Faith and works not that hard to figure out.

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I have not seen any answer. All you did was play "well, we have finite minds" card which isn't an answer but a cop out.

I never said nor thought anything about a finite mind. Where did you get that from? Scripture says we have the mind of Christ .

Hitler was what Lord Jesus called a tare planted by the enemy. He was by his fruit, not a sealed believer saved by faith unless he repented.

Just look at the question: can hitler and his nazi's be just saved by their faith alone? Deep down you are answering no, which is why you are ignoring these questions just like the TC did.

My answer

Yes they can be saved. Forgiveness of sins is available to everyone that believes.

Now what?

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Lol again declined

I think that is the right answer.

 

[☦Marius☦]

It hasn’t been pretty. But the Reformation was a course correction long overdue. And it should not stop there, meaning reform. In fact the call is Semper Reformda always reforming.

Correcting a heresy with heresy doesn't make it legitimate.

There was already a church that stood against papism and had much more claim to being the church then any denomination of the reformation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Correcting a heresy with heresy doesn't make it legitimate.

I’ve often wondered if Calvin and Luther were aware of the Orthodox Church.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes we differ. All I ask is that you read my post. I have prayed for your eyes to open to the Truth. Lord Jesus is the Savior all by Himself.And He is able to keep us saved.
Jude 1:24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.(NIV)
Jude 1:
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.(KJV)

My view will never change...Faith and works...it's biblical.

 

[Cis.jd]

So i guess you don't want to complete Ep 2:8-10?

Yes they can be saved. Forgiveness of sins is available to everyone that believes.
Now what?

Oh ok. So you believe that as long as you believe, you can kill as much people in the most cruel ways, because faith alone just auto-cleans that? I just wanted to double check.

You also answered with this

Hitler was what Lord Jesus called a tare planted by the enemy. He was by his fruit, not a sealed believer saved by faith unless he repented.

First, how so.. if he claimed to believe how do you raise doubts on him not being a "sealed believer" especially when the Nazi belts had "God is with us"? And why repent, if just believing alone is fine? So after all the murders he did, just "i'm sorry" is good enough?

 

[Varangian Christian]

I know we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life. But when did that become a necessity when it is our mission?

This is you right now:

Stop dodging and answer my questions plainly:

• What objections do you have to the video and article i linked you.
  
• What are your beliefs (Calvinist, once saved always saved, etc).

As for your question, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Since it is our God given mission to do good works of course it is a necessity that we do them.

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." - James 2:14-26

The above passages are damning to the faith alone argument and are why Luther wanted to rip James out of Scripture. Without works your faith is as dead as a body without a soul.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I’ve often wondered if Calvin and Luther were aware of the Orthodox Church.

Only two years after the posting of his 95 Theses, after a famous debate in Leipzig with Johann Eck, Luther “wrote that he vigorously defended the Orthodox Church against Eck’s slanderous remarks that the Greek Church had lost the Christian faith after the fall of the Byzantine Empire.” (Mastrantonis, 10 n.1) Later that same year, he also pointed to the Orthodox Church to support his claims against papal supremacy, purgatory, the reception of only the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, the prohibition against celebrating Divine Liturgies (Masses) with no one present, and the notion of the Eucharistic sacrifice as propitiatory (rather than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving).

These appeals to the “Greek Church” were repeated not only by Luther but also by his colleagues, and some made their way into the Book of Concord, to which every Lutheran pastor and parish must formally pledge allegiance. The aim of these appeals was to indicate that the “Evangelical party” (as they were first known) was doing nothing new, and that Rome itself had departed from the faith once delivered. While Luther, in particular, and most of his colleagues never had or developed direct contact with the Orthodox bishops or theologians, they certainly knew of them, at least through the Greek patristic writings, and the early Lutherans assumed and expected that the Eastern churches had retained, without abuse or deviation, the ancient Christian faith.

Given these appeals to the Greek Church, attempts by the nascent Lutherans to contact the Orthodox Church would not seem unlikely. If that happened is increasingly unknown, despite the oft-repeated story that Philipp Melanchthon, Luther’s “right-hand man,” worked with Orthodox Deacon Demetrios Mysos to translate the Augsburg Confession into Greek. What is certain is that there is no record of correspondence, and scant, if any, knowledge of the Protestants by the various Orthodox patriarchs until 30 years after Luther’s death.

In the 1570s, when the Lutherans were consolidating their teachings, leading Lutheran theologians wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople, sending him a copy of the Augsburg Confession (the primary and constitutive document of Lutheranism). This endeavor was led by Jacob Andreae, one of the leading Lutheran scholars, a theology professor and chancellor at the leading Lutheran university in Tübingen, and the author of several anti-Calvinist statements which culminated in the Book of Concord.

In addition to his university colleagues, Andreae was assisted by Stephen Gerlach, their hand-picked chaplain to the German embassy in Constantinople. These Lutheran leaders “had some knowledge of the Orthodox Church, although they had no knowledge of contemporary Orthodoxy because of… the fall of the Byzantine Empire” in 1453. (Mastrantonis, 9-10) Nevertheless, they initiated a conversation with the patriarch because they believed that the Orthodox Church remained true to the Ecumenical Councils while eschewing the innovations of the Roman church.

The correspondence was conducted by a small group of Lutheran theologians and the learned Patriarch Jeremias, who wrote his replies after consulting several advisers. It followed the outline of the articles of faith and practice found in the Augsburg Confession. The letters consisted of three official exchanges (and a number of ancillary letters), which were pointed but cordial and polite. Common ground was easily found included the doctrine of Christ, evil as caused by humans, ancestral sin and its transmission, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the efficacy of baptism, the abuses of papal primacy and supremacy, the allowance of married clergy, and communion in both species. (For a more detailed list of similarities and differences in the correspondence, see Mastrantonis, 20-24.) These, and other lesser points of agreements, were quickly dispensed by both sides in favor of focusing on disputed issues.

As the dialogue progressed, two underlying themes became evident. First, the Orthodox accepted many more of the Roman teachings and practices than the Lutherans expected; for example, the number and nature of the sacraments, intercessions to the saints, and a laudatory understanding of icons, relics, and monasticism. Second, the Lutherans retained several Roman teachings and practices that had precipitated or evolved after the Great Schism; namely, the acceptance of the filioque, the use of unleavened bread, questions revolving around predestination, and the refusal to commune infants.

The greatest sticking points, however, were those which one would expect: the Lutherans refused to accept the writings of the holy fathers as correctly interpreting the Scriptures unless “tradition agrees with the Scripture”; and the Orthodox refused to accept the Lutherans’ sharply defined understandings of justification and free will. Among these, this criticism by the Lutheran theologians is striking to Orthodox eyes:

It is apparent to us… that you have greater regard for the traditions of the Church which you have received by succession, from hand to hand; and nothing of all that you have inherited from your fathers do you willingly concede…. Such traditions and ethos in the Church… which we understand were in use even at the time of the Apostles in the Early Church… we do not reject at all, but we gladly practice them if indeed they are useful to the needs of our time. (Mastrantonis, 255)​

The dialogue was desired and initiated by the Lutherans because they sought the patriarch’s agreement that they maintained the faith that always been believed. The Orthodox, on the other hand, were no longer in a position to seek reunion or continued contact with the West, and so they had little or no first-hand knowledge of the general issues and details of the dispute.

The patriarch and his advisers were apparently not opposed to conversation and gave no hint that it would tread carefully so as not to offend Roman sensibilities. The Lutherans, on the other hand, too often appear to have read the patriarch’s replies and arguments within the categories and context of their conflict with Rome, rather than supposing that similar language implied similar categories and conclusions.

​

 

[redleghunter]

The way I see it, from faith we have good works. Regeneration.

Thank you for actually addressing the OP. God bless you!

 

[redleghunter]

This is you right now:

Stop dodging and answer my questions plainly:

• What objections do you have to the video and article i linked you.
  
• What are your beliefs (Calvinist, once saved always saved, etc).

As for your question, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Since it is our God given mission to do good works of course it is a necessity that we do them.

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." - James 2:14-26

The above passages are damning to the faith alone argument and are why Luther wanted to rip James out of Scripture. Without works your faith is as dead as a body without a soul.

If one addresses the OP it would be not only on subject but good manners.

 

[☦Marius☦]

-

 

[Varangian Christian]

If one addresses the OP it would be not only on subject but good manners.

If one answers the questions im asking it wouldn't make me want to pull my hair out.

 

[Cis.jd]

In scripture, "faith alone" is mentioned only ones and it is immediately dismissed. The verse that is claimed to dispute works was Ep 2:8-9 yet that it only appears so because v10 is left out. You can't just use a side A of verses and leave the rest of side B out.

 

[Cis.jd]

If one answers the questions im asking it wouldn't make me want to pull my hair out.

He doesn't answer things that hurt his arguments.. he has ignored my post as well and just went "nah".

 

[Varangian Christian]

He doesn't answer things that hurt his arguments.. he has ignored my post as well and just went "nah".

Yea i saw that. Its just a waste of everyone's time at this point.

Also, I think now im beginning to see that all Prot vs Apostolic Church arguments are wastes of time. Using Scripture without its proper basis in the Church is essentially saying "nah" to any argument as with enough bias and obstinacy one can make Scripture mean whatever they want.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Oh ok. So you believe that as long as you believe, you can kill as much people in the most cruel ways, is also just auto-cleaned? I just wanted to double check.

If an unbeliever murders, But if he repents and becomes born again,yes he will be cleansed of his sins, just as was done for the Apostle Paul.See once one is born again, he receives the righteousness from God.
Romans 2:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

First, how so.. if he claimed to believe how do you raise doubts on him not being a "sealed believer" especially when the Nazi belts had "God is with us"? And why repent, if just believing alone is fine? So after all the murders he did, just "i'm sorry" is good enough?

As I posted up thread. Lord Jesus told us that we will know believers by their fruits. By Hitler's fruits we can judge that he was NOT genuinely a save believer. Now He could have asked forgiveness before he died and our Father would have forgiven him like He did for Apostle Paul. Yes, Godly sorrow is good enough.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I have to go now. Be blessed everyone.

 

[Cis.jd]

If an unbeliever murders, But if he repents and becomes born again,yes he will be cleansed of his sins, just as was done for the Apostle Paul.See once one is born again, he receives the righteousness from God.
Romans 2:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Who and how many people did Paul murder and why would a believer need to repent after doing mass-killing, when he is already a believer. I hope you are aware of how people where killed during the Holocaust.

Also, i see you quoted Romans 2:16... can you finish this one at least, you know... quote what 17-24 says? Since you are still ignoring Ep 2:8-10.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Only two years after the posting of his 95 Theses, after a famous debate in Leipzig with Johann Eck, Luther “wrote that he vigorously defended the Orthodox Church against Eck’s slanderous remarks that the Greek Church had lost the Christian faith after the fall of the Byzantine Empire.” (Mastrantonis, 10 n.1) Later that same year, he also pointed to the Orthodox Church to support his claims against papal supremacy, purgatory, the reception of only the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, the prohibition against celebrating Divine Liturgies (Masses) with no one present, and the notion of the Eucharistic sacrifice as propitiatory (rather than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving).

These appeals to the “Greek Church” were repeated not only by Luther but also by his colleagues, and some made their way into the Book of Concord, to which every Lutheran pastor and parish must formally pledge allegiance. The aim of these appeals was to indicate that the “Evangelical party” (as they were first known) was doing nothing new, and that Rome itself had departed from the faith once delivered. While Luther, in particular, and most of his colleagues never had or developed direct contact with the Orthodox bishops or theologians, they certainly knew of them, at least through the Greek patristic writings, and the early Lutherans assumed and expected that the Eastern churches had retained, without abuse or deviation, the ancient Christian faith.

Given these appeals to the Greek Church, attempts by the nascent Lutherans to contact the Orthodox Church would not seem unlikely. If that happened is increasingly unknown, despite the oft-repeated story that Philipp Melanchthon, Luther’s “right-hand man,” worked with Orthodox Deacon Demetrios Mysos to translate the Augsburg Confession into Greek. What is certain is that there is no record of correspondence, and scant, if any, knowledge of the Protestants by the various Orthodox patriarchs until 30 years after Luther’s death.

In the 1570s, when the Lutherans were consolidating their teachings, leading Lutheran theologians wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople, sending him a copy of the Augsburg Confession (the primary and constitutive document of Lutheranism). This endeavor was led by Jacob Andreae, one of the leading Lutheran scholars, a theology professor and chancellor at the leading Lutheran university in Tübingen, and the author of several anti-Calvinist statements which culminated in the Book of Concord.

In addition to his university colleagues, Andreae was assisted by Stephen Gerlach, their hand-picked chaplain to the German embassy in Constantinople. These Lutheran leaders “had some knowledge of the Orthodox Church, although they had no knowledge of contemporary Orthodoxy because of… the fall of the Byzantine Empire” in 1453. (Mastrantonis, 9-10) Nevertheless, they initiated a conversation with the patriarch because they believed that the Orthodox Church remained true to the Ecumenical Councils while eschewing the innovations of the Roman church.

The correspondence was conducted by a small group of Lutheran theologians and the learned Patriarch Jeremias, who wrote his replies after consulting several advisers. It followed the outline of the articles of faith and practice found in the Augsburg Confession. The letters consisted of three official exchanges (and a number of ancillary letters), which were pointed but cordial and polite. Common ground was easily found included the doctrine of Christ, evil as caused by humans, ancestral sin and its transmission, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the efficacy of baptism, the abuses of papal primacy and supremacy, the allowance of married clergy, and communion in both species. (For a more detailed list of similarities and differences in the correspondence, see Mastrantonis, 20-24.) These, and other lesser points of agreements, were quickly dispensed by both sides in favor of focusing on disputed issues.

As the dialogue progressed, two underlying themes became evident. First, the Orthodox accepted many more of the Roman teachings and practices than the Lutherans expected; for example, the number and nature of the sacraments, intercessions to the saints, and a laudatory understanding of icons, relics, and monasticism. Second, the Lutherans retained several Roman teachings and practices that had precipitated or evolved after the Great Schism; namely, the acceptance of the filioque, the use of unleavened bread, questions revolving around predestination, and the refusal to commune infants.

The greatest sticking points, however, were those which one would expect: the Lutherans refused to accept the writings of the holy fathers as correctly interpreting the Scriptures unless “tradition agrees with the Scripture”; and the Orthodox refused to accept the Lutherans’ sharply defined understandings of justification and free will. Among these, this criticism by the Lutheran theologians is striking to Orthodox eyes:

It is apparent to us… that you have greater regard for the traditions of the Church which you have received by succession, from hand to hand; and nothing of all that you have inherited from your fathers do you willingly concede…. Such traditions and ethos in the Church… which we understand were in use even at the time of the Apostles in the Early Church… we do not reject at all, but we gladly practice them if indeed they are useful to the needs of our time. (Mastrantonis, 255)​

The dialogue was desired and initiated by the Lutherans because they sought the patriarch’s agreement that they maintained the faith that always been believed. The Orthodox, on the other hand, were no longer in a position to seek reunion or continued contact with the West, and so they had little or no first-hand knowledge of the general issues and details of the dispute.

The patriarch and his advisers were apparently not opposed to conversation and gave no hint that it would tread carefully so as not to offend Roman sensibilities. The Lutherans, on the other hand, too often appear to have read the patriarch’s replies and arguments within the categories and context of their conflict with Rome, rather than supposing that similar language implied similar categories and conclusions.

​

Was that a typo concerning the Romans and Lutherans use of “unleavened” bread. I thought Rome was looked down upon for using leavened bread instead of unleavened bread for the Eucharist.

 

[BNR32FAN]

He doesn't answer things that hurt his arguments.. he has ignored my post as well and just went "nah".

What concerns me is we can address their scripture quotes but they don’t address ours. It makes me wonder if they actually do see our points in the scriptures but are in denial perhaps because saving face is more important than humbling yourself to the truth. I’ll be the first to say I was wrong. I once believed in eternal security and salvation by faith without works and defended it passionately and fiercely. Then in an attempt to prove that John 15:1-8 didn’t refute both OSAS and salvation by faith without works I ended up realizing I was wrong. The more I studied it the more evidence I found that I had been wrong all along. It took a lot of going back and reevaluating the scriptures that I thought supported OSAS and faith without works but when I did I began to see that there is a lot of evidence in the Greek definitions I hadn’t realized before. I began to see these verses in a way that didn’t contradict John 15 because I couldn’t find a way to interpret John 15 to coincide with OSAS and FWW. It was a tough thing to accept but admitting the truth was more important than saving face. So in the end I had to humble myself and go back and recant all my previous posts that were refuting conditional salvation and admit my mistakes and apologize to those I had debated with and concede that they were right. It actually felt pretty good in the end to be honest.