Which Gospel is your favorite? / Justification by faith and/or works?

[chrisjb]

@Hodos I will go back and read (and will come back to it after that), but the more I read Romans, the more I see the Paul firmly supporting faith and works as being necessary.

For example, this little gem from Romans 2:6-7 can easily be overlooked depending on how the greek erga is translated, but it is most clear in NABRE (emphases added by me):

5 … you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

Our definition of Sola Fide is essentially a rejection of justification by works

Our does too. In a sense.

But there is another sense where works are necessary.

(I’ll get to the distinction later)

Certainly your definition of Sola Fide does not reject the WORKS of Christ on Calvary and elsewhere right?

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

We do not deny that by the Holy Spirit we are transformed . . .

That is great.

Would you mind citing that and including something in your Confessional statements about “imputation”?

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos on NOWHERE in the Bible does it say we are justified by faith ALONE . . . .

This is irrelevant as it ignores the background and definition of what Sola Fide means. Our definition of Sola Fide is essentially . . .

Hey look. So far I am OK with this . . . .IF . . . .by “faith” you NECESSARILY mean (as St. Paul says) “the obedience of faith” as he does in Romans.

The Church has no issue with that either.

Trent DOES have a big issue if “faith alone” means a mere “intellectual assent”. (Many Bible-only Christians I know think of sola fide that way Hodos. I am not saying you do or don’t. Yet.)

Here is from the Council of Trent . . .

SESSION 6, 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.

You also said . . .

Not a whole lot of peace in this understanding of justification.

Well-informed Catholics have a lot of peace. I think that stems from the fact that we have the FULLNESS of faith Christ intended for us.

 

[Hodos]

But there is another sense where works are necessary.

Yep. And I already addressed that. Multiple times.

 

[Hodos]

Would you mind citing that and including something in your Confessional statements about “imputation”?

It is in our creeds. You might try reading Luther’s explanation of the Apostle’s Creed in the Small Catechism for example.

 

[Hodos]

Hodos on NOWHERE in the Bible does it say we are justified by faith ALONE . . . .

Number 1, neither does the Bible mention the word Trinity, but the scriptures clearly teach it. Sola Fide is a doctrinal description of a Biblical truth found in scripture, just as the Trinity is a doctrinal description of a Biblical truth found in scripture. You would reject this type of argumentation when used against yourself, but would hold someone else to a completely different standard. Intellectual dishonesty on your part my friend.

Number 2, I already showed you where Paul stated exactly what we believe three times in his magnum opus on justification. You can keep denying it all your want, but it has been in our confessions for 500 years, so history doesn’t support your claim.

 

[Cathoholic]

I asked Hodos to tell me about imputed righteousness.

He stated that he is taught that they are “transformed” not merely “covered” with the righteousness of Christ.

I asked . . . .

Would you mind citing that and including something in your Confessional statements about “imputation”?

Hodos’ reply?

It is in our creeds. You might try reading Luther’s explanation of the Apostle’s Creed in the Small Catechism for example.

Well Hodos. I just did a search for the above and got . . . .

Who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, that I may be His own and live under Him . . .

http://trinitylutheran.info/creed.html

Which is pretty much what I expected.

Anything else?

 

[Cathoholic]

I pointed out to Hodos that NOWHERE in the Bible does it say we are justified by faith ALONE . . . .

Hodos reply?

Number 1, neither does the Bible mention the word Trinity, but the scriptures clearly teach it. Sola Fide is a doctrinal description of a Biblical truth found in scripture, just as the Trinity is a doctrinal description of a Biblical truth found in scripture. You would reject this type of argumentation when used against yourself, but would hold someone else to a completely different standard. Intellectual dishonesty on your part my friend.

There is no “intellectual dishonesty” here from me or any other kind of “dishonesty”.

Look if you want to have the discussion I am willing to have it.

If you want a proverbial food fight, I can do that too.

NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it explicitly say we are saved by faith ALONE.

Now you are claiming the DOCTRINE is there (much like the Trinity).

I absolutely disagree.

If faith ALONE was taught . . . . anytime something else was taught would negate the “ALONE” portion.

This is going to be a problem for you.

It already has.

You have already admitted that you are saved by “HOPE”.

I agree with that (but I am not attempting to say “hope alone” but YOU ARE attempting to say “faith ALONE”.

It violates the law of non-contradiction.

You are going to have to do better than that.

.

To other readers, what Hodos is eventually going to have to say is “hope” REALLY MEANS “faith” in Romans 8:24.

Then when I trot out verses that discuss the necessity of works, Hodos is going to have to say it really means “FAITH” or it really means “saved” before men, or it REALLY means something else other than what the text says.

We already saw that with Galatians 6:7-8 where St. Paul EXPLICITLY tells us you can SEW unto eternal life!

Hodos came up with excuses about this being set up earlier in Galatians.

But earlier in Galatians it is only talking about works of the law. Those in context are Old Covenant “works of law” such as “circumcision”.

Not “works in the Spirit”.

Circumcision can’t “SEW unto eternal life”! Hodos knows that.

They didn’t even have the Spirit in the Old Covenant the same way Christians in the New Covenant have. (Which is WHY you CAN WORK in the New Covenant. You CAN also have a saving faith in the New Covenant. You CAN have this type of saving Hope in the New Covenant.
All this is a possible gift now because NOW we are animated by the Holy Spirit.)

Go and read Galatians.

Check it out for yourself.

The bit about Abraham being saved by “faith” is fine. The part I take issue with is ADDING the word “ALONE” when it is not there in the text. The Abraham argument is not going to help. I’ve been through it before with other people and it doesn’t work.

Hodos is going to HAVE TO keep ADDING to Sacred Scripture the word “ALONE” when it is not there and ignoring other verses that discuss other aspects in ADDITION to FAITH.

The Bible does NOT teach we are justified by faith ALONE (unless you define “faith” as including “WORKS” for those who can and “HOPE”).

 

[Hodos]

I asked Hodos to tell me about imputed righteousness.

He stated that he is taught that they are “transformed” not merely “covered” with the righteousness of Christ.

I said nothing of the sort. I think you are mistaking me with someone else.

And Paul speaks about imputed righteousness in Romans 4 and 8.

 

[Hodos]

I pointed out to Hodos that NOWHERE in the Bible does it say we are justified by faith ALONE . . . .

Again, if you scroll up I did explain this with my explanation of Romans 3. Paul states several times that we are saved by faith apart from works which is exactly what the doctrine of sola fide teaches.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic to Hodos in post 111 . . .

. . . That is the MOMENT of our salvation.

And it includes MORE than mere imputing or “covering with the righteousness of Christ.”

We ARE covered but we are ALSO transformed.

Hodas reply to me in post 114?

We do not deny that by the Holy Spirit we are transformed, I said as much in my answers above if you scroll up.

In post 128 I said . . .

I asked Hodos to tell me about imputed righteousness.

He stated that he is taught that they are “transformed” not merely “covered” with the righteousness of Christ.

Now in post 130 Hodos says . . .

I said nothing of the sort. I think you are mistaking me with someone else.

.

Hodos. You need to explain here if we are to have an appropriate conversation.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . . .

Again, if you scroll up I did explain this with my explanation of Romans 3. Paul states several times that we are saved by faith apart from works . . .

And you think that means ALL works is that correct?

 

[Hodos]

Right, and my term transformed was originally in reference to the process of sanctification and is in line with Pauline doctrine.

 

[Hodos]

And you think that means ALL works is that correct?

I think it refers to the effort of a person to be justified by observing the moral law seeing as though Paul is applying this to both the circumcised (those who are bound to both the moral law and holiness codes of the Sinai covenant) and the uncircumcised (those Greeks who while not circumcised and obeying the rituals of the holiness codes but were attempting to earn justification by observing the moral law). In other words, Paul in Romans 3 says neither group is justified by works, both are justified by faith apart from works. Otherwise your definition attempts to enforce a justification by observing the ritual requirements of the Sinai covenant, which Paul has already condemned, or by observing the moral law, which Paul has also denied in the same passage.

 

[GladTidings]

Luuuke: “I am your dooctor.” Get it? Huh? Huh?

Seriously though, I like the account of Mary most of all in Luke.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos .

Right, and my term transformed was originally in reference to the process of sanctification and is in line with Pauline doctrine.

So do you NEED to be transformed?

Or is “Covered ALONE” enough?

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos on “works” in Romans 3 . . .

I think it refers to the effort of a person to be justified by observing the moral law seeing as though Paul is applying this to both the circumcised (those who are bound to both the moral law and holiness codes of the Sinai covenant) and the uncircumcised (those Greeks who while not circumcised and obeying the rituals of the holiness codes but were attempting to earn justification by observing the moral law).

Hodos. I think the context of Romans 3 concerns circumcision vrs. uncircumcision. . . .BUT! . . . .

But the context of Ephesians 2:8-9 does concern not just Old Testament ritual law ONLY but also includes any man’s works apart from grace so I will apply the same principle in general (although I can’t to Romans 3:28 because “works of law” here contextually concerns circumcision et. al.) and say I agree with that.

ROMANS 3:28-31 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

In other words, for the sake of the argument, I will give you that.

But that still does not remove ALL “works” from the equation of salvation.

Can you think of any “works” that are not man on his own doing Old Covenant “works of law” such as circumcision and any “works” apart from grace?

.

Are there ANY OTHER categories of “works” that you can think of??

.

Man on his own regarding circumcision or other Mosaic Law = Not salvific. Check
Man on his own regarding ANY type of work. = Not salvific. Check
(So far. You and I are agreeing here Hodos.)

.

But are there ANY OTHER categories of “works” that you can think of??

 

[Vico]

Matthew contains the Sermon on the Mount, a favorite, and shows, based on the Old Testament, that Jesus is the promised messiah.

 

[Hodos]

But are there ANY OTHER categories of “works” that you can think of??

No, seeing as Paul has already stated that we are saved by faith apart from works no less than three times in about 11 verses after condemning all mankind by the law, I think that covers it in context.