HELP! Does Romans 4 preach sola fide?

[mikeledes]

Apophasis, I know I should not discuss this in this thread, but I cannot pass on your analysis of John 6. You said “eating” and “drinking” refers to belief in Christ. That is not stated in the text.

1. Whenever Jesus uses figurative language that causes confusion or controversy, either He (John 3:3-6, 4:32-34, 10:1-11, 11:11-14, Matthew 13:36-43) or the Evangelist (John 2:19-21, 8:37-39, 21:22-23, Matthew 16:12) explains what He meant. Neither of these cases occurs in John 6. If he was referring merely to belief in Him, which is a constant theme in John’s Gospel, why didn’t He clarify His statement and even allowed disciples to abandon Him because of it. It’s not like He never talked about belief in Him before. He does it in the first half of chapter 6.
2. You might say that he talks about whoever comes to Him will never hunger and whoever believes in Him will never thirst and thus what He’s talking about in the second half of John 6 is faith. That is not so. What Jesus meant was that it is through faith in Him that our spiritual needs are met and it is through faith in Him that we have access to God’s gifts and blessings. Among those gifts is the Eucharist. You cannot partake of the Body and Blood of Christ unless you believe in Christ first. So through belief in Christ we have access to one of His greatest gifts, the gift of Himself.
3. You said the following about the difference between being “in Christ” and “abiding in Christ:”

What you fail to understand is the difference between the terms “in Christ,” and “abiding in” Christ. The former is the true believer’s eternal “union” with Christ, being now “in Him,” a positional truth). The latter is the true believer’s “communion” with Him (volitional) which, in this context, is the cause of bearing fruit in this life. Apart from the believer “abiding” in Christ he can bear no “fruit” here. Which has nothing to do with maintaining his salvation or (divinely declared) justification, through faith, based entirely on “the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 4:24).

So if the John 6:51-58 is about faith, then the “eating” and “drinking” should refer to our “union” with Christ, since “communion” (i.e. abides, volitional) applies to the period after we have come to believe in Christ, post-justification. However, we read in John 6:56:

“He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood ABIDES in Me, and I in Him.”

So if “abides” applies to the true believers communion with Christ (volitional), then John 6:51-58 cannot refer to faith, since “abiding” comes after faith and justification, not before. So the “eating” and the “drinking” refers to an act the true believer has to perform (volitional), not to His justification (i.e. positional). Remember, the “abides in Me” language is usually used in reference to keeping commandments and bearing fruit (volitional) in order, according to you, to maintain communion with Christ (John 15:10, 1 John 3:24). So what He is saying then, is that in order to maintain “communion” with Him, you must eat His flesh and drink His Blood. That’s funny, because another name for the Eucharist is “Holy Communion.” So the point? Using your distinction between positional (“in Christ”) and volitional (“abides in Me”), John 6:51-58 can only refer to the latter because of verse 56 (“abides”) and not to the former (i.e. faith).

This is all I will say on this topic because it is beyond the purview of this discussion.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

Michael,

Thanks for the explanation on the word “abide.” This is an important point and worthy of discussion. It is somewhat tangential to the basic discussion on this thread, but it is a point that cannot be ignored.

Nicely done.

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis, I know I should not discuss this in this thread, but I cannot pass on your analysis of John 6. You said “eating” and “drinking” refers to belief in Christ. That is not stated in the text.

1. Whenever Jesus uses figurative language that causes confusion or controversy, either He (John 3:3-6, 4:32-34, 10:1-11, 11:11-14, Matthew 13:36-43) or the Evangelist (John 2:19-21, 8:37-39, 21:22-23, Matthew 16:12) explains what He meant. Neither of these cases occurs in John 6. If he was referring merely to belief in Him, which is a constant theme in John’s Gospel, why didn’t He clarify His statement and even allowed disciples to abandon Him because of it.

He did clarify Himself in vs. 63. And why not allow those who refused to believe in Him to go?

So what He is saying then, is that in order to maintain “communion” with Him, you must eat His flesh and drink His Blood.

Actually, no. In context I believe eating His flesh and drinking His blood is figurative for internalizing, by faith, what He accomplishes for them on the cross (vs. 51, cf vss. 35-50). And by that faith His resurrected LIFE is received, transferred to, the believer (this is “union,” not “communion”). I believe it has no reference at all to His future institution of the sacrament of “Communion.”

 

[apophasis]

heisenberg:

Then you acknowledge that there is a differance between the old law (levitical) and the moral law. This is something that you have not clearly stated whether or not you understand.

Scripture does not recognize or distinquish between what you call the “Levitical” law and the “moral” law. There is the “old covenant” which is the Mosaic Law, the “Law of Moses,” which is recorded in three parts:

1. Commandments: Ex. 20:1-17
2. Judgments: (embrace the social requirements of Israel) Ex. 21:1 - 23:33
3. Ordinances: (regulate Israel’s worship) Ex. 25:1 - 31:18

These three satisfied all of Israel’s requirements before God as a rule of life. But the entire system, including the commandments, ceased as a rule of life with the death of Christ (Rom. 10:4). This side of the cross God calls all men, saves and justifies them, through faith in Christ:Rom 3:23-28 "…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. {This was} to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, {I say,} of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Rom. 4:13-14 "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 the Law are heirs, **faith is made void and the promise is nullified[/n];

Rom. 4:16 "For this reason {it is} by faith, in order that {it may be} in accordance with grace, so that the promise 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,

Phil 3:8-9 "More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from {the} Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which {comes} from God on the basis of faith,And the content of that “faith” is what God has done FOR US through the sacrificial work of His Son. It has absolutely nothing to do with works on our part of any kind; not even those which Christ works through those who are now a part of His body.

By choosing a theology that does not include a requirement for action, you are saying that christ instituted a belief structure that is not perfect in that its very nature can lead people into sin.

First of all I don’t “choose” any theology. I believe what is written and the gospel message that points to Christ and Christ alone. Salvation/justification through faith in Christ is perfect because God, who is perfect, bases it on the perfect work of the Son on the cross:"…so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26).

Say what you will about me possibly misunderstanding, but dO you really want to push a belief that effectivly says christ said it is ok to sin?

A totally erroneous conclusion, but not a surprising one from a legalistic mindset. Here is the Biblical answer to your question:1 Cor 6:11-12 “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.”

1 Cor 10:23-24 "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own {good,} but that of his neighbor."The believer is not under the principle of law, but GRACE. What you refuse to accept is that God can have a relationship with men, and men with God, apart from law (see Gal. 3:21 for this divine principle). But this is exactly what God has done through the sacrifice of His Son. It’s God Himself who places the true BELIEVER in righteous standing with Himself: “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”

There are warnings to you who want to be justified under the principle of law.**

 

[apophasis]

Antonius Lupis:

Oh, please. I grasped onto the Biblical view of salvation. Spare me brother. No reputable Biblical scholar even dares to teach a perception of divine Grace that follows Calvin’s T.U.L.I.P “Sola fide” is not the gospel.

First of all there are many very reputable Bible scholars that follow “Calvinism’s” five points. But “sola fide” finds its origin not there, but in the Scriptures. I, however, am not a Calvinist.

If so, then there wasn’t a gospel to speak of for 1500-odd years, since “sola fide” was a radically novel and unbiblical interpretation of justification and sanctification.

Actually, “sola fide” is a radical RETURN to the Scriptures based on what THEY teach regarding salvation/justification. And there were those within that 1500 year span who did understand it, within the church of Rome and without. When Luther finally came to grips with it, finding no personal satisfaction with the meritorioius system that came out of Rome, he acquired a profound appreciation for those who had understood it before him, especially those who were persecuted because of it.

Related to this is the slanderous assertion that Catholics are Pelagian or semi-Pelagian and believe in salvation by works. Nothing could be further from the truth. We merely refuse to separate works from faith in a dichotomous relationship as Luther did (which, BTW, is why he wanted to throw out the Epistle of James - so clear was its Catholic teaching).

The semi-pelagian accusation stems from your doctrine of “cooperation,” and meritorious works. We, however, do not separate works from faith, but we do, as do the Scripture, separate divine justification by faith from any of the works that follow. Justification being a declarative act of God, bestowed “as a gift by His grace THROUGH the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24, a direct reference to the cross). “The faith” by which God justifies the ungodly rests totally in the Apostolic message regarding this finished, redemption work of Christ on the cross.

The very first Canon on Justification in the Council of Trent states:

“If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”

This would seem to be sufficient to put the matter to rest. But blind prejudice and anti-Catholicism on the part of Evangelicals stubbornly persist.

Council of Trent Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, on the fruits of justification:

"to those who work well unto the end AND trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits – "nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life"Based on this meritorious statement no Catholic can ever be assured of salvation during this life time. According to Catholicism, eternal life is a personal goal one hopes to achieve at the end of his life - not a divine “gift” bestowed at the moment of faith in Christ. But Scripture says:Rom 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

 

[apophasis]

Antonius Lupus:

Not so. The word logizomai in Greek, which is often translated rightly as reckoned, refers to something greater than a merely legal declaration.

Not really! Since it’s the UNGODLY that God credits (reckons) righteousness.

No Catholic believes in our initial justification by works. Rather, we believe that our faith in Christ in the context of the “washing of renewal” (Titus 3:5) of baptism is what justifies (diakow).

Two errors in the above quote: (1) The Scriptures recognize no such doctrine as “initial” justification; (2) In all the passages on justification, none ever attach it to the act of baptism, but rather a personal faith in Christ and His work on our behalf.

Brother Apophasis you are confusing what Catholics actually believe. It is quite likely that you have gleaned your opinions on Catholic theology from Protestant sources (e.g. C.A.R.M.), rather than actually looking at Catholic sources.

Actually, I’ve gone to the original source and studied your catechism, some Catholic literary works, and of course I listen to Catholic Answers Live.

However, that is NOT the end of our salvation. Unlike Evangelical theology, our justification becomes a "work-in-progress" (Philippians 2:12) with the grace of Christ working in us (Phillipians 2:13).

Which is quite anti-Biblical since Paul emphatically teaches, “…being justified through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” Paul makes it quite clear that justification is not a post-cross “work” but a “gift” through Christ’s, once for all, sacrificial work. Now I would agree that there is an experiential, sanctification process that is going on in the believer’s life, but not a justification “progress.”

That is the meaning of John 15:1-14):

Can you show me where justification is being addressed anywhere in those verses?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

He did clarify Himself in vs. 63. And why not allow those who refused to believe in Him to go?Actually, no. In context I believe eating His flesh and drinking His blood is figurative for internalizing, by faith, what He accomplishes for them on the cross (vs. 51, cf vss. 35-50). And by that faith His resurrected LIFE is received, transferred to, the believer (this is “union,” not “communion”). I believe it has no reference at all to His future institution of the sacrament of “Communion.”

Interesting side topic.

The thing that jumps out is the phase “I believe” before any explaination with no actual scriptural support. We are all free to believe anything that we wish, right or wrong. In christianity, and to still be in christianity we are to believe what Christ taught not what “I believe”. Personal beliefs are not important, personal beliefs and relativism are dangerious, they allow to much room for ideas to enter our mind that are not of God. God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit guide us to the Truth through the bride of Christ, the Catholic Church. Stop your searching for Truth, it’s always been here in the Chruch.

Faith is important for salvation but not more important than love of God, love of neighbor, forgiveness, hope, being part of the new covent(consuming of the sacrificial lamb/Christ) and living a life that is pleasing to God. We must accept this covent in the same way Moses and his people fled slavery. The sacrafice of an unblemished lamb and its consumption by the believing people. By doing so we are accepting our role in the new covent toward everlasting life, fleeing the slavery of death.

 

[apophasis]

Antonius Lupus:

However, if we rely on our faith alone, we are relying on something that cannot save (James 2:24).

One is never to rely on his faith - faith itself can save no one. We are to rely, by faith, on Christ’s work alone.

We acquire more righteousness by doing good works within God’s grace and with the help of God’s grace (Phil. 2:12-13, 1 Cor. 3:9).

You see how Catholicism changes from “grace” to works? One cannot acquire “more” righteousness. Christ Himself is the believer’s righteousness and such a perfect righteousness can not be “increased.”

This is how human works contribute to justification (Jas. 2:14-26). Good works are worthless for salvation without God’s grace, but within God’s grace they are precisely what God intends for us (Eph. 2:10)

James does not say Abraham “contributed” to his justification, but that as a result of his works, FAITH was increased. And if you read Eph. 2:10 in context with the previous verses, it is those who “have been saved” who are created in Christ Jesus FOR those good works. Good works are not “for salvation,” but for the saved.

They are a way of showing faithful gratitude to God, and they are made possible by God Himself (Jn. 15:5). If we do not express our faith through our loving works, our faith is dead (Jas. 2:26, 1 Cor. 13:2) and we have not persevered in grace.

James is not saying that without works one’s faith in Christ is dead. But that one’s “profession” of faith is dead: “What use is it, my brethren, if a man SAYS he has faith, but he has no works? Can that (lit. the) faith save him?” On the other hand Abraham never said he had faith, but the faith by which God justified him (Gen. 15:6) was later clearly demonstrated with Isaac. Same with Rahab and the hiding of the spies. You miss the whole point James is making.

Indeed, but brother Apophasis this initial salvation is NOT a one-time event. This is what you fail to grasp. My brother,

But it is a one time event that endures forever: “For by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED…”; “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus…”; “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved…”; “For in hope we have been saved…”; “…who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity”; “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”.

Notice the last one, Antonius? “…not on the basis of deed which we have done in righteousness” That means not on the basis of any of the “good works” you claim add to one’s justification. The passage ends with, “so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:7). Justification is hardly a work-in-progress, but a divine “gift” based on the finished work of Christ.

BTW, you still have yet to address why the Early Church disagreed with your interpretation of Justification.

(1) My interpretation of justification is based solely on God’s written Word, not the non-inspired words or opinions of mere men. (2) The early church writers were just that, early writers. Their writings hold no more authority than my posts on this forum. (3) People seem to impose a lot of their own theology on those often ambiguous literary works. And what I’ve read of them, the doctrine of justification was hardly the issue.

 

[apophasis]

Philthy:

I disagree. On this side of eternity it must be “fed”.

The comparison was with physical food keeping the physical body alive. It is true a spiritual man must feed on spiritual truths to keep his spirituality alive, but “eternal life” is not something one “feeds.” It’s Christ’s life gifted to the believer upon belief in Him1 John 5:11 “And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.”

while we remain mortal - is not eternal.

The mortality of our yet unredeemed bodies has nothing to do with the “life” gifted to the believer by God through faith in Christ. As Jesus said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,” (Jn. 11:25).

Here you mistake the object (God) of eternal life from the subject (Man) of it. It is not a contradiction to say that our participation in eternal life is not eternal. If it were, then it would also be a “blatant contradiction” to say that anyone can “inherit eternal life” for if they once did not possess it and then they acquire it, how could it have been eternal?

“Eternal life” means “everlasting life.” The one who turns from unbelief to belief in the Person and work of Christ “passes out of death into life” (Jn. 5:24). And this life is everlasting:“Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes HAS everlasting life” (Jn. 6:47).

1 John 5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you HAVE eternal (everlasting) life.”

That is the whole point of perseverence and endurance that is repeatedly discussed.

Our perseverance in the faith is for the sake of our sanctification, to His glory. It has no effect on the Life gifted to us in Christ. As said before, the source of this life is “in the Son.”

It is not for all eternity, it is only until He comes again in Glory to judge the living and the dead. Do you find that unfair?

Unfair? You totally missed the point.

I mostly agree with what you’re saying, but you must realize that God is love. Love involves work. It seems you have committed the blatant contradiction, “This life (eternal) is “in the Son,” not in…love”

WHAT???

 

[heisenburg]

Apoop

I can tell by your responses you are not here to seek any kind of truth, but merely to prove yourself right. When you say we are saved by only our faith, and also say this

“Scripture does not recognize or distinquish between what you call the “Levitical” law and the “moral” law. There is the “old covenant” which is the Mosaic Law, the “Law of Moses,” which is recorded in three parts:”

You are saying we are not even bound to the ten commandments.

We have countless times told you we are NOT justified by our works, but you have ignored. We have Consistantly told you that it is our faith AND acting in that faith.

But you insisit on saying we preach justification by works…

In effect, You just told me its ok to Sin by not helping the poor man… Where does christ teach that.

You attempt to redefine the word faith against what it means in the bible by saying your faith magically makes you do special things… This is dangerously close to Gnostosism…

By your redefining Faith, you are also twisting words…

We explain to you why a verse you use does not mean what you think it means… and then your response is simply to throw that same verse back…

IE
you say: Romans 4:5 says we neednt do anything
we say: You are ignoring that Paul is talking about works of the old law (which you apparently deny)
you respond: Romans 4:5 says we neednt do anything

very circular, but very wrong

Christ does NOT teach that we dont need to do anything… But you deny this by your statements

We do read scripture… And we read it in jsut as much depth as you imply you do… But you are twisting words like faith and distorting christs message to a theology that if you truely followed will lead to your destruction.

Can you depend on your FAITH ALONE… and NEVER do anything and be saved? You better say no… I am not talking abotu someone that THINKS they are have that faith, but someone that truely does

James 2: 22-24
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.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

But you will not accept this as you have redefined the word faith to mean something it does not… but only when it is convenient for you as you dont apply that definition to here

2 Tim 2:14
Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen.

But you will deny this by saying something liek we are not reading the bible like YOU say we should

You will know them by their works (fruits) … (oh wait, i thought it was by only faith??)

May christ in his infinite wisdom remove the scales from your eyes. You are closed to truth and have destorted his words.

But you will deny this…

May our words one day reach you with gods help. But you seem more concerned on proving your self right, than seeking the truth…

In Christ

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

:bible1:

Actually, “sola fide” is a radical RETURN to the Scriptures based on what THEY teach regarding salvation/justification.

Brother Apophasis, your argument implies that for 1500 years the boby of Christ was an apostate “human” system. Can you not see the **fultility **of this presumption. Is the God we adore so *weak *to allow his Church to fall into error a paltry 100 years after its establishment???

I don’t know about you, but *my *God is stronger than that.

Until the coming of the Reformation (I prefer the objective term: "“Revolt”) no-one believed in Sola Fide. And if you don’t believe me, do a little historical research and get back to me.

With all do respect brother, your argument is not only implausible it is absurd. :nope:

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

When Luther finally came to grips with it, finding no personal satisfaction with the meritorioius system that came out of Rome, he acquired a profound appreciation for those who had understood it before him, especially those who were persecuted because of it.

Ah yes.

Is that why he wanted to remove the book of James and Hebrews from the canon???

After all, he himself didn’t agree with them.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The semi-pelagian accusation stems from your doctrine of “cooperation,” and meritorious works. We, however, do not separate works from faith, but we do, as do the Scripture, separate divine justification by faith from any of the works that follow. Justification being a declarative act of God, bestowed “as a gift by His grace THROUGH the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24, a direct reference to the cross). “The faith” by which God justifies the ungodly rests totally in the Apostolic message regarding this finished, redemption work of Christ on the cross

Oh please! Come on, dude.

The Catholic Church condemned bothe semi-pelagianism and pelagianism in the 500s. We as Catholics believe what the Bible teaches: Salvation by Grace thru faith (Ephesians 2:8-10) and completed by works (James 2:22).

Furthermore the belief that salvation is accomplished thru cooperation with God’s Grace is **clearly **taught in the Bible: (John 3:36; Rom. 1:5, 6:17; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Cor. 9:13; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:11; 1 Peter 2:7-8; Heb. 5:9; cf. Rev. 3:10; Ex. 19:5, 2 Cor. 10:15, James 1:22-25).

Simply because Evangelical Christianity cannot accept the truth is another matter entirely…

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Based on this meritorious statement no Catholic can ever be assured of salvation during this life time.

Indeed, there can be no ***guarantee ***of salvation, that is entirely dependent on whether we *cooperate *with the Holy Spirit’s work within us:

17: 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,
18: do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.
19: You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20: That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.
21: For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
22: Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.
23: And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

(Romans 17-23).

26: For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27: but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.
28: A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29: How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

(Hebrews 10:26-29)

20: For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
21: For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

(2 Peter 2:20-21)

Even the Apostle Paul knew the possibility of losing his Justification:

24: Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.
25: Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26: Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air;
27: but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

(1 Corinthians 9:24-27)

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

(1) The Scriptures recognize no such doctrine as “initial” justification;

Dude, let me get this straight:

What you’re basically saying is that the Bible doesn’t explicitly talk about “initial” salvation.

The also don’t explicitly mention the words monotheism, atheism, and Trinity. Yet they are clearly within the Bible:

Monotheism: (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Atheism: (Psalms 14:1)

Trinity: (2 Corinthians 13:14)

The fact of the matter is that the Bible teaches that our Justification has three aspects:

I Have Been Saved (past event)
Rom. 8:24 - for in this hope we were saved (but, again, why “hope” if salvation is a certainty?)

Eph. 2:5,8 - for by grace you have been saved through faith.

2 Tim. 1:9 - He saved us and called us through grace and not by virtue of our own works outside of His grace.

Titus 3:5 - He saved us in virtue of His own mercy, and not by our deeds.

I Am Being Saved (present event)
1 Cor. 1:18 - for the word of the cross is folly to those perishing, but for to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. Salvation is not a one-time event. It is a process of perseverance through faith, hope and love.

2 Cor. 2:15 - for we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved. Salvation is a continual process.

Phil. 2:12 - we are working out our salvation through fear and trembling. Salvation is an ongoing process.

1 Peter 1:9 - you obtain the salvation of your souls as the outcome of your faith. Working out our salvation in fear and trembling is a lifelong process.

I Will Be Saved (future event)
Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - again, Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. Salvation is a past, present and future event (not a one-time event at an altar call).

Mark 16:16 – Jesus says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

Acts 15:11 - we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.

Rom. 5:9-10 - since we are justified by His blood, we shall be saved.

Rom. 13:11 - salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. How can we be only nearer to something we already have?

1 Cor. 3:15 - he will be saved, but only as through fire.

1 Cor. 5:5 - Paul commands the Church to deliver a man to satan, that he will be saved in the day of the Lord.

2 Tim. 2:11-12 - if we endure, we shall also reign with Him. This requires endurance until the end of our lives.

Heb. 9:28 - Jesus will appear a second time to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him.

James 5:15 - the sacrament of the sick will save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up.

Study these prayerfully my brother.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dude, I’m probably not gonna get to all your points today.

Forgive my lazy teenagerness.

Peace brother, and Happy Thanksgiving

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

BTW, on a lighter note:

Anybody know where I can get one of those Pure-Love card-things???

I just got my drivers permit, and hence a new wallet. I need to fill it up.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

But it is a one time event that endures forever: “For by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED…”; “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus…”; “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved…”; “For in hope we have been saved…”; “…who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity”; “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”.

Notice the last one, Antonius? “…not on the basis of deed which we have done in righteousness” That means not on the basis of any of the “good works” you claim add to one’s justification.

Wow, getting a little caustic here dude!

Chill out.

BTW, can’t ya call me brother. We are brothers in Christ you know!

Anyways, Brother Apophasis the Bible verses you’ve listed don’t in any way strengthen the point you’re making.

St. Paul is talking about only one aspect/phase of our salvation in Titus 3:5: Our initial salvation.

Here let me show you again what I mean. :ehh:

I Have Been Saved (past event)
Rom. 8:24 - for in this hope we were saved (but, again, why “hope” if salvation is a certainty?)

Eph. 2:5,8 - for by grace you have been saved through faith. Pretty self-explanatory

2 Tim. 1:9 - He saved us and called us through grace and not by virtue of our own works *outside of His grace. *

Titus 3:5 - He saved us in virtue of His own mercy, and not by our deeds. Re-read this verse w/out your Protestant bias dude!

I Am Being Saved (present event)
1 Cor. 1:18 - Salvation is not a one-time event. It is a process of perseverance through faith, hope and love.

2 Cor. 2:15 - for we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved. Salvation is a continual process.

Phil. 2:12 - we are working out our salvation through fear and trembling. Salvation is an ongoing process.

1 Peter 1:9 - you obtain the salvation of your souls as the outcome of your faith. Working out our salvation in fear and trembling is a lifelong process.

I Will Be Saved (future event)
Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - again, Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. Salvation is a past, present and future event (not a one-time event at an altar call).

Mark 16:16 – Jesus says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

Acts 15:11 - we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.

Rom. 5:9-10 - since we are justified by His blood, we shall be saved.

Rom. 13:11 - salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. How can we be only nearer to something we already have?

1 Cor. 3:15 - he will be saved, but only as through fire.

1 Cor. 5:5 - Paul commands the Church to deliver a man to satan, that he will be saved in the day of the Lord.

2 Tim. 2:11-12 - if we endure, we shall also reign with Him. This requires endurance until the end of our lives.

Heb. 9:28 - Jesus will appear a second time to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him.

James 5:15 - the sacrament of the sick will save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up.

BTW I copied this from my post above.

Peace! and Happy Thanksgiving!!!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

BTW, on a lighter note:

Anybody know where I can get one of those Pure-Love card-things???

I just got my drivers permit, and hence a new wallet. I need to fill it up.

That’s not of course the only reason I’d like a card.

Maybe it’s just a teen thing…

Shalom

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Actually, I’ve gone to the original source and studied your catechism, some Catholic literary works, and of course I listen to Catholic Answers Live.

Brother Apophasis thanks. I stand corrected.

Hey look, I’m just a seventeen year-old kid who thinks he knows everything.

Thanks for the dose of humility. I need it as much as I can get.