Faith and works not that hard to figure out.

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,689
55
USA
✟676,936.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
^^ People have all but stood on their heads trying to show that we can trust in Christ for our salvation.

Our works will always fall short of perfection, our acts will always be lacking. Our righteousness is as filthy rags...

Yet we can stand before the God of the Universe and trust in Him for our salvation...

in love we will always do our very best to be pleasing to Him, but thats not what provides my salvation - Christ does.

And its the most beautiful thing in the world to TRUST in my Lord, and not in myself, because if it were up to me I'd never merit salvation..

I feel sorry for people who can't grasp that.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
^^ People have all but stood on their heads trying to show that we can trust in Christ for our salvation.

Our works will always fall short of perfection, our acts will always be lacking. Our righteousness is as filthy rags...

Yet we can stand before the God of the Universe and trust in Him for our salvation...

in love we will always do our very best to be pleasing to Him, but thats not what provides my salvation - Christ does.

And its the most beautiful thing in the world to TRUST in my Lord, and not in myself, because if it were up to me I'd never merit salvation..

I feel sorry for people who can't grasp that.
Indeed it is a matter of Trust. That is why every step of the way it is by Grace through faith.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The posts directed towards me that I didn't reply to, I haven't read them because after reading a few here it's very obvious posters have gone into denial and when that happens, it doesn't matter what proof we put before them, they simply aren't going to see it, or do all they can to change it.

But before I move on to someplace time is better spent, I'd ask that those undecided on this, those still actually looking and open to the truth, look closely at some of the posts here. See how some of the very obvious things some of the scripture tells us is met with strange refutes that don't fit at all. Things that you yourself see perfectly clearly, wile some make long winded posts with a twist here or there you may not even notice in order to change the clear truth...it's happened several time here already.

I'll catch some of you on the next similar thread for another go around, and hope some of you leave this one with something useful.

Be good. ;)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Thomas Cooper

Active Member
Jan 24, 2019
53
22
Billings
✟17,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I beg to differ. It went viral for Luther because of the invention of the printing press. You mean Sola Fide, correct? Anyway, Sola Fide was taught way earlier than Luther! It was even at one glorious time taught the Catholic Church, until Authority of the Church became more important than God's Word. The major mistake and correction of this Doctrine of Sola Fide both came from the Catholic Church.

The Latin Vulgate, Jerome's 4th century translation, had been the official translation throughout the middle ages. But then came the Renaissance, a recovery of classical learning that included a return to the original Greek text of Scripture. They found concerns of its translation of the Greek word 'dikaiosune,' which means 'to declare righteous' (It is a legal term, a verdict), but the Latin Vulgate had translated 'dikaiosune' with the Latin word 'iustificare,' which means 'to make righteous.'

Here comes the important pieces of history in regards to 'Sola Fide'. It was not Luther who corrected the mistranslation, but a Roman Catholic Priest named. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus; aka Erasmus. So Erasmus and a host of classical scholars recognized that the Greek text required an understanding of justification that referred to change in status rather than to a change in behavior or mode of being. Again, Erasmus had no doctrinal stake in this matter. He was not only a loyal son of the Roman Church; he had engaged in heated polemics with Luther over free-will. Nevertheless, he was Europe's leading authority on the classical languages and could not overlook the glaring mistranslations. For this reason it has been said that Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.

I'll conclude with the following:

Bearing the nihil obstat and imprimatur of the Roman Church, Sacramentum Mundi is a modern encyclopedia of Roman doctrine. In its article on Justification we read that Justification 'implies a relation with a judgement rather than a mode of being.'

'always has a certain forensic flavor which prevents its becoming a mere synonym of regeneration or re-creation. In later theology, however, this sense is often lost, and justification comes to mean nothing more than the infusion of grace (D 799). Now when St. Paul applies the juridical terminology to the new Christian reality, it acquires an entirely new meaning. It refers now not to the future but to the past (Rom. 5:9), not to the just man but the sinner (Rom. 4:5). And so the basis of justification must also be different. It can no longer be observance of the Law. It must be Christ, whom God has made our righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30), which is the same thing as saying that we are justified by faith in Christ (Rom. 3:28).' [by Ricardo Franco, pp. 239-240]

What??? Rome wrote that!!!

Furthermore, arguably the two most widely respected Roman Catholic biblical scholars, J.A. Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown, have recognized that Justification is understood in the biblical text to mean legal acquittal and not a process of growth in inherent righteousness of the individual. 'Justification in the OT,' writes Fitzmyer, 'denotes one who stood acquitted or vindicated before a judge's tribunal...This uprightness (righteousness) does not belong to human beings (Rom. 10:3), and is not something that they produced or merited; it is an alien uprightness, one belonging to another (Christ) and attributed to them because of what that other had done for them...This justification comes about by grace and through faith' (Romans, AB 33, pp. 116-19).

What??? Roman Catholic scholars wrote that!!!

Hope that helps???​

Hi and thank you for responding. Unfortunately, you seem to be dangerously misinformed on an important issue, but I’m happy to help. The Roman Catholic Church (initially known simply as “The Way,” but renamed around the turn of the first century to distinguish her from heretical groups), since her founding at Pentecost in Acts 2, has never changed a doctrine and no person nor college in the Church has the authority to do so.
It is true that the term “Justification by Faith Alone,” also known as “Sola Fide,” has been used since the earliest days of the Church. In fact, a certain definition of Sola Fide is actually held by the Church to be doctrine. Unfortunately, the modern definition of Sola Fide seems to have slowly changed, initially starting in the Reformation, from which Luther was the main contributor.
Also, it seems like you misunderstand the Catholic definitions terms such as “justification,” and “salvation.”
It also seems like you don’t understand the Church’s teaching on salvation (which Illl take the blame for, as I wasn’t entirely clear in my initial post).
Thank you
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
since her founding at Pentecost in Acts 2, has never changed a doctrine and no person nor college in the Church has the authority to do so.
That’s a bold statement.
 
Upvote 0

Thomas Cooper

Active Member
Jan 24, 2019
53
22
Billings
✟17,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hi Thomas.
Thank you for your reply.

I agree with your good remarks of how the early Church defended The Faith against heretics.

I have reservations regarding your view of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

I do agree that Lord Jesus founded the Church through His 12 Apostles, with Peter as the leader, whom Christ sent forth.

I also believe that the Spirit of Christ opened the doors, through Peter, to grant the Sameritans, and then to the Gentiles, salvation through the Gospel just as the Book of Acts records, and also giving Peter special leadership in the Church, as Christ promised to Peter.

The Foundation for the Faith has now been laid. We have the Founding Documents in the New Testament, God's Revelation of the Gospel that fully reveals and explains that Faith that are now entrusted to the Church, and by which the Church stands. So any interpretation by the Church Magisterium must not go beyond the revelation of Holy Scripture of which the RCC agrees:

CCC 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."[47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

CCC 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."[48]

And we know the the Holy Scripture completely revealed that Revelation by God's Command, to give us complete understanding.

All the Fullness of Divine Revelation has now been plainly revealed in Writing by the Command of God:

Romans 16:25 Now to HIM who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to revelation of the Mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the Prophetic Writings by the Command of the Eternal God, so that ALL nations might believe and obey HIM - 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Christ Jesus! Amen.

Ephesians 3:4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit of God's holy Apostles and Prophets.

Colossians 2:1-8
1 I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally (so it has to be in writing). 2 My purpose is that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the Mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you with find sounding arguements.
. . . 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

The manifold wisdom of God is now fully revealed and entrusted with the Church. This manifold wisdom is the Founding Documents of our Faith which God gave to us through His Apostles in writing.

Ephesians 3:8-14
(NIV)
8 Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

IF a supposed organization claims to be the Church of Christ, but then directs us to believe a deeper revelation then what God has already entrusted to us through the Prophets and Apostles, then shouldn't this be a red flag?

I addressed this issue regarding the RCC in an earlier post in response to another post in the following link...

What saves a person?

Please read and let me know if I am amiss in my understanding.

Thank you for finding common ground with my previous post.

I would like to point out that I agree almost entirely with this post. You’re absolutely correct in that the doctrine of continuing revelation is heretical, and the Church actually opposes it. The Church does not claim to have such an authority, and fully believes that all revelation has been made fully known to man.

The only difference, is that the Church, while being the Church of God, is composed of men. And with man Comes lack of understanding.

For example, while God made the afterlife known to the ancient Hebrews, but it took them centuries to understand it, and weren’t able to comprehend it entirely until Christ came. See the Gospel story where the Jews ask Jesus about marriage in Heaven. Jesus actually claims they should have known the answer (as in it was already made known by God) but they didn’t understand it.

Another example. Consider the all the times when Jesus had to explain the necessity for His Passion to His Apostles. He often uses scripture to do so, as in scripture that was already made known to the Jews, but their understanding was naturally blocked until Christ helped them to understand what God had already told them.

So while the revelation has indeed been made fully known, the Church recognizes the necessity of human beings, in our weakness, to grow in our understanding of what God has already told us.

Thank you, and I hope this helps
 
Upvote 0

Thomas Cooper

Active Member
Jan 24, 2019
53
22
Billings
✟17,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
That’s a bold statement.

And I’ll be happy to support it. After all, I made the claim. The burden of proof now rests on me.

Unfortunately, as it was such a broad statement, it’ll take some time.
Points I made that you quoted
1. The Church was founded by the Apostles
2. The Church was founded at Pentecost
3. The Church has never changed a doctrine

1. The Roman Catholic Church calls her self the “Apostolic Church” and claims to have the Apostolic Authority.
To support this, I’d like to look to history, mainly, the Church Fathers.
- Saint Ignatius of Antioch was born in Syria in AD 35, a few years after the preaching, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. At a young age he became the apprentice/disciple of Saint John the Beloved Apostle. It can logically follow that Saint Ignatius’s beliefs followed his mentor’s. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, following St. Peter (the papacy was at a point in Antioch) and St. Peter’s successor in Antioch once St. Peter moved. St. Ignatius died (martyrdom) around a decade after St. John in around 108-110, after writing much more than his mentor. We still have most of these writings, which all support current Catholic theology. In fact, Saint Ignatius was the first recorded person to refer to Christianity as the “Catholic Church,” in a letter we still have, and the use of the term suggests previous usage. Unless Ignatius apostatized while his mentor was still alive, it should be safe to trust these writings.
- St. Polycarp was born a generation or two later, in AD 69. Like Ignatius, he was a disciple of Saint John. Polycarp was appointed bishop of Smyrna and wrote a lot too. And yes; his writings still match the Church’s teachings. St. Polycarp was martyred in the mid 2nd Century (specifics are debated).
- St. (Pope) Clement ascended to the papacy around AD 88, following St. Pope Cletus, who succeeded St. Pope Linus, who succeeded St. (Pope) Peter. In that same year, a situation arose in Corinth. The Christians there had gotten rid of some lawful leaders. Now, Clement was all the way in Rome, and Saint John the Apostle was nearby in Ephesus. Despite this, it was Clement who dealt with the problem (with no absolutely objection from John). You can find his letter and read its entirety today. Unfortunately it’s called “The Letter to the Corinthians,” just like St. Paul’s, so finding it online takes a while.
- St. Irenæus, bishop of Lyon, was born in AD 130, so a little while after the death of the last Apostle (John in around 100). But he made up for his late life by recording so much. He knew St. Polycarp and recorded the man’s life as well as other aspects of the Church. He strongly combated early Heresies such as Gnosticism.
Other histories I’d like to cite
- The Didache, or “The Teaching of the Apostles,” was written in the mid 1st Century, possibly as early as AD 40. While it probably wasn’t written by the Apostles themselves (we have early writings of saints and others discussing its controversy), it still accurately depicts the religious attitude of the early Christians and is almost certainly based off of the teachings of the Apostles. No Biblical epistles ever condemn the book, so it’s safe to say that it wasn’t heretical. And, once again, it matches up.
>conclusion: While the Apostles themselves didn’t write enough (or clear enough, as we’re having all of these discussions and different interpretations of scripture), their earliest followers managed to record their teachings enough to where we have a clear understanding of the initial Christian theologies.

2. This’ll be a quicker one. Because the Church was founded by the Apostles, we can use sacred scripture to trace her origins back to the Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. St. Luke makes it clear that the forming of the Church was not a slow process, but rather a quick and exciting start. While it was initially called “The Way,” it still can be called that, the name “Catholic,” or universal was simply used to distinguish it from early heretical groups.

3. The Catholic Church has never changed a doctrine and here’s why.
- She doesn’t have the authority to. This should be obvious, as logic follows that truth is truth and is never dependent on the views of man.
- She doesn’t claim to have the authority to. She is in fact, very opposed to the heresy of continuing revelation such as held by the LDS for example.
- She never has. We can determine this from the earliest writings, which brings me to my next point.
- The earliest writings we have support modern Catholic doctrines.
I. We have writings clarifying and detailing the Eucharist and the Mass. For example, see the writings of Irenæus on see Ignatius’s writings himself, see Clement’s, or see the Didache.
II. We have writings supporting the Papacy. Again, look to Clement’s letter to Corinth for an example.
III. We have writings supporting Purgatory. A good example of this would be the tombs of the ancient Christians, which had prayers inscribed on them asking passers to pray for the fellow’s soul,
IV. We have writings supporting Marian doctrines.
V. We have writings supporting the intercession of saints.
The list goes on and on.
- Unfortunately, there seems to be a common misconception about what a doctrine is. Many people mistake disciplines for doctrines. Disciplines are man-made rules within the Church, such as whether or not priests must have beards. These matters are based on tradition and can change with the times or the needs of the Church. They do not affect her theological beliefs.
- The Church cannot change doctrine, but as she is composed of mere human beings, sometimes she can grow in her understanding of the beliefs which were fully revealed to her from God through the Apostles.
I. For example, while the Jews believed in the resurrection of the dead, they didn’t quite understand it. When they asked Christ about post-death marriage, He told them they should already have known because God revealed it to them. But because they were only human, they didn’t understand so Jesus helped them to comprehend it.
II. Another example is this: Jesus, many times, had to explain to His Apostles that He had to die. This had been revealed to the Jews through the prophets, but the Apostles (only human) didn’t quite get it.
- Similarly, the Church may clarify or “officially declare doctrines”. An example of this would be when she declared Christ as God at the Council of Nicaea. She had always taught this but there was no need to make it official until Arias attacked the doctrine. Another example would be when Pope Pius IX officially defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854. The Church had always taught it, but never saw a need to clarify until the Adventist movement became popular.

To conclude, if you made it this far, nice job. Sorry, that was a lot, I know. But I hope it helps you understand my argument that Catholic Church is the true Church founded by the Apostles and has stayed true to her teachings. Thank you and God bless
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
3. The Catholic Church has never changed a doctrine and here’s why.
- She doesn’t have the authority to. This should be obvious, as logic follows that truth is truth and is never dependent on the views of man.
- She doesn’t claim to have the authority to. She is in fact, very opposed to the heresy of continuing revelation such as held by the LDS for example.
She has.

The assumption of Mary was a 19th century doctrine.

Cardinal Newman is unabashed that Roman Catholic doctrine has developed over the centuries.

Here’s another. There is no office of priest in the NT. That was a later development.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Thomas Cooper

Active Member
Jan 24, 2019
53
22
Billings
✟17,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
She has.

The assumption of Mary was a 19th century doctrine.

Cardinal Newman is unabashed that Roman Catholic doctrine has developed over the centuries.

Here’s another. There is no office of priest in the NT. That was a later development.

Hi and thank you for responding. Unfortunately I see you have some information need correcting here.

- The Assumption of Mary has been taught in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Church (Orthodoxy) since the earliest days. It was simply officially defined in 1950 (20th Century). See my note on the Immaculate Conception.

- I’m assuming you’re referring to Cardinal Newman’s “On the Development of Christian Doctrine,” which is actually about the Church’s process of further understanding already-expressed doctrines. He actually makes the point in the book to address the difference between that and corrupting doctrines, something he never accuses the Church of. See my 6th bullet point on my 3rd point above for more details.

- The term “priest” was originally “presbyter,” which you’ll find all over the NT and very clearly organized too.

Thank you for your concerns.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Assumption of Mary has been taught in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Church (Orthodoxy) since the earliest days. It was simply officially defined in 1950 (20th Century). See my note on the Immaculate Conception.
Show me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

setst777

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 25, 2018
2,202
599
66
Greenfield
Visit site
✟350,021.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thank you for finding common ground with my previous post.

I would like to point out that I agree almost entirely with this post. You’re absolutely correct in that the doctrine of continuing revelation is heretical, and the Church actually opposes it. The Church does not claim to have such an authority, and fully believes that all revelation has been made fully known to man.

The only difference, is that the Church, while being the Church of God, is composed of men. And with man Comes lack of understanding.

For example, while God made the afterlife known to the ancient Hebrews, but it took them centuries to understand it, and weren’t able to comprehend it entirely until Christ came. See the Gospel story where the Jews ask Jesus about marriage in Heaven. Jesus actually claims they should have known the answer (as in it was already made known by God) but they didn’t understand it.

Another example. Consider the all the times when Jesus had to explain the necessity for His Passion to His Apostles. He often uses scripture to do so, as in scripture that was already made known to the Jews, but their understanding was naturally blocked until Christ helped them to understand what God had already told them.

So while the revelation has indeed been made fully known, the Church recognizes the necessity of human beings, in our weakness, to grow in our understanding of what God has already told us.

Thank you, and I hope this helps

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for your good reply. I write this post specifically in response to your words, "grown in understanding."

At the time when Lord Jesus was on earth, He had not fully revealed everything to His disciples because they could not bear to hear it all, but promised His 12 Disciples that the Holy Spirit would give them understanding, and would bring to remembrance everything He taught them. The Holy Spirit would teach them all things (John 16:12-16)... And that, at that time, what they heard in secret they were now to proclaim on the housetops (Matthew 10:27).

We know that, before Christ Jesus was glorified, but after His resurrection, that the Spirit had not yet been given (John 7:37-39). So, the 12 Disciples still were not able to comprehend all that Christ Jesus had taught them, nor could they bear to hear all that Christ desired to convey.

However, starting at the Day of Pentecost, the Spirit was given, and the Apostles of Christ received that understanding and great boldness to proclaim to the world all they had witnessed, and were taught by, and promised by, Lord Jesus, whom they were with during His ministry. A record of that anointing of the Spirit and the bold witness of the Apostles is all recorded in the Book of Acts.

The New Testament is Not Incomplete

So this fullness of the Gospel was completely revealed, in writing by the command of God (Romans 16:25-27) by that foundation - the Apostles (Revelation 21:14) to give us complete understanding. What the Apostles recorded is now complete and fully explained just as God commanded (1 Peter 1:10-12; Romans 15:17-19; Romans 16:25-27; Ephesians 3:4-6; etc.)

Since that Revelation was written down by the Command of God to give us complete understanding, I feel it would be unfair to say the NT Revelation is incomplete, or does not contain the fullness of the Gospel.

We are to contend (intense struggle) for that faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3-4).

As I view the many warnings given by the Apostles to stay clear of those leaders who strayed from the pure doctrine they were entrusted, I feel an Apostolic compelling directive not to follow a Church leader who strays from that Gospel Doctrine.

The RCC claims they have authority to provide some deeper knowledge, as they "grow in understanding" that neither the Lord Jesus, nor His Apostles, ever hinted at or revealed. The RCC has convinced itself into believing that mythical traditions of some early believers, which may have gained popularity at the time, hold the same authority and weight as the Apostolic Writings.

The Apostolic hallmark of the Gospel is that Christians are to give our pure devotion to Christ Jesus. The Apostles repeatedly warn us of those who would attempt to lead us astray from that pure devotion: (ex..2 Corinthians 11:2-4). I see that as a red flag concerning the Roman Catholic Church, which I will explain further.

Despite the fact that the RCC states that they are servants of the Word of God, and a guardian of it, I see something different in practice. I see the RCC adding doctrine and deeper knowledge from their understanding that was never taught by the Apostles of Christ Jesus, although such 'teachings' have some basis in tradition among persons within the early church who obviously lack understanding - not "grown in understanding," but are none-the-less relied upon by the RCC to form doctrine.

The RCC needs to go back to the Foundation - The Apostolic Writings.

Pure Devotion to Christ - the Hallmark of the Gospel

Much of this extra-Biblical doctrine and teachings of the RCC, as we shall see, usurp the pure devotion that belongs only to Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:2-4). And that should be red flag to anyone, because our salvation depends on it.

When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, we see also that limits were specifically set in place on its use. I quote the "Pastor aeternus" as follows:

"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. "

Quoted from:
Pastor aeternus ("First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ", by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

Therefore, ex cathedra statements by the Pope does not allow any infallibility for the Church or Pope for new doctrines or deeper meanings or teachings, that go beyond the {"the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles."}

Some of the added teachings and doctrines of the RCC that are not taught in the Apostolic documents are as follows: Celibacy of Bishops, Marian doctrine and creed, refraining from certain foods on certain days, making petitions to Mary and past Saints for our protection and all our needs, and Purgatory and Limbo. Besides this, the Roman Catholic Church promoted superstitions, like paying money or goods to the Church for less time Purgatory, or the purchase of Christian relics by which God hears our prayers.

The NT Scriptures never hint at such teachings, nor in any way are they taught by Christ or the Apostles - the fullness of God's Word in writing by the command of the Eternal God.

In fact, Marian Doctrine, and the praying to Mary and the Saints clearly undermines our pure devotion to Christ and glory that is His alone within the Gospel.

The Gospel commands us to make all our petitions to God through Jesus Christ

Marian doctrine and making petitions to Mary and saints for all our needs also disregards or refutes God's commands to make all our petitions known to God alone through our one Mediator, Christ Jesus (Matthew 6:6-8; Matthew 7:9-11; 1 Timothy 2:5; Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 7:23-28). . .

We see nothing in the Gospel Doctrine that anyone else was to share in the Glory that belongs to Christ alone as that one Mediator in Heaven, through whom we are to take all our petitions to God, for all our needs. Please read the Scriptures provided so you can see why I take this so seriously.

So, I cannot just believe what a Church leader states, whom you agree may not have accurate understanding - still learning. Even if such leader does give himself grand titles of authority, that does not persuade me.

However,
those Church pronouncements (creeds) that were carefully thought out by the leaders (chief apologists and polemists) of the Church to defend the faith (the Nicean Creed, the Apostles Creed, the Athanasius Creed and the Chalcedon Definition) are a blessing to the Church, as these documents are that Rule of Faith of which Scripture clearly teaches, and so solidifies Apostolic Doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Thomas Cooper

Active Member
Jan 24, 2019
53
22
Billings
✟17,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Presbyter is not Priest in the NT.

Show me.

The word “priest” literally comes from the Greek “presbuteros.” All we did was change the name. Reading Acts and the Epsitles, you can see presbyters performing modern priestly duties, such as confession and the sacraments.
 
Upvote 0

Thomas Cooper

Active Member
Jan 24, 2019
53
22
Billings
✟17,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for your good reply. I write this post specifically in response to your words, "grown in understanding."

At the time when Lord Jesus was on earth, He had not fully revealed everything to His disciples because they could not bear to hear it all, but promised His 12 Disciples that the Holy Spirit would give them understanding, and would bring to remembrance everything He taught them. The Holy Spirit would teach them all things (John 16:12-16)... And that, at that time, what they heard in secret they were now to proclaim on the housetops (Matthew 10:27).

We know that, before Christ Jesus was glorified, but after His resurrection, that the Spirit had not yet been given (John 7:37-39). So, the 12 Disciples still were not able to comprehend all that Christ Jesus had taught them, nor could they bear to hear all that Christ desired to convey.

However, starting at the Day of Pentecost, the Spirit was given, and the Apostles of Christ received that understanding and great boldness to proclaim to the world all they had witnessed, and were taught by, and promised by, Lord Jesus, whom they were with during His ministry. A record of that anointing of the Spirit and the bold witness of the Apostles is all recorded in the Book of Acts.

The New Testament is Not Incomplete

So this fullness of the Gospel was completely revealed, in writing by the command of God (Romans 16:25-27) by that foundation - the Apostles (Revelation 21:14) to give us complete understanding. What the Apostles recorded is now complete and fully explained just as God commanded (1 Peter 1:10-12; Romans 15:17-19; Romans 16:25-27; Ephesians 3:4-6; etc.)

Since that Revelation was written down by the Command of God to give us complete understanding, I feel it would be unfair to say the NT Revelation is incomplete, or does not contain the fullness of the Gospel.

We are to contend (intense struggle) for that faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3-4).

As I view the many warnings given by the Apostles to stay clear of those leaders who strayed from the pure doctrine they were entrusted, I feel an Apostolic compelling directive not to follow a Church leader who strays from that Gospel Doctrine.

The RCC claims they have authority to provide some deeper knowledge, as they "grow in understanding" that neither the Lord Jesus, nor His Apostles, ever hinted at or revealed. The RCC has convinced itself into believing that mythical traditions of some early believers, which may have gained popularity at the time, hold the same authority and weight as the Apostolic Writings.

The Apostolic hallmark of the Gospel is that Christians are to give our pure devotion to Christ Jesus. The Apostles repeatedly warn us of those who would attempt to lead us astray from that pure devotion: (ex..2 Corinthians 11:2-4). I see that as a red flag concerning the Roman Catholic Church, which I will explain further.

Despite the fact that the RCC states that they are servants of the Word of God, and a guardian of it, I see something different in practice. I see the RCC adding doctrine and deeper knowledge from their understanding that was never taught by the Apostles of Christ Jesus, although such 'teachings' have some basis in tradition among persons within the early church who obviously lack understanding - not "grown in understanding," but are none-the-less relied upon by the RCC to form doctrine.

The RCC needs to go back to the Foundation - The Apostolic Writings.

Pure Devotion to Christ - the Hallmark of the Gospel

Much of this extra-Biblical doctrine and teachings of the RCC, as we shall see, usurp the pure devotion that belongs only to Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:2-4). And that should be red flag to anyone, because our salvation depends on it.

When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, we see also that limits were specifically set in place on its use. I quote the "Pastor aeternus" as follows:

"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. "

Quoted from:
Pastor aeternus ("First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ", by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

Therefore, ex cathedra statements by the Pope does not allow any infallibility for the Church or Pope for new doctrines or deeper meanings or teachings, that go beyond the {"the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles."}

Some of the added teachings and doctrines of the RCC that are not taught in the Apostolic documents are as follows: Celibacy of Bishops, Marian doctrine and creed, refraining from certain foods on certain days, making petitions to Mary and past Saints for our protection and all our needs, and Purgatory and Limbo. Besides this, the Roman Catholic Church promoted superstitions, like paying money or goods to the Church for less time Purgatory, or the purchase of Christian relics by which God hears our prayers.

The NT Scriptures never hint at such teachings, nor in any way are they taught by Christ or the Apostles - the fullness of God's Word in writing by the command of the Eternal God.

In fact, Marian Doctrine, and the praying to Mary and the Saints clearly undermines our pure devotion to Christ and glory that is His alone within the Gospel.

The Gospel commands us to make all our petitions to God through Jesus Christ

Marian doctrine and making petitions to Mary and saints for all our needs also disregards or refutes God's commands to make all our petitions known to God alone through our one Mediator, Christ Jesus (Matthew 6:6-8; Matthew 7:9-11; 1 Timothy 2:5; Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 7:23-28). . .

We see nothing in the Gospel Doctrine that anyone else was to share in the Glory that belongs to Christ alone as that one Mediator in Heaven, through whom we are to take all our petitions to God, for all our needs. Please read the Scriptures provided so you can see why I take this so seriously.

So, I cannot just believe what a Church leader states, whom you agree may not have accurate understanding - still learning. Even if such leader does give himself grand titles of authority, that does not persuade me.

However,
those Church pronouncements (creeds) that were carefully thought out by the leaders (chief apologists and polemists) of the Church to defend the faith (the Nicean Creed, the Apostles Creed, the Athanasius Creed and the Chalcedon Definition) are a blessing to the Church, as these documents are that Rule of Faith of which Scripture clearly teaches, and so solidifies Apostolic Doctrine.

Hi, I’m back. That’s quite a reply there! Let me see if I can help sort things out.

First of all, you cited John 16. Specifically, John 16:13 is very important is supporting my defense. Christ promises the complete and full understanding to the Apostles’ Church.
I think you might misunderstand my phrase “grow in understanding.” Never do we dive deeper into a doctrine than the Deposit of Faith permits. We cannot add to doctrines, nor subtract from them. Simply, we can better understand what we already know. For example, a child might know the simple fact that 1+1=2. It might take him a while to understand why though. He had complete knowledge but because he was a child, he had incomplete understanding. A real example could be the Church’s approach to suicide. While she has always acknowledged suicide as a grave sin, her attitude towards suicide has become more sympathetic rather than harsh. However, her belief of suicide never changed. Those might be poor examples, sorry, but those are the best explanations I can provide.
Also, I think you have confused doctrine with discipline. The celibacy of Bishops is not theological and is not a belief. Rather it’s a man-made rule we’ve made because we think it helps bishops to be more devoted to their job. We could change this rule in a heartbeat without changing any of our beliefs. The same goes for our diet regulations.
As for others: all of our Marian doctrines have foundation in scripture, especially the Divine Materinity, the Immaculate Conception, and the Perpetual Virginity.
We also base the Intercession of Saints, purgatory, and limbo off of scripture.
If you would like to discuss these doctrines further, please private message me, as this discussion is supposed to be on Sola Fide.
Thank you
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now your just going into denial. Let's go through the scripture as well as let others see exactly the verse we are speaking if.

What does this mean to you?

Wander from the truth,

What do you think death means here?

Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death.
*Notice - Brethren, if anyone "among" you wanders from the truth...turns a "sinner" from the error of his way.. Some would argue that James says this one who turned from the truth was a "sinner," and was "among" but "not of" the Brethren, then he wasn’t previously saved. That fits 1 John 2:19 - They went out "from" us, but they were "not of" us..

IF this person was a genuine believer, yet how do we know for sure this is the second death in the lake of fire? In Matthew 26:38, Jesus said: "My soul [psuche] is deeply grieved, to the point of death." Jesus was not saying that His soul was deeply grieved to the point of spiritual death, Rather, Jesus was talking about physical death, his human life. In Revelation 16:3, "The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became blood like that of a dead man; and every living soul [psuche] in the sea died". In 1 Peter 3:20 "... God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, [psuche-souls] were brought safely (saved from drowning, physical death) through the water" by the ark (Hebrews 11:7).

"Soul" is rendered from the Greek word "psuche" and is also translated as "life". The word "psuche" is never translated as "spirit." In 1 Corinthians 5:5, we read - I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (no second death).

Jesus covered our sins in one way (Romans 4:7) by bringing forgiveness for all believers, yet sins can also be covered in a different way. In Proverbs 10:12, we read: Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. In 1 Peter 4:8, we read: And above all things have fervent love for one another, for "love will cover a multitude of sins." Where there is strife, there is hatred and unless love prevails, the strife will only get worse. Love covers offenses and sins when a believer turns back from error.

So is this wanderer a professing Christian, whose faith is not genuine, or a sinning Christian, who needs to be restored? For the former, the death spoken of in verse 20 is the "second death" (Revelation 21:8); for the latter, it is "physical death" (1 Corinthians 11:29-32; 1 John 5:16).
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
*Notice - Brethren, if anyone "among" you wanders from the truth...turns a "sinner" from the error of his way.. Some would argue that James says this one who turned from the truth was a "sinner," and was "among" but "not of" the Brethren, then he wasn’t previously saved. That fits 1 John 2:19 - They went out "from" us, but they were "not of" us..

IF this person was a genuine believer, yet how do we know for sure this is the second death in the lake of fire? In Matthew 26:38, Jesus said: "My soul [psuche] is deeply grieved, to the point of death." Jesus was not saying that His soul was deeply grieved to the point of spiritual death, Rather, Jesus was talking about physical death, his human life. In Revelation 16:3, "The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became blood like that of a dead man; and every living soul [psuche] in the sea died". In 1 Peter 3:20 "... God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, [psuche-souls] were brought safely (saved from drowning, physical death) through the water" by the ark (Hebrews 11:7).

"Soul" is rendered from the Greek word "psuche" and is also translated as "life". The word "psuche" is never translated as "spirit." In 1 Corinthians 5:5, we read - I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (no second death).

Jesus covered our sins in one way (Romans 4:7) by bringing forgiveness for all believers, yet sins can also be covered in a different way. In Proverbs 10:12, we read: Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. In 1 Peter 4:8, we read: And above all things have fervent love for one another, for "love will cover a multitude of sins." Where there is strife, there is hatred and unless love prevails, the strife will only get worse. Love covers offenses and sins when a believer turns back from error.

So is this wanderer a professing Christian, whose faith is not genuine, or a sinning Christian, who needs to be restored? For the former, the death spoken of in verse 20 is the "second death" (Revelation 21:8); for the latter, it is "physical death" (1 Corinthians 11:29-32; 1 John 5:16).

I believe the post you quoted contained the term "denial", and I see the lengthy post you have made there in order to try to thwart the truth, that's what people in denial do...seen it before. Just so you know why there is no sense in arguing with some of you.

People love their sin, and some insist they can continue in sin so they can have the best of both worlds in spite of what God says. But God requires action, he requires we help others (the Sheep/Goats parable) and that we not live in sin...period. He even lists the sins and what will happen if we live in them, as well as what will happen if we refuse to help others, so it's very clear to us what he wants specifically,

We come to these threads only to get through to those that are sincere and seek the truth, and to warn them of the lie. However, there comes a point where we know there are some that will continue to push their beliefs, for the same reason they keep bringing up the point, because the more they can get to believe it, the more justified it becomes in their mind. As I said before, they need to do that in order to reinforce the lie because though it's not true, they love the lie so much they will fight tooth and nail to make themselves and others believe it. Many of these type threads are to do just that.

Not sure if I said it on this thread or if it was another, but there comes point where time will be wasted here. Some of us have done all we can to warn the sincerely seeking, and for those who have chosen the wrong way, it's a waste of time to try to convince you otherwise.

2 Timothy 4:3 New International Version (NIV)
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believe the post you quoted contained the term "denial", and I see the lengthy post you have made there in order to try to thwart the truth, that's what people in denial do...seen it before. Just so you know why there is no sense in arguing with some of you.
Did you even bother to read my entire post? Arguing with some of you? People in denial? You sound very close minded and biased. I properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. You seem to be more interested in accommodating your biased doctrine at all costs instead of seriously considering the truth. I've seen this before..many times.

People love their sin, and some insist they can continue in sin so they can have the best of both worlds in spite of what God says. But God requires action, he requires we help others (the Sheep/Goats parable) and that we not live in sin...period. He even lists the sins and what will happen if we live in them, as well as what will happen if we refuse to help others, so it's very clear to us what he wants specifically,
Who said anything about loving sin? Typical straw man argument. Helping others is not forced or legalistic for those who are born of God. God requires believing in Jesus for salvation. (John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 4:5-6; 1 Corinthians 1:21 etc..) Action/good works which follow are the fruit of salvation but not the root of it. We are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works. (Ephesians 2:8,9) In regards to living in sin: 1 John 3:9 - No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

*
You must not confuse DESCRIPTIVE passages of scripture with PRESCRIPTIVE passages of scripture, which is typical of those who teach salvation by works. In regards to the parable of the sheep and goats, see post #1064 from the link below:

WHO IS GOD'S TRUE CHURCH ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORD?

We come to these threads only to get through to those that are sincere and seek the truth, and to warn them of the lie. However, there comes a point where we know there are some that will continue to push their beliefs, for the same reason they keep bringing up the point, because the more they can get to believe it, the more justified it becomes in their mind. As I said before, they need to do that in order to reinforce the lie because though it's not true, they love the lie so much they will fight tooth and nail to make themselves and others believe it. Many of these type threads are to do just that.
Who is we? I find your accusations to be ironic. :rolleyes:

Not sure if I said it on this thread or if it was another, but there comes point where time will be wasted here. Some of us have done all we can to warn the sincerely seeking, and for those who have chosen the wrong way, it's a waste of time to try to convince you otherwise.

2 Timothy 4:3 New International Version (NIV)
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
You are the master of irony.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
Another example of confusing a "descriptive" passage of scripture with a "prescriptive" passage of scripture and the end result is works salvation. The good deeds of the redeemed (those who have done good) are not the basis or means of obtaining salvation, but is the evidence of it. A person's conduct, whether good or evil, reveals the condition of his heart.

Doing good flows from a heart that is saved and doing evil flows equally from a heart that is unsaved, as we also see in Romans 2:6-10. *Notice that ALL who come forth unto the resurrection of life (believers - vs. 24) are described as those who have done good and ALL that come forth unto the resurrection of damnation (unbelievers) are described as those who have done evil.

What did Jesus say in John 3:18? - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because (he has not done enough good deeds? NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Are believers described as "those who have done good" or those who have done evil?"
Are unbelievers described as those "who have done evil" or "those who have done good?"
Think about it. ;)
 
Upvote 0

ladodgers6

Know what you believe and why you believe it
Supporter
Oct 6, 2015
2,123
743
Los Angeles
✟192,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Hi and thank you for responding. Unfortunately, you seem to be dangerously misinformed on an important issue, but I’m happy to help. The Roman Catholic Church (initially known simply as “The Way,” but renamed around the turn of the first century to distinguish her from heretical groups), since her founding at Pentecost in Acts 2, has never changed a doctrine and no person nor college in the Church has the authority to do so.
It is true that the term “Justification by Faith Alone,” also known as “Sola Fide,” has been used since the earliest days of the Church. In fact, a certain definition of Sola Fide is actually held by the Church to be doctrine. Unfortunately, the modern definition of Sola Fide seems to have slowly changed, initially starting in the Reformation, from which Luther was the main contributor.
Also, it seems like you misunderstand the Catholic definitions terms such as “justification,” and “salvation.”
It also seems like you don’t understand the Church’s teaching on salvation (which Illl take the blame for, as I wasn’t entirely clear in my initial post).
Thank you

Again I beg to differ. I was once a Catholic myself. And I have studied Justification by Faith Alone for a lot of years now. And as I have provided in my previous post of the two Catholic scholars who state that Justification of the sinner is a legal acquittal; not a inherent mode of righteousness by the sinner, which earns this Justification.

As far as you stating that the Reformers got Justification wrong, that is incorrect. History shows that it was a Catholic Priest 'Erasmus' that discovered the mistranslation, and correct it. Not Luther, nor the Reformers! This is a fact in history, and anybody can look it up.

And I am sorry, but the RCC lays out their erroneous view of Justification in the Council of Trent.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Thomas Cooper

Active Member
Jan 24, 2019
53
22
Billings
✟17,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Again I beg to differ. I was once a Catholic myself. And I have studied Justification by Faith Alone for a lot of years now. And as I have provided in my previous post of the two Catholic scholars who state that Justification of the sinner is a legal acquittal; not a inherent mode of righteousness by the sinner, which earns this Justification.

As far as you stating that the Reformers got Justification wrong, that is incorrect. History shows that it was a Catholic Priest 'Erasmus' that discovered the mistranslation, and correct it. Not Luther, nor the Reformers! This is a fact in history, and anybody can look it up.

And I am sorry, but the RCC lays out their erroneous view of Justification in the Council of Trent.

Hi, I’m back.

I firmly believe, that despite your scholarship, you have a misunderstanding of many things. As a fellow Catholic, I’ll do my best to correct that.

Firstly, the Church does not teach that one “earns” their salvation through works. I’m sure we agree that doctrine would be silly. How could one earn salvation? Rather, salvation is a free gift from God. We are saved by the grace of God through His Sacrifice on the Cross. God’s salvation is a free gift. If we can agree on this statement, then you must see that your definition of faith alone is circular reasoning. If salvation comes from God, and not from our own actions, then how could the action of having faith have complete saving merit? By this we would say “We are saved by the free gift of God so as long as we...” we could fill that ellipsis with “have faith,” “have works,” or “have both faith and works.” None would satisfy the saving act of Christ. Rather, you are correct in saying (to paraphrase) that we were bought with the blood of Christ. At your baptism, the priest said, “I claim you for Christ!”

So at this we can only reason that all salvation comes from God. But, I think, if we are to get to the bottom of what saves, we must determine what “salvation” is. I think the salvation you are meaning is eternal life in Heaven. So what is eternal life in Heaven? It’s eternal life with God and all of His children. God Is love and grace. God predestines every single human soul for spending eternity with Him in Heaven. He wants us there. But if we don’t want Heaven, then God’s not going to force us.

So what is desiring Heaven, then? If you know of Heaven, that is knowledge. But the angels, the satanists, and the damned know of Heaven. If you believe in Heaven and trust in God’s promise of Eternal Life, that slowly becomes faith. If we desire Heaven and we desire love, if we love our neighbors with all our hearts all our minds and all our souls, then why wouldn’t our faith be alive and active and producing of good works? Therefore a way of thinking of it would be this: if you don’t love your neighbors through your actions, you probably don’t really want Heaven, because that’s what Heaven is, love.

As far as suggesting that Erasmus corrected a courrpted definition of Sola Fide, I believe the two of us misunderstand each other. You seem to be speaking of a mistranslation in St. Jerome’s Vulgate. I am not denying your fact, but I am instead speaking of the very definition of faith alone. The Church Fathers were very clear in their definition that faith must be active, must produce good deeds, or it is, as St. James writes, “dead.”

I pray this helps and that we both grow in our understanding of such things.
 
Upvote 0