HELP! Does Romans 4 preach sola fide?

[Philthy]

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.

You are in denial. The fact that you believe that the Trinity is found in Scripture is hardly a convincing statement. Are you even aware of the HUGE controversies in the first centuries of the Church over the nature of Christ and the Trinity?
Also, read the New Testament again and reflect upon the INHERENT ambiguity in the descriptive language used relative to, say, the inspiration Noah received on how to build the Ark, or the Levitical laws, or the geneologies of the OT.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Here let me restate this for you:

The concept of the Trinity is so ambiguously expressed in Scripture and there are so many places where it could be seriously called into question based on Scripture that I can’t reasonably accomplish an explanation within a post or two - it would require one of the many texts that have been written to explain it sufficiently and a knowledge of both the OT and the NT with contextual and cultural understanding.

Think about it. How clearly stated could it be if its a “task worthy of its own thread”?

 

[mercygate]

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.

If the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as defined at the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, were “found in Scripture” then we would not have needed those councils to define it.

The doctrine of the Trinity is found in Scripture, but it is not fully articulated. Looking at the doctrine today, we THINK it is clear in Scripture, but if it had not been elucidated by the Holy Councils, I assure you, it would definitely not leap off the pages with the clarity we ascribe to it today.

That is what Sacred Tradition is for.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

EXCELLENT point, VociMike.
I would also add that the only place in the bible where “faith alone” appears in James 2:24 where he states:
"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Some Protestants love to take 1 verse here and another there to prove (or rationalize) their point, instead of taking all of scripture in context.

---

When people quote this verse in this manner, it shows they’ve never read James .

 

[myfavoritmartin]

If the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as defined at the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, were “found in Scripture” then we would not have needed those councils to define it.

The doctrine of the Trinity is found in Scripture, but it is not fully articulated. Looking at the doctrine today, we THINK it is clear in Scripture, but if it had not been elucidated by the Holy Councils, I assure you, it would definitely not leap off the pages with the clarity we ascribe to it today.

That is what Sacred Tradition is for.

This too is an old argument, the Trinity was an accepted definition way way before Nicea…

 

[Philthy]

When people quote this verse in this manner, it shows they’ve never read James .

When people make this claim it shows they have never understood James.

Feels good doesn’t it?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Athanasius, who attended the Council of Nicaea.
He explained that Jesus’ eternality and the teachings of Nicaea are** clearly** Biblical:

“It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son’s eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases ‘He was not,’ and ‘before’ and ‘when,’ are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures.” (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)

“And let them [the Arians] blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine.” (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5:21)

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6)

“A Desire to learn and a yearning for heavenly things is suitable to a religious Emperor; for thus you will truly have ‘your heart’ also ‘in the hand of God.’ Since then your Piety desired to learn from us the faith of the Catholic Church, giving thanks for these things to the Lord, we counselled above all things to remind your Piety of the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea. For this certain set at nought, while plotting against us in many ways, because we would not comply with the Arian heresy, and they have become authors of heresy and schisms in the Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures.” (Festal Letter 56:1)

“And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itsellf in inartificial and simple phrases.” (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 4:33)

 

[Philthy]

This too is an old argument, the Trinity was an accepted definition way way before Nicea…

First off, you have only addressed one part of the argument - the need for the councils to define the Trinity. Your claim that it was an “accepted definition” is typically vague and you failed to support it with some documentation. The question is whether the concept of the Trinity was morally binding on the faithful prior to the councils - ie an article of faith - because it certainly has been ever since.
Secondly you failed to address the bulk of the argument - that although it seems obvious now, it simply was not always so and it was difficult to reach a concensus by Scripture alone. There are many aspects of Scripture which would call one to question whether Christ was truly God or simply the “chosen one” of God.

 

[Reformed1]

You are in denial. The fact that you believe that the Trinity is found in Scripture is hardly a convincing statement. Are you even aware of the HUGE controversies in the first centuries of the Church over the nature of Christ and the Trinity?
Also, read the New Testament again and reflect upon the INHERENT ambiguity in the descriptive language used relative to, say, the inspiration Noah received on how to build the Ark, or the Levitical laws, or the geneologies of the OT.

I’m not in denial.

The trinity is found in scripture, are saying it isn’t?

I’m aware of the controversies.

You say to read the NT again and then you use example out of the OT so I’m not sure what you are getting at. Can you explain?

 

[Philthy]

Athanasius…explained that Jesus’ eternality and the teachings of Nicaea are** clearly** Biblical:

There is no question whether they are “clearly” biblical - only whether it’s clear to the average reader.

"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son’s eternity;… " (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)

Notice he doesnt simply say that it is plain from Scripture, but instead constructs an argument from varied Scripture which he then describes as being “plain”. That’s a little different than saying that Jesus’ eternality is obvious to anyone reading Scripture.

“And let them [the Arians]
blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine.” (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5:21)

Interesting - they used arguments that were not “in so many words in the Scriptures, yet…contain the sense of the Scriptures…and convey it (the sense of the Scriptures)…” That sounds like they were explaining what the Scriptures meant because, at times, the Scriptures are not perfectly clear.

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6)

I suppose you ignored everything said after your bolded portion there. What do you suppose he means when he says, “but IF a Council be needed on the point,”? It sounds like he is acknowledging that, at times, councils are necessary. His point there was that “vainly then do THEY(the Arians) run about” pretending to need a Council for the faith’s sake. The Arians had demanded a separate Council as a means of dividing and conquering the Fathers, and Athanasius was chastizing their disingenuous call for one. He was not saying that Councils are never necessary - in fact the paragraph preceding your quote discusses the legitimacy of the Nicene council:

athanasius:

“5. As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, were out of order in celebrating the Feast, and kept Easter with the Jews(9); on the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up against the Catholic Church, and found supporters in Eusebius and his fellows, who were both zealous for the heresy, and conducted the attack upon religious people. This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized.”(De Synodis 1:5)

Thats why he goes on to say that “if a Council be needed”; which validates the FACT that Councils are needed from time to time- so as to clearly declare in unambiguous terms what the faith is as expressed in Scripture . He then goes further to say that we have the Nicene Fathers to draw from because they already addressed the point which the Arians were claiming to need a new council on. Right?

Athanasius:
"but if a Council is necessary, “there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly …”

“…and they have become authors of heresy and schisms in the Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures.” (Festal Letter 56:1)
Here you confuse the fact that:
the Faith comes FROM - and is contained in - the Scriptures; with the claim that:
ANYONE can extract the entire faith inerrantly from the Scriptures. Those are two very different things and at the very core of the misunderstanding which IMO you allow to color your understanding of what Athanasius was saying.
Con’d…

 

[Philthy]

“And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itsellf in inartificial and simple phrases.” (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 4:33)

Ageed. “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” Perfectly clear
“This is my body” Perfectly clear
“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood” Crystal
“Unless one is born of water and the holy Spirit” and finally to bring us back to the thread…

“What must we do? ‘REPENT and be baptized’ every one of you…for the forgiveness of your sins”! Now that is PERFECTLY CLEAR. You must repent to be forgiven!!!

 

[sandusky]

Ageed. “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” Perfectly clear
“This is my body” Perfectly clear
“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood” Crystal
“Unless one is born of water and the holy Spirit” and finally to bring us back to the thread…

“What must we do? ‘REPENT and be baptized’ every one of you…for the forgiveness of your sins”! Now that is PERFECTLY CLEAR. You must repent to be forgiven!!!

Matthew 13:54-56

He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

? ? ? ? ?

 

[Philthy]

I’m not in denial.

The trinity is found in scripture, are saying it isn’t?

Hello! :tiphat:

What I am saying is that:

• Although the truth of the Trinity is in Scripture, not everyone who reads Scripture will come to a realization of that truth (i.e. it will not be “found” by them)
• There is a big difference between the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is “found in Scripture” and the claim that most people who read Scripture will find the doctrine of the Trinity from their reading.
  Very, very big difference. For example, Im virtually certain that I would not have extracted a complete understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity from an unaided reading of Scripture.

reformed1:

I’m aware of the controversies.

why do you think there were controversies? Do you think everyone who didn’t find the Trinity intentionally ignored it? I dont think so - I think its just like any number of controversies which exist today regarding the faith. Sometimes people who are genuine in seeking the Truth are simultaneously mistaken in believing that they have found it!

reformed1:

You say to read the NT again and then you use example out of the OT so I’m not sure what you are getting at. Can you explain?

What I was trying to convey is that the same Spirit which inspired all the authors of the Bible led them differently in terms of the clarity of their writing. The OT language is very clear in many areas while the NT is often not. For example, look at how clearly Noah is instructed to build the ark in Genesis; look at how direct the teachings in Leviticus are. In contrast, the NT stuff is simply not as accessible. Look at John 6 or many of the parables, or even Matt 16:18 where Christ says he will build the Church on Peter. They are simply not so clear.
Is it clear from the NT whether we can lose our salvation by sinning? Is it clear whether Baptism of infants is part of the Faith? Is it clear whether prayers for the dead are valid? Is it clear that contraception is a sin? Is it clear that abortion is murder? We could go on and on…

 

[Philthy]

? ? ? ? ?

Hi Sandusky -
Im gonna have to guess at what your intent was in posting since you continue to operate under the mistaken assumption that what is clear in your own mind is clear to everyone else who reads the same thing that you do. I assure you it is not. I have above average analytical skills however, and will attempt to decypher your unexpressed groanings. My assumption is that you have attempted to express your exasperation of the teaching of the CC that Mary remained a virgin and birthed only Christ. And further, that you believe that the Scripture quote you provided is an example of a “simple” teaching of Scripture that Jesus had “brothers and sisters” which directly contradicts the teachings of the CC.
To that I will simply respond that the terms “brother” and “sister” sometimes had meanings broader than they are often used today and that the “brothers and sisters” of Christ need not have been birthed by Mary - they could have been half-siblings or even cousins. This is completely irrelevent to the thread - which you clearly didnt bother to read (or simply chose to rudely ignore) - so I will not comment further.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

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?

First of all, the Church doesn’t need to infallibly define any Scripture. The Church merely elucidates the meaning of said scriptures. The Bishops have recieved the Holy Spirit’s gift of infallible teaching authority by the “laying on of hands” (Acts 1:15-26, Acts 1:22, Acts 6:6, Acts 9:17-19, Acts 13:3).

Secondly, look carefully at the passage again:

20: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21: because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

Now look at 2 Peter 3:15-16:

15: And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16: speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Evangelicals must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it. In Luther and Calvin’s day the divisions brought about by the Reformation were not as voluminous as they are now, but as time passed and Body of Christ split into thousands upon thousands of “Bible churches” the doctrine of sola scriptura was shown to be the man-made doctrine it is.

Finally let’s see what other Church Fathers really said about the Immaculate Conception:

“She [Mary] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

Concerning the Authority of the Pope St. Ignatius said:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” **Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110). **

I can go on and on…but I’m a Senior and High School and I have but a short amount of time on the Internet today.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

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.

Apophasis, do you know what one of my favorite verse is?

“Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” (1 Timothy 4:12)

I take solace in the fact that many heroes who loved and served God were just naive seventeen year-old guys like me.

Just my two-cents

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

To all,

Our Justification is initially wrought by faith, but is ultimately completed by our works which perfect and complete Justification.

Bretheren, our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is what makes our works efficacious. Our faith in Christ must be an obedient faith, and indeed faith is a work in itself:

“To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,” (2 Thessalonians 1:11)

We recieve our gift of salvation by the work of faith. Christ said we must repent & believe the Gospel to be saved. This is a work of faith, and in obeying Christ in this work of faith we are saved.

“and being made perfect he (Jesus) became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” (Hebrews 5:9, cf. Rev. 3:10)

Yet my bretheren, it is important to understand and ruminate upon what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches. The Church teaches that our faith and works are NOT products of ourselves alone. Rather our faith and our works are the work of God’s Grace. That is why the Catholic Church condemned the heretic Pelagius (founder of Pelagianism). Why? Because he said our works were solely from us. The Catholic Church however has taught and continues to teach what the Apostles taught, namely that the faith and works which stem from us are all the gifts of God’s Grace, flowing ultimately from the finished work of Jesus Christ on Calvary’s Cross. (Ephesians 2:8)

When I was an Evangelical, I believed that justification is wrought by faith alone. But to my shock St. Paul clearly teaches, quite emphatically, that our faith justifies initiallydebt;" (YLT)

Now when I was a Protestant I argued that this shows that we are saved be faith and not works. But St. Paul is actually talking about before we are justified (cf. Romans 4:1-3). Not after.

Look at what St. Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9,

“For by **grace **you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the **gift **of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.”

Then Look at what he says next:

v.10— For we are his workmanship, **created **in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we **should **walk in them.

Notice how it says “created in Christ Jesus”. This refers to the regenerative power of Baptism (1 Cor. 6:11, Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:12, Titus 3:5-7, 1 Peter 3:21).

So, concerning good-works we “should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

We have got to grasp that our salvation has three aspects: **Initial **(Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5,8, 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 3:5) On-going (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12, 1 Peter 1:9) **Future ** (Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13, Mark 16:16, Acts 15:11, Rom. 5:9-10, Rom. 10:9-10, Rom. 13:11, 1 Cor. 3:15, 1 Cor. 5:5, 2 Tim. 2:11-12, Heb. 9:28, James 5:15).

Until we grasp that truth, we will never grasp the Biblical teaching of Justification.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I know my posts are long, bear with me.

 

[LittleDeb]

I know my posts are long, bear with me.

On the contrary. I have been reading many long posts in this thread since nearly day 1. While other Catholic apologists posts have been very good, yours have been exceptional.

Your clarity with the explanation of works outside of faith being a debt issue was very helpful to me. You have clearly explained how works are not a result of faith, like the Protestant argument. While at the same time, you have shown how an atheist or someone else without faith can do things that appear to be works, i.e. feed the poor, visit the sick, etc. and still not go to heaven because their works lacked initial justification through faith. The secular argument is ‘works alone.’ The Protestant argument is ‘faith alone.’

That has been a hard one for me to explain. ‘Debt’ clarifies that so well. The Catholic Truth has always been Faith plus Works. You have given me a much better way to explain that. Thank you!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

On the contrary. I have been reading many long posts in this thread since nearly day 1. While other Catholic apologists posts have been very good, yours have been exceptional.

Your clarity with the explanation of works outside of faith being a debt issue was very helpful to me. You have clearly explained how works are not a result of faith, like the Protestant argument. While at the same time, you have shown how an atheist or someone else without faith can do things that appear to be works, i.e. feed the poor, visit the sick, etc. and still not go to heaven because their works lacked initial justification through faith. The secular argument is ‘works alone.’ The Protestant argument is ‘faith alone.’

That has been a hard one for me to explain. ‘Debt’ clarifies that so well. The Catholic Truth has always been Faith plus Works. You have given me a much better way to explain that. Thank you!

My sister I rejoice that you have learned how to better defend our faith!

But please, give me no credit or glory. Give it all to our Lord Jesus!

For I am nothing but a naive teenager, a mere vapor in the wind…but Christ is in all and through all (Ephesians 4:4-6).

Give God all my glory, for I must become less and less, so that Jesus can become greater and greater (John 3:30).