Not By Faith Alone

[Redbandito]

Here is the relevant quote from Michael:

“Observance of the law” is in the context of Romans 4. It is right at the end of Romans 3 and we know there are not chapters in the original. Here is what it says:

Romans 3:27-28
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

Also you will notice it speaks of boasting in this law keeping just as Romans 4 does. You have been restricting the phrase “observing the law” to the ceremonial law only as is demonstrated in this quote from you, with emphasis yours:

So you are restricting “observing the law” to the ceremonial law, where Michael encompasses all of the Mosaic law under that term, which was my argument. So you don’t really agree with him.

Okay SS. You win. I don’t care about this. It has nothing to do with the context of this thread. What Michael actually SAID in that post does not contradict what I have been talking about. The fact that Michael believes the Mosaic Law encompasses the whole here was not actually written in that message. Thus, I agree with what he said in that message. There was nothing in there that stated that the observance of the Mosaic Law could not have been specifically referring to the ceremonial law. And since the ceremonial law is part of the Mosaic Law, what Michael stated is not contradictory. Either way, I am done with the discussion on this. Seriously, WHO CARES if Michael and I agree on this. If it would make you sleep better, I will state that I disagree with Michael’s position on Rom 4. I have talked to him privately and explained why. Satisfied?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Quick grammar lesson here. Could= “To have the possibility.” In other words, “it’s possible.” Nowhere did I say I would. And I certainly didn’t argue for the use of such terminology. And as far as specific terminology not being important, I think your attitude toward that is much more indicative of the communication issues occurring. But I accept my part. The message received is the message sent. I will try to explain my position better in the future. And please don’t ever compare me to that manipulative, unpatriotic, guy, John Kerry.

Oh please, don’t go grammar on me. There are many variations in meaning of the word “could” and the context helps us to determine what it means. For example “could” is also defined as granting permission, per the American Heritage Dictionary:

could (k d) Pronunciation Key
aux.v. Past tense of can1

1. Used to indicate ability or permission in the past:

In context your, “I could go for that”, seems to have been saying it was alright if defined as you stipulated it. But I’m sorry, I compared you to John Kerry, you are a much better man than he from what I can tell.

Redbandito:

No kidding. That is why I rejected “Faith Alone.” Because it ultimately makes no sense to say “Faith alone, but you have to repent and be baptized as well.” I stated it was possible (not probable or likely) under these conditions to say such a phrase do see where you were going.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense, but I was trying to stay off rabbit trails so I have been granting you your definition for the sake of the point I’m trying to make.

Redbandito:

Yeah, your understanding of the Catholic position comes off quite clearly.

Thanks for the compliment

Redbandito:

SolaScriptura:

You tell me what kind of justification took place in the following verses and what was instrumental causes of the justification.:

1. 
   *]Genesis 12 per Hebrews 11:8
   *]Genesis 15 per Romans 4 and Galatians 3
   *]Genesis 22 per James 2

1. 1. Initial justification
   2. Justification
   3. Justification

1. 
   You forgot something. I also asked for the instrumental means/causes of each. And for 2 and 3 what kind of justification are you talking about. Progressive, final, initial, or re-justification? So please complete your answer and then I will respond to this part.
   
   
   Redbandito:
   

   I don’t exactly know what you’re looking for here. I think the better question is what do YOU believe about these three events? You have been “testing my system” enough. I think everyone sees where I stand. Where do you stand?

   All you have to do is ask, I would have glad told you.
   
   1. 
      *]This is not a justification, because it is not an instance of saving faith. As Hebrews 11 makes clear, not every instance of faith that is mentioned is saving faith.
      *]The ungodly Abraham is justified at this point when he is credited with righteousness, which Paul points out in Romans 4:5-7 consist of having one’s transgression forgiven and sins covered to never be counted against you again. This is his only real justification before God, which is an invasion of the final justification in the present.
      *]Justification is used here not in the sense of Abraham coming in right relationship with God, because that already happened in Genesis 15. It is used as a vindication of his right standing with God…

 

[SolaScriptura]

Okay SS. You win. I don’t care about this. It has nothing to do with the context of this thread. What Michael actually SAID in that post does not contradict what I have been talking about. The fact that Michael believes the Mosaic Law encompasses the whole here was not actually written in that message. Thus, I agree with what he said in that message. There was nothing in there that stated that the observance of the Mosaic Law could not have been specifically referring to the ceremonial law. And since the ceremonial law is part of the Mosaic Law, what Michael stated is not contradictory. Either way, I am done with the discussion on this. Seriously, WHO CARES if Michael and I agree on this. If it would make you sleep better, I will state that I disagree with Michael’s position on Rom 4. I have talked to him privately and explained why. Satisfied?

Ok.

 

[mikeledes]

Boy, I’ve never had people debate on how to correctly interpret something that I wrote. I feel like Saint Paul. I guess that’s a sign of greatness. If you give me an address, I’ll send you an autographed copy of my post. One per person please. Oh, I better not find it on ebay. I will be greatly offended. I took the time to honor you with my signature. Show some respect!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Redbandito]

Actually, it makes a lot of sense, but I was trying to stay off rabbit trails so I have been granting you your definition for the sake of the point I’m trying to make.

Well if that’s the case, let’s make it clear. I do not want to use “faith alone” as my definition for initial justification. I will say we are justified by faith accompanied by repentance, and received through the sacrament of baptism where we are born into the Body of Christ.

You forgot something. I also asked for the instrumental means/causes of each. And for 2 and 3 what kind of justification are you talking about. Progressive, final, initial, or re-justification? So please complete your answer and then I will respond to this part.

1. Initial justification by faith. Abraham trusted what God told him to do, and was obedient. Thus, he was initially justified by faith, and he immediately put that faith into action.
2. Progressive justification by faith. Abraham again trusted what God told him, and was therefore justified.
3. Progressive justification by faith and works. Abraham again trusted what God told him, and thus put this trust/faith into action by offering his only son Isaac. And as like to you say, this is a “type” or “shadowing” of the sacrifice to come, where God our Father truly offered His only son Jesus up as propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.

All you have to do is ask, I would have glad told you.

1. 
   *]This is not a justification, because it is not an instance of saving faith. As Hebrews 11 makes clear, not every instance of faith that is mentioned is saving faith.
   *]The ungodly Abraham is justified at this point when he is credited with righteousness, which Paul points out in Romans 4:5-7 consist of having one’s transgression forgiven and sins covered to never be counted against you again. This is his only real justification before God, which is an invasion of the final justification in the present.
   *]Justification is used here not in the sense of Abraham coming in right relationship with God, because that already happened in Genesis 15. It is used as a vindication of his right standing with God…

1. 1. If that is not “saving faith” then what is? Please define what encompasses saving faith. Abraham believed in God, and obeyed Him. Show me what’s missing here.
   And I know this is off topic, but if Abraham was not justified in this instance of faith, then I wonder how anyone can be “assured” that they are saved. Or perhaps you do not believe in said doctrine.
   1. I hear you. I know your position is such. However, I believe it begs the question.
   2. Exactly! And this is what Catholics call progressive justification. We agree that his initial justification occurred previously. The thing is, we differ on our understanding of said terms.
   "Catholic thought in connection with the terms “justification” and “sanctification” is not dominated by the ideas of legal and behavioral righteousness. Instead, it focuses on a third kind of righteousness which may be called ontological or real righteousness."
   
   "Ontological or real righteousness is the quality which adheres to the soul when one does righteous acts. Its opposite, ontological or real unrighteousness, is the quality which adheres to the soul when one does unrighteous acts. Catholics conceive of guilt and innocence as objectively real properties which cling to our souls just like colors cling to the surface of objects. When we sin, we become guilty and our souls grow dark and dirty before God. But when we are justified, God purifies us and our souls become brilliant and clean before him. Guilt and innocence, righteousness and unrighteousness, are therefore conceived of as properties of our souls."
   
   ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RIGHTEOU.htm

 

[Redbandito]

Boy, I’ve never had people debate on how to correctly interpret something that I wrote. I feel like Saint Paul. I guess that’s a sign of greatness. If you give me an address, I’ll send you an autographed copy of my post. One per person please. Oh, I better not find it on ebay. I will be greatly offended. I took the time to honor you with my signature. Show some respect!

God Bless,
Michael

Oh Mike, send me one, pretty please! You know where to find me. My email address is iworshipmike@yahoo.com.

 

[dbacks5439]

I don’t think God would favor that email adress. But since it’s Yahoo…

 

[SolaScriptura]

1. Initial justification by faith. Abraham trusted what God told him to do, and was obedient. Thus, he was initially justified by faith, and he immediately put that faith into action.

OK

1. Progressive justification by faith. Abraham again trusted what God told him, and was therefore justified.

Now you don’t mean justified in the sense that he came into a right relationship with God, because that already happened at #1. However, if you read Romans 4 which references Genesis 15 the Apostle Paul explains it as being initial justification. For example, he calls it God justifying the ungodly( Rom. 4:5). He explains “crediting righteousness” as forgiving his sins and not counting one’s sin against him( Rom. 4:6). As a matter of fact the whole argument by Paul is about how one comes into a right relationship with God. So if initial justification took place at #1, Abraham must have lost his justification and this is an instance of re-justification of the ungodly.

1. Progressive justification by faith and works. Abraham again trusted what God told him, and thus put this trust/faith into action by offering his only son Isaac. And as like to you say, this is a “type” or “shadowing” of the sacrifice to come, where God our Father truly offered His only son Jesus up as propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.

Hey, I like this one. I just don’t like that you call it “progressive justification” and therefore make justification a process instead of completed event. It is sanctification that is a process, but all in all your description is nice, real nice.

1. If that is not “saving faith” then what is? Please define what encompasses saving faith. Abraham believed in God, and obeyed Him. Show me what’s missing here.

Believing God and therefore obeying a commandment does not equate saving faith. As a matter of fact if you read Hebrews 11 it speaks of the Israelites believing God and crossing the Red Sea, however Hebrews 3 & 4 explicitly tells us that most of these same people were never saved because they didn’t join the hearing of the Gospel with faith. It is faith in the Gospel that saves not believing any one thing God commands. If that was true every Jew would be saved, because they often believed things God said and obeyed.

And I know this is off topic, but if Abraham was not justified in this instance of faith, then I wonder how anyone can be “assured” that they are saved. Or perhaps you do not believe in said doctrine.

Yes, I’m a believer in assurance because the Scripture teaches it.

1 John 4:13
We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

You are assured by believing the Gospel and not just believing anything you like that God has said.

1. I hear you. I know your position is such. However, I believe it begs the question.

Hmmm … what question am I begging?

1. Exactly! And this is what Catholics call progressive justification. We agree that his initial justification occurred previously. The thing is, we differ on our understanding of said terms.

Yes, I know Catholicism confuses justification with sanctification.

"Catholic thought in connection with the terms “justification” and “sanctification” is not dominated by the ideas of legal and behavioral righteousness. Instead, it focuses on a third kind of righteousness which may be called ontological or real righteousness."

"Ontological or real righteousness is the quality which adheres to the soul when one does righteous acts. Its opposite, ontological or real unrighteousness, is the quality which adheres to the soul when one does unrighteous acts. Catholics conceive of guilt and innocence as objectively real properties which cling to our souls just like colors cling to the surface of objects. When we sin, we become guilty and our souls grow dark and dirty before God. But when we are justified, God purifies us and our souls become brilliant and clean before him. Guilt and innocence, righteousness and unrighteousness, are therefore conceived of as properties of our souls."

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RIGHTEOU.htm

Justification and sanctification are distinct things. Catholicism denies this and because of that no one can be assured of their justification, because it turns into sanctification.

 

[Mickey]

Justification is a word used in the Scriptures to mean that in Christ we are forgiven and actually made righteous in our living. Justification is not a once-for-all, instantaneous pronouncement guaranteeing eternal salvation, regardless of how wickedly a person might live from that point on. Neither is it merely a legal declaration that an unrighteous person is righteous. Rather, justification is a living, dynamic, day-to-day reality for the one who follows Christ. The Christian actively pursues a righteous life in the grace and power of God granted to all who continue to believe in Him.
Bishop Alexander

 

[kaycee]

Clement of Rome

Clement, a first century Roman bishop, wrote that we’re saved through faith, apart from works. He excludes all works, even “works that we have done in holiness of heart” (First Clement, 32). Just after excluding works from the gospel, he goes on to encourage Christians to do those works he had just excluded. Thus, it can’t be argued that he was only excluding bad works, graceless works, faithless works, etc. He was excluding all works, including good works:

“And we who through His will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Maker and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his works. By his supreme power he founded the heavens, and by his incomprehensible understanding he ordered them. The earth he separated from the water that surrounded it, and fixed it on the firm foundation of his own will. The animals which inhabit therein he commanded to be by his ordinance. Having made beforehand the sea and the animals that are therein, he shut them in by his own power. Man, the most excellent of all animals, infinite in faculty, he moulded with his holy and faultless hands, in the impress of his likeness. For thus saith God: Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. And God made man. Male and female made he them. When, therefore, he had finished all things, he praised and blessed them, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply. Let us see, therefore, how all the just have been adorned with good works. Yea, the Lord himself rejoiced when he had adorned himself with his works. Having, therefore, this example, let us come in without shrinking to his will; let us work with all our strength the work of righteousness.” (32-33)

 

[Mickey]

Clement of Rome

Clement, a first century Roman bishop, wrote that we’re saved through faith, apart from works. He excludes all works, even “works that we have done in holiness of heart” (First Clement, 32). Just after excluding works from the gospel, he goes on to encourage Christians to do those works he had just excluded. Thus, it can’t be argued that he was only excluding bad works, graceless works, faithless works, etc. He was excluding all works, including good works:

“And we who through His will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Maker and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his works. By his supreme power he founded the heavens, and by his incomprehensible understanding he ordered them. The earth he separated from the water that surrounded it, and fixed it on the firm foundation of his own will. The animals which inhabit therein he commanded to be by his ordinance. Having made beforehand the sea and the animals that are therein, he shut them in by his own power. Man, the most excellent of all animals, infinite in faculty, he moulded with his holy and faultless hands, in the impress of his likeness. For thus saith God: Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. And God made man. Male and female made he them. When, therefore, he had finished all things, he praised and blessed them, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply. Let us see, therefore, how all the just have been adorned with good works. Yea, the Lord himself rejoiced when he had adorned himself with his works. Having, therefore, this example, let us come in without shrinking to his will; let us work with all our strength the work of righteousness.” (32-33)

This letter supports the Catholic position.

St Clement also wrote:
It is necessary, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of good works. For He forewarns us, ‘Behold, the Lord comes and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.’ … Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised reward. But how, beloved ones, shall we do this? By fixing our thoughts on God by faith. By earnestly seeking the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him. By doing the things that are in harmony with His blameless will. And by following the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and sin."
**St. Clement of ****Rome 30-100 AD Letter to the Corinthians chaps. 34, 35 **

 

[Redbandito]

Hey, I like this one. I just don’t like that you call it “progressive justification” and therefore make justification a process instead of completed event. It is sanctification that is a process, but all in all your description is nice, real nice.

Good. However, Catholics don’t view progressive justification the same as they do sanctification. We do believe they continue to happen simultaneously, but you don’t confuse the two. I would ask that you read this link I will provide and respond to it. Thanks in advance.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RIGHTEOU.htm

1 John 4:13
We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

My response is simple. In no way does John say “know” as if it is a “metaphysical certainty.” He uses it in the sense of a “moral certainty.” An example of this would be studying for a test. I can study extremely hard, and be extremely confident that I am going to get an “A.” Heck, I might even tell someone, “I studied so hard, I just know I’m going to get an A on this test.” Yet, while the fact that I studied certainly gives me every reason to believe and be confident that I will get an “A,” it does not guarantee it.

Furthermore, Paul stated elsewhere, “I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts” (1 Cor 4:3-5).

Thus, it does not appear to me that Paul believes we can have any metaphysical certainty (or absolute assurance). With this verse and dozens of other ones like it, I try to read verses like 1 Jn 4 in the context of the whole of the Scriptures. I cannot reconcile a metaphysical certainty to these, but I can reconcile “knowing” as a moral certainty.

Paul states “My conscience is clear.” In other words, Paul believes he has done confessed all sin and is in good standing, yet states, “but that does not make me innocent.” Thus, just because we think we are in good standing, and even have confidence to believe so, does not make it an absolute certainty. To believe otherwise is the sin of presumption.

If grace is truly to be gratuitous, there is nothing we can “do” (including an altar call) that can absolutely guarantee our salvation. For as Paul points out, “He (God) will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.” And since “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure,” God is the only one who can “know” with absolute certainty.

My faith is not perfect and neither is your’s. We must ultimately trust in God’s mercy to accept our brokenness. Yet, the fact that we trust in God to have mercy shows their is not an ABSOLUTE assurance, for God will be merciful to those who SHOW MERCY.

Hmmm … what question am I begging?.

In stating that this is Abraham’s “only real justification” you assume the very thing you’re trying to prove. The reality is that even if I were to concede that Rom 4 was Abraham’s initial justification, that does not prove that it was the only time he was justified, as James makes very clear in his 2nd chapter.

Thus, in reading Rom 4, and citing it for your position, you ASSUME that it can be his only real justification, because your theology mandates it. That is called begging the question. And that is why you end up having to explain away passages in James that couldn’t be any clearer. All the same, I think you have done an excellent job of putting forth the best of the Protestant position. Thank you.

Justification and sanctification are distinct things. Catholicism denies this and because of that no one can be assured of their justification, because it turns into sanctification.

SS, I appreciate your response. I think your explanation is reasonable after reading it. I just don’t agree with it, because I also believe that that is one of two reasonable explanations of the Scriptures in question. And since I believe there are other Scriptures that support my explanation and contradict your’s, although reasonable, I believe the Catholic view is ultimately the correct Biblical view of justification and sanctification.

BTW, what do you do with this verse? “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). This verse does not seem to support that justification occurs, and then sanctification takes over. How do you respond?

 

[Redbandito]

BTW, as stated above, Catholics do not believe justification and sanctification are the same thing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, I’m a believer in assurance because the Scripture teaches it.

Do you mean assurance as iin Once Saved Always Saved?

I’m taking this doctrine apart in another thread if you care to join.

It is a false and dangerous doctrine invented by Martin Luther because of his own psychological issues.

Yes, I know Catholicism confuses justification with sanctification.

How do you know this? Please cite the source that you have been studying along with relevant page numbers so that we can study along with you.

Justification and sanctification are distinct things. Catholicism denies this and because of that no one can be assured of their justification, because it turns into sanctification.

The Catechism does not state that Justification and Sanctification are one and the same thing…that they are completely interchangeable. They are distinct things.

The process of Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

A part is distinct from the whole that contains it.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Assurance comes from love not faith.

Love drives out fear.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito,

Thanks for the reply abvove. I anxious to read the link you provided by James Akins and the rest of your thoughts. However, currently I’m under the gun for some things at work and I need to prepare for Sunday school classes at church. So it maybe a few days before I can respond, but I will.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[Redbandito]

Redbandito,

Thanks for the reply abvove. I anxious to read the link you provided by James Akins and the rest of your thoughts. However, currently I’m under the gun for some things at work and I need to prepare for Sunday school classes at church. So it maybe a few days before I can respond, but I will.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

Cool! This break could not have come at a better time. I am slammed with paperwork and I’m a COUNSELOR! Paperwork certainly isn’t what I got into this field to do, but it seems to take up the majority of my time as a Counselor. Anyway, I think the article will clarify a few things, because of our different uses of same terms. Either way, I have enjoyed our discussion. Read it as you can, and I will look forward to our next dialogue. God bless, and prepare well! There are souls at stake.

In Christ’s Love,
Josh

 

[SolaScriptura]

Cool! This break could not have come at a better time. I am slammed with paperwork and I’m a COUNSELOR! Paperwork certainly isn’t what I got into this field to do, but it seems to take up the majority of my time as a Counselor. Anyway, I think the article will clarify a few things, because of our different uses of same terms. Either way, I have enjoyed our discussion. Read it as you can, and I will look forward to our next dialogue. God bless, and prepare well! There are souls at stake.

In Christ’s Love,
Josh

I read Akin’s article. I will probably respond tonight or tomorrow.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Assurance comes from love not faith.

Love drives out fear.

But faith comes first. How can one love that which one has no faith in? Even Hebrews teaches that God is a rewarder of those who have faith and who diligently seek Him. Faith comes first, then love.

 

[The_Catholic]

But faith comes first. How can one love that which one has no faith in? Even Hebrews teaches that God is a rewarder of those who have faith and who diligently seek Him. Faith comes first, then love.

I generally agree that usually faith, or belief in the gospel comes first. But I do not agree that it always comes first. I have biblical quotes for this, but as of now my stupid battery on my laptop is almost dead

Anyways, God bless you