Is it faith and works?

[MoreCoffee]

...

One is justified by faith without works of the Law because faith is the fruit of grace and lively faith always works and one is Justified by works and not by faith alone because lively faith is not alone and never can be.

A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. You cannot be justified by works and not justified by works at the same time and in the same respect. Your method of resolving the contradiction doesn't seem to do it, in my mind, because I don't see how you're either denying the "same time" business or the "same respect" business. To avoid being a contradiction, being justified by works or not justified by works has to be at a different time and/or in a different respect. I have already explained how the context in James shows that James is showing his faith to other people. That's mentioned more than once in James 2. But Paul in Ephesians 2 is talking about justification before God, which is how the WLC defined it, and what I quoted above.

...

Saint James writes

Thus even faith, if it does not have works, is dead, in and of itself. Now someone may say: "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works! But I will show you my faith by means of works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. But the demons also believe, and they tremble greatly. So then, are you willing to understand, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not our father Abraham justified by means of works, by offering his son Isaac upon the altar? Do you see that faith was cooperating with his works, and that by means of works faith was brought to fulfillment? And so the Scripture was fulfilled which says: "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." And so he was called the friend of God. Do you see that a man is justified by means of works, and not by faith alone? [James 2:17-24]​

He presents the issue as hinging on this short aphorism: Show me your faith without works! But I will show you my faith by means of works. He reasons that one cannot have faith that makes one just unless one has works as the inevitable fruit of one's faith. He summarises his case by writing that even faith, if it does not have works, is dead, in and of itself. What does saint Paul argue in Romans 3?

We have been justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has offered as a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to reveal his justice for the remission of the former offenses, and by the forbearance of God, to reveal his justice in this time, so that he himself might be both the Just One and the Justifier of anyone who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. So then, where is your self-exaltation? It is excluded. Through what law? That of works? No, but rather through the law of faith. For we judge a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. [Romans 3:24-28]​

Saint Paul's chief concern is to exclude any claim to righteousness derived from obedience to the Law [of Moses] made as if such righteousness can be obtained apart from faith in Jesus Christ. Saint James' chief concern is to exclude any claim to righteousness derived from faith [in Jesus Christ] alone made as if such righteousness can be obtained apart from the good works which God prepared for the faithful to do in Christ Jesus. The two saints cut off both means of being made just that some human beings erroneously created in response to God's revelation. They exclude legalism and also exclude gnosticism. One is not made just by what one knows (and believes) nor by what one does. One is in fact made just by God's grace acting within to engender both faith and good works.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

You point out that the demons have πίστις, and the believer has πίστις. Very well, I do not deny it. But since believers wind up in heaven, and demons in hell, this πίστις cannot be the same πίστις in both places. A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. The demons have knowledge of the truth - I believe that is the kind of πίστις they have. But the believer has a much fuller πίστις, involving knowledge of the truth AND the additional elements of assent and trust, which the demons do not have. In addition, as we've both pointed out, the believer's πίστις shows itself in good works! The demons don't do that, do they? Going by James's words, then, do the demons have a saving faith? They're clearly not producing any of the fruits of a saving faith. Therefore it is not altogether the same πίστις that the demons have versus believers.

Demons have πίστις and the faithful have πίστις this is not a case of πίστις being not-πίστις at the same time. πίστις is πίστις for both. The πίστις of demons is without good works because their works are evil and constantly so. The πίστις of the faithful is accompanied by good works because God creates a clean heart and a right spirit within the faithful training them to do good works even though there remains within them a tendency to do evil. The good works of the faithful flow from their πίστις in Jesus Christ. The evil works of the demons comes from their own wicked spirit within. So when you make a case by claiming that hell-bound demons and heaven-bound saints are not the same thing and hence their πίστις cannot be the same thing you have switched from a discussion about πίστις to one about heaven and hell and then switched back to πίστις as if the comments made about heaven and hell were really about πίστις. Everybody knows that πίστις is not heaven and it is not hell.

 

[visionary]

There is a difference between being saved by faith and living the faith... One is the introduction to the new life, and the other is living the new life in Him.

 

[pinacled]

There is no systematic distinction in vocabulary. Faith & belief are translation of πίστις

Greek? Really.

Why not return to the Hebrew. Just following the Lamed is a mystery to be discovered.

 

[Josiah]

Greek? Really.

Why not return to the Hebrew. Just following the Lamed is a mystery to be discovered.

The NT was written in Greek. I realize we might have a different spin on some issues if we were Jews and only accepted the OT but most here are Christians and accept the NT.

I think there IS a distinction often made by Christians between "belief" (a mental, cognative affirmation of something) and "faith" (to trust, rely) but MoreCoffee is correct, in the Bible, this distinction is not made by the words themselves. Yet, I would disagree that justification (narrow) is apprehended by us through the divine gift of mental, cognative UNDERSTANDING and assent (in that case, likely the devil would be heaven bound) - a function entirely of the BRAIN. I think that God gives to us the embracing, trusting, relying of God's gift and blessing - a function of the heart and soul; I'd go so far as to say even a baby or mentally handicapped person can be given the gift of faith by God (their IQ being pretty much irrelevant)....


But again, no one questions of justification (narrow) is the result of works. The "debate" is WHOSE works? Jesus or self? WHOSE works are to be trusted for salvation, WHO is the Savior, WHERE do we look for this - the Cross or the Mirror? Those who believe that self is the Savior.... that the words that justify are the works SELF does (and thus not those CHRIST does) will always rebuke the idea of Jesus as the Savior, of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide because such a view embraces Christ as the Savior and not self.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Being made just is a grace from God. It starts with God and it ends with God. It changes the mind and heart of the faithful. It changes behaviour too. As saint Paul explains - For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God. And this is not of works, so that no one may glory. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has prepared and in which we should walk. [Ephesians 2:8-10]

 

[Josiah]

Being made just is a grace from God. It starts with God and it ends with God. It changes the mind and heart of the faithful. It changes behaviour too. As saint Paul explains - For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God. And this is not of works, so that no one may glory. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has prepared and in which we should walk. [Ephesians 2:8-10]

My Roman Catholic teachers: "Grace is the empowering God gives.... grace is like the 'gas' God puts in our 'tank' so that we can get ourselves where we need to get ourselves." Thus, what Catholic teachers almost universally do is USE (abuse?) this glorious Gospel verse to undermine the foundational teaching and affirmation of Christianity: Jesus is the Savior. By making "grace" just HELP, ASSISTANCE, "JUICE", ENABLING - it makes Christ a helper not the Savior; it means it thus stands with Islam and modern Judaism in the point that we don't need or have a Savior rather all we need is to sufficiently tap the sufficient divine HELP God provides to save ourselves (eventually). But actually, our Catholic teachers rarely gave Jesus credit even for that, the RCC typically points to itself as the real, effective Helper - the EXACTLY SEVEN Sacraments that it owns and doles out, the Saints that it itself currently declares, the "Treasury of merits" that it owns and doles out, the "Queen" of it itself.... but yes, sometimes Jesus got added on as also a helper. The Jew or Muslim or Bhakti Hindu or Catholic who says, "God HELPS those who help themselves.... God opens the door to heaven but you gotta get yourself through it by what you do..... if you adequately tap into the sufficient HELP God provides, you can accomplish heaven..... these are all condemnations of the the central point of Christianity: Jesus is the Savior (in this sense of justification, narrow).

Yes, NO ONE ON THE PLANET argues that good works are bad - whether they are the works of Christ or the works of any person. That's never been the issue. The issue is: whose works justify in these sense of narrow justification, or to put it another way, by WHOSE works are we justified - Christs or mine? Should we look to the Cross or in the mirror? WHO is THE Savior - Christ or self?



In my Catholic years, I (personally) was NEVER - not once - taught that Jesus is the Savior. Those words were chanted but the teaching immediately denied. What we were taught is that Jesus makes salvation POSSIBLE (without His whatever, this would not be a possibility for us) and that Jesus is ONE of the many HELPS we get so that we can save ourselves. OCCASIONALLY, a Catholic will join hands with the Muslims who insist (passionately!) that NO ONE can do this on their own, by their own strength or ability, not at all, ALL the strength coming from Allah, but even for those few Catholics giving ALL the credit for the HELP to God (or more likely, the RC Denomination), that still is proclaiming Christ (or the RCC) as the HELPER, not the Savior. Again, I don't deny that Catholics at time chant the words "Jesus is the SAVIOR" they just then immediately deny what they just said, correcting it to Jesus is the possibility-maker and/or the helper.




Answer this: WHO is the Savior?

IF you answer "Jesus" then Jesus is the Savior. Not you - not a bit, not at all, not now, not ever, not in any way or shape or form or manner. Salvation is entirely, wholly wrapped up in Jesus. It's entirely HIS work. HIS heart. HIS love. HIS mercy. HIS gift. HIS blessing. His life, His death, His resurrection. His Cross, His blood, His sacrifice. His righteousness, His obedience, His holiness. Not you. Not yours. Not at all, not a bit. You may have some other role in some other matter, but not this. The "job" of Savior belongs to Jesus. Not you.

IF you answer "ME!" then you are the Savior. Not Jesus. Not a bit, not at all. Not now, not ever. Not in any way, shape or form or manner. Salvation is all wrapped up in YOU. It's about YOU. YOUR works. YOUR will. YOUR love. YOUR efforts. YOUR merits. YOUR obedience. YOUR righteousness. YOUR holiness. YOUR sacrifice. Not Jesus. Not Jesus'. Jesus may have some other role in some other matter (possibility maker, helper, etc.), just not this one. The Savior is you.

There are only two places you can look: To the Cross or to the mirror. You are either trusting Jesus as the Savior or yourself. If your "answer" hinges on the words "me" or "I" then you are looking in the mirror.

Which is it? Try answering that. If you give the Christian answer, a LOT of Christianity falls into place.



This is not one of the reasons why I left the RC Denomination..... it was a HUGE, HUGE refreshing revelation that I learned after leaving the RC Denomination. Now, having discussed this with MANY Catholics (including a Catholic priest) after my learning the Gospel from Lutherans, I have become convinced that actually the Christian Gospel is NOT officially denied or even abandoned/lost in the RC Denomination..... it's "there" if you dig far enough and carefully enough.... and there are some Catholics who (in spite of their Denomination) believe the Gospel (such being the power of the Holy Spirit). Luther himself noted this and I think he was right. It's just that the RC Denomination has become SO, SO very confused about all this, has so entangled things, so mixed up things, that it has baffled even itself, confused even itself - and thus its docilic members. There is NOTHING about which a church should be more clear than this..... but NOTHING that the RCC is more confused about than this. Sad. Tragic.




- Josiah





.

 

[pinacled]

The NT was written in Greek. I realize we might have a different spin on some issues if we were Jews and only accepted the OT but most here are Christians and accept the NT.

I think there IS a distinction often made by Christians between "belief" (a mental, cognative affirmation of something) and "faith" (to trust, rely) but MoreCoffee is correct, in the Bible, this distinction is not made by the words themselves. Yet, I would disagree that justification (narrow) is apprehended by us through the divine gift of mental, cognative UNDERSTANDING and assent (in that case, likely the devil would be heaven bound) - a function entirely of the BRAIN. I think that God gives to us the embracing, trusting, relying of God's gift and blessing - a function of the heart and soul; I'd go so far as to say even a baby or mentally handicapped person can be given the gift of faith by God (their IQ being pretty much irrelevant)....


But again, no one questions of justification (narrow) is the result of works. The "debate" is WHOSE works? Jesus or self? WHOSE works are to be trusted for salvation, WHO is the Savior, WHERE do we look for this - the Cross or the Mirror? Those who believe that self is the Savior.... that the words that justify are the works SELF does (and thus not those CHRIST does) will always rebuke the idea of Jesus as the Savior, of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide because such a view embraces Christ as the Savior and not self.

It was translated in greek yes.

Please do not discourage the readers of this forum again.

Christ is the Tabernacle that embraces us. Yet in fellowship with so many here i find deaf mutes. Maimed oxen in a hole.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

PART ONE - THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO - THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO - I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

ARTICLE 2 - "AND IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD"

I. JESUS​

430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.[SUP]18[/SUP] Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins".[SUP]19[/SUP] in Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men.

431 In the history of salvation God was not content to deliver Israel "out of the house of bondage"[SUP]20[/SUP] by bringing them out of Egypt. He also saves them from their sin. Because sin is always an offence against God, only he can forgive it.[SUP]21[/SUP] For this reason Israel, becoming more and more aware of the universality of sin, will no longer be able to seek salvation except by invoking the name of the Redeemer God.[SUP]22[/SUP]

432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation,[SUP]23[/SUP] so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."[SUP]24[/SUP]

433 The name of the Savior God was invoked only once in the year by the high priest in atonement for the sins of Israel, after he had sprinkled the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies with the sacrificial blood. The mercy seat was the place of God's presence.[SUP]25[/SUP] When St. Paul speaks of Jesus whom "God put forward as an expiation by his blood", he means that in Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself."[SUP]26[/SUP]

434 Jesus' Resurrection glorifies the name of the Savior God, for from that time on it is the name of Jesus that fully manifests the supreme power of the "name which is above every name".[SUP]27[/SUP] The evil spirits fear his name; in his name his disciples perform miracles, for the Father grants all they ask in this name.[SUP]28[/SUP]

435 The name of Jesus is at the heart of Christian prayer. All liturgical prayers conclude with the words "through our Lord Jesus Christ". The Hail Mary reaches its high point in the words "blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." The Eastern prayer of the heart, the Jesus Prayer, says: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Many Christians, such as St. Joan of Arc, have died with the one word "Jesus" on their lips.

II. CHRIST

436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ" signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets.[SUP]29[/SUP] This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively.[SUP]30[/SUP] It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet.[SUP]31[/SUP] Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king.

437 To the shepherds, the angel announced the birth of Jesus as the Messiah promised to Israel: "To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."[SUP]32[/SUP] From the beginning he was "the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world", conceived as "holy" in Mary's virginal womb.[SUP]33[/SUP] God called Joseph to "take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", so that Jesus, "who is called Christ", should be born of Joseph's spouse into the messianic lineage of David.[SUP]34[/SUP]

438 Jesus' messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, "for the name 'Christ' implies 'he who anointed', 'he who was anointed' and 'the very anointing with which he was anointed'. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.'"[SUP]35[/SUP] His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power", "that he might be revealed to Israel"[SUP]36[/SUP] as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as "the Holy One of God".[SUP]37[/SUP]

439 Many Jews and even certain Gentiles who shared their hope recognized in Jesus the fundamental attributes of the messianic "Son of David", promised by God to Israel.[SUP]38[/SUP] Jesus accepted his rightful title of Messiah, though with some reserve because it was understood by some of his contemporaries in too human a sense, as essentially political.[SUP]39[/SUP]

440 Jesus accepted Peter's profession of faith, which acknowledged him to be the Messiah, by announcing the imminent Passion of the Son of Man.[SUP]40[/SUP] He unveiled the authentic content of his messianic kingship both in the transcendent identity of the Son of Man "who came down from heaven", and in his redemptive mission as the suffering Servant: "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."[SUP]41[/SUP] Hence the true meaning of his kingship is revealed only when he is raised high on the cross.[SUP]42[/SUP] Only after his Resurrection will Peter be able to proclaim Jesus' messianic kingship to the People of God: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."[SUP]43[/SUP]

III. THE ONLY SON OF GOD

441 In the Old Testament, "son of God" is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings.[SUP]44[/SUP] It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called "son of God", it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus "son of God", as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.[SUP]45[/SUP]

442 Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God", for Jesus responds solemnly: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."[SUP]46[/SUP] Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles. . ."[SUP]47[/SUP] "And in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, 'He is the Son of God.'"[SUP]48[/SUP] From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ's divine sonship will be the center of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church's foundation.[SUP]49[/SUP]

443 Peter could recognize the transcendent character of the Messiah's divine sonship because Jesus had clearly allowed it to be so understood. To his accusers' question before the Sanhedrin, "Are you the Son of God, then?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am."[SUP]50[/SUP] Well before this, Jesus referred to himself as "the Son" who knows the Father, as distinct from the "servants" God had earlier sent to his people; he is superior even to the angels.[SUP]51[/SUP] He distinguished his sonship from that of his disciples by never saying "our Father", except to command them: "You, then, pray like this: 'Our Father'", and he emphasized this distinction, saying "my Father and your Father".[SUP]52[/SUP]

444 The Gospels report that at two solemn moments, the Baptism and the Transfiguration of Christ, the voice of the Father designates Jesus his "beloved Son".[SUP]53[/SUP] Jesus calls himself the "only Son of God", and by this title affirms his eternal pre-existence.[SUP]54[/SUP] He asks for faith in "the name of the only Son of God".[SUP]55[/SUP] In the centurion's exclamation before the crucified Christ, "Truly this man was the Son of God",[SUP]56[/SUP] that Christian confession is already heard. Only in the Paschal mystery can the believer give the title "Son of God" its full meaning.

445 After his Resurrection, Jesus' divine sonship becomes manifest in the power of his glorified humanity. He was "designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his Resurrection from the dead".[SUP]57[/SUP] The apostles can confess: "We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."[SUP]58[/SUP]​

(source)

 

[Josiah]

It was translated in greek yes.

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that all the NT books were originally written in Hebrew or any language other than Koine Greek.... nor do we have even one manuscript of ANY NT book written in ancient Hebrew.

Nor do I see how that is relevant to the question... this is the CHRISTIAN theology section, and thus is not limited to what the OT says or to what Hebrew says.




.

 

[pinacled]

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that all the NT books were originally written in Hebrew or any language other than Koine Greek.... nor do we have even one manuscript of ANY NT book written in ancient Hebrew.

Nor do I see how that is relevant to the question... this is the CHRISTIAN theology section, and thus is not limited to what the OT says or to what Hebrew says.




.

Relevant

YOU ARE LACKING behind.

I sugest you check the facts of history before making bold statements.

Yet here I come back to this forum after leaving gifts. Only to find Morecoffee and you being disruptive.
Talk about works. What do you think this forum is?
People worked very hard to put it together so that Christians could come together in fellowship.

You do show promise though.
You are hungry.

 

[Josiah]

Relevant

YOU ARE LACKING behind.

I sugest you check the facts of history before making bold statements.

Then document your bold statement. Document for us that the NT books were originally penned in Hebrew.... document that the oldest manuscripts we have for these 27 books are in Hebrew..... and document how this so much impacts CHRISTIAN theology (since you posted your bold, remarkable claim in the CHRISTIAN theology forum).


No, I don't think I am being disruptive..... I addressed the issue of WORKS in the context of justification. I don't know what you point is about the NT being a HEBREW LANGUAGE document - but you seem to be placing enormous importance upon it and stress that we should prove that historically. Okay. Prove it. Then show why it is critical to our discussion and perhaps how it shows my post(s) in this forum are thus wrong, since the NT is a HEBREW LANGUAGE collection.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

If you have faith but never act on it and confess Jesus as Lord but say ah well I believe in Jesus but I call Him Krishna you're not saved.

[MENTION=181]Rens[/MENTION]


IMO, it is important to realize that just because things are associated doesn't mean they have the same function. I own a car. ALL the models of my car have an engine and Air Conditioning. You can't get one of my cars without an engine AND a/c. ALL the models have BOTH. But does the a/c make the car go? Does the engine make the car cold? Just because things are together - one never existing without the other - does not remotely even imply they have the same function. Yes, faith and our own works go together, they are joined, linked, associated - I agree. But I simply deny that ergo they have the same function, role, accomplishment.... we can't credit to one what actually is accomplished by the other.


I believe that in justification (narrow), it's Sola Gratia (God's unconditional love, mercy and favor) - Solus Christus (Christ alone being The Savior - not self; HIS works accomplish this) - Sola Fide (which are apprehended by means of God's gift of faith/trust/reliance)..... Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as one united, undivided doctrine. It's what makes me Protestant in theology. For God so loved the world (Sola Gratia) that He gave His only begotten son (Solus Christus) that whosoever believes in Him (Sola Fide) will not parish but has everlasting life. Jesus as THE Savior (not part Savior, not failed Savior, not just a helper, not just a possibility maker but THE Savior - sole, alone). Thus, in THAT context (and as I noted, the OP fails to tell us the context he has in mind), works DO save but they are CHRIST'S works that save - not our own, which of course means that Jesus is the Savior rather than self.

I don't deny that we have works.... I don't even deny that they have some quality (at least vis-a-vis other people in our lives together in this fallen world), I just deny that OUR works justify ourselves before God making Christ not the Savior but a joke, a waste. OUR works certainly have a role in discipleship, in living out our Christian faith - but that's a whole other subject (again, that issue of context - an issue the opening poster never gave). IMO, justification (narrow) - salvation in that sense - is ENTIRELY Jesus' doing, the result of HIS works, which is why I affirm HIM as the Savior. But in all other things, MY works are important and certainly do play a role.

I hope I clarified things for you, friend.... even if we don't agree.



Pax Christi



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION],

The teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Lord Jesus Christ as saviour is ancient so despite the alleged absence in [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]'s religious instruction the fact is that the sixteenth century Roman Catechism started with these words.

The Necessity Of Religious Instruction

Such is the nature of the human mind and intellect that, although by means of diligent and laborious enquiry it has of itself investigated and discovered many other things pertaining to a knowledge of divine truths; yet guided by its natural lights it never could have known or perceived most of those things by which is attained eternal salvation, the principal end of man's creation and formation to the image and likeness of God.

It is true that the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are, as the Apostle teaches, clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: his eternal power also, and divinity. But the mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations so far transcends the reach of man's understanding, that were it not made manifest by God to His Saints, to whom He willed to make known by the gift of faith, the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ, man could by no effort attain to such wisdom.

But, as faith comes by hearing, it is clear how necessary at all times for the attainment of eternal salvation has been the labour and faithful ministry of an authorised teacher; for it is written, how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?

And, indeed, never, from the very creation of the world, has God, most merciful and benignant, been wanting to His own; but at sundry times and in divers manners spoke to the fathers by the prophets, and pointed out to them in a manner suited to the times and circumstances, a sure and direct path to the happiness of heaven. But, as He had foretold that He would give a teacher of justice to be the light of the Gentiles, that His salvation might reach even to the ends of the earth, in these last days he hath spoken to us by his Son, whom also by a voice from heaven, from the excellent glory, He has commanded all to hear and to obey. Furthermore, the Son gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and others pastors and teachers, to announce the word of life; that we might not be carried about like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, but holding fast to the firm foundation of the faith, we might be built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.

Lest any should receive the Word of God from the ministers of the Church, not as the word of Christ, which it really is, but as the word of man, the same Saviour has ordained that their ministry should be invested with so great authority that He says to them: He that hears you, hears me; and he that despises you despises me. These words He spoke not only of those to whom His words were addressed, but likewise of all who, by legitimate succession, should discharge the ministry of the word, promising to be with them all days even to the consummation of the world.

Need of an Authoritative Catholic Catechism

But while the preaching of the divine Word should never be interrupted in the Church, surely in these, our days, it becomes necessary to labour with more than ordinary zeal and piety to nourish and strengthen the faithful with sound and wholesome doctrine, as with the food of life. For false prophets have gone forth into the world, to corrupt the minds of the faithful with various and strange doctrines, of whom the Lord has said: I did not send prophets, yet they ran; I spoke not to them, yet they prophesied.

In this work, to such extremes has their impiety, practised in all the arts of Satan, been carried, that it would seem almost impossible to confine it within any bounds; and did we not rely on the splendid promises of the Saviour, who declared that He had built His Church on so solid a foundation that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, we should have good reason to fear lest, beset on every side by such a host of enemies and assailed and attacked by so many machinations, it would, in these days, fall to the ground.

For � to say nothing of those illustrious States which heretofore professed, in piety and holiness, the true Catholic faith transmitted to them by their ancestors, but are now gone astray wandering from the paths of truth and openly declaring that their best claims to piety are founded on a total abandonment of the faith of their fathers � there is no region, however remote, no place, however securely guarded, no corner of Christendom, into which this pestilence has not sought secretly to insinuate itself.

For those who intended to corrupt the minds of the faithful, knowing that they could not hold immediate personal intercourse with all, and thus pour into their ears their poisoned doctrines, adopted another plan which enabled them to disseminate error and impiety more easily and extensively. Besides those voluminous works by which they sought the subversion of the Catholic faith � to guard against which (volumes) required perhaps little labour or circumspection, since their contents were clearly heretical � they also composed innumerable smaller books, which, veiling their errors under the semblance of piety, deceived with incredible facility the unsuspecting minds of simple folk.​

(Source - The Roman Catechism of 1566 AD)

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]



Here's what I wrote to Rens above.....

I think it is important to realize that just because things are associated doesn't mean they have the same function. I own a car. ALL the models of my car have an engine and Air Conditioning. You can't get one of my cars without an engine AND a/c. ALL the models have BOTH. But does the a/c make the car go? Does the engine make the car cold? Just because things are together - one never existing without the other - does not remotely even imply they have the same function. Yes, faith and our works are connected, joined, associated, together.... I agree. But that does not mean they have the same function, the same role, do the same thing: that's where I'm disagreeing my friend.



I believe that in justification (narrow), it's Sola Gratia (God's unconditional love, mercy and favor) - Solus Christus (Christ alone being The Savior - not self; HIS works accomplish this) - Sola Fide (which are apprehended by means of God's gift of faith/trust/reliance)..... Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as one united, undivided doctrine. It's what makes me Protestant in theology. For God so loved the world (Sola Gratia) that He gave His only begotten son (Solus Christus) that whosoever believes in Him (Sola Fide) will not parish but has everlasting life. Jesus as THE Savior (not part Savior, not failed Savior, not just a helper, not just a possibility maker but THE Savior - sole, alone). Thus, in THAT context (and as I noted, the OP fails to tell us the context he has in mind), works DO save but they are CHRIST'S works that save - not our own, which of course means that Jesus is the Savior rather than self.


I don't deny that we have works.... I don't even deny that they have some quality (at least vis-a-vis other people in our lives together in this fallen world), I just deny that OUR works justify ourselves before God making Christ not the Savior but a joke, a waste. OUR works certainly have a role in discipleship, in living out our Christian faith - but that's a whole other subject (again, that issue of context - an issue the opening poster never gave).



- Josiah



.

Yes, MoreCoffee, I know, the individual RC Denomination excommunicated Luther for what I posted, split itself over that, and so it's not surprising that you too reject what I posted. We've been over that.


Yes, I have stated clearly what we were taught in the RC Denomination. It's truthful and NO Catholic (including you) has denied it or even corrected our Catholic teachers. Indeed, at other sites, some Catholics have gone to great length to try to defend what our teachers taught me in this regard (and thus why Luther was wrong on this, why what I posted is wrong). We both realize that.


I stated above that I am convinced that the RC Denomination has NOT entirely forgotten or rejected the Gospel (one CAN find it.... buried deeply..... if one digs hard and long enough, IMO) - I disagree with a lot of Protestants in that regard, but I personally am convinced of it. It's just that the individual RC Denomination has so confused things, so entangled things, so mixed up things that it has so utterly confused even itself - and thus its docilic members (thus, what we get from you and most Catholics in this regard). And of course, it's a historic fact that the RCC split itself to reject what I posted, to reject Luther's embrace of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, his embrace that Jesus (alone) is THE (one and only and exclusive and altogether sufficient) Savior. So it MUST reject that since it excommunicated Luther for saying it, split itself over it, kicked out all who embraced it. Yes, I KNOW..... if you dig hard and long enough, you can find the RCC itself agreeing with Luther and thus condemning itself for excommunicating him over this, but that's really beyond the scope of this thread.



If you want to defend your individual denomination in calling the view I expressed anathama and heresy - then do so. If you want to quote the RCC after Luther's death, after it split itself over this and excommunicated Luther (and so many others) over this issue of Jesus as the Savior, fine (but that would be AFTER); it doesn't undo its declaration that this view is so heretical to mandate excommunication and splitting itself it would only show that it itself believes it itself was wrong.



Back to the issue....



- Josiah




.

 

[pinacled]

Then document your bold statement. Document for us that the NT books were originally penned in Hebrew.... document that the oldest manuscripts we have for these 27 books are in Hebrew..... and document how this so much impacts CHRISTIAN theology (since you posted your bold, remarkable claim in the CHRISTIAN theology forum).


No, I don't think I am being disruptive..... I addressed the issue of WORKS in the context of justification. I don't know what you point is about the NT being a HEBREW LANGUAGE document - but you seem to be placing enormous importance upon it and stress that we should prove that historically. Okay. Prove it. Then show why it is critical to our discussion and perhaps how it shows my post(s) in this forum are thus wrong, since the NT is a HEBREW LANGUAGE collection.



- Josiah

I hope you don't believe you can take someone as myself or all the readers here as fools.

I'll give you a hint.

And, and, and, and.

Or kai, kai , kai, kai.

Or was it vav, vav, vav, vav.



Here's some excellent reading material.

http://www.blainerobison.com/endtimes/rev-hebrew.htm

 

[Josiah]

Pinacled,


Then document your bold statement. Document for us that the NT books were originally penned in the Hebrew language.... document that the oldest manuscripts we have for these 27 books are in Hebrew..... and document how this so much impacts CHRISTIAN theology (since you posted your bold, remarkable claim in the CHRISTIAN theology forum).


No, I don't think I am being disruptive..... I addressed the issue of WORKS in the context of justification. I don't know what you point is about the NT being a HEBREW LANGUAGE document - but you seem to be placing enormous importance upon it and you stress that we should prove that historically. Okay. Document it. Take your own advise, do as you recommend be done. Prove it is true historically that the 27 Books in our NT were originally penned in the Hebrew language. Then show why it is critical to our discussion and perhaps how it shows my post(s) in this forum are thus wrong, since the NT is a HEBREW LANGUAGE collection.



- Josiah


.

I hope you don't believe you can take someone as myself or all the readers here as fools.

Obviously not. Read what I posted....


But you interjected your claim that the NT was written in HEBREW.... you didn't indicate what that has to do with anything, why that is related to anything in this thread or to any point in this thread, but obviously you think it is critical since you made that point. Okay. Document your point as true.... and state why it is critical to this discussion. Just document that all 27 books were originally penned in Hebrew, that all our oldest manuscripts of them are in Hebrew. Or do you think we are all gullible fools and that none of us think truth matters? Or maybe you were just expressing a personal, baseless opinion in passing that had nothing to do with anything (in which case, it would be helpful to let us know).




Back to the issue of the thread: I believe that in justification (narrow), it's Sola Gratia (God's unconditional love, mercy and favor) - Solus Christus (Christ alone being The Savior - not self; HIS works accomplish this) - Sola Fide (which are apprehended by means of God's gift of faith/trust/reliance)..... Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as one united, undivided doctrine. It's what makes me Protestant in theology. For God so loved the world (Sola Gratia) that He gave His only begotten son (Solus Christus) that whosoever believes in Him (Sola Fide) will not parish but has everlasting life. Jesus as THE Savior (not part Savior, not failed Savior, not just a helper, not just a possibility maker but THE Savior - sole, alone). Thus, in THAT context (and as I noted, the OP fails to tell us the context he has in mind), works DO save but they are CHRIST'S works that save - not our own, which of course means that Jesus is the Savior rather than self. Whether I type that in English, Latin, Greek or Hebrew - it's the very same view, the identical affirmation.

I don't deny that we have works.... I don't even deny that they have some quality (at least vis-a-vis other people in our lives together in this fallen world), I affirm that OUR works do have relevance in some things.....I just deny that OUR works justify ourselves before God making Christ not the Savior but a joke, a waste. OUR works certainly have a role in discipleship, in living out our Christian faith - but that's a whole other subject (again, that issue of context - an issue the opening poster never gave). IMO, justification (narrow) - salvation in that sense - is ENTIRELY Jesus' doing, the result of HIS works, which is why I affirm HIM as the Savior. But in all other things, MY works are important and certainly do play a role.



Pax Christi



- Josiah




.