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

  • Thread starter Thread starter erikd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
More:

2 Cor 5
18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. 19 For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. 20 For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God.
James 5
14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.
Edit
BTW, yes there is one mediator between God (the father) and Man, the God Man Jesus Christ. But through Christ we can share in the mediation. Sort of like Christ said “call no man father”, but yet Stephen just before being martyred says “My brothers and fathers”, and Paul says the same when he is on trial. They are not breaking Jesus’s command, nor would they dream of it. Like we can share in Christ’s mediation, we also share in his fatherhood.
 
The Bible says nothing about confessing my sins to a priest and it says nothing about my sins being forgiven through a priest. In fact, the Bible tells me that Christ is my Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). James urges us to confess out faults to one another (5:16). John said that if we confess our sins He (God) is faithful to forgive us (1 John 1:19). (There is a whole lot more but don’t have much time right now.)

Where in the Bible do you find justification for inserting a man between a Christian and Christ? And where in the Bible does it say one must perform penance to be reconciled to God? Is faith, confession to Him, and repentance of the sin committed not good enough? Why does your church demand these unbiblical works for salvation?
It appears as though Crazzeto and FDesales have given you a lot to think about. I also wanted to point out an interesting fact that is very common on these threads. When a Catholic is asked to prove something from the Bible, and the Catholic does just that, the subject matter shifts to something else. We went from proving that we are not saved by faith alone to confession involving a Priest without flinching or without the asking party making even an attempt at proving his side. I know that it’s hard to argue with the Bible but I hope we can stay on topic instead of shifting from one to another. By the way, you should know that the Catholics on this forum will hold your beliefs to the same Scriptural scrutiny as you hold ours. Although, I myself very much appreciate your questions as it makes me a stronger Catholic by doing my own research and reading the research of others. So, thank you.
 
fdesales,

You said someone who commits a mortal sin can return through the sacrament of reconciliation. How does that work? You mentioned sacramental confession, I assume that means confession to a priest. Is that a work that must be performed for one to regain salvation? If so, please provide biblical evidence to support that work of salvation.
first of all, let’s define “work”, when Paul declares that it cannot save. Obviously, the word “work” has multiple meanings, and it won’t do to change the intent of Paul to fit the Lutheran concept that man is a mound of manure who can do absolutely nothing of value, even when imbued with the Spirit.

Paul speaks about the Mosaic Law. This cannot save. He calls this a “work of the Law”, in Romans 3. In addition, I think we also need to consider Paul’s Roman 4:4, which speaks of a work as a WAGE. Anything we do where we expect payment is of no value in the salvation formula. Salvation is a freely given gift, not payment for services rendered. Thus, the Pharisee who believed his obedience to the Law earned him redemption was incorrect. Only by the grace of God are we able to receive anything from above.

Now, with that explained, let’s look at what you have said…

*You mentioned sacramental confession, I assume that means confession to a priest. Is that a work that must be performed for one to regain salvation? *

Yes, sacramental confession is the means by which God has given us to re-establish our relationship with God when WE sever it. The gift of reconcilliation is available, freely given, to any who desire to receive it. The Scriptures give references to the power that Jesus has delegated to the Apostles and their successors to provide this visible (aural - “by the grace of God, your sins are forgiven”) means of receiving God’s forgiveness.

*And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained * John 20:23

Naturally, one must speak his sins to another - and one must have the power to forgive or retain the sins confessed - for this to make any sense…

Man is a visible being. He experiences God best through visible means, the senses. Thus, God presents Himself to us through the Scriptures, through other people, through the Liturgy and sacraments. We hear “your sins are forgiven”, and our pyschological needs of hearing this forgiveness is soothing and healing.

Is this a work - meaning, it is something we do? Of course, as anything else we do, such as faith. Faith is the work of God, says Jesus Christ. It is a human response to God. Confession, naturally, is also a human response to the need to confess to the Lord.

Is it a work - meaning it is something that EARNS us forgiveness? No, of course not. Taking God’s freely offered means of obtaining the gift of forgiveness is not earning anything.

Regards
 
The Bible says nothing about confessing my sins to a priest and it says nothing about my sins being forgiven through a priest. In fact, the Bible tells me that Christ is my Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). James urges us to confess out faults to one another (5:16). John said that if we confess our sins He (God) is faithful to forgive us (1 John 1:19). (There is a whole lot more but don’t have much time right now.)
I have already explained where our paradigm supports this idea and why you cannot fathom it. Your idea of God is different than ours. We look to the Trinity and Love. This God desires a participational relationship with us. We are not cast aside while “God does it all”. He allows us to be His co-workers with Him. We plant, we water, and God provides the growth, Paul tells the Corinthians, for example. Again, synergism is impossible to ignore in the Sacred Scriptures, OT and NT.

Since God allows us to participate in the salvation of man (for example, again, Corinthians, a Christian wife can save her pagan husband, nothing said about HIS faith declaration). We can become co-redeemers because God desires to share His Divine self with mankind. To many Protestants, this is strange because they believe God is like a pissed off parent who has to toss the kid out of the way so he can do things right - or does it himself because he doesn’t trust the kid to do the job right. This is not our paradigm, nor Scriptures.

In the realm of Reconcilliation, 2 Cor 5 has already been cited. This is a fine example of synergism, man and God working together to bring God’s reconcilliation to the world. Does God need Paul to preach this Gospel to anyone??? Does God need the Apostles to spread the Gospel??? Of course not, this should be an elementary point that shows synergism throughout Scriptures. Man, given this power from above, has been given the task of spreading the Gospel, healing the sick in the name of Christ, and forgiving sins in the name of Christ - providing spiritual healing to those in need. This is a participation and continuation of the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Jesus didn’t come just to provide healing to people of the first century. He tasked men to continue to participate in the ministry of healing, teaching, and spreading the Good News that the Kingdom is at hand and we can come into it even now…
Where in the Bible do you find justification for inserting a man between a Christian and Christ?
!!! I would have to quote the majority of the bible, my friend!!!

Everytime a man is preaching God’s Word, He is “inserted” between the Christian and Christ!!!
And where in the Bible does it say one must perform penance to be reconciled to God? Is faith, confession to Him, and repentance of the sin committed not good enough? Why does your church demand these unbiblical works for salvation?
Begin by reading the opening words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, said to be the oldest Gospel!!!..

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mark 1:15

The idea of “repent”, to the Jew, meant a change of heart, a conversion - and included penitentional acts (ever hear of sack clothes?)

Regards
 
I have noticed something about Protestants. They don’t want to believe that the Church has authority over anything. This is almost like jealousy. They believe they have been given all of the gifts and authority from the Holy Spirit, when they where Baptized. when they read the Bible they don’t see a church, they see themselves. that is why they can’t stay together (as churches) because in there minds they have all of the knowledge of God. They all look at themselves as little churches.

I hope this doesn’t offend anyone, that was not my intent.

God Bless
 
I have already explained where our paradigm supports this idea and why you cannot fathom it. Your idea of God is different than ours.
It’s worth noting, that his bible does in fact explain the Rite of Reconciliation. It lays out the framework for the forgiveness of sins, it states very clearly that in order for your sins to be forgiven you must confess them… Not privately to Jesus, but “each other”, to a Priest who has been sent forth as the Father sent Jesus into the world.
 
It’s worth noting, that his bible does in fact explain the Rite of Reconciliation. It lays out the framework for the forgiveness of sins, it states very clearly that in order for your sins to be forgiven you must confess them… Not privately to Jesus, but “each other”, to a Priest who has been sent forth as the Father sent Jesus into the world.
Of course, but their paradigm of God, the lense by which they view Scriptures, does not allow it. God cannot possibly allow man to cooperate with Him, for example… Man is a pile of dirty rags, a mound of turds covered in snow. Thus, they ignore the Scriptures cited. IGNORE them by pretending they don’t exist or explaining them away, because the central paradigm - that man is a pile of **** hardly worth saving - must be maintained…

With that idea of man and subsequent view of God, how could such a Protestant see the obvious citations of synergism found sprinkled throughout Scriptures and apply them? No, they’ll explain them away, because the “paradigm” must not be overturned. Scriptures is interpreted with this basic system in mind. Thus, when God loves us, it is a disdainful “love”, despite our uselessness and total depravity… Basically, God loves something that is not worth loving, not worth saving. 🤷

The ancient Tradition never spoke like this, Christianity had always had a higher view of mankind. It is only psycologically troubled (ovelry scrupulous) Christians during the Reformation that put forward that view.

The issue is their concentration on redemption and atonement as the center of Christian thought. Catholicism correctly centers her paradigm upon the Blessed Trinity. The Creed begins by teaching us WHO God is and how this God sent His Son, His Essence, to show His love for mankind. All of our doctrines stem from them in some way. It is the key to proper Scriptural interpretation. God desires to share His own self with us - this goes way beyond the “good news” of Protestantism.
 
But how many times did Christ call out one of the Teachers of the faith durring his ministry for missing that which was plainly right before their eyes in scripture? I know what you’re getting at, and of course I agree to an extent. Out of the gate, a protestant does have the disadvantage of their theology (and they should make no mistake, they have theology coming out of their ears, not just bible passages) working against a fair understanding of the bible. But that doesn’t stop one from sitting down, reading and understanding. Most honest, sincer and biblically studious (even if the bible is the only book they’ll read, literally) will eventually drop their beliefs in these theologies, even if they maddenling refuse to state that they’ve done so.

Case in point, one of my very good friends here is a very sincer very God centered evangelical. He (almost) literally has only ever read the bible (ok obviously he started out with other easier books). Today, he will profess devoutly that he believes in faith alone. So my first natural question was “well so does that mean I can go on a killing spree and still go to heaven as an unrepentant murderer?”. His answer was “well no, of course not you have to be repentant” (error, error repentance is a work, but moving on) then adds in explanation “because well you see if you’re not repentant you didn’t have the faith to start with”.

You see, they add that erroneous qualification at the end “if you don’t do the works, then you don’t have the faith” to try and explain how it’s true that your saved by faith alone, but also explain all those passages where Christ says if you sin you go to Hell. Now you and I understand very well that it’s entirly possible to have “faith as to move mountains” and also have no love in your heart, no charity to your fellow man or to God. And this is the reason why faith must work through love. But due his theology, this sincer Evangelical has to convince him self that if you don’t have charity (love) then you don’t have the faith.

On a personal level, while his belief is not technically accurate, I let it slide. He’s a good sincer Christian, and he’s come to the right conclusion at the end of the day. Even if he explains it and beleives it incorrectly.
 
How many saved by God were saved by baptism in the scriptures?

Look through the book, see if you can find any…

saved

If you want to make a case, do so in my new thread…
 
But how many times did Christ call out one of the Teachers of the faith durring his ministry for missing that which was plainly right before their eyes in scripture? I know what you’re getting at, and of course I agree to an extent.
You have hinted at Scriptural answer- the Pharisees could not be convinced because they had invested so much on their particular interpretations of Scriptures. It is an investment, so to speak. It is a difficult thing, realizing you have been “wrong” and not following God as He intended. Thus, it is much easier to deny things, whether one tries to bully someone, chastise them, make fun of their education, or bring up anti-Catholic zingers that are completely off topic (poisoning the well…) Like “How could you be right, Mr. Catholic, about not being saved by faith alone, you think Mary is practically God…”

And then the never ending avalanche begins, all the misrepresentations of our faith that completely side-track the original point, as another poster has accurately noted…

It is not an easy thing to come to Rome, when so much is invested in swimming away from Rome via their belief system. If we are right, the entire Protestant Reformation is heresy and schism. Who wants to be associated with that??? Thus, the Catholic Church “cannot” be right, in their mind!

Even if the words are right there in front of their face: “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:20

I have come to realize after countless conversations that the issue is emotional, not logical. You can’t expect to get them to see the logic of the situation. That is a work of the Spirit, brother.
But that doesn’t stop one from sitting down, reading and understanding. Most honest, sincer and biblically studious (even if the bible is the only book they’ll read, literally) will eventually drop their beliefs in these theologies, even if they maddenling refuse to state that they’ve done so.
People can “overlook” particular Scriptures that ruin their interpretations. Even when they are pointed out, they ignore them or twist them around or change the subject. Again, this is an emotional issue of not wanting to be wrong. A person seeking the truth will eventually realize their error, but it is not an easy road. Who likes to admit they are wrong, esp. when “they” pride themselves on reading the Bible and knowing what it all means, and then having some “Cath-o-lick” point out a verse they had previously read over and ignored because it didn’t fit into the picture they had already formed.
Case in point, one of my very good friends here is a very sincer very God centered evangelical. …
Human faith is a matter of something more than just utter logical reasoning, my friend. Note that people will even paint themselves into a corner to “defend” what they have built upon sand. I have seen it many times. I even felt sorry and backed off in some cases, because I began to feel that I was crushing this poor person and his entire faith was unraveling. In other words, “if what you are saying is true, than my entire faith in God is destroyed”. It throws their world upside down.

I will presume that you have experienced a faith shattering experience, something that tried your faith and trust in the Lord, whether it was a death in the family, unemployment or some other issue where you initially struggled. It is not a fun thing, and for some of these guys who build upon that one Proclamation - knowing full well that the “OSAS” crowd believes that “maybe you never had it to begin with” calls into question that first Proclamation, ironically! So much for OSAS! They claim “OSAS”, but they don’t really believe it, because then they say a person who ONCE THOUGHT he was saved is not anymore, never was. Hmmph. Maybe they are not saved, either! 🤷
… But due his theology, this sincer Evangelical has to convince him self that if you don’t have charity (love) then you don’t have the faith.
I have never heard an appropriate response to 1 Cor 13, it is the big hammer to pull out when someone gets frisky… The Scriptures clearly tell us a man can have a LOT of faith, enough to move a mountain (that’s a lot!), but is nothing without love, CERTAINLY not salvific! James says the same thing in James 2, although they screw around and make it say something it doesn’t, like “justified before man, rather than God”, lunacy, since James uses Abraham’s SOLE experience on the mountain and Genesis clearly says it is GOD who knows (that Abraham is just), not man. But like I said, the human mind has a way of insulating itself against logic when an emotional crisis is reached.

It’s called “being in denial”. :confused:
On a personal level, while his belief is not technically accurate, I let it slide. He’s a good sincer Christian, and he’s come to the right conclusion at the end of the day. Even if he explains it and beleives it incorrectly.
Oh, I’m sure he is a good Christian, sincere in his faith, but one can be very sincere and sincerely wrong…

Regards,

Fdesales
 
How many saved by God were saved by baptism in the scriptures?

Look through the book, see if you can find any…

saved

If you want to make a case, do so in my new thread…
It is pitifully insufficient to build a theology upon how often the words “baptism” and “saved” are adjacent in a Concordance…

Even you must agree that there are other words in the Scriptures that define and speak about baptism without saying “baptism”, and the same thing with “save”…

For example

*Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost * Titus 3:5

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11

Clearly, the bible tells us the Baptism performed by the Apostles brought the Holy Spirit and salvation to men…

Regards
 
It is pitifully insufficient to build a theology upon how often the words “baptism” and “saved” are adjacent in a Concordance…

Even you must agree that there are other words in the Scriptures that define and speak about baptism without saying “baptism”, and the same thing with “save”…

For example

*Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost * Titus 3:5

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11

Clearly, the bible tells us the Baptism performed by the Apostles brought the Holy Spirit and salvation to men…

Regards
Well, that’s one I guess. Can you find any more? Are there any in the old testament?
 
Well, that’s one I guess. Can you find any more? Are there any in the old testament?
First, baptism was formulative for salvation only AFTER it was made a necessary requirement. Thus, since the OT relates history BEFORE Jesus, the New Lawgiver, we shouldn’t expect to find any mention that Baptism saves in the OT

HOWEVER, there are some typologies of it found in the OT that the NT points out!!!

For example, Peter refers to the flood as a “Baptism that saves”. An interesting analogy. How did the Flood literally save anyone??? Can you explain that?

the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:20-21

Look closely at these verses. NOAH IS A FIGURE! A type. He is a type of one being saved BY WATER. Interesting. And then Peter connects that to Baptism. Water Baptism, obviously, because it is water baptism that saves, cleanses us of filth, but not filth of the flesh - but the answer of a good conscience - spiritual cleansing. Noah was not “saved by water” literally, he was saved FROM water. But Peter recognizes that Noah was a type, used by God to point to something in the future - salvific action of water being used, a work of God (as the flood was a work of God)…

Clearly, being freed from sin is the definition of salvation, since Jesus CAME to SAVE US FROM SIN… This is how we are saved. Romans 6 tells us that Baptism connects us to the saving action of Jesus Christ’s Paschal mystery, and Peter states the same thing in another way, stating that baptism cleanses us by connecting us to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Would you like another type, an event of the OT that the Apostles found pointed to baptism and that it saves???

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor 10:1-4

Again, it is hard to NOT see that Paul is talking about a type of water baptism. This time, he is refering to the Exodus, the “passing through the sea”. Water. Then, very quickly, he speaks about being baptized. All of them. And not being made wet. But speaking of spiritual meat, spiritual drink. And “this Rock was Christ”. AGAIN, Baptism and Jesus Christ is related.

Clearly, Christians were taught that God had planned the saving work of Baptism from the beginning, as Peter and Paul note types of Baptism even in the OT, and that this Baptism connected us to Jesus Christ, who Saves!!! Thus, by being baptized, we are saved because we are connected to Christ Jesus our Lord.

Regards
 
First, baptism was formulative for salvation only AFTER it was made a necessary requirement. Thus, since the OT relates history BEFORE Jesus, the New Lawgiver, we shouldn’t expect to find any mention that Baptism saves in the OT

HOWEVER, there are some typologies of it found in the OT that the NT points out!!!

For example, Peter refers to the flood as a “Baptism that saves”. An interesting analogy. How did the Flood literally save anyone??? Can you explain that?

the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:20-21

Look closely at these verses. NOAH IS A FIGURE! A type. He is a type of one being saved BY WATER. Interesting. And then Peter connects that to Baptism. Water Baptism, obviously, because it is water baptism that saves, cleanses us of filth, but not filth of the flesh - but the answer of a good conscience - spiritual cleansing. Noah was not “saved by water” literally, he was saved FROM water. But Peter recognizes that Noah was a type, used by God to point to something in the future - salvific action of water being used, a work of God (as the flood was a work of God)…

Clearly, being freed from sin is the definition of salvation, since Jesus CAME to SAVE US FROM SIN… This is how we are saved. Romans 6 tells us that Baptism connects us to the saving action of Jesus Christ’s Paschal mystery, and Peter states the same thing in another way, stating that baptism cleanses us by connecting us to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Would you like another type, an event of the OT that the Apostles found pointed to baptism and that it saves???

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor 10:1-4

Again, it is hard to NOT see that Paul is talking about a type of water baptism. This time, he is refering to the Exodus, the “passing through the sea”. Water. Then, very quickly, he speaks about being baptized. All of them. And not being made wet. But speaking of spiritual meat, spiritual drink. And “this Rock was Christ”. AGAIN, Baptism and Jesus Christ is related.

Clearly, Christians were taught that God had planned the saving work of Baptism from the beginning, as Peter and Paul note types of Baptism even in the OT, and that this Baptism connected us to Jesus Christ, who Saves!!! Thus, by being baptized, we are saved because we are connected to Christ Jesus our Lord.

Regards
“It is pitifully insufficient to build a theology upon how often the words “baptism” and “saved” are adjacent in a Concordance…”
 
“It is pitifully insufficient to build a theology upon how often the words “baptism” and “saved” are adjacent in a Concordance…”
Your original thesis stated that because water and saved are never used in close proximity to each other in Scriptures, then water does not save - even posting a link to Blue Letter’s Concordance.

Clearly I have not said all that there is to be said on the subject, unlike your “thesis”… I give two positive examples, you just wave your hand and link to the Concordance…

Don’t be upset with me because I have proven my point, my friend. Do you deny that the verses are used by the NT writers to point to typology of Baptism??? Can you explain what Peter and Paul are talking about besides water baptism?

Can you explain what Peter is speaking of when he says Noah was **saved by **the waters of the flood??? BY the waters of the flood, Peter said… Did that sink in? :newidea:

Let me repeat…

NOAH WAS SAVED BY THE WATERS OF THE FLOOD…

And then Peter continues “in like figure…” The Sacred Scriptures themselves deny your flippant flop of a claim. :o

Well, that is pretty clear, aint it??? Or are you just in total denial?

And Paul, the entire Jewish nation was baptized, as they passed through the sea.

Ah well, if you don’t get the first, I guess the second or hundreth won’t make a difference…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top