Posted on 06/17/2014 4:24:37 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Real Christians say “to God be the glory for ever and ever”. Why do Catholics insist on giving the glory to man?
Such is the recourse of souls who assert they are right because their cult said they are right, and "desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm," (1 Timothy 1:7) and who even allows one can be saved by works alone!
For faced with apparent contradictions, the underlying issue at hand becomes how they are reconciled, and thus in what sense does James contradict Genesis and Romans in stating "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," since taken at face value this would contradict Gn. 15:6 which has Abraham justified by faith before offering up Issac, and
"to him that worketh not , but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness, (Romans 4:5)
and
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Romans 3:28)
and
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
and
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
amounts to saying a man is justified by faith alone in the appropriative sense, but not by a kind of faith that remains alone, as in one which will not produce works, which inert faith is what Reformers preached against , contrary to the RC strawman of sola fide.
For indeed, the noninfallible interpretation that has Paul's exclusion of works as only referring to works of the law or pagan works (as the basis for obtaining justification) is invalid, since not only do other texts broadly exclude works-merit as the basis for justification, though believers are rewarded for them, but as expressed, the reason it is "the works of the Law" which is often used is because, "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21) In other word, is there was a system of justification by merit of works-righteousness then it the Law would be it, and its exclusion covers all systems of justification by works as making one good enough to be with God.
But as explained, in the context of what kind of faith is salvific ("though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" Ja. 2:14) - can a faith that is merely professed, versus expressed (given opportunity as in the example that follows), save one - the answers is no, such a faith cannot save him. And thus the conclusion "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," (James 2:24) meaning works must follow faith if it is to be considered justificatory, but which not that of works obtaining justification, but by a faith that produces works, again, given opportunity, or else Rome's baptism by desire must even be disallowed.
Paul himself distinguished btwn hearers and doers, while teaching it is the faith that is behind works that appropriates justification. For while it is faith the appropriates justification, yet to believe is to obey, and thus "the doers of the law (in its true sense) shall be justified, not hearers only," (Rm. 2:13) as this "doing" testifies to them being true believers, but not earning salvation, and likewise it is said, the Lord Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:9)
But of course the unlearned can grasp at James 2:24 and compel it as teaching that it is the merit of works and his level of holiness that actually justifies one as the basis by which he gains eternal life and entrance into Heaven. And which is where the heresy begins, and begins with a soul being made accepted in the Beloved on the basis of his own personal holiness and ends up with one suffering in purgatory until he becomes god enough to enter Heaven, all under the Roman rubric of grace.
Which, outside of the forgiveness part, is essentially teaching justification by the law thru grace, that as under the Law one was accepted by God on the basis of his works, so one is under the Catholic system, except grace become a means to do the works and attain the level of perfection needed to enter glory.
And which essentially can mean rendering texts which actually deal with whether it is real faith or the merit of works to read like,
"Abraham believed and offered up Issac, God, and it made him righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that works works of charity in believing on him that justifieth the Godly, his faith and works earn him righteousness.
By works of righteousness which we have done in faith we are saved according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost by which we do works which merit us salvation.
For by grace are ye saved through works of faith and personal holiness; it is the earned gift of God: Not obtained by faith but by works done in grace, so that any Catholic should boast of his church which dispensed grace which they cooperated with.
Other texts are also invoked which show God rewarding believers for their works as it being fitting to reward them, but which is not that of works earning the gift of eternal life by his works making him worthy to enter Heaven, but that of God in His covenantal grace rewarding believers for their faith (Heb. 10:34) as manifested by its effects, wrought by God thru them, though apart from being made "accepted in the Beloved" by pure grace - faith being counted for righteousness - then they really deserve damnation.
Yet in forcing James 2:24 etc. to exclude justification being obtained by faith alone before it expresses faith, then to be consistent the RC must contradict an accommodationist aspect of the soteriology of his own church. For as shown, even Rome allows for justification by faith without works via contritio caritate perfecta, and thus herself contradicts the simpletons proof text, "we are not justified by faith alone," and as Swan provides , Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone, ” with Robert Bellarmine listing eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3): Origen, Hilary, Basil , Ambrosiaster (through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God), etc.
Yet as said, faith and works go together like light and heat normally do. And thus the exhortations in such places as Hebrews to faith also exist with exhortations to works, as the former beget the latter. And and while they are already sanctified in Christ, and have boldness to enter the holy of holies to commune with God by the sinless shed blood of Christ, yet they are called to live that out, and seek to fully posses practically that holiness which is imputed to them, which is a necessary primary testimony to true faith. (10:14,19; Heb. 12:14)
Why do you think Luther despised James? Well let me tell you. James said what Luther, in his all knowing infinite wisdom, refuses to believe. FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD.
And it’s really silly and fruitless your pathetic and futile attempt to justify sola scriptura.
“In the beginning was the Word...........”
John is not talking about the written word. The teachings of Jesus Christ were taught (tradition) long before one word was written down by an apostle.
There is no contradiction even in appearance. Nowhere does St. Paul say that we are justified by faith alone. Both inspired authors are thoroughly Catholic. If Luther felt that there was a contradiction, instead of inventing a new religion he should have listened to how the Fathers of the Church defined the roles of faith and good works in justification by grace alone.
Both Sola Scripture and Sola Fide crumble when seen through the light of the Holy Scripture.
Phase 2: pretend to not understand the issue and instead argue something unconnected to it logically; in short, play dumb. Using long sentences with complicated structure helps in that mimicry.
See explanation of phases of Protestant obfuscation here.
Honestly, your posts have continued to provide testimony on why one should not be a RC. Here your ignorance in parroting another Catholic canard is inexcusable, it has been often shown that Luther preached just what you say he denied, that that a faith that does not show itself in works is not salvific. But of course you would need the benefit of a far better source to know that, rather than the vindictive RC quote miners.
And who also seem to think that discrediting Luther somehow impugns our faith, as if we followed him as a pope, when he was quite Catholic, while manifestly immoral popes and their often wicked ways are dismissed by RCs as not affecting the claims of Rome.
But which is not surprising in cultic devotion.
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
>This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]
>“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]
>“Thus faith casts itself on God, and breaks forth and becomes certain through its works. When this takes place a person becomes known to me and to other people. For when I thus break forth I spare neither man nor devil, I cast myself down, and will have nothing to do with lofty affairs, and will regard myself as the poorest sinner on earth. This assures me of my, faith. For this is what it says: “This man went down to his house justified.” Thus we attribute salvation as the principal thing to faith, and works as the witnesses of faith. They make one so certain that he concludes from the outward life that the faith is genuine.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]
>“Thus, faith must be exercised, worked and polished; be purified by fire, like gold. Faith, the great gift and treasure from God, must express itself and triumph in the certainty that it is right before God and man, and before angels, devils and the whole world. Just as a jewel is not to be concealed, but to be worn in sight, so also, will and must faith be worn and exhibited, as it is written in 1 Peter 1, 7: “That the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by fire,” etc.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2:245-246]
>In those therefore in whom we cannot realize good works, we can immediately say and conclude: they heard of faith, but it did not sink into good soil. For if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, “the kingdom of God is not in word but in power.” It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]
>“All believers are like poor Lazarus; and every believer is a true Lazarus, for he is of the same faith, mind and will, as Lazarus. And whoever will not be a Lazarus, will surely have his portion with the rich glutton in the flames of hell. For we all must like Lazarus trust in God, surrender ourselves to him to work in us according to his own good pleasure, and be ready to serve all men. And although we all do not suffer from such sores and poverty, yet the same mind and will must be in us, that were in Lazarus, cheerfully to bear such things, wherever God wills it.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:25]
>“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]
>“Works are a certain sign, like a seal on a letter, which make me certain that my faith is genuine. [cf. 1Jn. 5:13] As a result if I examine my heart and find that my works are done in love, then I am certain that my faith is genuine. If I forgive, then my forgiving makes me certain that my faith is genuine and assures me and demonstrates my faith to me.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 247, footnote 106]
>“Hence the beginning of goodness or Godliness is not in us, but in the Word of God. God must first let his Word sound in our hearts by which we learn to know and to believe him, and afterwards do good works.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:339]
>“When works follow it becomes apparent that we have faith…” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 247, footnote 106
“..that alone can be called Christian faith, which believes without wavering that Christ is the Saviour not only to Peter and to the saints but also to you....Such a faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present: for where faith is, there the Holy Ghost is and must work love and good works.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:21-22]
>“For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present. Therefore man knows by the fruits what kind of a tree it is, and it is proved by love and deed whether Christ is in him and he believes in Christ. As St. Peter says in 2 Pet. 1, 10: “Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble,” that is, if you bravely practice good works you will be sure and cannot doubt that God has called and chosen you.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]
>“But here we must take to heart the good example of Christ in that he appeals to his works, even as the tree is known by its fruits, thus rebuking all false teachers, the pope, bishops, priests and monks to appear in the future and shield themselves by his name, saying, “We are Christians;” just as the pope is boasting that he is the vicar of Christ. Here we have it stated that where the works are absent, there is also no Christ. Christ is a living, active and fruit- bearing character who does not rest, but works unceasingly wherever he is. Therefore, those bishops and teachers that are not doing the works of Christ, we should avoid and consider as wolves.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 1:93]
>Christ is the priest, all men are spiritual lepers because of unbelief; but when we come to faith in him he touches us With his hand, gives and lays upon us his merit and we become clean and whole without any merit on our part whatever. We are therefore to show our gratitude to him and acknowledge that we have not become pious by our own works, but through his grace, then our course will be right before God...[Sermons of Luther 1:152]
>“For if your heart is in the state of faith that you know your God has revealed himself to you to be so good and merciful, without thy merit, and purely gratuitously, while you were still his enemy and a child of eternal wrath; if you believe this, you cannot refrain from showing yourself so to your neighbor; and do all out of love to God and for the welfare of your neighbor. Therefore, see to it that you make no distinction between friend and foe, the worthy and the unworthy; for you see that all who were here mentioned, have merited from us something different than that we should love and do them good. And the Lord also teaches this, when in Luke 6:35 he says: “But love your enemies, and do good unto them, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:101]
>“Therefore we must close our eyes, not look at our works, whether they be great, small, honorable, contemptible, spiritual, temporal or what kind of an appearance and name they may have upon earth; but look to the command and to the obedience in the works. Do they govern you, then the work also is truly right and precious, and completely godly, although it springs forth as insignificant as a straw. However, if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead...And St. Peter says, Ye are to be as faithful, good shepherds or administrators of the manifold grace of God; so that each one may serve the other, and be helpful to him by means of what he has received, 1 Peter 4:10. See, here Peter says the grace and gifts of God are not one but manifold, and each is to tend to his own, develop the same and through them be of service to others.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]
In addition, upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law, Luther responded,
>And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Martin Luther, [”A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way”, http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran
And as Cardinal Avery Dulles, states, “Catholics have often depicted Lutherans as teaching that justification is a mere declaration on God's part that leaves the justified person as much a sinner as before. They also suspect Lutherans of holding that the justified are neither required nor able to perform good works. This, as I understand it, has never been the position of the Lutheran churches.” (http://www.pcj.edu/journal/essays/dulles9-1.htm)
Even Calvin states in his Institutes, “With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31)” (p. 592); and, “surely no one can embrace the grace of the gospel without betaking himself from the errors of past life into the right way, applying his whole effort to the practice of repentance” (Book III, p. 593). “Repentance has its foundation in the gospel, which faith embraces” ( Book III, Chapter 3, p. 593)
And in his Commentaries, Calvin understands that, “The proposition that faith without works justifies by itself is false, because faith without is void.” (John Calvin, Commentaries, Volumes I-XXII (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), Commentary on Ezekiel 18:14-17)
See, this is why your "apologetic" must fail. That is a patently false accusation. I have understood it exactly the way Daniel understands it. This understanding is both honest, and I believe friendlier to the text. Do you honestly think God will bless a ministry founded on false accusation? Yes, we disagree. The disagreement is REAL. We really SEE it the way we're saying it. There is no pretense here. I urge you to reconsider this approach. It violates the rules of the forum (making it personal) and it violates common decency, without which you have no chance of making a case with fair-minded individuals. Not that I want you to. Your system is fatally defective. Who I am sad for are the lurkers. There might be atheists, or Muslims, or literal pagans looking over these pages. I am embarrassed on their behalf that such vile discourse is associated in any way with the name of Christ.
You really understand “justification is by faith alone” and “justification by faith alone is possible” to be equivalent statements friendlier to the text?
Your continued copying and pasting that make War and Peace look small doesn’t impress me in the least. Sola Scipural is a fraud. Always has been a fraud and always will be a fraud. And speaking of Luther he called the Pope (his pope, as Luther was a Catholic), a fraud and called him satan. Classic definition of a heretic. It is a miracle he didn’t lose his head. But he sure did love Mary, like all good Catholics. Can you imagine that?
1Co 13:1-3 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (2) And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (3) And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
As I showed in 169, Daniel substituted the problem with another not being argued.
Another assertion in lieu of an argument.
And speaking of Luther he called the Pope (his pope, as Luther was a Catholic), a fraud and called him satan. Classic definition of a heretic. It is a miracle he didn’t lose his head.
Yes, a miracle, and by your affirmation that he normally would have, then you have once again provided another testimony to the falsehood of Rome being the one true church.
Keep it up!
But he sure did love Mary, like all good Catholics. Can you imagine that?
Which all good Prots do, that is the holy Mary of Scripture, versus the one of Rome that is largely not in Scripture but invented.
Moreover, as a good Prot, he grew more in his understanding of Scripture and of the place of Mary, but per usual, no doubt your idea of Mary is based upon the censured and biased propaganda provided by papists polemics. See here .
But like their church, reality is what the RC apologist sees it as, and thus careful analysis which reconciles the texts is obfuscation, etc., while RC theology abounds with qualifications and distinctions such as btwn between "actual grace" and "sanctifying grace" and Latira, and hyperdulia, and "no salvation outside submission to the pope" before Vatican 2; then "separated brethren/members of Christ's body" and "Catholics and Muslims adore the same God (god)"
[There are a] multiplicity of theological positions present within the Catholic Church. These positions vary according to which premises or postulates are used in reflecting on the sources of revelation, according to the methodology employed, and according to the cultural tradition within which theology does its speculation. On the first bases, the two principal philosophical premises are the Platonic, stressed in Augustinianaism; and the Aristotelian, emphasized in Thomism. On the second level, theologies differ in terms of their mainly biblical, or doctrinal, or historical, or pastoral methodology. And on the third basis, the culture of a people helps to shape the theology they develop, as between the more mystical East and the more practical West, or the more reflective Mediterranean and the more scientific Anglo-Saxon. — http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=35612
I am embarrassed on their behalf that such vile discourse is associated in any way with the name of Christ.
Indeed, as even if such RC assertions are correct, in the light of their often-seen reactionary venom in response to reasoned opposition, of haughty arrogance and despiteful scorn that is resorted to, who would want what they have?
I am sorry, but I have searched this page looking for evidence of this alleged obfuscatory shift of arguments and cannot even begin to figure out where you got them from. I have no idea what you are talking about. I have read Daniel’s posts and do not get from them what you apparently are getting. I am disappointed in myself for that, because I would sincerely like to grasp where this perception gap is occurring, because maybe then I could help clear it up.
But at this moment I’m not getting it. Daniel is simply restating seven ways till Sunday the standard Reformation approach to the multidimensional nature of justification, and adding insight from Catholic thinkers as an added benefit. Even if I put on my “try to think like a Catholic to understand this” hat, it’s not working for me. There is no pretense in anything he has said, nor myself nor the others recently here. Can we only convince you we are not “pretending” if we surrender our principles and pretend to agree with you?
The Reformation doctrine is “justification is by faith alone”. That is a universal statement. It is not “justification is sometime by faith alone”; it is not “justification is something that requires faith”. That universal statement is is in flat contradiction with the Bible where it says the exact opposite, also as universal statement: “justification is not by faith alone”.
The obfuscatory shift is when either proof-texts where works of law or for temporary gain are said to teach the opposite of James 2:24; or, as I referred to in 169, where particular incidents of salvation such as faith imputed as righteousness to Abraham are said to teach the opposite of James.
Another obfuscatory method is to instead argue against justification by works alone.
Another is to explain verbosely how James 2:24 does not say what it says.
Yet another is to pretend you don’t understand what has been explained.
When I meet someone for the first time and point out that Protestantism is in contradiction with the Holy Scripture, I see a great internal work beginning in him. I also see him repeating what he probably heard from his pastor or read on the Internet. Neither of that is an attempt at obfuscation: the man is simply learning new things and it is painful, and he is an earnest Christian man. But when I know the poster for years, and he repeats failing arguments knowing ahead of time their falsity, then that is no longer changing conscience but is a desire to make an appearance of making a logical argument for the sake of avoiding embarrassment or some other unwholesome goal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.