must stand as written, no matter what you think it should say. Was Paul wrong for not adding the word “alone” to faith? It seems as if you believe that.

Scriptural evidence itself argues for the word “alone.” Exegetically it’s demanded by the context in your traditions from luther and calvin. And the only reason why it’s disputed at all is because there are those who refuse to, as you say, “allow it to stand on its own.” They simply won’t believe it. Such grace is repugnant to them.

“Alone” in no way changes the meaning of Scripture. In your opinion, which has no bearing here. In fact, it defends the integrity of its message. In your opinion, which has no bearing here.

No scripture to back up you assertions regarding “faith” and alone being implied in scripture just your opinion? I’ll stick with scripture, opinions have no authority in the teaching of scripture. Isn’t bible alone one of your traditions. Why do you need to go outside of the Bible alone to justify this tradition of faith alone? It’s either in the bible for all to see or it’s not. This reformed tradition is clearly not in there. How can anyone come the the conclusion that Faith alone is implied just by reading the bible. They can’t. They have to rely on external sources.

Which reformed tradition are you throwing under the bus, faith alone or bible alone?

 

[guanophore]

Romans 5:1 states that, having been justified by faith, (a passive), the believer has peace with God (indicative). Justification is a one-time event. Sanctification should increase, but one is never more justified than he is at the moment of God’s justifying him.

I agree with you that one is no more justified than he is at the moment of God’s justification of him. The point is that there are many such points in the life of faith, as Paul and James’ treatment of the life of Abraham demonstrate.

This is why we call the first instance “initial” justification. In the posts above, it has been demonstrated that Abraham had many instances of justification, each an occasion of increased grace.

No it doesn’t. The HS superintends what the writer’s record, and it’s significant that the Spirit’s declaration of Abraham’s righteousness occurs in Gen 15, and not in Gen 12; neither does the writer of Hebrews declare Abraham’s justification from Gen 12, but only that Abraham has faith when he went out.

I agree that the HS superintends what the writer records. But scripture is clear that we are justified by works, and not faith alone. Faith is a pre-requisite, and faith is completed by our works. This is why we say that justification begins, then is ongoing. when one is walking in the grace of his justification, we say that he is in a 'state of grace" - in that grace by which he stands justified. When he is in such a state, he can do righteous deeds, which bring more grace.

 

[sandusky]

Here is the complete, The Bondage of the Will, available for reading online.

 

[guanophore]

Why did Paul evangelize them from their false gods to the “one true” God if they were truly seeking the one true God?

It says so right there in the text. " I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." Acts 17:23-24

Although they sought for Him, they did not know Him. The point is that they had an inner inclination to seek for God, even in their unregenerate state. No one can do this without grace. God has fashioned man to seek after Him and to perhaps fnd Him.

If anyone is groping for God it’s because of His doing. Scripture is clear that no one seeks God apart from God’s doing.

We are in agreement on this point. Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to think that the fallen state of mankind erases the fact that he has been made in the image and likeness of God.

That is a logical argument, and not a scriptural argument; however, that fits for you because, as you said a few days ago, Catholic doctrine has no Biblical basis.

You are right, all Catholic doctrine is based in the Teaching of Jesus, and was whole and entire before any word of the NT was written. however, you did not address my point. Is God playing some sort of “lose-lose” with mankind?

"… that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, 28 for

‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your poets have said,

‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ Acts 17:27-28

Why would God fashion us to seek for Him, if it was not possible to find Him? How is it that man seeks, when He is unregenerate? Why does Paul affirm to the Pagans that what their poets have written is true, that we have our being in Him, and we are his offspring? How can this be true of Pagans?

Your question reveals much.

All creatures, whether regenerate, or unregenerate, saved, or condemned, are utterly dependant upon God for everything. You claim to have been to seminary so you should know that.

Perhaps, if you were to answer it, more would be revealed. Please explain how it is that man, being at enmity with God with only evil in his heart continually, is his offspring. Clearly we are not made the children of God until we are adopted, are we?

You are right, it was the study of this subject in seminary that convinced me that the notion of total depravity was in error. And that was a school based on Calvanistic thinking!

 

[kaycee]

No scripture to back up you assertions regarding “faith” and alone being implied in scripture just your opinion? I’ll stick with scripture, opinions have no authority in the teaching of scripture. Isn’t bible alone one of your traditions. Why do you need to go outside of the Bible alone to justify this tradition of faith alone? It’s either in the bible for all to see or it’s not. This reformed tradition is clearly not in there. How can anyone come the the conclusion that Faith alone is implied just by reading the bible. They can’t. They have to rely on external sources.

When someone pays a parking fine and the judge renders a guilty verdict, saying, “that’ll be 20 dollars”, do you automatically assume you owe 20 dollars AND community service?

Does, the judge need to say, " that’ll be 20 dollars, alone." before you actually understand him?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

When someone pays a parking fine and the judge renders a guilty verdict, saying, “that’ll be 20 dollars”, do you automatically assume you owe 20 dollars AND community service?

Does, the judge need to say, " that’ll be 20 dollars, alone." before you actually understand him?

Doesn’t the guilty person need to also ask for for forgiveness from God and his faith community for offending them and if truly sorry would do community service in humble observance of the fact that a law was broken and the intent of sorrow was true.

Someone who lives only by the law would do a you say, but we are no long “of the law”, are we?

 

[guanophore]

When someone pays a parking fine and the judge renders a guilty verdict, saying, “that’ll be 20 dollars”, do you automatically assume you owe 20 dollars AND community service?

Does, the judge need to say, " that’ll be 20 dollars, alone." before you actually understand him?

If community service has always been included in the penalty for parking fines from the day they were invented, then yes, I would automatically assume that I owed it. In the same way, the Apostolic Teaching from the very beginning is faith that works, not faith without.

 

[kaycee]

If community service has always been included in the penalty for parking fines from the day they were invented, then yes, I would automatically assume that I owed it. In the same way, the Apostolic Teaching from the very beginning is faith that works, not faith without.

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.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

I agree with you that one is no more justified than he is at the moment of God’s justification of him.

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

guanophore:

I agree that the HS superintends what the writer records. But scripture is clear that we are justified by works, and not faith alone.

Scripture says that a man is justified by faith, and not by works. Earlier in the thread I cited from Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361, those ECFs who said the same before Luther.

guanophore:

Although they sought for Him, they did not know Him. The point is that they had an inner inclination to see for God, even in their unregenerate state. No one can do this without grace. God has fashioned man to seek after Him and to perhaps fnd Him.

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 finds himself engaged in a dispute with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers.

Each group had different practical approaches to life. Epicureans taught that one should pursue fulfilment and actively avoid displeasure. The gods role in ones life was considered marginal.

OTOH, the Stoics thought that one attained fulfilment in the acceptance of the course of events of ones life, including pain and suffering. Pain and suffering, they believed, should be endured quietly, even gratefully, because they are part of natural course of events controlled by an impersonal divine necessity or ‘fate’.

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.

Paul’s speech is a reply to the charge of ‘preaching foreign gods’ (18). IMO, Paul uses guarded language and ambiguous phrases. His observation in every way you are very religious could carry either the meaning of ‘religious’ in a positive sense, or ‘superstitious’ in the negative sense (I believe the latter is the sense Paul intended).

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, but they didn’t know it. However, that’s not Paul’s intent. Three points to keep in mind. 1) Paul’s first line of defence to the charge against him, is how can they accuse him of preaching a foreign god contrary to their religions, if their religions themselves incorporate the worship of gods they do not know? 2) The English is misleading. The emphasis in the sentence is on the Athenians ignorance in their worship, and not upon the identity of the ‘unknown god.’ So then, Paul, focuses on their admitted ignorance concerning the identity of God. 3) The thrust of the speech seems positive, but what Paul is saying is ‘you think you worship God, but … ’.

(continued below)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #892

guanophore:

It says so right there in the text. " I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." Acts 17:23-24

The altar with the inscription TO AN UNKNOWN GOD and the legend behind the unknown God is the backdrop for Paul’s speech. Legend had it that once there had been a plague in the city, and all attempts to appease the gods and stop the plague failed. A wise men brought a flock of sheep to the top of Mars Hill and released them. Wherever these sheep stopped, an altar was erected to an ‘anonymous god’ and the animal was sacrificed. The city returned to health, so the actions were considered effective. Paul’s focusing on their ignorance, and superstition with respect to that.

guanophore:

Is God playing some sort of “lose-lose” with mankind?

"… that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us…

From a less than inquisitive, surface reading of the text, Paul’s statement that God’s intention that people would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us appears as though all the pagan needs do is reach out and touch God, but the flavor of the language is tragedy. The grammar is clear that it is God’s wish, and not what happens. The word translated ‘groping’ is in the sense of ‘blindly feeling about for’. The final clause shows the negative result: ‘though he is not far’ rather than ‘since he is not far’. The point being made is not he is close, so people can find him, but rather, people cannot find him, but that isn’t because he is far away.

guanophore:

as even some of your poets have said,

‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ Acts 17:27-28

Why would God fashion us to seek for Him, if it was not possible to find Him? How is it that man seeks, when He is unregenerate? Why does Paul affirm to the Pagans that what their poets have written is true, that we have our being in Him, and we are his offspring? How can this be true of Pagans?

The phrase we are his offspring is from a poem to Zeus by the astronomer Aratus, Paul’s point is not that the pagan poets knew a lot about what was right, but rather that pagan thought and practice were inconsistent, self-contradictory, superstitious and wrong.

guanophore:

We are in agreement on this point. Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to think that the fallen state of mankind erases the fact that he has been made in the image and likeness of God.

The fall doesn’t erase the image of God in man, but the fall has damaged the image of God in man such that the goal of salvation is the conforming of the believer to the image of God, the Son. It would seem, then, that more than a mere “wounding” has taken place.

guanophore:

Perhaps, if you were to answer it, more would be revealed. Please explain how it is that man, being at enmity with God with only evil in his heart continually, is his offspring. Clearly we are not made the children of God until we are adopted, are we?

Again, you find Paul’s encounter on Mars Hill to be an affirmation of pagan idol worship when the opposite is true. Paul’s point is not that the pagan poets know what’s right, but that pagan thought and practice were inconsistent, self-contradictory, superstitious, and wrong.

That is seen in the final part of the speech which is not a theological treatise concerning the status of those who had never heard the gospel.

Paul’s whole speech revolves around the altar to the ‘unknown god’ (see on vs 22–23). That altar was used as a form of worship whose sole intent was to cover as many of the bases they could conceive of as existing in order to remain on the good side of the unknown god so that the city might be spared from catastrophe.

Paul, once again, goes to the heart of the matter—their ignorance. They were not living good lives safe from catastrophe because they were right, but because God had …overlooked the times of ignorance… but God isn’t going to do that forever, Paul says, because God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed….

That’s a clear warning, or statement that their easy-free-from-catastrophe-lives, were not due to their idol-worship, but rather to God’s mercy in overlooking their ignorance.

That said, everyone is a child of God in the creaturely sense, however, only those who believe according to His will are rightly called children of God (Jn 1:12-13).

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I think Paul would disagree with your understanding.

As a fellow Catholic, he doesn’t.

 

[kaycee]

As a fellow Catholic, he doesn’t.

Oh, Yes, he does.

Paul is a Christian as, the word “Catholic” would not be used for many years to come and would mean Universal, not in the modern Roman Catholic sense

 

[Thing]

Oh, Yes, he does.

Paul is a Christian as, the word “Catholic” would not be used for many years to come and would mean Universal, not in the modern Roman Catholic sense

If the CC did not exist protestantism would not exist.
St Paul was not protesting against Christ’s and the Apostolic Church.
St. Paul was a member of the same Catholic Church that has existed since his time. Protestantism would not exist for another 1,500 years, at least.
Therefore St. Paul is Catholic, and you, my friend, are protestant.