- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
I completely disagree with you:Well, there are certain words the Bible does not use, but which all Christians believe nonetheless, because although the words/phrase may not be in the Bible, the CASE those words cover are.
This is one such case.
And my claim is that this position is an inaccurate representation of the Bible’s message. It mentions that you are saved by faith WHICH RESULTS in works. The works do not have salvific value; they are the result, the fruits of saving faith. Again: The difference is subtle, but OH so important.
The problem with this view is that James isn’t the only one who has something to say on the subject. Paul does too, and we need to look at both contexts.
Now, if we lose sight of the contexts, one of two things is going to happen:
- James was speaking into a context of libertarianism: “I don’t have to do squat…it’s all about what I believe” - in essense he was talking to people who held the view that most RCs tend to believe SF is all about.
- Paul spoke into several contexts, among others into a context of legalism.
1: Either we adopt one view as an absolute (i.e “We don’t have to do anything” or “Salvation by faith and works”) and reject the other as either libertarianism or legalism.
(this is the option Christians choose)
2: We reject the Bible as self-contradictory
(the option infidels and Richard Dawkins-types choose)
Both are wrong. The answer is salvation by faith, which results in works. The faith that does not result in works is not true (=saving) faith.
If that was so simple, it wouldn’t have been debated so heavily among the patristic writers, nor amongst the later scholastics.
Faith does not result in works, necessarily, hence the reason James delineates faith and works as a means of justification and that faith without works or faith alone is dead. There is a comparison here for the purpose of instructing the audience on how important faith and works were in order to live in Christ.
The message that James was conveying was contrary to Luther’s justification of by faith alone, it was why Luther called James a strawman, and why he wished to exclude his letter from the Bible.
Code:
"You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his
faith was made **complete** by what he did."
"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by **faith alone**."As for you saying that this was debated, so what, debating does not necessarily preclude disagreement.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Very concise and well said.
Most disagreements between Protestants and Catholics is due to misunderstanding such as this. We really agree, but are talking about two different things - causing confusion and the appearance of disagreement.
Another source of tension is one group or the other suffering from moral superiority delusions.
The 3rd is genuine differences in doctrine. These could probably be counted on one hand. infallibility, prugatory and any suggestion that anyone other then God Himself (ie Jesus Christ) has a role in one’s salvation. Wow! I’ve got two fingers to spare!!!
Ginger
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
Hmmm, I don’t think you are seeing what the post you are quoting is saying.
Yes, Faith without Works IS dead. Completely and awesomely TRUE.
BUT (yes, you knew it was coming) Works do not come first, nor does it get you to where you desire to go in essence. Without the Faith your works mean nothing. To see someone in TRUE Faith you know them by their (what?) FRUIT works!.
Someone who’s fruit is rotten and spoiled is someone without TRUE Faith. We see this in a lot of places and a lot of churches, why do you think there are so many athiests and non-believers? Because their objection to TRUTH and FAITH is because their view of it is obstructed by the person who claims faith but their Works say otherwise.
On the other hand, what do you say about the person who denounces Christ fully and completely but feeds the hungry or goes to church only because their significant other asks them to? According to Christ (he who believes in Me shall not perish but have everlasting life) if you don’t have Faith you won’t get in.
Our Faith is indicated by our Works. No Works = No Faith.
O
orange_man
Guest
I haven’t even read the OP … but I’m sure it’s another Catholic attack on Luther. As if by saying Luther was an imperfect sinner you think you’re scoring points on God’s scale of human depravity? Just another exercise in missing the point … but of course that’s the age old story of the church at Rome? Oh well 
Yes Luther was a sinner … let’s scream it from the rooftops; but see Luther wouldn’t be intimidated by these scare tactics. He knew he was a sinner & never claimed to be otherwise. He understood he was just as much part of depraved humanity as everyone else here. He got angry, said things in poor taste (sometimes even horrible things, just as many saints like John Chrysostom did), and God only knows I’m sure he sinned in plenty of other ways throughout his life. Great … so have I & so has everyone else here?
So what’s your point? Now what do you have to enlighten us? Does the OP think any protestant runs around believing Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any of the great reformers were perfect? Sad …
Yes Luther was a sinner … let’s scream it from the rooftops; but see Luther wouldn’t be intimidated by these scare tactics. He knew he was a sinner & never claimed to be otherwise. He understood he was just as much part of depraved humanity as everyone else here. He got angry, said things in poor taste (sometimes even horrible things, just as many saints like John Chrysostom did), and God only knows I’m sure he sinned in plenty of other ways throughout his life. Great … so have I & so has everyone else here?
So what’s your point? Now what do you have to enlighten us? Does the OP think any protestant runs around believing Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any of the great reformers were perfect? Sad …
J
josie_L
Guest
When did I mention works before faith, please go read my first post to LutheranDK, concerning faith and works. Then read my following post to see what I said in rebuttal to his response.
James is trying to tell his audience that faith alone (acceptance of Jesus as Christ) cannot save or justify you but faith and works does. He makes no qualifier in that the faith he is refering to is a living/true or saving faith. He just states faith (as in belief). You need to read James in order to see what I am refering to.
As Catholics we believe in faith working in love. We define justification by faith and works.
J
josie_L
Guest
He wasn’t just a sinner but a hateful man, he allowed many to be killed (indirectly or directly), can you say the same of St. John Chrysostom.I haven’t even read the OP … but I’m sure it’s another Catholic attack on Luther. As if by saying Luther was an imperfect sinner you think you’re scoring points on God’s scale of human depravity? Just another exercise in missing the point … but of course that’s the age old story of the church at Rome? Oh well
Yes Luther was a sinner … let’s scream it from the rooftops; but see Luther wouldn’t be intimidated by these scare tactics. He knew he was a sinner & never claimed to be otherwise. He understood he was just as much part of depraved humanity as everyone else here. He got angry, said things in poor taste (sometimes even horrible things, just as many saints like John Chrysostom did), and God only knows I’m sure he sinned in plenty of other ways throughout his life. Great … so have I & so has everyone else here?
So what’s your point? Now what do you have to enlighten us? Does the OP think any protestant runs around believing Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any of the great reformers were perfect? Sad …
I
ICA04
Guest
You miss it and keep missing it. Are you avoiding it?
R
reteeks21
Guest
How about Melito of Sardis? He proclaimed the idea that Jews killed Christ, and no one can deny that that thought is still not prevelant.
How about Catholic crusaders who murdered and then expelled Jews?
How about the burning of Jews by Catholics in 1348 because they were accused of starting the plague?
How about during the times of the Papal States Jews were forced to live in ghettos?
What about pogroms initiated by Polish priests AFTER Jews returned to Poland AFTER the Holocaust? Jews who survived them attest to the fact.
Does this mean that the Church as a whole are responsible for these actions? Absolutely not! The same goes for Christians who are not Catholic. People need to stop pointing out the sins of Protestants and not admitting to the sins of Catholics. There is plenty of blame to go around. But honestly, it’s time for fingers to quit being pointed. It’s been done enough on here.
K
kalt
Guest
From what I’ve read about Luther, his being a sinner was part of his problem. He seemed, as a monk, to be overly scrupulous. The people around him tried to tell him to relax a little.I haven’t even read the OP … but I’m sure it’s another Catholic attack on Luther. As if by saying Luther was an imperfect sinner you think you’re scoring points on God’s scale of human depravity? Just another exercise in missing the point … but of course that’s the age old story of the church at Rome? Oh well
Yes Luther was a sinner … let’s scream it from the rooftops; but see Luther wouldn’t be intimidated by these scare tactics. He knew he was a sinner & never claimed to be otherwise. He understood he was just as much part of depraved humanity as everyone else here. He got angry, said things in poor taste (sometimes even horrible things, just as many saints like John Chrysostom did), and God only knows I’m sure he sinned in plenty of other ways throughout his life. Great … so have I & so has everyone else here?
So what’s your point? Now what do you have to enlighten us? Does the OP think any protestant runs around believing Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any of the great reformers were perfect? Sad …
I’m not sure who your post is direct to, but I’ll take a shot at answering.
The point isn’t that a particular Lutheran was a sinner, it’s that the founder of the new Christian religion was imperfect. This imperfect person changed the Bible and doctrine. Actually, he changed the Bible to match his new doctrine.
That’s the point. The Catholic Church wasn’t founded by a sinner. It was founded by Jesus. The Church doesn’t claim that it wrote the Bible. Men, inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the books. It was codified with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
How does a man make himself God-like and dismantle the Bible and change doctrines?
The CC depends on the infallibility of the Pope, which doesn’t say that the pope is a perfect person, but that the pope will be preserved from error when speaking from the chair. This is not dependant on the goodness or intelligence of the man. It is dependant on God.
Do Lutheran’s believe that Luther’s statements and decisions regarding the faith were infallible?
K
kalt
Guest
I think we’re still missing the point here. We’re comparing Luther to other Christian leaders. Luther wasn’t just a leader like a priest or bishop. He formed his own Christian religion. He changed the Bible to fit his own, new doctrine.
It’s obvious that Luther was a sinner–all men are. That he was worse than most is also obvious. But it’s not really that important.
Luther founded a new Christian religion. Were his pronouncements spoken infallibly? Were the changed to the Bible guided by the Holy Spirit? Or were these things the outcome of the musings of a very sinful, mentally distressed human being who was saw abuses in his church and rebelled against her.
Are these changes the work of God, or are they the acts of angry rebellion and an ego run amuk? Was this a response to the Holy Spirit, or was it one desperate man’s way of dealing with his own tortured mind?
As I said before, Luther was a very intelligent man, and he was right about the abuses the bishops were inflicting on vulnerable church members. He was a thinker, no doubt. But is that enough to form a new Christian religion? He, no matter how intelligent he was, is not perfect. How is he able to change doctrine and gut the OT to suit his own interpretation of certain parts of the NT? And he wanted to excise parts of the NT, too!
Luther cut parts of the Bible out of the Canon and kept others. That means that Lutherans are using the canon of Luther and that they believe he, a sinning man, is able to determine canon on his own. Catholics don’t believe that even the popes have that ability.
But, you see, he, as founder of his own new Christian religion (as Jesus was the founder of the Catholic Church), he believed he could do that.
If not Luther, then on what authority do Lutherans say their church and Bible were formed? If you believe it was under the Holy Spirits authority, are you claiming infalbility for Luther when he was speaking on faith and morals? If not, then how do you know that what he said is, in fact, correct?
K
kalt
Guest
Were any of these things done by the founder of the Catholic Church?
The point is that Luther founded a new Christian religion, changing the Bible and doctrine.
If you want to stop pointing fingers, stop pointing fingers. You named 5 separate Catholic falings in the post you’re asking others to put their fingers down.
O
Ockham
Guest
Congratulations on the 1000 posts. I’m new here and still formulating viewpoints. If you don’t mind sharing, what motivated you to swim across the Elbe and not the Tiber? Where did you start from?Well, some of my friends call me “Crypto-Catholic”, but I swam the Elbe in 2003 and I’m not a good enough swimmer to want to try another river
G
Ginger2
Guest
**
First:**
The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras):
It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).
Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.
NOTE: Josephus wrote twenty years before Jamnia He had actually temple scrolls in his possession.
Josephus’ canon was the same canon as the Protestant Bible (some books were together counting as one )
Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian’s statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful."* and* “St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament …”
Second:
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
The Protestant canon has always been received without dispute
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,” [/COLOR]
The Catholic Church admits the Apocrypha were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed. “These consist of seven disputed books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.”
Third:
Jerome denied the deuteros were insired, “As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.
Before you say that is just one man’s opinion, remember that the Pope allowed Jerome to deny these books in the text of the Vulgate.
Ginger
O
Ockham
Guest
Wise words. We are necessarily sinners otherwise we’d be God. God created the Church for us obviously knowing we’d commit sins with it. That’s why he left us the sacraments. In Baptism, Confession, Last Rites we seek God’s forgiveness. In the Eucharist we receive Him as requested. If the institution and members were to be sinless, we wouldn’t need these graces. Of course this is no license to sin as we are called to live as much without it as possible.
During Lent we are called to increase our prayer and resistence to sin. It is a time of inner reflection and spiritual growth. If you can find a proper Stations Of The Cross then I’d recommend attending one of these Friday evenings. To experience Christ’s Passion for our sins in this way is truly humbling. He loved us so much He died for our sins.
R
reteeks21
Guest
Even wiser words. Thank you for the insight and a nice lesson learned.
R
Rainman2
Guest
James 2:14-18
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. (This states “demonstrate my faith to you from my works”, not as a result of my works.)
R
Rainman2
Guest
Yes, but you and everyone else did not start their own religion.I haven’t even read the OP … but I’m sure it’s another Catholic attack on Luther. As if by saying Luther was an imperfect sinner you think you’re scoring points on God’s scale of human depravity? Just another exercise in missing the point … but of course that’s the age old story of the church at Rome? Oh well
Yes Luther was a sinner … let’s scream it from the rooftops; but see Luther wouldn’t be intimidated by these scare tactics. He knew he was a sinner & never claimed to be otherwise. He understood he was just as much part of depraved humanity as everyone else here. He got angry, said things in poor taste (sometimes even horrible things, just as many saints like John Chrysostom did), and God only knows I’m sure he sinned in plenty of other ways throughout his life. Great … so have I & so has everyone else here?
So what’s your point? Now what do you have to enlighten us? Does the OP think any protestant runs around believing Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any of the great reformers were perfect? Sad …
R
Rainman2
Guest
I am pretty new at this and am not totally familiar with a lot of the history. But I would guess that your claims above were possibly commited by Catholics, but not condoned by the Catholic Church.
O
Ockham
Guest
Everyone’s Way Of The Cross
Clarence Enzler
avemariapress.com/itemdetail.cfm?nItemid=439
Station 12: Jesus Dies
Christ Speaks:
The cross becomes a pulpit now -
“Forgive them, Father…
You will be with Me in Paradise…
There is your mother…There…your son…
I thirst…
It is complete.”
To speak I have to raise Myself
by pressing on My wrists and feet,
and every move engulfs Me in new
waves of agony.
And then, when I have borne enough,
have emptied my humanity,
I let My mortal life depart.
I reply:
My Jesus,
God,
what can I say or do?
I offer you my death
with all its pains,
accepting now
the time and kind of death in store for me.
Not by a single instant
would I lengthen my life’s span.
I offer you my death
for my own sins
and for those of all humanity
My God! My God! Foresake us not.
We know not what we do.
Clarence Enzler
avemariapress.com/itemdetail.cfm?nItemid=439
Station 12: Jesus Dies
Christ Speaks:
The cross becomes a pulpit now -
“Forgive them, Father…
You will be with Me in Paradise…
There is your mother…There…your son…
I thirst…
It is complete.”
To speak I have to raise Myself
by pressing on My wrists and feet,
and every move engulfs Me in new
waves of agony.
And then, when I have borne enough,
have emptied my humanity,
I let My mortal life depart.
I reply:
My Jesus,
God,
what can I say or do?
I offer you my death
with all its pains,
accepting now
the time and kind of death in store for me.
Not by a single instant
would I lengthen my life’s span.
I offer you my death
for my own sins
and for those of all humanity
My God! My God! Foresake us not.
We know not what we do.
- Status