Saved by faith alone? Man's doctrine vs. God's Doctrine

[fdesales]

1. Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin

When Paul is speaking about “the law”, what is he talking about? Is he saying “ANY human action is a work”?

If he is, then Paul is in disagreement with the rest of Scriptures, beginning with Jesus in John 6, who says that BELIEVING IN GOD is a work, as well…

Clearly, Paul is contrasting the Gentile who does the “work of God” without the MOSAIC LAW - AND IS JUSTIFIED (read Romans 2 again…) with the Jew who was self-righteous in his doing the Mosaic Law as a Pharisee, having lust in the heart BUT not sleeping with a woman, thinking he was free from the sin of adultery, for example…

Romans 4 goes on to use the ultimate example of being just in God’s sight WITHOUT the MOSAIC law, Abraham…

1. James is not discussing how we are justified before God. The rest of scripture contradicts your interpretation. If their faith was dead they were a confessing christian only and never believed Christ died for their sins.

LOL! Look at the example James uses. He is speaking about a situation where Abraham goes up BY HIMSELF AND ISAAC, without any other person - and is justified because of the act he was about to perform. He was justified in God’s sight, so says Genesis ("for now I [God] know…). The Bible does NOT say "now man knows that Abraham is righteous, it says “GOD knows”. This act was done in the sight of God alone, and so Abraham was justified in the sight of God.

When you view Scriptures through the lenses of “salvation by faith alone”, you will twist the original intent of Scriptures to fit through that lense, even if it means ignoring the context OR other verses that EXPLICITLY DENY this, such as James 2 SPECIFICALLY STATING that we are NOT saved by faith alone…

But such simple wording is too complex for some who choose to invent their own theology…

For salvation we need no works, the scripture is clear on that. Rome is teaching you to forget about Christ’s works and look to your own works for salvation.

Scriptures are clear that salvation has several meanings. If you are refering to “eternal life in heaven”, clearly, you are wrong. If refering to being born from above, you are correct, but with some qualifications - understanding that a “work”, in Paul’s mind refers to an act where a man EXPECTS wages (as Romans 4:4 states). Wages earn payment. Salvation - being born from above - is a freely given gift, hence, the term “born FROM ABOVE”. It is something that cannot be given from below.

The closer you come to Rome, the more clearly the Gospel will become, taking into account ALL of the Scriptures. You will not find it necessary to ignore verses that point out your error, such as those found in James 2, or 1 Cor 13 (having all the faith in the world is useless without love, making “faith alone” a pitiful invention of schismatics…)

Paul calls faith without love USELESS, so how can Paul have in mind that we are saved by faith alone???

Regards

 

[Porkchop2]

I do have to ask…why did you choose Napoleon Bonaparte for a quote? (this is for SB)

Former protege of Robespierre.
Fired into a mob with a cannon in Paris to restore order.
His followers, under his ok, “engineered a coup to seize and control the Directory. They reinstituted laws against priests.”

The Pope (Pius) was referred to as “Pius, the Last of Rome”.

In Feb 1798, the French army occupied Rome, “proclaiming the Ro
man Republic, breaking the earlier agreeement with the Pope. Churches and other buildings were looted, and opposition was disposed of by firing squads.”

Napoleon moved Pope Pius VI, who was paralyzed out of Rome, and Napoleon said that when the Pope died, he, Napoleon, would prevent another election of a pope.

On August 29, 1799, the Holy Father died at Valence, begging forgiveness for his enemies (does that sound like the anti-Christ?). “Before he died, he offered a three-fold prayer: that peace be restored to Europe, that the Pope be restored to Rome, and that the Church be restored to France.”

Pope Pius VII was then elected by the Cardinals, and for 15 years Europe would witness the struggle betwee these two men, with 10 years of blood shed, terror, famine, and violence…along with anarchy, bankruptcy, communism, war and terror.

You quote Napoleon? History did not end in 33 AD, obviously. It is so easy to turn a blind eye isn’t it?

Well, I can see your prejudice against Catholics, especially since you quote Napoleon.

Just plain mean.

 

[erikd]

1. Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

I think you’re starting to agree with me, though I never saw it coming. I asked you if “faith without works is dead, would you say that works are necessary for faith to be alive?” Your answer was not yes or no, and I think you deliberately chose not to answer with a simple yes or no. Think of your choices here: Yes, would mean that you agree with me. No would mean that you disagree with St. James. It’s simple if you think about it. If faith without works is dead, then a lack of works means dead faith. This is not a play on words, it’s a description, which you were not willing to recognize. Though I’m happy that you hesitated on this question because it shows me that you’re reasoning within your mind and possibly questioning the logical conclusion of your stance.

As far as your answer, I agree with the connection. After all, we’re discussing faith being dead if it has no works, just as Abraham’s faith would have been dead if he had never taken his only son to the altar to be slaughtered for the glory of God. Abraham actually did something to prove his faith, he didn’t just say to God “I believe you and accept you in my heart.” How silly that would have sounded in Genesis.

1. yes

The question was whether faith without works is dead, and the answer has to be yes, since saying no is going against Scripture. The funny thing is that question 1 and 3 revolve around question 2, though it is the only one you are willing to admit to, as it would be absolutely blaspemous to say otherwise.

1. Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin

As another poster mentioned, this is referring to the New Covenant Law, replacing circumcision as the law. Mentioned in Galatians:

3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Galatians 5:3-5

Here is St. Paul showing a direct connection between circumcision, the Old Law, and Faith, the New Law. He is certainly not talking about discarding all good works of any kind, or of them not being salvific. That, would go against the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:17 and Mark 10:19: Follow the Commandments.

1. James is not discussing how we are justified before God. The rest of scripture contradicts your interpretation. If their faith was dead they were a confessing christian only and never believed Christ died for their sins.

It was a yes or no question, and by not answering yes or no I think you’re starting to see the illogical reasoning brought upon by this tradition of man. By the way, St. James, as was pointed out by another poster, is using the word justified when referring to Abraham in James 2:21, Rahab in 2:25, and man in 2:24. Can you honestly tell me that Abraham was not justified before God?

For salvation we need no works, the scripture is clear on that. Rome is teaching you to forget about Christ’s works and look to your own works for salvation.

SB, I asked you another question which you did not answer, though I was not expecting an answer. The question I asked is the following:

Have you ever heard a protestant minister reading from the Book of James “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” then closing his Bible and saying to his congregation, “Brothers and sisters, wer are justified by FAITH ALONE!” I’m just wondering if it’s ever hapenned to the best of your knowledge. :bigyikes:

 

[erikd]

Then, studying Scripture (which I knew more of than I actually gave myself credit to) and Church History deeply, along with Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, and Jeff Cavins, and the beautiful examples of our Saints, I returned full force.

I love reading about our saints, as they are the perfect role models for us. I was once asked why we would read about the saints, why not just read about Jesus? My answer was if you read about the saints, you will know Jesus, you will see Jesus in everything they do. That, I think, is the difference. It is not just a bunch of words left open for interpretation in different churches, it is a personal knowledge of love and charity that brings us closer to God. Thank you, Porkchop2, for bringing up the saints, I wish all people would read more about saints and use them as role models, to become closer to Christ. Talk about a personal relationship.

I had always had a “personal” relationship with Christ. Hey, I even receive his Body and Blood on Sundays, not the symbol! How personal is that?

Amen to that as well. I thank God every day that Jesus ordained the twelve, that he gave them the power to consecrate the Host, and that they passed this authority to others, so that 2000 years later we too can share in the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[fdesales]

I love reading about our saints, as they are the perfect role models for us. I was once asked why we would read about the saints, why not just read about Jesus? My answer was if you read about the saints, you will know Jesus, you will see Jesus in everything they do.

The Bible commands us to imitate the saints! What is it with some of these people?

Paul seemed to have said the same thing, twice, to **at least ** the Corinthians…

Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 1 Cor 4:16

Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 1 Cor 11:1

Further, he tells us to imitate others who are walking in the Lord…

…that you do not become sluggish, imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Heb 6:12

As usual, people who don’t know the Scriptures have nothing better to do but complain about Catholic spiritual devotions…

I think I’ll pray for them today at Adoration.

Regards

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Hi Brian, you pose an interesting question and my answer is neither of the above is true. Based on the Scripture passages you’re referring to, John 15:1-17, we are the branches while Christ, Israel, and Wisdom are the vine. A vine branch can sometimes grow away from sources of light, sources of water, and other sources of life needed for the growth and nurturing process of the vine. We, as the vines, have that capability, to grow away from the sources of light and water, which the Vine-Dresser provides. But if we ask, we can be grafted in, since we agree that God’s will is for all persons to be united in Christ in the Kingdom of God. Therefore, we as the vines have the right to stray away from the sources of food, water, and light. We will not be led back to those sources if we choose to stay away from them. If, however, we decide that we’ve made a mistake, u-turns are allowed with God’s help through the sacraments of the Church.

I’m not sure if this answers the question or creates more questions, so feel free to let me know. It certainly is an interesting conversation.

erikd, it is not possible for the answer to be “neither;” either a branch bears fruit or it doesn’t. I think you are reading a whole lot into the Scripture that isn’t there, but be that as it may. What you are describing are branches that bear no fruit, because branches that grow without the vine cannot bear fruit.

Whether you know it or not you answered the question. A Catholic who commits a mortal sin (like missing mass on an obligated day), according to your description, was never really a true believer (a fruitless branch).

The fruit a branch bears are the works of the branch (believer). The branch cannot produce fruit apart from the Vine. Therefore, there is no good work anyone can do apart from Christ. You cannot say that someone who has been cut off can work their way back into God’s grace without contradicting Jesus’ teaching. The branches abide in the Vine by faith; the fruits of the branch are a result of Christ nourishing the branches.

The works of requiring confession to a priest and demanding penance must be the result of the Catholic hierarchy usurping God’s authority. Why else would they command things of you that Jesus and the apostles never intended? I can only conclude that what they (your church) want is for you to depend on them rather than on God. If that is not true, why is there a system of loosing and regaining salvation? This system is the heart of the doctrine of salvation by faith and works, and it is not biblical nor was it practiced in the ancient church.

That is how I see it. Can you explain to me why you see it differently?

God bless!

 

[erikd]

The Bible commands us to imitate the saints! What is it with some of these people?

Paul seemed to have said the same thing, twice, to **at least ** the Corinthians…

Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 1 Cor 4:16

Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 1 Cor 11:1

Further, he tells us to imitate others who are walking in the Lord…

…that you do not become sluggish, imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Heb 6:12

As usual, people who don’t know the Scriptures have nothing better to do but complain about Catholic spiritual devotions…

I think I’ll pray for them today at Adoration.

Regards

I think you’re on to something, FDesales. I pray for conversions daily and I’m glad to see others doing the same. If we all pray for SB, maybe he’ll realize that we’re not a bunch of Roman worshippers, but that we’re a bunch of loving Christians (the original Christians being the Catholic Church) who actually look to Jesus and the Holy Scriptures for assistance in our daily lives. Maybe he’ll see that by looking at the lives of the saints, you’re looking at the life of Jesus, as well as the model life for yourself. One thing I try to remember is that facts rarely change hearts, but hearts can always change hearts. The logic and facts may be on our side in these arguments, but ultimately a Christian attitude is what plants the really big seeds of persuasion. We plant the seeds and the Holy Spirit does the actual conversion. What would Saint Paul say in this instance? I think you nailed it, with the quotes above (1 Cor. 4:16, 11:1, Heb. 6:12).

 

[erikd]

erikd, it is not possible for the answer to be “neither;” either a branch bears fruit or it doesn’t. I think you are reading a whole lot into the Scripture that isn’t there, but be that as it may. What you are describing are branches that bear no fruit, because branches that grow without the vine cannot bear fruit.

Whether you know it or not you answered the question. A Catholic who commits a mortal sin (like missing mass on an obligated day), according to your description, was never really a true believer (a fruitless branch).

The fruit a branch bears are the works of the branch (believer). The branch cannot produce fruit apart from the Vine. Therefore, there is no good work anyone can do apart from Christ. You cannot say that someone who has been cut off can work their way back into God’s grace without contradicting Jesus’ teaching. The branches abide in the Vine by faith; the fruits of the branch are a result of Christ nourishing the branches.

The works of requiring confession to a priest and demanding penance must be the result of the Catholic hierarchy usurping God’s authority. Why else would they command things of you that Jesus and the apostles never intended? I can only conclude that what they (your church) want is for you to depend on them rather than on God. If that is not true, why is there a system of loosing and regaining salvation? This system is the heart of the doctrine of salvation by faith and works, and it is not biblical nor was it practiced in the ancient church.

That is how I see it. Can you explain to me why you see it differently?

God bless!

Yes I can. I am attaching two files, they are just word documents. One is called “Can we lose our salvation” and the other is called “Salvation, doing God’s Word.” Since the questions you ask are related to two different topics, I will give you both answers, as I see them. Also, since the topic of our conversation seems to be whether or not salvation can be lost, which is a little off topic for this thread, I will send you a pm of another thread which addresses this topic, where you and I can explore this a little further (I cannot mention the other thread here as that is against the forum rules, and I have already received an infraction from one of the forum moderators for directing someone to a different thread). Your questions are interesting and I would love to engage further in this discussion.

As far as the answer to the question of the branches, I stand by my answer, as all branches at some point produce fruit, though some cease to produce at certain stages of their development. All branches, just to become branches, have to grow and go through a development of growth which is the beginnings of bearing fruit. The ones that stop bearing fruit do so only after this growth, as they had to grow in order to become branches. Your examples cannot be looked at from such a broad spectrum, and that is why my answer is neither. This, too, I’d like to explore further but it is off topic for this thread. It is, however, a great idea for a new thread (hint hint).

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Yes I can. I am attaching two files, they are just word documents. One is called “Can we lose our salvation” and the other is called “Salvation, doing God’s Word.” Since the questions you ask are related to two different topics, I will give you both answers, as I see them. Also, since the topic of our conversation seems to be whether or not salvation can be lost, which is a little off topic for this thread, I will send you a pm of another thread which addresses this topic, where you and I can explore this a little further (I cannot mention the other thread here as that is against the forum rules, and I have already received an infraction from one of the forum moderators for directing someone to a different thread). Your questions are interesting and I would love to engage further in this discussion.

As far as the answer to the question of the branches, I stand by my answer, as all branches at some point produce fruit, though some cease to produce at certain stages of their development. All branches, just to become branches, have to grow and go through a development of growth which is the beginnings of bearing fruit. The ones that stop bearing fruit do so only after this growth, as they had to grow in order to become branches. Your examples cannot be looked at from such a broad spectrum, and that is why my answer is neither. This, too, I’d like to explore further but it is off topic for this thread. It is, however, a great idea for a new thread (hint hint).

I am sorry if I am not making my point clearly (I do tend to have difficulty in that area).

My point is that works are required of a Catholic for salvation. I’m not talking about works resulting from faith; I’m talking about works of law, Catholic law. There is no basis scripturally or historically (Ante-Nicene) for your doctrine of faith plus works. We are justified by faith apart from the works of the law – including man-made Catholic laws.

The analogy of the Vine and branches has everything to do with this topic. I think the reason you don’t think so is because you are not used to being challenged with regards to specific works. I am trying to narrow the discussion down to a specific scenario because these discussions always get convoluted.

I am afraid I cannot accept your answer of “neither.” Your explanation makes no sense biblically.

God bless!

 

[erikd]

I am sorry if I am not making my point clearly (I do tend to have difficulty in that area).

My point is that works are required of a Catholic for salvation. I’m not talking about works resulting from faith; I’m talking about works of law, Catholic law. There is no basis scripturally or historically (Ante-Nicene) for your doctrine of faith plus works. We are justified by faith apart from the works of the law – including man-made Catholic laws.

The analogy of the Vine and branches has everything to do with this topic. I think the reason you don’t think so is because you are not used to being challenged with regards to specific works. I am trying to narrow the discussion down to a specific scenario because these discussions always get convoluted.

I am afraid I cannot accept your answer of “neither.” Your explanation makes no sense biblically.

God bless!

No problem, Brian, thank you for your honesty. I have had several debates in regards to specific works, but unless the broadened term of works is defined from a Biblical perspective, the narrower term cannot be discerned. If one believes that we are saved by faith apart from works, as St. Paul rightly tells us, but one uses that verse to mean all works, then no matter which works you may want to discuss it will be a fruitless discussion. Unless one accepts the premise of what this verse means in the broad context, one cannot be more specific.

If a mechanical engineer was to begin a conversation about water flowing through a cooling tower, he would have to accept a few given rules first. He would have to know that water weighs 8.33 lbs per gallon, that one cubic foot of water is equal to 7.5 gallons or 62.25 lbs., and that these rules only apply at sea level at a barometric pressure of 29.92." Without this knowledge, the engineer could not size the pipe for this cooling tower and he could not approximate the brake horse power needed to push the water from the appropriately sized pump to the appropriately sized cooling tower.

The premise you have suggested works on much the same theory. You and I can discuss how sinful it may be to skip Sunday Mass, or why you should appear at confession at least once a year, but that discussion is fruitless since the basic theory on your end has not been understood and accepted (and I mean no disrespect when I say that).

As I stated before, I would be happy to oblige to any discussion, but let’s start a different thread or continue through pm so as to leave this thread on topic.

 

[geometer]

The scriptures do not say that we are saved by works, or works alone.

In one place Jesus tells a woman that her faith has saved her.

Otherwise, the scripture say only that we are saved by the grace of God. And everyone agrees on this…

 

[ChadS]

If a mechanical engineer was to begin a conversation about water flowing through a cooling tower, he would have to accept a few given rules first. He would have to know that water weighs 8.33 lbs per gallon, that one cubic foot of water is equal to 7.5 gallons or 62.25 lbs., and that these rules only apply at sea level at a barometric pressure of 29.92." Without this knowledge, the engineer could not size the pipe for this cooling tower and he could not approximate the brake horse power needed to push the water from the appropriately sized pump to the appropriately sized cooling tower.

Even when engineers know all that stuff they still don’t always size things correctly. I’ve heard too many “What were they thinking?” type stories.

ChadS

 

[crazzeto]

The scriptures do not say that we are saved by works, or works alone.

In one place Jesus tells a woman that he faith has saved her.

Otherwise, the scripture say only that we are saved by the grace of God. And everyone agrees on this…

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=66&ch=2&l=24&f=s#x

Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

 

[fdesales]

I think you’re on to something, FDesales. I pray for conversions daily and I’m glad to see others doing the same. If we all pray for SB, maybe he’ll realize that we’re not a bunch of Roman worshippers, but that we’re a bunch of loving Christians (the original Christians being the Catholic Church) who actually look to Jesus and the Holy Scriptures for assistance in our daily lives. Maybe he’ll see that by looking at the lives of the saints, you’re looking at the life of Jesus, as well as the model life for yourself. One thing I try to remember is that facts rarely change hearts, but hearts can always change hearts. The logic and facts may be on our side in these arguments, but ultimately a Christian attitude is what plants the really big seeds of persuasion. We plant the seeds and the Holy Spirit does the actual conversion. What would Saint Paul say in this instance? I think you nailed it, with the quotes above (1 Cor. 4:16, 11:1, Heb. 6:12).

I have been doing this internet apologizing for quite some time, thousands of posts, and I don’t recall anyone ever writing me back and telling me “ya know, that thing you wrote about sola scriptura convinced me that I need to become Catholic”… No matter how sound my arguments appear to be, there is another element necessary in conversion…

I am sure that such is PART of the process, but it still depends on personal witness, logic, and the Spirit of God to change people to see the fullness of the truth. I presume that time in the chapel is as effective as typing here in bringing people to Christ.

Regards

 

[ChadS]

I have been doing this internet apologizing for quite some time, thousands of posts, and I don’t recall anyone ever writing me back and telling me “ya know, that thing you wrote about sola scriptura convinced me that I need to become Catholic”… No matter how sound my arguments appear to be, there is another element necessary in conversion…

I am sure that such is PART of the process, but it still depends on personal witness, logic, and the Spirit of God to change people to see the fullness of the truth. I presume that time in the chapel is as effective as typing here in bringing people to Christ.

Regards

Don’t despair. I’m sure some of your posts have planted a seed, no matter how small, that is waiting to bloom in somebody’s life. I started off not believing anything most Catholics said and I was stubborn about it. But once I started to listen and examine things myself the small nagging inconsistencies started to grow and grow and bother me even more. Before I knew it I was considering becoming Catholic and eventually did.

ChadS

 

[crazzeto]

Don’t despair. I’m sure some of your posts have planted a seed, no matter how small, that is waiting to bloom in somebody’s life. I started off not believing anything most Catholics said and I was stubborn about it. But once I started to listen and examine things myself the small nagging inconsistencies started to grow and grow and bother me even more. Before I knew it I was considering becoming Catholic and eventually did.

ChadS

Yeah, don’t be discouraged… Besides, the way I see things our goal should mostly to just spread the truth, and give those who do not accept the fullness of the truth the oppertunity to be exposed to it, and ponder it. My personal high point, was clarifying to a Protistant poster that they didn’t personally accept Sola Fide, they went so far as to PM me back thanking me and informing me they’d think over the belief system some more. Will they convert? I don’t know, and frankly at this point I don’t think it’s so important as the fact that they’re considering the full revelation of the truth, at least with regard to this one theological principal.

 

[erikd]

Yeah, don’t be discouraged… Besides, the way I see things our goal should mostly to just spread the truth, and give those who do not accept the fullness of the truth the oppertunity to be exposed to it, and ponder it. My personal high point, was clarifying to a Protistant poster that they didn’t personally accept Sola Fide, they went so far as to PM me back thanking me and informing me they’d think over the belief system some more. Will they convert? I don’t know, and frankly at this point I don’t think it’s so important as the fact that they’re considering the full revelation of the truth, at least with regard to this one theological principal.

Since we’re sharing evangelization tactics, I’ll share my own. I try to explain to people that at least two of the five solas have no relevance in Christianity: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. My m.o. is to start with Sola Scriptura, as that seems to be the easiest of the solas to disprove. There are too many things we know about the Bible that are not in the Bible, and these are things that even the sola scriptura people know and accept. Once they start questioning their belief of sola scriptura, I challenge sola fide. By the time I get to this point, most people get really defensive and build up a wall, because all of a sudden they start to question the logical inconsistencies of their arguments. At that point I always back off, because I don’t want to win an argument, I want to save souls. I know that facts, logic, and history, are on the side of the Church. But sometimes people need to come to that realization on their own, since they cannot be pushed into it. My favorite local Catholic Book store owner once told me “if you try to win the argument, you might lose the soul. Win the soul!”

 

[geometer]

Well, I was composing a post and found that someone had written in bold letters:

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 that without love, faith is worthless, so the whole problem is moot.

And the whole of scripture only teaches that we do two great works, Love God completely, and love our neighbors as ourselves.

 

[crazzeto]

Since we’re sharing evangelization tactics, I’ll share my own. I try to explain to people that at least two of the five solas have no relevance in Christianity: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. My m.o. is to start with Sola Scriptura, as that seems to be the easiest of the solas to disprove. There are too many things we know about the Bible that are not in the Bible, and these are things that even the sola scriptura people know and accept. Once they start questioning their belief of sola scriptura, I challenge sola fide. By the time I get to this point, most people get really defensive and build up a wall, because all of a sudden they start to question the logical inconsistencies of their arguments. At that point I always back off, because I don’t want to win an argument, I want to save souls. I know that facts, logic, and history, are on the side of the Church. But sometimes people need to come to that realization on their own, since they cannot be pushed into it. My favorite local Catholic Book store owner once told me “if you try to win the argument, you might lose the soul. Win the soul!”

I reall like that, thanks for sharing.

 

[erikd]

Well, I was composing a post and found that someone had written in bold letters:

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 that without love, faith is worthless, so the whole problem is moot.

And the whole of scripture only teaches that we do two great works, Love God completely, and love our neighbors as ourselves.

Because all other commandments are summed up by these two.

9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:9-10