Why are the Protestants so misinformed with "works"?

[Hodos]

Hodos, on the other hand; he’s a closed minded preacher who can’t admit it when he’s wrong and goes to ridiculous lengths to prove what’s clearly proven wrong.

If what you mean by ridiculous lengths is to properly explain our doctrine, quote scripture, explain the context, grammar, and syntax, and additionally demonstrate the patristic fathers agree, sure. Guilty as charged.

 

[niceatheist]

Differing notions of works date back to the early Church. Augustine made his mark by taking on Origen’s notions of salvation, and Origen’s views certainly influenced Luther.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

Sola Fide is proven wrong. I’ve made my case based on Scripture, common sense and the historical record. Just repeating what I’ve refuted doesn’t make you right.

As for Sola Scriptura, no Protestant can point out where in the Bible that it says the Bible Alone. Again: Scripture, common sense and the historical record bears out the Church. Again, you’re just repeated what’s been refuted.

Now, I don’t misrepresent your doctrine on purpose. If I have been uncharitable; I apologize. But, I do stand by that Luther got it very wrong and split Christendom and Europe horribly and irreparably.

 

[Hodos]

St. Paul or “Paul” has not stated that at all.

St. Paul said “works of law” do not justify us.

Considering he is addressing both Gentiles and Jews, and has condemned them both by the law, he is addressing both the ceremonial law and moral law. Especially since in the Jerusalem Council, which occurred prior to the writing of Romans, James affirms that the teachings of Moses is taught among the Gentiles. And again, immediately after Paul has stated that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, he then upholds the law in its use to condemn sin, both for the Gentile and the Jew.

Your understanding that it is only the ceremonial law that Paul is referring to holds no water considering the content of Chapters 4-6, which has been discussed as well at some length, wherein Paul is again in each of these chapters restating in multiple ways that we are saved by faith as a free gift, not as something worked for.

And the answer is workings on your own (especially CIRCUMCISION) without the life of Christ working in us and through us in the special way that Christians have in the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ.

Paul explicitly uses the example of Abraham being justified by faith apart from works, demonstrating that God has imputed righteousness to Abraham BEFORE he ever received the covenant of circumcision in Chapter 4.

 

[Hodos]

Sola Fide is proven wrong. I’ve made my case based on Scripture, common sense and the historical record. Just repeating what I’ve refuted doesn’t make you right.

Now, I don’t misrepresent your doctrine on purpose. If I have been uncharitable; I apologize. But, I do stand by that Luther got it very wrong and split Christendom and Europe horribly and irreparably.

This is an interesting statement considering you just conceded you don’t understand our doctrine. We will have to agree to disagree here. I leave it to the reader to judge by our commentaries whom has explained the scriptures correctly, and whom has had to recant half a dozen times.

 

[Hodos]

Differing notions of works date back to the early Church. Augustine made his mark by taking on Origen’s notions of salvation, and Origen’s views certainly influenced Luther.

No, Luther’s views of salvation were far more influenced by Augustine. Also, Augustine was not speaking against Origen but against Pelagius. Luther and the Lutheran Confessions specifically rejected Pelagius.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I don’t understand how you can claim what you just said. I recanted nothing and I gave a good explanation of the basics of your doctrine.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

And so did the Church

 

[Hodos]

And I quote:

Now, I don’t misrepresent your doctrine on purpose. If I have been uncharitable; I apologize. But, I do stand by that Luther got it very wrong and split Christendom and Europe horribly and irreparably.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I see no recantation and I see no explicit statement that I don’t understand your doctrine.

 

[Maximus1]

Reading your post about having to work when you are Christ-like, I thought, no doubt Jesus had fame so he worked in his teaching. But only three years we are aware of. And before as carpenter who knows. I assume if he was alive, he had to make a living.
The Apostles and deciples, I don’t know. They followed Jesus, but they were closer to students. And the group were apparently supported by women.
I think Protestantism has a giant investment in it’s opposition to the Catholic Church. And Belief ( not works) is a central part of that opposition. Rethink that, and I think they percieved their legitimacy and protest looses it’s legs.

 

[Nicene]

I would love to see those, please supply.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I see in your replies to me that you read into what I’m saying and see what you want to see.

I’ll reiterate some basic points:

Luther misread Romans; starting with 3:28 and going on from there. He developed his Sola Fide concept; the doctrine that our only justification is by faith in Jesus. Works has no role except in sanctification. That justification and sanctification are separate.

Now the basic problem I see in it is that such an interpretation is in conflict with the rest of Scripture and with what Jesus Himself taught in the Gospels. Jesus taught us to: Repent and do the things He commands us to do or we go to hell.

As for Hodos’ linguistic analysis of the Greek; my question is this: If Hodos’ grammar, syntax and grammatical diagramming that the plain sense reading of Romans in the original Greek points to faith alone; why did all of the Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles of the 1st and 2nd century Church not notice the obvious and it was only until the 16th century before Luther picked up on it?

As for his assertion that many of the Church Fathers supposedly held Luther’s faith alone belief; why was it not reflected in the theology and practices they taught, approved and accepted from the death of the last Apostle onward?

If Sola Scriptura, the concept that Scripture Alone suffices for justification, faith and morals; is correct; why doesn’t it say so anywhere in the Bible?

Plus, it wasn’t until the 5th or 6th century that Scripture was even standardized and for all those centuries; the Church relied on Apostolic Tradition and the writings, teachings and rulings of the Church Fathers, Popes, councils and saints.

 

[Nicene]

FWIW from a catholic point of view we don’t believe St Paul taught the opposite of Jesus or the other apostles. From an outsider looking in it always appears that it is the gospel of Romans vs the Gospels and that Romans is the be all and end all of the protesters Gospel.

While I understand that that may even be insulting, the truth it that it seems that Protestantism is built on Romans and it’s own interpretation. Which leaves the gospels as an afterthought, and to be honest a complete waste of time on Jesus part for 3 years. What’s the point of teaching, being his follower and doing the will of God as he taught if it is completely irrelevant?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

As for Hodos’ linguistic analysis of the Greek; my question is this: If Hodos’ grammar, syntax and grammatical diagramming that the plain sense reading of Romans in the original Greek points to faith alone; why did all of the Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles of the 1st and 2nd century Church not notice the obvious and it was only until the 16th century before Luther picked up on it?

I’ve always wondered the same, how did Christianity mess it up out of the gate and it took 1500 years to fix by a few guys with slogans

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[BohemianBrother]

I don’t want to sound offensive, but if all the doctrine was crystal clear in the beginning, why is there a Magisterium to clarify and define it?

I think @Hodos has already listed some early theologians and church fathers who considered salvation by faith alone. Even transsubstantiation, a central catholic teaching, wasn’t defined until the 4th Lateran Council.

Ultimately, Luther didn’t just come from nowhere. All he said has a historical context, and there is very little that he made up all by himself.

 

[Peebo]

James: chap:2 is pretty blunt in calling someone a fool by saying that faith without good works is futile…Jesus taught us the two great commandments…to love God…and to love one another as he loves us…you can’t love someone by just saying so…it requires faith in what Jesus said…and putting that faith into action (works) through that love for others…you can’t have one without the other.

 

[Nicene]

Actually that’s not what he said on the post he said that the fathers taught “justification by faith alone” justification is a big word theologically. Ergo I asked for those fathers who said as much which he claimed. As regards the church that is fairly obvious by Jesus unless one rejects his teaching

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Michael16]

The problem, @BohemianBrother; is that Luther drastically rewrote theology on a misunderstanding. The little he didn’t make up: I’m thinking that came from basically reframing and rewording Catholic theology to reflect his two Solas. Close enough to the true original; but reworded so it’s different.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

Your understanding that it is only the ceremonial law that Paul is referring to holds no water

Bold mine.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

Here it is again . . .

The “works of law” are workings apart from Christ.
Examples of this would be
“circumcision” or other rituals (ceremonial law) and natural virtue for the Jewish person,
or mere natural virtue for those Gentiles under Noahide law.

Bold and parenthtical added.