HELP! Does Romans 4 preach sola fide?

[ALLFORHIM]

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.

Hi,
I love the ZEAL of YOUTH:thumbsup:

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

(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.

Let me address this on the 1-2-3 basis you put it forth.

1. First of all the Bible is not self-explanatory. There needs to be an infallible interpreter to show us the way. (2 Peter 1:20)
2. Well considering the fact that you were born 1900 years after the death of St. John the Apostle, and men like SS. Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch actually knew the Apostle personally; I think your argument is what holds no authority. The fact of the matter is that these Early Writers are our closest link to the teachings of the Apostles. They also give us a way to better interpret the Bible since many of the them learned from the Apostles themselves. In fact, there are many Protestant apologists who see the value of the Church Fathers, that is of course until they realize that the Church Fathers are 100% Catholic. I am one of those thumped evangelicals BTW.
3. I assure you they are quite perspicacious!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

(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.

Dude, the Church Fathers are quite perspicacious

If you want some great references go to: scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#tradition-I

Happy Thanksgiving Brother Apophasis!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Christ Himself is the believer’s righteousness and such a perfect righteousness can not be "increased.

There’s not a single reference in the Scriptures that refer to the believer recieving the righteousness of Christ.

Go ahead, try to show me one.

The fact of the matter is that we do not receive Christ’s personal level of righteousness (which is impossible), but we are made righteous on His account by God’s mercy and the Lord’s work on the cross. The word “made” in Greek is “katestathesan” which refers to a real, actual, ontological change in the person’s soul. NOT a merely legal declaration.

Any Justification that is devoid of an actual Sanctification is not a Justification at all.

When we are saved, we are cleased and sanctified, not merely “declared” righteous before God (Acts 3:19, Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11, Rom. 4:3, Rom. 5:17, 2 Cor. 4:16, Gal. 6:15, Eph. 4:22-24, Col. 3:10, etc.)

And my personal favorites:

“Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the **new **has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17, emphasis mine)

“For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” (Galatians 6:15, emphasis mine)

“…and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” (Colossians 3:10, emphasis mine)

“…he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5, emphasis mine)

Happy Thanksgiving Brother Apophasis

Pros Apologian!!!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Hey guys, lets not get distracted from the subject of this forum.

On Monday I’m gonna post three threads (God willing) that will deal with three issues:

1. Sola Scriptura
2. The Eucharist
3. Baptism

You guys are invited to discuss those there, but I dont know if this forum is the place for it.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL!!!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

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

I can, but it won’t do any good if you won’t open your eyes.

Come’on man, I just seventeen and I’ve seen the error of Evangelicalism.

Surely you can,

 

[Reformed1]

Let me address this on the 1-2-3 basis you put it forth.

1. First of all the Bible is not self-explanatory. There needs to be an infallible interpreter to show us the way. (2 Peter 1:20)
2. Well considering the fact that you were born 1900 years after the death of St. John the Apostle, and men like SS. Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch actually knew the Apostle personally; I think your argument is what holds no authority. The fact of the matter is that these Early Writers are our closest link to the teachings of the Apostles. They also give us a way to better interpret the Bible since many of the them learned from the Apostles themselves. In fact, there are many Protestant apologists who see the value of the Church Fathers, that is of course until they realize that the Church Fathers are 100% Catholic. I am one of those thumped evangelicals BTW.
3. I assure you they are quite perspicacious!

Exactly what passages of scripture has Rome infallibly defined for your benefit?

Also, you left out the next verse “2 Peter 1:21 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The verse you chose doesn’t mention needing an infallible Church does it?

If the fathers were 100% Catholic as you claim, why didn’t Ignaitus know anything of the immaculate conception or papal infallibility, the treasury of merit, etc?

 

[Kristopher]

A protestant wrote saying that Romans 4:1-12 shows that salvation for all mankind is by faith alone. Though the passage does not say this specifically, the text is a bit confusing to me. Can someone help me refute this position?..

Dear mom2three, et. al.:

Read chapter three, four, and five; you will find the following quotes: “…if God’s truth redounds to his glory through my falsehood, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?..no human being will be justified in his sight…by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. …They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus,…, we are supporting the law. …when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. …we have been justified by faith, we have peace…with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, …through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. …Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance,…and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, …and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us. …For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. …”.

Grace of God provided us with our Lord Jesus Christ, when we accept this; when we believe this: faith is provided to us, righteousness is a consequence of faith, as opposed to The Decalogue. Faith is supportive of The Decalogue, righteousness being requisite to fulfill The Decalogue, and faith being requisite to righteousness and therefore, it is grace provided to the condition of our soul, born into Original Sin, which we know is the restoration of the soul to its image, of God.

God owes nothing to the soul and therefore, grace is a gift as opposed to something owed. God is just. The wrath of God is just. Where must the soul go, when it is immortal, intelligent, and of freewill? The soul by its own choice cannot save itself, particularly it would seem, when it is born in Original Sin. Many of us, like myself, have been bapised as infants. Grace through the sacrament of Baptism was provided to us as a gift from God, and in fulfillment of an obligation on the part of parents, grandparents to raise their children in The Faith. Grace is a gift.

Now what righteousness is committed in life, must have its reward though, not necessarily in heaven, but on earth or in Hell, and this is a consequence in part of freewill–we may choose God, but as a consequence of our choice to follow The Decalogue, or as a consequence of God’s grace?

We may say, our choice to believe in Jesus Christ has saved us, but it is God’s grace, which provided us with His Son in whom, we might believe, and this belief rooted in God’s grace–will move us to do what is right and therefore, we are called to go and sin no more, to become saints, to become perfect, and our soul has the freewill, the intelligence, and the immortality to act upon God’s grace, sanctifying our soul.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

P.S. et. al. is an abbreviation of “and others”; additionally, some of what I know came from a book titled something along the line of “Father Smith Instructs Mr. Jackson”, which I think that many will find enjoyable, and it is a bit of a Catechism, really.

It is true, without my saying so that scripture must be interpreted, and it must be interpreted in accord with The Holy Spirit, as it was the authorship inspired by The Holy Spirit, allowing for scripture to be without error: this of course, must be entrusted to The Catholic Church, born at Pentecost, with The Descent of the Holy Spirit, right?

 

[mercygate]

Hi,
I love the ZEAL of YOUTH:thumbsup:

Preach it, Sister!

 

[mercygate]

Exactly what passages of scripture has Rome infallibly defined for your benefit?

That is a very short list. Perhaps fewer than a dozen passages. Mt. 16:18 is one of them, as are the words of the institution of the Eucharist.

Also, you left out the next verse “2 Peter 1:21 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The verse you chose doesn’t mention needing an infallible Church does it?

If the fathers were 100% Catholic as you claim, why didn’t Ignaitus know anything of the immaculate conception or papal infallibility, the treasury of merit, etc?

These two paragraphs should go to separate threads, one on the origin of the doctrine of indefectibility, and another on the development of doctrine. Why do you point to the Immaculate Conception, the treasury of merit, or papal infallibililty (of which, arguably, Ignatius was the first supporter on record)? You could point just as well to the two-fold nature of Christ under the homoousion as a doctrine of which Ignatius “knew nothing.”

 

[Reformed1]

That is a very short list. Perhaps fewer than a dozen passages. Mt. 16:18 is one of them, as are the words of the institution of the Eucharist.

These two paragraphs should go to separate threads, one on the origin of the doctrine of indefectibility, and another on the development of doctrine. Why do you point to the Immaculate Conception, the treasury of merit, or papal infallibililty (of which, arguably, Ignatius was the first supporter on record)? You could point just as well to the two-fold nature of Christ under the homoousion as a doctrine of which Ignatius “knew nothing.”

Is there a list from the church that declares which verses have been infallibly defined or is it more that the verses that are infallibly defined are found in various documents from the councils?

Anyway, I often hear Catholics bringing up how the church is the infallible interpreter of scripture and if your church has only defined a few passages this gift of infallibility doesn’t seem like too much of a help.

I would like to tell you that I carefully considered those examples I gave before posting them but in reality, I just gave the first couple of examples that came to mind.

The trinity and nature of Christ do not need tradition to be defined as they are found in scripture.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

if you want to be really confused. read Jame’s comments on the very same event! james2:14-26

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? 17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.18Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. 19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. 20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 23 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.” 24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? 26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Excellent point.

In short, faith works.

And if someone’s faith doesn’t work, then they don’t have faith.

Even the rule “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” could be interpreted in this context to also mean if a man does not have faith, then he shall partake in the Eucharist.

 

[apophasis]

Hi,
I love the ZEAL of YOUTH:thumbsup:

There were lots of youthful “Zealots” even in Christ’s day whose zeal was expended in the wrong direction. Christ walked and taught among them but, tragically, they never heard Him.

 

[Odell]

The trinity and nature of Christ do not need tradition to be defined as they are found in scripture.

Can you find it as we both belive it. That God is 3 persons but all consubstantualy one God? You can give the bible to 1,000 people who never knew of Christ and they would not come up with the doctrine. the ecense is there but the bible does not defive it as we believe it the word trinity is not even in the bible. But we believe it.

 

[Reformed1]

Can you find it as we both belive it. That God is 3 persons but all consubstantualy one God? You can give the bible to 1,000 people who never knew of Christ and they would not come up with the doctrine. the ecense is there but the bible does not defive it as we believe it the word trinity is not even in the bible. But we believe it.

I believe the trinity is found in scripture and does not need tradition to define it.

Your point about giving the bible to 1,000 people and them not being able to quote the doctrine verbatim may or may not be true. I suppose it would largely depend on whom you handed the scriptures to.

 

[Odell]

I believe the trinity is found in scripture and does not need tradition to define it.
.

please show me in the bible where the trinity is defined. There are many tendants of our faith that the bible does not explicitly state word for word. But that is where faith comes in. And the infailable Church.

 

[Reformed1]

please show me in the bible where the trinity is defined. There are many tendants of our faith that the bible does not explicitly state word for word. But that is where faith comes in. And the infailable Church.

I’m sure you can scan the various books out on the theology of the trinity and see this for yourself but to defened the trinity would be a task worthy of its own thread.

 

[Odell]

I’m sure you can scan the various books out on the theology of the trinity and see this for yourself but to defened the trinity would be a task worthy of its own thread.

there is nothing to defend I believe it. But scripture does not explicilty say that there is a such thing as a trinity. The Church defined it not the bible.

 

[mikeledes]

"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”[/indent]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.”
​

Actually, the statement made by the Council of Trent fits perfectly with what the Bible states:

Romans 2:6-7 (which you have not adequately addressed)

“Who will render to each one according to HIS DEEDS, ETERNAL LIFE to those who by PATIENT CONTINUANCE in DOING GOOD….”

Hebrews 10:36

“Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which HAS GREAT REWARD. For you have NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after YOU HAVE DONE the will of God, you may receive the promise (i.e. eternal life).” (Comapre with Hebrews 9:15 abd 1 John 2:17).

And let’s not forget that “he who endures to the end will be saved.” It is not just about being justfied by grace through faith. It is also about enduring, by the grace of God, in that justification. We can do it because God has given us His grace and His Holy Spirit, but we must accept this assitance by living it out:

Romans 8:13

“For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put (i.e. word of action) to death the deeds of the body, you WILL LIVE.”

Putting to death the deeds of the body? That sounds like 1 Corinthians 9:26-27:

“Therefore I run thus; not with uncertainty. Thus I FIGHT, not as one who beats the air. But I DISCIPLINE MY BODY AND BRING IT TO SUBJECTION, lest when I have preached to others, I MYSELF SHOULD BECOME DISQUALIFIED.”

One essential work we have to do after being justified is to put to death the “deeds of the body” by disciplining our bodies and bringing it under subjection. Otherwise, we will fall into sin and ultimately be “disqualified” from glorification, becoming a withered branch thrown into the fire. This can only be done with the aid of God’s grace and Holy Spirit and hence it is not purely based on out efforts. How were we able to obtain this divine aid? By the Cross of Christ! Without the Cross of Christ, we would still be under the dominion of sin and we could not do the works pleasing to God. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself before I get my point across.

Justification does not free us from any obligations that will affect our salvation. It puts us in right standing before God and it makes us a “new creation,” CAPABLE of keeping the righteous requirements of God’s commandments and of bearing fruit (good works). This capability was non-existent before justification. However, now that we are capable, we have to live it out. If we fail to obey this call to righteousness, we will be “disqualified,” cast out as a withered branch thrown into the fire. That is why James 2:24 states that man “is justified by works and not by faith only,” which you have yet to explain how it could mean the exact opposite of what it is actually saying. Why didn’t he just say man is justified by faith only if that is what he actually meant?

God Bless,
Michael​

 

[Reformed1]

there is nothing to defend I believe it. But scripture does not explicilty say that there is a such thing as a trinity. The Church defined it not the bible.

The scriptures do not mention the word trinity but the rest of it is there.