What is the rule of faith for Christians?

[Charlie24]

Because you refuse to bend from false caricatures.
Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men and a mental illness. Rigid prejudice and endless denials is offensive to anybody.

And the whole time I was thinking Catholicism was the tradition of men.

 

[Illuminator]

And the whole time I was thinking Catholicism was the tradition of men.

Because that is what you have been trained to think.

 

[Charlie24]

Because that is what you have been trained to think.

View attachment 25940

Yes, that's correct! That training came from the Scripture.

It taught me what apostasy looks like!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Because that is what you have been trained to think.

View attachment 25940

Actually it's mainly your doctrine that says goods works of faith justify a person (MAKE one to born again) that annoys us. We understand how good works of faith SHOW one to be born again, the other definition of 'justified' in the scriptures.

 

[dhh712]

You obviously don't know that the word 'justified' has different definitions. You're erroneously applying to James' discourse the definition of 'justification' that Paul is using in his discourse about justification in Romans 4. Which is a different definition than what James is using. It has to be different, or else you put James in direct contradiction with Paul.

But if you want to insist that James is using the same definition of 'justification' that Paul is using in Romans 4 (to be MADE righteous) then you have to explain to us how good works of faith make a person born again. James is explaining how good deeds SHOW a person to have the righteousness that comes from being born again, not how good deeds of faith MAKE you born again.

Exactly. People take the verse in James to be the sole proof that salvation must come by faith AND works. Yet, if that is the absolute interpretation of it, then you have a contradiction in the Bible. Therefore, if that is what someone believes, then they believe in a errant Bible, one that does have flaws. If something in the Bible appears to say two different thing appearing to be opposing each other, then the two have to be reconciled. Since in Paul's letters, in a few places (Romans and Ephesians come to mind) it clearly says that faith is a gift: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-10).

So if someone is saying that James says salvation is by faith and works and that Paul says that "it is by grace you have been saved... not by works so that no one can boast". Then what is it? Do we have a contradiction in the Bible? The only reconciliation of the two verses is that when James means salvation is of faith and works he means (as he explains in his letter) that faith without works is a dead faith. The works come out of the faith so in essence salvation is of faith and works because without faith there will be no works (and vice versa, without works there is no faith since that kind of faith is dead).

But if he does mean that salvation is only given to one who does a certain amount of works first, then what reconciliation can be applied to Paul's statement? Paul clearly cuts out works from salvation (there can be no interpretive gymnastics when he says "..you have been saved, through faith--and it is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works..." I'm trying to come up with some incredible gymnastics myself but nothing is coming to me: let's see for a minute... So he really doesn't mean that it's not without "any" works; he really does mean some but he says "not" because he really just wants to make a definitive statement, stressing the faith and not works. Um, okay. Trying again here: Let's just say he's talking about the faith that comes out of works, like the works that get you to the faith--but then the works don't count. God just disqualifies the works and says they're imperfect so he gives the faith as a gift but he doesn't look at the works. I'm really trying here. Nothing is really making much sense. Anyone else want to give it a shot?). But James says "No, works need to be there first". So... I guess Paul's wrong? So then the Holy Spirit is wrong. So then God's word contains contradictions.

It would be nice to get an explanation from the salvation = faith + works side.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Maybe, but that's ok. I need to stay away from any appearance of Catholicism.

I get angry with some things, but Catholicism takes me to a rage.

If you're a Catholic just ignore me! You may become offended.

I am non-denominational

 

[dhh712]

And the whole time I was thinking Catholicism was the tradition of men.

That's because it is. The worship of Mary, purgatory and indulgences are nowhere in the Bible. I'd like to see verses in the Bible which support this idea if it is fact Biblical. The only way any Catholic can adhere to such things is if they have been trained to not read the Bible and rather listen to the "infallible" interpreter of Scripture.

 

[theefaith]

That's what makes Catholicism a works gospel religion and why it is rejected by us non-Catholics.

Where does the Bible say so?
Gal 3:27

 

[theefaith]

"6Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit." John 3:6​

What’s the water for?

 

[theefaith]

"We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works."
Martin Luther

Is Luther really the originator of "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone"?

2 pet 1: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

faith and baptism

 

[theefaith]

Who told you non-Catholics don't baptize?
We're the ones who do it as the outward sign and declaration of inward grace. You Catholics are the ones who do it to literally earn salvation.

that make you’re baptism invalid
cos you believe you are already saved, so baptism is meaningless to you!

 

[theefaith]

If Peter meant baptism earns salvation then he would be in direct contradiction to Paul, in which case we can all just throw our Bibles away and go back to our sins and forget about the Christian faith. Catholic interpretation of scripture creates contradictions in scripture.

refers to justification

Redemption:
The redemption was accomplished by Christ with no participation on our part!

Justification:
then when we believe in him and his redemption we are justified in that faith and baptism!

Sanctification:
then we are in Christ and his church by grace faith and baptism we practice good works (prayer, alms, fasting, virtues charity, other sacraments etc.

At the hour of death separation from the grace of God by apostasy / rejection of Christ or failing to repent of serious sin a man is lost in damnation! Or

Salvation:
Is for those who are faithful and die in the grace of God united to Christ and in his saints at death enter into eternal salvation!

Titus 2:14
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, (redemption) and purify unto himself a peculiar people, (justification / baptism notice purify / wash) zealous of good works. (Sanctification) Matt 24:13 endures to the end Shall be saved.
(Salvation)

 

[theefaith]

Justification (being made righteous) is what faith accomplishes all by itself without works.
That does not mean faith is without works:

"We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works."
Martin Luther

works after being saved are meaningless!

 

[Heart2Soul]

Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men and a mental illness.

This is stretching it a bit. Don't ya think? A mental illness? I am not Catholic, nor do I endorse or support some of their doctrines. But I am far from being mentally ill because of it.
You could apply that reasoning to all "anti" beliefs and choices.
Anti-Baptist: mentally ill
Anti-Politics: mentally ill
Anti-Malware: mentally ill...lol
Do you see what I mean?

 

[Charlie24]

Exactly. People take the verse in James to be the sole proof that salvation must come by faith AND works. Yet, if that is the absolute interpretation of it, then you have a contradiction in the Bible. Therefore, if that is what someone believes, then they believe in a errant Bible, one that does have flaws. If something in the Bible appears to say two different thing appearing to be opposing each other, then the two have to be reconciled. Since in Paul's letters, in a few places (Romans and Ephesians come to mind) it clearly says that faith is a gift: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-10).

So if someone is saying that James says salvation is by faith and works and that Paul says that "it is by grace you have been saved... not by works so that no one can boast". Then what is it? Do we have a contradiction in the Bible? The only reconciliation of the two verses is that when James means salvation is of faith and works he means (as he explains in his letter) that faith without works is a dead faith. The works come out of the faith so in essence salvation is of faith and works because without faith there will be no works (and vice versa, without works there is no faith since that kind of faith is dead).

But if he does mean that salvation is only given to one who does a certain amount of works first, then what reconciliation can be applied to Paul's statement? Paul clearly cuts out works from salvation (there can be no interpretive gymnastics when he says "..you have been saved, through faith--and it is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works..." I'm trying to come up with some incredible gymnastics myself but nothing is coming to me: let's see for a minute... So he really doesn't mean that it's not without "any" works; he really does mean some but he says "not" because he really just wants to make a definitive statement, stressing the faith and not works. Um, okay. Trying again here: Let's just say he's talking about the faith that comes out of works, like the works that get you to the faith--but then the works don't count. God just disqualifies the works and says they're imperfect so he gives the faith as a gift but he doesn't look at the works. I'm really trying here. Nothing is really making much sense. Anyone else want to give it a shot?). But James says "No, works need to be there first". So... I guess Paul's wrong? So then the Holy Spirit is wrong. So then God's word contains contradictions.

It would be nice to get an explanation from the salvation = faith + works side.

Paul and James both make a clear and definite statement. They both said, "Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness." God used Abraham to introduce justification by faith. It was always in effect, but clearly made known with Abraham.

From that statement Paul made it clear that justification is by faith without works. This is where faith alone comes from.

From that statement on James' part, he gave the example of Abraham in faith offering his son as a sacrifice as God told him to do. Then James said, see that how by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. This is where faith + works come from.

So which is it? Is there a contradiction here between two apostles of Christ concerning how man is saved? There is only one solution, go back to the Old Testament where both apostles took their clear and definite statement.

Gen. 15:6
"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

We have nothing here about works one way or another. But what was it that Abraham believed that righteousness was granted to him? We have to go to the context of Scripture to see. Let's back up to vs. 3 and pick up on the conversation between God and Abraham through the vision given to Abraham.

Gen. 15:3-6
"And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."


Here is where God promised Abraham a male seed to his house. It would be Isaac, and his son after him would be called Jacob, who would later be named by God, Israel. The Scripture often refers to Israel as Jacob.

Now we know the that what Abraham believed whereby he was granted the righteousness of God was concerning his seed.

Abraham was called by God out of the Ur of the Chaldees (modern day Iraq) for a particular purpose. He would become the father of many nations, but one special nation would be granted the birthright of his descendants. Through this birthright given to Israel, they would become a peculiar people, the wonder of the world. To them only would be given the Law of God to prepare them for the greatest gift known to mankind, the Saviour of the world.

This called out nation with the Law of God, gifted as the womb of the Messiah, was to introduce that Messiah to the world. God called that nation, Israel, "My Elect, the apple of My eye." Of course, we know Israel rejected their own Messiah and crucified Him.

Referring back to the bold, the seed and heir that would come from the bowels of Abraham would be Jacob/Israel. And from this genealogy would be born the Messiah. So what is the connection in the Messiah and what Abraham believed that granted him righteousness? Somewhere not recorded in Scripture, Abraham was made known that from his seed would come the Messiah. We know this from John 8:56,

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." Through the vision while in conversation with God, Abraham was introduced to Christ. It was the coming Christ that Abraham believed that granted him righteousness. We are saved the exact same way, only looking back to Christ.

This is justification by faith alone!

James was pointing to a working faith, a faith that was proven by works. If it's not a working faith, it's a dead faith that cannot save. In other words, we work because we are saved, not to get saved as shown by Abraham.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The bottom line/ no salvation outside the church. I have shown you where they have contradicted themselves in saying they can be saved outside the church BUT.......................................

NO, you didn’t.
Face it – I caught you in a LIE.

First, you stated that the Church “changed” its position on the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).
NOW, you’re back-pedaling by saying, “Well, they contradicted themselves!”

WRONG.
I proved to you that not only has the Church NEVER changed its position on this teaching – it has had to explain it so that even a 3-year-old could understand it in the Catechism – which I presented in my last post.

Next time – do your HOMEWORK before making these types of asinineclaims.

 

[Charlie24]

NO, you didn’t.
Face it – I caught you in a LIE.

First, you stated that the Church “changed” its position on the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).
NOW, you’re back-pedaling by saying, “Well, they contradicted themselves!”

WRONG.
I proved to you that not only has the Church NEVER changed its position on this teaching – it has had to explain it so that even a 3-year-old could understand it in the Catechism – which I presented in my last post.

Next time – do your HOMEWORK before making these types of asinineclaims.

LOL! One of your holey ones says "no salvation outside the church" and in the next paragraph says "one can be saved outside the church, BUT............................"

 

[theefaith]

DEon't know. It is just a good rule of thumb to live by.

saint Cyril of Alexandria only 1400 or so years ago!

 

[BreadOfLife]

You obviously don't know that the word 'justified' has different definitions. You're erroneously applying to James' discourse the definition of 'justification' that Paul is using in his discourse about justification in Romans 4. Which is a different definition than what James is using.
It has to be different, or else you put James in direct contradiction with Paul.

But if you want to insist that James is using the same definition of 'justification' that Paul is using in Romans 4 (to be MADE righteous) then you have to explain to us how good works of faith make a person born again. James is explaining how good deeds SHOW a person to have the righteousness that comes from being born again, not how good deeds of faith MAKE you born again.

Pay attention –
James 2 shows us that faith itself is true faith ONLY by our cooperation.
Faith = Belief + Cooperation (works, love, surrender).

You CANNOT be justified without
faith, as defined above.
Ergo, the James 2:24 does NOT contradict the Romans 4 definition of Justification - NOR is it a “different” definition.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

saint Cyril of Alexandria only 1400 or so years ago!

OK thanks.