Sola Fides

[Eden]

(Cont’d)

Finally, I think I should end with this:

Matthew 7:21. “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” [Jesus speaking]

We must not only accept that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, we must do the will of God, as Jesus says above, and persevere to the end, as the other verses attest to. We can lose our salvation, and people do lose their salvation. (source Deo Omnis Gloria)
Source: deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000400.html

 

[Eden]

First, we all agree (or most of us) that Scripture is divinely inspired by God and that Scripture is very accurate. We can see in numerous passages where Scripture analyzes itself in very detailed form (ex. Galations 3:16). Scripture isn’t just accurate, it is perfect in teaching faith and morals. So, we must assume that Scripture would be just as accurate on the most important question, namely “How can I be saved?”

From there let’s look at Paul, the writer of Romans. Paul was by far the most educated of the apostles and keenly aware of the Old Testament and the Truth that Jesus taught. Interestingly enough, Paul used the Greek word for “alone” more than any other New Testament writer. He used it repeatedly throughout his writings. So we can agree that he understood the word “alone” well – he was no scholarly slouch. In addition, Paul used the various versions of the word “faith” over 200 times in his epistles. Again, he knew the word well, as did the Holy Spirit who was directing Paul’s epistles.

So, if Paul was teaching that we are saved by faith alone, how come he never used the two words in conjunction? It’s a simple question, Paul is usually straightforward, so why didn’t he just say, “We are saved by faith alone?” In fact, the only time in the New Testament that the words faith and alone are used together is in James:

James 2:24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Again, Scripture is divinely inspired, so why did God only inspire the words faith and alone to be used together once and condemned in the Bible? I can only think of one reason: we are not saved by faith alone.

Source: deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000119.html

 

[Pastor_Robert]

Again it staggers me how blind you seem to be regarding the true nature of saving faith and its fruit. You can quote long chapters of scripture but you do not understand them.

True saving faith produces a life of obedience in a sinner. Historical Reformed theology has always taught this but alas you do not seem to either realize this or understand it.

Grace brings a person who was dead in sin to life, it does not then depart in the future and leave them to eternal death. Ephesians 2 is clear on this.

I am glad that the glorious grace of God is all powerful and does complete what it begins, not against a person’s will nor apart from it but by renewing it.

I would a terrible thing to think that I’m saved today but might be lost tomorrow.

The bible is clear - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever. The book of Hebrews is written to warn professing Christians not to turn back from the way that leads to heaven. It does emphasise perseverance but that does not contradict the security of a believer in Christ nor imply you can be saved and lost.

All who are truly saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone will persevere in faith unto the end and enter glory, hallelujah what a great salvation…

Oh that the Lord would open your eyes to see it…

 

[LtTony]

*"Again it staggers me how blind you seem to be regarding the true nature of saving faith and its fruit. You can quote long chapters of scripture but you do not understand them.

True saving faith produces a life of obedience in a sinner. Historical Reformed theology has always taught this but alas you do not seem to either realize this or understand it."*

I’m probably in over my head in this thread, but I have to ask the question… because it is a fundamental one that has always perplexed me: Are you saying that if a person accepts Jesus as their personal savior, publically confesses, is baptised as a young adult, but as they age fall into a life of sin (one that includes, say, an abortion) that they will not enter heaven because they were never really saved anyway?
Is this same person saved if they confess to God their sins?
Are you saying that a “saved” person would not sin? Or sin to an extent that would separate them from God?

Thanks,
Jim

 

[dennisknapp]

Pastor Robert:

Again it staggers me how blind you seem to be regarding the true nature of saving faith and its fruit. You can quote long chapters of scripture but you do not understand them.

True saving faith produces a life of obedience in a sinner. Historical Reformed theology has always taught this but alas you do not seem to either realize this or understand it.

Grace brings a person who was dead in sin to life, it does not then depart in the future and leave them to eternal death. Ephesians 2 is clear on this.

I am glad that the glorious grace of God is all powerful and does complete what it begins, not against a person’s will nor apart from it but by renewing it.

I would a terrible thing to think that I’m saved today but might be lost tomorrow.

The bible is clear - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever. The book of Hebrews is written to warn professing Christians not to turn back from the way that leads to heaven. It does emphasise perseverance but that does not contradict the security of a believer in Christ nor imply you can be saved and lost.

All who are truly saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone will persevere in faith unto the end and enter glory, hallelujah what a great salvation…

Oh that the Lord would open your eyes to see it…

We have no problem with the Lord’s faithfulness, just yours, mine, and every other human being with freewill out there.

God is always faithful, but we are not.

Of course, as someone who used to be Reformed I understand that you deny freewill and think that, as the elect, you are predestined to be saved, and therefore will never fall away.

All I can say is that Scripture and Christian history stand against you.

Peace

 

[Magicsilence]

If i may, i think there is a fundamental misunderstanding amongst protestants.

My own belief, as a catholic, encompasses the protestant terminology, but, it is only your sayings, not your actions it follows.(just keep reading)

If someone is saved, through whatever means, they are saved because they are in a state of grace, and have faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. Any good works, or actions, that follow, are the Holy Spirit working in us. It is God showing his glory through us. Therefore, those who are truly saved and have true faith, will have the Spirit of God in them, doing good and emenating love.

It is impossible to have true faith and not strive for perfection through imitation of Jesus Christ. Most Christians (imo) do not know Jesus Christ, for to truly know Christ would result in utter dedication to our Lord. Much as the apostles were willing to drop everything for Jesus, so must someone with true faith who will be saved. To be saved, should be once saved always saved, providing you dont reject God. But this does not mean God removes our free will once we have been saved, we still have the choice to turn away (Judas) and follow evil. Even one of the closest people in Jesus’ life betrayed him. Do you think that Judas is saved? We cannot answer that question. But to follow a life of sin and misery and then proclaim that we are saved through the death of Jesus Christ is nonsense. If one truly has faith in Jesus Christ, not belief, they are saved.

My feeling is the Protestant view should be termed as

“To believe in Jesus Christ is all that needs doing for salvation.”

This is in contrast to catholics who stipulate the requirement of faith for salvation. The term belief is weak and does not show that a person really has faith. Belief is the state of mind without actions, the prerequisite to faith.

Let me pose a question Pastor, if belief in Jesus Christ is all that is needed, tell me, do the devils of this world “believe” in Jesus Christ? They sure do, as does Lucifer himself. I can assure you salvation does not lie ahead, it is written in the Bible as to their fate. Their belief is just as real as yours, but to have true faith in someone, to realize beyond any doubt that they are the saviour is to totally commit your life to them, the question of sin should not be posed, sin is irrelevant. Therefore to say that it doesnt matter how much we sin is to quantify sin, to measure ourselves. Release yourself from such thought, measure instead how hard the Holy Spirit is working in you, if the Holy Spirit is not present, as is in some people who “believe” in Jesus Christ there cannot be salvation.

For sure, works do not get us into heaven, but the works we do measure the strength of our faith, and therefore the ability of the Holy Spirit to shine through us. If we do not complete any good actions, where is the Holy Spirit that should be present if faith is strong. The absence of good works is a sure sign that the strength of someones faith is very weak, or not present.

Tell me how a mass murderer can be saved, if they continue the actions, (the possibility of slavation of course is always present after a sin.) Please dont tell me that they have faith in Jesus Christ but still continue such actions.

One can only have one Master, Jesus Christ or Satan, as i believe it says in the Bible somewhere. To commit sin is pleasing one master, to have faith in Jesus is pleasing the other. The protestant view confuses the two, and gives some middle ground,

“Sure we can obey Satan, and just remember Jesus at the back of our minds, remember, weve been saved, lets go and sin and not worry about it.”

Im sorry, but a small child would see through the lie of the protestants if put simply enough.

 

[Aris]

DaveD:

Pastor Robert,

I should have said you are 100% correct in pointing out that our works are a result of our faith. But you must know that our faith is the result of Grace. Saving Grace!

Fidelis is correct in pointing out that it is not implied that faith alone saves. I didn’t catch that in your statement. We are saved by Grace, through faith working in love. The very notion of salvation by faith alone implies that God’s grace is not needed and that tying to do God’s will is not needed.

How are children saved who have no faith? Grace.

How are mentally handicapped people saved who have no faith? Grace.

This does not mean that for the unaware christian faith is absent because it is through the faith of the Church that all of her members are baptized into the New Covenant.

How do competent mature people get their faith? Grace.

How is salvation possible? By Grace, through Faith, Working in love.

We did not deserve any of this. This possibility exists only through the grace of God.

End of argument for Sola Fide.

 

[Elzee]

Pastor Bob,

I’m enjoying the dialogue and am learning a lot from you and the others. Thank you for joining the Forum. I’m perhaps taking a slightly different perspective and was wondering if you could help me undersand ‘once saved always saved’ from a more concrete example I haven’t been able to get an answer to from good friends of mine who believe in OSAS. We all have a lot of respect for each others’ beliefs, so please believe me when I say I’m asking this question to understand.

Here’s the scenario:

Let’s say at the age of 15 I accepted Jesus and my Lord and Savior and this faith was obviously what I’ve heard referred to as ‘saving faith’. For 6 years it was obvious my life was dedicated to Jesus - I was active in evangelizing others, was baptized in the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and helped bring many people to the Lord. I was on fire for the Lord. Then I go off to college. I get lazy in my Christian faith and am exposed to people of many different faiths. I become intrigued with a non-Christian faith and 2 years later I begin worshiping with this non-Christian faith, renouncing my Christianity. I no longer believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He is no longer, in my heart or my mind, my Lord and Savior. I am now dedicated to bringing Christians over to my newly found truth and am leading people away from Christ. In this scenario:

1. Was I never saved to begin with, because if I had been, I wouldn’t have rejected Jesus 8 years later? If so, then how would I ever know I was saved since I can’t predict the future? Did I only think I was saved but really wasn’t all those years I was dedicating my life to Jesus?
2. I’m still saved and if died tonight I would to to heaven, even though I now totally reject Christ and his work on the cross and actively try to get others to reject Him?
3. I’ve given up my salvation through my own choice - not God’s - but if I repent and turn back I can once again be assured of my salvation because Jesus will always welcome me back.

Would the answers to the above questions be different if I didnt’t reject my Christianity but perhaps instead entered the world of child pornography or mass murdering? I still believe that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and that all my sins - past, present, and future - are forgiven and paid for through the work of Jesus on the cross. I’m just not living like I believe it.

Thank you Pastor Bob. Up front I need to tell you that this will be a very one-sided discussion on your part so I hope that’s okay and it’s still worth your time to answer me. I’m not the person to engage in a heavy dialogue with you if you want to answer my questions with questions. I would really just like concrete answers. I’ve learned a lot this past year, but others on this forum are much more knowledgeable than I am - at least for now! Thank you!

 

[javelin]

Pastor Robert:

thessalonian:

This would all be so true if the bible did not teach irresistable grace and the fact that God’s elect shall come to Christ and never be lost

What? So the Bible teaches opposing doctrine? It contradicts itself? This is what I just don’t get about Protestant theology – The passages thessalonian and Eden quoted are very clear! You cannot presume that the Bible is the inerrent word of God and then, when finding passages that appear to contradict one another, simply ignore the ones you wish to ignore. Instead, let’s try to find a doctrine that, when held up to ALL of Sacred Scripture, holds true.

What about John 6:37? Here it is:
John 6:37 KJV:

37

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Note that is says Jesus will not cast out anyone who comes to Him – His action on His initiative. What it does NOT say is that people cannot, do not, or will not walk away from Him of their own accord. A crucial distinction, and the reason why Catholics, while we do not hold to the assurance of salvation, hold joyful hope in our eventual salvation, for if we stay true to Christ we have His promise that He will not cast us out.

Here is a clear example of how a correct interpretation of Scripture brings seemingly contradictory passages in harmony.

BTW, John 6 is an interesting chapter, but that’s another thread…

Please read Eden and thessalonian’s posts again and show us scriptural evidence for your conclusion that, though
Pastor Roberts:
The book of Hebrews is written to warn professing Christians not to turn back from the way that leads to heaven. ,it
Pastor Roberts:

…does not contradict the security of a believer in Christ nor imply you can be saved and lost.

Peace,
javelin

 

[thessalonian]

Pastor Robert:

thessalonian:

This would all be so true if the bible did not teach irresistable grace and the fact that God’s elect shall come to Christ and never be lost

I would like to open this up with you as it is the heart of the true gospel, John 6v37 is a good place to start !!!

Warmest regards

RB

Does John 6v37 (I know what is there without looking) trump these verses? Did Peter have faith in Matt 16:15-18. Did he deny Christ three times in Matt 26? Did Jesus say “if anyone denies me before men I will deny him before the father”? How many times theoretically would Peter have had to deny Jesus for this verse to kick in. Or was it a bluff. Do you suppose if you would have handed Peter a Gospel tract, “are you saved” he would have spit on it and thrown it in the mud?

You need to answer our verses Pastor Robert. Their scripture too.

Blessings

 

[Eden]

Pastor Robert:

True saving faith produces a life of obedience in a sinner. Historical Reformed theology has always taught this but alas you do not seem to either realize this or understand it.

The answers to the questions that you are receiving on this thread are almost 2,000 years old and were handed down in a “deposit of faith” to us through the Apostles. The interpretation of Scripture through “Historical Reformed theology” is only 500 years old. I am certain that you will respond that “true” theology had become corrupted and “reformed theology” is in fact original truth. In fact, truth had existed for 1500 years before “Reformed theology” and has lasted another 500 alongside it. While “reform” was necessary in the “human” aspects of the Church - clergy - reform of the “spiritual” aspects - from the Holy Spirit - were not. You made the following statement: All I can say is that Scripture and Christian history stand against you. My response to you would be the same.

 

[Lillith]

Perfect rebutes, for Sola Fides. And there are literally hundreds more, but I think Pastor Robert will never look, because he has based his entire life on this, and would literally lose his livelihood if he did.

1 cor. 9:27 “I buffet my own body and make it my slave; or I who have preached to others, may myself be rejected as worthless”

O.K. Pastor…why is st. Paul saying this? Doesn’t he know that he has assurance of salvation? if you read further on he talks about running a race…but what race? It’s a gimme if you beleive that he can’t seriously sin any longer.

 

[Eden]

Pastor Robert:

Jordan

I smell the heresy of baptismal regeneration in this very clear statement. Here is a foundational error of Rome that deceives many into trusting their eternal destiny to a sprinkling of water on their head.

Can you please explain what you mean by “sprinkling” here? Are you using the term “sprinkling” to describe what occurs at baptism? If so, you are mistaken as to what takes place. Having my two chidren’s infant baptisms so recent in memory, I can accurately describe what occurs with the water. One of the godparents held the baby over a large font of water while the priest used a large scoop shaped like a shell to collect water from the font. The priest then poured the water over the top of the baby’s head and said, “I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” to which we all replied “Amen”. I personally know of no baptisms involving “sprinkling”. Of course, I don’t remember my own baptism as I was two weeks old at the time but I know that the “pouring” was certainly used because my older brother was baptised two years before at my grandparents’ summertime parish. It was at the beach and my grandmother provided a real shell for the pouring which my mother has saved. So, if you could please clarify “sprinkling”, I’d be most appreciative.

 

[Fiat]

Pastor Robert:

The bible is clear - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever. The book of Hebrews is written to warn professing Christians not to turn back from the way that leads to heaven. It does emphasise perseverance but that does not contradict the security of a believer in Christ nor imply you can be saved and lost.

Dear Pastor Robert:

Perhaps you misspoke?! You say that the Book of Hebrews is written to warn Christians not to turn back from the way that leads to heaven. If you can never lose your salvation, why the warning about turning back?

In Jesus
Fiat

 

[thessalonian]

Eden,

The use of the word sprinkling with regard to Catholic baptism shows that they have just passed on the same protestant “traditions” about Catholicism and read the same books that rehash these same distorted “traditions” written out of bias against Christ’s Church. He will not acknowledge his mistake because of “truth” of such arguements is not important. Catholicism is “wrong” at any cost. Even that of bearing false wittness against her teachings. I challenge you to prove me wrong Pastor Robert.

Blessings

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello Pastor Robert;

You wrote (with my numbers inserted)…
Pastor Robert:

Robert SD

(1) I believe I have answered you but you choose to ignore what I say. It is evident that your interpretation of Paul’s words is different from mine but that does not mean I have failed to make my point, you simply do not agree with it.

(2) It is evident that you can have no assurance of salvation as an RC according to what you say. I rejoice that in being justified by faith alone I have assurance of salvation and having received such a great blessing walk in the fear of God with a desire to honor God in all my ways.

(3) For the Reformed believer salvation includes both justification and sanctification. I wish you would stop misrepresenting what I believe. You do not seem to understand my position and that causes you to respond wrongly.

(4) There can be no sanctification for a sinner without justification and there is never justification without sanctification following so please grasp this so that we can properly discuss the issues.

(5) Paul’s words in Philippians 2 do not contradict this position and can be easily interpreted in line with this truth. (6) I am still waiting for anyone to respond to Paul’s teaching in Romans 3-5 regarding how a sinner is made right with God.

Sincerely

RB

(1) My apologies if you have previously answered my specific questions, but I could not find them on this thread. Maybe you could post a link to your specific replies, for my convenience. And I agree that we see things differently. And of course you are entitled to your opinions on the matter. I just want to know your position with respect to certain aspects of your opinion. I understand that I will probably not change your mind on the topic. I’ll leave that to the Holy Spirit.

(2) My concern is that your position on the assurance of salvation is not biblically supported. While Scripture states that justification is by faith through Grace, it does not say that justification is a one-tme event, nor does Scripture state that salvation is assured to those who receive that grace. Instead, Scriptures speaks of a calling to act in a manner that maintains that state of grace, which will ultimately lead to our salvation, which can only be determined by the state of the soul at death. Catholics have the assurance that if we die in a state of grace, our salvation is assured. Anything more is a dangerous presumption.

(3) Justification and Sanctification are part of the Catholic understanding too. And if I stated something contrary, blame my poor communication skills. The distinction I was trying to make was that, from the reformed position, there seems to be an artificial barrier between the two. First, comes justification (by which you are assured of your salvation), then comes “works” leading to sanctification. My point is that from a Catholic perspective, and also from a biblical perspective, the two concepts are intertwined and interrelated. Thus, salvation does rely - in part - on one’s good works performed while under God’s grace, not because they obligate God to grant us salvation, but because they are pleasing to God when performed by one in His grace. So, to the extent the reformed theology tries to decouple justification and sanctification, it is runs afoul of scripture. Your response to this criticism, to this point, has been only the restatement of the position, without bibilical support.

(4) The first-justified-then-separately-sanctified sequence of events you propose does not flow from scripture. Again, I understand your position that sanctification does not occur without justification, and there is no justification without sanctification following, and I agree to a certain extent. I just disagree with the false construct regarding your sequencing of the events such that they occur separate from each other. Rather, Scripture seems to speak of a process whereby one “works out” salvation by a process that must include an individual’s active faith, working in love. I want to discuss the issues with you, but perhaps I have missed your specific responses to my earlier questions. As I noted in response to (1) above, perhaps you can point me to your earlier answers.

(5) How can Phil 2 be interpreted in accord with a OSAS soteriology? You say that it can, but provide no response of substance.

(6) Please answer my questions first (or show me where you have already answered them), and then I will respond to yours regarding Romans 3-5.

 

[Ignatius]

Pastor Robert:

To profess faith in Christ and to continue unchanged in terms of sin is to be deceived and still under condemnation.

 

[neophyte]

Pastor Robert,

I’ve been following this thread with great interest, and several times have had to bite my tongue in restraint. Although I’m certain that you don’t intend it so, I find your repeated assertions that, as a Protestant, you follow only the word of God to be quite condescending; they imply that you think that we Catholics don’t. The issue is not whether one of us believes the word of God and the other does not, the issue is that we have differing beliefs about what the word of God is trying to tell us, and even about what the word of God is.

You claim to judge doctrine according to the word of God. Tell me, do you make absolutely no use of commentaries of any sort? Have you no formal training in theology? Have you come to your theological views solely through your own private study of and meditiation on the written word of God? If not, if you’ve a formal education or use commentaries of any sort, then you are, in fact, not following the word of God alone but are making judgements among various differing opinions as to what commentators have the best credentials and make the most rational arguments about what the word of God means. What you are doing is, quite simply, relying on your own understanding.

Tell me then, how do you know you aren’t self-deceived?

Is it because you believe that, because you have faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Most High, the Holy Spirit lives in you and enables you to rightly discern the God’s word? This is a common Protestant belief. How then do you explain that I also absolutely believe in my heart and confess with my mouth every day that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Most High, the Second Person of the Trinity, who died on the Cross as the perfect Paschal Lamb, and was raised again, and that every day I renew the act of faith by which I turn toward him and away from sin – and yet the same Holy Sprit who indwells me (as your own doctrine says He must) tells me that you are wrong on these key points of doctrine?

Is the Holy Spirit a bringer of confusion? Or am I not really saved even though I believe in Jesus with all of my heart and commit my will and my life to His care and Lordship every day? If the latter, what kind of assurance of salvation is that, and again how do you know that you aren’t self-deceived as well?

All of these discussiuons of sola fide, sola scriptura, baptismal regeneration, sanctification vs. justification, Marian doctrine – all of them are peripheral to one central question: to whom did Jesus give the authority to teach binding doctrine in matters of faith and morals, and what did they do with that authority?

Have you ever thought about what an astonishing thing is was for Jesus to change Simon’s name, given what that must have meant to a Jew? How many times in scripture did God change someone’s name, and what was the significance of such an event? Did he change the name of any other disciple?

After 42 years of believing that my Protestant instructors had the best credentials and made the most sense, I began to read the writings of the men who learned the gospel at the very feet of the Apostles themselves: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, men who beyond a doubt have vastly superior credentials than R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, J. Vernon McGee, Charles, Charles Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther, or any other Protestant you care to name.

And y’know, they were all Catholics. Not a Protestant in the bunch.
(continued)

 

[neophyte]

Jesus gave the authority to teach in His name to the Aposostles (Matthew 10:20; Luke 10:1; Luke 10:16), with Peter having the preeminent position among them (Matthew 16:17-19), and promised that the Holy Spirit would protect them from ever teaching error (John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 17:17-19; Luke 21:33).

He said that they would remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26; Luke 21:33). He further promised that the fruit that the Apostles bore (i.e., the Bishops they appointed and the Church that He built on them(Ephesians 2:19-22)) would remain faithful (John 15:16). The Apostles in turn taught (again, without error) that they had the authority to pass that office on to their successors. Based on the word of Christ, we can know that the Bishops of the Catholic Church, in union with the sucessor to St. Peter, are protected by God from ever teaching false doctrine as being infallibly true and binding on all believers.

The structure of the argument is:

1. The historical evidence shows that Jesus said the Apostles had the authority to teach in his name, and that they would teach binding and infallible doctrine.
2. The historical evidence shows that the Apostles taught that this authority was to be passed on to their successors.
3. The historical evidence shows that their successors taught, as binding doctrine, that the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

Sacred Tradition is part of the deposit of faith given by Jesus to the Church and is thus both infallible and unchangeable (which is not to say that our understanding of it can’t develop). It’s the Word of God just as surely as the written Scriptures. It’s true because JESUS SAID SO.

As for Romans 3-5, there is a very good answer but it’s late and I’m not the best one to give it (I’ve only been a Catholic for a year and I have much to unlearn). I suggest you pick up a tape series entitled “Romanism in Romans”, by Scott Hahn.

I find it odd that no one’s yet discussed what faith is; usually it helps to define terms up front. Here’s what I use, it’s a composite from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Faith is our human response to the divine calling to share in the life of God. It is a personal adherence to God and assent to his truth. It is an act of the will by which we turn away from sin and toward God.”

Faith is something we do and not merely something we think.

This is entirely in keeping with the entymology of the Hebrew words for faith. Aman is translated as “believe”, “trust”, “have faith”, and also “support”, “nourish”, and “make lasting”. A derivative word is omenat, meaning “pillars” or “supports of the door” as in 2 Kings 18:16. Another cognate is emunah, which is “faithfulness” or “trust”, as in Exodus 17:12 where God brought victory to Israel as long as Moses would hold his hands up. Aaron and Hur held up his hands so that they “remained emunah until sundown”. All of these illustrate that faith is an action that we take, which is exactly what the Catholic church teaches. (BTW, this is about the extent of my grasp of Hebrew).

I know I’ve been blunt, I hope not offensively so. I can tell that you love Jesus and take the word of God seriously, and I’d wish you well even if you didn’t. Pray have a good evening.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Well said Neo! :clapping: