Another Gospel “faith alone”!

[BreadOfLife]

I stand corrected, I was thinking of Constantine in the Fourth Century. However, that is the history of YOUR church … a tale of men clawing dogma by dogma and burned dissident by burned dissident ever further from the Church found in the Book of Acts by Jesus and the Apostles. My church begins with men reading the word of God in their native tongue, re-discovering the Words of God, and learning just how apostate Rome had become.

And there was NEVER a sin committed by a Protestant leader or one in the congregation – correct?

YOURS is an arrogant position that is both unrealistic and sully.

Since I have explained it twice and you are incapable of listening when you are stuck in “waiting to speak” mode … there is nothing further to be gained by this non-conversation.

In other words – you simply CANNOT offer a cohesive argument against Tradition – s you are bowing out of the conversation.

Concession noted . . .

 

[atpollard]

You're dead wrong (again). By definition, the queen in the Davidic Kingdom was the mother of the king

Quote a scripture verse mentioning David's mother ... this typological Queen.
(Wait, let me guess ... it was passed down in sacred Tradition and written down just when you needed it. No reason for skepticism here.)

[I know ... I am ignorant and wrong, blah, blah, blah.]

 

[Illuminator]

Hello.

The defense for infant baptism began because some started arguing against it. It was an accepted practice in the 1st century based on what Scripture says: baptize all, baptism equated to circumcision, and entire families were baptized.

That is why the argument FOR infant baptism began so early on (2nd century) in The Church because of those that started rejecting it. The heretics had to be put in their place.

Baptism is a Sacred Tradition; the exact method of baptism is not explicitly found in Scripture. One must look to the first century outside the Bible to see how the early church did it. Sadly, history is a bad word around here. I know of no other subject (baptism) that divides non-Catholics as much as this one. We don't need to guess and fill in the blanks. The teaching on Baptism hasn't changed in 2000 years. The evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

 

[Illuminator]

Quote a scripture verse mentioning David's mother ... this typological Queen.
(Wait, let me guess ... it was passed down in sacred Tradition and written down just when you needed it. No reason for skepticism here.)

[I know ... I am ignorant and wrong, blah, blah, blah.]

I'll give you scriptures, but you won't accept them anyway so it's pointless. Your mind is made up. For the benefit of the readers:
John 2:7 – Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf and responds to His mother’s request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.

Psalm 45:9 – the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.

1 Kings 2:17, 20 – in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. (not the king's wife) Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

1 Kings 2:18 – in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King’s followers. She is the Queen Mother (or “Gebirah”). Mary is our eternal Gebirah. (not the king's wife)

1 Kings 2:19 – in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. (not the king's wife) We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

1 Kings 15:13 – the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel’s royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.

2 Chron. 22:10 – here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY - Scripture Catholic

Try arguing from Scripture and not 18th century rhetoric, which is when all the diabolical anti-Mary nonsense began, in defiance of what the reformers taught.

 

[atpollard]

I'll give you scriptures, but you won't accept them anyway so it's pointless. Your mind is made up. For the benefit of the readers:
John 2:7 – Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf and responds to His mother’s request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.

Psalm 45:9 – the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.

1 Kings 2:17, 20 – in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. (not the king's wife) Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

1 Kings 2:18 – in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King’s followers. She is the Queen Mother (or “Gebirah”). Mary is our eternal Gebirah. (not the king's wife)

1 Kings 2:19 – in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. (not the king's wife) We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

1 Kings 15:13 – the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel’s royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.

2 Chron. 22:10 – here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY - Scripture Catholic

Try arguing from Scripture and not 18th century rhetoric, which is when all the diabolical anti-Mary nonsense began, in defiance of what the reformers taught.

Non sequitur (as expected).

I ask for a reference to DAVID’S MOTHER - whom you hold up as the archetype for Jesus’ Mother - and you offer:

• John 2:7 (Not David’s Mother … but John 2:5 is the best advice that Mary can give to anyone.)
  
• Psalm 45:9 (the king’s bride, not David’s Mother)
  
• 1 Kings 2:17-20 (Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, not David’s Mother)
  
• 1 Kings 15:13 (Maacah the mother of Asa, not David’s Mother)
  
• 2 Chron. 22:10 (Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah, not David’s Mother)

Jesus sits on the throne of David, so once again: Where is David’s mother as an example for Jesus’ mother?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Non sequitur (as expected).

I ask for a reference to DAVID’S MOTHER - whom you hold up as the archetype for Jesus’ Mother - and you offer:

• John 2:7 (Not David’s Mother … but John 2:5 is the best advice that Mary can give to anyone.)
  
• Psalm 45:9 (the king’s bride, not David’s Mother)
  
• 1 Kings 2:17-20 (Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, not David’s Mother)
  
• 1 Kings 15:13 (Maacah the mother of Asa, not David’s Mother)
  
• 2 Chron. 22:10 (Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah, not David’s Mother)

Jesus sits on the throne of David, so once again: Where is David’s mother as an example for Jesus’ mother?

Soooo, by YOUR logic – Jesus’s entire life would have to be an exact replica of David’s.

- Jesus’s mother was a virgin – David’s wasn’t.
- WHO did Jesus have killed so he could have his wife – as David did with Uriah and Bathsheba??
- David was married with children– Jesus wasn’t.
I could do this ALL day long but I think I’ve proven my point . . .

In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was not the Queen – but rather, his mother was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah (Gebira), meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel but only to those in the line of David. Solomon was David’s heir.

Jesus Christ is the heir of David. He is the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7:16; 23:5, and repeated to Mary in Luke 1:26-36. Just as the other kings in the line of David elevated their mother to the position of Queen/Gebirah. Mary’s son rules from the Kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem.

1 Kings 2:19-20 tells us:
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah; the king got up to meet her and bowed before her; he then sat down on his throne; a seat was brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down on his right.
“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.” “Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will not refuse you.”

To site on the right side of the King is the seat of powersecond only to the KING Himself.
Just as with the Davidic Kingdom, as Jesus is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother – the Heavenly Gebirah.

 

[atpollard]

Soooo, by YOUR logic – Jesus’s entire life would have to be an exact replica of David’s.

Nope. However, when someone claims that Mary is Jesus’ Queen just as David’s mother was David’s queen … I expect David’s mother to be David’s queen.

I also expect that if I ask for a verse about David’s mother, the many verses offered in response will be about David’s mother.

It seems a common theme among you Catholic Apologists that you make claims that when pressed you can’t back up and offer stacks of texts that talk about everything except what was asked.

I asked about David’s mother and nothing that your rude friend provided said ANYTHING about David’s mother … but now you jump in to make false accusations against me because I pointed out that nothing he posted addressed my question about David’s mother.

So TAG, you are it. Provide even a singe verse about DAVID’s MOTHER or admit that “MARY is Jesus’ Queen as David’s Mother was David’s Queen is made up balderdash.”

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nope. However, when someone claims that Mary is Jesus’ Queen just as David’s mother was David’s queen … I expect David’s mother to be David’s queen.

I also expect that if I ask for a verse about David’s mother, the many verses offered in response will be about David’s mother.

It seems a common theme among you Catholic Apologists that you make claims that when pressed you can’t back up and offer stacks of texts that talk about everything except what was asked.

I asked about David’s mother and nothing that your rude friend provided said ANYTHING about David’s mother … but now you jump in to make false accusations against me because I pointed out that nothing he posted addressed my question about David’s mother.

So TAG, you are it. Provide even a singe verse about DAVID’s MOTHER or admit that “MARY is Jesus’ Queen as David’s Mother was David’s Queen is made up balderdash.”

WRONG - that claim was NEVER made.
It was only made in YOUR mind. Go back and read the posts . . .

YOU demanded typological proof of David's mother as queen, fulfilled by Mary's Heavenly queenship.

@Illuminator simply stated the following:
"I'll give you scriptures, but you won't accept them anyway so it's pointless. Your mind is made up. For the benefit of the readers:"

Hr then, gave a litany of verses about the Davidic Kings who elevated their mothers to the position of Queen/Gebirah - for the benefit pof the READERS.

YOUR probem is that you can't off a SINGLE verse to refute the idea that Mary is the Heavenly Gebirah even though he has presented a solid, BIBLICAL case . . .

Let me give you a simple comparison, so that MAYBE you will understand - but I won't hold my breath:
George Wshington's wife was the FIRST First Lady.
ALL of the Presidents since then have been married and their wives were First Lady - EXCEPT for James Buchanan, who was a bachelor.

According to YOUR logic - he was never Presifent because his situatioon wasn't the same as the original man who held the office.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So TAG, you are it. Provide even a singe verse about DAVID’s MOTHER or admit that “MARY is Jesus’ Queen as David’s Mother was David’s Queen is made up balderdash.”

BALDERDASH.

In Rev. 12:1. Mary is shown in Heaven wearing a CROWN of 12 stars.

I know Protestants are fond of playing the “That's NOT Mary!” game – but until you can show me the Bible verse that somebody OTHER than Mary gave birth to Jesus – the “one destined to rule all nations with an iron rod” (Rev. 12:5) – then you LOSE that argument as well.

 

[Illuminator]

Nope. However, when someone claims that Mary is Jesus’ Queen just as David’s mother was David’s queen … I expect David’s mother to be David’s queen.

That is not what we claim. NT fulfilments of the OT are never duplications and you demand non-existing proof text. The Old is in the New Revealed, the New is in the Old Concealed. This is a fundamental reality well known to any serious Bible reader of any flavor. "when someone claims that Mary is Jesus’ Queen just as David’s mother was David’s queen" is a straw man fallacy because it's not what we claim.

I also expect that if I ask for a verse about David’s mother, the many verses offered in response will be about David’s mother.

You know as well as anybody there is little in the Bible about King David’s mother, Nitzevet bat Adael, much less of her political role. But that does not disprove the truth that the Davidic Kingdom was monarchical, and the prophets with unconditional promises from God concerning the Davidic Kingdom well beforehand.

It seems a common theme among you Catholic Apologists that you make claims that when pressed you can’t back up and offer stacks of texts that talk about everything except what was asked.

Your fallacious demands are polemical and dishonest. A king with no queen is unthinkable to any Israelite. I gave strong indications of the role of the king's mother right out of the Bible; your resistance is scripturally bankrupt.

I asked about David’s mother and nothing that your rude friend provided said ANYTHING about David’s mother … but now you jump in to make false accusations against me because I pointed out that nothing he posted addressed my question about David’s mother.

David was not permitted to eat with the rest of his family but was assigned to a separate table in the corner. He was given the task of shepherd because “they hoped that a wild beast would come and kill him while he was performing his duties,”2 and for this reason was sent to pasture in dangerous areas full of lions and bears.3

Only one individual throughout David’s youth was pained by his unjustified plight, and felt a deep and unconditional bond of love for the child whom she alone knew was undoubtedly pure.

This was King David’s mother, Nitzevet bat Adael, who felt the intensity of her youngest child’s pain and rejection as her own.

Torn and anguished by David’s unwarranted degradation, yet powerless to stop it, Nitzevet stood by the sidelines, in solidarity with him, shunned herself, as she too cried rivers of tears, awaiting the time when justice would be served.

It would take twenty-eight long years of assault and rejection, suffering and degradation until that justice would finally begin to materialize.​

https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm

I see a parallel (not a proof text duplication) with the suffering of King David's mother with the sufferings of King Jesus' mother.
Luke 2:33 And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him; 34 and Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this [child] is set for the falling and the rising of many in Israel; and for a sign which is spoken against; 35 yea and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul; that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.
Who else in scripture had their soul pierced? Here is a significance that you miss. Who are the "many hearts"?

So TAG, you are it. Provide even a singe verse about DAVID’s MOTHER or admit that “MARY is Jesus’ Queen as David’s Mother was David’s Queen is made up balderdash.”

The Davidic Kingdom was a monarchy/hierarchy that the historic Church is modelled after and brings to fulfillment. That's what you are trying to disprove.

 

[atpollard]

The Davidic Kingdom was a monarchy/hierarchy that the historic Church is modelled after and brings to fulfillment. That's what you are trying to disprove.

We were talking about MARY as the Queen Mother ... I can't keep running after these ever changing goal posts of yours.

You do realize that most of the "Davidic Kingdom" AFTER King David was evil (especially those "Queen Mothers"). That was why I thought Mary would be more like the mother of King David (a man after God's Heart) than the evil mother of Asa. However this is your dogma, so WHATEVER ...

I was once asked if I understood "typology". I did until I encountered how you use it ... the evil Queen Mother of Asa is a "typology" of Mary the Queen of Heaven???

 

[BreadOfLife]

We were talking about MARY as the Queen Mother ... I can't keep running after these ever changing goal posts of yours.

You do realize that most of the "Davidic Kingdom" AFTER King David was evil (especially those "Queen Mothers"). That was why I thought Mary would be more like the mother of King David (a man after God's Heart) than the evil mother of Asa. However this is your dogma, so WHATEVER ...

I was once asked if I understood "typology". I did until I encountered how you use it ... the evil Queen Mother of Asa is a "typology" of Mary the Queen of Heaven???

Ummmmm, Eve, the very FIRST sinner is also a type of Mary – just as Adam, her equally-sinful husband is a type of Jesus Christ, who is God and called the LAST Adam (1 Cor. 15:45-49.

Sooooo, what’s your point??
Your ignorance of OT Typology and NT fulfillment is astounding . . .

 

[Illuminator]

We were talking about MARY as the Queen Mother ... I can't keep running after these ever changing goal posts of yours.

You do realize that most of the "Davidic Kingdom" AFTER King David was evil (especially those "Queen Mothers"). That was why I thought Mary would be more like the mother of King David (a man after God's Heart)

I explained how David's mother was very much like the sufferings of Mary and you ignored it.

than the evil mother of Asa. However this is your dogma, so WHATEVER ...

No it isn't. It's a straw man dogma you invented.

I was once asked if I understood "typology". I did until I encountered how you use it ... the evil Queen Mother of Asa is a "typology" of Mary the Queen of Heaven???

Then show me a typology in the OT that focuses on sins the way you do. Moses, a "type" of Christ, was a murderer; David was a murderer and an adulterer. According to your logic, that would rule out Moses/David as a "type" of anything, which is absurd.

All the kings of Israel had their mother as queen, the pattern was set, and Jesus didn't change what was common knowledge by the people of the time.

 

[farouk]

It was a reference to 1 Corinthians 10:

23 “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything builds up. 24 No one is to seek his own good, but the good of the other person.

25 Eat everything that is sold in the meat market, without raising questions for the sake of conscience, 26 since the earth is the Lord’s, and all that is in it. 27 If any of the unbelievers invites you over and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you, without raising questions for the sake of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This is food from a sacrifice,” do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who told you, and for the sake of conscience. 29 I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another person’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thanksgiving, why am I criticized because of something for which I give thanks?

31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, 33 just as I also try to please everyone in everything, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.​

In the story, the man that ate meat (you in my analogy) was correct and free and right ... he was the stronger brother that knew the truth. The man that could not eat meat (or venerate Mary) because of his conscience was the weaker brother. The point of the story was not forcing someone to violate their conscience (because you love them) even if you are right and they are wrong. It is actually one of the things that help to DEFINE Baptists (called a Baptist Distinctive):

INDIVIDUAL SOUL LIBERTY
Every individual, believer and unbeliever, possesses the God-given privilege of free will having the liberty to choose what to believe. No one should be forced to any belief against his or her will. God speaks to individuals through His Word and His Spirit. Every person is individually responsible to God and will be judged according to the beliefs and practices he or she freely chooses. Freedom of choice demands personal responsibility.

John 3:36; Romans 14:4-12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9

• While Baptists have been known for holding their doctrines firmly and passionately, they also insisted on the rights of others to do the same. The news of radio personality Hank Hanegraaff, the “Bible Answer Man,” recently converting to Eastern Orthodoxy may have surprised many evangelicals, but Baptists support his liberty to convert. It was Baptists who first insisted on religious liberty in Rhode Island. It was Virginia Baptists who wrote to Thomas Jefferson insisting that the Constitution of the United States provide religious liberty for all. Baptists stand for religious liberty, so I am a Baptist. - Mark H. Ballard

Interesting historical point there........

I remember seeing a statue of Roger Williams of Rhode Island at the Reformation Monument i Geneva, Switzerland.

 

[St. SteVen]

Another gospel: “Faith alone”

Are you promoting salvation by works?

 

[Illuminator]

“Faith Alone” (Sola Fide in Latin from the Reformers) means “justification by faith without the need for religious works to earn that justification” … and comes from scripture (as did all of the Reformation arguments that challenged RCC Traditions) like this: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” [Ephesians 2:8-9]

So your task is not to refute the Reformers “Sola Fide” or those that follow in their footsteps by affirming justification by “Faith alone” … you must refute Paul and explain why Ephesians really means the opposite of what it says or why it needs to be ripped from scripture as NOT INSPIRED BY GOD.

not as a result of works does not refer to "good works", it means "works of the law".

James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to Gal. 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and Rom. 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.”
James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 and Eph. 2:8-9 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself.

This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g.,clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment. Here is more proof:

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 – Paul’s phrase for “works of the law” in the Greek is “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent (“hrvt ysm”) meaning “deeds of the law,” or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use “ergon nomou.” He uses “ergois agathois.” Therefore, Paul’s “works of the law” and James’ “works” are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.

Rom. 3:29 – Paul confirms that works of the law in this case refer to the Mosaic law by rhetorically asking “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” It does not mean “good works.”

Rom. 4:9-17 – Paul provides further discussion that righteousness God seeks in us does not come from Mosaic law, but through faith.
But notice that Paul also never says “faith alone.”

Rom. 9:31-32 – righteousness is pursued through faith, not works of the law. Again, “works of law” does not mean “good works.”

Rom. 11:6,11 – justification is no longer based on “works” of the law, but on the grace of Christ. Why? Because salvation is also for the Gentiles.

Rom. 15:9-12 – Paul explains that Christ also saves the Gentiles. Therefore, “works of law” are no longer required.

Acts 13:39 – Luke also confirms this by providing that we have been “freed from the law of Moses.” This is the “works of the law” from which we have been freed.

Rom. 3:20,28 – in addition to the Mosaic law, as stated above, “works of the law” can also refer to anything that makes God a debtor to us. This is because law requires payment, but grace is a free gift from God. Therefore, faith must be behind every good work in order for it to be a work of grace. If not, it is a work of debt, and we cannot obligate God to do anything for us.

Rom. 4:3-4 – Paul refers to works apart from God’s grace. We do not obligate God to give us grace like an employee obligates his employer to pay wages. Faith in Christ must be behind our good works in order for it to be considered a work of grace; otherwise, it is a work of law or obligation.

A common error is using "good works" with "works of the law" interchangeably. As I have demonstrated, the Bible doesn't do that.

 

[Illuminator]

Eph. 2:8-9 – we have been saved by grace through faith, not because of “works,” lest anyone boast. This much-quoted verse by Protestants refers to the “works” of the Mosaic law or any works performed in a legalistic sense, where we view God as a debtor to us, and not as our heavenly Father. Paul is teaching us that, with the coming of Christ, we are now saved by grace through faith, not by Mosaic or legal works.

This is why Paul refers to “works of ourselves” and so we can’t “boast.” Paul says the same thing about “works” Rom. 4:2,4 – if Abraham was justified by “works,” he would have something to “boast” about. Here, the wages are not counted as grace, but debt. “Boasting” does not attribute works to God, but to oneself. But good works done in faith are necessary for justification (James 2:24, etc.) because we receive rewards by grace, not by legal obligation, and we attribute these works to God, not ourselves.

Eph. 2:10 – in quoting Ephesians 2:8-9, Protestants invariably ignore the very next verse. Right after Paul’s teaching on “works” referring to Mosaic law, Paul says we are created in Christ for “good works” – a clear distinction between “works of law” (Mosaic law/legal payment) and “good works” (law of Christ/reward of grace).

Eph. 2:11-16 – this section further explains Paul’s reference to “works” which relates to following the Jewish legal ordinances.

Eph. 3:17 – Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, but we also must be rooted and grounded in love.

 

[atpollard]

A common error is using "good works" with "works of the law" interchangeably. As I have demonstrated, the Bible doesn't do that.

Will "good works" (like giving to the poor) save you? [Justification] Ghandi did MANY good works - and rejected Jesus Christ. If he was justified by his works (any works) and not by "faith in Christ", then Jesus was mistaken in claiming that He was the only way to the Father.

If men are not justified by works, as I believe is the case since even our best works are as "filthy rags" (and you know what that is really comparing our works to), then your post is a distinction without a difference.

 

[Illuminator]

Will "good works" (like giving to the poor) save you? [Justification] Ghandi did MANY good works - and rejected Jesus Christ. If he was justified by his works (any works) and not by "faith in Christ", then Jesus was mistaken in claiming that He was the only way to the Father.

Good works alone, apart from the grace of Christ, doesn't justify anybody. Jesus, being the only way to the Father, is a completely different topic.

If men are not justified by works, as I believe is the case since even our best works are as "filthy rags" (and you know what that is really comparing our works to), then your post is a distinction without a difference.

This is a non-reply to post #96-97. James 2:27: Faith without good works is a dead faith. Is that a distinction without a difference too?
Your Calvinistic "filthy rags" mantra doesn't include all good works done by grace through faith in Christ. If a "good work" is done without grace through faith in Christ, then it's not a "good work". It's not that hard to understand, but to you it seems to be.

The Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.), accepted as dogma by the Catholic Church, dogmatically taught in its Canon 7:

If anyone asserts that we can, by our natural powers, think as we ought, or choose any good pertaining to the salvation of eternal life . . . without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . he is misled by a heretical spirit . . . [goes on to cite Jn 15:5, 2 Cor 3:5]​

​

Likewise, the ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-63): Chapter 5, Decree on Justification:

If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.​

​

Yet the anti-Catholic myth of "works righteousness' or "salvation by works" rages on.​

Catholic Merit vs. Distorted Caricatures (James McCarthy)​

 

[mailmandan]

Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is evidenced by works (James 2:14-26). Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works. It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-26) *Perfect Harmony* Works is not merely limited to specific works of the law, but includes works in general. (Romans 4:2-6; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9 etc..).