HELP! Does Romans 4 preach sola fide?

[apophasis]

sara888:

Your kidding right.?

Not at all.

Christ does not call us Christians sinners to repent…???

“Christians” (i.e., true believers, not simply baptized men and women) are not identified as “sinners”, but “saints” (holy ones). Why do you think that is, Jan?

Ok I get it now, you refuse to read or interpret any verses that have to do with a Faithful Christians obedience to Christ…

Actually I’ve quoted and referred to many Scriptures that exhort the saints to walk in obedience to their calling in Christ. Such as:Rom 12:1-2 "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.And:Eph 4:1 "Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."The problem lies not with me, Jan, but with you who interpret these exhortations to be not as what they are (encouragements for the saints to walk as who they are, now being in Christ) but instead as threats and conditions to one’s salvation. But that’s understandable when one considers the basis of their salvation to be their ritual baptism.

You preach lawlessness

Not true, but I do preach, as Paul does, that all true believers (not simply baptized people) are “not under law” but “under grace.”

There’s a BIG difference. Understood only when one finally comes to God by personal faith, through Christ, empty handed, having no works to offer in trade for their salvation. Only then can/will one truly understand that he “has been” saved not by works, but by pure divine grace (Divine favor), through faith, and he is now “under grace.”

Jan, what do you think of the parable Jesus told in Lk. 18:9-14 to those who "trusted in themselves (their own works) that they were righteous? How is it that the highly religious man did not walk away justified while the publican did?

You still preach carnal christianity

Actually, I don’t. Catholicism, however, does. I preach a “Spirit-regenerated” Christianity as Paul does. The true believer (not simply a “Trinitarian Formula” baptized person) has “recieved not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that {he} might know the things freely given to {him} by God.” Things which the “natural man” (i.e., the unregenerated man) does not understand because they are spiritually appraised (1 Cor. 2:12-14).

You see, simply baptizing a person (especially an infant) in the “Trinitarian Formula” does not, nor cannot, cause spiritual regeneration. And that’s why you who do believe it does must put the weight of salvation on the subsequent behavior of the ritually baptized. The “natural man” is always under the false impression that his works will save him - beginning with his baptism.

Now, if you want to talk how the saved (the Spirit-regenerated) are to conduct themselves in this world, then I’m sure we might find agreement (even the unbeliever expects those who call themselves “Christians” to act far better than themselves). But there’s a difference between how one is saved and how the saved (Spiritually regenerated) are to lead their lives (Eph. 2:10). The exhortation to “walk according to your calling” is addressed to those who are “called.” Those who have actually believed the “word of the cross.” Not someone simply baptized in the “Trinitarian Formula.” This is why we always talk past each other.

 

[mom2three]

There’s a BIG difference. Understood only when one finally comes to God by personal faith, through Christ, empty handed, having no works to offer in trade for their salvation.

The most annoying thing of all is the assumption that Catholics do not have a personal faith through Christ… and the assumption that we offer works in trade for our salvation.

You haven’t listened to anything we’re telling you… and certainly not anything I have said…

It’s completely frustrating that you are ignoring what the church teaches… continuing to argue against something we don’t even believe.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I do not believe that my works save me… Catholicism does not teach that our works save us…

I’m tired of talking to a wall.

thiscatholicjourney.com/2006/10/good-stuff-justification.html

BTW - you didn’t address ANY of the questions I posed to you… But I’m not surprised.

 

[apophasis]

The most annoying thing of all is the assumption that Catholics do not have a personal faith through Christ… and the assumption that we offer works in trade for our salvation.

You haven’t listened to anything we’re telling you… and certainly not anything I have said…

I’ve heard everything you’ve said. Do you assume ALL Catholics have a “personal relationship” with Christ? Is one saved BY having a “personal relationship” with Christ? Or do the saved have a personal relationship with Christ?

It’s completely frustrating that you are ignoring what the church teaches… continuing to argue against something we don’t even believe.

I’m not judging any one person’s salvation, but according to Catholic DOCTRINE, is an infant “initially” justified at the time of water baptism? Can an infant personally exercise faith? According to Catholic doctrine how does he/she possibly lose that “initial” justification?

I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I do not believe that my works save me… Catholicism does not teach that our works save us…

You yourself claim it teaches salvation by “faith” PLUS “works.” Yet the Apostle Paul does NOT (Eph. 2:8-9).

But let me ask you, what exactly is the FAITH aspect of this faith-plus-works salvation. You’'ve explaned the “works” part of it (love of God and obedience to commandments), but what exactly is the content of the faith aspect of this “hoped for” salvation?

And please explain to me how, according to Catholic doctrine, salvation is something that is not known, nor is ultimately achieved, until the end of one’s life? Why?

 

[VociMike]

Understood only when one finally comes to God by personal faith, through Christ, empty handed, having no works to offer in trade for their salvation.

Apparently the only way you can sustain your argument is to continually misrepresent Catholic teaching. “Trade” is simply another way to say “earn” or “obligate,” which is precisely not what the Church teaches. We do not trade for our salvation. We do not earn our salvation. We do not obligate God to grant us salvation.

Now, will you continue yet again to falsely claim that the Church teaches otherwise? Or will you finally dismount this particular hobby horse?

 

[sara888]

Not at all.“Christians” (i.e., true believers, not simply baptized men and women) are not identified as “sinners”, but “saints” (holy ones). Why do you think that is, Jan?Actually I’ve quoted and referred to many Scriptures that exhort the saints to walk in obedience to their calling in Christ. Such as:Rom 12:1-2 "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.And:Eph 4:1 "Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."The problem lies not with me, Jan, but with you who interpret these exhortations to be not as what they are (encouragements for the saints to walk as who they are, now being in Christ) but instead as threats and conditions to one’s salvation. But that’s understandable when one considers the basis of their salvation to be their ritual baptism.Not true, but I do preach, as Paul does, that all true believers (not simply baptized people) are “not under law” but “under grace.”

There’s a BIG difference. Understood only when one finally comes to God by personal faith, through Christ, empty handed, having no works to offer in trade for their salvation. Only then can/will one truly understand that he “has been” saved not by works, but by pure divine grace (Divine favor), through faith, and he is now “under grace.”

Jan, what do you think of the parable Jesus told in Lk. 18:9-14 to those who "trusted in themselves (their own works) that they were righteous? How is it that the highly religious man did not walk away justified while the publican did? Actually, I don’t. Catholicism, however, does. I preach a “Spirit-regenerated” Christianity as Paul does. The true believer (not simply a “Trinitarian Formula” baptized person) has “recieved not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that {he} might know the things freely given to {him} by God.” Things which the “natural man” (i.e., the unregenerated man) does not understand because they are spiritually appraised (1 Cor. 2:12-14).

You see, simply baptizing a person (especially an infant) in the “Trinitarian Formula” does not, nor cannot, cause spiritual regeneration. And that’s why you who do believe it does must put the weight of salvation on the subsequent behavior of the ritually baptized. The “natural man” is always under the false impression that his works will save him - beginning with his baptism.

Now, if you want to talk how the saved (the Spirit-regenerated) are to conduct themselves in this world, then I’m sure we might find agreement (even the unbeliever expects those who call themselves “Christians” to act far better than themselves). But there’s a difference between how one is saved and how the saved (Spiritually regenerated) are to lead their lives (Eph. 2:10). The exhortation to “walk according to your calling” is addressed to those who are “called.” Those who have actually believed the “word of the cross.” Not someone simply baptized in the “Trinitarian Formula.” This is why we always talk past each other.

**So the saved are suppose to conduct themeselves morally in this world, according to your above statement.

We Christians( the saved) are suppose to be obedient to Gods Moral Laws which are his commandments, which is essential to faith, but has nothing to do with ones judgment or salvation. ???

The so called saved or spiritually regenerated are to lead their lives by free will as a grace from God, he does not force one to love him or obey him, its up to us to behave or not,unless you would like to once again suggest irresistible grace that you refute.

If one has faith he should be following the commandments as Christ requires a true follower who loves him to do… Its up to us with his help of course but we make the final choice to obey or not…

Jan**

 

[mom2three]

Do you assume ALL Catholics have a “personal relationship” with Christ?

Of course not! Just as all Protestants do not have a “personal relationship” with Christ.

I’m not judging any one person’s salvation, but according to Catholic DOCTRINE, is an infant “initially” justified at the time of water baptism? Can an infant personally exercise faith?

Baptism of infants, by the grace of God, removes original sin from the infant, not actual sin because they are not capable of that yet. The Bible indicates that children were baptized as obviously they would be members of households:

Acts 2:38-39
38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Acts 16:15
15When she and the members of her **household **were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

Acts 16:33
33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

To top this off, it is clear that baptism replaced circumcision and mainly infants were circumcized:

Col 2:11-12
11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Further, there is nothing in scripture that indicates that children or infants were NOT to be baptized. Jesus said to let the children come unto him… (Mt 19:14) And it is clear from early church writings that children and infants were baptized in the early church. Why would the early church do this if unless they understood that it was proper to do so?

Hippolytus
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

In fact, the only argument to infant baptism was as to how soon they should be baptized…

According to Catholic doctrine how does he/she possibly lose that “initial” justification?You yourself claim it teaches salvation by “faith” PLUS “works.” Yet the Apostle Paul does NOT (Eph. 2:8-9).

Yes, he does:
Gal 5:6
6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

1 Cor 13:2
2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Among others (besides Paul) James 2:14-26 and specifically verse 24:
"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

Also: Mt 7:21, Mt 19:16-17, Jn 14:21, Rom 2:2-8, Gal 5:4-6, Eph 2:8-10, Phil 2:12-13, 1 Tim 5:8

But let me ask you, what exactly is the FAITH aspect of this faith-plus-works salvation. You’'ve explaned the “works” part of it (love of God and obedience to commandments), but what exactly is the content of the faith aspect of this “hoped for” salvation?

Since this is too lengthy for the post, I’ll give you this link to answer the question:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#III

And please explain to me how, according to Catholic doctrine, salvation is something that is not known, nor is ultimately achieved, until the end of one’s life? Why?

Catholic doctrine follows what the Bible says about it:

Mt 7:21
21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, **but only he who does the will of my Father **who is in heaven.

Mt 24:12-13
12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Rom 11:22
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Phil 2:12-13
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

I’m sorry… but it doesn’t get much clearer… PLEASE prayerfully consider that you must take ALL scripture into account together.

 

[Pax]

I probably already answered this in my previous response to you. The faith in Christ that caused my salvation is not an “active” faith, but a “passive” faith. I trust completely in His completed work on the cross on my behalf.
…
…

You need to think about this statement. First you claim that your faith is not an active faith. The apostle James would respond to you and say that your inactive faith is “dead.” You claim that your faith is passive. Believing is not passive. Believing is something that we do by the grace of God.

You then go on to explain your passive faith by saying that you trust completely in Jesus work on the cross. This is a nonsequiteur. Trusting is also something we do by way of hope in Jesus which is also by way of grace. There is absolutely nothing passive about believing or trusting. These are things that we do by the power of God’s grace.

Your difficulty is that you believe that anything that we do or claim to be required somehow subtracts from the completed work of Christ on the cross. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Let me illustrate by using something I posted on another thread.
This will require a couple of long posts so they will follow this one.

 

[Pax]

I think I have effectively demonstrated to you in the past that grace is the great enabler that empowers everything done by the Christian in Jesus Christ, and that everything good that we do is literally the work of the Father’s hands in our hearts, minds, bodies, and souls. I have also pointed out to you that faith is both a gift and a work and I have given plenty of scripture and logic in the past to support this point as well. You have balked at this because in the end you believe that if we have any participation in the process than our salvation is works righteousness.

I can appreciate your point about this but I believe it to be doctrinally driven and not scripturally driven. I also think that you have set up some obstacles in your logic because of your sincere and deeply held doctrinal beliefs. You perhaps see my views in a similar fashion. I appreciate the exchanges because we can at least begin to better appreciate one another’s views and perhaps their merits if we keep working at it.

That having been said, I am going to try another approach in talking about the same points that I have made concerning God’s grace at work in us and our part, if there is any, in that plan. I have mentioned in other threads that we are not inert beings. God made us in his image and likeness, and He did so deliberately. God also created things that are not alive and do not think, but some are not completely inert. The sun is a great example of something quite powerful, quite active, and yet not alive. The nuclear furnace of the sun is quite active and dynamic and it would neither exist or operate unless God willed it and sustained it as He does all things in the universe.

It is proper to say that the sun sustains life on earth even though the sun is clueless about what it is doing. The sun is performing exactly as God designed it and willed it to operate. Nevertheless, the sun’s composition and character have a function and the sun does what it does by its very nature. One cannot separate the sun from what it is and what it does.

Likewise, animals are not inert. They of course are wonderful living creatures created by God but they were not created in his image and likeness. Animals act and live according to God’s plan for them. There is a certain amount of intelligence built into each species appropriate to its nature and they all act and react according to that nature. They follow God’s plan and design even if only by instinct and limited intelligence.

In scripture we read about Balaam’s ***[see Numbers 22:22-34].
Needless to say Balaam had an ordinary beast of burden upon which he road and this animal only acted according to its nature until God intervened. It becomes clear in the narrative that God enabled the *** to see the angel of the Lord standing in the road, while Balaam initially could not. The scripture tells us in verse 28"Then the Lord opened the mouth of the ***, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” Scripture then tells us in verse 31 that “the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord…” Balaam then speaks with both the *** and the angel.

These strange and unnatural events happened by way of the power of God. In the life of the Christian grace acts upon the individual in a similarly miraculous fashion. By grace we are able to please God. Examples of scripture telling us this are:

1 John 3:22
we receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commandments and do what pleases him.

Col 1:10
so that you may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God.

1 Thess 4:1
Finally, brothers and sisters, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus that, as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God (as, in fact, you are doing), you should do so more and more.

Prov 16: 6-7
By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one avoids evil. When the ways of people please the LORD, he causes even their enemies to be at peace with them.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from previous post

In a way we are not unlike Balaam’s ***. Balaam’s *** spoke and apparently employed thought processes beyond that of its everyday life. Balaam’s *** did something by way of God’s power working within it. Based on the nature of what donkeys normally do vs. what Balaam’s donkey did, it is quite proper to say what scripture says in stating "And the *** said to Balaam, ‘Am I not your ***, upon which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Was I ever accustomed to do so to you?’ " Clearly, Balaam’s *** spoke. Not only did it speak these words but it said some others as well. Moreover, the donkey also saw the angel even when Balaam did not. So the donkey spoke and the donkey saw the angel. This is impossible for a donkey except by way of God’s power and grace.

Your logic against Catholic teaching on justification as works righteousness needs to be applied against the narrative of Balaam’s *** to recognize the break down of your criticisms. Balaam’s *** spoke and saw the angel. This was something that Balaam’s *** did and it is testified to in scripture. This set of events is a miracle, but it is improper to suggest that the *** worked a miracle. Likewise, when we do good works in justification as described by James and even Paul in Eph 2:10, it is not us that are doing the justifying through works righteousness. We cannot do anything that is pleasing to God outside of faith and God’s grace anymore than Balaam’s *** could speak or see an angel without God enabling it to perform in this miraculous manner. Balaam’s *** was an active participant in the miracle on the road, and we are active participants in justification by living by the power of God’s grace through faith and works. Before God’s grace we are like the donkey. We live as natural unregenerated men and women. Once God’s justifies us we are changed.

God’s purpose for us is according to Rom 8:28 “…to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” This is exactly what begins at our initial justification per Eph 2:8-10. We are justified as a gift and “we are his[God’s] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” The important phrase is that we are God’s workmanship. We are not our workmanship anymore than Balaam’s ***. We cannot claim the glory even though we do the good works in Christ Jesus that God prepared for us, any more than Balaam’s *** can claim the glory for having seen the angel or having spoken to Balaam. The only difference between us and Balaam’s *** is our nature given to us by God in his image and likeness. We therefore are destined for something higher and our response and participation have a different quality than that of a donkey.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

Apophasis,

You also asked where it is in Romans that we read something about “initial” justification.

I would submit the following:

Romans 13:11-14
Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

 

[mercygate]

Apophasis,

You also asked where it is in Romans that we read something about “initial” justification.

I would submit the following:

Romans 13:11-14
Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Pax, allow me to affirm your point about the ongoing relational aspect of fiduciary trust directly from the verses you quote: “For salvation is nearer to us now than . . .” Clearly, Paul sees salvation as something that requires ongoing participation, something to be fulfililed, not something that is already completely achieved. How could it be “nearer now” if it were already complete?

The more I see of the faith-alone argument, the more delirious it sounds, the more it depends upon verse-picking. People who promote this do not really believe that ordinary Christians are exempt from the imitation of their Lord, who came “to serve.” I think they construct these mind-churning shell-games in order to justify their rejection of the Catholic Church. They may not even be aware of that but, ultimately, there is no other explanation.

 

[Philthy]

Is one saved BY having a “personal relationship” with Christ? Or do the saved have a personal relationship with Christ?..According to Catholic doctrine how does he/she possibly lose that “initial” justification?You yourself claim it teaches salvation by “faith” PLUS “works.” Yet the Apostle Paul does NOT (Eph. 2:8-9).

Apo - the problem in the discussion here is that you view salvation as instantaneous, complete and permanent at the moment in time one puts their faith in Christ. Actually, I dont mean that YOU are the problem (you would equally validly describe Catholics as the “problem”), I simply mean the difference between our theologies of salvation is the problem and changes the implied meaning of the verses we discuss. Every time you see salvation spoken of in the past tense it automatically means that it is forever in the sense that the gift which God gives us (Grace) CANNOT be rejected by us at a future point in time. Catholics dont see it that way, and so a reference to a past event of salvation is not a reference -simultaneously - to future salvation. Every passage of scripture which would typically lead one to reject such an interpretation is - in a Catholic’s opinion - twisted by you to mean something far less likely. I dont mean to imply that you do so intentionally - I hope you know that I am not judging you in any way: that is definitely not my job. Examples of this would be your rejection of any requirements of Christ other than faith - such as forgiving others; Pauls admonitions to “test” ourselves to see if our faith is living, etc, etc. It simply does us no good to resolve passages with your claim that if someone doesnt pass the test then they never were “in Christ”. If that is the case then it would seem to a reasonable mind that the concept of eternal security is also to be rejected for the testing is not of each other, but of one’s self, according to Paul.
I will admit that in the strictest sense of knowledge neither one of us knows whether salvation can be lost: we are not privy to those who are in hell and whether any of them had put their faith in Christ only to “fall away during times of trial”.

 

[Pax]

Pax, allow me to affirm your point about the ongoing relational aspect of fiduciary trust directly from the verses you quote: "For salvation is nearer to us now than . . ." Clearly, Paul sees salvation as something that requires ongoing participation, something to be fulfililed, not something that is already completely achieved. How could it be “nearer now” if it were already complete?

The more I see of the faith-alone argument, the more delirious it sounds, the more it depends upon verse-picking. People who promote this do not really believe that ordinary Christians are exempt from the imitation of their Lord, who came “to serve.” I think they construct these mind-churning shell-games in order to justify their rejection of the Catholic Church. They may not even be aware of that but, ultimately, there is no other explanation.

I certainly agree with you, but I think that people can only believe that which they have been taught. Many non-Catholics believe in sola fide because of what they have been taught as opposed to any rejection of the Catholic Church. Since religion is a near and very dear part of our existence our beliefs and traditions tend to run extremely deep within us. It is not easy to shake off what we believe even if what we believe is false. Muslims are a terrific example of this. They are arguably the most difficult to convert.

 

[mercygate]

I certainly agree with you, but I think that people can only believe that which they have been taught. Many non-Catholics believe in sola fide because of what they have been taught as opposed to any rejection of the Catholic Church. Since religion is a near and very dear part of our existence our beliefs and traditions tend to run extremely deep within us. It is not easy to shake off what we believe even if what we believe is false. Muslims are a terrific example of this. They are arguably the most difficult to convert.

Roger that. That is what I meant when I said that people may not even be aware that their position is a de facto rejection.

I recall my English grandmother: anything Catholics believed or did was bad. Period. No other explanation needed. THEREFORE, if Catholics believe in the economy of faith and works, it must be wrong and so we go and set out to prove it at any cost.

 

[sara888]

I certainly agree with you, but I think that people can only believe that which they have been taught. Many non-Catholics believe in sola fide because of what they have been taught as opposed to any rejection of the Catholic Church. Since religion is a near and very dear part of our existence our beliefs and traditions tend to run extremely deep within us. It is not easy to shake off what we believe even if what we believe is false. Muslims are a terrific example of this. They are arguably the most difficult to convert.

**Heres the part I dont quite get. If commandments are essential to Faith, how do they justify commandment keeping has nothing to do with salvation… It lacks all logic ,along with any common sense.

Mianstream Traditional Orthodox Protestats do profess one can lose their salvation, its these fundie sects for example the OSAS and Born Again Sects, that profess Faith minus commandment keeping…however they will claim they keep the commandments yet these works have nothing to do with ones salvation along with preaching irresistible grace with their comments yet refute it… Go figure.

AngelJan**

 

[Steven_Merten]

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?

Hello mom2three,

I think Romans 2:4 is a bit more clear on defining the need for faith through obedience to God as being nessessary to go to heaven (through Jesus).

Please visit: Jesus, What Must I Do To Share In Everlasting Life?

**NAB ROM 2:4 **

Do you not know that God’s kindness is an invitation to you to repent? In spite of this, your hard and impenitent heart is storing up retribution for that day of wrath when the just judgment of God will be revealed, when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes,affliction and anguish will come upon every man who has done evil**,** the Jew first, then the Greek. But there will be glory, honor and peace for everyone who has done good, likewise the Jew first, then the Greek. With God there is no favoritism.NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
NAB REV 22:12

“Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End! **Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life **and enter the city through its gates Outside are the dogs and sorcerers, the fornicators and murderers, the idol-worshipers and all who love falsehood.”

 

[DARichards]

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?

Abraham Justified by Faith
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."**

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.**

There have been many good and valid points made in this thread, so there is no need to repeat many of them already. The only additional thing that I would say is that no individual Scripture can be read in a vaccuum. It must be understood in light of other Scripture, and also how Scripture was understood applied and taught by our Church Fathers.

For example: We would probably agree that Satan believes that Christ is the Son of God. He also fears the power and Name of Jesus. However, we would all also agree that Satan doesn’t have his Salvation in his favor. Why, because (in this extreme case), Satan has not submitted his heart, mind, will, emotions, and being to our Lord. In the same way, as humans, we aren’t saved only by our faith. Jesus said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments”.–John 14:15. And again in John 14:21"Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him."

In the Sola Fide argument, one of the main verses that the Protestants use in addition to what you have already stated is Genesis 15:6 which states: Abram put his faith in the LORD, who credited it to him as an act of righteousness. However looking at Hebrews 11 teaches that Abraham was justified upon his obedience to God in leaving the foreign land. James 2 continues to teach that Abraham was justified in his obedience with Isaac. So at which point was he justified? Was it when he left upon God’s command (Heb.11), when he believed God (Gen 15), or when he obeyed God and placed Issac on the altar (James 2). By this we can see that our faith is not tied to one moment in time and from that point on we are “saved”. Our Salvation was won for us on the cross by our Lord and by His grace and nothing that we deserved, He revealed Himself to us.(We were saved). In addition, as we daily lay our lives on the altar of sacrifice to our Lord our justification continues in our obedience and submission to His will .(We are being Saved). When we die or when our Lord returns for us we have a blessed hope that our eternity will be with Him, the Almighty Father, the Holy Spirit, The Blessed Mother, and all the Saints and prophets. (We hope to be Saved.)

For a good read on this I would reccomend “The Salvation Controversy” by James Akin…

 

[mom2three]

For a good read on this I would reccomend “The Salvation Controversy” by James Akin.

Yes! I just got this book!

 

[apophasis]

mom2three:

Baptism of infants, by the grace of God, removes original sin from the infant, not actual sin because they are not capable of that yet. The Bible indicates that children were baptized as obviously they would be members of households:

Nowhere does the Bible “indicate” that infants were ever baptized. Here’s a response I made on another thread:

The point is nowhere does Scripture ever support infant baptism. This unbiblical exercise was borne out of the false notion that the “sacrament” itself washed away “original sin” in the infant and infused his soul with righteousness. Hence, no faith required.

Yes, there are instances in Scripture where whole households believed and were baptized.

In Acts eleven Peter gives the account of how he was instructed by the Lord to take the word of Christ to Gentiles that they might believe and receive the Holy Spirit. Cornelius was told to send for Peter “and he shall speak words to you (not baptise you) by which you will be saved, you and all your household” (v. 14).

Peter then remembered the differentiation Jesus made:Acts 11:16-17 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, BUT you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as {He gave} to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?"Take note in the above text that Peter was sent to them with “words” by which they would be saved (not water). Those “words” were the message concerning the substitutionary sin-sacrifice of Jesus Christ for their sins and His subsequent, bodily resurrection. They believed his words and the Holy Spirit fell upon them:Acts 15:7-9 "After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), cleansing their hearts by (baptism? NO!) faith."Take note that (1) it was those who “believed” that had their hearts cleansed, and (2) the text says nothing about them being baptized. Of course one would assume they were, but the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and the cleansing of their hearts happened the moment they “believed,” prior to, and apart from, any subsequent, ritual, water baptism. The key word here is “believed.” Something infants cannot do.

This pre-faith requirement sets a precendence for all subsequent “household” conversions recorded in Scripture:

In Acts 16 a woman named Lydia was listening to the words of Paul, she believed, along with her household, and they were subsequently baptized.

In the same chapter Paul tells the Philippian jailer to “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31). In verse thirty-four it explicitly states that both the jailer and his whole household “believed.” Now you cannot assume this referred to infants since it states that personal faith was exercised by all in his household.

In Acts 18:8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord along with his household. Again, it refers to those within his household that “believed.” And it goes on to say, "…and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized."In 1 Cor. 16 Paul speaks of the household of Stephanas, whom he baptized, saying they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints. Obviously infants cannot devote themselves the ministry of the saints.

Bottom line, it was those who personally believed within each household that were subsequently baptized. There was no baptism apart from personal belief. The word “household” does not support the doctrine and practice of infant baptism.

The tragedy is that once personal faith was separated from ritual baptism (such as, baptising infants), baptism took on a soteriological life all its own. And men began to put their faith in the ritual rather than Christ Himself.

 

[apophasis]

mom2three:

In response to Apophasis’ question regarding the content of your “faith,” you wrote:

"Since this is too lengthy for the post, I’ll give you this link to answer the question:
vatican.va/archive/catech…s1c3a1.htm#III

I always find it amazing (but not surprising) that Catholics almost never provide me with a personal answer to this question, but instead out-source me to some link:

**To believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God

151** For a Christian, believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his “beloved Son”, in whom the Father is “well pleased”; God tells us to listen to him.18 The Lord himself said to his disciples: "Believe in God, believe also in me."19 We can believe in Jesus Christ because he is himself God, the Word made flesh: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."20 Because he “has seen the Father”, Jesus Christ is the only one who knows him and can reveal him.21

Now what I find interesting in the above explanation regarding “faith” in Christ (and throughout the whole link) is that there is absolutely no reference to the cross of Christ. Yet it was “the word of the cross” that was taken to the world by the Apostles to be believed on for salvation (1 Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:16-17).

Abraham was justified when he personally believed “in the Lord” (Gen. 15:6). Men are saved/justified, this side of the cross, when they believe “in Christ,” meaning “the word of the cross” concerning Him (Col. 2:13-14). This is the content of saving faith. You can believe Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead, even all His teachings, and still not actually believe “in Him.” Salvation faith is rooted in the cross and its substitutionary value on our behalf. Jesus said: John 3:14-15 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

To believe “in Christ” is to believe He did it all, that He accomplished your full redemption there on the cross, and all yours sins forgiven . It was all His work - none of yours. Salvation through faith is not, was not, nor ever will be a cooperative effort. What He did is applied to you in full, by God, at the time of personal faith “in Him.”

**Faith is a grace

153** When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”.24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’"25

When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, Son of the living God, he wasn’t “gifted” saving faith. He was given a revelation (Matt. 16:17) concerning Jesus from the Father - but not saving faith. This is shown by the fact that right after his confession Jesus began to show Peter and the disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things (i.e., the cross). But Peter, still in unbelief, took Him aside and began to rebuke Him saying this will never happen to him. Jesus, in turn, answered with “Get behind Me Satan!” (Matth. 16:21-22).

Neither Peter or any of His disciples had saving faith at that time. None believed, much less comprehended, that He must endure the cross for their full redemption. Neither did His mother. It wasn’t until AFTER His bodily resurrection that any of them finally understood and believed “in Him” unto salvation. Not till then did they understand and believe “the word of the cross.” And it was this “word of the cross” that they took to the world to be personally believed for salvation.