Losing faith in "faith alone"

[HypnoToad]

Sorry man, you will never make fundamentalism look remotely appealing to me by trying to appeal to skepticism.

Ok. But doesn't answer my question.

 

[FireDragon76]

The author of that apologetics site is wrong. He is basically saying "even though they state what they do, it just can't be true." Which amounts to a giant "ah nah."

Within the context of the texts provided Chyrsostom clearly interpreted the Pauline epistles properly to conclude we are justified by faith alone. You can dig up other works of Chrysostom to show his emphasis that Christians are called to holy living and good works and that would not be a contradiction. In fact that would be in keeping with Pauline doctrine:

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

What I think is being suggested by Roman Catholics is that the only Grace which is not given by our merits is the forgiveness of sins. Which of course St Augustine refuted:

When, however, the Pelagians say that the only grace which is not given according to our merits is that whereby his sins are forgiven to man, but that that which is given in the end, that is, eternal life, is rendered to our preceding merits: they must not be allowed to go without an answer. If, indeed, they so understand our merits as to acknowledge them, too, to be the gifts of God, then their opinion would not deserve reprobation. But inasmuch as they so preach human merits as to declare that a man has them of his own self, then most rightly the apostle replies: Who makes you to differ from another? And what have you, that you did not receive? Now, if you received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it? 1 Corinthians 4:7 To a man who holds such views, it is perfect truth to say: It is His own gifts that God crowns, not your merits, — if, at least, your merits are of your own self, not of Him. If, indeed, they are such, they are evil; and God does not crown them; but if they are good, they are God's gifts, because, as the Apostle James says, Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights.James 1:17 In accordance with which John also, the Lord's forerunner, declares: A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven John 3:27 — from heaven, of course, because from thence came also the Holy Ghost, when Jesus ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. If, then, your good merits are God's gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts. (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will Ch. 15)​

CHURCH FATHERS: On Grace and Free Will (St. Augustine)

Absolutely. Holy living for all practical purposes looks like: serving your neighbor. Which need not be something grand. One does not even have to leave ones house to serve ones neighbor. Your spouse or child is your neighbor.

What Luther did was say "no, religion is not a "good deed" that we do that pleases God. And you know what, modern people tend to understand that implicitly.

What Catholicism wants to do is posit some extrabiblical notion that religion is a necessity in ones life. This is a betrayal of the historical Jesus message. Jesus was not an especially "religious" man, and he crossed paths with religious people of his day who thought they were righteous because they were religious.

 

[Dkh587]

In Hebrew, faith is an action word. It’s not just a mental agreement of a fact.

If you trust in Christ & God, you will do what they say to do. If you don’t trust them, you won’t do it. Simple as that.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That's cool.

I guess metaphor while a double edged sword, is not all bad. It permits us to reinterpret texts that are no longer relevant in their more literal sense. At one time, an origins story about a naughty snake was relevant to peoples lives (its interesting that interpretation persists into the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, where the serpent, not Satan, is mentioned as the cause of the fall). Then we see spiritual meaning in it. But we lose sight that other people do the same with other story's imagery, and they are no less powerful for doing so.

As I understand it, Satan was speaking through the serpent, not that the serpent was Satan, any more than a herd of swine are demons. So there is a spiritual dimension in Scripture that is foreign to naturalistic assumptions.

 

[112358]

In Hebrew, faith is an action word. It’s not just a mental agreement of a fact.

If you trust in Christ & God, you will do what they say to do. If you don’t trust them, you won’t do it. Simple as that.

Amen. The whole deal is really much more simple than most make it. Believe and obey, or not. End of story.

 

[amariselle]

Ok. But doesn't answer my question.

It doesn’t answer any of mine either. If one believes that the Bible is just “fanciful tales”, “myths” and “silly stories” then one has, by their own words, claimed they have no reason to believe Jesus was even real, let alone God.

On the word of God:

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. - Psalm 119:105

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. - John 17:13-17

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God... - Ephesians 6:17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not actually true. The repentant robber below gained Paradise solely through faith/trust/belief alone, ie without doing any good work.

Well, I am not denying there are exceptions to the rule. But I was not talking about exceptions to the rule. Nor was I talking about those who place their trust in Jesus before they shortly die. Obviously James was not talking about death bed confessions or the thief on the cross. However, if the thief did not die, he would have had to live out his faith by displaying works (Thereby showing that the Lord lives inside of Him).

....... Actually, doing the works of God's Law also requires faith/trust/belief in the Word/Jesus, eg "we reap what we sow" or "Go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you".(GALATIANS.6:7, JOHN.5:14/8:11, DEUT.28, ROMANS.2)

Okay. You are confused as to what I believe. Deuteronomy 28 is for Israel. Granted, we can use certain aspects of the Old Law because they have been repeated in the New Testament, but we do not go back to seeking to obey the laws that only applied to Israel. We are under a New Covenant with New Commands (given to us by Jesus Christ and His followers).

The exemptions at ACTS.15:24-29 apply to Gentile Christians wrt the Law.(cf; 1COR.6:9-11 & REV.22:12-15) Do ye believe this.?

The Old Law and not the New Law. Hebrews 7:12 says there is a change in the law and it does not say there is no law whatsoever. Christians are not lawless. Revelation 22:12-15 is not referring to the Old Law type commandments given to Israel. It is referring to the commandments given to believers in Jesus Christ under the New Covenant (i.e. the New Testament).

LUKE.23: = 39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”

40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Again, James is not talking about those who place their faith in Christ shortly before they die. James is talking about those who live out their faith. As I said before, I believe we are "Initially Saved" and "Ultimately Saved" by God's grace (Jesus Christ) without works. But if we live out our faith, works will follow because they proof that the One (Who is salvation itself) lives inside of them. So in one sense, Paul is saying that it is true we are not saved by works. But in another way, James is saying we are saved by works. The difference is that Paul is saying we are not saved by Man Directed Works Alone; And James is saying we are saved by God's grace + the good works (of the Lord done through the believer). Paul was fighting against those who thought that circumcision was the necessary first step in getting right with God. James was fighting against those who thought they could sin and still be saved.

 

[Afra]

The author of that apologetics site is wrong. He is basically saying "even though they state what they do, it just can't be true." Which amounts to a giant "ah nah."

No, that is not what the author of the site said.

Within the context of the texts provided Chyrsostom clearly interpreted the Pauline epistles properly to conclude we are justified by faith alone. You can dig up other works of Chrysostom to show his emphasis that Christians are called to holy living and good works and that would not be a contradiction. In fact that would be in keeping with Pauline doctrine:

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

You seem think that because Chrysostom uses the term "faith alone" in the context of justification, that he must teach Protestant Sola Fide, but this is error because the use of the phrase "faith alone" in every context does not equate to the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Fide. Even Pope Benedict has stated that we are justified by faith alone, if the phrase is properly understood, and that a Catholic may say that we are justified by faith alone, if properly understood.

General Audience of 19 November 2008: Saint Paul (13). The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith | BENEDICT XVI

The same thing is stated in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

14.The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.


15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]


16.All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God's gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life.


17.We also share the conviction that the message of justification directs us in a special way towards the heart of the New Testament witness to God's saving action in Christ: it tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way.​

When you see Chrysostom use the phrase "faith alone" you conclude that he is teaching the same thing as Martin Luther, but that is simply not the case. Chrysostom does not teach Protestant Sola Fide any more so than Pope Benedict or portions of the Joint Declaration to which the Catholic Church has assented. In order to prove that Chrysostom teaches the same as Luther, you must demonstrate that he excludes works at every stage of justification. This is where you fail. You have already been provided with numerous instances where he states that works are included in the later stages of justification, and I need not rehash that material here.

What I think is being suggested by Roman Catholics is that the only Grace which is not given by our merits is the forgiveness of sins.

No, you cannot produce one single official Catholic document that teaches that.

 

[redleghunter]

But ancient people understood that Genesis story of the snake literally.

Well of course they did. When they saw a snake in the dust of the ground flicking its tongue they truly knew the serpent was "eating dust."

As a matter of fact if you are not the lead vehicle in a military convoy on a dirt road, you are literally eating dust.

 

[ladodgers6]

I have always been taught growing up that we are justified before God by faith alone, and not works. However, the more I read James 2, the more I believe the Catholic Church is correct in its soteriology as opposed to Anglican/Lutheran soteriology.

James 2:21 following:
21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend.24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

It literally says "...considered righteous by what they (you) do and not by faith alone".

I've heard that this passage refers to how the Church can tell if one has genuine faith, as opposed to faith/justification before God. Where is this distinction found in the text? It seems that you have to read more into the text than is there to arrive at that conclusion.

Here's a second, even more clear translation:

James 2:24: Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

James 2 is speaking against Antinomianism ( relating to the view that Christians are released by grace from the obligation of observing the moral law). This term was coined by Martin Luther.

James 2 is speaking of Sanctification. Because these who are spoking too, are believers! They already have Faith. The Gospel is not a license to sin. Paul also taught this in Galatians 6, that Christians must take every opportunity to do good. Faith grows and produces fruit.

 

[redleghunter]

You seem think that because Chrysostom uses the term "faith alone" in the context of justification, that he must teach Protestant Sola Fide, but this is error because the use of the phrase "faith alone" in every context does not equate to the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Fide.

Faith alone is English for Sola Fide. Semantics does not work here.

Even Pope Benedict has stated that we are justified by faith alone, if the phrase is properly understood, and that a Catholic may say that we are justified by faith alone, if properly understood.

You mean properly understood via Roman Catholic doctrinal development. Again even semantics is no help here. Saying we are justified by faith alone and then post after post a Roman Catholic says....but James chapter two...

The same thing is stated in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justificatio

The same declaration which agrees there really wasn't a papacy until hundreds of years later?

When you see Chrysostom use the phrase "faith alone" you conclude that he is teaching the same thing as Martin Luther, but that is simply not the case.

I believe I pointed out three times where this is actually the case.

 

[redleghunter]

Many Protestants claim that we are saved by faith in Jesus and that only the extent of our reward in Heaven is determined by the amount of our good works on Earth. However, this is totally contrary to what Jesus warned in Matthew when he said that many who call him "Lord" will NOT make it to Heaven! I think that Protestantism needs to place less emphasis upon the words of Paul and more credence upon words of Jesus in the Gospels.

Actually those who cry out Lord Lord debate appealing to what they did.

Matthew 7: NASB
21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Looks like they thought they were good by the acts they performed. Says nothing about faith or faithfulness up there. Seems like practicing lawlessness was top on the list.

but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven

Now what's really important if you truly want to isolate the matter to a red letters is find out the meaning of the above quote from Jesus:

John 6: NASB

37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

I think the "Lord, Lord" verse is almost as abused by eisegesis as the "Judge not" verse. People love quoting both to stifle debate.

 

[redleghunter]

In context, the "works" here are the works of the Law of Moses. And only Jews could do those works. The author here is telling us being Jewish (doing the works of the Law of Moses) is not salvific. So the author here is not denying that how one lives does not affect salvation.

Considering Paul was speaking to Gentiles I think you are incorrect.

 

[St_Worm2]

But ancient people understood that Genesis story of the snake literally. Christians today just read it allegorically, because the literal meaning is absurd. Which is my point. Religion is a game of trying to make sense of a bunch of old myths. Maybe God speaks to us through that, but let's keep it real what we are reading.

Imagine a world where nobody really pays attention to snakes because they are scary, it's pre-scientific. They could indeed believe that snakes ate dust. Aristotle taught that kind of nonsense.

BTw, "licking the dust" probably refers to misunderstanding of how snakes smell. They use their tongue and the have specialized organs in their mouth for doing that, drawing in molecules from the air. Snakes are not evil instruments of satan, but are wonderfully made organisms that are part of the web of life that sustains us. We didn't get that from the Bible, we got that from science.

Ancient texts (e.g. the Descent of Ishtar), sometimes depict serpents as inhabitants of the underworld that feed on dust and clay (so there was definitely mythology involved with snakes back then). But I doubt that few living off the land in an agrarian society would ever think that dust/dirt was the actual food of snakes (it's not like they had to go to the reptile house at the zoo to see them, and that from a distance, because in a very real sense, they lived with them and at least knew they ate more than dust).

*(that bit about Aristotle above .. weird!!)

Also, from what I understand, snakes use their forked tongues to draw more than air molecules in to be analyzed by their Jacobson organ, they sample everything around them (including rocks, plants, dirt, dust, etc. .. and your hand if you put it in front of them ), so while we know they don't eat dust for sustenance, it does 'look' a little like they might be eating something when they use their tongues in this way.

I could go on, but my point is, there's no reason to dismiss the Torah as untrue or as a myth over a small, poorly exegeted portion of the Creation narrative. Genesis 3 wasn't written in the manner of (or with the factual precision of) a science textbook, nor was its purpose to discourse the dining habits of snakes*

Yours and His,
David

*(I know you know this as well, so what is all this really about, if you don't mind me asking?)

 

[redleghunter]

Ancient texts (e.g. the Descent of Ishtar), sometimes depict serpents as inhabitants of the underworld that feed on dust and clay (so there was definitely mythology involved with snakes back then). But I doubt that few living off the land in an agrarian society would ever think that dust/dirt was the actual food of snakes (it's not like they had to go to the reptile house at the zoo to see them, and that from a distance, because in a very real sense, they lived with them and at least knew they ate more than dust).

*(that bit about Aristotle above .. weird!!)

Also, from what I understand, snakes use their forked tongues to draw more than air molecules in to be analyzed by their Jacobson organ, they sample everything around them (including rocks, plants, dirt, dust, etc. .. and your hand if you put it in front of them ), so while we know they don't eat dust for sustenance, it does 'look' a little like they might be eating something when they use their tongues in this way.

I could go on, but my point is, there's no reason to dismiss the Torah as untrue or as a myth over a small, poorly exegeted portion of the Creation narrative. Genesis 3 wasn't written in the manner of (or with the factual precision of) a science textbook, nor was its purpose to discourse the dining habits of snakes*

Yours and His,
David

*(I know you know this as well, so what is all this really about, if you don't mind me asking?)

And might I add how did we get into snakes eating dust in a justification by faith discussion?

 

[redleghunter]

So how much work or which work does it take to save a person?

How does a person know he's done enough to get him over the bar?

Do bad deeds subtract from good deeds?

Well said. I do ask the very same question often and never get an answer.

It's the works quantification question as you put it more clearly.

The only religion I know of with scales of justice on judgment day is Islam.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I've heard that this passage refers to how the Church can tell if one has genuine faith, as opposed to faith/justification before God. Where is this distinction found in the text? It seems that you have to read more into the text than is there to arrive at that conclusion.

James 2:9 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.​

It looks like you missed this verse in your quoted chapter of James. It distinguishes qualifications of what "believe" in God means. Pretty clear that faith is not just knowledge of God but something more. It goes on to describe a true faith as one that aspires to do what God desires. Now the horse goes before the cart. First comes faith, then comes actions. Salvation is based only on a true faith. It is a gift from God. This is why scripture says righteousness is credited and not earned.

Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.​

Now read other scripture to see when the credit of righteousness is attained. It is not after Abraham was circumcised or went to sacrifice his son. And so your signs of true faith do no part in earning salvation.

Romans 4:9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!​

A couple of verses in James should not be used to develop an incorrect doctrine that goes against many other verses that speaks to what effects our salvation.

Now the saved will be judged by their actions. Some with stronger faith that did more to serve God will receive a greater reward in heaven. But, we are not to judge the hearts to determine who has a true faith with as little as it may be of evidence to it. Jesus spoke a parable on such. Even those that work one hour receive salvation the same as those that worked the whole day. To your OP, many have true faith, just some have it more than others and it will be displayed by their actions.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The only religion I know of with scales of justice on judgment day is Islam.

Scripture speaks of scales of rewards and punishments for our actions in this age. But the judgment for salvation or damnation does not depend on our actions, but our heart.

 

[ladodgers6]

Many Protestants claim that we are saved by faith in Jesus and that only the extent of our reward in Heaven is determined by the amount of our good works on Earth. However, this is totally contrary to what Jesus warned in Matthew when he said that many who call him "Lord" will NOT make it to Heaven! I think that Protestantism needs to place less emphasis upon the words of Paul and more credence upon words of Jesus in the Gospels.

The Protestant teaching on Justification by Faith Alone is shorthand. In Reformed Theology its the object of our Faith, is what saves sinners!

BTW, Paul words are the words of Christ. Acts 9:15But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

And why try to discredit Paul, I have no idea!

 

[Mountainmike]

It is worth reading Jimmy Akins book " salvation controversy" because in dealing with all the salvation issues from scripture ( e.g. Temporal/ eternal components
E.g. past-current-future aspects. E.g. Meaning of faith as Intellectual assent or formed faith )

-one of the points he makes is that different uses of words can imply differences that are not there, or at least confuse the subject.

In this case he points out that ( only one section of) the Lutheran church uses the word faith to mean " formed faith" i.e. Faith plus active charity - so that the Holy See of the Catholic Church was able to produce a joint declaration with that Lutheran division , despite their using the phrase " faith alone" because they meant formed faith. The holy see went on to strongly advise against the use the word faith in that way, because it can only confuse, but in essence agreed with the meaning , but not the use of words. And it is further confusing that not all Lutherans share the same understanding, so only one part of Lutheran could have agreed with Catholics on that matter.

But it's worth reading Akins book to see how far churches agree masked by difference in language - indeed Catholics can agree with a substantial part of calvins " tulip" but most probably don't realise it - in part because of language.

I have always been taught growing up that we are justified before God by faith alone, and not works. However, the more I read James 2, the more I believe the Catholic Church is correct in its soteriology as opposed to Anglican/Lutheran soteriology.

James 2:21 following:
21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend.24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

It literally says "...considered righteous by what they (you) do and not by faith alone".

I've heard that this passage refers to how the Church can tell if one has genuine faith, as opposed to faith/justification before God. Where is this distinction found in the text? It seems that you have to read more into the text than is there to arrive at that conclusion.

Here's a second, even more clear translation:

James 2:24: Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.