CentralFLJames:
Just another typical evasion by MD and I consider it a calumny to claim anyone needs to be liked me - you won’t find a single post of mine holding myself up as a standard.
Good, I’m glad you clarified that you don’t hold yourself up as a standard. Helps us to ignore the demeanor of your posts.
you make a lot of noise and you make a lot of demands in our forum but you never answer the mail on what we give you. Are you too lazy to do the work of giving us real answers to our questions?
I give you many, many, many, many answers. You just don’t like any of them.
MD, we can’t get to deep theology until you can learn to answer simple questions and agree on fundamentals
Agree? I must “agree” with your “
fundamentals” first?
Q1: How do you even know what s God Breathed scripture except by tradition and by the Divinely Inspired canonization of the Catholic Church?
Well, we know that the Scripture are “God-breathed” (
theopneustos) by Divine revelation (2 Tim. 3:16-17), i.e., Scripture itself. Since neither you nor I were there we both must rely on the the early church (by “
church” I don’t mean the RCC) that recognized all the Apostolic writings distributed among the churches. Even Peter himself right away recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 14-16). But the true reality is that people and councils only
recognized them as what they were from the moment they were penned. The Holy Spirit did not depend on men to confirm His work. As for the councils of Hippo and Carthage they were
provincial, not
ecumenical, so they had no authority to speak for the whole church (again, by “
church” I don’t mean RCC). Nor did the Bishop of Rome even attend those councils and your church didn’t
officially have a canon until the council of Trent. Canonization is not “
inspired,” the Scriptures are. The canon is made up of those writings which are Divinely inspired (
theopneustos). Grasp the difference? Early church writers quoted from the N.T. Scriptures even before a council on canonization ever took place.
Q2; Can YOU produce a single historical church document that proves a single Christian leader in the early Christian Church ever taught “by faith alone” (sola fide) (you can’t use the bible and your own private interpretation).
Now that’s a good one, James. I can’t use the
original Source??? I can’t use Divine revelation, true Apostolic teaching? You restrict me to secondary sources only?
Q3: I gave you many OT examples of men who had plenty of faith in God but did NOT enter into the Promised Land. In fact the lesson of Moses himself being denied entrance for disobedience should be the proof text that tells you that no amount of faith and belief in God’s Word is going to gain one entrance into the Promised Land UNLESS that faith is taken together with obedience.
Moses actually did enter the land, and that wholly by GRACE (Matt. 17:2). If we accept your logic we would have to conclude that Moses wasn’t saved. But you fail to understand that God dealt with national Israel as under the Law. Their faith was to be in God alone and their obedience was to be according to the covenant of Law (Mosaic). But James, Someone greater than Moses has come and inaugurated a new covenant in His blood by which men are saved by GRACE through FAITH in Him alone (Jn. 14:6; cf. Rom. 6:14).
So, given this background, if you can, please explain sola fide and how it stands up - esp. with respect to James writings about dead faith without works.
This has been hashed over a thousand times on this forum. The
context in which James presents his teaching is that of a “
said” faith: “
…if a man SAYS he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” James isn’t denying salvation by grace through faith alone. Nowhere does James conclude that a man is actually saved or justified by works. But, like Abraham, those whom God declares justified (reckons righteous) by faith demonstrate their faith through works. But it’s not the works by which God justifies any man. Even James quotes Gen 15:6:
"Then he (Abram)
believed in the Lord; and He (the Lord)
reckoned IT (his faith) *to him as righteousness."*After about twenty years his faith in the Lord had matured and was demonstrated by his willingness, in obedience, to offer up Isaac. It’s called “
the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). James’ point: The
justified by faith will demonstrate their faith by works. But, as with Abraham, works are NEVER the cause of divine justification (Rom. 3:28-30; 4:5-6; Gal. 3:24). For the
doctrine of justification you must study Paul’s Epistles.
Q4: You commented about not knowing of an apostolic successor but I told you there are many ECFs who explicitly write about the Bishops as “where the Church is”. Can you contradict the ECF’s writings?
I can just as easily say that where true men of faith are there the church is. And I would be far more accurate since the true church is made up only true believers. Not all “Bishops” are believers. “Bishop” (Gr.
episkopos) is a church office, it’s not “
the church.” In Scripture
episkopos (also interpreted “
overseer”) and
presbuteros (elder) are one and the same. Neither are called
hiereus (priest). According to the N.T. Scriptures there is no special office of
hiereus in the church. Only the general priesthood of all true believers.
Next Post:
So much for all the other God-BREATHED verses that you claim to value. These others are the ones that show initial justification (by faith) … is only the past tense, HAVE BEEN part of Eph. 2:8.
