Sola Fide

Lukaris · Jan 19, 2023

I do not mean to derail any discussion here. The poster Jonaitis has put an urgent prayer request in that sub forum.

Prayers can be made here:

Urgent

My father went missing at a park outside of town about four hours ago. There is a search party combing through the area trying to find him or any clues. They found our dog tied to the door of his van, but they haven't found anything else. Please pray!!!

www.christianforums.com

Tranquil Bondservant · Jan 19, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
The Catholic Church teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but it is not the only necessary element. The Catholic Church teaches that good works and sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist, are also necessary for salvation. This is in contrast to the doctrine of sola fide, or "faith alone," which teaches that faith is the only necessary element for salvation.

Scripture references that support the Catholic teaching on salvation include James 2:24, which states, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Additionally, Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats, teaches that salvation is based on the good works that a person has done.

In summary, Catholic Church teaches that faith, good works, and sacraments are all necessary for salvation, while sola fide only emphasizes the importance of faith alone.

Protestants also teach that works are necessary just that they're not meritorious. The Catholic's equation is faith + works = salvation, whereas the Protestant's is faith = salvation + works. One of the multitude of reasons (which I believe is irrefutable if you hold to the infallibility of scripture) is Romans 4:1-5. Brother I don't mean to cause you stress by quoting this Scripture to you, I love all of God's Saints, it's just that as long as your salvation depends upon what you yourself do you will never find peace. We always fall short, if this fact was not reality then Christ's death would have been in vain (Galatians 2:21).

Tranquil Bondservant · Jan 19, 2023

Lukaris said:
I do not mean to derail any discussion here. The poster Jonaitis has put an urgent prayer request in that sub forum.

Prayers can be made here:

Urgent

My father went missing at a park outside of town about four hours ago. There is a search party combing through the area trying to find him or any clues. They found our dog tied to the door of his van, but they haven't found anything else. Please pray!!!

www.christianforums.com

Thank you for posting this Brother.

BobRyan · Jan 20, 2023

Lukaris said:
The Eucharist was established by the Lord per Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20. St. Paul attests to it in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. The Lord defines the Eucharist in John 6:47-58.

Do you agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ and that this is also true at the last Supper?

Clare73 · Jan 20, 2023

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day,

So glad my error of being a participate in the Roman Catholic denomination has been corrected though the operation of the Holy Sprit and the means of the God Breathed out word.
IX. Whosoever shall say that the wicked is justified by faith alone, in such a sense that nothing else is required in the way of co-operation to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is in no respect necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.

Do you know what they do with Ro 3:28: "a man is justified by faith apart from works (of the law)"?

BBAS 64 said:
That would be me..

Trent has erred.

Calvin corrected their errors:

Calvin - Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote

www.monergism.com

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Jan 20, 2023

Clare73 said:
Do you know what they do with Ro 3:28: "a man is justified by faith apart from works (of the law)"?

Good Day, Clare73

I suppose the members of the Roman Catholic denomination buy into the mirid of qualifications the Church claims and defines by itself and for itself. Therefore the interpretation is flawed, they do not know nor care about what the author meant when it was written.

In subjectively affirming them (qualifications) the members have erred, and believe their denomination to be authorities in these matters.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Continuing in the next sentence, Brown says, “Moreover, church interpretations of Scripture in Roman Catholicism are affected by qualifications laid out in reference to church teaching in general which have the effect of recognizing historical conditioning.” Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 31-32.

And here:

Another Roman apologist, Peter Stravinskas, states: From a positive vantage point, the Church has declared Matthew 16:17f. and John 21:15 as germane to the doctrine of Petrine primacy…So few examples can hardly be perceived as a heavy–handed attempt to stifle private interpretation. It is also worth noting that whenever a rare definitive interpretation is given, it is done only after consultation with the best exegetes of the day, as well as allowing for the divine guidance promised by Jesus to His Church (see Jn. 14:26, 16:13). To push for one’s own interpretation counter to twenty centuries of authentic and authoritative understanding of a particular passage would appear to be spiritual pride and arrogance of the worst sort. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Catholic Church and the Bible (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), pp. 15–16.

Here Stravinskas is careful not to suggest that the pertinent Matthean and Johannine passages pertaining to the Roman definition of papal primacy have been infallibly defined, but rather he says they are ‘germane’ to that dogma. He admits that there are ‘few examples’ of such official biblical definitions, and concedes that such official interpretations are ‘rare.’ Yet, in spite of this, he states that ‘to push for one’s own interpretation counter to twenty centuries of authentic and authoritative understanding of a particular passage would appear to be spiritual pride and arrogance of the worst sort.’ But this is precisely what Rome has done in the face of the Church’s historical exegesis of Matthew 16. The vast majority of the early church fathers viewed the rock as either Christ or Peter’s confession of faith, rather than Peter himself.
There is no passage of Scripture more significant to the entire Roman ecclesiology than Matthew 16:18–19. Yet, the present–day, pro–papal Roman understanding runs counter to the overwhelming patristic exegesis and consensus of its meaning (as noted by someone like Cardinal Congar). In light of the historical observations, we have to ask in connection with Mr. Stravinskas’ remarks: Who (what communion) has acted out of ‘spiritual pride and arrogance of the worst sort’ with respect to Matthew 16? And what interpretation of Matthew 16 militates against centuries of authentic and authoritative patristic understanding? The answer is, Rome’s.

In Him,

Bill

fhansen · Jan 21, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
The Catholic Church teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but it is not the only necessary element. The Catholic Church teaches that good works and sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist, are also necessary for salvation. This is in contrast to the doctrine of sola fide, or "faith alone," which teaches that faith is the only necessary element for salvation.

Scripture references that support the Catholic teaching on salvation include James 2:24, which states, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Additionally, Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats, teaches that salvation is based on the good works that a person has done.

In summary, Catholic Church teaches that faith, good works, and sacraments are all necessary for salvation, while sola fide only emphasizes the importance of faith alone.

IMO the problem with Sola Fide is that it places a "disconnect" between justice/righteousness...and actually being just/righteous. Faith replaces the obligation for man to be personally righteous, with God instead seeing man as righteous even though he's not-and that is definitely not the gospel! With Sola Fide the question then arises in the minds of many as to whether or not one can and must be righteous and live accordingly in order to enter heaven. After all, if righteousness is strictly imputed/delcared, why should there be need for anything more?

But the gospel is about the forgiveness and remission of sins, and the abilty now, by the Spirit, under grace, to 'go, and sin no more'. This is how the condemnation for sin is overcome under the new covenant-because, as new creations, we're no longer slaves to sin but slaves to righteousness! (Rom 6) Paul objected to thinking that mere works of the law could actually make one righteous or holy; he knew better as he excelled at righteousness based on the law as a Pharisee, and later would count that all as garbage. Because now a new righteousness had come which the law and the prophets could only testify to but could never accomplish in us.

The bottom line: God, alone, can justify man-we have no righteousness apart from Him. And that justifcation comes as we enter union with Him through faith, a realtionship that Adam dismissed and broke as he preferrd himself and his own opinion to God. Faith makes God our God all over again.
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

So historic teachings of the faith understand that, once freely justiofied by God man now has the ability and oblgation to do what Scripture tells him he must do in order gain eternal life. With the justice/righteousness given he must work out his salvation with He who works in us, doing God's will, overcoming sin, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, works of grace, motivated by love, not works of the law, motivated by pride and self-gain. There must be fruit. Sola Fide introduces a vagueness or ambiguity into that equation.

Faith and grace are not a reprieve from the obligation for man to be personally righteous, but are actually the authentic means to that very righteousness.

fhansen · Jan 21, 2023

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Clare73

I suppose the members of the Roman Catholic denomination buy into the mirid of qualifications the Church claims and defines by itself and for itself. Therefore the interpretation is flawed, they do not know nor care about what the author meant when it was written.

In subjectively affirming them (qualifications) the members have erred, and believe their denomination to be authorities in these matters.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Continuing in the next sentence, Brown says, “Moreover, church interpretations of Scripture in Roman Catholicism are affected by qualifications laid out in reference to church teaching in general which have the effect of recognizing historical conditioning.” Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 31-32.

And here:

Another Roman apologist, Peter Stravinskas, states: From a positive vantage point, the Church has declared Matthew 16:17f. and John 21:15 as germane to the doctrine of Petrine primacy…So few examples can hardly be perceived as a heavy–handed attempt to stifle private interpretation. It is also worth noting that whenever a rare definitive interpretation is given, it is done only after consultation with the best exegetes of the day, as well as allowing for the divine guidance promised by Jesus to His Church (see Jn. 14:26, 16:13). To push for one’s own interpretation counter to twenty centuries of authentic and authoritative understanding of a particular passage would appear to be spiritual pride and arrogance of the worst sort. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Catholic Church and the Bible (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), pp. 15–16.

Here Stravinskas is careful not to suggest that the pertinent Matthean and Johannine passages pertaining to the Roman definition of papal primacy have been infallibly defined, but rather he says they are ‘germane’ to that dogma. He admits that there are ‘few examples’ of such official biblical definitions, and concedes that such official interpretations are ‘rare.’ Yet, in spite of this, he states that ‘to push for one’s own interpretation counter to twenty centuries of authentic and authoritative understanding of a particular passage would appear to be spiritual pride and arrogance of the worst sort.’ But this is precisely what Rome has done in the face of the Church’s historical exegesis of Matthew 16. The vast majority of the early church fathers viewed the rock as either Christ or Peter’s confession of faith, rather than Peter himself.
There is no passage of Scripture more significant to the entire Roman ecclesiology than Matthew 16:18–19. Yet, the present–day, pro–papal Roman understanding runs counter to the overwhelming patristic exegesis and consensus of its meaning (as noted by someone like Cardinal Congar). In light of the historical observations, we have to ask in connection with Mr. Stravinskas’ remarks: Who (what communion) has acted out of ‘spiritual pride and arrogance of the worst sort’ with respect to Matthew 16? And what interpretation of Matthew 16 militates against centuries of authentic and authoritative patristic understanding? The answer is, Rome’s.

In Him,

Bill

The point that these authors are making is that Scripture, alone, can be ambigous such that very plausible arguments can be made for contradictory positions. For example, Protestants argue with Protestants over baptismal regeneration whereas in the ancient churches this was never even controversial. The light of experience, combined with Scripture and shedding light on Scripture, is essential.

The church doesn't officially and dogmatically interpret many passages of scripture because there’s no need; she’s continuously understood the meaning of Rom 3:28, for example, from the beginning and has continued to clarify and define the related teachings ever since. The RCC uses scripture the same as most, to support her theological positions.

fhansen · Jan 21, 2023

Jonaitis said:
Sola fide teaches that justification before God is obtained in Christ by faith alone, and that as a result of God's free grace. Good works are the fruits and evidences of that saving faith. Our ability to do good works spring from, not in cooperation with, God's free grace through faith in Christ.

And this is true. Acts of righteousness are evidence of being made right at justifaction, as new creations in Christ now, slaves to "righteousness" instead of "slaves to sin". But cooperation is necessacry because we can still fail to to those good works, we can turn back to the flesh and fail to "put to death the deeds of the flesh", etc. And without that fruit, "without holiness, no one will see the Lord" -Heb 12:14.

Clare73 · Jan 21, 2023

fhansen said:
IMO the problem with Sola Fide is that it places a "disconnect" between justice/righteousness...and actually being just/righteous. Faith replaces the obligation for man to be personally righteous, with God instead seeing man as righteous even though he's not-and that is definitely not the gospel! With Sola Fide the question then arises in the minds of many as to whether or not one can and must be righteous and live accordingly in order to enter heaven. After all, if righteousness is strictly imputed/delcared, why should there be need for anything more?

Because justification is a forensic righteousness only; i.e., a sentence of acquittal of guilt, a declaration of right standing with justice. . . time served, debt paid.

It is not actual personal righteousness, which is by works of obedience in the Holy Spirit which lead to righteousness, leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19), for "Without holiness no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14).

This has been explained to you (#1, #2, or #3) personally more than once, (as in the thread stated below) and yet you continue with imputed (reckoned, ascribed, counted as) righteousness (i.e., a standing) being actual personal righteousness (holiness), contrary to authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

See the thread, The works that Paul and the Apostles did for Salvation., post #57.

fhansen · Jan 21, 2023

Clare73 said:
Because justification is a forensic righteousness only; i.e., a sentence of acquittal of guilt, a declaration of right standing with justice. . . time served, debt paid.

It is not actual personal righteousness, which is by works of obedience in the Holy Spirit which lead to righteousness, leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19), for "Without holiness no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14).

This has been explained to you (#1, #2, or #3) personally more than once, (as in the thread stated below) and yet you continue with imputed (reckoned, ascribed, counted as) righteousness (i.e., a standing) being actual personal righteousness (holiness), contrary to authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

See the thread, The works that Paul and the Apostles did for Salvation., post #57.

And the true gospel has been explained to you more than once, backed by Scripture. And yet even with your insistence on strict aquittal you acknowledge that a justifed person is changed-for the better such that, as slaves to righteousness sanctification results and therefore eternal life. Not all Sola Fide adherents agree with you that holiness is necessary to see the Lord. But you're still stuck on your canned theology.

Clare73 · Jan 21, 2023

fhansen said:
And the true gospel has been explained to you more than once, backed by Scripture. And yet even with your insistence on strict aquittal you acknowledge that a justifed person is changed-for the better

His lack of personal righteousness is not changed by faith and the forensic righteosness of justification.
His lack of personal righteousness is changed by his obedience in the Holy Spirit, which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19), for "Without holiness, no on will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14)

fhansen said:
such that, as slaves to righteousness sanctification results and therefore eternal life.

Eternal life happened at the new birth, evidenced by faith to salvation (Eph 2:8-9), and followed by sanctification (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19).

fhansen said:
Not all Sola Fide adherents agree with you that holiness is necessary to see the Lord.

And this invalidates the word of God in Heb 12:14, how?

fhansen said:
But you're still stuck on your canned theology.

Interesting how you find the precise terminology of Scripture to be "canned."

Mark Quayle · Jan 21, 2023

Lukaris said:
I believe the faith alone statement is understandable in the aspect of us living it out with works worthy of repentance as St. Paul said in Acts 26:20. St. John the Baptist says this in Luke 3:1-8 & it is a consistent expression since Luke wrote both accounts. I believe what St. Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-10 expresses the same understanding. I also believe this matches what the Lord says in Luke 17:5-10 & note we are unworthy servants obviously not justified by works but called to do good works.

Jonaitis said:
Yes, and if good works were necessary for justification, then this would be like saying a tree is made so because of its fruit, which we know is false, because it is the fruit that exhibits the nature of a tree. You will know a believer by his works.

Xeno.of.athens said:
Saint James asserts that the demons have faith without works and they tremble at the coming judgement.

That assumes that James equates faith with belief. I'm not so sure he does, though belief —at least in the elect— comes from salvific faith.

Lukaris · Jan 21, 2023

BobRyan said:
Do you agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ and that this is also true at the last Supper?

I believe the sacrament is according to His words and done in remembrance of Him.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 21, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
That assumes that James equates faith with belief. I'm not so sure he does, though belief —at least in the elect— comes from salvific faith.

σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι ὁ Θεός εἷς ἐστι· καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσι καὶ φρίσσουσι. θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν;
James 2:19-20
The root for the words in blue is πίστις (psitis); it's the word that is translated as believe and faith in English language bibles. In Latin it is translated by two different words, as it is in English - namely, credis and fides.

πίστις is defined thus

The Complete WordStudy Dictionary said:
pístis; gen. písteōs, fem. noun from peíthō (G3982), to win over, persuade. Faith. Subjectively meaning firm persuasion, conviction, belief in the truth, veracity, reality or faithfulness (though rare). Objectively meaning that which is believed, doctrine, the received articles of faith.
(I) In the common Gr. usage:
(A) Particularly and generally (Act 17:31, having given to all the ability to believe [cf. Rom 3:23 ff.]).
(B) In Rom 14:22, "hast thou faith" means persuasion about what God wants you to do (see Rom 14:23).
(C) In Heb 11:1, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" means that persuasion is not the outcome of imagination but is based on fact, such as the reality of the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15), and as such it becomes the basis of realistic hope.
(D) In 2Co 5:7, "for we walk by faith, not by sight" means that which appears before us may not be what it seems to be, while faith is something which stands on proof arrived at inductively. See also 1Pe 1:5, which means that faith obtains the future entrance into salvation, safe existence which will be provided by God at the end of the present season (cf. 1Pe 1:7, 1Pe 1:9).
(E) Followed by the gen. of object (1Th 2:13, meaning the gospel truth).
(II) Good faith, faithfulness, sincerity (Mat 23:23; Rom 3:3; Gal 5:22; 1Ti 1:19, being faithful, sincere; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 2:22; 2Ti 3:10; Tit 2:10, all good fidelity; Rev 2:19; Rev 13:10; Sept.: 1Sa 26:23; Pro 12:22; Hab 2:4).
(III) Faith given as a pledge, promise (2Ti 4:7, where the faith possessed by the Apostle Paul in Christ was considered by him as a deposit made by God in him [cf. 1Ti 6:21; 2Ti 1:12, 2Ti 1:14]).
(IV) As a technical term indicative of the means of appropriating what God in Christ has for man, resulting in the transformation of man's character and way of life. Such can be termed gospel or Christian faith (Rom 3:22 ff.).
(A) Of God, indicated as faith in, on, toward God, with adjuncts: epí (G1909), on, with the acc. (Heb 6:1); prós (G4314), toward, with the acc. preceded by the art. (1Th 1:8); eis (G1519), in, with the acc. (1Pe 1:21); with the gen. Theoú (theós [G2316], God), of God, meaning the faith emanating from God (Mar 11:22; Col 2:12). Used in an absolute sense (Mat 17:20; Mat 21:21; Luk 17:5-6 [cf. Mar 11:22; Heb 4:2; Heb 10:22, Heb 10:38]); with ek (G1537), from, and the gen., ek písteōs (Rom 1:17, in allusion to Hab 2:4 where the Sept. has "fidelity [rather, faith in Christ]"); en pístei (en [G1722], in, and the dat.), in faith, meaning in filial confidence, nothing doubting (Jas 1:6); hē euchḗ písteōs (hē, def. art.; euchḗ [G2171], vow), to wish, vow of faith, meaning expression of a wish but with trust in the Lord to accomplish His will (Jas 5:15). Spoken analogically of the faith of the patriarchs and pious men under the Jewish dispensation who looked forward in faith and hope to the blessings of the gospel (cf. Gal 3:7 f.; Heb 11:13); of Abraham (Rom 4:5, Rom 4:9, Rom 4:11-14, Rom 4:16, Rom 4:19-20; Heb 6:12).
(B) Of Christ, faith in Christ: (1) As able to work miracles, to heal the sick (Mat 8:10; Mat 9:2, Mat 9:22, Mat 9:29; Mat 15:28; Mar 2:5; Mar 5:34; Mar 10:52; Luk 5:20; Luk 7:9, Luk 7:50; Luk 8:48; Luk 17:19; Luk 18:42; Act 3:16). (2) Of faith in Christ's death, as the ground of justification before God, saving faith, found only in Paul's writings (Rom 3:22, Rom 3:25-28, Rom 3:30-31; 1Co 15:14, 1Co 15:17). Generally (Rom 1:17; Rom 5:1-2; Rom 9:30, Rom 9:32; Rom 10:6, Rom 10:17; Gal 2:16, Gal 2:20; Gal 3:2, Gal 3:5, Gal 3:7-9, Gal 3:11-12, Gal 3:14, Gal 3:22, Gal 3:24; Gal 5:5-6; Eph 2:8; Eph 3:12; Php 3:9. Of the faith of Abraham (see A above). Some interpreters take eis pístin of Rom 1:17 by metonymy as referring to those believing (eis toús pisteúontas [cf. Rom 3:22]). (3) Generally, as the Son of God, the incarnate Word, the Messiah and Savior, the Head of the true Church; with eis, unto (Act 20:21; Act 26:18); with en, in, and the dat., en Christṓ, in Christ (Gal 3:26; Col 1:4; 1Ti 1:14; 1Ti 3:13; 2Ti 1:13; 2Ti 3:15); with the gen. (Eph 4:13; Jas 2:1; Rev 2:13, thy faith toward Me; Rev 14:12). Used in an absolute sense (Mar 4:40; Luk 8:25; Luk 22:32; Act 6:5, Act 6:8; Act 11:24; Eph 3:17; Eph 6:16; Col 2:7 [cf. Col 2:5]; 1Th 5:8).
(C) Generally, with the gen., hē pístis toú euaggelíou (euaggelíou, gen. of euaggélion [G2098], gospel), the faith of or in the gospel, gospel faith (Php 1:27); en pístei alētheías (en [G1722], in; the dat. of pístis; and the gen. of alḗtheia [G225], truth), meaning faith in the truth, i.e., in the gospel (1Th 2:13). Used in an absolute sense with the same meaning, namely, Christian faith, a firm and confiding belief in Jesus and His gospel (1Co 2:5; 2Co 4:13; Php 1:25; Php 2:17; 1Th 1:3; 1Ti 1:5; 1Ti 6:11-12; 2Ti 1:5; 2Ti 2:18; Tit 1:1; Phm 1:6; Heb 12:2; Jas 2:5; 1Pe 5:9). Elsewhere also, pístis seems to mark various predominant traits of Christian character as arising from and combined with Christian faith, without implying, however, any sharp distinction; meaning Christian knowledge, especially in Paul and Peter (Rom 12:3, Rom 12:6; Rom 14:1; 1Co 12:9; 1Co 13:2, 1Co 13:13; Tit 1:13; 2Pe 1:5). In James, pístis as opposed to érga (G2041), works (Jas 2:14, Jas 2:17-18, Jas 2:20, Jas 2:22, Jas 2:24, Jas 2:26). Of the Christian profession, the faith professed (Act 13:8; Act 14:22; Act 15:9; Act 16:5; 1Co 16:13; 2Co 1:24; Gal 6:10; 1Ti 2:15; 2Ti 4:7 [cf. above in Section I, C]). Of Christian zeal, ardor in the faith (Rom 1:8; Rom 11:20; 2Co 8:7; 2Co 10:15; 2Co 13:5; Eph 6:23; 1Th 1:4, 1Th 1:11). Of Christian love, as springing from faith (Rom 1:12, mutual faith and love; 1Th 1:3; Phm 1:5). Of Christian life and morals, practical faith (1Ti 4:12; 1Ti 5:8, 1Ti 5:12; 1Ti 6:10; Tit 2:2). Of constancy in the faith (Col 1:23; 1Th 3:2, 1Th 3:5-7, 1Th 3:10; Heb 13:7; Jas 1:3).
(D) Metonymically of the object of Christian faith, meaning the doctrines received and believed, Christian doctrine, the gospel, all that Christianity stands for (Act 6:7, "were obedient to the faith," meaning embraced the gospel; Act 14:27, a "door of faith," meaning access for the gospel; Act 24:24; Rom 1:5; Rom 10:8; 2Co 1:24; Gal 1:23; Gal 3:23, Gal 3:25; Eph 4:5; 1Ti 1:4, 1Ti 1:19; 1Ti 3:9; 1Ti 6:21; 2Pe 1:1; 1Jn 5:4; Jud 1:3, Jud 1:20). With en, in, and the dat., en pístei, meaning in the gospel as Christians (1Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4).
(E) Especially, the object of justifying faith, that on which a sinner, believing the gospel, relies for acceptance with God, namely Christ, as having fulfilled all righteousness (Rom 4:5).
(V) In Rom 3:3, Paul asks rhetorically, "Their unfaithfulness will not nullify [katargē̄́sei, fut. act. indic. of katargéō {G2673}, to nullify, destroy, render ineffective] the faithfulness [pístis] of God, will it?" (a.t.). Here pístis likely means faithfulness, although a few interpreters understand "the faith of God" to mean the principle of faith in God.
Deriv.: oligópistos (G3640), having but little faith; pisteúō (G4100), to believe, have faith in; pistikós (G4101), persuasive, faithful.
Syn.: bebaíōsis (G951), the act of assurance, confirmation; pepoíthēsis (G4016), reliance, confidence; dógma (G1378), dogma, ecclesiastical belief firmly held; tḗrēsis (G5084), observance, keeping; eusébeia (G2150), godliness; theosébeia (G2317), piety, respect, reverence of God; didachḗ (G1322), teaching; didaskalía (G1319), teaching, doctrine; eulábeia (G2124), inner piety; alḗtheia (G225), truth.
Ant.: súgchusis (G4799), confusion; parakoḗ (G3876), disobedience; parábasis (G3847), violation; apistía (G570), unbelief, faithlessness; asébeia (G763), ungodliness, lack of piety; apostasía (G646), apostasy, departure from the truth; haíresis (G139), heresy, discord in doctrine; blasphēmía (G988), blasphemy, vilification against God; hupókrisis (G5272), acting, hypocrisy; pseúdos (G5579), falsehood; dólos (G1388), guile, deceit.

Mark Quayle · Jan 21, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι ὁ Θεός εἷς ἐστι· καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσι καὶ φρίσσουσι. θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν;
James 2:19-20
The root for the words in blue is πίστις (pistis); it's the word that is translated as believe and faith in English language bibles. In Latin it is translated by two different words, as it is in English - namely, credis and fides.

πίστις is defined thus

You have a point; however the Strong's English definition is slightly different for the word (pistin) πίστιν (Strong's 4102) in verse 18 from the words (pisteueis) πιστεύεις and (pisteuousin) πιστεύουσιν (Strong's 4100) in verse 19. Strong's has it in verse 18: "Faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness" and in verse 19: "From pistis; to have faith, i.e. Credit; by implication, to entrust." Then in verse 20, he defines the "faith" (this time pistis) πίστις in "faith without works is dead", once again back to Strong's 4102 "Faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness"

There is, apparently, some difference, which I think most translations reflect correctly. I might be stepping beyond what I know to claim it, but I have a suspicion James was making somewhat of a play on words.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 21, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
You have a point; however the Strong's English definition is slightly different for the word (pistin) πίστιν (Strong's 4102) in verse 18 from the words (pisteueis) πιστεύεις and (pisteuousin) πιστεύουσιν (Strong's 4100) in verse 19. Strong's has it in verse 18: "Faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness" and in verse 19: "From pistis; to have faith, i.e. Credit; by implication, to entrust." Then in verse 20, he defines the "faith" (this time pistis) πίστις in "faith without works is dead", once again back to Strong's 4102 "Faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness"

There is, apparently, some difference, which I think most translations reflect correctly. I might be stepping beyond what I know to claim it, but I have a suspicion James was making somewhat of a play on words.

If I am not mistaken, Strong's definitions are from a time when Koine Greek was thought to be Attic Greek with special Holy-Spirit given words added to the vocabulary. If that is so, then its definitions need to be treated with caution.

Clare73 · Jan 21, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι ὁ Θεός εἷς ἐστι· καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσι καὶ φρίσσουσι. θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν;
James 2:19-20
The root for the words in blue is πίστις (psitis); it's the word that is translated as believe and faith in English language bibles. In Latin it is translated by two different words, as it is in English - namely, credis and fides.

And they are not exactly the same:
credis is an intellectual agreement with, a mental assent to the matter, while
fides is about trust on, confidence in the matter (as in fiduciary--holding, held or founded in trust).

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 21, 2023

Clare73 said:
And they are not exactly the same:
credis is an intellectual agreement with, a mental assent to the matter, while
fides is about trust on, confidence in the matter (as in fiduciary--holding, held or founded in trust).

In Latin they are distinct yet in Greek it is no so.

Clare73 · Jan 21, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
In Latin they are distinct yet in Greek it is not so.

Would that be because in the NT it is always used of faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual. . .which implies trust, trustworthiness, fidelity?

Sola Fide

Orthodox Christian

Nothing without Elohim

Nothing without Elohim

Junior Member

Blood-bought

Contributor

Oldbie

Oldbie

Oldbie

Blood-bought

​

See the thread, The works that Paul and the Apostles did for Salvation., post #57.​

Oldbie

​

See the thread, The works that Paul and the Apostles did for Salvation., post #57.​

Blood-bought

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Orthodox Christian

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Blood-bought

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Blood-bought

Similar threads

See the thread, The works that Paul and the Apostles did for Salvation., post #57.

See the thread, The works that Paul and the Apostles did for Salvation., post #57.