Sola Fide in scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Milasol
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
re Cath. idea of Prot ‘Faith’

I am Prot. and I will say that I was taught that initial salvation of the adult, and their commitment to God occurs, by grace thru faith, Ephesians2:8 and 9

;‘for by grace are you saved, through faith, and it is not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.’

This verse is understood by P’s like me, to mean that the initial salvation is by God’s grace thru faith, and not of works.*(this could be compared to the judicial pronouncement of righteous on Abraham, while he did nothing to receive this, it was a gift.) This gifting is what we believe our initial salvation, new birth is, completely unearned by us, completely a gift by God, and further the bible says we cannot earn it by working for it. (ie all works are filthy rags comparatively)

However, I have always understood that there was the verse that said, ‘God has prepared in advance, works for us to do.’ and also,all the instructions in the bible should be kept and when you violate one, you need to ask forgivenss.for.

I remember hearing that the sins of the born again, that are forgiven, will not show up at the judgement day, and that the new birth sons, who are right with God will be judged on what they did for Christ, etc. not on their sins forgiven.

This is diff. than the scripture that was shown me about the judgement and people receiveing for the good and bad they did while in the body, but is this the saved people? or the non saved people?
I thought we appeared only at the Bema seat, and the non saved people at another seat?

This seems same to what you C’s are saying re faith and works,…although C. belief may include works for the initial salvation and new birth, but this can’t be either because most C’s are babies at that time.

Also some P’s believe “they cannot be plucked out of God’s hand” ever, meaning they cannot be lost, once salvation begins,…although there are scripture saying diff. than this,…
they say that once they are a son, they remain a son, related to the Father, and nothing will change this,…

There are scriptures I have seen disagreeing wth this idea,…

What I was taught is that you can lose, after initial salvation,…if you don’t grow and follow
and obey,…if you don’t confess your sins for forgiveness, and several other scriptures apply too,…
 
BeingSaved said:
What I was taught is that you can lose, after initial salvation,…if you don’t grow and follow
and obey,…if you don’t confess your sins for forgiveness, and several other scriptures apply too,…
Click to expand...
yes that’s what Catholics believe too, however we can lose that grace and it takes works to maintain the gift and grow in it.

Baptism for Catholics is how original sin is erased and we enter as people of God. We decide all through our lives to be “born again” as you put it.

I forgot about this one that for me is the most telling…Mathew 25 31-46

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations* will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?

When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’

He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

l And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I really don’t see how protestants can reconcile this with “Once saved, always saved” – now I know that not all protestants believe on this concept, but most do.
So I don’t really understand how they can misinterpret Jesus so much.
 
Milasol said:
yes that’s what Catholics believe too, however we can lose that grace and it takes works to maintain the gift and grow in it.

Baptism for Catholics is how original sin is erased and we enter as people of God. We decide all through our lives to be “born again” as you put it.

I forgot about this one that for me is the most telling…Mathew 25 31-46

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations* will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?

When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’

He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

l And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I really don’t see how protestants can reconcile this with “Once saved, always saved” – now I know that not all protestants believe on this concept, but most do.
So I don’t really understand how they can misinterpret Jesus so much.
Click to expand...
Notice that all the people in this passage are acknowledging Jesus as “Lord”. As such, it appears to me, anyway, that they are ALL people who claim to be followers of Jesus. In fact, they all get the vertical part of the cross (a Christian’s personal relationship with Christ), but the people on the left have ignored the horizontal part of the cross (a Christian’s duties toward all created in God’s image). The problem with much Evangelical Protestant theology is that it emphasizes only the vertical part of the cross while neglecting the horizontal. Of course, on the other hand, the Salvation Army is the exact opposite - they emphasize the horizontal part of the cross while neglecting the vertical - so much so that most Americans have no clue that the Salvation Army is actually a religion that considers itself Christian but has eliminated all sacraments, including baptism. Both faithfulness to the vertical and horizontal parts of the cross are necessary if we are to truly be Jesus’s disciples.
 
powerofk said:
Notice that all the people in this passage are acknowledging Jesus as “Lord”. As such, it appears to me, anyway, that they are ALL people who claim to be followers of Jesus. In fact, they all get the vertical part of the cross (a Christian’s personal relationship with Christ), but the people on the left have ignored the horizontal part of the cross (a Christian’s duties toward all created in God’s image). The problem with much Evangelical Protestant theology is that it emphasizes only the vertical part of the cross while neglecting the horizontal. Of course, on the other hand, the Salvation Army is the exact opposite - they emphasize the horizontal part of the cross while neglecting the vertical - so much so that most Americans have no clue that the Salvation Army is actually a religion that considers itself Christian but has eliminated all sacraments, including baptism. Both faithfulness to the vertical and horizontal parts of the cross are necessary if we are to truly be Jesus’s disciples.
Click to expand...
Yes you are absolutely right they were all Christians.
Very good analogy about the cross. It remains me of “bearing the cross” not just one pillar but both.
 
Milasol said:
I really don’t see how protestants can reconcile this with “Once saved, always saved” – now I know that not all protestants believe on this concept, but most do.
So I don’t really understand how they can misinterpret Jesus so much.
Click to expand...
Well, in actuality, osas comes from scripture and supporting scripture that actually says it.
There is a ton of it. However,…as I was saying to someone else,…all the scripture on a topic has to looked at and then concluded on.

There is scripture that says that once you are a son, you are a son forever, and that nothing can take you out of God’s hand,…etc…

There is the understanding of the teaching of Jesus about lawful things,…Jesus was living as the son of Mary on the earth under the old covenant himself and everything he said was in line with that. There was no new covenant, no cross, no blood shed,…no spiritual birth of a new creation.

Jesus taught the kingdom of God, which the Jews knew about, too.

Jesus was under the law himself, and everything he taught was in keeping with the law.
After the cross,.
Paul writes that we are no longer under the law,…that the law was nailed the cross of Jesus, and that Jesus became the curse for us so that we could become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
 
BeingSaved said:
Paul writes that we are no longer under the law,…that the law was nailed the cross of Jesus, and that Jesus became the curse for us so that we could become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...
Remember Paul was not referring to the laws in the New Testament as we know it today. He was talking to Jews who have just converted and he was specifically talking about the old Jewish laws, however that does not by any means erase what Jesus said in almost half the bible including Mathew.

Paul was referring to the old Jewish laws, not what Jesus said. That of course still stands.

As to taking things out of context, well that is a specialty that some do.

One can’t say that all sins are forgiven in advanced when it is not scriptural. One can’t say that saving one self is a one time ordeal when half the scriptures contradict that. So it is both. He saved us and we must act with grace in order to be saved. That actually supports both sides and is supported by all scripture and not just some.
 
BeingSaved said:
re Cath. idea of Prot ‘Faith’

I am Prot. and I will say that I was taught that initial salvation of the adult, and their commitment to God occurs, by grace thru faith, Ephesians2:8 and 9
Click to expand...
That’s a point of agreement between Protestants and Catholics.
This verse is understood by P’s like me, to mean that the initial salvation is by God’s grace thru faith, and not of works.*(this could be compared to the judicial pronouncement of righteous on Abraham, while he did nothing to receive this, it was a gift.) This gifting is what we believe our initial salvation, new birth is, completely unearned by us, completely a gift by God, and further the bible says we cannot earn it by working for it. (ie all works are filthy rags comparatively)
Click to expand...
This is all affirmed by the Council of Trent. You can’t earn the “first grace.”
However, I have always understood that there was the verse that said, ‘God has prepared in advance, works for us to do.’ and also,all the instructions in the bible should be kept and when you violate one, you need to ask forgivenss.for.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
I remember hearing that the sins of the born again, that are forgiven, will not show up at the judgement day, and that the new birth sons, who are right with God will be judged on what they did for Christ, etc. not on their sins forgiven.
Click to expand...
In the Catholic understanding, sins that have been repented of will not show up at the judgment day. (This applies to “mortal” or serious sins. Catholics agree with many Protestants that we sin all the time in the sense that we fall short of God’s perfect law, but these “venial” sins don’t break our relationship with God and are forgiven without our needing to repent of each of them specifically.)
This is diff. than the scripture that was shown me about the judgement and people receiveing for the good and bad they did while in the body, but is this the saved people? or the non saved people?
I thought we appeared only at the Bema seat, and the non saved people at another seat?
Click to expand...
That is how some Protestants get around the passage to which you refer. “Bema” is a Greek word meaning a seat, here specifically the seat the judge sits on. Some Protestants, especially dispensationalists, think that the “bema” mentioned by Paul is different from the “Great White Throne” mentioned in Revelation, but I see no reason to make that distinction.
This seems same to what you C’s are saying re faith and works,…although C. belief may include works for the initial salvation and new birth
Click to expand...
No. Absolutely not, except in the sense that by “prevenient grace” a person who is not yet born again (or who has fallen into serious sin and has not yet repented) may start to move toward God.
Also some P’s believe “they cannot be plucked out of God’s hand” ever, meaning they cannot be lost, once salvation begins,…although there are scripture saying diff. than this,…
they say that once they are a son, they remain a son, related to the Father, and nothing will change this,…
Click to expand...
There are scriptures I have seen disagreeing wth this idea,…
Click to expand...
What I was taught is that you can lose, after initial salvation,…if you don’t grow and follow
and obey,…if you don’t confess your sins for forgiveness, and several other scriptures apply too,…
Click to expand...
Right. That’s the same as the Catholic position–“eternal security” contradicts Catholic theology.

What kind of Protestant background do you come from? Mine is Wesleyan Holiness (and more or less fits what you’ve been describing as your teaching).

Edwin
 
Milasol said:
Remember Paul was not referring to the laws in the New Testament as we know it today. He was talking to Jews who have just converted and he was specifically talking about the old Jewish laws, however that does not by any means erase what Jesus said in almost half the bible including Mathew.

Paul was referring to the old Jewish laws, not what Jesus said. That of course still stands.

As to taking things out of context, well that is a specialty that some do.

One can’t say that all sins are forgiven in advanced when it is not scriptural. One can’t say that saving one self is a one time ordeal when half the scriptures contradict that. So it is both. He saved us and we must act with grace in order to be saved. That actually supports both sides and is supported by all scripture and not just some.
Click to expand...
the ten commandments were old testament, and were included in ‘the law’. yes, 1) saved by faith,…then 2) more and more of us becomes redeemed, or sanctified, as we obey and follow his path
 
BeingSaved said:
the ten commandments were old testament, and we included in ‘the law’.
Click to expand...
Yes as Jesus validates those at the sermon of the Mount. He is talking about the other 600 commands of the Talmud and not the 10 commandments.
 
Milasol said:
Yes as Jesus validates those at the sermon of the Mount. He is talking about the other 600 commands of the Talmud and not the 10 commandments.
Click to expand...
the ten were part of the law ,received at Sinai, they are part of our laws even today…?

the law of moses was the 10 plus -moses received it
 
Contarini said:
Right. That’s the same as the Catholic position–“eternal security” contradicts Catholic theology.

What kind of Protestant background do you come from? Mine is Wesleyan Holiness (and more or less fits what you’ve been describing as your teaching).

Edwin
Click to expand...
evangelical brethren background

I want to go a bit further on ‘salvation’ and declared righteous. salvation puts us with the
Lord and only our walking away from him takes us away from this place. Walking away may include failing to follow the how to’s in nt.
 
“if you die in grace” isn’t that leaving most of it up to chance if you just hadn’t sinned that day
I think father would give us more security than that surely
there must be something missing in that

surely we must have unlimited grace since its Gods
 
BeingSaved said:
“if you die in grace” isn’t that leaving most of it up to chance if you just hadn’t sinned that day
I think father would give us more security than that surely
there must be something missing in that

surely we must have unlimited grace since its Gods
Click to expand...
When you say “evangelical brethren” do you mean UB (as in Huntington University, where I taught for some years) or one of the “Dunker” Brethren denominations (Church of the Brethren, Brethren in Christ, etc.)?

You have put your finger on a possible point of difference. Many evangelical Protestants who don’t believe in eternal security seem to hold something much like the “fundamental option” theory some Catholic theologians proposed a few decades ago, which was censured by the Vatican. According to this theory, no individual act of sin can break your relationship with God as long as your “fundamental option” is for God. (As far as I can see, this was basically Luther’s view–if you go on sinning you will stop believing, but it’s possible to commit individual sinful acts and still believe.) The Catholic Church rejects this because it takes the implications of individual acts very seriously. (I was also taught to think that certain individual acts could break my relationship with God.)

You’re right, though, that often in practice this seems to lead to a kind of “on-again, off-again” view of being in a state of grace, and I think evangelical Protestants are rightly concerned about that, having a more holistic understanding of the relationship between faith and love (i.e., if you have true faith you will have love and do good works). However, Catholics don’t think that sinning is “random.” To break your relationship with God you have to sin seriously and deliberately, knowing that what you do is wrong. Also, God isn’t just sitting back to see how you end up–God’s grace is actively involved in your life at all points, and indeed you wouldn’t exist if God weren’t moving in you at every moment. So I don’t think the Catholic view is as depressing as you are making it sound, or as some legalistic ways of explaining Catholic doctrine have made it. One can trust in God’s mercy, that God wants to save you and won’t get you “on a technicality.”

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
When you say “evangelical brethren” do you mean UB (as in Huntington University, where I taught for some years) or one of the “Dunker” Brethren denominations (Church of the Brethren, Brethren in Christ, etc.)?

You have put your finger on a possible point of difference. Many evangelical Protestants who don’t believe in eternal security seem to hold something much like the “fundamental option” theory some Catholic theologians proposed a few decades ago, which was censured by the Vatican. According to this theory, no individual act of sin can break your relationship with God as long as your “fundamental option” is for God. (As far as I can see, this was basically Luther’s view–if you go on sinning you will stop believing, but it’s possible to commit individual sinful acts and still believe.) The Catholic Church rejects this because it takes the implications of individual acts very seriously. (I was also taught to think that certain individual acts could break my relationship with God.)

You’re right, though, that often in practice this seems to lead to a kind of “on-again, off-again” view of being in a state of grace, and I think evangelical Protestants are rightly concerned about that, having a more holistic understanding of the relationship between faith and love (i.e., if you have true faith you will have love and do good works). However, Catholics don’t think that sinning is “random.” To break your relationship with God you have to sin seriously and deliberately, knowing that what you do is wrong. Also, God isn’t just sitting back to see how you end up–God’s grace is actively involved in your life at all points, and indeed you wouldn’t exist if God weren’t moving in you at every moment. So I don’t think the Catholic view is as depressing as you are making it sound, or as some legalistic ways of explaining Catholic doctrine have made it. One can trust in God’s mercy, that God wants to save you and won’t get you “on a technicality.”

Edwin
Click to expand...
infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/evangelical-united-brethren-church.html
 
hi, I tried to answer this but didn’t save it and I timed out twice…where is saving button,?
the preview one?
 
answer re eub, my historical church amalgamated with a diff. church than the one in the
web quote I gave you,…

Faith and Works,

I am still trying to get a clear pic of the diff. between P and C in works and faith.

I understand P in how it applies to me, from the parts of Paul about Abraham and faith, Abe received righteousness because he believed God, not from any works he did.
God legally declared him to be righteous because he believed God.

This is how I understand the declaration of God over me too, according to Paul, Paul uses Abe as our example, Abe had no law. He was outside the law, and I understand Paul to put us there too, outside the law

BUT!!! ONLY AFTER THE CROSS!!! BEFORE THE CROSS, EVEN IN JESUS’ TEACHING, JESUS WAS TEACHING THE JEWS STILL ALL, INCLUDING JESUS, UNDER THE LAW. JESUS HEAPED UP THE IMPOSSIBILITES OF THE LAW, AND SHOWED THEM HOW HIGH THEY HAD TO JUMP TO GET THERE,…

THE LAW’S PURPOSE WAS TO BRING US TO CHRIST.

Once we are in Christ, at our going down into the water of baptism,…we die to our old husband the law, making ourselves unavailable to him through our death, dying with Jesus in baptism,…mr . law is informed,…then suddenly we come alive through resurrection with jesus, up out of the water,…into new life, and we are free to ‘marry another’ who is jesus and we become mrs jesus Christ.

paul writes we can have no further intercourse with the law, ((!!) better not, because if we do, we break our covenant of marriage with Jesus!
with Jesus we are ‘outside of the law, meaning outside of his reach, he cannot touch us anymore, nor carry on anymore with us’ we are “dead” to him.

too bad, and sooo sad for him too:(

now, did the law change?
nope.
well what changed then?

we did.
our relationship to the law changed,

this is from Paul, not from me,…
he writes this,…
we died with jesus in our baptism, putting us out of mr. law’s reach, so he cannot have access to us any longer.
now,
this also means that the law cannot hurt us, or continue as he once was with us,…

instead we have a new relationship with Jesus, and what Jesus says and interacts with us, is what goes,…

Did what JEsus say before the cross, as far as laws go, apply to us on the other side,…
.
(this is now me,…and my ideas)

The NT or new covenant didn’t start at the beginning of Mathew MArk luke and john where the publishers put the page saying NT.

The New covenant started after the resurrection of Jesus, post CROSS.

so, things jesus said before the resurrection, have to be studied to know if they are FOR
us in the new covenant, OR IF THEY APPLY TO THE JEWS UNDER THE LAW, WHCIH IS WHERE JESUS WAS, HE WAS OBEDIENT TO THE LAW, AND TAUGHT THE PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THEIR TRUTHS,…
THIS WAS MISSION NUMBER ONE, HE HAD, SENT TO THE JEWS,…BEFORE HIS SACRIFICIAL DEATH FOR SINS,…"I AM SENT TO THE LOST HOUSE OF ISRAEL.’

so,…summing up
Paul did write that we are ‘righteous by faith’, and ‘saved by faith’, but he did also say,
‘should be just go on sinning then,’ God forbid, he said.

and the nt is full of instructions of how to live as a Christian and what God wants,…etc.
however,…
this is where
grace shows,
in that the law does not have the power over us, as before our baptism into Jesus,…

when we become mrs jesus Christ, the law’s power to hurt us is broken,and he can no longer carry on toward us as he previously did, (esp no more intercourse! ) joke,…mine,…hee
 
So then, how is this worked out in day to day living,…?

My ideas of the CC way, is that they may be actually trying to work their way to God,…
by living under a very stringent and hard on your conscience and fear based approach to
sin, when our life with God is supposed to be wonderful and divine and full of love and joy,…

but this doesn’t seem like what my Cc friend is like, in that he was very sure
to tell me re confession how important the love of God and my love for him was,…

love seemed to be the defining point, and also I found out that love was the motivation
behind him talking with me, which seemed to be real love, not ‘working for God’. I did feel that he actually loved me.(not romance)

there are some pages on this board I have read where love POURS from them,on the prayer section,…like a river of love pouring out of people, so,…this
might mean that Cs are a mixed bag, just like us P’s,…and that everyone is at a diff. place with a diff. understanding…

Anyway, getting back to Abe, Paul, the law and grace,…
so the law lost me,…
further paul writes that the law is nailed to the cross of Jesus,…(I think it includes moses’ law, the 10 )jews agree the 10 are the law.they say it,…

so, following along this argument, where does that bring us, free to sin, - no
free from the law, apparently yes,…
who replaced the law with us, Jesus,
He as our husband, to be good wives, we now obey Him.
We must find out what He says and do that.
We also must understand that Jesus Himself went away,
SO THAT
Another would come In His place,.
The Spirit,…
of Truth,
He will guide, comfort, inform,
bring us,…to become
Jesus’ perfect spouse.

correct? from bible truth?
 
Milasol said:
Yes as Jesus validates those at the sermon of the Mount. He is talking about the other 600 commands of the Talmud and not the 10 commandments.
Click to expand...
can you give quote for how sermon on mount validates the 10?

also, recall, that the new covenant was NOT IN OPERATION at the sermon on the mount.

The NEW COV. GOES INTO OPERATION ONLY POST CROSS AND POST RESURRECTION.

The bible publishers were WRONG in where they stuck the page with the New Testament
in it,. New Testament starts AFTER CROSS, After Jesus took his blood in to the holy of holies in the temple there., it says. Jesus said to mary don’t touch me, because I have not ascended to my faither yet.
 
The apostle Paul said, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rom. 2:13). But then Paul said, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:” (Rom. 3:20).

no wonder understanding this all can be diffic.:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top