You sure you know my thinking?I think you are falling for the trap I see most Protestants in, and that is you believe you can either be justified by faith or by works and while most all Protestant denominations choose faith Catholics choose works.
In this thinking you are totally incorrect my friend,
Of course we must have faith and works. The Scriptures make it clear that we are justified unto good works( Ephesians 2:8-10). But isn’t it equally clear from those verses that we are justified before the good works? This is faith alone.Catholics believe that it is not a competition but rather that faith and works go hand in hand. You must have faith, and you must also do works.
I’m not talking about bed side converts, but justification for all. Do you accept that initial justification is by faith alone was the point of this thread. Do you?But what of the bed side convert? The one who dies immediately after having faith? Is he not accepted because he did not do works? No of course not, and Jesus explains this in the parable of the workers, where the workers hired at 5:00 in the afternoon are paid the same as the workers hired at 7:00 in the morning.
Both groups will receive salvation, however the earlier are called to do more work, by the master (God), and who are we to argue? Is it not written that upon appearing before the throne of God we can only say, I am an unprofitable servant, doing only what I was told to do…
Sir, I believe your language is trying to incite an argument here. One that I refuse to be drawn into, I did not say I knew your thoughts, I said “I think” and furthermore the Holy Bible tells us that it is not by faith alone that we are saved, in fact it goes to say that even the demons have faith and tremble, are they saved? They certainly believe…You sure you know my thinking?
Of course we must have faith and works. The Scriptures make it clear that we are justified unto good works( Ephesians 2:8-10). But isn’t it equally clear from those verses that we are justified before the good works? This is faith alone.
I’m not talking about bed side converts, but justification for all. Do you accept that initial justification is by faith alone was the point of this thread. Do you?
Luther Provides his reasoning regarding Tobit, and there is no mention of works. To find out his reasoning, one must read his words. Read his prefaces.Save a few verses that could be construed to sola fide as Luther did, most of the bible clearly does not support it.
The word repent appears more than 100 times. In the Book of Luke, Jesus says repent, or you will be destroyed.
Most like to point to Romans 3 as the source of sola fide, yet Romans 2 discusses following the moral law and that not doing so will lead to God’s wrath on the day of judgement.
Matthew 25 has strong language about doing works. It’s not optional.
James says faith without works is dead.
The books that Luther moved into his Apocrypha, including Tobias for example, also have strong language about doing good works.
I know the argument that its only the Holy Spirit that does it in us and we can do nothing good on our own. However, no one thought this way until the 16th century.
The Catholic view always was that we are strengthened by grace, but we have the free will to choose Jesus, who commands us to feed the poor and clothe the naked.
The Church’s teachings predate the Scripture. The Bible as we know it only exists because the Catholic Church, by her authority, compiled it. I am citing a parable of the Lord to illustrate the Church’s teaching…but I nor the Church derived doctrine from that parable. In your understanding of sola scriptura, what passages are suitable for deriving major doctrine? What other passages, besides Matthew 25, are unsuitable for deriving major doctrine? Who determines this?Yes, they were breathing, blinking their eyes, their internal organs were working. Of course no one means people are not doing anything. The point is, it is their faith alone that is the means of justification.
Well you claim it is a work, but the Scriptures says otherwise.
If it is a work as you say then the Apostle Paul makes no sense.
One should know be deriving major doctrine from parables.
Why would you think Acts 10 with Cornelius teaches justification by faith ALONE? (Certainly Cornelius had faith even though the word “faith” isn’t even in Acts 10 much less faith ALONE. Faith is utterly necessary and I am not denying that. And "belief is mentioned in the context of the prophets. And I think the passage IMPLIES Cornelius had faith. But to come up with faith ALONE from Cornelius and Acts 10 is wrong).ACTS 10:1-5 1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, 2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius.” 4 And he stared at him in terror, and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.
Acts 10 does not teach justification by faith ALONE.**ACTS 10:43 **43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
COUNCIL OF TRENT Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself up with faith alone, fancying that by faith alone he is made an heir, and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ, that so he may be also glorified with him. For even Christ Himself, as the Apostle saith, Whereas he was the son of God, learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and being consummated, he became, to all who obey him, the cause of eternal salvation.
Dave Armstrong does NOT believe justification by “faith alone in such a wise to mean that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification”.CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
COUNCIL OF TRENT CHAPTER VIII. (Session VI)
In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.
Sanctification and justification are different. But they are closely related and both are necessary to go to Heaven.And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and** the root of all Justification**; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
Hope this helps.2nd THESSALONIANS 2:13 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
You better reread that parable. It’s about losing salvation by doing nothing.In any event, the parable of the sheep and the goats is more about loosing salvation by bad works than being saved by good works.
No mention of works? OK.Luther Provides his reasoning regarding Tobit, and there is no mention of works. To find out his reasoning, one must read his words. Read his prefaces.
The Lutheran view of Tobit is that it clearly shows that faith is necessary before charity (alms) - Tobit 4:5.
The Lutheran view is that good works are the fruit of faith, and that while grace is always there to strengthen us, we have the free will to reject grace.
Where does he say he didn’t want them in the Bible, considering the fact that he translated them and included them. I keep waiting for a quote from Luther on this, and on the accusation that he “threw out” the DC’s because of doctrine. Haven’t seen a quote yet.No mention of works? OK.
Tobias just tells his sons and his people to give alms, bury the dead, and feed the hungry, and that doing so is pleasing to God (below).
He also tells them to follow the moral law (below), as did Paul in Romans 2.
No Sola Fide, filthy rags, or sinning boldly here.
And then, you have an angel from heaven interceding for the living (intercession of the saints).
Either way, it’s clear he didn’t want Tobias or James in the bible.
6 And all the days of thy life have God in thy mind: and take heed thou never consent to sin, nor transgress the commandments of the Lord our God.
7 Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee.
8 According to thy ability be merciful.
9 If thou have much give abundantly: if thou have a little, take care even so to bestow willingly a little.
10 For thus thou storest up to thyself a good reward for the day of necessity.
11 For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.
12 Alms shall be a great confidence before the most high God, to all them that give it.
13 Take heed to keep thyself, my son, from all fornication, and beside thy wife never endure to know a crime.
14 Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind, or in thy words: for from it all perdition took its beginning.
15 If any man hath done any work for thee, immediately pay him his hire, and let not the wages of thy hired servant stay with thee at all.
16 See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another.
17 Eat thy bread with the hungry and the needy, and with thy garments cover the naked.
18 Lay out thy bread, and thy wine upon the burial of a just man, and do not eat and drink thereof with the wicked.
Yet it’s in the Apocrypha. We can define it however we like -not scripture, set apart, dubious origins. It’s still what he did. To me, together with James, not a coincidence.Where does he say he didn’t want them in the Bible, considering the fact that he translated them and included them. I keep waiting for a quote from Luther on this, and on the accusation that he “threw out” the DC’s because of doctrine. Haven’t seen a quote yet.
Luther speaks highly of Tobit, and recommends Christians read it.
Have you read Luther’s prefaces?Yet it’s in the Apocrypha. We can define it however we like -not scripture, set apart, dubious origins. It’s still what he did. To me, together with James, not a coincidence.
Martin Luther did not class apocryphal books as being Scripture, but in both the German (1534) and English (1535) translations of the Bible, the apocrypha are published in a separate section from the other books, although the Lutheran and Anglican lists are different. In some editions (like the Westminster), readers were warned that these books were not “to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.” A milder distinction was expressed elsewhere, such as in the “argument” introducing them in the Geneva Bible, and in the Sixth Article of the Church of England, where it is said that “the other books the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners,” though not to establish doctrine.[6] Among some other Protestants, the term apocryphal began to take on extra or altered connotations: not just of dubious authenticity, but having spurious or false content,[3] not just obscure but having hidden or suspect motives.[citation needed] Protestants were (and are) not unanimous in adopting those meanings. The Church of England agreed, and that view continues today throughout the Lutheran Church, the worldwide Anglican Communion, and many other denominations.[citation needed] Whichever implied meaning is intended, Apocrypha was (and is) used primarily by Protestants, in reference to the books of questioned canonicity. Catholics and Orthodox sometimes avoid using the term in contexts where it might be disputatious or be misconstrued as yielding on the point of canonicity. Thus the respect accorded to apocryphal books varied between Protestant denominations. Most Protestant published Bibles that include the apocryphal books will relocate them into a separate section (rather like an appendix), so as not to intermingle them with their canonical books.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha
And he tried to do the same with James:
Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]
“If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times.”[1] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident “that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon.”[1]
In his book Basic Theology, Charles Caldwell Ryrie countered the claim that Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical.[6] In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: “St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.
However, Ryrie’s theory is countered by other biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: “I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. …I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship.”[7]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther’s_canon
- Martin Luther, as quoted by William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series, The Letters of James and Peter, Revised Edition, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY, 1976, p. 7
Pope Benedict XVI on the subjects of Faith and Works in St. Paul… D?
I think so too. Those who accept the theology of a single instance when one is saved, must continually worry, is my faith a saving faith after all? They must think, well, if I belong to the right church, that is a sign that I have a saving faith, and if I am able to perform works, that is an additional indication I am of the elect.But, justification is a snapshot - a point in time which passes. A point which may be lost through sin. And, one thing I do not understand: Why this non-Catholic/Orthodox obsession with justification? Yes, I see it as pure obsession. A point of contention. Anxiety producing. Angst. In short, the manifestation of the profound fears of Martin Luther - the man whose unique and aberrant psychology first professed it.
It never enters my consciousness, nor that of most Catholics, I suspect.
Q: Why the obsession?
A: Outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, there are no valid Sacraments of Penance or the Holy Eucharist. Thus one can never know, never be certain. To me, that would be hell on earth.
Yes, I’m serious. From whom has Dave received “flak” for this view? On what official or respected sources do they base their objections?“I don’t think anyone disagrees that initial justification is by faith alone”, are you serious? Mostly I have come across deny it. Dave Armstrong has been one of the few and he receives flack from Catholics for affirming that. You will also notice this thread where I’m willing to bet most will take exception to it.
Are you now … or have you ever been, Dave Armstrong?… Dave Armstrong. Actually if you desire to be consistent with Scripture you have to affirm it in some way, because it is clear from the Scripture that some were justified by faith alone. For example:
There were nothing these individuals were doing besides listening. This is also the point the Apostle Paul makes to the Galatians:
So not only did the Apostle Paul experience this as did the Apostle Peter, but he used it as evidence against the Judiazers that one is justified by faith without works.
So how can Catholics completely deny justification by faith alone in any sense? At least Dave Armstrong tries to incorporate this biblical teaching into what Catholics teaching on justification by acknowledging initial justification can be by faith alone. Who disagrees and why?
.Have you read Luther’s prefaces?
Do you have a source where he says he wants to “remove” them, because I have never seen such a quote. In fact, the opposite
The he needs to explain 1 Macc, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, and others where no doctrinal issues exists..
I haven’t read Luther’s prefaces, but Dr David Anders (former Evangelical Presbyterian) has read both Luther and Augustine extensively. He also concluded this premise that it wasn’t based on doctrine doesn’t add up.
Either way, it’s semantics. The fact is, he did remove.
Yes, I think my Catholic brethren should save their “debate energy” for more contemporary Evangelical groups that either reject or are completely unaware of these books… not Lutherans who have an appreciation for the broader Christian tradition pre-1517.The he needs to explain 1 Macc, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, and others where no doctrinal issues exists.
Actually, he didn’t remove them. They are in his translation. I’ve read his prefaces, and no where does he state that doctrine changed his mind about them. In fact, he held the same views prior to 1517, prior to Leipzig, etc.
Finally, if doctrine were the main factor, then three questions:
- Why did he include them in his translation, and encourage Christians to read and study them?
- Why did he exclude the ones that did not have these alleged doctrinal problems?
- Why did the Lutheran Confessions not exclude them? The Augsburg Confession and Apology dealt specifically with issues between the reformers and the papacy. The canon of scripture is not included as an issue?