• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
8,822
3,181
Pennsylvania, USA
✟944,409.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I do not mean to derail any discussion here. The poster Jonaitis has put an urgent prayer request in that sub forum.

Prayers can be made here:

 
Upvote 0

Tranquil Bondservant

Nothing without Elohim
Oct 11, 2022
870
794
Somewhere
✟11,245.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Protestants also teach that works are necessary just that they're not meritorious. The Catholic's equation is faith + works = salvation, whereas the Protestant's is faith = salvation + works. One of the multitude of reasons (which I believe is irrefutable if you hold to the infallibility of scripture) is Romans 4:1-5. Brother I don't mean to cause you stress by quoting this Scripture to you, I love all of God's Saints, it's just that as long as your salvation depends upon what you yourself do you will never find peace. We always fall short, if this fact was not reality then Christ's death would have been in vain (Galatians 2:21).
 
Last edited:
C
Clare73
Really like:
faith + works = salvation
faith = salvation + works
Upvote 0
Tranquil Bondservant
I got it from the American Gospel documentary and found it super succinct in explaining the difference. I wanted to source it but it didn't flow well with the short paragraph I wrote and the video would have taken the thread off topic. So thank you for giving me the chance to do so! .

The explanation begins here at 16:27
Upvote 0
Upvote 0

Tranquil Bondservant

Nothing without Elohim
Oct 11, 2022
870
794
Somewhere
✟11,245.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Thank you for posting this Brother.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,903
Georgia
✟1,093,084.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Eucharist was established by the Lord per Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20. St. Paul attests to it in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. The Lord defines the Eucharist in John 6:47-58.
Do you agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ and that this is also true at the last Supper?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,166
7,530
North Carolina
✟344,751.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

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

That would be me..

Trent has erred.

Calvin corrected their errors:



In Him,

Bill
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,049
1,801
60
New England
✟614,644.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you know what they do with Ro 3:28: "a man is justified by faith apart from works (of the law)"?
Good Day, Clare73

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

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



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

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

And here:

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

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


In Him,

Bill
 
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
15,917
3,981
✟385,206.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
IMO the problem with Sola Fide is that it places a "disconnect" between justice/righteousness...and actually being just/righteous. Faith replaces the obligation for man to be personally righteous, with God instead seeing man as righteous even though he's not-and that is definitely not the gospel! With Sola Fide the question then arises in the minds of many as to whether or not one can and must be righteous and live accordingly in order to enter heaven. After all, if righteousness is strictly imputed/delcared, why should there be need for anything more?

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

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

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

Faith and grace are not a reprieve from the obligation for man to be personally righteous, but are actually the authentic means to that very righteousness.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
15,917
3,981
✟385,206.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The point that these authors are making is that Scripture, alone, can be ambigous such that very plausible arguments can be made for contradictory positions. For example, Protestants argue with Protestants over baptismal regeneration whereas in the ancient churches this was never even controversial. The light of experience, combined with Scripture and shedding light on Scripture, is essential.

The church doesn't officially and dogmatically interpret many passages of scripture because there’s no need; she’s continuously understood the meaning of Rom 3:28, for example, from the beginning and has continued to clarify and define the related teachings ever since. The RCC uses scripture the same as most, to support her theological positions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
15,917
3,981
✟385,206.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And this is true. Acts of righteousness are evidence of being made right at justifaction, as new creations in Christ now, slaves to "righteousness" instead of "slaves to sin". But cooperation is necessacry because we can still fail to to those good works, we can turn back to the flesh and fail to "put to death the deeds of the flesh", etc. And without that fruit, "without holiness, no one will see the Lord" -Heb 12:14.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,166
7,530
North Carolina
✟344,751.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

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

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

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

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

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
15,917
3,981
✟385,206.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And the true gospel has been explained to you more than once, backed by Scripture. And yet even with your insistence on strict aquittal you acknowledge that a justifed person is changed-for the better such that, as slaves to righteousness sanctification results and therefore eternal life. Not all Sola Fide adherents agree with you that holiness is necessary to see the Lord. But you're still stuck on your canned theology.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,166
7,530
North Carolina
✟344,751.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And the true gospel has been explained to you more than once, backed by Scripture. And yet even with your insistence on strict aquittal you acknowledge that a justifed person is changed-for the better

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

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

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

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

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

But you're still stuck on your canned theology.

Interesting how you find the precise terminology of Scripture to be "canned."
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟947,585.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Yes, and if good works were necessary for justification, then this would be like saying a tree is made so because of its fruit, which we know is false, because it is the fruit that exhibits the nature of a tree. You will know a believer by his works.
Saint James asserts that the demons have faith without works and they tremble at the coming judgement.
That assumes that James equates faith with belief. I'm not so sure he does, though belief —at least in the elect— comes from salvific faith.
 
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
8,822
3,181
Pennsylvania, USA
✟944,409.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Do you agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ and that this is also true at the last Supper?
I believe the sacrament is according to His words and done in remembrance of Him.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
7,395
2,337
Perth
✟200,774.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
That assumes that James equates faith with belief. I'm not so sure he does, though belief —at least in the elect— comes from salvific faith.
σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι ὁ Θεός εἷς ἐστι· καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσι καὶ φρίσσουσι. θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν;
James 2:19-20
The root for the words in blue is πίστις (psitis); it's the word that is translated as believe and faith in English language bibles. In Latin it is translated by two different words, as it is in English - namely, credis and fides.

πίστις is defined thus
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟947,585.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
You have a point; however the Strong's English definition is slightly different for the word (pistin) πίστιν (Strong's 4102) in verse 18 from the words (pisteueis) πιστεύεις and (pisteuousin) πιστεύουσιν (Strong's 4100) in verse 19. Strong's has it in verse 18: "Faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness" and in verse 19: "From pistis; to have faith, i.e. Credit; by implication, to entrust." Then in verse 20, he defines the "faith" (this time pistis) πίστις in "faith without works is dead", once again back to Strong's 4102 "Faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness"

There is, apparently, some difference, which I think most translations reflect correctly. I might be stepping beyond what I know to claim it, but I have a suspicion James was making somewhat of a play on words.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
7,395
2,337
Perth
✟200,774.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If I am not mistaken, Strong's definitions are from a time when Koine Greek was thought to be Attic Greek with special Holy-Spirit given words added to the vocabulary. If that is so, then its definitions need to be treated with caution.
 
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,166
7,530
North Carolina
✟344,751.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

And they are not exactly the same:
credis is an intellectual agreement with, a mental assent to the matter, while
fides is about trust on, confidence in the matter (as in fiduciary--holding, held or founded in trust).
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
7,395
2,337
Perth
✟200,774.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
And they are not exactly the same:
credis is an intellectual agreement with, a mental assent to the matter, while
fides is about trust on, confidence in the matter (as in fiduciary--holding, held or founded in trust).
In Latin they are distinct yet in Greek it is no so.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,166
7,530
North Carolina
✟344,751.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In Latin they are distinct yet in Greek it is not so.
Would that be because in the NT it is always used of faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual. . .which implies trust, trustworthiness, fidelity?
 
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0