G
graceandglory
Guest
I bet you could.I could put it a lot stronger than that, but hey, why not play nice.
R.A.
Are you the real Richard Abanes, Christian apologist and singer, or do you just play one on CAF?
npatrol:
- Status
Are you the real Richard Abanes, Christian apologist and singer, or do you just play one on CAF?
npatrol:
S
steve_b
Guest
Iâm not trying to crash the party.
I read all the posts, and noticed your question wasnât answered. . Martin Luther added âsolaâ to faith in Romans. Hereâs his answer.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt Iâm not aware of any bible today that adds âaloneâ to Rm 3:28, although this became the Protestant doctrine.
there is only one place in scripture where it talks about âby faith aloneâ.
***24 You see that a man is justified by works and not ***by faith alone. 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. [james 2:24,26]
Back to lurking mode.
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
steve: Martin Luther added âsolaâ to faith in RomansâŚ
RA: Rom. 3:28
âa man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.â NIV
âa man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.â NASB
âone is justified by faith apart from works of the law.â ESV
âa man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.â KJV
I think this would mean alone â i.e., without anything else; nothing besides faith; not with works or anything else added, etc. etc. etc. The concept of faith ALONE is inherent to the phraseology. To have said âaloneâ would have been, in a word, *redundant *to Jews since the only choice to Jews was justification by works.
The concept expressed by the disciples that was so radical was salvation/justification APART from works (i.e., without any works of any kind connected to the Law) â and that was BY FAITH, and by very clear implication, by faith alone. This is seen in other passages such as Gal. 3:10:
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, âCURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.â
Clearly, the whole issue of justification by works/Law vs. justification by faith in the FINISHED work of Christ was a big deal.
The James passage often cited to justify salvation by a âfaith + worksâ formula is flawed. If you read those verses in context, theyâre not talking about our justification before GOD, itâs talking about our justification before MEN, which must be demonstrated through works, because MEN cannot read into our hearts.
As for Martin Lutherâs letter, he writes: âYou also tell me that the Papists are causing a great fuss because St. Paulâs text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to be tolerated.â
This is the charge of the PAPISTS that Luther is repeating. Itâs how the Papists were interpreting his audacity to say that believers are justified by faith alone and using his translation to say so.
But it was a translation that brought into the text what was there by implication (see above comments). Think of it as any number of modern translation that go thought for thought rather than word for word.
Now, as for the charge itself, they were arguing Luther was wrong simply because the word âaloneâ wasnât actually in the biblical text, which to tbh, is a very silly argument since the word âTrinityâ isnât in the Bible either, but we all certainly embrace that. Why? Because it is taught in the text. (As I noted above the concept of âaloneâ is clearly implied in Rom. 3:28.)
Now, if someone wants to play the âthat word isnât in the textâ game, then that can be done with plenty of RC doctrines. Rom. 3:8, for example, also doesnât say âa man is justified by faith apart from observing the law, but still must be baptized into a particular church structure, and keep observing various extra-biblical rules in that church organization which often change whenever the churchâs hierarchy feel like changing them.â
I would have actually had to make Rom. 3:28 much longer in order to make it fit the RC, just FYI.
R.A.
RA: Rom. 3:28
âa man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.â NIV
âa man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.â NASB
âone is justified by faith apart from works of the law.â ESV
âa man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.â KJV
I think this would mean alone â i.e., without anything else; nothing besides faith; not with works or anything else added, etc. etc. etc. The concept of faith ALONE is inherent to the phraseology. To have said âaloneâ would have been, in a word, *redundant *to Jews since the only choice to Jews was justification by works.
The concept expressed by the disciples that was so radical was salvation/justification APART from works (i.e., without any works of any kind connected to the Law) â and that was BY FAITH, and by very clear implication, by faith alone. This is seen in other passages such as Gal. 3:10:
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, âCURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.â
Clearly, the whole issue of justification by works/Law vs. justification by faith in the FINISHED work of Christ was a big deal.
The James passage often cited to justify salvation by a âfaith + worksâ formula is flawed. If you read those verses in context, theyâre not talking about our justification before GOD, itâs talking about our justification before MEN, which must be demonstrated through works, because MEN cannot read into our hearts.
As for Martin Lutherâs letter, he writes: âYou also tell me that the Papists are causing a great fuss because St. Paulâs text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to be tolerated.â
This is the charge of the PAPISTS that Luther is repeating. Itâs how the Papists were interpreting his audacity to say that believers are justified by faith alone and using his translation to say so.
But it was a translation that brought into the text what was there by implication (see above comments). Think of it as any number of modern translation that go thought for thought rather than word for word.
Now, as for the charge itself, they were arguing Luther was wrong simply because the word âaloneâ wasnât actually in the biblical text, which to tbh, is a very silly argument since the word âTrinityâ isnât in the Bible either, but we all certainly embrace that. Why? Because it is taught in the text. (As I noted above the concept of âaloneâ is clearly implied in Rom. 3:28.)
Now, if someone wants to play the âthat word isnât in the textâ game, then that can be done with plenty of RC doctrines. Rom. 3:8, for example, also doesnât say âa man is justified by faith apart from observing the law, but still must be baptized into a particular church structure, and keep observing various extra-biblical rules in that church organization which often change whenever the churchâs hierarchy feel like changing them.â
I would have actually had to make Rom. 3:28 much longer in order to make it fit the RC, just FYI.
R.A.
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
Grace,
Yeah, itâ s me.
RA
Yeah, itâ s me.
RA
F
flameburns623
Guest
Iâm going to come at this from a somewhat different direction than others. My apologies to moderators and to the OP: my response is actually going to take several posts to get to the âWhy I Am Notâ part of the OPâs question. I am planning to meet with a Catholic priest next week and do plan to take portions of my responses here to that priest so that he and I can discuss my situation. So writing this will be helpful for me in making my thoughts a bit more concrete and definite.
First: I was converted to the RCC as a teenager and then ârevertedâ to Protestantism about four to five years later, mainly becauseâin the hothouse environment of the âSpirit of Vatican IIâ that I found extant among military chaplains, I could find no solace or spiritual support. Frankly, the Catholic chaplain with whom I dealt primarily at my first and longest military assignment was particularly corrosive of faith. He himself was troubled in faith, and the few older, faithful parishioners (âolderâ by about five to seven years than Iâthey mostly âseemedâ older because they had married and had children, and because they had graduated college or were married to officers who had done) often had to comfort and support this priest more than he supported the parishioners. I donât want to be unkind but I strongly suspectâin fact I believe I heard tell thatâthis priest eventually left the service of the Church entirely.
He certainly despised the sort of Catholicism which had converted me some years previouslyâthe sort of Catholicism most folks on these boards take for granted, or at least hope they can take for granted. He exalted the likes of Hans Kung and loathed the appointment of Ratzinger to the CDF. He delighted in pointing out practices, beliefs, and customs which he assured us the documents of Vatican II and the post-conciliar documents had rendered obsolete. His attitudes drove me to investigate traditionalist Catholic writings which did not give me much comfort: I was left feeling that the Catholic Church was on the brink of a major apostasy not only from itâs own traditions but from the Christian faith in general.
First: I was converted to the RCC as a teenager and then ârevertedâ to Protestantism about four to five years later, mainly becauseâin the hothouse environment of the âSpirit of Vatican IIâ that I found extant among military chaplains, I could find no solace or spiritual support. Frankly, the Catholic chaplain with whom I dealt primarily at my first and longest military assignment was particularly corrosive of faith. He himself was troubled in faith, and the few older, faithful parishioners (âolderâ by about five to seven years than Iâthey mostly âseemedâ older because they had married and had children, and because they had graduated college or were married to officers who had done) often had to comfort and support this priest more than he supported the parishioners. I donât want to be unkind but I strongly suspectâin fact I believe I heard tell thatâthis priest eventually left the service of the Church entirely.
He certainly despised the sort of Catholicism which had converted me some years previouslyâthe sort of Catholicism most folks on these boards take for granted, or at least hope they can take for granted. He exalted the likes of Hans Kung and loathed the appointment of Ratzinger to the CDF. He delighted in pointing out practices, beliefs, and customs which he assured us the documents of Vatican II and the post-conciliar documents had rendered obsolete. His attitudes drove me to investigate traditionalist Catholic writings which did not give me much comfort: I was left feeling that the Catholic Church was on the brink of a major apostasy not only from itâs own traditions but from the Christian faith in general.
F
flameburns623
Guest
I have rehearsed much of this previously and on these boards. My point expressing them here again is to point out that my reasons for leaving are rather different from the reasons which keep me from returning. I did find fellowship and support among Protestant Evangelicals and fundamentalists. I even dallied with the Mormons, and found their form of fellowship (if not their actual beliefs) very close to what I would have deemed an ideal model of Christian community.
However, the various arguments for-and-against various doctrinesâProtestants, especially young Protestants, expend a great deal of energy determining for themselves which are true and which are false understandings of the Gospelâexhausted me for a time and i simply âthrew overâ all religious belief for a time. During these yearsâwhen I left military service and went to collegeâPope John Paul II hit his stride as the great corrective of the excesses of Vatican II (or should I say, the 'spirit of Vatican II). So the âapostasyâ which I had originally feared was coming to the RCC did not comeâfar from it.
After college I found the atheism which I had embraced in college to be sterile and vapid. I had no firm idea of how one determines âtruthâ and rather arbitrarily chose to join the Mormons. I liked their community, I liked their commitment to family, and I believed that I could simply âchooseâ to believe in the doctrines they taught by some inner force of will.
Oddly enough, at the same time I began listening to the Bible Answerman program, hosted first by Walter Martin, then by a series of co-hosts for a few months, followed of course by Hank Hanegraafâwhose name is utterly impossible to spell on first attempt. My apologies to Hank if he comes across this forum and finds his name butchered. Through listening to BA, and other apologetic programsâeventually including one called Catholic Answers, which some here may have heard of, I went inactive in the LDS Church. I drifted among various Protestant denominations with no particular commitment to any of them until about eight or ten years ago I was exposed to the Episcopal liturgy.
Here I should backtrack. I had read and owned a very ancient copy of the writings of the Early Christian Fathers. (Copyright on that edition was something from the early 20th, if not the late 19th century, so it was very old indeed, and in poor shape. It was however readable). I was aware that the best evidence we have of early Christian belief and practice suggests something more resembling âhigh-Churchâ than âBible churchâ.
This understanding was reinforced when I was in the military by two visits I was able to make to Rome, Italy, one of these in conjunction with a college history class I enrolled in. During that visit, we made several âfield tripsâ to the catacombs in various parts of Rome. I was able to see extremely ancient and primitive places of worship. To me the evidence was fairly strong that early Christianity was sacramental, centered more on worship and Holy Communion than on preaching, and included elements not commonly found in âfundamental Christianityâ.
(ActuallyâI believe many Protestants, even some of the Reformers, would have conceded this point. Their point, primarily, was that in many cases no clear evidence could be deduced from the variety of voices available among the Early Church Fathers, nor from the evidences of archaeology. The best contemporary Christianity can do, they would argue, to arrive at a form of worship pleasing to God is to limit ourselves to the best common consensus we can arrive at from the infallible Scripturesâand then to make due allowances among ourselves forr the inevitable disagreements over peripheral issues).
I had never bought that argument entirely: while we cannot entirely settle disagreements about what Scripture teaches from the ECFâs, neither should we be so shy as many Protestants are about using them as signposts towards what we believe. Moreover, the policy of studying Scripture alone has not proven all that sturdy a support. For one thing, the argument about âwhat IS Scriptureâ, which began with Lutherâs exclusion of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals, continued among some learned men to the modern hermeneutical expositions which suggest that we can sift among Genesis, Isaiah, and the Four Gospels to discern which âstreams of thoughtâ contributed to each. And from thereâto which âstreamsâ are âauthenticâ as opposed to which are questionable and/or can be discarded or discounted.
(A backdoor way of introducing such skeptical attitudes into the Church, IMHO, is the willy-nilly use of multiple contemporary Biblical translations in public worship. While such translations may be helpful in personal devotion, the translations AND the methods used to arrive at Hebrew and Greek texts presuppose the Word of God to be subject to the whim and will of human scholars. In the vast majority of cases, shucking traditional Biblical sourcesâthe Textus Receptus or Byzantine texts which were the basis of the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, the KJV, and a handful of other translations-- and traditional âreverential languageâ Biblical translations (whether Latin or Greek in the Catholic traditions or the Elizabethan English of the KJV) has led within a generation to all kinds of challenges to Christian tradition on all fronts. Down that way leads apostasy, IMHO).
However, the various arguments for-and-against various doctrinesâProtestants, especially young Protestants, expend a great deal of energy determining for themselves which are true and which are false understandings of the Gospelâexhausted me for a time and i simply âthrew overâ all religious belief for a time. During these yearsâwhen I left military service and went to collegeâPope John Paul II hit his stride as the great corrective of the excesses of Vatican II (or should I say, the 'spirit of Vatican II). So the âapostasyâ which I had originally feared was coming to the RCC did not comeâfar from it.
After college I found the atheism which I had embraced in college to be sterile and vapid. I had no firm idea of how one determines âtruthâ and rather arbitrarily chose to join the Mormons. I liked their community, I liked their commitment to family, and I believed that I could simply âchooseâ to believe in the doctrines they taught by some inner force of will.
Oddly enough, at the same time I began listening to the Bible Answerman program, hosted first by Walter Martin, then by a series of co-hosts for a few months, followed of course by Hank Hanegraafâwhose name is utterly impossible to spell on first attempt. My apologies to Hank if he comes across this forum and finds his name butchered. Through listening to BA, and other apologetic programsâeventually including one called Catholic Answers, which some here may have heard of, I went inactive in the LDS Church. I drifted among various Protestant denominations with no particular commitment to any of them until about eight or ten years ago I was exposed to the Episcopal liturgy.
Here I should backtrack. I had read and owned a very ancient copy of the writings of the Early Christian Fathers. (Copyright on that edition was something from the early 20th, if not the late 19th century, so it was very old indeed, and in poor shape. It was however readable). I was aware that the best evidence we have of early Christian belief and practice suggests something more resembling âhigh-Churchâ than âBible churchâ.
This understanding was reinforced when I was in the military by two visits I was able to make to Rome, Italy, one of these in conjunction with a college history class I enrolled in. During that visit, we made several âfield tripsâ to the catacombs in various parts of Rome. I was able to see extremely ancient and primitive places of worship. To me the evidence was fairly strong that early Christianity was sacramental, centered more on worship and Holy Communion than on preaching, and included elements not commonly found in âfundamental Christianityâ.
(ActuallyâI believe many Protestants, even some of the Reformers, would have conceded this point. Their point, primarily, was that in many cases no clear evidence could be deduced from the variety of voices available among the Early Church Fathers, nor from the evidences of archaeology. The best contemporary Christianity can do, they would argue, to arrive at a form of worship pleasing to God is to limit ourselves to the best common consensus we can arrive at from the infallible Scripturesâand then to make due allowances among ourselves forr the inevitable disagreements over peripheral issues).
I had never bought that argument entirely: while we cannot entirely settle disagreements about what Scripture teaches from the ECFâs, neither should we be so shy as many Protestants are about using them as signposts towards what we believe. Moreover, the policy of studying Scripture alone has not proven all that sturdy a support. For one thing, the argument about âwhat IS Scriptureâ, which began with Lutherâs exclusion of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals, continued among some learned men to the modern hermeneutical expositions which suggest that we can sift among Genesis, Isaiah, and the Four Gospels to discern which âstreams of thoughtâ contributed to each. And from thereâto which âstreamsâ are âauthenticâ as opposed to which are questionable and/or can be discarded or discounted.
(A backdoor way of introducing such skeptical attitudes into the Church, IMHO, is the willy-nilly use of multiple contemporary Biblical translations in public worship. While such translations may be helpful in personal devotion, the translations AND the methods used to arrive at Hebrew and Greek texts presuppose the Word of God to be subject to the whim and will of human scholars. In the vast majority of cases, shucking traditional Biblical sourcesâthe Textus Receptus or Byzantine texts which were the basis of the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, the KJV, and a handful of other translations-- and traditional âreverential languageâ Biblical translations (whether Latin or Greek in the Catholic traditions or the Elizabethan English of the KJV) has led within a generation to all kinds of challenges to Christian tradition on all fronts. Down that way leads apostasy, IMHO).
F
flameburns623
Guest
Moreover, even if one sticks to very conservative Biblical exegesis, one simply cannot settle a lot of thorny issues. Calvinism or Arminianism? Certainly soteriology should not be shunted to the status of a âperipheralâ issue? Dispensationalism or Covenantalism? Pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib or âpan-tribâ? Etcetera. Iâm not the first to observe this flaw in the Protestant approachâand Catholicism does have itâs own in-house debates, which are not so frequently aired as Protestants. But I truly believed for several years that making reference back to the ECFâs, something which even Calvin and Luther recommended at times, would be a great aid in settling or minimizing at least some of these fights.
So I was drawn into Episcopalianism, where I currently reside spiritually. I truly had hoped that the Evangelical and traditional wings of The Episcopal Church would manage to split, amicably, from the main body of that denomination. We would then be able to rebuild orthodoxy within the TEC and probablyâover a few generations, admittedlyârebuild our ranks, while the liberals, gays, and âwymynprystsâ of the main body ran their branch of Episcopalianism into literal and spiritual bankruptcy. This now appears less and less likely. TEC and Canterbury continue to block any such amicable and fraternal split. Worseâthe traditionalists are grossly divided among themselves. Some like the 1979 prayerbook (roughly equivalent to the Mass of Vatican II, otherwise known among Catholics as the Ordinary Form). Others abhor it and demand only the 1928 or some earlier version (again roughly equivalent to the Extraordinary or Latin Form of the Mass). Some traditionalists find the ordination of women to the priesthoodâbut not to the episcopacyâacceptable. Some do not, and a few donât even mind elevating female priests to the Episcopal offices.
So I have been and remain in an extended debate with myself as to whether I should remain with the Episcopal church or move back towards Rome. My biggest obstacles?
To be the âmotherâ of a thing is to be the progenitor of that thing, and since in nature only like begets like, the use of this title implies the deification of Mary only a Goddess can beget a God. I understand that the RCC does not intend these things nor teach them, but their insistence on the title invariably creates a cognitive dissonance which leads too many Catholics to in fact treat Mary as if she were a Goddess, and indeed a Goddess superior in some way to her Son.
My apologies for the lengthy and multiple posts.
So I was drawn into Episcopalianism, where I currently reside spiritually. I truly had hoped that the Evangelical and traditional wings of The Episcopal Church would manage to split, amicably, from the main body of that denomination. We would then be able to rebuild orthodoxy within the TEC and probablyâover a few generations, admittedlyârebuild our ranks, while the liberals, gays, and âwymynprystsâ of the main body ran their branch of Episcopalianism into literal and spiritual bankruptcy. This now appears less and less likely. TEC and Canterbury continue to block any such amicable and fraternal split. Worseâthe traditionalists are grossly divided among themselves. Some like the 1979 prayerbook (roughly equivalent to the Mass of Vatican II, otherwise known among Catholics as the Ordinary Form). Others abhor it and demand only the 1928 or some earlier version (again roughly equivalent to the Extraordinary or Latin Form of the Mass). Some traditionalists find the ordination of women to the priesthoodâbut not to the episcopacyâacceptable. Some do not, and a few donât even mind elevating female priests to the Episcopal offices.
So I have been and remain in an extended debate with myself as to whether I should remain with the Episcopal church or move back towards Rome. My biggest obstacles?
- Soteriology. The Catholic apologist will suggest that they believe in salvation by grace through faith, as do Protestants. The difference? Catholics do not believe in salvation through faith alone. Indeed the Catholic understanding of grace itself virtually demands that one adjoin oneâs faith to oneâs works in a way which continues to smack of Pelagian heresy to me. I do plan on doing some further readingâthis week I will be purchasing, at long last, two books by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange which may help address these issues for me.
- Hagiology and particularly Mariology: I have seen the graffiti and the formally-carved inscriptions on ancient Christian tombs beseeching departed souls to ârememberâ the living to God. The idea that those asleep in Christ pray to God on our behalf is not of itself an offense to me. I do not, however, find strong support for the idea they do so based upon our prayers to them. Their knowledge of our precises needs and situations here on earth are likely to be limited if for no other reason that âthere is no mourning nor weeping thereâ. How could Saints in heaven be so intimately aware of our situations here without being utterly miserable themselves on our behalf?
To be the âmotherâ of a thing is to be the progenitor of that thing, and since in nature only like begets like, the use of this title implies the deification of Mary only a Goddess can beget a God. I understand that the RCC does not intend these things nor teach them, but their insistence on the title invariably creates a cognitive dissonance which leads too many Catholics to in fact treat Mary as if she were a Goddess, and indeed a Goddess superior in some way to her Son.
- Other excesses: the absolute ban on divorce, never observed in the East and NOT clearly taught in Scripture. The absolute ban even on non-abortifacient forms of contraceptionâwhile the use of contraception in most Western countriesâsimply to limit family sizeâmay well be sinful, there are ample reasons to suggest that the use of certain forms of contraception in Third World nations might be a moral imperative if we are to slow the spread of deadly diseases in those nations. Admittedly, the BEST protection against such diseases would be strict abstinenceâbut abstinence even in an otherwise licit marriage, where one partner is innocently infected with something due to the poor medical or hygienic practices of such nations? This seems an area where clarity of teaching crosses some unclear line into extremism and even despotism.
My apologies for the lengthy and multiple posts.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
For me the list is quite long but Iâll attempt to summarize it as briefly as possible:
Blessing,
Sola_Scriptura
- Soteriology (which IMO is semi-pelagian in nature).
- Marian dogmas
- Saintly intercession and patronage
- Use of icons and in a more general sense conflation of images with worship or veneration.
- Itâs view of the role of Peter, Apostolic Succession, Papal Infallibility, and so forth.
- Itâs view of penance (and associated doctrines).
- Itâs overall view that grace is transmitted through ritualism.
- The overall prism through which it defines and understands the role of âthe churchâ
Blessing,
Sola_Scriptura
S
steve_b
Guest
âworks of the lawâ pertains to the 613 laws of Moses. âGood worksâ are not the same works. Thatâs why James can say faith without works (good works) is dead. IOW they have no faith
James would never say faith without good works is dead.
Paul would never say faith without good works justifies
But most importantly
Jesus cursed even a fig tree for not bearing fruit. Why? Because it was not doing what it was created to do. In the last judgement Jesus tells us how He will judge the world. Those who say to Him Lord Lord, but do no âgood worksâ go to hell [Mt 25 : 41-46]
Thatâs why James said, faith without (good) works is dead.
RA:
Your mixing up âworks of lawâ, and âgood worksâ.
RA:
We agree
RA:
No!!! There is NO implication of alone connected to faith. That implication of alone was directly refuted by James and Paul and Jesus. BTW, because of what James said, Luther called James an epistle of straw.
RA:
âworks of the lawâ is what is being condemned, NOT âgood worksâ
RA:
Youâre torturing the text. You assume ALL works are connected to the law. Theyâre NOT. Do you think good works are filthy rags?
RA:
Baloney! Luther knew exactly what James meant and thatâs why he called James an epistle of straw and originally eliminated James from his translation.
RA:
Luther corrupted the text AND context. He couldnât wiggle from it.
We are NOT justified by faith alone. You canât find anywhere in scripture that says that unless you have a corrupted version of scripture. âALONEâ isnât there unless you refer to James where he says NOT by faith alone.
RA:
Itâs not just his adding the word alone, he contradicted Paulâs entire message and context by inserting alone after faith. Thatâs doing violence to the scriptures because it corrupts the message
RA:
*]Trinity was not added to scripture.
*]Baptism was commanded by Jesus.
*]There is only ONE faith and ONE baptism.
As for extra biblical matters, show me where you as a Protestant are allowed in scripture to divide from the Church?
S
steve_b
Guest
Correction,
I meant to say
James would not say faith without âgood worksâ is alive.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
You raise a good point & one that really does need to be expanded on. Luther is commonly given harsh treatment by many Catholic apologists because of some perhaps brash statements he made (like his famous words âsin boldlyâ). However, interestingly the more I study Luther the more I actually discover how similar his own view in this area really was to the Catholic view.
For instance, anyone could certainly look to the thousands of pages of text written by Luther and cherry pick some quotes that although may have been a poor choice of words, do not accurately depict his view. I studied Luther a great deal & what follows is a quote that summarizes his view pretty accurately:
âSin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions (What Luther Says, 3:1319; ntrmin.org/Be%20a%20sinner%20and%20sin%20boldly%20web.htm#_edn32)).
Luther does call on us to âlabor against our passionsâ â which is very similar (if not the same) to what the RCC would say. However, IMO both Luther and the RCC fail to understand how we are reckoned righteous by God (even though Luther affirmed total depravity, in some cases he seems not to understand the idea very well, since WE cannot effectively labor to avoid sin in a way that can be pleasing to God).
I believe Calvin presents the best solution for understanding how we are made righteous, summed up by these simple words from Ezekiel:
"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances (Ezekiel 36:27).
God does not only justify us for past sins, but He perfects our faith and causes us to become righteous. However, itâs always a matter of faith. We must believe God can and will do this in order for it to happen.
Just look to the tenor of scripture, particularly the NT, to see how this works. Hereâs one of my personal favorites on this topic:
"Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, âLord, save me!â Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. âYou of little faith,â he said, âwhy did you doubt?â (Matthew 14:29-30).
All Peter had to do was believe Jesus would maintain him on the water and Jesus would have. So itâs always a matter of faith.
We cannot render ourselves righteous, yet God demands righteousness. Sort of a paradox unless we understand and believe that God can and will cause us to be righteous. So weâre not just saved from sin in a fictional sense, but God can and will actually save us from sin if we believe He can. All we really have to do is ask.
The same treatment applies to good works. God not only prepares us for good works but He also has prepared those works for us beforehand (or from the foundation of the world).
In other words when we do something good from an outpouring of faith, it is really God working in us both to will and to do for His good pleasure. In other words itâs God doing it not us. So the glory goes to God alone!
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
**Steve: **âworks of the lawâ pertains to the 613 laws of Moses. âGood worksâ are not the same works.
**RA: **I suggest you read Matthew 22:36 where Jesus was asked directly: âwhich is the greatest commandment in the Law?â he answered, not with a list from the 613 laws. He distilled ALL of them â i.e., the ENTIRE LAW â down to the following:
Jesus replied: âLove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.â This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: âLove your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â
This crystalization of the law covers any and all âgood worksâ that might be done in the name of Christ. By doing these âgood worksâ and all they are, in whatever form, you are keeping all the 613 Laws of Moses.
HOWEVER, neither you, nor anyone else, can perfectly keep the whole Law, even in this crystalized form. Therefore, you will not be, indeed, you CANNOT be, justified by the Law or âgood works.â Consequently we read; "âa man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.â NIV
steve b: Thatâs why James can say faith without works (good works) is dead. IOW they have no faithâŚ
RA: As I said, the James passage often cited to justify salvation by a âfaith + worksâ formula is flawed. If you read those verses IN CONTEXT, theyâre not talking about our justification BEFORE GOD, itâs talking about our justification before MEN, which must be demonstrated through works, because MEN cannot read into our hearts.
Read the passage IN CONTEXT, my friend. In declaring that a professed faith without works is dead, James (James 2:14-17) is NOT teaching that salvation is DEPENDENT on works. he is merely saying that if you profess a faith, but have no works that others can see, the profession is dead/false, because if a person truly has a living faith, the that faith will work itself out as visible good works. Youâve got backwards from what he is saying.
James is not saying that we do good works FOR salvation/justification, he is saying we see good works BECAUSE of salvation. And because of those good works, we are justified BEFORE MEN. There is nothing in that passage that links our justification before GOD to our good works. Our justification before GOD is mirrored in Abraham who was justified by faith, as Paul tells us in Romans 4:1-5. You might want to read that since THAT is where justification âbefore Godâ is discussed.
So, if you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you ARE justified (per Romans 4). And if indeed you ARE justified by faith, apart from works, as was Abraham, then your real/living faith will be shown âbefore menâ through good works that will justify you in their eyes (James 2:14-17). That is what the Bible says. In this way professed faith is perfected and shown to be sincere and real and alive to the world (James 2:21-24).
steve: Those who say to Him Lord Lord, but do no âgood worksâ go to hell [Mt 25 : 41-46]
RA: And why didnât they do those good works??? Because they didnât know Jesus.
You cannot turn this into some treatise on the conditions of salvation/justification to the exlusion of other biblical passages. Itâs merely a look at the outer proof from these people that inwardly they did NOT know God â which fits with both Romans and James per my explanation above. if they HAD known God and HAD a true faith, they would have done those good works like the others who were accepted.
Steve: Your mixing up âworks of lawâ, and âgood worksâ.
RA: Read above.
Steve: That implication of alone was directly refuted by James and Paul and Jesus.
RA: No, it was refuted by those who have added works to salvation. Thatâs partly what the Reformation was all about. getting back to what was initially taught about salvation being a free gift of God apart from works, through faith, becuase good works will never get you right with God â no matter how hard you try.
Steve: Youâre torturing the text. You assume ALL works are connected to the law. Theyâre NOT. Do you think good works are filthy rags?
**RA: **Read Matthew 22:36
Steve: [The James passage] ⌠Baloney!
RA: James says the works about which he is talking is to show PEOPLE his faith and to prove his justification/faith to them â GOD: âI will SHOW YOU my faith by my works.â He doesnât say âI will obtain my justification by my works.â
Steve: Luther corrupted the text AND context. He couldnât wiggle from it. We are NOT justified by faith alone. You canât find anywhere in scripture that says that unless you have a corrupted version of scripture. âALONEâ isnât there unless you refer to James where he says NOT by faith alone.
RA: Read Romans 4:1-5 (see above) and Ephesians 2:8-9: âFor it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ not by works, so that no one can boast.â Fairly clear.
**Steve: **We are NOT justified by faith alone.
**RA: **Youâll have to tell God that one when you meet him. But before that day, I suggest you carefully and thoughtfully read Rom. 4:4 if you are trying to be saved by works: âNow to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.â Ouch.
For the life of me, I canât understand why in all the worldâs religions everyone wants to make sure they get some credit for working their way to God, whether its through âgood works,â certain prayers, rites, rituals, ceremonies, etc., etc., etc.
peace and best wishes,
R.A.
Are you Catholic or Mormon. Iâm curious.
**RA: **I suggest you read Matthew 22:36 where Jesus was asked directly: âwhich is the greatest commandment in the Law?â he answered, not with a list from the 613 laws. He distilled ALL of them â i.e., the ENTIRE LAW â down to the following:
Jesus replied: âLove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.â This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: âLove your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â
This crystalization of the law covers any and all âgood worksâ that might be done in the name of Christ. By doing these âgood worksâ and all they are, in whatever form, you are keeping all the 613 Laws of Moses.
HOWEVER, neither you, nor anyone else, can perfectly keep the whole Law, even in this crystalized form. Therefore, you will not be, indeed, you CANNOT be, justified by the Law or âgood works.â Consequently we read; "âa man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.â NIV
steve b: Thatâs why James can say faith without works (good works) is dead. IOW they have no faithâŚ
RA: As I said, the James passage often cited to justify salvation by a âfaith + worksâ formula is flawed. If you read those verses IN CONTEXT, theyâre not talking about our justification BEFORE GOD, itâs talking about our justification before MEN, which must be demonstrated through works, because MEN cannot read into our hearts.
Read the passage IN CONTEXT, my friend. In declaring that a professed faith without works is dead, James (James 2:14-17) is NOT teaching that salvation is DEPENDENT on works. he is merely saying that if you profess a faith, but have no works that others can see, the profession is dead/false, because if a person truly has a living faith, the that faith will work itself out as visible good works. Youâve got backwards from what he is saying.
James is not saying that we do good works FOR salvation/justification, he is saying we see good works BECAUSE of salvation. And because of those good works, we are justified BEFORE MEN. There is nothing in that passage that links our justification before GOD to our good works. Our justification before GOD is mirrored in Abraham who was justified by faith, as Paul tells us in Romans 4:1-5. You might want to read that since THAT is where justification âbefore Godâ is discussed.
So, if you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you ARE justified (per Romans 4). And if indeed you ARE justified by faith, apart from works, as was Abraham, then your real/living faith will be shown âbefore menâ through good works that will justify you in their eyes (James 2:14-17). That is what the Bible says. In this way professed faith is perfected and shown to be sincere and real and alive to the world (James 2:21-24).
steve: Those who say to Him Lord Lord, but do no âgood worksâ go to hell [Mt 25 : 41-46]
RA: And why didnât they do those good works??? Because they didnât know Jesus.
You cannot turn this into some treatise on the conditions of salvation/justification to the exlusion of other biblical passages. Itâs merely a look at the outer proof from these people that inwardly they did NOT know God â which fits with both Romans and James per my explanation above. if they HAD known God and HAD a true faith, they would have done those good works like the others who were accepted.
Steve: Your mixing up âworks of lawâ, and âgood worksâ.
RA: Read above.
Steve: That implication of alone was directly refuted by James and Paul and Jesus.
RA: No, it was refuted by those who have added works to salvation. Thatâs partly what the Reformation was all about. getting back to what was initially taught about salvation being a free gift of God apart from works, through faith, becuase good works will never get you right with God â no matter how hard you try.
Steve: Youâre torturing the text. You assume ALL works are connected to the law. Theyâre NOT. Do you think good works are filthy rags?
**RA: **Read Matthew 22:36
Steve: [The James passage] ⌠Baloney!
RA: James says the works about which he is talking is to show PEOPLE his faith and to prove his justification/faith to them â GOD: âI will SHOW YOU my faith by my works.â He doesnât say âI will obtain my justification by my works.â
Steve: Luther corrupted the text AND context. He couldnât wiggle from it. We are NOT justified by faith alone. You canât find anywhere in scripture that says that unless you have a corrupted version of scripture. âALONEâ isnât there unless you refer to James where he says NOT by faith alone.
RA: Read Romans 4:1-5 (see above) and Ephesians 2:8-9: âFor it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ not by works, so that no one can boast.â Fairly clear.
**Steve: **We are NOT justified by faith alone.
**RA: **Youâll have to tell God that one when you meet him. But before that day, I suggest you carefully and thoughtfully read Rom. 4:4 if you are trying to be saved by works: âNow to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.â Ouch.
For the life of me, I canât understand why in all the worldâs religions everyone wants to make sure they get some credit for working their way to God, whether its through âgood works,â certain prayers, rites, rituals, ceremonies, etc., etc., etc.
peace and best wishes,
R.A.
Are you Catholic or Mormon. Iâm curious.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
RA:
Excellent job with James
Excellent job with James
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
I suggest you read Matthew 25. Jesus tells us how He will separate the sheep from the goats.
Paul also tells us to âwork outâ our salvation with fear and trembling, because it is God who is working in us.
OK I just read all of Romans 4 and didnât find anything about âaccept[ing] Jesus as your Lord and Saviorâ - which version are you using?
So good works are important, arenât they?
True, saving faith works. Paul in Galatians calls it âfaith working through love.â Itâs not MY good works that will make me right with God, but God working through me âboth to will and to do of His good pleasure.â The Church didnât âadd worksâ to salvation, the Reformation subtracted them from the original teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. We cannot merit justification on our own, it is only by the Grace of God. He gives us His grace to do the works he has ordained for us. (Eph 2:10)
Not I in my own strength, but God working through me. That is the Catholic faith. You seem to be battling a straw man of your own making rather than authentic Catholicism.
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
**Pixie: **I suggest you read Matthew 25
RA: I did and I addressed it: "And why didnât they do those good works??? Because they didnât know Jesus. You cannot turn this into some treatise on the conditions of salvation/justification to the exclusion of other biblical passages. Itâs merely a look at the outer proof from these people that inwardly they did NOT know God â which fits with both Romans and James per my explanation above. if they HAD known God and HAD a true faith, they would have done those good works like the others who were accepted.
Pixie: Paul also tells us to âwork outâ our salvation with fear and trembling, because it is God who is working in us.
RA: You answered your own question and solved the problem at the same time with that one statement. 1. Paul didnât say âwork forâ your salvation, did he? He said work it out â i.e., show it in life, work it out, move with it, through each day, be obedient, do good works unto others. Yes, we are to work it out, meaning we already have it! And now, we are to work that inner salvation outwardly in our lives to effect others. Awesome, isnât it? Moreover, who does it say is doing the work in us? That would be God.
Pixie: I just read all of Romans 4 and didnât find anything about âaccept[ing] Jesus as your Lord and Saviorâ - which version are you using?
RA: The passage IN CONTEXT is about our salvation in Christ â read Romans 3 (our guilty place before God because of the Law), particularly Rom. 3:21 that starts talking about our Godâs righteousness being revealed âapart from the law,â which leads into us being justified then âapart from works of the lawâ (v. 28). This leads directly into Chapter 4, which shows how someone can indeed be justified apart from the law and good works â i.e., Abraham. This is the model for showing how we, too, are justified in Christ.
Chapter 4 then talks about our justification in Christ.
Chapter 5 gives the results of that justification, which is a finished work by faith (chapter 4).
People, please, I beg you, read in context.
Pixie: So good works are important, arenât they?
RA: For what they are intended to do, yes. But they are not FOR salvation. They are BECAUSE of salvation and show to the world the genuineness of oneâs faith â i.e., whether it is a living or a dead faith; whether it is a true or false faith.
Pixie: the Reformation subtracted them from the original teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.
RA: Thatâs odd. i still seem to be doing good works all over the placeâŚHmmm.
**Pixie: **We cannot merit justification on our own, it is only by the Grace of God. He gives us His grace to do the works he has ordained for us. (Eph 2:10)
**RA: **Yes, yes, I know. I was once Roman Catholic myself. I understand the party line. The problem is that the Bible doesnât say you are justified through good works done by Godâs grace that is empowering you to do those good works. The Bible says that justification comes THROUGH Jesus Christ, his death on the Cross, and subsequent resurrection. Eternal life/justification is the FREE gift of God (Free means Free) that is appropriated through faith (i.e., like taking a present from someone).
AFTER justification is completed, the good works manifest themselves as a RESULT of the completed justification becuase you have become a slave to righteousness in Christ. You are STILL empowered by God to do those good works that does not change. WE AGREE ON THAT! Weeeeee!
Any and all good works that are done are ONLY capable by the empowerment of God. Cool. But you say those âgood worksâ are still FOR salvation/justification to be justified before God (unbiblical), while I say those are âgood worksâ are BECAUSE of salvation/justification to justify us before men (Paul/James).
That is the difference.
**Pixie: **Not I in my own strength, but God working through me.
**RA: **I never said RCs do âgood worksâ under their own power.
BTW, Pixie, just FYI, the position you articulated has pretty much also spread throughout Mormonism. That is actually the whole Mormon teaching on âgood works,â which you as a RC prety much echoed. Interesting.
R.A.
RA: I did and I addressed it: "And why didnât they do those good works??? Because they didnât know Jesus. You cannot turn this into some treatise on the conditions of salvation/justification to the exclusion of other biblical passages. Itâs merely a look at the outer proof from these people that inwardly they did NOT know God â which fits with both Romans and James per my explanation above. if they HAD known God and HAD a true faith, they would have done those good works like the others who were accepted.
Pixie: Paul also tells us to âwork outâ our salvation with fear and trembling, because it is God who is working in us.
RA: You answered your own question and solved the problem at the same time with that one statement. 1. Paul didnât say âwork forâ your salvation, did he? He said work it out â i.e., show it in life, work it out, move with it, through each day, be obedient, do good works unto others. Yes, we are to work it out, meaning we already have it! And now, we are to work that inner salvation outwardly in our lives to effect others. Awesome, isnât it? Moreover, who does it say is doing the work in us? That would be God.
Pixie: I just read all of Romans 4 and didnât find anything about âaccept[ing] Jesus as your Lord and Saviorâ - which version are you using?
RA: The passage IN CONTEXT is about our salvation in Christ â read Romans 3 (our guilty place before God because of the Law), particularly Rom. 3:21 that starts talking about our Godâs righteousness being revealed âapart from the law,â which leads into us being justified then âapart from works of the lawâ (v. 28). This leads directly into Chapter 4, which shows how someone can indeed be justified apart from the law and good works â i.e., Abraham. This is the model for showing how we, too, are justified in Christ.
Chapter 4 then talks about our justification in Christ.
Chapter 5 gives the results of that justification, which is a finished work by faith (chapter 4).
People, please, I beg you, read in context.
Pixie: So good works are important, arenât they?
RA: For what they are intended to do, yes. But they are not FOR salvation. They are BECAUSE of salvation and show to the world the genuineness of oneâs faith â i.e., whether it is a living or a dead faith; whether it is a true or false faith.
Pixie: the Reformation subtracted them from the original teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.
RA: Thatâs odd. i still seem to be doing good works all over the placeâŚHmmm.
**Pixie: **We cannot merit justification on our own, it is only by the Grace of God. He gives us His grace to do the works he has ordained for us. (Eph 2:10)
**RA: **Yes, yes, I know. I was once Roman Catholic myself. I understand the party line. The problem is that the Bible doesnât say you are justified through good works done by Godâs grace that is empowering you to do those good works. The Bible says that justification comes THROUGH Jesus Christ, his death on the Cross, and subsequent resurrection. Eternal life/justification is the FREE gift of God (Free means Free) that is appropriated through faith (i.e., like taking a present from someone).
AFTER justification is completed, the good works manifest themselves as a RESULT of the completed justification becuase you have become a slave to righteousness in Christ. You are STILL empowered by God to do those good works that does not change. WE AGREE ON THAT! Weeeeee!
Any and all good works that are done are ONLY capable by the empowerment of God. Cool. But you say those âgood worksâ are still FOR salvation/justification to be justified before God (unbiblical), while I say those are âgood worksâ are BECAUSE of salvation/justification to justify us before men (Paul/James).
That is the difference.
**Pixie: **Not I in my own strength, but God working through me.
**RA: **I never said RCs do âgood worksâ under their own power.
BTW, Pixie, just FYI, the position you articulated has pretty much also spread throughout Mormonism. That is actually the whole Mormon teaching on âgood works,â which you as a RC prety much echoed. Interesting.
R.A.
R
Reformed
Guest
Oh oh⌠LOL!
[/quote]
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
Reformed: Oh oh⌠LOL!
RA: yeah, this actually marks a kind of shift in Mormonism away from a full-blown works righteousness to the RC position wherein the works do accomplish final justification/salvation (or in the LDS case, godhood), but the works are only able to be done/completed by Godâs grace, which empowers them to do the works. Interesting.
R.A.
RA: yeah, this actually marks a kind of shift in Mormonism away from a full-blown works righteousness to the RC position wherein the works do accomplish final justification/salvation (or in the LDS case, godhood), but the works are only able to be done/completed by Godâs grace, which empowers them to do the works. Interesting.
R.A.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
You bring up an excellent point. Hereâs one striking verse from that section of Matt. 25:
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world (Matt. 25:34).
As this portrayal by Christ unfolds He distinguishes between the ârighteousâ (who wind up in the fold with the âgoatsâ) and those who fed and clothed the least of their brethren. The entire chapter is no different than what we learn in the discourse at John 15:1-6 or in the many references to the Phariseeâs throughout the NT.
However, as Christ hints at the outset of âThe sheep and goatsâ it is only those whom are chosen from the foundation of the word who will do these things. Even more than that it is God who will cause us to do these things (see also Ezekiel 36:27).
The depictions we see in James are a tool for the elect to identify our brethren. It also provides us with a solid understanding that good works and obedience are a witness to an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, but John also tells us:
In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love (1 John 4:17-18).
So obviously thereâs more to the idea of âfear and tremblingâ than youâre representing here. The fear we are to have of God should not take away from our confidence at the day of judgment. Paul also aptly points out this fact, in the many other letters where he uses the term âfear and tremblingâ (such as 2 Cor. 7 & 1 Cor. 2).
This was a charge Luther made against the church, as exemplified by these words:
âTherefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of Godâs paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for âthe Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us allâ and âfor the transgression of His people was He strickenâ (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.â (What Luther Says 3:1315; ntrmin.org/Be%20a%20sinner%20and%20sin%20boldly%20web.htm#_edn30)).
Youâre words, which I bolded, is exactly the right way to understand this idea. I would contend that neither Catholicism nor Luther actually understands or teaches this idea properly.
It is God who works in us both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Any works we do are actually Godâs works performed through us, they are not our works.
The idea that man maintains any ability without God is the real fallacy here.
I would say that your view is not the predominant view within Catholicism today â although I applaud your personal view and it is very much in line with Augustinian (and Calvinist) theology; IMO contemporary Catholicism has become very semi-pelagian in character. So I guess this is perhaps more an issue you need to address within your own faith community?
There are many reasons why I say this. I heard someone citing a priest on another thread here on CAF & the priest was explaining ways that we can help ourselves die (in a spiritual sense) so we can be reborn. When he said die I suppose he meant this as a form of penance and suffering. Frankly, I have no idea where any Christian would get such an idea from? IMO he has it backwards, taking up the cross is something those who are alive in Christ do, not those who are still dead in unbelief. This can only be wrought from an erroneous understanding of justification and sanctification in my view.
Without faith mankind is already dead. The law only helps us come to that realization. The Gospel offers the only means by which we may become alive. By grace through faith!
F
flameburns623
Guest
Although he has problems unrelated to his apologetic work, Robert Sungenis has written a Magnum Opus on the subject presently under scrutiny by Richard Abanes and company. The book is called âNot By Faith Alone A Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justificationâ, published by Queenship Publishing Company, 1997.
A couple of articles by Sungenis on the same subject from his website:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/works1.htm
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/sproul-just.htm
These might move the discussion along a bit. Sungenis has written or edited two other significant books, each of them monstrous in length and very slow reading. Just to be helpful: webforum discussions tend to re-invent the wheel over-and-over again, which may be useful for those of us who arenât quite sure yet how a wheel actually worksâbut which can make a discussion tedious for those who have gotten the basics down somewhat better.
A headâs up on Sungenisâhe tends to favor very severely conservative, even traditionalist Catholicism to the point that he has gone off the edge on some issuesâa polite way of saying he has been alleged to be somewhat anti-Semitic at times, among other things. His apologetics donât touch on such issues, but he does sully his reputation by the association.
A couple of articles by Sungenis on the same subject from his website:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/works1.htm
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/sproul-just.htm
These might move the discussion along a bit. Sungenis has written or edited two other significant books, each of them monstrous in length and very slow reading. Just to be helpful: webforum discussions tend to re-invent the wheel over-and-over again, which may be useful for those of us who arenât quite sure yet how a wheel actually worksâbut which can make a discussion tedious for those who have gotten the basics down somewhat better.
A headâs up on Sungenisâhe tends to favor very severely conservative, even traditionalist Catholicism to the point that he has gone off the edge on some issuesâa polite way of saying he has been alleged to be somewhat anti-Semitic at times, among other things. His apologetics donât touch on such issues, but he does sully his reputation by the association.
S
steve_b
Guest
Thatâs why James said, if we do NOT do good works our faith is dead and it wonât save. Therefore it is NOT faith alone.
- Status