T
TULIPed
Guest
I would say that we disagree on that concept, rather than you misunderstand it. But diplomatic overtures aside, I appreciate your point. And now, I must go prepare for a Christmas Party.
- Status
M
Michael16
Guest
@TULIPed and @Hodos
I see in our apologetics that the Church has consistently taught justification by faith and your guys’ traditions, while practicing faith and works much we like do; misunderstand justification by faith; based on a misreading of Romans.
Now, I also see in our apologetics that when I present irrefutable Scripture basis of how your theologians got it wrong; often I see the Protestant apologist just giving it up and saying things like: It’s good enough for me or it’s your interpretation; or worse yet, accusing me of trickery, dishonesty or semantics.
Once, a Protestant even quoted Saint James to me backwards as a sad attempt at a refutation.
The thing is: Theology isn’t philosophy or a matter of interpretation that can be held as mere opinion. It’s a science of Divine Revelation.
Your traditions adhere to Sola Scriptura and you guys claim your doctrines can be found and supported in Sacred Scripture based on these principles:
1: If it’s explicitly stated in Scripture; it must be held.
2: If it’s explicitly condemned in Scripture; it’s not to be held.
3: If it’s not explicitly stated or condemned; it may or may not be held.
So, under your own rules as I understand them; and that theology is a science and not a philosophy; you guys should be able to accept my case and see Luther’s error.
Essentially, Luther claims Saint Paul states faith alone justifies.
I see in our apologetics that the Church has consistently taught justification by faith and your guys’ traditions, while practicing faith and works much we like do; misunderstand justification by faith; based on a misreading of Romans.
Now, I also see in our apologetics that when I present irrefutable Scripture basis of how your theologians got it wrong; often I see the Protestant apologist just giving it up and saying things like: It’s good enough for me or it’s your interpretation; or worse yet, accusing me of trickery, dishonesty or semantics.
Once, a Protestant even quoted Saint James to me backwards as a sad attempt at a refutation.
The thing is: Theology isn’t philosophy or a matter of interpretation that can be held as mere opinion. It’s a science of Divine Revelation.
Your traditions adhere to Sola Scriptura and you guys claim your doctrines can be found and supported in Sacred Scripture based on these principles:
1: If it’s explicitly stated in Scripture; it must be held.
2: If it’s explicitly condemned in Scripture; it’s not to be held.
3: If it’s not explicitly stated or condemned; it may or may not be held.
So, under your own rules as I understand them; and that theology is a science and not a philosophy; you guys should be able to accept my case and see Luther’s error.
Essentially, Luther claims Saint Paul states faith alone justifies.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
COUNCIL OF TRENT (Decree on Justification)
M
Michael16
Guest
@TULIPed and @Hodos
Continued
If Luther is correct; Saint Paul is in conflict with Jesus. Luther’s misreading of Saint Paul has him teaching faith alone justifies. Compare this to what Jesus constantly says in the Gospels about the consequences of the observing or failing to observe his moral teachings.
If Luther is correct; Jesus wouldn’t be telling people that they’d be going to hell for immoral behavior. Faith alone saves in Luther’s doctrine.
Saint Paul wrote in Romans 3:28 that faith apart from works of the law justifies.
Works of the Law. That’s the Old Mosaic Law.
Saint Paul later says in Romans, after being justified by faith; that justification and sanctification both end in eternal life.
If Luther is correct and sanctification doesn’t effect justification and that they are separate; then why would Saint Paul says that sanctification, it’s end; is eternal life?
Wouldn’t make sense.
Compare to Saint James: Faith apart from works is dead. It’s works in general. Not works of the Law.
Saint James also says that a man is justified by works. The only way to harmonize Saint Paul and Saint James with Jesus is that both faith and works justifies.
Again: I’m not saying you guys don’t do faith and works. I see from your statements that your traditions insist on good works; a faith alive with works.
A very Catholic thing.
However: Your guys’ misunderstandings is in this: Only faith justifies because it’s the source from which good works flow.
But that’s not what Sacred Scripture says. it says faith completed in works saves.
Your founders’ Sola Fide cannot be found in, nor supported by; Sacred Scripture.
The entire edifice of Luther’s doctrine falls and all we have left in the well formed Protestant is a half formed Catholic with burning misconceptions about the Faith.
Continued
If Luther is correct; Saint Paul is in conflict with Jesus. Luther’s misreading of Saint Paul has him teaching faith alone justifies. Compare this to what Jesus constantly says in the Gospels about the consequences of the observing or failing to observe his moral teachings.
If Luther is correct; Jesus wouldn’t be telling people that they’d be going to hell for immoral behavior. Faith alone saves in Luther’s doctrine.
Saint Paul wrote in Romans 3:28 that faith apart from works of the law justifies.
Works of the Law. That’s the Old Mosaic Law.Saint Paul later says in Romans, after being justified by faith; that justification and sanctification both end in eternal life.
If Luther is correct and sanctification doesn’t effect justification and that they are separate; then why would Saint Paul says that sanctification, it’s end; is eternal life?
Wouldn’t make sense.
Compare to Saint James: Faith apart from works is dead. It’s works in general. Not works of the Law.
Saint James also says that a man is justified by works. The only way to harmonize Saint Paul and Saint James with Jesus is that both faith and works justifies.
Again: I’m not saying you guys don’t do faith and works. I see from your statements that your traditions insist on good works; a faith alive with works.
A very Catholic thing.
However: Your guys’ misunderstandings is in this: Only faith justifies because it’s the source from which good works flow.
But that’s not what Sacred Scripture says. it says faith completed in works saves.
Your founders’ Sola Fide cannot be found in, nor supported by; Sacred Scripture.
The entire edifice of Luther’s doctrine falls and all we have left in the well formed Protestant is a half formed Catholic with burning misconceptions about the Faith.
Last edited:
T
TULIPed
Guest
Exactly. I am in violent agreement with you. What I see is Jesus sets the bar impossibly high to reach:
“7 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
So - you, me, Martin Luther, His Holiness the Pope, John Calvin, Billy Graham, (apparently Kanye even?) St. Peter, and St. Paul - we all agree that we will be judged based on what we do. We also all agree that the purpose of Romans 1-3 is to set the argument that based on that premise - and what Jesus says above - we’re all in trouble because we can’t possible meet the standard.
So I think now all we’re arguing about how to split credit for the justification pecan pie (of which I had way, way too much of at a party last night). How much credit do you take for your justification via completion or cooperation? 5% you and Jesus 95%? Does a really good person - like Mother Theresa, (or any football player playing against New England) - do they get say 50% of the credit for their justification and Jesus gets 50%?
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think you guys would say that God invites us to participate and cooperate with Him in our salvation. Fair enough. Based on the evidence I see in the Bible, I respectfully disagree. And in any case, if you’ve got to err, I’d always err on the side of giving Jesus too much credit for my salvation. Soli Deo Gloria. I just can’t help myself
C
C.Longinus
Guest
This flies in the face of Paul.
M
Michael16
Guest
@TULIPed
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
I’m glad to see your reply. For a while there, I feared that I pressed the point home mercilessly and offended you. I’m sorry to hear that you partied too hard. Glad you’re okay though; God willing.
If I know my Latin correctly, what you said was: God’s grace alone.
If that’s the case, we both wholeheartedly agree. Only by God’s grace can anything be done.
I’m glad to see you agree with me about the consequences of obeying or disobeying God. That’s another point we can agree on and build upon.
If I’m reading your reply correctly, you’re speaking on a common Protestant misconception of the role works play in salvation.
Justification by faith, as taught by the Church faithfully for 2,000 years; is what Saint Paul taught in Romans.
Through faith in Jesus, God invites us to participate and cooperate in our salvation. Through faith in Jesus, we receive and rely on the grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit in our battles with sin and to perform good works. Without it, we’re dead meat in the battle against the forces of hell that seek the ruin of our souls.
To give you an idea; I’ll share with you the teachings of two of our greatest Saints: Saint Benedict of Nursia and Saint Ignatius de Loyola.
Saint Benedict wrote his Rule of Saint Benedict in the 6th century. In it, the Benedictine religious is to submit his will completely to God’s Will and fight the good fight under holy obedience.
Saint Ignatius de Loyola wrote his Spiritual Exercises in the 16th century for the Society of Jesus he founded. In it, the basic principles of Jesuit spirituality is the First Principle and Foundation which states:
Man was created to praise, reverence and serve God and by this means save his soul. Our one desire and choice is to whatever serves to the end for which man was created.
More later. My fiancé wants to talk.
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
I’m glad to see your reply. For a while there, I feared that I pressed the point home mercilessly and offended you. I’m sorry to hear that you partied too hard. Glad you’re okay though; God willing.
If I know my Latin correctly, what you said was: God’s grace alone.
If that’s the case, we both wholeheartedly agree. Only by God’s grace can anything be done.
I’m glad to see you agree with me about the consequences of obeying or disobeying God. That’s another point we can agree on and build upon.
If I’m reading your reply correctly, you’re speaking on a common Protestant misconception of the role works play in salvation.
Justification by faith, as taught by the Church faithfully for 2,000 years; is what Saint Paul taught in Romans.
Through faith in Jesus, God invites us to participate and cooperate in our salvation. Through faith in Jesus, we receive and rely on the grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit in our battles with sin and to perform good works. Without it, we’re dead meat in the battle against the forces of hell that seek the ruin of our souls.
To give you an idea; I’ll share with you the teachings of two of our greatest Saints: Saint Benedict of Nursia and Saint Ignatius de Loyola.
Saint Benedict wrote his Rule of Saint Benedict in the 6th century. In it, the Benedictine religious is to submit his will completely to God’s Will and fight the good fight under holy obedience.
Saint Ignatius de Loyola wrote his Spiritual Exercises in the 16th century for the Society of Jesus he founded. In it, the basic principles of Jesuit spirituality is the First Principle and Foundation which states:
Man was created to praise, reverence and serve God and by this means save his soul. Our one desire and choice is to whatever serves to the end for which man was created.
More later. My fiancé wants to talk.
T
TULIPed
Guest
All interesting stuff Michael. Simple question though - is it justification by faith and works or is it justification by faith alone? If it’s not faith alone, then it’s faith and works. If it’s faith and works, my question is - how much of your justification is your works? What percentage - roughly would you say?
(Oh - and Soli Deo Gloria means “Alone be God the Glory” - or better is “Glory to God Alone” maybe - one of the 5 “solas” of the Reformation)
(Oh - and Soli Deo Gloria means “Alone be God the Glory” - or better is “Glory to God Alone” maybe - one of the 5 “solas” of the Reformation)
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@TULIPed
To answer: It’s justification by faith. From faith, understood as a basis; is completed in works. We don’t rely on ourselves to do it; but totally on God and on God’s grace and the help of the Holy Spirit.
As for the percentage question: We Catholics don’t think in those terms. We don’t keep a running tally of good works that we tack onto what Jesus did on the Cross.
What we do is we live out the Faith as best we can by cooperating with God, obeying God and staying in a state of grace; in choosing to do good and avoiding evil. When we sin, we repent and go to God in Confession.
The key to understanding the truth of the Faith is that man has free will; the free choice to do good or to do evil. That’s the role of works in our salvation.
You see: We know that the human being has free will. Original sin, cleansed away at Baptism; has left the human will wounded. That wound is the disorder of concupiscence: The inclination to sin that every human being, except Our Immaculately Conceived Blessed Mother; suffers from.
Yes, we are justified by faith. But: We have the freedom of choice to choose good or evil. We have, through faith in Jesus; God’s grace and help on offer that we can choose to take Him up on or say no thank you. You see: Our justification, by faith; is completed in our works.
That’s what saves or condemns human beings before God.
If we choose to do good; we have the grace of God to help us. If we choose evil; we leave God behind and go it alone. And we have only ourselves to blame.
To answer: It’s justification by faith. From faith, understood as a basis; is completed in works. We don’t rely on ourselves to do it; but totally on God and on God’s grace and the help of the Holy Spirit.
As for the percentage question: We Catholics don’t think in those terms. We don’t keep a running tally of good works that we tack onto what Jesus did on the Cross.
What we do is we live out the Faith as best we can by cooperating with God, obeying God and staying in a state of grace; in choosing to do good and avoiding evil. When we sin, we repent and go to God in Confession.
The key to understanding the truth of the Faith is that man has free will; the free choice to do good or to do evil. That’s the role of works in our salvation.
You see: We know that the human being has free will. Original sin, cleansed away at Baptism; has left the human will wounded. That wound is the disorder of concupiscence: The inclination to sin that every human being, except Our Immaculately Conceived Blessed Mother; suffers from.
Yes, we are justified by faith. But: We have the freedom of choice to choose good or evil. We have, through faith in Jesus; God’s grace and help on offer that we can choose to take Him up on or say no thank you. You see: Our justification, by faith; is completed in our works.
That’s what saves or condemns human beings before God.
If we choose to do good; we have the grace of God to help us. If we choose evil; we leave God behind and go it alone. And we have only ourselves to blame.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
God opening up Heaven for mankind was a free gift…but you degree of Glory in Heaven is determined by your Good works.
T
TULIPed
Guest
Fair enough. You rely totally on God. And yet…
If it’s totally God, then is He not successful for somebody who doesn’t get their justification completed in works? Is the idea that you continually have to make the choice to believe and have faith? If so, how do you reconcile that concept with the idea of us being a “new creation” in Christ here in 1 Corinthians 5:17:
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”
In any case - I can see where you’re coming from. I disagree, and think that our interpretation makes more sense when put together with the totality of scripture, but ultimately I believe that if you love Jesus and declare Him Lord, you’re my brother - Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Good discussion.
H
Hodos
Guest
Luther always affirmed that you are condemned by your sin. The scripture is clear on that point, as is Luther. Not sure where you get the idea that Luther has somehow abandoned the concept that we are condemned by sin. Luther’s point is that you are not saved by works, but by grace through faith in Christ. This is because as Paul did, Luther believes that the law condemns you because you are a sinner. It is faith in Christ’s work on the cross that justifies you before God.
You are putting words in Paul’s mouth here. Going back to Romans 6:22-23, which is I assume the text you are referring to, we already saw that this is not the case. Paul has already laid out in the preceding 6 chapters that we are justified by faith apart from works. He then states in Romans 6, vs. 22 that you already have (present tense) the fruit or result (referring back to the righteousness from faith), which results in sanctification (ongoing process), and (notice you are leaving out this connective word that links the achieving of eternal life back to the original concept being that the righteousness obtained by faith is the object which leads to eternal life. So let’s follow the sentence, you have the benefit (of righteousness by faith) which results in sanctification and eternal life. Both sanctification and eternal life are the benefits received, not the cause. Paul then bookends this statement with vs. 23: For the wages of sin is death (Luther agrees, sin causes eternal death), but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Your reading completely reverses the sentence making sanctification the cause rather than the benefit received.
One last thing, Jesus never revoked the law. Not sure where you are getting that either. Jesus upheld and fulfilled the law.
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@TULIPed and @Hodos
To answer TULIPed first:
You don’t have to continually decide over and over again to believe and have faith. One can have faith and still sin. Let’s look at the definition of mortal sin and you see why people can be still be damned to hell after being justified by faith.
1: Grave matter.
2: Full knowledge. You know it’s wrong.
3: Full consent of the will. You do it anyway.
The rest are venial sins that don’t condemn you to hell and are forgiven at the start of every Mass in the Penitential Rite.
When a Catholic mortally sins; he has faith and believes in Jesus. As with point 3: You do it anyway.
If faith alone saves; the commission of mortal sin wouldn’t condemn you to hell. You’d be saved anyway.
Unless, of course; your tradition holds that you have to have enough saving faith ( Nowhere found in Scripture) to be saved.
My point can be beautifully demonstrated in the Book of Acts. In it, a husband and wife ( Members of the Jerusalem church ) sell some property and keep the money from Saint Peter. Defrauding the Church and it’s earthly head, the Pope.
Now, as members of the Church; they had received two Sacraments: Baptism ( Cleansed of Original Sin, died with Christ and reborn again in His Resurrection; a new creature ) and Confirmation ( The Sacrament of Faith in which you profess your faith and receive the Holy Spirit from the bishop, or a priest authorized by the bishop; laying hands on you ).
Now, they have justification by faith. They were caught in their mortal sin by Saint Peter, who was informed by the Holy Spirit; and struck dead in their mortal sins and objectively, we’d be reasonably sure they’d go to hell.
If justified by faith alone; God wouldn’t have struck them dead in their sin and gone to hell. If justified by faith alone; their sins would already be forgiven on the Cross.
Thus, if justification by faith alone; they wouldn’t have been struck dead and sent to hell. Thus: Mortal sin compromises one’s salvation. Faith and works.
To answer TULIPed first:
You don’t have to continually decide over and over again to believe and have faith. One can have faith and still sin. Let’s look at the definition of mortal sin and you see why people can be still be damned to hell after being justified by faith.
1: Grave matter.
2: Full knowledge. You know it’s wrong.
3: Full consent of the will. You do it anyway.
The rest are venial sins that don’t condemn you to hell and are forgiven at the start of every Mass in the Penitential Rite.
When a Catholic mortally sins; he has faith and believes in Jesus. As with point 3: You do it anyway.
If faith alone saves; the commission of mortal sin wouldn’t condemn you to hell. You’d be saved anyway.
Unless, of course; your tradition holds that you have to have enough saving faith ( Nowhere found in Scripture) to be saved.
My point can be beautifully demonstrated in the Book of Acts. In it, a husband and wife ( Members of the Jerusalem church ) sell some property and keep the money from Saint Peter. Defrauding the Church and it’s earthly head, the Pope.
Now, as members of the Church; they had received two Sacraments: Baptism ( Cleansed of Original Sin, died with Christ and reborn again in His Resurrection; a new creature ) and Confirmation ( The Sacrament of Faith in which you profess your faith and receive the Holy Spirit from the bishop, or a priest authorized by the bishop; laying hands on you ).
Now, they have justification by faith. They were caught in their mortal sin by Saint Peter, who was informed by the Holy Spirit; and struck dead in their mortal sins and objectively, we’d be reasonably sure they’d go to hell.
If justified by faith alone; God wouldn’t have struck them dead in their sin and gone to hell. If justified by faith alone; their sins would already be forgiven on the Cross.
Thus, if justification by faith alone; they wouldn’t have been struck dead and sent to hell. Thus: Mortal sin compromises one’s salvation. Faith and works.
Last edited:
T
TULIPed
Guest
What was the mortal sin for which they were killed?
M
Michael16
Guest
To answer @TULIPed:
Their sin was that they sold their property, kept the money from Saint Peter and the Church and lied about it.
False witness.
To answer @Hodos:
Romans 6:22-23 “ But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, The return you get is sanctification and it’s end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. “
The return you get is sanctification and it’s end, eternal life. The return for obedience to God is sanctification, growth in holiness and the mastery over sin ( which is death ); the result/goal of which is eternal life. The text bears me out; not you.
Jesus dying for us on the Cross and our redemption from hell is a free gift from God that none of us can ever merit on our own efforts. We agree.
Their sin was that they sold their property, kept the money from Saint Peter and the Church and lied about it.
False witness.
To answer @Hodos:
Romans 6:22-23 “ But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, The return you get is sanctification and it’s end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. “
The return you get is sanctification and it’s end, eternal life. The return for obedience to God is sanctification, growth in holiness and the mastery over sin ( which is death ); the result/goal of which is eternal life. The text bears me out; not you.
Jesus dying for us on the Cross and our redemption from hell is a free gift from God that none of us can ever merit on our own efforts. We agree.
Last edited:
T
TULIPed
Guest
Ouch. Thank goodness they don’t line up everyone in Washington and start asking them questions about what they did with everyone’s money. The streets would be littered with people.
In any case, I’ve never heard that passage in Acts used to justify…well justification. You learn something new every day I suppose.
H
Hodos
Guest
Yeah, sorry, linguistically your explanation doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Paul is referring back to the righteousness obtained by Christ when he refers to the Karpos (fruit). The issue you are having here is that you cannot see the Greek preposition connecting the Karpos (fruit or righteousness obtained through Christ) to hagiosumos (sanctification). The connecting preposition is eis which is demonstrating that sanctification is resulting from, not causing. You are also missing the word de (usually meaning but, however in this case meaning and) and telos. Again, both sanctification and eternal life are described as resulting from the karpos, which is the righteousness obtained by Christ. Again here, Paul is not using righteousness and sanctification interchangeably. He maintains the distinction because sanctification results from justification. However, the opposite is not true because Paul has already stated repeatedly in Chapters 3-6 that justification is by faith apart from works. Keep at it though. I am confident that at some point you will start putting it all together instead of trying to argue one vs. against another in the same letter without connecting them in a complete flow of argumentation.
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@Hodos
My argument is sound. You’re reading things into the text as well reading verses backwards in comparison to my clear reading of the text.
Now:
Saint Paul, early on in Romans; lays out the case that man cannot be justified by works of the Old Law. That we both agree on. As the Catechism says it; I’m not conceding anything to you.
Chapter 3, Saint Paul says that faith apart from works of the law justifies ( This is where Luther got it wrong, took the bit in his mouth and ran with it ) and at the end of Romans 3, he finishes with that faith doesn’t overturn the law; faith upholds the law. Faith doesn’t throw out the law. First appearance of obedience to faith. Important to note.
Romans 4, Saint Paul uses the illustration of Abraham. That’s fine. So does the Catechism. He and our Blessed Mother are the two prime examples of obedience of faith. Again: Nothing conceded.
At that point, Saint Paul goes on as he does in the rest of 4 and 5. Nothing conflicting with Catholic doctrine; except Luther was seeing what he wanted to see, namely: His reading into the text of faith alone.
Now: Saint Paul goes on to say that righteousness leads to eternal life and in Romans 6:22-23; he finishes up with justification and sanctification both result in eternal life. Then in Romans 7 and 8, he goes on to describe the life and death battle with sin.
Now: I see your hang up is that you can’t let go of the justification and sanctification difference. I can harmonize the two together. You can’t while following Luther’s misreading.
Luther’s basic misread was that he assumed, and ignoring the context of “ of the law “ that Saint Paul was talking about works in general. His other misread was ignoring that faith doesn’t overturn the law; it upholds it. Works aren’t thrown out.
But by this point, he wasn’t listening as his misread let him off the hook from his tortured scrupulosity and ran with it to a horrifying degree. He then proceeded to see what he wanted to see in the text and later convinced people to see the same thing. Even altering Romans 3:28 to fit his interpretation.
My argument is sound. You’re reading things into the text as well reading verses backwards in comparison to my clear reading of the text.
Now:
Saint Paul, early on in Romans; lays out the case that man cannot be justified by works of the Old Law. That we both agree on. As the Catechism says it; I’m not conceding anything to you.
Chapter 3, Saint Paul says that faith apart from works of the law justifies ( This is where Luther got it wrong, took the bit in his mouth and ran with it ) and at the end of Romans 3, he finishes with that faith doesn’t overturn the law; faith upholds the law. Faith doesn’t throw out the law. First appearance of obedience to faith. Important to note.
Romans 4, Saint Paul uses the illustration of Abraham. That’s fine. So does the Catechism. He and our Blessed Mother are the two prime examples of obedience of faith. Again: Nothing conceded.
At that point, Saint Paul goes on as he does in the rest of 4 and 5. Nothing conflicting with Catholic doctrine; except Luther was seeing what he wanted to see, namely: His reading into the text of faith alone.
Now: Saint Paul goes on to say that righteousness leads to eternal life and in Romans 6:22-23; he finishes up with justification and sanctification both result in eternal life. Then in Romans 7 and 8, he goes on to describe the life and death battle with sin.
Now: I see your hang up is that you can’t let go of the justification and sanctification difference. I can harmonize the two together. You can’t while following Luther’s misreading.
Luther’s basic misread was that he assumed, and ignoring the context of “ of the law “ that Saint Paul was talking about works in general. His other misread was ignoring that faith doesn’t overturn the law; it upholds it. Works aren’t thrown out.
But by this point, he wasn’t listening as his misread let him off the hook from his tortured scrupulosity and ran with it to a horrifying degree. He then proceeded to see what he wanted to see in the text and later convinced people to see the same thing. Even altering Romans 3:28 to fit his interpretation.
M
Michael16
Guest
@Hodos
As for your linguistic analysis:
The historical record doesn’t bear you out.
To do so, it requires that generations of faithful translators, theologians and Church Fathers has to miss the obvious for 1,500 years before your beloved and tortured theology professor pointed it all out.
If Saint Paul was as clearly teaching faith alone as Luther claims and you defend; it would take 1,500 years of Greek speaking laity and clergy to missed the obvious.
There were no faith alone Lutherans in the 1st or 2nd centuries who pointed this out or raised against the “ innovations “ you assert.
As for your linguistic analysis:
The historical record doesn’t bear you out.
To do so, it requires that generations of faithful translators, theologians and Church Fathers has to miss the obvious for 1,500 years before your beloved and tortured theology professor pointed it all out.
If Saint Paul was as clearly teaching faith alone as Luther claims and you defend; it would take 1,500 years of Greek speaking laity and clergy to missed the obvious.
There were no faith alone Lutherans in the 1st or 2nd centuries who pointed this out or raised against the “ innovations “ you assert.
H
Hodos
Guest
Feel free to point out where in Romans 3 Paul has established a new law by which we are justified.
Exactly. You are trying to assert that the law was done away with and a new law was established. Christ himself tells us that I have not come to nullify the law but to fulfill it. Paul (and Luther’s point) is not that the law has been done away with. Rather we uphold the law. Paul has already shown that the use of the law provided for in Romans 3 is to condemn equally all persons. This use of the law remains in effect at all times for both believers and unbelievers, driving us to repentance and faith in Christ. And Paul continues to affirm this even in his life as a believer in Romans 7 showing how the law still justly condemns sin. The law also becomes a guide that we might know what God’s will is for the believer. Luther affirms both of these uses of the law in all of his writings. So while I applaud you for upholding the law, you still have not established that Paul is saying that his ability to adhere to the law is the reason he obtains justification before God. And moving back to Romans 6 as we have already shown, he never does this. His sanctification is the result of his justification by faith, not the precursor.
Actually, it does. Numerous Church Fathers can be cited as specifically using the formula for justification to include Clement of Rome, Ambrose, Basil, John Chrysostom, Epiphanios, Cyril, etc. Many of whom to include Ambrose Chrysostom, and Epiphanios specifically use the Sola Fide formula when discussing justification by faith. As a matter of fact, it was the “do what it is in you and grace will not be denied” theology of Peter Lombard that was the Medieval innovation with regard to justification, which Luther was specifically reacting against.
You would do well by the way to read the Epistle to Diognetus to see an early apologetic demonstrating forensic justification.
Last edited:
- Status