Protestantism

PeaceB · Nov 21, 2017

@redleghunter

Chew on this "out of context" material too.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 31 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

John 3:35-36
The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He that believes in the Son has everlasting life, and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.
1. Great is shown to be in all things the gain of humility. Thus it is that we have brought arts to perfection, not by learning them all at once from our teachers; it is thus that we have built cities, putting them together slowly, little by little; it is thus that we maintain our life. And marvel not if the thing has so much power in matters pertaining to this life, when in spiritual things one may find that great is the power of this wisdom. For so the Jews were enabled to be delivered from their idolatry, being led on gently and little by little, and hearing from the first nothing sublime concerning either doctrine or life. So after the coming of Christ, when it was the time for higher doctrines, the Apostles brought over all men without at first uttering anything sublime. And so Christ appears to have spoken to most at the beginning, and so John did now, speaking of Him as of some wonderful man, and darkly introducing high matter.

For instance, when commencing he spoke thus: A man cannot receive anything of himself John 3:27: then after adding a high expression, and saying, He that comes from heaven is above all, he again brings down his discourse to what is lowly, and besides many other things says this, that God gives not the Spirit by measure. Then he proceeds to say, The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. And after that, knowing that great is the force of punishment, and that the many are not so much led by the promise of good things as by the threat of the terrible, he concludes his discourse with these words; He that believes in the Son has everlasting life; but he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. Here again he refers the account of punishment to the Father, for he says not the wrath of the Son, (yet He is the Judge,) but sets over them the Father, desiring so the more to terrify them.

Is it then enough, says one, to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life? By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven Matthew 7:21; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He says, This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God John 17:3, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, He that believes in the Son has eternal life, and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternal life, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. And he did not say, awaits him, but, abides on him, that is, shall never remove from him. For that you may not think that the shall not see life, is a temporary death, but may believe that the punishment is continual, he has put this expression to show that it rests upon him continually. And this he has done, by these very words forcing them on to Christ. Therefore he gave not the admonition to them in particular, but made it universal, the manner which best might bring them over. For he did not say, if you believe, and, if you believe not, but made his speech general, so that his words might be free from suspicion. And this he has done yet more strongly than Christ. For Christ says, He that believes not is condemned already, but John says, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. With good cause; for it was a different thing for a man to speak of himself and for another to speak of him. They would have thought that Christ spoke often of these things from self-love, and that he was a boaster; but John was clear from all suspicion. And if at a later time, Christ also used stronger expressions, it was when they had begun to conceive an exalted opinion of Him.

redleghunter · Nov 21, 2017

GingerBeer said:
Chrysostom and Basil did not come to the same conclusion that Luther did with the idea of "sola fide". Claiming that they did is not accurate and it does not accord with history.

Show me your refutation. The above is an assertion.

GingerBeer said:
Chrysostom and Basil were committed to fidelity in words and deeds being what faith was and produced.

Again same as Luther.

“We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.”

― Martin Luther

And from his introduction to Romans:

Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they’re smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do. (Martin Luther's Definition of Faith by Martin Luther)
Quite in line with Chrysostom.

GingerBeer said:
That is why they wrote about righteousness being by faith. They didn't think in the same terms as Luther because Luther's intellectual environment was more than a thousand years away in a far distant future.

As I showed above, Luther was invoking the early church fathers. I don't know how much more clear the quotes could be.

Now if you were to say Chrysostom opined on faith from a more pastoral approach vs scholastic, you may have a good point. I personally would enjoy (and have) reading the Homilies of Chrysostom over dry scholastic academia.

redleghunter · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceB said:
@redleghunter

Chew on this "out of context" material too.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 31 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

John 3:35-36
The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He that believes in the Son has everlasting life, and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.
1. Great is shown to be in all things the gain of humility. Thus it is that we have brought arts to perfection, not by learning them all at once from our teachers; it is thus that we have built cities, putting them together slowly, little by little; it is thus that we maintain our life. And marvel not if the thing has so much power in matters pertaining to this life, when in spiritual things one may find that great is the power of this wisdom. For so the Jews were enabled to be delivered from their idolatry, being led on gently and little by little, and hearing from the first nothing sublime concerning either doctrine or life. So after the coming of Christ, when it was the time for higher doctrines, the Apostles brought over all men without at first uttering anything sublime. And so Christ appears to have spoken to most at the beginning, and so John did now, speaking of Him as of some wonderful man, and darkly introducing high matter.

For instance, when commencing he spoke thus: A man cannot receive anything of himself John 3:27: then after adding a high expression, and saying, He that comes from heaven is above all, he again brings down his discourse to what is lowly, and besides many other things says this, that God gives not the Spirit by measure. Then he proceeds to say, The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. And after that, knowing that great is the force of punishment, and that the many are not so much led by the promise of good things as by the threat of the terrible, he concludes his discourse with these words; He that believes in the Son has everlasting life; but he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. Here again he refers the account of punishment to the Father, for he says not the wrath of the Son, (yet He is the Judge,) but sets over them the Father, desiring so the more to terrify them.

Is it then enough, says one, to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life? By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven Matthew 7:21; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He says, This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God John 17:3, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, He that believes in the Son has eternal life, and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternal life, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. And he did not say, awaits him, but, abides on him, that is, shall never remove from him. For that you may not think that the shall not see life, is a temporary death, but may believe that the punishment is continual, he has put this expression to show that it rests upon him continually. And this he has done, by these very words forcing them on to Christ. Therefore he gave not the admonition to them in particular, but made it universal, the manner which best might bring them over. For he did not say, if you believe, and, if you believe not, but made his speech general, so that his words might be free from suspicion. And this he has done yet more strongly than Christ. For Christ says, He that believes not is condemned already, but John says, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. With good cause; for it was a different thing for a man to speak of himself and for another to speak of him. They would have thought that Christ spoke often of these things from self-love, and that he was a boaster; but John was clear from all suspicion. And if at a later time, Christ also used stronger expressions, it was when they had begun to conceive an exalted opinion of Him.

He's right in his exegesis. We know even the demons 'believe' there is a God.

But you did not bold the following which means all the difference:

Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternallife, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. And he did not say, awaits him, but, abides on him, that is, shall never remove from him. For that you may not think that the shall not see life, is a temporary death, but may believe that thepunishment is continual, he has put this expression to show that it rests upon him continually. And this he hasdone, by these very words forcing them on to Christ.Therefore he gave not the admonition to them in particular, but made it universal, the manner which best might bring them over. For he did not say, if you believe, and, if youbelieve not, but made his speech general, so that his words might be free from suspicion. And this he has done yet more strongly than Christ. For Christ says, He that believesnot is condemned already, but John says, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. With good cause; for it was a different thing for a man to speak of himself and for another to speak of him. They would have thought that Christ spoke often of these things from self-love, and that he was a boaster; but John was clear from all suspicion. And if at a later time, Christ also used stronger expressions, it was when they had begun to conceive an exalted opinion of Him.

Now this portion torpedoes your argument:

Therefore when He says, This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God John 17:3, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation.

Operative is "knowledge." There's a great Evangelical tract called missing heaven by 18 inches. Seems Chyrsostom was teaching much earlier and exegetes well again.

I do thank you for posting the direct link. It sure does help with the discussion.

PeaceB · Nov 22, 2017

redleghunter said:
He's right in his exegesis. We know even the demons 'believe' there is a God.

But you did not bold the following which means all the difference:

Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternallife, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. And he did not say, awaits him, but, abides on him, that is, shall never remove from him. For that you may not think that the shall not see life, is a temporary death, but may believe that thepunishment is continual, he has put this expression to show that it rests upon him continually. And this he hasdone, by these very words forcing them on to Christ.Therefore he gave not the admonition to them in particular, but made it universal, the manner which best might bring them over. For he did not say, if you believe, and, if youbelieve not, but made his speech general, so that his words might be free from suspicion. And this he has done yet more strongly than Christ. For Christ says, He that believesnot is condemned already, but John says, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. With good cause; for it was a different thing for a man to speak of himself and for another to speak of him. They would have thought that Christ spoke often of these things from self-love, and that he was a boaster; but John was clear from all suspicion. And if at a later time, Christ also used stronger expressions, it was when they had begun to conceive an exalted opinion of Him.

Now this portion torpedoes your argument:

Therefore when He says, This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God John 17:3, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation.

Operative is "knowledge." There's a great Evangelical tract called missing heaven by 18 inches. Seems Chyrsostom was teaching much earlier and exegetes well again.

View attachment 213808

I do thank you for posting the direct link. It sure does help with the discussion.

I find it amusing that you, a random person on the internet, find St. John Chrysostom to be "right in his exegesis."

Despite your evangelical tract, and whatever information you want to post, the text clearly states "Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation" and "yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation."

You are attempting to cite a Doctor of the Catholic Church to refute Catholic doctrine. Just think about how weak your position must be for you to try to attempt such a silly thing.

I am not even going to waste any more of my time with this, as was my initial inclination, because I can post numerous other things that are clear as day, and you will do nothing other than try to "exegete" your way out of what the text clearly states. And then we will spend hours of you trying to convince me of foolishness like "a person is justified works and not by faith alone" really means "a person is justified by faith alone and not by works".

Let me give you three more examples:
1) "This is my body".
2) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me."
3) "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Please feel to "explain the context" and "exegete" your way out of those completely clear statements as well.

redleghunter · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceB said:
Despite your evangelical tract, and whatever information you want to post, the text clearly states "Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation" and "yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation."

You are attempting to cite a Doctor of the Catholic Church to refute Catholic doctrine. Just think about how weak your position must be for you to try to attempt such a silly thing.

The very same Church doctor who in multiple quotes from Romans, Ephesians and Colossians clearly indicated faith solely, alone and only. Which you have yet to address other than hunt for potential examples to make it look like Chyrsostom contradicts himself.

There are only two possibilities with your presentation:

1. Chyrsostom contradicts himself and as such we should not listen to him.

2. The John reference addresses an intellectual knowledge of God and salvation and that is not genuine faith.

As I pointed out it is #2 above as I pointed out previously:

Now this portion torpedoes your argument:

Therefore when He says, This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God John 17:3, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation.

Operative is "knowledge."

redleghunter · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceB said:
And then we will spend hours of you trying to convince me of foolishness like "a person is justified works and not by faith alone" really means "a person is justified by faith alone and not by works".

Which both Paul and Chrysostom make abundantly clear.

As evidenced in post #300.

redleghunter · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceB said:
Let me give you three more examples:
1) "This is my body".
2) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me."
3) "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Please feel to "explain the context" and "exegete" your way out of those completely clear statements as well.

Again wanting me to do your homework. Show me your exegesis and understanding of direct metaphors.

Mountainmike · Nov 22, 2017

Chrysostom teaches "Grace Alone" which happens to be what catholics believe.

And basil is being quoted out of context.

Note he also says "your glory and your hope consist in* mortifying yourself in all things* and in striving toward the life to come in Christ".

So not faith alone then, not in the protestant meaning.

Both were railing against the idea that works could be sufficient.
But then catholics dont believe that either., Never have.

It harks back to the pharisee approach, that sufficient attention to works of the law were enough. Clearly not.

Jesus expects much from you, and you simply cannot ignore what you are asked to do and not do. None of it has sufficient merit. Grace alone can save you .
The big problem with protestant teaching is everything is reductio ad absurdum.

Either this or that. eg has to be scripture alone. Cant be both scripture and tradition (which is an obvious fact just by studying early church history)

Has to be faith alone or works alone they also contend.
Which is a parody of the true faith. All you can do is have faith, strive to do all you are asked, and trust that GRACE will save you. That is not salvation by works, even though works (of charity not law) are a required part of it - or so Jesus says!.

redleghunter said:
Mike I guess we could start there. Sola Fide was not a Luther machination.

St Basil and St Chrysostom confirmed early on we are saved by faith alone.

Link from my earlier post. You can respond there.

Protestantism

I'll await your rebuttal of Basil and Chrysostom.

PeaceByJesus · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceB said:
I find it amusing that you, a random person on the internet, find St. John Chrysostom to be "right in his exegesis."

Despite your evangelical tract, and whatever information you want to post, the text clearly states "Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation" and "yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation."

Which is correct if referring to faith as a sterile barren faith being sufficient, that does not effect the obedience of faith, versus effectual faith, and which sense is not contrary to sole fide.

For while it is indisputable that God purifies the heart by faith, (Acts 15:7-9) so that "through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) and that it is faith that is counted for righteousness, with God justifying the unGodly thereby, (Romans 4:5,6) yet the only kind of faith that is salvific is not mere intellectual assent to correct doctrine about the nature of God, (James 2:19-20) or (despite the CF basis for what qualifies one as Christian poster) even the entire Nicene Creed.

But saving faith is wholehearted (Acts 8:36,37) repentant faith in the risen Lord Jesus, the Divine Son of God to save one as a convicted damned and destitute sinner, (Psalm 34:18; Acts 2:34-37; 16:25-30) which thus results in a basic profound transformational charge in heart and life, (1 Thessalonians 2:13,14) being normally visibly expressed in baptism (Acts 2:38; 10:47, and which can be a "sinner's prayer"), and speaking of Christ in gratitude (Acts 10:46; 8:39) and following the Lord, (John 10:27,28) with confession and repentance when convicted of not doing so. ( 2 Corinthians 7:10,11)

For how can one truly believe in the Lord Jesus who loves righteousness and hates iniquity, (Hebrews 1:19) and not seek to live according to what pleases Him, relative to the light and grace one has received? But it is not a matter of adding works in order to merit the gift of eternal life, but of truly believing, thus the works will follow, and which faith as manifest in works God does recompense in grace, (Hebrews 10:35) though the only thing man can take credit for is his sins. (1 Chronicles 29:14; 1 Corinthians 4:7)

And it being the case that saving faith appropriates justification, and effects the obedience of faith, then promises of salvation are made to those who will believe, (Jn. 3:26; 5:24; Acts 10:43) as well as to those who obey, (Mark 16:16; Hebrews 5:9) for to do the latter testifies to doing the former. Likewise the Lord said in dealing with the palsied man, "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" (Mark 2:9) for to do the former was to do the latter.

Those of a convicted broken (or pride) heart and contrite spirit needs only to believe on the Christ of the gospels to receive deliverance (Luke 8:50) and or forgiveness, (Acts 10:43) but since only effectual faith is salvific, promises of salvation are also made to those confess the Lord in word and in dead (Acts 2:38; Romans 10:9-10), and who do the will of God by the Spirit (Hebrews 10:36; Romans 8:13,14)

Thus the faith vs. works conflict should be resolved.

Rome, with her doctrine in which one must be and is made actually good enough to enter Heaven, and her emphasis upon merit, and statements that believers truly merit eternal life, resulted in the emphasis upon what precisely appropriates justification, this being effectual faith, which baptism requires and expresses. But just as it is the nature of man to believe he will gain Heaven on the weight of the merit of his works (versus these justifying him as being a justified believer, and fit to be rewarded for obedience), so it is the nature of man to believe that faith can be merely intellectual, or believing in the promise of Christ to give eternal life to those who believe, apart from believing in the risen Lord Jesus and judge of all.

But despite some extreme hyperbole to the contrary, and faults, in clear statements brave Luther himself rejected the idea that a faith which did not effect characteristic obedience was salvific, stating,

faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit...
Faith cannot help doing good works constantly...
if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit...
where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith.. where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.
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...
if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.
Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation...
faith casts itself on God, and breaks forth and becomes certain through its works...
faith must be exercised, worked and polished; be purified by fire...
it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present...
where the works are absent, there is also no Christ...
Christ is the priest, all men are spiritual lepers because of unbelief; but when we come to faith in him he touches us With his hand, gives and lays upon us his merit and we become clean and whole without any merit on our part whatever. We are therefore to show our gratitude to him and acknowledge that we have not become pious by our own works, but through his grace, then our course will be right before God...
For if your heart is in the state of faith that you know your God has revealed himself to you to be so good and merciful, without thy merit, and purely gratuitously, while you were still his enemy and a child of eternal wrath; if you believe this, you cannot refrain from showing yourself so to your neighbor; and do all out of love to God and for the welfare of your neighbor.

References by God's grace.

GingerBeer · Nov 22, 2017

redleghunter said:
Show me your refutation.

The refutation is in the quotes you supplied. Not one of them says "saved by faith alone". You said that they did and they do not.

FireDragon76 · Nov 22, 2017

GingerBeer said:
Chrysostom and Basil did not come to the same conclusion that Luther did with the idea of "sola fide". Claiming that they did is not accurate and it does not accord with history. Chrysostom and Basil were committed to fidelity in words and deeds being what faith was and produced. That is why they wrote about righteousness being by faith. They didn't think in the same terms as Luther because Luther's intellectual environment was more than a thousand years away in a far distant future.

We Lutherans believe in fidelity between words and deeds as well, what gave you the impression we did not? We are just realists and recognize that we are sinners and will not always live up to our ideals.

On the contrary, Lutherans have very rigorous ethics. That's one reason I am still Lutheran. Rather than focusing on man-made religious obligations, we talk about the real substance of what is at the heart of following the God of the Bible- love for ones neighbor. We are humanists. So is Jesus.

GingerBeer · Nov 22, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
We are humanists.

The "man is the measure of all" kind or some other kind as yet unexplained?

FireDragon76 · Nov 22, 2017

GingerBeer said:
The "man is the measure of all" kind or some other kind as yet unexplained?

We are humanists in the sense the primary focus of human efforts should be humanity's needs. Meeting human needs is the primary way that God has ordained our sanctification.

As one of our Lutheran divines wrote many centuries ago, God does not need our good works, but our neighbor does.

PeaceB · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceByJesus said:
Which is correct if referring to faith as a sterile barren faith being sufficient, that does not effect the obedience of faith, versus effectual faith, and which sense is not contrary to sole fide.

For while it is indisputable that God purifies the heart by faith, (Acts 15:7-9) so that "through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) and that it is faith that is counted for righteousness, with God justifying the unGodly thereby, (Romans 4:5,6) yet the only kind of faith that is salvific is not mere intellectual assent to correct doctrine about the nature of God, (James 2:19-20) or (despite the CF basis for what qualifies one as Christian poster) even the entire Nicene Creed.

But saving faith is wholehearted (Acts 8:36,37) repentant faith in the risen Lord Jesus, the Divine Son of God to save one as a convicted damned and destitute sinner, (Psalm 34:18; Acts 2:34-37; 16:25-30) which thus results in a basic profound transformational charge in heart and life, (1 Thessalonians 2:13,14) being normally visibly expressed in baptism (Acts 2:38; 10:47, and which can be a "sinner's prayer"), and speaking of Christ in gratitude (Acts 10:46; 8:39) and following the Lord, (John 10:27,28) with confession and repentance when convicted of not doing so. ( 2 Corinthians 7:10,11)

For how can one truly believe in the Lord Jesus who loves righteousness and hates iniquity, (Hebrews 1:19) and not seek to live according to what pleases Him, relative to the light and grace one has received? But it is not a matter of adding works in order to merit the gift of eternal life, but of truly believing, thus the works will follow, and which faith as manifest in works God does recompense in grace, (Hebrews 10:35) though the only thing man can take credit for is his sins. (1 Chronicles 29:14; 1 Corinthians 4:7)

And it being the case that saving faith appropriates justification, and effects the obedience of faith, then promises of salvation are made to those who will believe, (Jn. 3:26; 5:24; Acts 10:43) as well as to those who obey, (Mark 16:16; Hebrews 5:9) for to do the latter testifies to doing the former. Likewise the Lord said in dealing with the palsied man, "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" (Mark 2:9) for to do the former was to do the latter.

Those of a convicted broken (or pride) heart and contrite spirit needs only to believe on the Christ of the gospels to receive deliverance (Luke 8:50) and or forgiveness, (Acts 10:43) but since only effectual faith is salvific, promises of salvation are also made to those confess the Lord in word and in dead (Acts 2:38; Romans 10:9-10), and who do the will of God by the Spirit (Hebrews 10:36; Romans 8:13,14)

Thus the faith vs. works conflict should be resolved.

Rome, with her doctrine in which one must be and is made actually good enough to enter Heaven, and her emphasis upon merit, and statements that believers truly merit eternal life, resulted in the emphasis upon what precisely appropriates justification, this being effectual faith, which baptism requires and expresses. But just as it is the nature of man to believe he will gain Heaven on the weight of the merit of his works (versus these justifying him as being a justified believer, and fit to be rewarded for obedience), so it is the nature of man to believe that faith can be merely intellectual, or believing in the promise of Christ to give eternal life to those who believe, apart from believing in the risen Lord Jesus and judge of all.

But despite some extreme hyperbole to the contrary, and faults, in clear statements brave Luther himself rejected the idea that a faith which did not effect characteristic obedience was salvific, stating,

faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit...

Faith cannot help doing good works constantly...

if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit...

where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith.. where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.

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...

if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.

Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation...

faith casts itself on God, and breaks forth and becomes certain through its works...

faith must be exercised, worked and polished; be purified by fire...

it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present...

where the works are absent, there is also no Christ...

Christ is the priest, all men are spiritual lepers because of unbelief; but when we come to faith in him he touches us With his hand, gives and lays upon us his merit and we become clean and whole without any merit on our part whatever. We are therefore to show our gratitude to him and acknowledge that we have not become pious by our own works, but through his grace, then our course will be right before God...

For if your heart is in the state of faith that you know your God has revealed himself to you to be so good and merciful, without thy merit, and purely gratuitously, while you were still his enemy and a child of eternal wrath; if you believe this, you cannot refrain from showing yourself so to your neighbor; and do all out of love to God and for the welfare of your neighbor.

References by God's grace.

God bless you. I hope you cut and pasted that.

PeaceB · Nov 22, 2017

redleghunter said:
The very same Church doctor who in multiple quotes from Romans, Ephesians and Colossians clearly indicated faith solely, alone and only. Which you have yet to address other than hunt for potential examples to make it look like Chyrsostom contradicts himself.

There are only two possibilities with your presentation:

1. Chyrsostom contradicts himself and as such we should not listen to him.

2. The John reference addresses an intellectual knowledge of God and salvation and that is not genuine faith.

As I pointed out it is #2 above as I pointed out previously:

Now this portion torpedoes your argument:

Therefore when He says, This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God John 17:3, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation.

Operative is "knowledge."

No, there is a third option: the author never taught the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. There is nothing in the author that indicates that he understood justification as an imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness, and that justification is a one time declaration instead of a process that continues over time. That is why you misunderstand him, and cannot make sense of the numerous passages where he clearly states that salvation is not by faith alone and that correct living is also required. If you want more explanation on that, you can find it in the information at the links that I provided you. So do some more homework, and continue to say “exegete” when you have done nothing other than impose your own erroneous views on the biblical text instead of taking them for what they state on their face.

God bless you.

PeaceB · Nov 22, 2017

redleghunter said:
Which both Paul and Chrysostom make abundantly clear.

Well if you can say that “X and not only Y” means “Y only and not X” you render the text of the Bible meaningless. You can “exegete” any verse to anything and everything under the sun, which is precisely what you have done.

And St. Paul never used the phrase “faith alone” no matter whatever else you may want to say to try to twist his words into saying what he never said. And he contradicted that doctrine in plenty of places, which you ignore.

God bless you.

amariselle · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceB said:
If you do not want to call trust a work, that is perfectly fine by me.

To "trust" is to "rest" in Christ and His finished work, His one time and all sufficient sacrifice for sin.

PeaceB said:
But it is something that you have to do, in order to be saved.

It is an absolute acknowledgement that we can in fact "do" nothing to be saved. It is a turning to Him knowing (faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God) that we have nothing at all to offer God that is worthy of our salvation, as all our "righteous deeds are as filthy rags." We know that it is only through Christ we are saved, not anything we have done, are doing or will do.

PeaceB said:
You admit that trust is a verb that one performs as a free will choice, and that this trust is necessary for salvation.

It is not a "work", it is a ceasing from everything and anything one is trying to do to be saved or stay saved and truly believing that only Christ saves us. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

PeaceB said:
Jesus died for the whole world, yet the whole world will not be saved.

Correct, as Scripture says.

PeaceB said:
The reason why you are saved and why the atheist next to you is damned is because you did something that the atheist did not: you trusted in the Lord.

God has provided the only Way of salvation, but He does not force anyone to accept it. If people reject God or "go about to establish their own righteousness", that is of course their choice. We are not robots.

I have believed the Gospel, yes, which is an absolute acknowledgement that I have no reason to boast, because I have done nothing to earn my salvation. It is all what Christ has done.

PeaceB said:
Now, do the facts that 1) you were required to do something (trust in Jesus) to be saved,
2) you went ahead and did what was required of you (trusted in Jesus), and 3) God decided to save you because you did what was required, mean that you earned your way into heaven?

No. As I said, we are not seeing "trust" in the same way. You see it as a "work" and I see it as "resting" in Him and His finished work.

When I stand before God one day, my only plea will be the blood of Christ shed for me. Nothing I did will earn me eternal life. As Jesus said, "It is finished!" All I have is what He did. And what He did is complete and perfect, all sufficient, I dare add not one tiny work to it.

PeaceByJesus · Nov 22, 2017

Mountainmike said:
Chrysostom teaches "Grace Alone" which happens to be what catholics believe.

Meaning by the grace of God (primarily via the sacraments) you must become actually good enough to enter Heaven, which you are told you have truly merited.

How do you think the average Catholic would understand (emphasis mine):

"nothing further is wanting to the justified [baptized and faithful], 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." (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)

Canon 32 similarly states, "If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32).

Shortened, this teaches, "the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God truly merits the attainment of eternal life itself."

And since one must spend time in "purifying torments" in RC Purgatory (the EOs tend to reject this as part of Tradition) until he atones for all sins he did not atone for on earth, and attain perfection of character, then we can see how easily Catholics can believe that by the grace of God they are or will become good enough to merit Heaven.

And due to the problem of not knowing if you have not quite made the grade for Heaven, but are not evil enough for Hell, then you not only have RC Purgatory, but the hope expressed by a poster on your Catholic Answer forum:

And due to RC emphasis on merit, , we hear professions similar to yours such as this:

I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... ” - So what is Peter doing at the Pearly Gates (of heaven I presume) when he has the keys to the Kingdom?

While "accounted to have...merited" can refer to God judging one to have true justifying faith in the light of his works and thus graciously rewarding him for such, (Mt. 25:34-40) the natural disposition of man is to think his good deeds versus bad actually gain him eternal life, even if with some mercy due to the death of Christ is combined with it.

All you can do is have faith, strive to do all you are asked, and trust that GRACE will save you. That is not salvation by works, even though works (of charity not law) are a required part of it - or so Jesus says!.

That statement itself actually conflates with sola fide, as described in my last post, that the faith which is counted for righteousness, justifying the unGodly, and purifies the heart (if not the carnal nature) (as one event) is one which effects doing the will of God by the Spirit, including repentance when convicted of not doing so.

Thus meaning spiritual obedience/works are required, as fruit, which obedience God in grace does recompense, but not as actually being what justifies one (though works - things which accompany salvation: Hebrews 6:9 - justify one as being a believer, like as fulfilled prophecies justify a prophet as being so), which true faith does, rendering him accepted in the Beloved, and seated with his Lord in Heaven. (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) Thanks be to God.

And who thus will go to be with the Lord at death or His return. [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff; 1Thess. 4:17)

redleghunter · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceB said:
No, there is a third option: the author never taught the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone.

Correct. He taught that Paul was teaching this. Thus why I quoted Chrysostom's works of Galatians, Romans, Ephesians and Colossians. All of the above teach we are saved by Grace, justified by faith and that as such are new creations.

PeaceB said:
There is nothing in the author that indicates that he understood justification as an imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness, and that justification is a one time declaration instead of a process that continues over time.

You should read all that I posted. You can't exit without coming to this conclusion. Honestly and logically of course. Unless of course you were merging "justification" with his overall discussion of salvation. Even your own church teaches:

-We are saved----Justification
-We are being saved--Sanctification
-We will be saved--Resurrection (glorified bodies)

That may be the 'talking past each other' problem. Our discussion started with the discussion of justification.

On another note....May you and your loved ones have a Happy Thanksgiving!

PeaceByJesus · Nov 22, 2017

PeaceB said:
God bless you. I hope you cut and pasted that.

Is that sarcasm, or that you think it was cut and pasted from someone else?

Protestantism

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Well-Known Member

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus Never Fails

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Thank You Jesus!

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Similar threads