Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[fhansen]

You seem to be minimizing the issue, but what's more is you don't seem to understand what my objection is because the sins of officers are minimally related to my criticism. The center of my criticism is not that those who have occupied various offices have been sinful, wayward people, but that the institution of the church has functioned far more as a political entity than as one with the hallmarks of the kingdom of God. As an institution, it has all of the same failings and recommendations as any other worldly organization. There's infighting, politicking, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, etc. It's no better or worse than any other human kingdom.

But you don't seem to understand my position. Wherever you have more than one person, you'll have "infighting, politicking, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, etc." In fact you can have most of that with even one person since fallen man is divided with and often warring with himself and believers a far from yet perfected either.

It's simply the logical endpoint of a vicarious satisfaction theology coupled with vicarious guilt.

But the guilt isn't simply vicarious-that was the point. In our own pride we inevitably carry on the family tradition to one degree or another first initiated by Adam. That's why Rom 5:19 says, "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners..."

I'm not sure what you're trying to address here.

Ok, I'll repeat it:
"The gift of righteousness is a real, personal, one, [not merely vicarious] just as the "gift" of unrighteousness from Adam was a real one [not merely vicarious]. IOW, through Adam, we all became truly sinners (unrighteous), through Christ, the new Adam, we all may become righteous again."

I've read them in the past, but I could probably use a refresher since that was a few years ago in my church history classes. What portion do you think is relevant to our discussion, and how do you understand it?

The canons of the 2nd Council or Orange were sanctioned by the church as official teachings even though the council, itself, was a local, non-ecumenical one. The council was referenced at both the Council of Trent and in the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church. Either way it lays down the doctrine of grace for the salvation of man in no uncertain terms, terms which Calvin would embrace whole-heartedly. Until we come to the "Conclusions", at least. Its not a long read:

The Canons of the Second Council of Orange (529)

Yes, but such teachings were a matter of being logically inconsistent and not really evaluating the implications of various underlying doctrine. In part, it is because the church has always recognized a degree of mystery in such things and didn't attempt to formulate purely rational systematic doctrine in the way that the reformers sought to build such systematic theologies.

I disagree-the teachings are quite consistent with scripture and the faith as revealed by the early church. The new covenant has exactly nothing to do with serving as a reprieve from the obligation for man to be righteous within himself and in his actions, but is actually the very means to accomplishing that very thing.

The notion that there was "one church" is questionable, because there certainly wasn't a single hierarchical institution such as the Roman Catholic church has become but was instead a multiplicity of autocephalous churches such as is seen in orthodoxy.

Within the eastern churches exists the concept that there is only one Church, one church established by Christ. From the RCC POV today that Church subsists in the eastern Churches as well, having apostolic succession, the sacraments, the correct understanding of the Eucharist and accurate teachings in justification, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "work," because the protestant model was incredibly effective in creating a vibrant Christian culture in the United States that resisted modern decay that was seen in the state churches. And that's a result of sola scriptura. So whether it "works" or not depends on what criteria we're looking for as far as effectiveness.

The Mormons have a vibrant Christian-based culture, offsprings of Protestantism, even if we disagree with major parts of their theology. And I'm not dismissing the good that Protestantism has done. I just think they bit the hand that fed them. More than we may wish to realize, the RCC and its legacy, for good and ill-is a common legacy of the western church -and the world.

Sure, though it's really not a logical conclusion of sola scriptura it's a bastardization of it. Probably because of the slogan, rather than taking the time to understand what was meant by the slogan.

I just don't think its realistic to say that all those who've taken the time to understand it will necessarily sufficiently agree on the truths of the faith, to the point of being able to honestly speak of one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Sure, but such merit isn't a matter of salvation if we go by what Paul wrote. The founation survives, even if the works are burned up.

Ah, but it is if we throw off the lens of the reformers.
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

Paul knew. John did too:
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him." 1 John 3:4-6

That's what grace is really for; works of grace, not of the law result from those who truly live in Him and He in them.

 

[Fervent]

But you don't seem to understand my position. Wherever you have more than one person, you'll have "infighting, politicking, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, etc." In fact you can have most of that with even one person since fallen man is divided with and often warring with himself and believers a far from yet perfected either.

I understand how you're attempting to rationalize the failings of the institutional church as if we shouldn't expect Christ's body to be above such worldly pursuits. But such things speak against any claim the institutional church has on being Christ's body on Earth. It speaks of it being just another all too ordinary institution, despite the mystery that operates within it. In defending the institution, though, it cannot be given a pass for that ordinary pettiness.

But the guilt isn't simply vicarious-that was the point. In our own pride we inevitably carry on the family tradition to one degree or another first initiated by Adam. That's why Rom 5:19 says, "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners..."

There's complicity in the sin, sure. But the guilt that was atoned for on the cross is said to be Adam's guilt from one act of disobedience. It's an alien unrighteousness that is then replaced with an alien righteousness. The point is, the teachings that are most responsible for the reformer's conclusions come from the theological tradition, not scripture alone.

Ok, I'll repeat it:
"The gift of righteousness is a real, personal, one, [not merely vicarious] just as the "gift" of unrighteousness from Adam was a real one [not merely vicarious]. IOW, through Adam, we all became truly sinners (unrighteous), through Christ, the new Adam, we all may become righteous again."

This seems like something you've developed, rather than a representation of what was perpetuated by Augustine and Anselm.

The canons of the 2nd Council or Orange were sanctioned by the church as official teachings even though the council, itself, was a local, non-ecumenical one. The council was referenced at both the Council of Trent and in the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church. Either way it lays down the doctrine of grace for the salvation of man in no uncertain terms, terms which Calvin would embrace whole-heartedly. Until we come to the "Conclusions", at least. Its not a long read:

The Canons of the Second Council of Orange (529)

Fair enough, but what is the relevance to our discussion?

I disagree-the teachings are quite consistent with scripture and the faith as revealed by the early church. The new covenant has exactly nothing to do with serving as a reprieve from the obligation for man to be righteous within himself and in his actions, but is actually the very means to accomplishing that very thing.

That's not in dispute, what's in dispute is whether the church had worked out the rational consequences of the base teachings. The thing that Luther(and more so Calvin) brought to the theological tradition is a relentless rationalism that was an outgrowth of the renaissance humanism that was so prevalent within the church immediately prior to them.

Within the eastern churches exists the concept that there is only one Church, one church established by Christ. From the RCC POV today that Church subsists in the eastern Churches as well, having apostolic succession, the sacraments, the correct understanding of the Eucharist and accurate teachings in justification, etc.

Yes, and I agree that there is one church. But what "one church" means to a Roman Catholic(a single church under the headship of a single bishop who resides at Rome[or Avignon for the captivity period]) is different from how the one church historically operated. The autocephalous model(with Constantinople's bishop being an ecumenical patriarch) is a more accurate reflection of the governmental structure of the pre-schism church. So to speak of "one church' existing in history doesn't bolster your position, because both of us still believe that there is a single church we simply disagree as to what that church is.

The Mormons have a vibrant Christian-based culture, offsprings of Protestantism, even if we disagree with major parts of their theology. And I'm not dismissing the good that Protestantism has done. I just think they bit the hand that fed them. More than we may wish to realize, the RCC and its legacy, for good and ill-is a common legacy of the western church -and the world.

Your response entirely misses the point, which was not to argue in favor of a position but to point out that saying that it "works" or doesn't "work" doesn't really mean anything if its not qualified.

I just don't think its realistic to say that all those who've taken the time to understand it will necessarily sufficiently agree on the truths of the faith, to the point of being able to honestly speak of one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Oh? God needs human gatekeepers to ensure that His church continues and can't simply be left to the direction of the Holy Spirit?

Ah, but it is if we throw off the lens of the reformers.
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

Paul knew. John did too:
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him." 1 John 3:4-6

That's what grace is really for; works of grace, not of the law result from those who truly live in Him and He in them.

You seem to be completely ignoring some pretty important nuances in the discussion, because the reformer's basically just shifted around how the categories work as a means of combating a church that was abusing the theology of the day to sell "salvation." The division of justification and sanctification is a theoretical reality, rather than a practical one. So your response here is engaging with a straw version of the doctrine of justification by faith, which is not understandable in a vacuum. And you also seem to have missed my reference: so let me make it explicit:

13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

(1 Cor. 3:13-15 ESV)

 

[fhansen]

I understand how you're attempting to rationalize the failings of the institutional church as if we shouldn't expect Christ's body to be above such worldly pursuits. But such things speak against any claim the institutional church has on being Christ's body on Earth. It speaks of it being just another all too ordinary institution, despite the mystery that operates within it. In defending the institution, though, it cannot be given a pass for that ordinary pettiness.

And I understand the faith of the scholar Erasmus and that of my semi-peasant grandmother, long deceased, from the foothills of the Italian Alps. A strong and informed and simple and beautiful and humble faith based on the sound teachings of the “institutional church”. A faith shared by many down through the centuries who were consequently motivated to serve God in a multitude of ways. This despite any bad behavior of other church people at various points in time. Again, we all sin. Only priggishness expects and demands perfection.

Any rationalization was done by those people who abused or ignored church teachings, allowing them to place their worldly pursuits above God and His purposes.

There's complicity in the sin, sure. But the guilt that was atoned for on the cross is said to be Adam's guilt from one act of disobedience. It's an alien unrighteousness that is then replaced with an alien righteousness. The point is, the teachings that are most responsible for the reformer's conclusions come from the theological tradition, not scripture alone.

Or from the tradition originally received, scripture (unless the New Testament hadn't yet even been written), and experience. The point is that man ended up genuinely unrighteous by Adam’s act. That’s the state of original sin. That unrighteousness, which separates man from God, is what had to be addressed because it leads to death. Scripture alone is a pretty sure recipe for error, BTW.

Yes, and I agree that there is one church. But what "one church" means to a Roman Catholic(a single church under the headship of a single bishop who resides at Rome[or Avignon for the captivity period]) is different from how the one church historically operated. The autocephalous model(with Constantinople's bishop being an ecumenical patriarch) is a more accurate reflection of the governmental structure of the pre-schism church. So to speak of "one church' existing in history doesn't bolster your position, because both of us still believe that there is a single church we simply disagree as to what that church is.

Yes, we do disagree. The RCC believes that it consists of more than itself in any case, but also of the eastern churches along with any Nicene-oriented Christian even if imperfectly informed.

Your response entirely misses the point, which was not to argue in favor of a position but to point out that saying that it "works" or doesn't "work" doesn't really mean anything if its not qualified.

My response was on point. I demonstrated that vibrancy can occur with or without correct understanding of Scripture.

Oh? God needs human gatekeepers to ensure that His church continues and can't simply be left to the direction of the Holy Spirit?

Yes. One gatekeeper is directed by the HS for the very purpose of maintaining a unity of faith. There’s only one truth but humankind has never necessarily wanted to be aligned with it, since Eden. as we know. But many claim to be so led while disagreeing seriously with others who also claim to be.

You seem to be completely ignoring some pretty important nuances in the discussion, because the reformer's basically just shifted around how the categories work as a means of combating a church that was abusing the theology of the day to sell "salvation." The division of justification and sanctification is a theoretical reality, rather than a practical one. So your response here is engaging with a straw version of the doctrine of justification by faith, which is not understandable in a vacuum. And you also seem to have missed my reference: so let me make it explicit:

13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

(1 Cor. 3:13-15 ESV)

I think you’re in need of identifying who, exactly, is being spoken of here as there are far too many verses that support the historic position of no good fruit, no salvation. You've already ignored some I've listed. Rewards are treated very seldomly in Scripture. Justification and sanctification are not neatly separated from each other as justification is simply not solely the forgiveness and remission of sin and an imputed or declared righteousness but a real righteousness now given. The gift of righteousness:

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33-34

"...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

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:21-22"

"And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." Rom 5:5

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

“The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:20-21

"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:18-22]

"For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:3-4

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” Rom 8:12-14

“The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” Gal 2:20-21

The need for personal righteousness for salvation:

“If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you;
if you trust in God, you too shall live;
he has set before you fire and water
to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, good and evil, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing. The eyes of God are on those who fear him; he understands man's every deed. No one does he command to act unjustly, to none does he give license to sin.” Sir 15:15-20

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.” Micah 6:8

“For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:20

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.” Matt 6:14-15

“If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:22-23

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13

Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.” Heb12:14

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Gal 6:7-9

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:19-21

“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:8-9

“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.1 John 3:4-8

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. Rev 22:14-15

REMAINING IN HIM

I am the vine and you are the branches. The one who remains in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned. John 15:5-6

“You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” Rom 11:19-22

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— and then have fallen away—to be restored to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame." Heb 6:4-6

"If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume all adversaries. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think one deserves to be punished who has trampled on the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb 10:26-31

If indeed they have escaped the corruption of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, only to be entangled and overcome by it again, their final condition is worse than it was at first. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then to turn away from the holy commandment passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Pet 2:20-22

STRIVING, PERSEVERING

Because of the multiplication of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. Matt 24:12-13

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” Rom 2:7

I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. rothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil 3:10-14

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. James 1:12

For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. Heb 10:36

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us Heb 12:1

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. Gal 6:9

If we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; 2 Tim 2:12

VIGILANCE

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. Matt 25:13

“Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Matthew 26:41

Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. Acts 20:31

Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 1 Cor10:12

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 1 Cor 16:13

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 1 Pet 5:8

Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. Rev 3:2

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. 2 Cor 5:10

 

[Fervent]

And I understand the faith of the scholar Erasmus and that of my semi-peasant grandmother, long deceased, from the foothills of the Italian Alps. A strong and informed and simple and beautiful and humble faith based on the sound teachings of the “institutional church”. A faith shared by many down through the centuries who were consequently motivated to serve God in a multitude of ways. This despite any bad behavior of other church people at various points in time. Again, we all sin. Only priggishness expects and demands perfection.

I'm not demanding perfection of individuals, nor am I denying the reality of faithful within the church. What I am demanding is that the kingdom of God reflect the character of God in all ways, a standard which makes it evident that the institutions of the church are not the true church even though the true church operates within those institutions. I am simply denying the special claim that the RCC makes that it is the church, not that in its own imperfect way it has been a vessel of the church.

Or from the tradition originally received, scripture (unless the New Testament hadn't yet even been written), and experience. The point is that man ended up genuinely unrighteous by Adam’s act. That’s the state of original sin. That unrighteousness, which separates man from God, is what had to be addressed because it leads to death. Scripture alone is a pretty sure recipe for error, BTW.

Only 'error' if the developments that have occurred in the history of theology are taken dogmatically. The Holy Spirit operates not only corporately, but within the individual. To insist that the individual is surely going to be led astray without the guidance of equally fallible men is nothing more than a lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to lead an individual.

Yes, we do disagree. The RCC believes that it consists of more than itself in any case, but also of the eastern churches along with any Nicene-oriented Christian even if imperfectly informed.

Yeah, the RCC is wishy-washy in its ecclesiology. It makes a special claim to be the one true church, while not having the fortitude to hold to the consequences of such a claim. Either the RCC is THE church, or the church is more than the RCC. After all, you keep insisting that there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Either the church transcends the schisms, or everyone outside of your particular denomination is mislead in their belief that they are Christian.

My response was on point. I demonstrated that vibrancy can occur with or without correct understanding of Scripture.

Which completely misses the argument I was making, which is not that vibrancy means that sola scriptura worked but that we have to qualify what we mean by "work" in order to evaluate it. So simply stating it doesn't work doesn't mean anything.

Yes. One gatekeeper is directed by the HS for the very purpose of maintaining a unity of faith. There’s only one truth but humankind has never necessarily wanted to be aligned with it, since Eden. as we know. But many claim to be so led while disagreeing seriously with others who also claim to be.

So your denomination claims, despite what is seen in the history of councils, synods, et cetera.

I think you’re in need of identifying who, exactly, is being spoken of here as there are far too many verses that support the historic position of no good fruit, no salvation. You've already ignored some I've listed. Rewards are treated very seldomly in Scripture. Justification and sanctification are not neatly separated from each other as justification is simply not solely the forgiveness and remission of sin and an imputed or declared righteousness but a real righteousness now given. The gift of righteousness:

I'm not sure why you continue to argue this, because I've already conceded that the complete segragation of justification and sanctification is mistaken. And antinomianism is an aberant position, certainly not normative within the protestant church. So treating it as if it is the primary position of protestants is either uninformed, or dishonest. Both sides recognize that genuine faith will produce good works, the disagreement lies in whether those works play a part in deciding the person's status of salvation or if they are a result of said salvation.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33-34

"...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

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:21-22"

"And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." Rom 5:5

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

“The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:20-21

"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:18-22]

"For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:3-4

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” Rom 8:12-14

“The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” Gal 2:20-21

The need for personal righteousness for salvation:

“If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you;
if you trust in God, you too shall live;
he has set before you fire and water
to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, good and evil, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing. The eyes of God are on those who fear him; he understands man's every deed. No one does he command to act unjustly, to none does he give license to sin.” Sir 15:15-20

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.” Micah 6:8

“For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:20

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.” Matt 6:14-15

“If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:22-23

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13

Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.” Heb12:14

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Gal 6:7-9

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:19-21

“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:8-9

“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.1 John 3:4-8

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. Rev 22:14-15

REMAINING IN HIM

I am the vine and you are the branches. The one who remains in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned. John 15:5-6

“You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” Rom 11:19-22

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— and then have fallen away—to be restored to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame." Heb 6:4-6

"If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume all adversaries. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think one deserves to be punished who has trampled on the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb 10:26-31

If indeed they have escaped the corruption of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, only to be entangled and overcome by it again, their final condition is worse than it was at first. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then to turn away from the holy commandment passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Pet 2:20-22

STRIVING, PERSEVERING

Because of the multiplication of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. Matt 24:12-13

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” Rom 2:7

I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. rothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil 3:10-14

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. James 1:12

For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. Heb 10:36

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us Heb 12:1

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. Gal 6:9

If we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; 2 Tim 2:12

VIGILANCE

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. Matt 25:13

“Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Matthew 26:41

Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. Acts 20:31

Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 1 Cor10:12

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 1 Cor 16:13

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 1 Pet 5:8

Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. Rev 3:2

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. 2 Cor 5:10

All great verses, but simply shotgunning a bunch of verses without any contextual discussion of what they mean and how they support your position does nothing more than give a false impression Biblical warrant. It is effectively a gish gallop.

 

[Valletta]

Yeah, the RCC is wishy-washy in its ecclesiology. It makes a special claim to be the one true church, while not having the fortitude to hold to the consequences of such a claim. Either the RCC is THE church, or the church is more than the RCC. After all, you keep insisting that there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Either the church transcends the schisms, or everyone outside of your particular denomination is mislead in their belief that they are Christian.

It's actually the "Catholic Church" and the Latin or "Roman" rite is the largest by number of those considered in full communion with the Catholic, or "universal" Church. The Catholic Church considers all Christians as part of the Catholic Church, but does not consider Protestants to be in full communion with the Church.

 

[Fervent]

It's actually the "Catholic Church" and the Latin or "Roman" rite is the largest by number of those considered in full communion with the Catholic, or "universal" Church. The Catholic Church considers all Christians as part of the Catholic Church, but does not consider Protestants to be in full communion with the Church.

Yes, so it speaks out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, their institutions are "the church" which is the true church, but there are lesser "churches" that are recognized has having an inferior Christianity. Either it is "the church" or what "the church" is transcends it. So the notion that protestants are Christians while being outside of the communion of "the church" is a nonsense notion, because either they belong to "the church" or they don't.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not demanding perfection of individuals, nor am I denying the reality of faithful within the church. What I am demanding is that the kingdom of God reflect the character of God in all ways, a standard which makes it evident that the institutions of the church are not the true church even though the true church operates within those institutions. I am simply denying the special claim that the RCC makes that it is the church, not that in its own imperfect way it has been a vessel of the church.

If the kingdom of God reflected His character in all ways then no believer may ever sin. And depositing His faith to a weak, sinful, limited, finite group of people while guaranteeing its integrity is not only possible for God, but necessary for us.

Only 'error' if the developments that have occurred in the history of theology are taken dogmatically. The Holy Spirit operates not only corporately, but within the individual. To insist that the individual is surely going to be led astray without the guidance of equally fallible men is nothing more than a lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to lead an individual.

To deny that God would lead His church by the Holy Spirit is to deny the same thing. The church is necessary. And it is sheer presumption to believe that Christianity would even exist if not for the visible church that God used to sustain, preserve, and carry it down through the centuries. God doesn't need any of us to even exist, much less play a role in advancing His kingdom, but He does that very thing anyway.

Which completely misses the argument I was making, which is not that vibrancy means that sola scriptura worked but that we have to qualify what we mean by "work" in order to evaluate it. So simply stating it doesn't work doesn't mean anything.

Ok, so was there some reason for throwing in your statement about Protestant vibrancy? Either way, SS doesn't work in maintaining a unity of faith, in guaranteeing correct understanding IOW. This fact has already been demonstrated many times in this thread.

I'm not sure why you continue to argue this, because I've already conceded that the complete segragation of justification and sanctification is mistaken. And antinomianism is an aberant position, certainly not normative within the protestant church. So treating it as if it is the primary position of protestants is either uninformed, or dishonest. Both sides recognize that genuine faith will produce good works, the disagreement lies in whether those works play a part in deciding the person's status of salvation or if they are a result of said salvation.

I may've misread your statement on justification and sanctification in the previous post, in which case I apologize. And I didn't treat antinomianism as if it's the dominant Protestant position. Either way the problem is within the doctrines themselves. If one is merely declared or imputed to be righteous in order to be just in the eyes of God, and therefore salvageable, then there's already naturally a question as to whether or not one can, and must, be righteous and live accordingly in order to enter heaven. Some with this postion therefore plausibly deny that man can improve at all in terms of righteousness. let alone that he needs to do so now, since he believes.

This uncertainty or question doesn't exist in the ancient church teachings, at the beginning or now. In fact, the early church understood that conversion to Christ meant a turning away from sin and the world, with the grace now to continue in that vein. They had given up much to become Christian, often their own lives at some point. A serious falling back into sin or deeds of the flesh constituted a compete turning away from God and his church. And several Scriptural passages support this. They believed, almost universally between the churches, that no repentance was possible for this. An early bishop of Rome, Callixtus I, understanding the mercy and love of God and desire that all should come to Him, turned this around amidst much heated controversy and opposition. teaching that a person, with sincere repentance could eventually return to communion with the church. Gradually this would become the understanding of the whole church world wide.

It really depends on whether or not we've allowed God to change us, which is the mark of someone who's truly remained in Him; faith in no way guarantees good works, which is what James meant to emphasize in chap two of his letter. Gal 5:6 goes further in explaining the Catholic position: "The only thing that counts is faith working through love."

In fact, the RCC can sum up God's requirements for man in a simple yet profound quote from a 16th century believer:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

All great verses, but simply shotgunning a bunch of verses without any contextual discussion of what they mean and how they support your position does nothing more than give a false impression Biblical warrant. It is effectively a gish gallop.

And I could say the same for the one passage from 1 Cor that you cited in your previous post. You cited one to prove your position, I simply cited many to oppose it-all of which apply to the points which were being discussed.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, so it speaks out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, their institutions are "the church" which is the true church, but there are lesser "churches" that are recognized has having an inferior Christianity. Either it is "the church" or what "the church" is transcends it. So the notion that protestants are Christians while being outside of the communion of "the church" is a nonsense notion, because either they belong to "the church" or they don't.

The church is clearly defined in Catholic teachings. But unlike some who completely reject the CC as even being Christian at all, the CC recognizes true faith in most Christian denominations. They are not the church although part of it even if imperfectly connected to it. God gave to man a body of truths by which to live our lives. Clearly it's best to possess those truths in their fullness or completeness but God isn't demanding absolute perfect knowledge, especially after centuries now of that knowledge being dissected, revised, confused, divided over- unless they've strayed so far as to deny the deity of Christ, as an example. Either way, Protestantism descends through the Catholic Church even if some think they can bypass it with Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

The argument is that "testing doctrine" is done by reading scripture "alone" as we see in Acts 17:11

It does not say "they could not read scripture so they asked their Jewish magesterium if the magisterium's condemnation of Paul's doctrine, was what the Bible was really saying or not".

I don't think this part is the least bit confusing to readers on either side of this topic.

Sorry, missed this post earlier. The above doesn't address or answer the question, though, because the doctrine, itself, being tested came from outside of Scripture. The magisterium, holding and teaching the truth, was Paul.

just as we see in the case of the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11 -- (a verse some are very reluctant to quote)

Again, this doesn't work, The Bereans could not find the truth by searching Scripture alone. For that they needed someone to open and explain it to them, same as with Phillip and the Eunuch.

And they sought scripture to "SEE IF" those things spoken to them by the Apostles Paul "were so" -- EVEN though their own magisterium in both tradition and teaching had already condemned that teaching.

Details so often skimmed past

See above.

These are non-Christian students of the Bible in Acts 17:11. They had NO Christian magisterium to tell them what to say or think.

Of course they did!! Do you think they were teaching or explaining to themselves??? And that explanation was why some became Christians.

what part of that text -- the details in it -- tell you that the non-Christian Bereans were relying on the guidance of their non-Christian magisterium to judge the teaching of Paul ?? Especially since their magisterium had already condemned Paul's teaching?

Same misunderstanding...of Scripture, incidentally.

The text does not say "somewhere somehow" ... the text you are not quoting says 'they searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF" those things were so.

Are you trying to argue they ran straight to their magisterium to see IF their traditions were affirming Paul -- and if SO then Paul is approved?? Is that how you would change the text.

The point was that Paul received his knowledge from somewhere, which we know, just as the Church does. Paul did not receive his revelation directly from Scripture, but directly from Christ.

Ok so what does the text say that they did that does NOT look like "sola scriptura testing" of Paul's doctrine in your POV?
(speaking of the text you are not quoting)

The point is that Scripture, alone, cannot guarantee understanding. We must have the voice of experience. Noble, conscientious type folk may well, presuming literacy which hasn't always been the case historically, search Scripture to compare it to what they've heard. Still, not all will agree with each other over what they find there.

 

[Fervent]

If the kingdom of God reflected His character in all ways then no believer may ever sin. And depositing His faith to a weak, sinful, limited, finite group of people while guaranteeing its integrity is not only possible for God, but necessary for us.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't negate my point. It's just giving an excuse for what is by all indications an entirely human institution. It's not simply that it doesn't reflect His character in all ways, but that it isn't really distinct from any other political institution.

To deny that God would lead His church by the Holy Spirit is to deny the same thing. The church is necessary. And it is sheer presumption to believe that Christianity would even exist if not for the visible church that God used to sustain, preserve, and carry it down through the centuries. God doesn't need any of us to even exist, much less play a role in advancing His kingdom, but He does that very thing anyway.

There's no denial of that, simply that "His church" is not the institutions and offices that have attempted to usurp His authority. His church transcends those institutions, and crosses denominational lines.

Ok, so was there some reason for throwing in your statement about Protestant vibrancy? Either way, SS doesn't work in maintaining a unity of faith, in guaranteeing correct understanding IOW. This fact has already been demonstrated many times in this thread.

It was a counter example of one way in which sola scriptura has "worked," if we choose to define "work" as producing a vibrant Christian culture. As for maintaining unity in faith, that is not the only consideration for fidelity to the kingdom. Unity is important, but there are plenty of other things that are just as, or even more, important for the faith.

I may've misread your statement on justification and sanctification in the previous post, in which case I apologize. And I didn't treat antinomianism as if it's the dominant Protestant position. Either way the problem is within the doctrines themselves. If one is merely declared or imputed to be righteous in order to be just in the eyes of God, and therefore salvageable, then there's already naturally a question as to whether or not one can, and must, be righteous and live accordingly in order to enter heaven. Some therefore plausibly deny that man can improve at all in terms of righteousness. let alone that he needs to do so now, since he believes.

The issue isn't black or white to me, because there are problems to sola fide that can be exploited if not nuanced enough but the underlying principle-that no one puts God in their debt so as to merit salvation in any way-is sound. The polemics of the reformers and subsequent protestant developments have exacerbated the issues, but during the lifetime of the reformers it was a necessary declaration for the church to return to a truer expression of what salvation means.

This uncertainty or question doesn't exist in the ancient church teachings, at the beginning or now. In fact, the early church understood that conversion to Christ meant a turning away from sin and the world, with the grace now to continue in that vein. They had given up much to become Christian, often their own lives at some point. A serious falling back into sin or deeds of the flesh constituted a compete turning away from God and his church. And several Scriptural passages support this. They believed, almost universally between the churches, that no repentance was possible for this. An early bishop of Rome, Callixtus I, understanding the mercy and love of God and desire that all should come to Him, turned this around amidst much heated controversy and opposition. teaching that a person, with sincere repentance could eventually return to communion with the church. Gradually this would become the understanding of the whole church world wide.

The question ran the opposite direction for the early church, with the primary challenge being an accute sense of rigorism. So it's not as if the faith/works dilemma wasn't an issue, it simply wasn't put in the same terms and was being challenged with the opposite error from those who erroneously deny the reality of sanctification in the believer.

It really depends on whether or not we've allowed God to change us, which is the mark of someone who's truly remained in Him; faith in no way guarantees good works, which is what James meant to emphasize in chap two of his letter. Gal 5:6 goes further in explaining the Catholic position: "The only thing that counts is faith working through love."

Faith certainly guarantees good works, otherwise it is not faith at all. In chapter 2 of James' letter he highlights the exact same Genesis verse that Paul does, where Abraham believed God(had faith) and was counted as righteous. It's simply that the works that Abraham produced were the natural expression of his faith, so he was justified by his works. Where genuine faith exists, works must follow. Which is why James says "I will show you my faith by my works."

In fact, the RCC can sum up God's requirements for man in a simple yet profound quote from a 16th century believer:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Without unpacking, that's not very revealing.

And I could say the same for the one passage from 1 Cor that you cited in your previous post. You cited one to prove your position, I simply cited many to oppose it-all of which apply to the points being discussed.

I didn't simply cite it, especially not to prove my position. I was simply bringing out that my previous post was referring to Paul's writings about judgment and the foundation surviving. And setting Scripture against Scripture as if one contradicts another is a poor position. My issue isn't that you cited many verses, but that you essentially just threw out a bunch of contextless verses which primarily serves to overwhelm the discussion due to the effort involved in responding to each one, making it a gish gallop.

 

[Fervent]

The church is clearly defined in Catholic teachings. But unlike some who completely reject the CC as even being Christian at all, the CC recognizes true faith in most Christian denominations. They are not the church although part of it even if imperfectly connected to it. God gave to man a body of truths by which to live our lives. Clearly it's best to possess those truths in their fullness or completeness but God isn't demanding absolute perfect knowledge, especially after centuries now of that knowledge being dissected, revised, confused, divided over- unless they've strayed so far as to deny the deity of Christ, as an example. Either way, Protestantism descends through the Catholic Church even if some think they can bypass it with Scripture.

Speaking out of both sides of it's mouth. Makes a special claim to be the church, but then admits that not all saints belong to it as if members of the body of Christ exist outside of the body of Christ. Either it is the church, and there are none outside of it who belong to Christ, or it is not the Church and its claim to be the church is nothing more than an usurpation of Christ's authority.

 

[fhansen]

Speaking out of both sides of it's mouth. Makes a special claim to be the church, but then admits that not all saints belong to it as if members of the body of Christ exist outside of the body of Christ. Either it is the church, and there are none outside of it who belong to Christ, or it is not the Church and its claim to be the church is nothing more than an usurpation of Christ's authority.

There can only be one church. All Christians belong to it whether they know it or not.

 

[Fervent]

There can only be one church. All Christians belong to it whether they know it or not.

Oh? So then it is not the visible structures of the Roman Catholic Church, since not all Christians are Roman Catholics?

 

[fhansen]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't negate my point. It's just giving an excuse for what is by all indications an entirely human institution. It's not simply that it doesn't reflect His character in all ways, but that it isn't really distinct from any other political institution.

In the sense that it's comprised of humans, true enough. But God necessarily works through humans after Christ ascended, according to His will. And men sin.

There's no denial of that, simply that "His church" is not the institutions and offices that have attempted to usurp His authority. His church transcends those institutions, and crosses denominational lines.

Sure, it transcends the mundane, necessary drudgery and bureaucracy of running any human entity. And whether it can and does cross denominational lines or not is a matter of speculation, even while acknowledging that there certainly are Christians in those places. And I believe the Reformers usurped God's authority, misreading the revelation as He gave it to His church at the beginning.

It was a counter example of one way in which sola scriptura has "worked," if we choose to define "work" as producing a vibrant Christian culture. As for maintaining unity in faith, that is not the only consideration for fidelity to the kingdom. Unity is important, but there are plenty of other things that are just as, or even more, important for the faith.

Ok? Then I think we may have established that a unified body of beliefs would at least be a necessary mark of working, while vibrancy, not necessarily so.

The issue isn't black or white to me, because there are problems to sola fide that can be exploited if not nuanced enough but the underlying principle-that no one puts God in their debt so as to merit salvation in any way-is sound. The polemics of the reformers and subsequent protestant developments have exacerbated the issues, but during the lifetime of the reformers it was a necessary declaration for the church to return to a truer expression of what salvation means.

And I believe they took us further away from it, confusing the issue.

The question ran the opposite direction for the early church, with the primary challenge being an accute sense of rigorism. So it's not as if the faith/works dilemma wasn't an issue, it simply wasn't put in the same terms and was being challenged with the opposite error from those who erroneously deny the reality of sanctification in the believer.

Sin, i.e. non-sanctification, remained a serious issue for the church either way, understanding the possibility of sin separating us from God all over again. To sin in grave, serious manner: adultery murder, etc, is to turn back away from God regardless of anything we may profess. It's to return to our fallen state, prior to justification, by living unjustly. The question was whether or not a person could truly return from that state.

Faith certainly guarantees good works, otherwise it is not faith at all. In chapter 2 of James' letter he highlights the exact same Genesis verse that Paul does, where Abraham believed God(had faith) and was counted as righteous. It's simply that the works that Abraham produced were the natural expression of his faith, so he was justified by his works. Where genuine faith exists, works must follow. Which is why James says "I will show you my faith by my works."

Either way James tells us that even demons believe, and that,
"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."'

And Paul tells us in 1 Cor 13 that
"...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."

The CC has taught that faith is the beginning, the foundation of salvation, not the end of. Somewhere between our first turning to God and our death, our wills remain involved. We can carry out the will of God the best we can, now motivated by the love that motivates Him, or we may not.

Without unpacking, that's not very revealing.

I agree. It is revealing to the initiated, or those who simply understand God's will in all this, however.

I didn't simply cite it, especially not to prove my position. I was simply bringing out that my previous post was referring to Paul's writings about judgment and the foundation surviving. And setting Scripture against Scripture as if one contradicts another is a poor position. My issue isn't that you cited many verses, but that you essentially just threw out a bunch of contextless verses which primarily serves to overwhelm the discussion due to the effort involved in responding to each one, making it a gish gallop.

This was your quote in question that I responded to:

Sure, but such merit isn't a matter of salvation if we go by what Paul wrote. The founation survives, even if the works are burned up.

And yes, you quoted 1 Cor 3 to...demonstrate...that it was correct, that one can contribute nothing towards meriting salvation, that the will of man plays no part in cooperating with Gods work toward that end. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. My quotes weren't intended to overwhelm but to show that there are a great number of other passages that support another view, if one takes care to consider them. I didn't pit Scripture against itself. I pitted proper understanding of Scripture against the misunderstanding of it where our passages weren't even referring to the same matter in this case.

 

[fhansen]

Oh? So then it is not the visible structures of the Roman Catholic Church, since not all Christians are Roman Catholics?

Again, the church is both visible and invisible. We can locate the church, so that we can see what it teaches. And the true name of the church of Rome is simply Catholic. And, yes, all Christians are part of that church, know it or not.

 

[Fervent]

In the sense that it's comprised of humans, true enough. But God necessarily works through humans after Christ ascended, according to His will.
And men sin.

Working through humans doesn't mean that the institutions that are not distinct from any other political entity in any discernable way are Divinely ordained. Just as those who belong to Christ are distinct from those who do not, Christ's church must be distinct from ordinary political institutions. And the Roman Catholic church is not distinct, it is an entirely ordinary. So the church may work through the Catholic institutions, but those institutions are not the church.

Sure it transcends the mundane, necessary drudgery and bureaucracy of running any human entity. And whether it can and does cross denominational lines or not is a matter of speculation, even while acknowledging that there certainly are Christians in those places. And I believe the Reformers usurped God's authority, misreading the revelation as He gave it to His church at the beginning.

If the body of Christ is not fully contained within the political apparatus, then it necessarily transcends that apparatus. So admitting that there exist Christians across denominational lines requires the church crossing denominational lines and denies any claims for a particular institution to be the church. There are no members of Christ that are outside of the church, which is the body of Christ.

Ok? Then I think we may have established that a unified body of beliefs would at least be a necessary mark of working, while vibrancy, not necessarily so.

A unified body of beliefs? Are you saying there are no disagreements among Catholics?

And I believe they took us further away from it, confusing the issue.

As you would.

Sin, i.e. non-sanctification, remained a serious issue for the church either way, understanding the possibility of sin separating us from God all over again. To sin in grave, serious manner: adultery murder, etc, is to turn back away from God regardless of anything we may profess. It's to return to our fallen state, prior to justification, by living unjustly. The question was whether or not a person could truly return from that state.

At the heart of those disputes was the relationship between justification and sanctification, though it wasn't being put that way. Whether or not human works were necessary to preserve the justified state, and if such works could constitute a complete defection. So long before the reformers there were disputes within the church about the relationship between faith and works, that is to say what role our works play in salvation.

Either way James tells us that even demons believe, and that,
"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."'

Context. Because that statement is in reference to Abraham's work of offering Isaac and how those works were his faith made complete. So it wasn't Abraham's personal merit or righteousness in the offering of Isaac that justified him, it was Abraham's faith that justified him which was worked out in what he did.

And Paul tells us in 1 Cor 13 that
"...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."

If such a situation were truly possible.

The CC has taught that faith is the beginning, the foundation of salvation, not the end of. Somewhere between our first turning to God and our death, our wills remain involved. We can carry out the will of God the best we can, now motivated by with love that motivates Him, or we may not.

I'm aware of that teaching, but find it erroneous because we never leave faith behind. Anything not done in faith is sin, it's simply that faith on the foundation of Christ must be acted upon. So sanctification is a work of God, not our efforts or merits, and the outworking of faith.

I agree, it is revealing to the initiated, or those who simply understand God's will in all this, however.

You may find it so, but it certainly doesn't seem that way to me.

This was your quote in question that I responded to:

And yes, you quoted 1 Cor 3 to...demonstrate...that it was correct, that one can contribute nothing towards meriting salvation, that the will of man plays no part in cooperating with Gods work toward that end. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. My quotes weren't intended to overwhelm but to show that there are a great number of other passages that support another view, if one takes care to consider them. I didn't pit Scripture against itself. I pitted proper understanding of Scripture against the misunderstanding of it where our passages weren't even referring to the same matter in this case.

None of your gish gallop implies that men merit salvation, and if I were to attempt to demonstrate that I would have quoted Romans not 1 Cor. 1 Cor. was quoted to show that if a person is truly founded on Christ, the effort that they put into or fail to put into sanctification is of secondary concern to their salvation. Their works are important because not all will survive the testing by fire, but their salvation does not depend on those efforts. And by throwing out a great number of verses without comment or explanation for how they support(or contradict) what you believe them to show(or contradict) is nothing but an attempt to overwhelm the issue with extraneous data. It doesn't show how the verse that I put forward isn't saying that those who are not properly sanctified will still be saved purely on the foundation of Christ, should they persist in their faith in Christ. All doing so in response to a Scriptural passage does is try to set the passage I have put forward against the rest of Scripture, as if Scripture contradicts Scripture.

 

[Fervent]

Again, the church is both visible and invisible. We can locate the church, so that we can see what it teaches. And the true name of the church of Rome is simply Catholic. And, yes, all Christians are part of that church, know it or not.

I'm not sure you've stated the church is both visible and invisible, and such a position is more in line with a protestant ecclesiology than Roman Catholic. In fact, it is decidedly Lutheran in character. And while Rome may believe itself to be the Catholic church, the fact that not all Christians belong to its visible structures makes it clear that it is not the church despite what it tries to claim for itself. And that reality is confirmed by both Scripture and an examination of the history of church councils that Rome has decided to ignore in claiming authority for itself.

It does tickle me that you seem to believe that all Christians are secretly Roman Catholic, though.

 

[HIM]

It is impossible to be of Christ, to be a partaker of the new covenant. One having God‘s law in the heart and mind. Having his word in their heart, and in their mouth. Having his spirit within us to be a different spirit that contradicts God’s word and His law as given in and through His Spirit and written in Scripture for learning and admonition.

 

[BobRyan]

It is impossible to be of Christ, to be a partaker of the new covenant. One having God‘s law in the heart and mind. Having his word in their heart, and in their mouth. Having his spirit within us to be a different spirit that contradicts God’s word and His law as given in and through His Spirit and written in Scripture for learning and admonition.

Did you mean it is "impossible"? or "Possible"?

 

[HIM]

Did you mean it is "impossible"? or "Possible"?

?