Though we will probably remain at an impasse over many issues for the foreseeable future, I have reconsidered your complaint over my accusation that you “justify the torture and murder of those who disagree with you.” You asserted that I would be unable to substantiate this. And I have decided to concede the point.
I also recognize that you did earlier allow that “if you want to call that his faith, fine” in #185.
In my zeal to force your hand, I demanded that you defend your position, by insisting that you also condemn Tyndale’s accusers and executioners. But, just as I support the Constitutional protections to allow freedom of religion and to prevent cruel and unusual punishments, I must also recognize that people have the right to express their opinions and also to not be forced to testify against themselves.
So, while I do not follow the logic of your position on Tyndale, I withdraw my harsh allegation against your moral character. I leave that to yourself and God. It is not my place to condemn you for words that you have not actually uttered. For me to utter them and put these words in your mouth does constitute a straw man argument.
Speaking of straw, I am aware of what you said about the book of James. Luther, if my memory serves me, did not consider it canon and called it a work of “straw.” It appears that he had trouble reconciling his understanding of the Pauline epistles and the writings of James.
We could probably debate endlessly over the correct understanding of justification. I will state a brief overview of my position on this topic. I do not expect to convince you, but I intend to reply to what you asserted thus far.
You posted this link:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/12/18/the-obedience-of-faith/
It contains this statement:
“The coming of God’s Messiah is sheer grace – a grace that disrupts established patterns and powers, not to destroy, but to repair and make whole. ‘The obedience of faith’ is the one possible response to the awe-filled deed God has wrought in Jesus Christ.”
While I do not disagree with this statement, I wish to show how it is possible to twist a person’s words as a pretext for heresy. “Sheer” means “nothing other than.” So sheer grace is no different than saying “grace alone.”
If a Protestant such as Tyndale advocates “faith alone” and “grace alone” it is clear that he recognizes that grace and faith operate together and are not “alone” in every sense of the word. Grace alone, which is another way that a person could say that salvation is sheerly by grace, refers to the Bible doctrine that we do not earn our salvation. Our redemption was paid for with the life of Christ, i.e. His blood, and nothing else. His blood paid the full price. It is not like a coupon where we pay a discounted rate for some purchase. We do not pay anything for our redemption. It might be said that we owe a debt of love and gratefulness, but it is a debt we can never repay.
I am glad to have learned some things through our debate. I learned more about Tyndale, Joan of Arc, Thomas More, the Reformation, and even Catholic doctrine. I am glad to learn that the official Catholic doctrine is that no one can earn their salvation. It was the complaint of abuses and misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine that led to the Reformation movement, in my opinion.
So statements like “faith alone” were specifically in response to these issues. In context, faith alone does not refer to the wrong idea that faith abides alone and is not accompanied by other things including works. Justification (being called just) by God happens when someone believes, and the works follow. Contextually he is addressing the issue of salvation being a grace, i.e. a gift, rather than something earned like wages. Death is the wages of sin, but eternal life is a gift.
James, on the other hand is not comparing works and grace, but he is contrasting faith that works with faith that does not. He is addressing the qualitative difference between faith that saves and faith that does not. Everyone believes in something. But a mental or verbal assent, even if correct, is not enough to qualify as saving faith. Paul describes a sincere faith. Does this mean that he demands two qualities: faith and sincerity? Do we evaluate our faith based on how sincere we feel? No. But not all faith is saving faith. James says not to have faith in Christ with the hypocrisy of “respect of persons.” He also clarifies that saving faith is faith that works. Paul says the same thing by telling us that those who are chosen for salvation are chosen to do good works. Paul speaks of justification (being declared righteous) by God. James speaks of being declared righteous or just by our works. That is, our works justify us. Our works speak about our faith, and either confirm or deny the reality of genuine faith.
Works of faith declare us to be just or righteous. When God declares a man just on the basis of faith rather than works, He is accounting the man to be forgiven and to have received the imputed righteousness of Christ. This happens when a person believes the Gospel, putting his faith in Christ for salvation. This response to God’s foreknowledge and calling are the starting point of salvation, which is a process of transformation. Salvation begins with forgiveness, continues with justification and sanctification, and culminates with glorification at the resurrection when Christ returns. So Paul says “our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.”
The justification by God which Paul describes is one in which we become just by God declaring it so. The justification James describes is one in which a true believer is acting in accordance with his faith, and his works validate that he is a just man. Paul’s justification is about a sinner becoming a righteous man. James’ justification describes how the man who has been made righteous by faith will act consistently with this reality. Paul describes “good works” that follow justification by faith, while James describes works of faith (not necessarily “good works”) that prove that genuine faith resides in a person’s heart rather than merely being lip-service.
Back to the article you linked. “’The obedience of faith’ is the one possible response to the awe-filled deed God has wrought in Jesus Christ.” Notice the word “one.” Is this literally true? Is this not the very heresy that Tyndale was accused of? Faith is the one response. No. Contextually it is correct. Of course faith does not stand by itself, even if it is the “one” response expected and required.
Why put forward such a doctrinal statement as “faith alone?” It is simply a way to state that there is one sole distinguishing factor that separates those who have received Christ from those who have not. This only applies to those whose faith is in Christ through the message of the Gospel. The thief on the cross did not need to come down off of the cross and do some works in order to have received Christ’s forgiveness. He did not need to do penance. He did not need to do acts of charity or give anything in order to receive the free gift of eternal life. But of course we immediately see the evidence that his faith is real based on his change of demeanor and words that he says following his belief.
Faith alone, does not exclude grace, works, the blood of Christ, repentance, the agency of the Holy Spirit, or any other essential element of our salvation. It is simply a statement of the criteria of receiving the gift of eternal life. Saving faith has many non-optional qualities. It is a faith that works. It is a faith that perseveres. It is a sincere faith. It is a faith in Christ. It is a faith in the cross. It is a faith in the Gospel. It is a faith in the truth of God’s Word. It is a faith in the faithfulness of God. These are not separate qualities but part of a unity that constitutes the singular requirement for receiving the gift of eternal life: faith.
The relationship between a believer with the law of God is in stark contrast with that of the unbeliever. For believers, the law of bondage has been replaced with the “law of liberty” as James describes in James 2. The law of the knowledge of sin has been replaced with the “law of faith” as Paul describes in Romans 3. The handwritten law has been replaced by the law God has written on our hearts in Hebrews 10:16. The law of wrath (Romans 4:15) has been replaced by the law of love (Romans 13:10).
Perhaps you’re being conciliatory, great. The issues have always been and will always be the same:
1) Tyndale was a heretic.
2) I never said what you claim I said.
If you want to say, or believe, Tyndale was not a heretic, you are free to do so. You also can believe the moon is made of cheese if you like.
What was reprehensible about what you posted, however, was the untruth - the absolute falsehood - you posted: “No one here is justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology, except you.”
What happened after you posted that false statement? I called you on it and noted that YOU would prove it was false by never being able to substantiate it.
But rather than admit the obvious, that if you can’t substantiate it that means it was a falsehood, you made a Clintonesque statement: “You asserted that I would be unable to substantiate this. And I have decided to concede the point.”
What point? Only, apparently, the point that you would not be able to substantiate it and not the point that it would mean you posted a falsehood. In any case, I was absolutely right and you were absolutely wrong. The difference is that I said that was the case and you denied it - until you essentially just now admitted it.
Did you think I was bragging when I said I made no errors in the thread? I was not. It was simply a statement of fact. And you’re proving it.
You wrote: “So, while I do not follow the logic of your position on Tyndale, I withdraw my harsh allegation against your moral character.”
The harshness of the allegation was never the issue. Did Jesus correctly label the Pharisees as vipers or not? I don’t care about the harshness if the harshness is deserved. What matters was this: Was it TRUE??? And it was not. Your claim was false and I don’t see how any rational person could ever claim that he or she - for even a single minute - thought otherwise.
“In my zeal to force your hand, I demanded that you defend your position, by insisting that you also condemn Tyndale’s accusers and executioners.”
I suggest you give that up as a tactic. Stick to the truth instead. You’ll never go wrong. There is zero chance of you or anyone here opposed to the Catholic faith ever being able to “force my hand” in anything or on any issue. I simply don’t work that way. I almost always know what an anti-Catholic will do or say before he does it. It’s their programming. They have to follow their programming and once you see it unfold a few dozen times it becomes almost always predictable. It’s all just so predictable.
“It appears that he had trouble reconciling his understanding of the Pauline epistles and the writings of James.”
True. And what does that mean for Protestantism? If Luther was right and James was wrong, where does that leave Protestantism on sola sciptura let alone sola fide as Luther understood it? If James was right and Luther was wrong, where does that leave Protestantism since he created it? There is no such quandary in Catholicism. Protestants may not like Catholic interpretations of scripture but you never heard of Jesus (the founder of the Catholic Church) or St. Peter disagreeing with a canonical book of the Bible!
Now, about the rest of your post. At first glance, I agree with much of it and have nothing to add on that score. You did write this, however: “I am glad to have learned some things through our debate. I learned more about Tyndale, Joan of Arc, Thomas More, the Reformation, and even Catholic doctrine. I am glad to learn that the official Catholic doctrine is that no one can earn their salvation.”
I am glad you learned those things. You know what I learned? Essentially NOTHING. I’m not trying to be rude - nor am I simply succeeding in being rude if that was your natural retort. I am just pointing out a fact: I essentially learned nothing from this entire exchange.
I already knew a great deal about Tyndale.
I knew Tyndale was a heretic.
I knew he was executed for heresy.
I knew the timeline of events about Tyndale. And you admitted you did not.
I already knew about St. Joan of Arc.
I already knew about the martyr St. Thomas More.
I already knew about Catholic doctrine.
I already knew about Martin Luther and many of his views on salvation and the canon.
I already knew about the relationship between faith, works and grace.
I already knew about Protestant views about the relationship between faith, works and grace.
I already knew how those who oppose the Catholic faith think and work and even try to manipulate people (”...force your hand...”).
I essentially learned nothing from this entire exchange. I can honestly say I learn things at FreeRepublic every day, but that didn’t happen in this exchange.
I hope you keep learning. Where there’s life, there’s hope.