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.
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).The Catholic Church teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but it is not the only necessary element. The Catholic Church teaches that good works and sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist, are also necessary for salvation. This is in contrast to the doctrine of sola fide, or "faith alone," which teaches that faith is the only necessary element for salvation.
Scripture references that support the Catholic teaching on salvation include James 2:24, which states, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Additionally, Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats, teaches that salvation is based on the good works that a person has done.
In summary, Catholic Church teaches that faith, good works, and sacraments are all necessary for salvation, while sola fide only emphasizes the importance of faith alone.
Thank you for posting this Brother.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:
Urgent
My father went missing at a park outside of town about four hours ago. There is a search party combing through the area trying to find him or any clues. They found our dog tied to the door of his van, but they haven't found anything else. Please pray!!!www.christianforums.com
Do you agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ and that this is also true at the last Supper?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.
Good Day,
So glad my error of being a participate in the Roman Catholic denomination has been corrected though the operation of the Holy Sprit and the means of the God Breathed out word.
IX. Whosoever shall say that the wicked is justified by faith alone, in such a sense that nothing else is required in the way of co-operation to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is in no respect necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.
That would be me..
Trent has erred.
Calvin corrected their errors:
In Him,
Bill
Good Day, Clare73Do you know what they do with Ro 3:28: "a man is justified by faith apart from works (of the law)"?
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?The Catholic Church teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but it is not the only necessary element. The Catholic Church teaches that good works and sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist, are also necessary for salvation. This is in contrast to the doctrine of sola fide, or "faith alone," which teaches that faith is the only necessary element for salvation.
Scripture references that support the Catholic teaching on salvation include James 2:24, which states, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Additionally, Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats, teaches that salvation is based on the good works that a person has done.
In summary, Catholic Church teaches that faith, good works, and sacraments are all necessary for salvation, while sola fide only emphasizes the importance of faith alone.
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.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
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.Sola fide teaches that justification before God is obtained in Christ by faith alone, and that as a result of God's free grace. Good works are the fruits and evidences of that saving faith. Our ability to do good works spring from, not in cooperation with, God's free grace through faith in Christ.
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?
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.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.
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.
I believe the faith alone statement is understandable in the aspect of us living it out with works worthy of repentance as St. Paul said in Acts 26:20. St. John the Baptist says this in Luke 3:1-8 & it is a consistent expression since Luke wrote both accounts. I believe what St. Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-10 expresses the same understanding. I also believe this matches what the Lord says in Luke 17:5-10 & note we are unworthy servants obviously not justified by works but called to do good works.
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.
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.Saint James asserts that the demons have faith without works and they tremble at the coming judgement.
I believe the sacrament is according to His words and done in remembrance of Him.Do you agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ and that this is also true at the last Supper?
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;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.
The Complete WordStudy Dictionary said:pístis; gen. písteōs, fem. noun from peíthō (G3982), to win over, persuade. Faith. Subjectively meaning firm persuasion, conviction, belief in the truth, veracity, reality or faithfulness (though rare). Objectively meaning that which is believed, doctrine, the received articles of faith.(I) In the common Gr. usage:(A) Particularly and generally (Act 17:31, having given to all the ability to believe [cf. Rom 3:23 ff.]).(B) In Rom 14:22, "hast thou faith" means persuasion about what God wants you to do (see Rom 14:23).(C) In Heb 11:1, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" means that persuasion is not the outcome of imagination but is based on fact, such as the reality of the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15), and as such it becomes the basis of realistic hope.(D) In 2Co 5:7, "for we walk by faith, not by sight" means that which appears before us may not be what it seems to be, while faith is something which stands on proof arrived at inductively. See also 1Pe 1:5, which means that faith obtains the future entrance into salvation, safe existence which will be provided by God at the end of the present season (cf. 1Pe 1:7, 1Pe 1:9).(E) Followed by the gen. of object (1Th 2:13, meaning the gospel truth).(II) Good faith, faithfulness, sincerity (Mat 23:23; Rom 3:3; Gal 5:22; 1Ti 1:19, being faithful, sincere; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 2:22; 2Ti 3:10; Tit 2:10, all good fidelity; Rev 2:19; Rev 13:10; Sept.: 1Sa 26:23; Pro 12:22; Hab 2:4).(III) Faith given as a pledge, promise (2Ti 4:7, where the faith possessed by the Apostle Paul in Christ was considered by him as a deposit made by God in him [cf. 1Ti 6:21; 2Ti 1:12, 2Ti 1:14]).(IV) As a technical term indicative of the means of appropriating what God in Christ has for man, resulting in the transformation of man's character and way of life. Such can be termed gospel or Christian faith (Rom 3:22 ff.).(A) Of God, indicated as faith in, on, toward God, with adjuncts: epí (G1909), on, with the acc. (Heb 6:1); prós (G4314), toward, with the acc. preceded by the art. (1Th 1:8); eis (G1519), in, with the acc. (1Pe 1:21); with the gen. Theoú (theós [G2316], God), of God, meaning the faith emanating from God (Mar 11:22; Col 2:12). Used in an absolute sense (Mat 17:20; Mat 21:21; Luk 17:5-6 [cf. Mar 11:22; Heb 4:2; Heb 10:22, Heb 10:38]); with ek (G1537), from, and the gen., ek písteōs (Rom 1:17, in allusion to Hab 2:4 where the Sept. has "fidelity [rather, faith in Christ]"); en pístei (en [G1722], in, and the dat.), in faith, meaning in filial confidence, nothing doubting (Jas 1:6); hē euchḗ písteōs (hē, def. art.; euchḗ [G2171], vow), to wish, vow of faith, meaning expression of a wish but with trust in the Lord to accomplish His will (Jas 5:15). Spoken analogically of the faith of the patriarchs and pious men under the Jewish dispensation who looked forward in faith and hope to the blessings of the gospel (cf. Gal 3:7 f.; Heb 11:13); of Abraham (Rom 4:5, Rom 4:9, Rom 4:11-14, Rom 4:16, Rom 4:19-20; Heb 6:12).(B) Of Christ, faith in Christ: (1) As able to work miracles, to heal the sick (Mat 8:10; Mat 9:2, Mat 9:22, Mat 9:29; Mat 15:28; Mar 2:5; Mar 5:34; Mar 10:52; Luk 5:20; Luk 7:9, Luk 7:50; Luk 8:48; Luk 17:19; Luk 18:42; Act 3:16). (2) Of faith in Christ's death, as the ground of justification before God, saving faith, found only in Paul's writings (Rom 3:22, Rom 3:25-28, Rom 3:30-31; 1Co 15:14, 1Co 15:17). Generally (Rom 1:17; Rom 5:1-2; Rom 9:30, Rom 9:32; Rom 10:6, Rom 10:17; Gal 2:16, Gal 2:20; Gal 3:2, Gal 3:5, Gal 3:7-9, Gal 3:11-12, Gal 3:14, Gal 3:22, Gal 3:24; Gal 5:5-6; Eph 2:8; Eph 3:12; Php 3:9. Of the faith of Abraham (see A above). Some interpreters take eis pístin of Rom 1:17 by metonymy as referring to those believing (eis toús pisteúontas [cf. Rom 3:22]). (3) Generally, as the Son of God, the incarnate Word, the Messiah and Savior, the Head of the true Church; with eis, unto (Act 20:21; Act 26:18); with en, in, and the dat., en Christṓ, in Christ (Gal 3:26; Col 1:4; 1Ti 1:14; 1Ti 3:13; 2Ti 1:13; 2Ti 3:15); with the gen. (Eph 4:13; Jas 2:1; Rev 2:13, thy faith toward Me; Rev 14:12). Used in an absolute sense (Mar 4:40; Luk 8:25; Luk 22:32; Act 6:5, Act 6:8; Act 11:24; Eph 3:17; Eph 6:16; Col 2:7 [cf. Col 2:5]; 1Th 5:8).(C) Generally, with the gen., hē pístis toú euaggelíou (euaggelíou, gen. of euaggélion [G2098], gospel), the faith of or in the gospel, gospel faith (Php 1:27); en pístei alētheías (en [G1722], in; the dat. of pístis; and the gen. of alḗtheia [G225], truth), meaning faith in the truth, i.e., in the gospel (1Th 2:13). Used in an absolute sense with the same meaning, namely, Christian faith, a firm and confiding belief in Jesus and His gospel (1Co 2:5; 2Co 4:13; Php 1:25; Php 2:17; 1Th 1:3; 1Ti 1:5; 1Ti 6:11-12; 2Ti 1:5; 2Ti 2:18; Tit 1:1; Phm 1:6; Heb 12:2; Jas 2:5; 1Pe 5:9). Elsewhere also, pístis seems to mark various predominant traits of Christian character as arising from and combined with Christian faith, without implying, however, any sharp distinction; meaning Christian knowledge, especially in Paul and Peter (Rom 12:3, Rom 12:6; Rom 14:1; 1Co 12:9; 1Co 13:2, 1Co 13:13; Tit 1:13; 2Pe 1:5). In James, pístis as opposed to érga (G2041), works (Jas 2:14, Jas 2:17-18, Jas 2:20, Jas 2:22, Jas 2:24, Jas 2:26). Of the Christian profession, the faith professed (Act 13:8; Act 14:22; Act 15:9; Act 16:5; 1Co 16:13; 2Co 1:24; Gal 6:10; 1Ti 2:15; 2Ti 4:7 [cf. above in Section I, C]). Of Christian zeal, ardor in the faith (Rom 1:8; Rom 11:20; 2Co 8:7; 2Co 10:15; 2Co 13:5; Eph 6:23; 1Th 1:4, 1Th 1:11). Of Christian love, as springing from faith (Rom 1:12, mutual faith and love; 1Th 1:3; Phm 1:5). Of Christian life and morals, practical faith (1Ti 4:12; 1Ti 5:8, 1Ti 5:12; 1Ti 6:10; Tit 2:2). Of constancy in the faith (Col 1:23; 1Th 3:2, 1Th 3:5-7, 1Th 3:10; Heb 13:7; Jas 1:3).(D) Metonymically of the object of Christian faith, meaning the doctrines received and believed, Christian doctrine, the gospel, all that Christianity stands for (Act 6:7, "were obedient to the faith," meaning embraced the gospel; Act 14:27, a "door of faith," meaning access for the gospel; Act 24:24; Rom 1:5; Rom 10:8; 2Co 1:24; Gal 1:23; Gal 3:23, Gal 3:25; Eph 4:5; 1Ti 1:4, 1Ti 1:19; 1Ti 3:9; 1Ti 6:21; 2Pe 1:1; 1Jn 5:4; Jud 1:3, Jud 1:20). With en, in, and the dat., en pístei, meaning in the gospel as Christians (1Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4).(E) Especially, the object of justifying faith, that on which a sinner, believing the gospel, relies for acceptance with God, namely Christ, as having fulfilled all righteousness (Rom 4:5).(V) In Rom 3:3, Paul asks rhetorically, "Their unfaithfulness will not nullify [katargē̄́sei, fut. act. indic. of katargéō {G2673}, to nullify, destroy, render ineffective] the faithfulness [pístis] of God, will it?" (a.t.). Here pístis likely means faithfulness, although a few interpreters understand "the faith of God" to mean the principle of faith in God.Deriv.: oligópistos (G3640), having but little faith; pisteúō (G4100), to believe, have faith in; pistikós (G4101), persuasive, faithful.Syn.: bebaíōsis (G951), the act of assurance, confirmation; pepoíthēsis (G4016), reliance, confidence; dógma (G1378), dogma, ecclesiastical belief firmly held; tḗrēsis (G5084), observance, keeping; eusébeia (G2150), godliness; theosébeia (G2317), piety, respect, reverence of God; didachḗ (G1322), teaching; didaskalía (G1319), teaching, doctrine; eulábeia (G2124), inner piety; alḗtheia (G225), truth.Ant.: súgchusis (G4799), confusion; parakoḗ (G3876), disobedience; parábasis (G3847), violation; apistía (G570), unbelief, faithlessness; asébeia (G763), ungodliness, lack of piety; apostasía (G646), apostasy, departure from the truth; haíresis (G139), heresy, discord in doctrine; blasphēmía (G988), blasphemy, vilification against God; hupókrisis (G5272), acting, hypocrisy; pseúdos (G5579), falsehood; dólos (G1388), guile, deceit.
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"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 (pistis); 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
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.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.
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.
In Latin they are distinct yet in Greek it is no so.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).
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?In Latin they are distinct yet in Greek it is not so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
Hence, the Reformation. . .