Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[PeaceByJesus]

The sheep are rewarded with eternal life because they showed generosity and kindness to those in need.

More precisely, it was not because such fruit made actually good enough for Heaven vs, Hell, but because their faith was true, effectual faith, which is counted for righteousness, but which God rewards in grace, in recognition of such fruit, and who is the real author of, while what "saints" really have earned is eternal damnation.

Simple things like food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, a drink for the thirsty, a hug for the one who needs comfort, a visit to someone in the hospital etc... In contrast, there are people who are staunch believers in God, the Bible, Christ as their savior...However, ...These people are never visibly seen doing the works listed here. but they don't give candy on Halloween, don't put up Christmas lights, have signs up that say "keep off my grass", grumble at the neighborhood kids playing on the street or making noise....Let me ask, is this person going to be damned by Christ?

The Biblical works listed are not that of giving candy on Halloween, putting up Christmas lights, or not having signs "keep off my grass", but Scripture does place souls in one of two categories based upon their overall fruit.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. (1 John 3:7)

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)

For instance,

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:5)

Continuing impenitently in known sin (versus struggling to overcome such), after conviction, testifies to unbelief, while one that characteristically lives with the intent to honor the Lord, with a contrite heart of faith, will evidence fruits of faith, in particular a unique, special love for faithful brethren, which includes forbearing faults and discipline the rebellious.

But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. (Hebrews 6:9-10)

While naive, weak-willed Lot is often condemned as a wholly carnal believer, despite his sins, yet he insisted the brethren stay with him, and risked his life on behalf of them, as well as his own daughters.

Are we equipped to judge?

Paul was persuaded that Timothy (2Tim. 1:5) and the Thessalonians (1Ths. 1:4ff) were of the elect in the light of their fruit, but some are hard to judge, and Paul had doubts about some Corinthians.

sculleywr said: ↑ But notice something else, as well, even Paul says that every man is judged by their works.

Can you give me the scripture reference for this please?

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (Revelation 2:23)

Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. (Colossians 3:24-25)

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10)

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. (Romans 14:10)

Who will render to every man according to his deeds: (Romans 2:6)

Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. (1 Corinthians 3:8)

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)

(And which is not purgatory, but awaits the Lord's return, and one is saved despite the corruptible building material being consumed, not because of them.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Part of Martin Luther's problem with Rome was the fact that Popes contradicted each other. Sola Scriputra doesn't change, but the Popes have been inconsistent over the years. Just because people disagree on what the Bible means doesn't negate Sola Scriputra. But the fact that Popes have demonstrated their fallibility does negate their authority.

That popes have contradicted each other or been in error when speaking infallibly is rejected by RCs, while the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, is novel, unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

But that Rome has contradicted herself is rather manifest.

 

[PapaZoom]

No, it hasn't. It has not been consistent, because of several things:

1. There is no consistent definition of which passages are clear or unclear
2. There is no consistent definition of what Scripture is.
3. There is no consistent definition of how Scripture is to be used.

The Reformation was not necessary, because necessity implies that there wasn't already a proper Church following the proper Truth. If there wasn't a Church that was presenting the whole Truth, then there wasn't a Truth to reform to. And if there was, there was no need to reform the church you are in. Rather, just become part of the Church which is presenting the whole Truth.

Sola Scriptura isn't consistent. If it were, then everyone who believes it would come to a consistent outcome. Consistency leads to consistency.

You don't seem to understand Sola Scriptura

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

Was the "Church" correct in selling indulgences? How about when your church burned people at the stake? That's part of your tradition. Did you guys get that from God too? How come you don't practice that tradition any longer?

The abuses in the Catholic Church led to the reformation and I thank God for the men and women, many of them murdered by the Catholic Church, who worked to reform the Church.

 

[samir]

For all your claims to superior knowledge over your fellow Protestants, to slander them as not being Christian, you don't even know what a Christian is. Even the Catholics call the Protestants Christian and in the end think them saved. So what good does all this knowledge do if it results in such bitter animosity to those you disagree with?

There are so many false statements in your reply that it's hard to know where to begin.

1. Regarding superior knowledge, it took humility and study to learn the truth. I'm not boasting of being superior, just trying to present the truth in the same way a professor would instruct his students to help them learn.

2. I did not slander anyone. The reason I don't consider many Protestants I've met to be Christians is because their actions (such as hatred toward their neighbors) showed they were not following Christ.

3. I do not have any bitterness or animosity with people I disagree with. I do not judge anyone based on beliefs.

Even the Catholics call the Protestants Christian and in the end think them saved.

That is not true. It's a common misconception based on reading the Vatican II documents out of context.

Although Vatican II said Protestants who call themselves Christian are linked to the Church, they also said that everyone belongs to or is related to the Church in some way including atheists and people who hate God.

All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.

Although Vatican II acknowledged that some Protestants whom they described in the quote below are Christians, they very clearly stated elsewhere that other Protestants are not following Christ and not justified before God.

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 15)

I agree with the RCC that the Protestants whom they described are Christians and fully accept them as brothers in Christ despite any differences in beliefs.

 

[samir]

You don't seem to understand Sola Scriptura

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

That verse says scripture is useful, not that it is complete. Scripture is clearly not complete since it does not interpret itself.

Was the "Church" correct in selling indulgences?

The Church never sold indulgences. That's a Protestant myth.

How about when your church burned people at the stake?

The Church never burned anyone at the stake. That's another Protestant myth.

That's part of your tradition. How come you don't practice that tradition any longer?

No it is not. It has never been a tradition.

The abuses in the Catholic Church led to the reformation and I thank God for the men and women, many of them murdered by the Catholic Church, who worked to reform the Church.

Protestants did not reform the Church, they rejected the Church and created another one that taught them what they wanted to hear.

 

[PapaZoom]

That verse says scripture is useful, not that it is complete. Scripture is clearly not complete since it does not interpret itself.



The Church never sold indulgences. That's a Protestant myth.



The Church never burned anyone at the stake. That's another Protestant myth.



No it is not. It has never been a tradition.



Protestants did not reform the Church, they rejected the Church and created another one that taught them what they wanted to hear.

The Inquisitions were established by the Roman Catholic Church and they killed thousands.

 

[sculleywr]

You don't seem to understand Sola Scriptura

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

Was the "Church" correct in selling indulgences? How about when your church burned people at the stake? That's part of your tradition. Did you guys get that from God too? How come you don't practice that tradition any longer?

The abuses in the Catholic Church led to the reformation and I thank God for the men and women, many of them murdered by the Catholic Church, who worked to reform the Church.

1. Could you please, for the love of all that is holy, stop trying to pin the indulgences and other actions of the Roman See on the East? I'm not a Roman Catholic, so when you say my Church, you're completely hitting a strawman. The Orthodox Church never practiced burning at the stake or indulgences or any of the things which the Roman Catholics practiced in the Medieval era. It would be conducive to real discussion if you stopped and thought about that BEFORE jumping on the "indulgences is what comes from Tradition" bandwagon. IF you realized something, the claim of Tradition in the East is not allowed to change, so the indulgences and burning of people would be something that was an innovation, which places it outside of the definition of Tradition in the East. So if anyone is misunderstanding the other, you're not grasping what Tradition means.

2. The assumption that Scripture is a false assumption. Scripture never claims to be complete, a comprehensive guide to spiritual life, or anything of the sort. In point of fact, it very plainly states that if we only were to limit the range of Truth to what Christ specifically taught on earth, even that narrow range would be impossible to contain in a written form. John writes this in chapter 21:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.​

So if everything Christ did on earth could not be completely contained in written form, then how could the entirety of all that is Truth be contained in any written form?

3. The claim of Tradition does not strip the Scripture of its authority. Rather, it strips the individual of his own authority, and places that authority in the Church. Not in one man, nor even in one Council, but in the whole of the Church, and specifically in the Head which never left the Body: Jesus Christ. Protestants claim that by removing the Pope from the equation, they have restored balance to the world. But let's look at this "balance". Multiple views of SS exist. Multiple views of Salvation, the core purpose of Christ's life on earth, are condoned as if those views are equal. The process by which Scripture is to be interpreted is so convoluted today that nobody has any authority to declare any viewpoint to be heresy, even those which were so clearly heresy in the fourth century, like Arianism and Gnosticism. The Protestant Reformation is the reason for the success of such groups as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Twelve Tribes Communities, and many other heresies against which the early Church stood and prevailed. Gnosticism has returned, Arianism has returned, and many other heresies have returned, prevailing over a progressively weaker western Christendom.

They prevail because they know that there is no real unity in the Protestant world. And that is all at the feet of Sola Scriptura. This doctrine makes the individual his own personal vicar of Christ. Rather than the Church being as Paul taught it to be, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, the Protestant church is naught but a fractured, disorganized, bickering group of people with no real foundation. I certainly do understand Sola Scriptura. I was raised in it the majority of my life. That will be true for nearly 20 more years from now. It is an overexaggeration of something which is true. That is something which is true of literally every heretical belief in the history of Christianity. What was Gnosticism if not an overexaggeration of the deity of Christ? What was Arianism if not an overexaggeration of the humanity of Christ?

The same is true of Sola Scriptura. It is an overexaggeration of the authority of Scripture, making it not a tool the Church was given by Christ, but somehow a thing which is equal in authority to God Himself. It is making the Creation of God something which is somehow equal to God Himself. But nothing which will pass away with time can ever be equal to God. Nothing which has a beginning can be equal to God, Who has no beginning.

The claim of Tradition is not that Scripture is useless or without authority. The claim is that the Scripture is not of much use when it is stripped out of the Body to which it belongs. What use is an arm without the brain it belongs to? That is Scripture when it is taken out of the Tradition to which it belongs. Try as they may, the Protestant Reformation could never restore life to the Scriptures because the body they tried to attach it to, the traditions they themselves brought to the fore, were not the Body to which that arm belonged. The Scripture belongs as part of Tradition, neither above nor below it, but in balance. The Romans tried to elevate Tradition above the Scripture, and added to that Tradition new traditions. The Protestants tried to elevate Scripture above Tradition, and took away much of that Apostolic Tradition which enlivened the early Christians. In their efforts, neither found the true life which that Tradition brings, for neither would submit themselves. This is where the divisions came from.

 

[PapaZoom]

Keep it pithy.

 

[PapaZoom]

Also, at one time there were three Popes. whatsupwiththat?

 

[sculleywr]

Also, at one time there were three Popes. whatsupwiththat?

As I said, that's off topic when discoursing with Orthodox Christians, because we never had a Pope telling us what to do. The idea of Papal Supremacy was never part of the Eastern churches.

The problem of Sola Scriptura being an inconsistently held doctrine that allows for all of the divisions that Protestantism has, that's on topic. You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.

 

[PapaZoom]

As I said, that's off topic when discoursing with Orthodox Christians, because we never had a Pope telling us what to do. The idea of Papal Supremacy was never part of the Eastern churches.

The problem of Sola Scriptura being an inconsistently held doctrine that allows for all of the divisions that Protestantism has, that's on topic. You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.

Heard this all before. I don't buy what you're selling.

 

[Rick Otto]

That verse says scripture is useful, not that it is complete. Scripture is clearly not complete since it does not interpret itself.



The Church never sold indulgences. That's a Protestant myth.



The Church never burned anyone at the stake. That's another Protestant myth.



No it is not. It has never been a tradition.



Protestants did not reform the Church, they rejected the Church and created another one that taught them what they wanted to hear.

Are we looking at severe denial or the Mandella Effect?

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="sculleywr: As I said, that's off topic when discoursing with Orthodox Christians, because we never had a Pope telling us what to do. The idea of Papal Supremacy was never part of the Eastern churches.

The fact you were disobedient didn't change the fact you were given orders (legit or not) is another perfectly legitimate way to look at that.

The problem of Sola Scriptura being an inconsistently held doctrine that allows for all of the divisions that Protestantism has, that's on topic. You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.

Inconsistencies in the holding of doctrines also exist in traditions of Sola Ecclesia. And tradition hasn't yet published the 'finite amount of things Christ said'.
So get a point.

 

[samir]

Are we looking at severe denial or the Mandella Effect?

Neither. We're looking at Protestants bearing false witness and slandering the church.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Incorrect. Orthodox and Catholic Christians follow the biblical gospel.

No they do not. Peter stated, "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they, (Acts 15:11) and was referring to how God purified hearts by faith, (v. 9) even as Peter has promised, with the washing of regeneration taking place before baptism, (Acts 10:43-47) meaning it was such faith that is expressed in baptism, confessing the Lord Jesus, that appropriates justification, not the act of baptism.

And the stated requirements for baptism is that of wholehearted repentant faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) with the Holy Spirit never manifestly describing any souls being baptized who could not comprehend the word and respond to it.

And which faith results in a life of characteristic obedience and holy life, including sharing the faith and repentance when convicted of being contrary to Christ in his life.

And which conversion by grace thru faith meant that such were accounted righteousness (But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5), and "accepted in the Beloved," and "made to sit together with Him in heaven," (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and have direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of Christ. (Heb. 10:19)

And with the life for believers - who are all called saints as a class - being shown to be with the Lord, wherever the NT manifestly speaks of it. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 ["we"]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

And with the only suffering after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ due to the loss of rewards (and fear and grief of the Lord's disapproval), which one is saved despite of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return, and the resurrection of believers. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)

And who are ministered to by presbuteros (senior/elder)/episkopos (superintendent/overseer), both referring to one office, and who are never distinctively called "priests" (which all believers are), nor shown to engage in any unique sacerdotal function.

And whose primary active function is not that of administering the Lord supper - which they are never shown doing in the life of the church, and is only manifestly described in two epistles to the churches (see here by God's grace) - but that of feeding the flock by preaching the word, (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1,2) which is said "nourish" souls, (1Tim. 4:6) being called "milk" and "meat," (1Pt. 2:2) Heb. 5:13-14) and which is how souls obtain spiritual life in themselves, (Eph. 1:13) - and never by physically consuming something - and with the doing the will of God being the Lord's "meat," which is how we are to "live" by Christ, (As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57) not physically consuming Him.

And with the prayers of believers never being to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, in contrast to pagans and their Queen of Heaven. (Jer. 43)

In contrast, salvation for a Catholic (I will mainly address that of Roman here) begins with actually becoming good enough to be with God via the act itself (ex opere operato) of sprinkling a (usually) morally senseless innocent infant (who can neither repent or believe, or needs to), and which typically ends up having to once again become good enough to enter Heaven, through prolonged "purifying torments" or RC "Purgatory" commencing at death.

And which separates believers into two classes, only one being formally called "saints."

And who are taught that, being justified by the good works that they do in Christ, they can be said to have truly merited eternal life. (Trent)

And who are ministered to by clergy distinctively called "priests," whose primary active function is that of offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it to the people to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. With this ritual being the "source and summit of the Christian faith," the supreme sacrament around which all else revolves.

And which souls typically show little commitment and Bible literacy, and with almost most being liberal in moral views, with their church counting even prosodomite proabortion public figures as members in life and in death.

And which souls pray to created beings in Heaven, even kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Although I don't use things like statues, icons, and holy water, those are of little importance compared to getting the gospel correct.

But practices have theology behind them and their gospel incorporates such in order for you to enter glory, versus Hell or at least purgatory.

Those who love God and believe the biblical gospel are Christians even if they have some incorrect beliefs or engage in extra-biblical practices.

Except Prots it seems.

Those who carefully avoid extra-biblical practices but choose to live in sin because they believe a false gospel that teaches any easy path to salvation are not following Christ

.
True, as "easy" meaning antinomianism.

I've been to almost every non-denominational Protestant congregation where I live and had numerous discussions with non-denominational Protestants online in multiple forums and found the vast majority didn't care what Christ taught and had no interest in following Christ.
They just wanted to believe something easy to avoid going to hell and wanted others to pat them on the back to confirm they were right with God despite refusing to turn from sin and obey His commandments.

.
Sounds like liberal ones I have debated here, but such are contrary to conservative evangelicals who most strongly believe in the primary distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture as being the wholly inspired word of God and supreme authority.

And which testify to a stark contrast with Catholicism, which produces the laxity you describe.

" Even Luther and other "reformers" acknowledged their teaching caused a huge decline in morality and that most of their followers who accepted their new faith alone tradition abandoned morality and lived to please their carnal desires and sinful natures."

More like abuse of his teachings. Give the quotes, but you need to search here by the grace of God, before you accept Luther (whom i do disagree with on certain things) quotes uncritically, while "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:14) is not new.

In contrast, apart from Luther's use the use of hyperbole, see some of his sober teaching on the subject.

Luther stated that saving faith is,
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead...And St. Peter says, Ye are to be as faithful, good shepherds or administrators of the manifold grace of God; so that each one may serve the other, and be helpful to him by means of what he has received, 1 Peter 4:10. See, here Peter says the grace and gifts of God are not one but manifold, and each is to tend to his own, develop the same and through them be of service to others.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]

What classic evangelical commentaries support this moral laxity you describe?

James 2:14-26 6. We are taught that a justifying faith cannot be without works, from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Those who would have Abraham's blessings must be careful to copy after his faith: to boast of being Abraham's seed will not avail any, if they do not believe as he did... [2.] Those works which evidence true faith must to works of self-denial, and such as God himself commands (as Abraham's offering up his son, his only son, was), and not such works as are pleasing to flesh and blood and may serve our interest, or are the mere fruits of our own imagination and devising. — Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714), Commentary on the Whole Bible

Jas 2:17 If it hath not works, is dead - The faith that does not produce works of charity and mercy is without the living principle which animates all true faith, that is, love to God and love to man. — Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832), Commentary on the Bible

Jas 2:14-18 Even so faith. Faith that has no power to bring one to obedience and to sway the life is as worthless as good wishes which end in words. — The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass, a body without a soul, Jam. 2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the lively hope and faith of regenerated persons: — Dr. John Gill (1690-1771), Exposition of the Entire Bible

“If the works which living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith itself (literally, ‘in respect to itself’) has no existence; that is, that what one boasts of as faith, is dead.” “Faith” is said to be “dead in itself,” because when it has works it is alive, and it is discerned to be so, not in respect to its works, but in respect to itself. — Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Jas 2:17 So likewise that faith which hath not works is a mere dead, empty notion; of no more profit to him that hath it, than the bidding the naked be clothed is to him. — John Wesley

Also, rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period that notes,

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

It's not always "big" sins like fornication, adultery, drunkenness, and debauchery. For many, especially older people who have less interest in the sins of youth, their sin of choice is pride. They like feeling like they are better than everyone else and go around pointing fingers and judging people.

Not that you would of course.

Just like the Pharisees, they judge good Christians living moral lives and tell them they're going to hell because they won't agree with their man-made traditions.

But you said the Catholic Christians follow the biblical gospel. Has it changed?

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html[/QUOTE]

 

[samir]

So, as you have indicated, Jesus separates the sheep from the goats. The sheep are rewarded with eternal life because they showed generosity and kindness to those in need. Simple things like food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, a drink for the thirsty, a hug for the one who needs comfort, a visit to someone in the hospital etc.

The sheep are rewarded because they did this for these unfortunate people but were actually doing it for Christ.

The goats are punished because they didn't do it.

The goats would only have done it if it benefited them while the sheep did it without any expectation of it benefiting them.

The sheep did it out of kindness. The goats would have done it out of selfishness for their own gain.

These truths are evident by the sheep saying "when did we do these acts of kindness to You" (meaning Christ). They were oblivious to the fact that they were doing this for Christ, yet did it anyway.

The goats were also oblivious as to who they would have been showing kindness. Yet, they say that they would have IF they had known.

These examples of "works" that are evidence of our faith are not difficult. They are quite common to all people who live in a civilized society. Do you know anyone that doesn't give to charity, donate used clothes, buy a toy for a toy drive, visit sick, elderly, bring a dinner to the people who just lost a loved one, volunteer at a fundraiser? These are common actions of most communities.

The fact that scripture says God will judge based on works proves it's not based on faith alone.

This raises a question. If a person who has accepted Christ by faith and a person who refuses to accept that there is a God, Christ is God, they need a savior, and basically refuses to believe the biblical accounts of anything, let alone the gospel. If these two people are working fundraiser together to raise money for a homeless shelter....ARE BOTH PEOPLE SAVED?

Are you doubting what Jesus said? If not, how do you explain what Jesus taught? I hope you're not like many Protestants I know who just ignore what Jesus said because it doesn't agree with their tradition.

The parable says the sheep are righteous. Someone who culpably rejects God is not righteous so they wouldn't be considered a sheep even if they raised money for a homeless shelter. The reason the righteous are called sheep is because they follow Christ as their shepherd.

The parable is similar to John 5:29 where Jesus said, "those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."

Is the non believer going to be saved by these works? Can we agree that the believer's faith is evident by these works but the non believer is also showing works.

I agree the believer's faith is evident by these works but the reverse (that everyone who has faith will do good works) is not true. In other words, a person who loves God and lives to please Him shows he has faith but not everyone who has faith will respond by loving God.

If you study scripture you'll see that initial justification is always by faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5) and final justification is always based on works (Matt 25, John 5:29) and never by faith alone.

In contrast, there are people who are staunch believers in God, the Bible, Christ as their savior and fear for eternal damnation. These people, on the inside are true believers. However, due to whatever their life has had them experience, childhood events, cultural and social issues, mental problems, their personal character, whatever....

These people are never visibly seen doing the works listed here. They may go to church regularly, tithe, take communion etc, but they don't give candy on Halloween, don't put up Christmas lights, have signs up that say "keep off my grass", grumble at the neighborhood kids playing on the street or making noise.

That happens. However, there are also believers who choose to deliberately keep on sinning because, although they truly believe, they love their sins more than God. Scripture says these believers will not be saved (Gal 5, 1 Cor 6).

Let me ask, is this person going to be damned by Christ? Are we equipped to judge? They don't show the "works" indicated. Yet, they know Jesus. Will Christ send them to hell?

There is a difference between sinning due to the issues you described and freely choosing to sin due to loving sin more than God. I agree with the RCC's interpretation of scripture which is that believers who love God and live to please Him will be saved despite any sins they commit while believers who continue to willfully sin against God in a grave matter will not be saved unless they repent and turn back to God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That could take some doing, but the key threads are, I think, "the easiest defense...," the issues with...," and "first century Christians...."


I'm relieved to learn that to be the case.


No, that's simply not to be found in Scripture...and why would it, since "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" is a creation of a much later time (after some legends and customs in the first several centuries AD had time to develop)?

Actually, it's not. Paul taught his converts by word of mouth before he taught them by letter. That's what Sacred Tradition is-the Holy Spirit guiding the spoken word.

 

[Albion]

Actually, it's not. Paul taught his converts by word of mouth before he taught them by letter. That's what Sacred Tradition is-the Holy Spirit guiding the spoken word.

No, that's just oral transmission of the same information that is available to us in Scripture--the same thing we do around here when we cite a passage or verse from the Bible but aren't actually holding a copy of it up to the other person to read while we make our points.

 

[samir]

No they do not. Peter stated, "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they, (Acts 15:11) and was referring to how God purified hearts by faith, (v. 9)

RCC and OC believes that too.

even as Peter has promised, with the washing of regeneration taking place before baptism, (Acts 10:43-47) meaning it was such faith that is expressed in baptism, confessing the Lord Jesus, that appropriates justification, not the act of baptism.

Baptism is the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5, John 3:5). Acts 10:43-47 is about the gift of tongues.

And the stated requirements for baptism is that of wholehearted repentant faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) with the Holy Spirit never manifestly describing any souls being baptized who could not comprehend the word and respond to it.

Peter didn't give a sermon to babies in Acts 2:38. Those passages are addressing adult converts. Faith and repentance are necessary for adults to receive grace in baptism but a lack of faith is not an impediment to receiving grace in an infant or young child.

And which conversion by grace thru faith meant that such were accounted righteousness (But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5), and "accepted in the Beloved," and "made to sit together with Him in heaven," (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and have direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of Christ. (Heb. 10:19)

The RCC believes this too. Trent clearly states that converts are justified at conversion by grace thru faith apart from works.

And with the only suffering after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ due to the loss of rewards (and fear and grief of the Lord's disapproval), which one is saved despite of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return, and the resurrection of believers. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)

There are numerous passages throughout scripture that clearly state justification can be lost.

And who are ministered to by presbuteros (senior/elder)/episkopos (superintendent/overseer), both referring to one office, and who are never distinctively called "priests" (which all believers are), nor shown to engage in any unique sacerdotal function.

The word presbuteros means presbyter or priest. The NT refers to priests engaging in sacerdotal functions (James 5:13-16 is one of many).

And with the prayers of believers never being to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, in contrast to pagans and their Queen of Heaven. (Jer. 43)

How is asking a Christian in Heaven to pray for you any different than asking a Christian on Earth to pray for you?

In contrast, salvation for a Catholic (I will mainly address that of Roman here) begins with actually becoming good enough to be with God via the act itself (ex opere operato) of sprinkling a (usually) morally senseless innocent infant (who can neither repent or believe, or needs to), and which typically ends up having to once again become good enough to enter Heaven, through prolonged "purifying torments" or RC "Purgatory" commencing at death.

That's not RCC teaching. Baptism is an instrument God uses to provide grace, not something a person does to become good enough to be with God.

And which separates believers into two classes, only one being formally called "saints."

What's wrong with recognizing saints among believers?

And who are taught that, being justified by the good works that they do in Christ, they can be said to have truly merited eternal life. (Trent)

That's what scripture teaches too. See Matt 25 and John 5:28. Keep in mind Trent is referring to final justification, not initial justification and works only merit eternal life because of Jesus' promise to reward those who do good.

From Trent, Session 6:

"Of this Justification... the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ... merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross"

"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."

"life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God Himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits."

"Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life"

"CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."

And which souls typically show little commitment and Bible literacy, and with almost most being liberal in moral views, with their church counting even prosodomite proabortion public figures as members in life and in death.

The RCC clearly condemns sodomy and abortion as grave sins.

And which souls pray to created beings in Heaven, even kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

What makes you think veneration is worship? I see a clear difference.

Except Prots it seems.

I'm a Protestant so I don't think so.

True, as "easy" meaning antinomianism.

I mean they think morals and obeying God's commandments, while encouraged, are optional. Do you think it's necessary for salvation or just an optional suggestion?

Sounds like liberal ones I have debated here, but such are contrary to conservative evangelicals who most strongly believe in the primary distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture as being the wholly inspired word of God and supreme authority.

Except when scripture contradicts their easy saved by faith alone tradition and requires them to become a disciple of Jesus and submit to God's laws. Catholicism and scripture says following Jesus is necessary. "Evangelicals" say it's optional and many prefer to not follow Jesus and just believe hoping that will save them.

More like abuse of his teachings. Give the quotes, but you need to search here by the grace of God, before you accept Luther (whom i do disagree with on certain things) quotes uncritically, while "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:14) is not new.

The teaching that no sin will separate a believer from God is a license to sin.

Luther stated that saving faith is,
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Believers cannot help doing good works. What about believers who don't do good works? No true believer cannot help doing good works. Luther can't even define what it means to have faith. The Protestants I know who live in sin all consider themselves to be believers.

This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead...And St. Peter says, Ye are to be as faithful, good shepherds or administrators of the manifold grace of God; so that each one may serve the other, and be helpful to him by means of what he has received, 1 Peter 4:10. See, here Peter says the grace and gifts of God are not one but manifold, and each is to tend to his own, develop the same and through them be of service to others.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]

So believers who don't become a new creature and obey God's commandments are not true believers? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy again.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]

The problem with that is faith is often alone in people I've met and their pastor's all convinced them they are saved. No where does scripture ever say faith always results in love and good works. In that were true, then verses about final justification (Matt 25, John 5:28) would be based on faith, not works.

What classic evangelical commentaries support this moral laxity you describe?

The problem is the premise that faith always results in godliness is completely false especially when faith is watered down to just believing one verse of scripture (Rom 10:9).

James 2:14-26 6. We are taught that a justifying faith cannot be without works, from two examples, Abraham and Rahab.

They have it backwards. Good works that show a love for God cannot be done without justifying faith but that doesn't mean everyone who has faith will love God and choose to do good. That's one of the fundamental errors within popular Protestantism and the reason easy believism is so common among Protestants. Everyone thinks they have faith and they all think their works are good and according to their pastor's teaching they are saved. The "works" necessary are always defined ambiguously such that every non-believer can say he does good works too.

But you said the Catholic Christians follow the biblical gospel. Has it changed?

That's correct. It has not changed.

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]

I agree with this and believe it is the teaching of scripture. Separating oneself from the body of Christ is a grave sin against the love of God because it is a rejection of the Church he founded and a grave sin against the love of one's neighbors because disunity hinders unbelievers from converting. A person who refuses to remain in the body of Christ won't be saved even if he gave his life in the name of Christ because he rejected God's grace and lived at enmity with God by living in opposition to Christ instead of following Jesus by remaining in the Church.

Keep in mind that schismatics are people who were in the visible body of Christ who chose to abandon the Church. Protestants who were never in the Church are not schismatics and are not responsible for the schism of the Reformers.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

I haven't finished studying the papacy so I can't comment on these quotes. When I say Catholics follow the biblical gospel I mean they teach that faith and works are necessary for salvation and that justification can be lost.

 

[chilehed]

Strictly speaking, that's so. Nor can anyone "know" for a certainty that there's anyone else in the universe besides himself.

This sounds like you're a solipsist. Solipsism is ultimately self contradicting, but if it were true the point of the OP would be moot and you've likely been spending an awful lot of time in a corner somewhere talking to yourself. *grin*

I don't know why you'd assume that any book that wasn't actually sacred scripture was written by some "random schmo,"...

That's not quite what I said. But in fact, a lot of random schmos wrote documents that claimed to be works of the Apostles. That was one of the problems that the councils intended address.

...just as there's no reason to think that the decision to accept certain books as revelation is "incontrovertibly true."

And if the decision was erroneous, if some of the books included in the canon shouldn't be there, then we can't be sure that any specific part of the bible is actually the inerrant work of God.

Even the councils that made the decision on the canon were not absolutely sure of the Apocrypha, nor for that matter, were the Jews before them who were divided on the matter. And, as noted, there never has been one single canon accepted by the whole of the Christian world anyway.

Irrelevant. In the end the councils made a decision, and every one that dealt with the question, from Hippo to Trent, agreed on the same set of books. What matters is the decision, not the messy process that preceded the decision. The only question that matters is "was the decision right, or was it wrong?".

I'm moving on.