Losing faith in "faith alone"

[redleghunter]

At least you did not attempt to remove James from the Bible, which was Luther’s solution.

Do you really believe this was Luther's fresh idea?

James was a disputed book going into Trent:

Luther when speaking of Revelation and James, did question apostolic authorship. However never deep sixed any NT books. His translation had 27 NT books.

I will point out I disagree with Luther's reasoning. I will also point out he was not the only 16th Century theologian who had misgivings about some NT books.

Once again, we have Cardinal Catajen who was more zealous than Luther, yet was not excommunicated and actually a top theologian at Trent:

Cajetan Responds by Jared Wicks:

Cajetan's biblical commentaries occasioned no little admiratio. From Luther, there is a recorded remark, "Cajetan, in his later days, has become Lutheran." Considerable zeal was expended by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P., against the exegetical work of his retired Master General. Catharinus submitted a denunciation before the still acerbic faculty in Paris and proceedings began that could have led to another book-burning Clement VII intervened in a letter to the Parisian professors in September, 1533, to protect the man who was by then the Pope's regular source of valued theological advice. Proceedings were halted at this time in Paris, but not before an open letter of the Parisian theologians had begun to circulate listing the censurable propositions excerpted from the commentaries. The Sorbonne masters charged Cajetan with imprudently taking these notions from Erasmus or even Luther. The letter ended with a stinging rebuke of Cajetan's rashness in abandoning the long approved Vulgate text to base his work on new versions in no way guaranteed for their exactness. In 1534 a Wittenberg printer, no doubt with considerable glee over this discomfiture of Luther's old adversary, brought out the open letter in pamphlet form. Catharinus published his criticisms of Cajetan's commentaries in 1535, revised and expanded them in 1542, and obtained a censure by the Paris faculty against Cajetan's biblical works in August, 1544.

The specific charges brought against Cajetan concerned the reservations and plain doubts he had expressed about the apostolic origin of the final eleven verses of Mark's gospel, the story of the adultress in John 8, and five whole epistles of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1 and 2 John). These views were especially serious in Cajetan's case, since he had laid down the rule that apostolic authorship or direct approval by an apostle was normative for inclusion in the New Testament canon. Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine.

Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978).

Cajetan Responds

 

[Afra]

Actually the flexibility is on the side of Protestant systematic theology and properly applying exegesis.

The problem comes when Roman Catholics apply the usual eisegesis to Holy Scriptures as she uses such as her servant.

Let me guess, when someone agrees with your personal interpretation of Scripture, he has engaged in exegesis, and when someone disagrees with your personal interpretation of Scripture, he has engaged in eisegesis?

 

[redleghunter]

No, there are numerous verses throughout Sacred Scripture that refute Sola Fide, other than St. James. Some of them I have already posted in this thread. St. Paul’s own letters refute Sola Fide.

Considering Apostles of Jesus Christ do not contradict, I have entertained enough eisegesis on this thread.

I'll look for a few and respond.

 

[redleghunter]

Let me guess, when someone agrees with your personal interpretation of Scripture, he has engaged in exegesis, and when someone disagrees with your personal interpretation of Scripture, he has engaged in eisegesis?

Let me guess you don't think there is a difference.

 

[Afra]

Do you really believe this was Luther's fresh idea?

James was a disputed book going into Trent:

Luther when speaking of Revelation and James, did question apostolic authorship. However never deep sixed any NT books. His translation had 27 NT books.

I will point out I disagree with Luther's reasoning. I will also point out he was not the only 16th Century theologian who had misgivings about some NT books.

Once again, we have Cardinal Catajen who was more zealous than Luther, yet was not excommunicated and actually a top theologian at Trent:

Cajetan Responds by Jared Wicks:

Cajetan's biblical commentaries occasioned no little admiratio. From Luther, there is a recorded remark, "Cajetan, in his later days, has become Lutheran." Considerable zeal was expended by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P., against the exegetical work of his retired Master General. Catharinus submitted a denunciation before the still acerbic faculty in Paris and proceedings began that could have led to another book-burning Clement VII intervened in a letter to the Parisian professors in September, 1533, to protect the man who was by then the Pope's regular source of valued theological advice. Proceedings were halted at this time in Paris, but not before an open letter of the Parisian theologians had begun to circulate listing the censurable propositions excerpted from the commentaries. The Sorbonne masters charged Cajetan with imprudently taking these notions from Erasmus or even Luther. The letter ended with a stinging rebuke of Cajetan's rashness in abandoning the long approved Vulgate text to base his work on new versions in no way guaranteed for their exactness. In 1534 a Wittenberg printer, no doubt with considerable glee over this discomfiture of Luther's old adversary, brought out the open letter in pamphlet form. Catharinus published his criticisms of Cajetan's commentaries in 1535, revised and expanded them in 1542, and obtained a censure by the Paris faculty against Cajetan's biblical works in August, 1544.

The specific charges brought against Cajetan concerned the reservations and plain doubts he had expressed about the apostolic origin of the final eleven verses of Mark's gospel, the story of the adultress in John 8, and five whole epistles of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1 and 2 John). These views were especially serious in Cajetan's case, since he had laid down the rule that apostolic authorship or direct approval by an apostle was normative for inclusion in the New Testament canon. Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine.

Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978).

Cajetan Responds

OK, what if you change your mind tomorrow and come to agree with Luther’s reasoning? What would prevent you from throwing Jimmy into the stove? You are basically bound by nothing other than your own conclusions and your own conscience, are you not?

 

[redleghunter]

No, apparently they do not, as I previously pointed out in this thread.

You quoted other works which did not address the commentary I posted for specific Pauline epistles.

You are making a pretty good argument showing after the era of the apostles were fallible men who in decades of writing sermons and commentaries contradicted their own teachings or failed to properly harmonize them.

That's why when I quote the early fathers I clarify the context of what they are writing about or to whom they are specifically addressing.

 

[Afra]

Let me guess you don't think there is a difference.

I could not care less about the terms. In 99% of cases the words are simply thrown about in order to make oneself appear smarter, to garner support for one’s assertion, or to denigrate an opponents position, while offering no substantive argument as to why one’s method of interpretation is correct and why the other person’s interpretation is wrong. The words have essentially come to be used as a form of ad-hominem attack, while attempting to sound intelligent.

 

[Afra]

You quoted other works which did not address the commentary I posted for specific Pauline epistles.

You are making a pretty good argument showing after the era of the apostles were fallible men who in decades of writing sermons and commentaries contradicted their own teachings or failed to properly harmonize them.

That's why when I quote the early fathers I clarify the context of what they are writing about or to whom they are specifically addressing.

Again, the smart money is on the latter.

 

[redleghunter]

OK, what if you change your mind tomorrow and come to agree with Luther’s reasoning? What would prevent you from throwing Jimmy into the stove? You are basically bound by nothing other than your own conclusions and your own conscience, are you not?

Do you follow the heinous antisemitism of the early and medieval Church? Of course not. Luther nor Chrysostom were writing infallible Holy Scriptures inspired of God. They were not apostles. We can glean some wonderful commentaries and dissertations from them and others but like all things men proclaim, we must test it with the wholly Inspired works given to mankind in the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

When a Christian goes out and commits adultery, is that an act of loving or rejecting our Lord Jesus?

Neither.....it is an act of sin.....paid for on the Cross if the offender is a member of the Body Of Christ.God will chastise him . If that is not effective God may choose to take him Home, a kind way to put God may strike him dead, years before it would have otherwise been done.God will not be mocked

 

[redleghunter]

No, the conclusion follows logically from Sola Fide itself. If obedience contributes absolutely nothing to one’s justification, then it is entirely irrelevant whether a person commits one murder or ten thousand murders. As long as one puts his faith in “the finished work of Christ” he is saved.

I think once again you need to see his comments to another theologian as hyperbole. Would I use this in teaching a Sunday school class? No, nor would I use Chyrsostom's Against the Jews to teach anti defamation.
Nor would I in some cases take a 140-280 character Trump Tweet as national security strategy.

This is why you must say that a person who has a “true saving faith” would never do such things, and say that a Christian “was never really saved in the first place” when you witness him doing extremely sinful things some period of time after his conversion.

Actually I don't have to say that on my own. Jesus taught the parable of the wheat and tares, Paul said to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith, and John taught that those who leave us were never part of us.

Later on even Augustine made mention of effectual call.

Chapter 12.— He Proves Out of St. Paul that Grace is Not Given According to Men's Merits.

Now there was, no doubt, a decided merit in the Apostle Paul, but it was an evil one, while he persecuted the Church, and he says of it: I am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God. 1 Corinthians 15:9 And it was while he had this evil merit that a good one was rendered to him instead of the evil; and, therefore, he went on at once to say, But by the grace of God I am what I am. 1 Corinthians 15:10 Then, in order to exhibit also his free will, he added in the next clause, And His grace within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all. This free will of man he appeals to in the case of others also, as when he says to them, We beseech you that you receive not the grace of God in vain. 2 Corinthians 6:1 Now, how could he so enjoin them, if they received God's grace in such a manner as to lose their own will? Nevertheless, lest the will itself should be deemed capable of doing any good thing without the grace of God, after saying, His grace within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all, he immediately added the qualifying clause, Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 1 Corinthians 15:10 In other words, Not I alone, but the grace of God with me. And thus, neither was it the grace of God alone, nor was it he himself alone, but it was the grace of God with him. For his call, however, from heaven and his conversion by that great and most effectual call, God's grace was alone, because his merits, though great, were yet evil. Then, to quote one passage more, he says to Timothy: But be a co-labourer with the gospel, according to the power of God, who saves us and calls us with His holy calling — not according to our works but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 1:8-9 Then, elsewhere, he enumerates his merits, and gives us this description of their evil character: For we ourselves also were formerly foolish, unbelieving, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. Titus 3:3 Nothing, to be sure, but punishment was due to such a course of evil desert! God, however, who returns good for evil by His grace, which is not given according to our merits, enabled the apostle to conclude his statement and say: But when the kindness and love of our Saviour God shone upon us — not of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost, whom He shed upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4-7
CHURCH FATHERS: On Grace and Free Will (St. Augustine)​

 

[twin.spin]

1)No, our Lord does not teach Sola Fide.

2) You never addressed any of the verses that I initially provided, so there is no particular reason why I should respond to the verses you have provided.

1) Jesus taught Sola Fide. Luke 7:50, John 3:14-16, John 3:36, John 6:40

John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life.
Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”​

_________________________________________________________________
2) There was nothing to address when you're taking Scriptures out of context.
The teaching of the Bible is that we are saved only by God’s grace through God-given faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Scripture makes it clear that we are saved by God’s works, not ours (Titus 3:4-6). More than that, the Bible emphasizes that we can lose out on salvation by trying to add anything to Jesus’ saving work (Faith + works = Salvation). That was the message to the Galatians.

And I am not deflecting. Read John 3:36 that you recited. Whoever rejects the Son (better translated as “whoever does not obey the Son” as in the ESV) will not see life, because God’s wrath is on him. Adultery is not an act of believing or loving our Lord. It is an act of rejecting and disobeying our Lord. So you can easily see that the verse does not teach Sola Fide.

Interesting … but wildly imaginative … to have that take on John 3:36.

Martin Luther, on the other hand, taught that we can murder and commit adultery thousands of times a day. I’ll take a pass on him.

You're too funny …

 

[Dorothy Mae]

1) Jesus taught Sola Fide. Luke 7:50, John 3:14-16, John 3:36, John 6:40

John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life.
Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”​

_________________________________________________________________
2) There was nothing to address when you're taking Scriptures out of context.
The teaching of the Bible is that we are saved only by God’s grace through God-given faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Scripture makes it clear that we are saved by God’s works, not ours (Titus 3:4-6). More than that, the Bible emphasizes that we can lose out on salvation by trying to add anything to Jesus’ saving work (Faith + works = Salvation). That was the message to the Galatians.



Interesting … but wildly imaginative … to have that take on John 3:36.

You're too funny …

Why did James write faith sans works is dead? Dead faith means it gives no life, that is, no longer saving.

Is loving God and man a “work” we should avoid? Btw, loving anyone takes effort. That which takes effort requires work. So think about it.

 

[redleghunter]

I could not care less about the terms.

Such is evident.

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

[...]

Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

More: What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

 

[redleghunter]

Again, the smart money is on the latter

Meaning many of the church fathers failed to harmonize their decades of writings as Augustine attempted to do?

 

[redleghunter]

Why did James write faith sans works is dead? Dead faith means it gives no life, that is, no longer saving.

Is loving God and man a “work” we should avoid? Btw, loving anyone takes effort. That which takes effort requires work. So think about it.

@Don Maurer addressed this quite nicely drawing out the truth of the text here:
Losing faith in "faith alone"

 

[zoidar]

If this is truly the case why does your church teach purgatory.

I'm not a Catholic. But I'm not sure what purgatory has to do with this.

Salvation is not by works, but you can lose your salvation by works?

You don't get saved by works, but once you are saved you need works for salvation.

 

[zoidar]

I have not lost faith IN CHRIST ALONE for salvation.

Neither have I, Christ enables us to live in obedience. Without his mercy it wouldn't be possible.

 

[Afra]

Such is evident.

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

[...]

Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

More: What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

I thought that you would jump at the opportunity give a lengthy explanation of something that everyone here already knows.

The problem is that you always call it exegesis when someone agrees with your conclusion, and eisegesis when someone disagrees with your conclusion, without any explanation of why your analysis falls into the former category while your opponent’s falls into the latter. Use of the terms are thus meaningless and effectively a form of ad-hominem attack.

 

[Afra]

Neither.....it is an act of sin.....paid for on the Cross if the offender is a member of the Body Of Christ.God will chastise him . If that is not effective God may choose to take him Home, a kind way to put God may strike him dead, years before it would have otherwise been done.God will not be mocked

No, when a person commits adultery he rejects Jesus as Lord. Our Lord commanded us not to commit adultery, so when a Christian blatantly commits adultery he has rejected our Lord’s authority over his life.

Not everyone who says to me “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father.