How can people read the Bible and still believe they are saved by faith alone?

[scylla]

Here are another couple cents of thoughts coming from a background of once thinking that Faith Alone was a good idea.

The reason people believe in Faith Alone is because Martin Luther coined the term. Doesn’t that bother anyone? Once I realized this, I looked for some sort of historical context in which Faith Alone existed before Martin Luther. All you can find are some snippets from Saint Augustine, talking about the value of Faith. If Faith Alone ever was a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith why wouldn’t you see people writing defending it before Luther? These are people who died defending the smallest dogma of their faith, yet we see virtually nothing! Would the belief in Faith Alone disappear so quietly?

Jesus never taught this, yet people put more weight on Paul’s words the words of Jesus. Wasn’t Jesus God? Wasn’t he the one with the words of eternal life?

 

[Stingray]

scylla:

Here are another couple cents of thoughts coming from a background of once thinking that Faith Alone was a good idea.

The reason people believe in Faith Alone is because Martin Luther coined the term. Doesn’t that bother anyone? Once I realized this, I looked for some sort of historical context in which Faith Alone existed before Martin Luther. All you can find are some snippets from Saint Augustine, talking about the value of Faith. If Faith Alone ever was a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith why wouldn’t you see people writing defending it before Luther? These are people who died defending the smallest dogma of their faith, yet we see virtually nothing! Would the belief in Faith Alone disappear so quietly?

Jesus never taught this, yet people put more weight on Paul’s words the words of Jesus. Wasn’t Jesus God? Wasn’t he the one with the words of eternal life?

Your comments show that you fail to appreciate the fact that “All Scripture is Godbreathed” (2 Tim 3:15). Therefore, the words of Paul are no less authoritative than those of Jesus. In fact, Paul’s words are the words of God just as those of Jesus are. There is no contradiction between the two. Therefore, they must be understood together rather than in isolation from one another.

God bless,
Stingray

 

[Catherine_S]

scylla:

Here are another couple cents of thoughts coming from a background of once thinking that Faith Alone was a good idea.

The reason people believe in Faith Alone is because Martin Luther coined the term. Doesn’t that bother anyone? Once I realized this, I looked for some sort of historical context in which Faith Alone existed before Martin Luther. All you can find are some snippets from Saint Augustine, talking about the value of Faith. If Faith Alone ever was a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith why wouldn’t you see people writing defending it before Luther? These are people who died defending the smallest dogma of their faith, yet we see virtually nothing! Would the belief in Faith Alone disappear so quietly?

Jesus never taught this, yet people put more weight on Paul’s words the words of Jesus. Wasn’t Jesus God? Wasn’t he the one with the words of eternal life?

** He was God and He does have the words of eternal life ! **

Did He not say** " I have not come to change the law …in fact… he said not one iota of it would be changed Matthew 5: 17-20**
In Him we see perfect Love in action**.**

The rest of us are on the way and love will remain little more than a word clothed in sentimentality and self centered if we refuse to listen. To love is a decision and a commitment…feelings come and feelings go. Children do not reach adulthood because their parents love them … they grow to maturity by doing what there parents ask them to do as well.Their parents are older and wiser and want to mold them and to protect them.It will years before they understand the “why” behind many things.

Christ knew our hearts and so the law is necessary if we are to continue to grow and to reach a certain level of spiritual maturity.** Learning to love is a process like anything else**… with very serious consequences if we do not grow up ! Once saved Always saved is just not the Truth…what it is…is a refusal to accept authority. **Even if that authority is Jesus Christ Himself !! **

Praise Him forever:bowdown:
Shalom

 

[Contarini]

scylla:

Here are another couple cents of thoughts coming from a background of once thinking that Faith Alone was a good idea.

The reason people believe in Faith Alone is because Martin Luther coined the term. Doesn’t that bother anyone? Once I realized this, I looked for some sort of historical context in which Faith Alone existed before Martin Luther. All you can find are some snippets from Saint Augustine, talking about the value of Faith. If Faith Alone ever was a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith why wouldn’t you see people writing defending it before Luther? These are people who died defending the smallest dogma of their faith, yet we see virtually nothing! Would the belief in Faith Alone disappear so quietly?

Ever heard of doctrinal development???

The phrase “sola fide” does occur in the Fathers. Early Catholic opponents of Luther admitted that saying we were justified by faith alone was orthodox Catholic teaching (according to David Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents). Of course, the phrase is just a slogan, not a doctrine. Some versions of it may be compatible with Sacred Tradition, and others may not. If you want to discuss this issue seriously, then respond to the posts by myself and others addressing the historic Protestant view of “sola fide.” (For what it’s worth, I find myself in more agreement with Catholic views than with many Protestant interpretations of “sola fide.” But the slogan itself does have an orthodox sense.)

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Ignatius]

Contarini:

The phrase “sola fide” does occur in the Fathers.

That is patently false; nowhere is the term found prior to the early 1500’s With the exception of James 2:24 which explicitly contradicts this false doctrine. James 2:24"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone."

May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[scylla]

I do not recall anywhere where I have seen Church Fathers state the term sola fide.

I have heard of doctrinal development, and I understand how some protestant interpretations of the doctrine are almost identical with Catholic teaching of justification through faith. If that is the case we should just look at the similarities and see if we can come to an aggreement on belief. Anyone who holds one of these views, are so close to the Catholic view, talking about justification through faith does become something useful, if charity is maintained.

Of course as a Catholic I do not deny the importance of faith, it is the only thing that makes anything I do meaningful. If I participate in worship without faith, what am I doing other than just going through motions? Faith is essential to anything you do as a Christian.

The real problem lies with the phrase and general understanding of the phrase Faith Alone. It causes division and has done nothing to unify Christianity, other than unify divided opinions. Taken to it’s strictest sense, it makes our existence almost meaningless, and that is what I was addressing.

Now if I still felt that I couldn’t be in communion with Catholicism, I might be inclined to invent something like “Faith Primarily”. (much closer to Catholicism, just a silly way to put it)
But please!, please!, don’t do this there are enough people out there starting their own Churches! This is just an example!

 

[Catherine_S]

scylla:

I do not recall anywhere where I have seen Church Fathers state the term sola fide.

I have heard of doctrinal development, and I understand how some protestant interpretations of the doctrine are almost identical with Catholic teaching of justification through faith. If that is the case we should just look at the similarities and see if we can come to an aggreement on belief. Anyone who holds one of these views, are so close to the Catholic view, talking about justification through faith does become something useful, if charity is maintained.

Of course as a Catholic I do not deny the importance of faith, it is the only thing that makes anything I do meaningful. If I participate in worship without faith, what am I doing other than just going through motions? Faith is essential to anything you do as a Christian.

The real problem lies with the phrase and general understanding of the phrase Faith Alone. It causes division and has done nothing to unify Christianity, other than unify divided opinions. Taken to it’s strictest sense, it makes our existence almost meaningless, and that is what I was addressing.

Now if I still felt that I couldn’t be in communion with Catholicism, I might be inclined to invent something like “Faith Primarily”. (much closer to Catholicism, just a silly way to put it)
**But please!, please!, don’t do this there are enough people out there starting their own Churches! This is just an example!/**QUOTE]

:ehh: No kidding ! Thousands ! Christ prayed " that they all may be one as you and I Father are one…so that the world will believe that you sent me". Why so much division ? ! The Holy Spirit does not teach conflicting truths. It will always come back to authority. Who decides? Did Christ not say " what you bind on earth it will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth it will be loosen in heaven" Matthew 16: 18-20 for a reason? We know who was handed the Keys ! Much is being uncovered and brought to light in our day! The splintering will continue and to what end ? I believe the goats and the sheep are already being separated !! The lights are on in King Henry’s Church because it went down a road it should not have gone down.The Holy Spirit works almost imperceptively over a period of time before the Truth finially is out in the open. Now many of God’s people are disallusioned and in pain because of their elders leading them astray "and everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it". Matthew 7:21-27

Shalom

 

[scylla]

Well I waited a full day, went on a trip and came back to see if anyone had found where sola fide was taught before Martin Luther made it up. I checked again went through my books on early Church Fathers and have not found anything.
So I will stick to my statement that Martin Luther made up Sola Fide. I see no historic view on it.

I have noticed that once people start to realize Sola Fide is incompatible with the Bible, then they start to modify it’s original meaning, resulting in a view that starts to get closer and closer to the Catholic Church’s teaching on salvation. All the while saying that the Catholic Church is wrong, and that it still is Sola Fide. Yet then they add that maybe you need works, but you will be compelled to do it. or that works aren’t needed, but our faith will be manifested by them. Or one of countless other versions like I said before, is this doctrinal development or modification?

1 Corinthians 13:1

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If 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. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing…
…And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Is this somehow part of Faith Alone?

 

[Catherine_S]

scylla:

Well I waited a full day, went on a trip and came back to see if anyone had found where sola fide was taught before Martin Luther made it up. I checked again went through my books on early Church Fathers and have not found anything.
So I will stick to my statement that Martin Luther made up Sola Fide. I see no historic view on it.

I have noticed that once people start to realize Sola Fide is incompatible with the Bible, then they start to modify it’s original meaning, resulting in a view that starts to get closer and closer to the Catholic Church’s teaching on salvation. All the while saying that the Catholic Church is wrong, and that it still is Sola Fide. Yet then they add that maybe you need works, but you will be compelled to do it. or that works aren’t needed, but our faith will be manifested by them. Or one of countless other versions like I said before, is this doctrinal development or modification?

1 Corinthians 13:1

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If 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. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing…
…And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Is this somehow part of Faith Alone?

** Just adding an interesting piece of history.**

Anglicanism presents its self as a reformed Catholicism striking a balance between the extremes of Rome and Geneva. However, the roots of Anglicanism are solidly Protestant, and the claim that Anglo-Catholicism is the genuine Anglican tradition does not stand up in the light of history.

Though the Church of England after the schism with Rome over Henry’s divorce still kept the Catholic sacramental system, radical Protestantism was introduced during the reign of Edward VI. Thomas Cranmer and Edward Seymour, appointed by Henry VIII to positions of power, upon Henry’s death worked openly to introduce the beliefs of the German Reformers. The holy sacrifice of the Mass was replaced by a vernacular communion service **that denied transubstantiation and the eucharistic sacrifice. **Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer was written in beautiful English but contained subtle heresy behind its lovely facade.

The renowned Anglican liturgist Dom Gregory Dix (1901–1953) commented on the Cranmeriam rite: “As a piece of liturgical craftsmanship it is in the first rank. . . . It is not a disordered attempt at a Catholic rite but the only effective attempt ever made to give liturgical expression to the doctrine of justification by faith alone” (*The Shape of the Liturgy *[1946], 11).

Indeed, shortly before his execution, Cranmer admitted, "Lord, I have sinned against heaven, before thy face. I have sinned against heaven, which through my fault is bereft of so many who should be dwelling there and because I most shamefully denied this heavenly gift presented to us. I have sinned also against earth, which so long has miserably lacked this sacrament, and against the men who I have debarred from this supersubstantial food, being the murderer of as many as have perished from the want of it. I have defrauded the souls of the departed of this perpetual and most august sacrifice" (translated from the Latin text in appendix to vol. IV of Jenkyns’ edition of Cramner’s Remains, 397).

**complete article by Robert Ian Williams at **catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea5.asp

Shalom

 

[Almost_Catholic]

The traditional Reformed position as I understand it, is that one is saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. The actions alone do not save. The faith pushes to action as it is preceded by faith the the Almighty and His help.

As an Almost-Catholic, I am questioning that theological position. One must have faith and…one must also live one’s faith for that faith to be authentic. The confusion enters with the misunderstanding of the phrase, “faith alone”…which I do not believe was ever intended to mean faith without works.

 

[Ignatius]

Almost Catholic:

The traditional Reformed position as I understand it, is that one is saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. The actions alone do not save. The faith pushes to action as it is preceded by faith the the Almighty and His help.

As an Almost-Catholic, I am questioning that theological position. One must have faith and…one must also live one’s faith for that faith to be authentic. The confusion enters with the misunderstanding of the phrase, “faith alone”…which I do not believe was ever intended to mean faith without works.

The traditional reformed view is that “your works are filthy rags”; only faith is needed. I think that there has recently been some change, but that is new.

Welcome Home and God Bless you on your Faith journey.

 

[scylla]

I am 99.999% sure that the original meaning of Faith Alone was intended to be just that Faith ALONE. That is why Martin Luther who thought it up made that famous remark of his that he could commit adultery 100 times in a day and still be saved.

What happens is that you start to run into passages in the Bible which do not support that train of thought and it needs to be modified to fit the Bible.

The phrase Faith Alone is left as it is and the meaning is modified to justify, needing to love and lead a Christian life. It then becomes a situation where it really isn’t Faith Alone, but just called that, as the definition becomes more and more closer to Faith first, then everything else follows(but people get stuck with problems about free will\predestination, etc…).

The difference between a (redefined Faith Alone), and the Catholic point of view is razor thin. But if you hold onto the phrase Faith Alone, that pretty much ends up what separates Christianity, with this doctrine. As I see it.

 

[hungry]

John 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent.

John 3:16-18 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 10:9-10 That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For **we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto **good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

Titus 3:1-7 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; Whom he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Just out of curiousity and what I have been struggling with for so long, if all the sacrements and all the penances can get us to heaven, then WHY DID JESUS DIE FOR US ON THE CROSS? IF ALL OUR GOOD WORKS COUNT, THEN WHY DOES IT SAY THAT OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IS FILTHY RAGS? Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Can someone answer these for me?

Does anyone ever read the Bible anymore? Jesus says about His sacrifice, John 10:17-18 Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

So if this is so, then it means that God in human flesh gave Himself to redeem us, and therefore there is nothing left to be done. He said from the cross, John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.

Doesn’t this mean that is it? Done deal?

I am confused!

 

[geezerbob]

Psalms 119:1-2 Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. Hungry, yes we do read the Bible - all of it, not just bits and pieces that support what we want to believe. Your own signature line says what we must DO. What part of that are you confused about? By grace we are led to believe and by grace we are led to obey. What I read in the Bible indicates that both are necessary for salvation, not just one or the other. To use your own words, that’s simple enough for a child to understand.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

bkniceley:

James 2:23: "And the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. And he was called the friend of God.”

I have just began to read this post here when this jumped out at me.
To put this back into context:

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. **So the question to you is How can your read ALL of the Bible and still believe they are saved by fatih alone?

 

[Subrosa]

Coptic:

Society paints such a negative picture of Catholicism to the point where people are afraid to be a part of the Catholic church, and end up knowing very little about it.

Hi Coptic!

Out of this post I found this and it sent up a “red flag.” I agree with your statement about how “Society paints such a negative picture of Catholicism to the point where people are afraid to be a part of the Catholic church,” you must be refering to people outside of the Catholic faith. Do you realize that Catholicism claims 1.1 Billion faithful? That is one sixth of the worlds population. Within the Catholic community, the pope is beloved and revered. Outside of it he is, in some communities, despised as the anti-christ. The last part of your observance, “and end up knowing very little about it,” is a continuation of misinformation that was started long ago and is still taught in protestant theological schools. Still, many protestants realize the error and convert to Catholicism, or even Orthodoxy. Honestly, there is traffic in the other direction, also.

We, everyone, need to clear the many misconceptions (and lies) that are held about the Catholic church and the pope, and bring the Christian community to unity. This is occuring through ecumenical efforts. The process is slow, but it is happeneing.

 

[Subrosa]

Hi Hungry!

I read the post about your being confused and would like to focus on one passage you mentioned, with reference to others for clarification.

hungry:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For **we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto **good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

Many protestant religions teach (and quote) just vs. 8-9. The Catholic church teaches that, including vs.10. It teaches the three verses in their entirety. (Your red highlight)

Yes it is true, we CANNOT simply earn access to heaven. (See your highlight of “Not Of Works”) Jesus states the same thing in Matthew 7: 22-23

“22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you…”
But, just previous to that, in vs. 21, He states, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

We cannot obtain heaven through faith alone, either.

No one disputes that we are saved through God’a Grace alone. We cannot be saved without it. (Eph 2:8-9) But, to complete the formula of salvation, the manifestation of that Grace shows itself through our works. Jesus makes this clear in vs.19-20 of the same chapter in Matthew.

“19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So by their fruits you will know them.”

We all can read passages that we like and point them out to prove our point. I just did it here. The reality is that the bible needs to be read in its entirety. All of the passages need to be put together.

Can you dispute the above quoted passages? Was Jesus lying? Yes, we need Grace, Yes we need faith, Yes we show our faith through works. It is all a part of it.

You may want to read the epistle of James, chapter 3, vs. 14-26. James makes it very clear.

God bless,
Subrosa

 

[Subrosa]

T. More:

So, for the Catholics, I would still ask just for your understanding of what way works are necessary for justification. Do they merit pardon for sin? If not, what do they do? You don’t have to cite confessional formulas, just let me know how you understand things. Thanks

Hi T. More!

Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church teaching, from the catachism, concerning works, here called “Merit”, the same word you use in your question…

**2010 **Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

(My highlighting)

You can read the complete teaching here…

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm#III

I hope this clears it a bit!

God bless,
Subrosa

 

[Contarini]

scylla:

I am 99.999% sure that the original meaning of Faith Alone was intended to be just that Faith ALONE. That is why Martin Luther who thought it up made that famous remark of his that he could commit adultery 100 times in a day and still be saved.

What happens is that you start to run into passages in the Bible which do not support that train of thought and it needs to be modified to fit the Bible.

The phrase Faith Alone is left as it is and the meaning is modified to justify, needing to love and lead a Christian life. It then becomes a situation where it really isn’t Faith Alone, but just called that, as the definition becomes more and more closer to Faith first, then everything else follows(but people get stuck with problems about free will\predestination, etc…).

The difference between a (redefined Faith Alone), and the Catholic point of view is razor thin. But if you hold onto the phrase Faith Alone, that pretty much ends up what separates Christianity, with this doctrine. As I see it.

Scylla,

What about my post #82 do you find unconvincing? Why do you take a remark in a letter over Luther’s clear teaching in his Galatians commentary, which I quote in that post? Have you read the letter yourself? Do you know anything about Luther’s relationship with Melanchthon to give the letter some context? If you don’t, aren’t you being presumptuous as well as uncharitable in your sweeping judgment?

One of these days when I’m in the library and have time, I’m going to hunt through Ambrosiaster and some other patristic commentators for the phrase “sola fide.” I know it occurs but I don’t have a reference right here. (The phrase is not really the important thing anyway–the Fathers didn’t mean by it quite what Luther did.) Sorry for not getting back to you on that, but I have a lot going on these days.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

scylla:

Here are another couple cents of thoughts coming from a background of once thinking that Faith Alone was a good idea.

The reason people believe in Faith Alone is because Martin Luther coined the term. Doesn’t that bother anyone? Once I realized this, I looked for some sort of historical context in which Faith Alone existed before Martin Luther. All you can find are some snippets from Saint Augustine, talking about the value of Faith. If Faith Alone ever was a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith why wouldn’t you see people writing defending it before Luther? These are people who died defending the smallest dogma of their faith, yet we see virtually nothing!

The same could be said of transubstantiation - the very word “transubstantiatio” was unknown before about 1140. The reasoning which rules out *sola fide, *rules out transubstantiation, which has a very precise meaning. To this day, the Orthodox do not accept it alone, but it, & other accounts of the change in the Eucharist as well.​

The Patristic witness to it is not definite enough for the CC to say that the Fathers teach transubstantiation and only transubstantiation. This is the vital point, & is always forgotten by Catholic apologists.

As could be said of the Assumption, indulgences, Purgatory, the power of priests actively to forgive sins, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility - either they were very contentious, or very late, or not mentioned in the tradition of the past, or else they have been canonised in a form not that in which they formerly appeared.

All of these were far more debated than is often realised - not by a few errant theologians, but by a very large chunk of the Christian tradition. One or two theologians might be brushed aside - when a whole religious order’s theological tradition for 400 years is opposed to the Immaculate Conception, as that of the Dominicans was, there is a big problem to be resolved.

It really is high time that Catholics stopped brushing inconvenient bits of the Catholic past aside - doing so, means that the Catholic past ends up full of holes and gaps. It becomes unintelligible if that is done. ##

Would the belief in Faith Alone disappear so quietly?

Jesus never taught this, yet people put more weight on Paul’s words the words of Jesus. Wasn’t Jesus God? Wasn’t he the one with the words of eternal life?