Posted on 09/11/2019 10:52:15 AM PDT by Gamecock
I like those verses. If anybody is truly searching for the answer, it is in those verses.
Both were clear that works follow and testify to salvation not the other way around. Christ said “it is finished” from the cross. Not it is begun for those that behave well enough to complete what I have started.
What works do you have to do?
Both Jesus and St. Paul are abundantly clear on the things we must do and must avoid to inherit the kingdom of God. St. Paul even provides lists of them, most prominently in Galatians.
How many do you have to do?
God doesn't give us numbers or amounts, so we don't have to worry about it. It is not our concern.
Salvation now becomes incumbent upon your actions and not the one time sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
That is a false dichotomy. It is not either or, it is both and, as Scripture abundantly makes clear.
I’m satisfied that it cannot be shown that “faith alone” can be found in the Bible (except in James 2:24 where it says we are NOT saved by faith alone). Thanks for your replies everyone.
What's key here is the passive tense of this participle.
The meaning is the subject, that is the individual who is being justified, is being acted upon by an outside force, in this case God.
It is He Who justifies us....there is nothing we can do but have faith.
The passive tense is used a number of time by Paul in Romans to convey this message.
In Romans 3:24 the passive tense is used again in the phrase "being justified".
In Ephesians 2:8, the word saved is also in the passive tense. It is clear in this passage it is by His grace we are saved through faith.
Paul further clarifies this by noting it is not of yourselves nor works so none may boast.
IF there was some work we could do or had to do it would give us room to boast.
But as this is His grace that allows us to be saved through faith and not works, then it can only be by faith alone we are saved.
The Scriptures don't contradict themselves.
I do, however, believe they taught two reasons to live holy lives: one is to give glory to God, and the other is to make our witness more sound.
For instance, Paul wrote that he worked as a tent maker to make his witness and his teachings have more appeal. It's the same for his celibacy -- so he can be more focused on God's work. Neither of those were requirements, but they were supplements.
The reason I like the Old Testament transition to New Testament argument for sola fide is I tend to think twice before putting a lot into one-liner verse interpretations. To me, context is soooooo important.
So I'd argue that my conduct today doesn't relate to my salvation --- except how my own experiences might impact my own faith in the future. I say my conduct today has a large impact on the faith of the people around me, as I witness to them and they need to know that the Christians around them have a faith that's worth living. That includes both non-Christians and people who are already Christians. (Evidently I lean a bit Arminian instead of Calvinist.)
For what it's worth, though I'm Protestant I've never heard one sermon or read one teaching that says we shouldn't live our faith. So don't take my faith alone argument as a choice between faith or works. You could say us Protestants teach both faith and works like Catholics do, only we say it the works doesn't relate to salvation. We think it leads to pride in our works, which is very dangerous. Salvation is a grace thing -- why we call it "salvation" instead of "reward".
In the end, God opens the eyes of those who seek him.
Those who don’t seek truth, but instead to justify their own religion or works, remain in darkness and are never justified, nor know Him.
Thanks. For what it's worth, I too had an experience similar to the author's. I didn't come from a Catholic background like the author. I became a Christian as a teenager from a Protestant teenager telling me about Christ. I've been serious about the Lord ever since and always with a Protestant bent.
But here in Alabama decades ago I realized that some of the different churches taught bad things about each other across denominations. I recognized this as a teenager, as did many of my friends whom were in other denominations. We read the Bible on our own and visited each others' churches / Bible studies a lot. We concluded that many of the churches cherry picked the verses to teach a few tangent points instead of reading an entire chapter or entire book to teach a more holistic topic.
That put me on a quest to learn as much as I could about the Bible, how the different English translations were done, how original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words were used, what was going on in the lives of the people at the times different portions were written, etc. That also put me on a quest to learn about church history, i.e. how much of my own beliefs in 70+% Protestant Alabama was tainted or whatever by whatever beliefs might have changed since the New Testament scripture were written.
What I found was very similar to what the author found. Some of our practices have changed over the years (i.e. Protestants are the ones who made worship music during a service a regular thing). But Martin Luther's 5 Solas mirrored the summaries of teachings on how our early church fathers summarized the Bible. A strong argument could be made that the 5 Solas teaching of Luther was a simple but effective attempt to bring the core teachings back to what the western church believe pre Pope Leo.
Take for instance the phrase "apostolic succession". We've all heard that phrase used to argue for the authority of the Pope and sometimes for the authority of priests. But our early church fathers used that phrase not for those purposes, but to make a case that it was only through scripture we can know the true teachings. In other words, the phrase "apostolic succession" used by Catholics today was originally used for a sola scriptura argument. Only the teachings that succeeded from the apostles can be known to be truly accurate.
So us Protestants shouldn't completely turn away Catholic tradition. I argue that we can embrace it as long as we get to the source of the traditions and know how they were originally intended, not how they were abused for power.
I’m confused. So all those times Jesus says, “Love your neighbor,” he didn’t mean it actually did anything since he was going to suffer and die and redeem me no matter what? Even the devil believes.
“I’m confused. So all those times Jesus says, “Love your neighbor,” he didn’t mean it actually did anything since he was going to suffer and die and redeem me no matter what? Even the devil believes.
........
Christ said this as a Jew while living under the Law, fulfilling the Law, and as a summary of the demands of the Law.
And said this before His sacrifice in the cross paid the penalty for sin.
He redeems no one “no matter what.”
He redeems those who entrust themselves to Him alone for salvation.
Catholicism was very good for me when I was young, in the ‘50s-60’s. It eventually taught me that my salvation does not require a human intermediary between me and God.
You mean like this?
But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without you willing it. -- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 169
Was he teaching a false Gospel?
As if there is such peace and unanimity among Protestants.
Don't bother, it is no there. "Faith alone" is an invention by Martin Luther in the 15th century and is contrary to what the Bible teaches.
Not really.
See, for example, Ignatius of Antioch on the authority of the bishop.
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.