James himself identities “dead faith”, so it seems only consistent to identify a saving faith. Additionally, scripture tells us that even demons believe. From the previous mentioned Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:
Jon
- Status
E
eddie_too
Guest
i am still confused.
in your theology, can a person possess saving faith and still commit sin?
in your theology, can a person possess saving faith and still commit sin?
Of course! We all do. The regenerate are at once saint and sinner. Sin is a part of earthly life. This is the entire reason for the institution of the sacraments, all of which carry with the forgiveness of sins, Baptism, Confession/Holy Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper.
It is in these ways that we come back to Him. We repent, are forgiven, and continue to strive to do better, to grow in grace.
Jon
E
eddie_too
Guest
can “saving faith” be lost? if it can, how can it be lost? also, how can it be regained?
Yes, as was explained in post 921. It is regained through the work of the Spirit, and repentence.
Jon
E
eddie_too
Guest
all sin for which we are culpable is intentional by definition. a person who does not intend to perform a sinful action is not judged morally responsible for that action. for example, killing someone else in one’s sleep. the taking of an innocent life is always a moral evil, but doing it in one’s sleep results in a person not being held responsible for committing that moral evil.
i do not know of anyone who is clearly living without sinning.
so, since all sin is intentional and few live their lives without sinning, it would seem that “saving faith” is very rare and most human beings, except those who live without sinning, are nowhere near being justified under such a theological construct as the one you are presenting.
however, maybe you do not really mean intentionally, persevering in sin. or maybe your definition of persevering does not include white lies, selfish choices, etc.
personally, i find the RC doctrine of sanctifying grace to be somewhat similar to your concept of “saving faith”.
i do not know of anyone who is clearly living without sinning.
so, since all sin is intentional and few live their lives without sinning, it would seem that “saving faith” is very rare and most human beings, except those who live without sinning, are nowhere near being justified under such a theological construct as the one you are presenting.
however, maybe you do not really mean intentionally, persevering in sin. or maybe your definition of persevering does not include white lies, selfish choices, etc.
personally, i find the RC doctrine of sanctifying grace to be somewhat similar to your concept of “saving faith”.
J
joe371
Guest
The point was to illustrate that sola scriptura does not work. One guy says - once saved always saved - and another person (you) says that that once-saved-always-saved guy is wrong, and you are both deferring to your final authority. What did God leave us to settle these types of disputes?
J
joe371
Guest
J
joe371
Guest
Christ alone is our source of salvation. :thumbsup:This is one verse that is very clear; it sells itself:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Apply that question to your own paradigmatic framework (that of church bodies who claim to be infallibly guided by an authoritative hierarchy), and you’re in no better position than us.The point was to illustrate that sola scriptura does not work. One guy says - once saved always saved - and another person (you) says that that once-saved-always-saved guy is wrong, and you are both deferring to your final authority. What did God leave us to settle these types of disputes?
J
joe371
Guest
Simple: Jesus founded one church and we, when faced with doctrinal impasses, take it to His one church where any and all doctrinal dispute are settled. (I won’t quote scripture passages because you will probably tell me that I am misinterpreting them)
B
benjohnson
Guest
My hunch is that the Lutheran wasn’t objecting to current Catholic teaching for responsive works that come from faith, but for the paid-for indulgences in the 15th century.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
You would then have to go about demonstrating which church that is. Which is fine, in and of itself, but in order to have any ground above a Protestant, you’d have to be able to infallibly point out which church that is. If it is fallible, then your demonstration could be in error. I don’t see how this is any better than fallibly interpreting Scripture. As oft as the Protestant could be wrong in his interpretation, you could be wrong in showing which church is infallible. To which infallible court of appeals will you take it if two people disagree on which church is the true church?
J
joe371
Guest
Hmm…
You believe that it is impossible to demonstrate which church in today is the church to which the apostles belonged - I think. I do not. You say I must be able to infallibly point out which church today continues to be the church to which the apostles belonged. What do you mean by infallibly? You act like it is a tall order for someone to confirm something historically. We know that none of the PCs existed until the 16t century, so we can exclude them. It’s either the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox or the CC. No infallibly required to confirm historically these things…I thought you said there was no use in using the word infallible?How many churches** in the world today** existed in the beginning of the 2nd century?
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
It sounds like you, and/or he, have misconceptions regarding indulgences.
Not wanting to get off-subject, I’d recommend starting a new thread about it. Or, you can get something solidly Catholic which explains it, such as Scott Hahn’s series Indulge Yourself.
Suffice it to say for now that one good work that comes from faith is almsgiving and giving to support the Church. Thus, indulgences in and of themselves are not wrong. “Selling” special “favors” is, of course, Simony, and has always been considered sinful by the Church.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
It seems like you don’t quite understand the word “infallibly.”
We CAN demonstrate with the assurance of history and full human knowledge that the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox Church) is that institution that Jesus started.
If you’d like to argue for the Orthodox Church, I can show you why this wouldn’t be the case, but that would be a different subject.
So, knowing that the Church that Jesus started is either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church(es), why in the world would you choose one that is clearly NOT the one that Jesus endowed with His Authority?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
The point is not how easy or difficult it is to prove. The point is, if you have to demonstrate something infallibly in order to really know, then you’re always going to fall short of the same standard you apply to us when it comes to interpreting Scripture. If you’re going to require us to have an infallible understanding of Scripture interpretation, don’t shift the goal posts when it comes to your own standard of truth.Hmm…
How many churches** in the world today** existed in the beginning of the 2nd century?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Indeed.
E
eddie_too
Guest
how did Jesus ensure His Gospel would be reliably and authetically available to all generations of His Church?
the RCC’s answer to this question is, Jesus created apostolic succession.
that is why Jesus spent three years, 24-7, living with and teaching the twelve apostles, so that they would be prepared to continue His mission of saving souls.
only the twelve were especially taught and prepared to carry on Jesus message.
only the twelve had the authority to pass on their Jesus ordained authority to successors.
without apostolic succession, the christian community has only the most tenuous of links to Jesus because the links that exist outside of apostolic succession are human created links, unlike apostolic succession which is a divinely created link.
the RCC’s answer to this question is, Jesus created apostolic succession.
that is why Jesus spent three years, 24-7, living with and teaching the twelve apostles, so that they would be prepared to continue His mission of saving souls.
only the twelve were especially taught and prepared to carry on Jesus message.
only the twelve had the authority to pass on their Jesus ordained authority to successors.
without apostolic succession, the christian community has only the most tenuous of links to Jesus because the links that exist outside of apostolic succession are human created links, unlike apostolic succession which is a divinely created link.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
But that wasn’t my point in bringing it up. I don’t believe that the modern RCC or EO are “the church that Jesus founded.” My point in bringing them out is to show that the standard of infallible knowledge of a subject, whether it be Scriptural interpretation or that the church is infallible and is the one true church, will always have a fallible component. Namely, you. Your choice to accept the claims of a church communion or any given doctrinal position, is always based on your fallible knowledge of it. Therefore, epistemologically, the ground is even.
- Status