# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Justification by Faith Alone Verses

## Christian Liberty

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:5)

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 then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:16)

Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, (Romans 9:32)

This is the gospel Paul preached to us.  Then this:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

If you deny sola fide, be careful.

----------


## wizardwatson

And why, friends, do the intellectuals love to pontificate about who is justified and where it comes from?  Why do you concern yourself with whether you are "saved" or not?  Shouldn't you just fear God and obey his commandments?  Why worry?  Why seek philosophical tools to assure and "console" yourself?  Are you trying to convince yourself of something?

I take all this "justification" talk as nothing more than people trying to convince themselves that they are part of a special group of "saved" people.  

BUT WHAT DOES CHRIST SAY ABOUT JUSTIFICATION?

Hmmmm?




> Luke 18:9-14  9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house *JUSTIFIED* rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


So it seems to me Jesus said to remember that you aren't any better than a murderer and a tax collector if you want to be justified.  This whole idea of even contemplating whether or not you are saved puts you in danger.  You should always remember that you are no more worthy or smart or special or "elect" than anyone else.  Jesus says THAT mentality is what will make you less "justified".

----------


## Legend1104

> And why, friends, do the intellectuals love to pontificate about who is justified and where it comes from?  Why do you concern yourself with whether you are "saved" or not?  Shouldn't you just fear God and obey his commandments?  Why worry?  Why seek philosophical tools to assure and "console" yourself?  Are you trying to convince yourself of something?
> 
> I take all this "justification" talk as nothing more than people trying to convince themselves that they are part of a special group of "saved" people.  
> 
> BUT WHAT DOES CHRIST SAY ABOUT JUSTIFICATION?
> 
> Hmmmm?
> 
> 
> ...


Well what does Christ say about justification? We should look at John chapter 3

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus said to Him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again. 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said to him, Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.

John the Baptist Exalts Christ
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. 24 For John had not yet been thrown into prison.

25 Then there arose a dispute between some of Johns disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testifiedbehold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!

27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, I have been sent before Him. 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegrooms voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Christ speaks of the need to be born again but why and what does that mean and how?

Why?  "19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God. 

So it is because of sin and the evil deeds of man. If we do not " He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. Thus, God's wrath is against those evil doers that do not believe in the Son.

What does it mean to be born again/believe in the Son? First it says we must be born of the Spirit. So believing on the Son is more hen just head knowledge; it involves a spiritual rebirth. What is this rebirth? Nicademous asked the same thing. Jesus said,  "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life." Jesus uses the story from the Old Testament. In which the people sinned, asked for forgiveness and repented, and were given physical salvation and forgiveness through their belief in the sacrifice of the bronze snake. In the same way Jesus is saying that repentance and entry into heaven and eternal salvation are through repentance of sins and forgive through the Son of God I.e. Jesus.

How? "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." God gave Christ to the world for the remission of sin. In what form was the giving. Just as God provided Abraham with a sacrifice in the place of his son, God provided a sacrifice for the world through His Son. Jesus verified this at his death on the cross when he stated that "it is accomplished." he didnt say "sorry God I failed." Since he verified that he succeeded, then we must understand that his death was the plan. 

So in summarion, why is it that we should concern ourselves with whether we are saved or not, because if we are not born again then the wrath of God abides on us and we shall perish. Salvation I.e. justification is keeping Gods commandment and if we don't keep this commandment then we should rightfully fear the wrath of God.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Well what does Christ say about justification? We should look at John chapter 3
> 
> There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
> 
> 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
> 
> 4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
> 
> 5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
> ...


The rebirth is not justification.  The Kingdom of God and heaven and the resurrection and the millenial kingdom are all different things.  

Being "saved" and being born again are like the beginning vs. the end.  People have this binary interpretation of spiritual progression that just isn't biblical.  Repentance and believing on Christ are but the beginning.  You "must" be born again means that is the final destination.  Your journey on the path is not some switch where you go from damned to zen master because you made the cut.

----------


## Legend1104

> The rebirth is not justification.  The Kingdom of God and heaven and the resurrection and the millenial kingdom are all different things.  
> 
> Being "saved" and being born again are like the beginning vs. the end.  People have this binary interpretation of spiritual progression that just isn't biblical.  Repentance and believing on Christ are but the beginning.  You "must" be born again means that is the final destination.  Your journey on the path is not some switch where you go from damned to zen master because you made the cut.


I'm sorry but I really would love to have a discussion with you about this but I don't know where you stand i.e. what exactly your belief system is. It is vague and shadowed in nuance to me based solely off of what I have read from your posts (keep in mind I have not read nearly all of them). I can't retort to anything in your statement because I don't fully understand where you are coming from. Are you saying that you are saved through repentance and Believing on Christ (what do YOU mean by that?) gets you access to the Spirit of God, but that in order to gain eternal life (born again) you must continue to live according to God's commandments until the end of your life (journey)? Does that mean that you believe in works related salvation (keeping His commandments)? Who exactly is Christ to you if he is not divine (I can't remember if you believe he is)?

----------


## Original_Intent

Faith without works is dead.
Do you believe dead faith will save you?
Granted, works do not save you, but if you have faith, works will follow.




> Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
> And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:5)
> 
> 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 then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:16)
> 
> Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, (Romans 9:32)
> 
> This is the gospel Paul preached to us. Then this:
> ...


Got any verses about that, that *AREN'T* from Paul?

----------


## acptulsa

> Got any verses about that, that *AREN'T* from Paul?


What?  You expect him to _listen_ to _Jesus_?

You don't understand how it works.  You have to _worship_ Jesus, but you are never supposed to _listen_ to Him.  Worship Jesus, but listen to Paul.

Then you can pretend Paul was also God Incarnate, or at least was God's Mouth Incarnate, while pretending you aren't worshipping a mere mortal man.

----------


## Legend1104

> Got any verses about that, that *AREN'T* from Paul?


What about Jesus brother James, or do you think he was a heretic too?
James 2:14-17

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, Go in peace; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What about Jesus brother James, or do you think he was a heretic too?
> James 2:14-17
> 
> 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


James ain't Paul.  Paul ain't Jesus.  Paul is much worse than a heretic.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What? You expect him to _listen_ to _Jesus_?
> 
> You don't understand how it works. You have to _worship_ Jesus, but you are never supposed to _listen_ to Him. Worship Jesus, but listen to Paul.
> 
> Then you can pretend Paul was also God Incarnate, or at least was God's Mouth Incarnate, while pretending you aren't worshipping a mere mortal man.


*"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."*

----------


## fisharmor

> What about Jesus brother James, or do you think he was a heretic too?
> James 2:14-17
> 
> 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, Go in peace; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


Keep going...

"*18* But someone will say, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.*19* You believe that God is one; you do well. *Even the demons believe*and shudder!*20* Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that *faith apart from works is useless?**21* Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?*22* You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;*23* and the Scripture was fulfilled that says,Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousnessand he was called a friend of God.*24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.**25* And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?*26* For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

Also, this:




> "If your papist annoys you with that word (i.e. alone), tell him straightaway: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so: Papists and asses are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. LUTHER WILL HAVE IT SO, AND HE IS A DOCTOR ABOVE ALL THE DOCTORS IN POPEDOM."


Martin Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3.  This is not in dispute.

----------


## TER

Never saw that quote by Luther.  Thanks for the info!

----------


## acptulsa

> Martin Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3.  This is not in dispute.[/FONT][/SIZE]


See what you did?

Now they have to start worshipping Luther as God's Mouth Incarnate.

Better than losing their loophole and having to learn how to love their fellow man.

----------


## TER

Some of the greatest words on love spoken and written in the Holy Spirit of God were by the great Apostle Paul, who is the chosen and beloved one of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. For so He told His Apostle Ananias, one of the Seventy sent out by our Lord.  Saying:

"Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.  For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” (Acts 9:15-16)

And Glory to God for granting the world such Saints, such martyrs and witnesses of the faith taught by the Messiah.  These are the pillars of the faith, the bearers of Christ in the Holy Spirit, who glorify God by their lives and their deaths.  May we too become such Saints, by the mercy and grace of God, to Whom all glory goes to!

  May the Apostle of God intercede for us and for the world along with all the Saints!  Glory to God!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Some of the greatest words on love spoken and written in the Holy Spirit of God were by the great Apostle Paul, who is the chosen and beloved one of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. For so He told His Apostle Ananias, one of the Seventy sent out by our Lord. Saying:
> 
> "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” (Acts 9:15-16)
> 
> And Glory to God for granting the world such Saints, such martyrs and witnesses of the faith taught by the Messiah. These are the pillars of the faith, the bearers of Christ in the Holy Spirit, who glorify God by their lives and their deaths. May we too become such Saints, by the mercy and grace of God, to Whom all glory goes to!
> 
> May the Apostle of God intercede for us and for the world along with all the Saints! Glory to God!


Should we all designate you as Chief Paulinist of the RPF?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Never saw that quote by Luther.  Thanks for the info!


What was the quote from the reformer, Luther? 

 It looked like the poster was Martin Luther.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

@fisharmor:   Would you please give that quote from Luther and the source?  It was confusing to me.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Some of the greatest words on love spoken and written in the Holy Spirit of God were by the great Apostle Paul, who is the chosen and beloved one of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. For so He told His Apostle Ananias, one of the Seventy sent out by our Lord.  Saying:
> 
> "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.  For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” (Acts 9:15-16)
> 
> And Glory to God for granting the world such Saints, such martyrs and witnesses of the faith taught by the Messiah.  These are the pillars of the faith, the bearers of Christ in the Holy Spirit, who glorify God by their lives and their deaths.  May we too become such Saints, by the mercy and grace of God, to Whom all glory goes to!
> 
>   May the Apostle of God intercede for us and for the world along with all the Saints!  Glory to God!


I agree with most of this post, TER, and would simply add that we, the believers in Christ, are saints.  His mercy and grace is for us, His saints, and He will bring His saints into glory as He promises.  We have the Ascended Lord, Crowned King, seated at the right hand of God, who has justified the believer, for past, present and future sins.  That is my statement of faith, in Christ alone.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> @fisharmor: Would you please give that quote from Luther and the source? It was confusing to me.


Perhaps some of this will be helpful. 

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...55.kSb3CvrX8Y4

----------


## acptulsa

> What was the quote from the reformer, Luther? 
> 
>  It looked like the poster was Martin Luther.


Ummm...

And are we confusing Martin Luther with that other reformer, Martin Luther King, Jr?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Faith without works is dead.
> Do you believe dead faith will save you?
> Granted, works do not save you, but if you have faith, works will follow.


I believe that a saving faith includes works.  If no works follow to prove it, it isn't a living faith.

However, these works are a fruit of right standing with God, not the source of that justification.  Some say "why not just follow Jesus' commandments?"  Well, I understand that we have to follow his commands.  But, if you believe you can do that on your own, let alone doing it well enough to be justified before God, you are fooling yourself.

God demands PERFECT obedience.  But the human cannot produce perfect obedience.  So, either Christ's righteousness will be imputed to you, and you will stand before God with Christ's righteousness covering you, or you will be damned.




> What?  You expect him to _listen_ to _Jesus_?
> 
> You don't understand how it works.  You have to _worship_ Jesus, but you are never supposed to _listen_ to Him.  Worship Jesus, but listen to Paul.
> 
> Then you can pretend Paul was also God Incarnate, or at least was God's Mouth Incarnate, while pretending you aren't worshipping a mere mortal man.


This is a misrepresentation.

Keep in mind, though, that Christ's words in the Bible are written down by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively.  Of those men, two knew Christ personally, the other two knew disciples of Christ.  In other words, they had as much, or even less revelation than Paul had.  Yet we still trust their record of Christ's words.  So when Paul claims to be speaking for Christ, we should believe him as well, as his words are of scripture.



> What about Jesus brother James, or do you think he was a heretic too?
> James 2:14-17
> 
> 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


James is saying that you can't just say "I have faith" and refuse to live it out.  Such a faith is actually dead, the fact that it lacks works proves that it is not genuine.  True faith will always include spirit-led works as evidence.  But those works are a fruit of justification, not the basis for it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Keep going...
> 
> "*18* But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.*19* You believe that God is one; you do well. *Even the demons believe*—and shudder!*20* Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that *faith apart from works is useless?**21* Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?*22* You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;*23* and the Scripture was fulfilled that says,“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.*24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.**25* And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?*26* For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."
> 
> Also, this:
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3.  This is not in dispute.


OK, while I do believe God used Martin Luther to do something important (ie. to begin the reformation of the corrupt Catholic Church), he's not only not the be-all end-all of doctrine, he's really not even consistently logical.  John Calvin was a fallible man to be sure, but I can generally trust that if he said something, it was at least well thought out in most cases.  I can't really say the same thing for Luther.  Nobody believes every single thing Luther believed, and I think that includes Luther.  The man was a bit unhinged at times.

----------


## Legend1104

> I believe that a saving faith includes works.  If no works follow to prove it, it isn't a living faith.
> 
> However, these works are a fruit of right standing with God, not the source of that justification.  Some say "why not just follow Jesus' commandments?"  Well, I understand that we have to follow his commands.  But, if you believe you can do that on your own, let alone doing it well enough to be justified before God, you are fooling yourself.
> 
> God demands PERFECT obedience.  But the human cannot produce perfect obedience.  So, either Christ's righteousness will be imputed to you, and you will stand before God with Christ's righteousness covering you, or you will be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a misrepresentation.
> ...


Sorry My bad. I completely misunderstood some of the previous posts on this subject. I totally agree with your statement. I was in no means trying to say that works is necessary for salvation.

----------


## acptulsa

> This is a misrepresentation.


Don't try to convince me.  I have no reason to care.  Convince God.




> Keep in mind, though, that Christ's words in the Bible are written down by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively.  Of those men, two knew Christ personally, the other two knew disciples of Christ.  In other words, they had as much, or even less revelation than Paul had.  Yet we still trust their record of Christ's words.  So when Paul claims to be speaking for Christ, we should believe him as well, as his words are of scripture.


See, you're so caught up in trying to make dogma out of it, or preserve the dogma around it, as opposed to trying to understand it, that you've completely missed the point.  Except for the change Martin Luther (unhinged, in your own estimation) admitted he made in making St. Paul, talking about faith, seem to have been writing about faith alone, no one is saying that the words of St. Paul came down to us inaccurately.

The point is, Jesus is God and Paul was not, if Paul contradicts Jesus it's Paul, or Luther, or someone who got it wrong, and the fact that Jesus did not transcribe His own words and Paul did means nothing at all to that and has no effect at all on that.  Therefore, why do you and S_F keep vainly offering it as some sort of twisted, back door proof of divinity?

If Paul wasn't channeling the Lord like some first century Shirley McLaine, then Matthew couldn't get his history straight?  That really counts as proof that St. Paul=Jesus (at least in Divine Wisdom) to you?

Doesn't follow, kid.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't try to convince me.  I have no reason to care.  Convince God.
> 
> 
> 
> See, you're so caught up in trying to make dogma out of it, or preserve the dogma around it, as opposed to trying to understand it, that you've completely missed the point.  Except for the change Martin Luther (unhinged, in your own estimation) admitted he made in making St. Paul, talking about faith, seem to have been writing about faith alone, no one is saying that the words of St. Paul came down to us inaccurately.
> 
> The point is, Jesus is God and Paul was not, if Paul contradicts Jesus it's Paul, or Luther, or someone who got it wrong, and the fact that Jesus did not transcribe His own words and Paul did means nothing at all to that and has no effect at all on that.  Therefore, why do you and S_F keep vainly offering it as some sort of twisted, back door proof of divinity?
> 
> If Paul wasn't channeling the Lord like some first century Shirley McLaine, then Matthew couldn't get his history straight?  That really counts as proof that St. Paul=Jesus (at least in Divine Wisdom) to you?
> ...


Paul, as a man, was not equivalent to God.

But when he wrote scripture, God was speaking through him.  That's the point.  It wasn't Paul's words at all.

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## acptulsa

> Paul, as a man, was not equivalent to God.
> 
> But when he wrote scripture, God was speaking through him.  That's the point.  It wasn't Paul's words at all.


My cat ate your dogma.

Gee, I'd have expected better quality and fewer bare, obvious contradictions from God.  Indeed, I still do.

Go ahead and tell me Luther added the word 'alone' to your favorite verse of Romans because God made him do it.  Or should I say God made Him do it...?

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who believes in God as Micromanager as you do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My cat ate your dogma.
> 
> Gee, I'd have expected better quality and fewer bare, obvious contradictions from God.  Indeed, I still do.
> 
> Go ahead and tell me Luther added the word 'alone' to your favorite verse of Romans because God made him do it.  Or should I say God made Him do it...?
> 
> You seem to have mistaken me for someone who believes in God as Micromanager as you do.


Luther adding the word is irrelevant.  He shouldn't have done that, but he got the meaning of the text correct.  Doctrine is developed systematically and logically, not always clearly stated.

----------


## acptulsa

> Luther adding the word is irrelevant.  He shouldn't have done that, but he got the meaning of the text correct.  Doctrine is developed systematically and logically, not always clearly stated.


And not always in accordance with what Jesus tried to teach us.

Which is more of a problem than you seem to think it is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And not always in accordance with what Jesus tried to teach us.
> 
> Which is more of a problem than you seem to think it is.


John 3:18, John 14:6

----------


## Ronin Truth

Anybody else seeing any Biblical *contradiction* in any of this? 

*LOL!*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Anybody else seeing any Biblical *contradiction* in any of this? 
> 
> *LOL!*


No

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No


Then what is the disagreement and this whole thread discussion about?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Anybody else seeing any Biblical *contradiction* in any of this? 
> 
> *LOL!*


No.  What contradiction do you see?

----------


## acptulsa

> No.  What contradiction do you see?


I see someone asking a question I know he knows the answer to, because I've seen him respond to thread after thread that the other guy has started on that very same subject.

Why this person would pretend to be more ignorant than he is, I do not know.  But I'll be damned if it isn't quite a contradiction.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No. What contradiction do you see?


Faith alone and/or something else?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I see someone asking a question I know he knows the answer to, because I've seen him respond to thread after thread that the other guy has started on that very same subject.
> 
> Why this person would pretend to be more ignorant than he is, I do not know. But I'll be damned if it isn't quite a contradiction.


I've never claimed to know it all. So actually once in a while I DO learn something new from someone else more learned on a subject than me.




> *Socratic method* , also known as *method of elenchus*, *elenctic method*, or *Socratic debate*, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. It is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.
> 
> The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or _logoi_ (singular _logos_), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the _Maieutic (Midwife) Method_. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method.
> 
> The phrase _Socratic questioning_ is used to describe a kind of questioning in which an original question is responded to as though it were an answer. This in turn forces the first questioner to reformulate a new question in light of the progress of the discourse.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method



*"Can only learn more, never less."

**"We're all ignorant, just about different things." 
*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Faith alone and/or something else?


What's the contradiction?   The Bible teaches one of those things and not the other.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What's the contradiction? The Bible teaches one of those things and not the other.


What is the other that the Bible DOESN'T teach?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

This is for acp - my comp is acting up.  In response to your response. 




It looked like the post was from an RPF member by the name of Martin Luther, who was quoting something that made no sense.  Maybe I have cobwebs in the brain.  

I prefer quotes that are cited and hopefully in context.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> This is for acp - my comp is acting up. In response to your response. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looked like the post was from an RPF member by the name of Martin Luther, who was quoting something that made no sense. Maybe I have cobwebs in the brain. 
> 
> I prefer quotes that are cited and hopefully in context.


Sometimes we get what we want, and sometimes we don't. Don't worry about it. All is forgiven.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What is the other that the Bible DOESN'T teach?


The Bible DOESN'T teach justification by works.

----------


## acptulsa

> The Bible DOESN'T teach justification by works.


Provided you ignore everything Jesus ever said, of course.




> Matthew 25 King James Version (KJV)31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
> 
> 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
> 
> 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
> 
> 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
> 
> 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
> ...


You're going back into broken record mode.  You knew the answer to this before you even posted the question.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Provided you ignore everything Jesus ever said, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> You're going back into broken record mode.  You knew the answer to this before you even posted the question.


This is the only verse you know in the entire Bible, so I'll explain it to you.  There is way to read that verse as _prescriptive_ or _descriptive_.

You can read that as something that Jesus is telling you to do to be saved, or you can read that verse as something that describes what saved people do.

That verse should be read as something that is describing what saved people already do.  When you read the other thousands of pages in the Bible instead of that one verse, you understand that.  Start with the epistles to the Romans and Galatians to understand what Christianity says about works and faith.

----------


## acptulsa

> This is the only verse you know in the entire Bible, so I'll explain it to you.  There is way to read that verse as _prescriptive_ or _descriptive_.
> 
> You can read that as something that Jesus is telling you to do to be saved, or you can read that verse as something that describes what saved people do.


Or you can just read it as the truth straight from Jesus' mouth, and stop trying to tell the people who agree with our Lord and Savior that they're wrong to do so.

People who have faith do works.  People who do works without tallying them (the way you keep track of the views of your threads) have actual faith.  You aren't saving anyone by trying to draw a line between those things.  You're just deliberately trying to piss people off.

You said...




> The Bible DOESN'T teach justification by works.


You couldn't even to be bothered to say, '...by works _alone.'_

It's still a lie.  Always has been.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

For those interested to consider:

http://heidelblog.net/2015/04/heidel...justification/

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Or you can just read it as the truth straight from Jesus' mouth,* and stop trying to tell the people who agree with our Lord and Savior that they're wrong to do so.
> 
> People who have faith do works.  People who do works without tallying them (the way you keep track of the views of your threads) have actual faith.  You aren't saving anyone by trying to draw a line between those things.  You're just deliberately trying to piss people off.


No you can't.  There are only two ways to read it, prescriptively or descriptively.  You are reading it prescriptively.  That is the wrong way to read it, because Jesus said if you BELIEVE ONLY, you already have eternal life:




> *John 5:24
> 
> "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 
> *


Whoever believes has eternal life.  It's not "whoever does these works" has eternal life.

This is the benefit of reading the entire Bible instead of just one verse like you always read.

----------


## acptulsa

> No you can't.  There are only two ways to read it, prescriptively or descriptively.  You are reading it prescriptively.  That is the wrong way to read it, because Jesus said if you BELIEVE ONLY, you already have eternal life:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever believes has eternal life.  It's not "whoever does these works" has eternal life.
> 
> This is the benefit of reading the entire Bible instead of just one verse like you always read.


You know perfectly well that I know other verses.  You just keep getting this one shoved in your face over and over because it disproves the lie you keep telling over and over.

And if believing Him is the path to salvation, why do you keep calling Him a liar?  You don't want to go to heaven?

'Whoever hears my word _and believes._'  Which part are you failing to do when it comes to Matthew 25, the listening or believing?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know perfectly well that I know other verses.  You just keep getting this one shoved in your face over and over because it disproves the lie you keep telling over and over.
> 
> And if believing Him is the path to salvation, why do you keep calling Him a liar?  You don't want to go to heaven?





> *John 6:28-29 
> 
> Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
> 
> Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
> *



Jesus preached FAITH ALONE.  If you don't believe this, then you don't believe the gospel.

----------


## acptulsa

> Jesus preached FAITH ALONE.  If you don't believe this, then you don't believe the gospel.


Matthew 25 is part of a Gospel, and therein Jesus calls you a baldfaced liar.  Faith without works is dead.

Dude, I'm sorry that it seems to be so important to you that I believe that the fate of my soul depends upon your silly assed sophistry.  But have heart.  You'll get over it sooner or later.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Matthew 25 is part of a Gospel, and therein Jesus calls you a baldfaced liar.  Faith without works is dead.
> 
> Dude, I'm sorry that it seems to be so important to you that I believe that the fate of my soul depends upon your silly assed sophistry.  But have heart.  You'll get over it sooner or later.


*John 6:28-29 

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
*

You don't believe what Jesus preached.  The work of God is TO BELIEVE.  You are reading Matthew 25 WRONGLY.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

"The medieval and Roman view made our *cooperation* part of the ground and instrument of justification thereby contradicting the biblical teaching that salvation and justification are by grace alone, through faith alone and the *works are nothing more or less than the fruit and evidence of salvation and justification*."

This is a bit from the Heidelberg blog posted in #48



This excerpt from Rev. Michael De Vries, in the Standard Bearer, May 2015

"He drank and drank and drank until all the punishment of our sins was removed from that cup.  He tasted every drop! Christ came in our flesh, in the grace of God, to taste our death and remove it forever!"

This is justification in Christ's cross alone, by faith alone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "The medieval and Roman view made our *cooperation* part of the ground and instrument of justification thereby contradicting the biblical teaching that salvation and justification are by grace alone, through faith alone and the *works are nothing more or less than the fruit and evidence of salvation and justification*."
> 
> This is a bit from the Heidelberg blog posted in #48
> 
> 
> 
> This excerpt from Rev. Michael De Vries, in the Standard Bearer, May 2015
> 
> "He drank and drank and drank until all the punishment of our sins was removed from that cup.  He tasted every drop! Christ came in our flesh, in the grace of God, to taste our death and remove it forever!"
> ...



Yes.

----------


## Ronin Truth

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...04.XTlUmTWISz8


James vs. Paul, I choose James.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...04.XTlUmTWISz8
> 
> 
> James vs. Paul, I choose James.



You don't choose James, because James says that Christians are born fourth out of a monergistic act of God's willful choice and nothing else.  James was a Christian who preached absolute predestination.  You don't believe this.

* 
James 1:17-18

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.  He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You don't choose James, because James says that Christians are born fourth out of a monergistic act of God's willful choice and nothing else. James was a Christian who preached absolute predestination. You don't believe this.
> 
> *
> James 1:17-18
> 
> Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.*


No, I primarily choose James because I wouldn't ever dream of choosing Paul, even on a bet.  At least James actually knew Jesus.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've never claimed to know it all. So actually once in a while I DO learn something new from someone else more learned on a subject than me.
> 
> 
> 
> *"Can only learn more, never less."
> 
> **"We're all ignorant, just about different things." 
> *


You like quotes, so I'll give you one that directly applies to you:

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:5)
> 
> 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 then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:16)
> 
> Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, (Romans 9:32)
> 
> This is the gospel Paul preached to us.  Then this:
> ...


Not only that, but the words_ faith_ and _belief_ are merely translations of the one Greek word _pistis_.  The Christian view of salvation is that men are saved by BELIEF ALONE.

Read this:




> You might think the seemingly innocuous phrase “justification by belief alone” would be music to a Christian’s ear. But, you would be wrong.
> 
> What you say? Don’t the Scriptures teach; “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”
> 
> Didn’t the Apostle John say; “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
> 
> And, didn’t our Lord Jesus Christ say; “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel.”
> 
> Well, yes, but you see according to a majority of Reformed elders in the PCA, OPC and elsewhere belief saves no one.  What you need is faith.
> ...


https://godshammer.wordpress.com/201...-belief-alone/

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You like quotes, so I'll give you one that directly applies to you:


 Didn't come across in my browser.  You want to spell it out?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Didn't come across in my browser.  You want to spell it out?


"A theologian's epistemology controls his interpretation of the Bible.  If his epistemology is not Christian, his exegesis will be systematically distorted.  If he has no epistemology at all, his exegesis will be unsystematically distorted."

All of those quotes you post from the Jesus Seminar idiots do not have a Christian epistemology, hence their exegesis of the Bible is systematically distorted.  They mean nothing.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> "A theologian's epistemology controls his interpretation of the Bible. If his epistemology is not Christian, his exegesis will be systematically distorted. If he has no epistemology at all, his exegesis will be unsystematically distorted."
> 
> All of those quotes you post from the Jesus Seminar idiots do not have a Christian epistemology, hence their exegesis of the Bible is systematically distorted. They mean nothing.



Actually that just MIGHT make some sense if:

A) I was a "Christian"/Paulinist.

or

B) I was a theologian.

Happily I'm neither. 




> *Jesus Said that He Is:**The Water of Life**John 4:13, 14* _Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life._*The Good Shepherd**John 10:10, 11* _The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep._*Eternal Life for His Sheep**John 10:27-30* _My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand. I and my Father are one._*The Way, The Truth and The Life**John 14:6* _Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me_.*Jesus Invites All to Follow Him**Seek the Kingdom of God First**Matthew 6:33* _But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you._*Ask, Seek, Find**Matthew 7:7,8* _Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened._*Jesus and the Children**Matthew 19:14* _But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven._
> *Gain the Whole World**Mark 8:34-37* _And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospels, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?_*He Calls Sinners**Luke 5:31, 32* _And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance._
> *On What His Followers Should Do**Be a Light in the World**Matthew 5:16* _Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven._*Love Your Enemies**Matthew 5:43-44* _Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;_*Do Unto Others**Matthew 7:12* _Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets._*The Greatest Commandment: Love God and Your Neighbour
> **Matthew 22:37-40* _Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets._*Be a Servant to Others**Mark 10:45* _For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many._

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually that just MIGHT make some sense if:
> 
> A) I was a "Christian"/Paulinist.
> 
> or
> 
> B) I was a theologian.
> 
> Happily I'm neither.


Right, you are neither.  Neither are the people that you quote in big bold letters.  So neither you or them can understand the Bible.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Right, you are neither. Neither are the people that you quote in big bold letters. So neither you or them can understand the Bible.


That last bunch of my quotes are from Jesus, so I guess that you must think Jesus can't understand the Bible.  

Maybe the NT books by Paul may cause him some comprehension difficulties.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That last bunch of my quotes are from Jesus, so I guess that you must think Jesus can't understand the Bible.  
> 
> *Maybe the NT books by Paul may cause him some comprehension difficulties*.


That statement right there proves my point that you don't have a Christian epistemology.  Since you don't have a Christian epistemology, you don't understand anything and you make ridiculous statements like that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That statement right there proves my point that you don't have a Christian epistemology. Since you don't have a Christian epistemology, you don't understand anything and you make ridiculous statements like that.


I really don't think that a Paulinist has any room for considering ANYTHING ridiculous.  But then again, there you go.

Before you run off again, http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I really don't think that a Paulinist has any room for considering ANYTHING ridiculous.  But then again, there you go.
> 
> Before you run off again, http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html


Your website is a run by a few nuts who think the true church died off and they are the true ones left.  It's a cult.  That's where you get your stupid ideas from.

Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews.  Read the book of Acts to understand this.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Your website is a run by a few nuts who think the true church died off and they are the true ones left. It's a cult. That's where you get your stupid ideas from.
> 
> Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Read the book of Acts to understand this.


Ran off again.  Is that about 15-20 times now? Does anyone seriously wonder what he's scared of or care?

*“If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul.” -- The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) 
*
*“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings." (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)* 
*
“Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ…..Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.” --Will Durant (Philosopher)* 
*
"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
--Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark. (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)* 
*
"Paul insists that there is only one 'gospel of Christ' (Galatians 1:7), so why did later Christians accept as 'Scripture' four written gospels?" --Graham N. Stanton, “The Gospels and Jesus”, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), p.125

*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ran off again.  Is that about 15-20 times now? Does anyone seriously wonder what he's scared of or care?
> 
> *“If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul.” -- The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) 
> *
> *“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings." (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)* 
> *
> “Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ…..Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.” --Will Durant (Philosopher)* 
> *
> "Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
> ...

----------


## acptulsa

> Your website is a run by a few nuts who think the true church died off and they are the true ones left.  It's a cult.  That's where you get your stupid ideas from.


Now we know what the pot thinks of the kettle.

----------


## RJB

> Now we know what the pot thinks of the kettle.


Oh the humanity!  Is there no honor among trolls!?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Now we know what the pot thinks of the kettle.


I don't think the true church ever died off.  That contradicts scripture.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> 


Another worthless Paulinist quote? 

Who cares?

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't think the true church ever died off.  That contradicts scripture.


I'm sure you don't think it died off.  That would make it impossible for you to think your particular cult is it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Another worthless Paulinist quote? 
> 
> Who cares?


That doesn't have anything to do with "Paulinism" (whatever that is supposed to mean).  It has to do with having a Christian epistemology before interpreting the text of the Bible.  You don't have a Christian epistemology, which is why you are so confused and can't interpret the Bible correctly or understand it.

----------


## acptulsa

> That doesn't have anything to do with "Paulinism" (whatever that is supposed to mean).


Always cracks me up when someone claims to know what _x_ isn't, and claims not to know what _x_ is, all in the same breath.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That doesn't have anything to do with "Paulinism" (whatever that is supposed to mean). It has to do with having a Christian epistemology before interpreting the text of the Bible. You don't have a Christian epistemology, which is why you are so confused and can't interpret the Bible correctly or understand it.



If it's "Christian" it has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with Paulinism.  

*WAKE UP! GET A CLUE!*

----------


## Christian Liberty

Ronin, stop spamming my thread.  Your posts are entirely worthless and don't add anything.  

@Sola_Fide- I think Catholics would have referred to us as cultic before Luther, based on your same reasoning (church apparently died out and there are only a few left).  What would be your response to that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ronin, stop spamming my thread.  Your posts are entirely worthless and don't add anything.  
> 
> @Sola_Fide- I think Catholics would have referred to us as cultic before Luther, based on your same reasoning (church apparently died out and there are only a few left).  What would be your response to that?


Oh, I don't believe the church ever died out or can ever die out.  That's contradictory to many passages in Scripture.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin, stop spamming my thread. Your posts are entirely worthless and don't add anything. 
> 
> @Sola_Fide- I think Catholics would have referred to us as cultic before Luther, based on your same reasoning (church apparently died out and there are only a few left). What would be your response to that?


As are your lame posts.




> *"7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." -- (King James Bible, Matthew)
> *

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh, I don't believe the church ever died out or can ever die out.  That's contradictory to many passages in Scripture.


So, is there some particular reason that we can't find written evidence of Protestant style doctrine existing between the death of John the Apostle and Martin Luther?  Is this particular claim of Catholics false?  (ie. is there clear evidence of proto-protestants during that era).

----------


## TER

> So, is there some particular reason that we can't find written evidence of Protestant style doctrine existing between the death of John the Apostle and Martin Luther?


The reason my friend is because much of Protestant ecclesiology, sacramental theology, soteriology, and eschatology was not invented until after the Reformation.  In other words, it is a change from what the Christian people through the centuries believed and proclaimed.  




> (ie. is there clear evidence of proto-protestants during that era).


No, instead, what you get as evidence is selective picking of small fragments of certain verses from amongst the early writings of the Christian Church which often times out of context seems to support Reformed Protestant doctrines , while forgetting and ignoring a vast majority of the rest.  (a common approach certain people have as well with the Scriptures).  A chosen line from the Church Fathers is quoted as some proof, for example, yet the fact that every Church Father held in common certain fundamental doctrinal, ecclesiological, and liturgical beliefs they held as apostolic seems to fly over their heads.  Or worse, they criticize, as if they consider themselves greater Christians than the ones we remember as Saints of the Church.

You are asking all the right questions lately, Christian Liberty.  May God continue to bless you on your journey.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The reason my friend is because much of Protestant ecclesiology, sacramental theology, soteriology, and eschatology was not invented until after the Reformation.  In other words, it is a change from what the Christian people through the centuries believed and proclaimed.


Yeah, I know this is the EO position (eschatology, though?  In what way?  Protestantism really runs the gamut on eschatology, and I'm not aware of any distinctively "Protestant" eschatology.)  I was curious what Sola_Fide says about it, as a fellow Protestant.






> No, instead, what you get as evidence is selective picking of small fragments of certain verses from amongst the early writings of the Christian Church which often times out of context seems to support Reformed Protestant doctrines , while forgetting and ignoring a vast majority of the rest.  (a common approach certain people have as well with the Scriptures).  A chosen line from the Church Fathers is quoted as some proof, for example, yet the fact that every Church Father held in common certain fundamental doctrinal, ecclesiological, and liturgical beliefs they held as apostolic seems to fly over their heads.  Or worse, they criticize, as if they consider themselves greater Christians than the ones we remember as Saints of the Church.
> 
> You are asking all the right questions lately, Christian Liberty.  May God continue to bless you on your journey.


Well, I have a recent convert to Catholicism that I'm hoping to be able to refute, so 

Blessings to you as well.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I believe that a saving faith includes works.  If no works follow to prove it, it isn't a living faith.


Basically, these are all extremely *technical terms* as you use them, with *obscure definitions* that require a lot of reading to understand, and then in the end your disagreement with all the people you think you disagree with boils down to a *pure semantic* one.

"You need to have faith and do good works."
"No, no, no, you fool!  You just need to have faith!  Of course, for that faith to count as real faith you must do good works.  Otherwise it doesn't count."

In other words, this is an issue that has and will have absolutely no relevance to any normal person anywhere, ever.  They will not even comprehend what your point is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Basically, these are all extremely *technical terms* as you use them, with *obscure definitions* that require a lot of reading to understand, and then in the end your disagreement with all the people you think you disagree with boils down to a *pure semantic* one.
> 
> "You need to have faith and do good works."
> "No, no, no, you fool!  You just need to have faith!  Of course, for that faith to count as real faith you must do good works.  Otherwise it doesn't count."
> 
> In other words, this is an issue that has and will have absolutely no relevance to any normal person anywhere, ever.  They will not even comprehend what your point is.


No, this is an issue that is foundational to Christian theology.  Do works prove salvation or do works verify it?  If you believe your works can actually save you, you aren't trusting in Christ alone and are so unregenerate.

----------


## acptulsa

> No, this is an issue that is foundational to Christian theology.  Do works prove salvation or do works verify it?  If you believe your works can actually save you, you aren't trusting in Christ alone and are so unregenerate.


Actually, helmuth_hubener hit the nail squarely on the head.

Not that you don't have a point.  You do.  People who do works and count them, and keep a tally so they can argue the point on the Judgement Day, instead of opening their hearts to the point where they _want_ to help their fellow humans, and just do it without thinking, are missing the point.

But that does not make h_h wrong at all.  And the most ironic part is that your primary compatriot in this great semantic hissy fit is the one continually bragging in several of his threads about how many views that thread was generating, and how much he was glorifying Jesus by starting and heating up that argument.

If his and your purpose is to teach us how to do it wrong, so we can avoid making your mistakes, then good job!

----------


## TER

> Yeah, I know this is the EO position (eschatology, though?  In what way?  Protestantism really runs the gamut on eschatology, and I'm not aware of any distinctively "Protestant" eschatology.)  I was curious what Sola_Fide says about it, as a fellow Protestant.


I think his position is of a secret underground remnant of what he calls "Biblical Christians" of which he can name not one.  Sort of like the movie The Avengers in terms of reality and historical proof.




> Well, I have a recent convert to Catholicism that I'm hoping to be able to refute, so


I wish you well.  Be careful, though, when you start digging deeper into the truth.  You may find you have been seeing through an erroneous prism the entire time.  Be prepared to become illuminated, that is to say.   Perhaps it is not she who will become converted.  




> Blessings to you as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think his position is of a secret underground remnant of what he calls "Biblical Christians" of which he can name not one.  Sort of like the movie The Avengers in terms of reality and historical proof.


I actually might agree with him.  






> I wish you well.  Be careful, though, when you start digging deeper into the truth.  You may find you have been seeing through an erroneous prism the entire time.  Be prepared to become illuminated, that is to say.   Perhaps it is not *he* who will become converted.


Fixed.  But aside from that, I suspect that he won't.  I certainly won't, however.  I can read the Bible.

----------


## TER

> I actually might agree with him.


Based on?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Based on?


"the gates of hell will not prevail against the church" combined with the very clear scriptural teaching of sola fide (the doctrine, not necessarily the poster  )

----------


## TER

> "the gates of hell will not prevail against the church" combined with the very clear scriptural teaching of sola fide (the doctrine, not necessarily the poster  )


I think we both agree that the Church has never disappeared and will never disappear.  This is basic Biblical teachings.  My question is, if they existed, where were they in the first 1500 years of Christian history?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I think we both agree that the Church has never disappeared and will never disappear.  This is basic Biblical teachings.  My question is, if they existed, where were they in the first 1500 years of Christian history?


Here is one of many timelines showing tremendous activity within Christianity. 
http://www.christianity.com/church/c...imeline/1-300/ 

Around 433 there was the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith, given through an ecumenical synod.  Is this a document you hold to be true?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No, this is an issue that is foundational to Christian theology.


It may be super-de-duper foundational.  That's great.  I don't deny that.  I'm just saying it's utterly irrelevant to anyone's actual life.

The two Oh-So Diametrically Opposite views are absolutely identical in every practical sense.

View 1: ""You need to have faith and do good works."

Someone following this view would have faith and do good works.

View 2: " "No, no, no, you fool! You just need to have faith! Of course, for that faith to count as real faith you must do good works. Otherwise it doesn't count."

Someone following this view would.... have faith and do good works.

As you can see, the resulting on-the-ground, actual, practical, take-away is, boy, awfully similar for both views.

There's no difference.  It's academic.  Outside of your ivory tower, nobody cares.  Explain to me the man on the street why I should care.

I already know what you'll say.  "Think like me or else you'll burn for eternity."  That's an answer!  Yes, that's an answer.

----------


## TER

> Here is one of many timelines showing tremendous activity within Christianity. 
> http://www.christianity.com/church/c...imeline/1-300/ 
> 
> Around 433 there was the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith, given through an ecumenical synod.  Is this a document you hold to be true?


You know my answer Louise!  Do you hold it true?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It may be super-de-duper foundational.  That's great.  I don't deny that.  I'm just saying it's utterly irrelevant to anyone's actual life.
> 
> The two Oh-So Diametrically Opposite views are absolutely identical in every practical sense.
> 
> *View 1: ""You need to have faith and do good works."
> 
> Someone following this view would have faith and do good works.
> 
> View 2: " "No, no, no, you fool! You just need to have faith! Of course, for that faith to count as real faith you must do good works. Otherwise it doesn't count."*
> ...



It's neither of those.  Justification is different than sanctification.  If you don't make this Biblical distinction, then you lose the gospel.  

When God regenerates a person, He does so based on the imputed righteousness of Christ's works alone and no works of man.  But when God elects that man, He gives him a faith which is obedient and runs the race.

Salvation is all of God and none of man, from election, to calling, to justification, to sanctification, to glorification.  This is explained in Romans chapter 8.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If you don't make this Biblical distinction, then you lose the gospel.


I neither made nor lost any such distinction.  Should somebody be justified?  Is that, like, a good thing?  Should somebody be sanctified?  Is that, like, a good thing?

Seems they both would fall under the category of "good things".  They're things one would want to happen in his life.  So, to make it happen, to get 'er done, just follow this recipe:

_Have faith and do good works._

Or, alternatively, follow this other recipe:

_Have faith, which means, as part of the definition of true faith, that you're going to do good works, you won't be able to help yourself._

Boy, both these recipes look awfully similar when I take them out of the oven.

I'm glad you find lots of meaning in the deep theological differences between these two recipes.  That's nice for you.  All I was saying is that any normal person is going to look at these two sentences and say "hmm, looks like the same thing to me, the bloke holding forth with the second sentence just seems like he's trying to do some linguistic loop-de-loops so that he can say the same thing as the first sentence without saying it."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think we both agree that the Church has never disappeared and will never disappear.  This is basic Biblical teachings.  My question is, if they existed, where were they in the first 1500 years of Christian history?


I'm not well enough read on the church fathers to know if they were Christians or not.  But I can definitely say that there were Christians.  I can also definitely say that the "church fathers" that we have access to are not an exhaustive list of theologians that existed during that period. Not every writing was preserved from that long ago. There was no prining press, so a lot of things probably never got past the foundational.  



> It may be super-de-duper foundational.  That's great.  I don't deny that.  I'm just saying it's utterly irrelevant to anyone's actual life.
> 
> The two Oh-So Diametrically Opposite views are absolutely identical in every practical sense.
> 
> View 1: ""You need to have faith and do good works."
> 
> Someone following this view would have faith and do good works.
> 
> View 2: " "No, no, no, you fool! You just need to have faith! Of course, for that faith to count as real faith you must do good works. Otherwise it doesn't count."
> ...


Not true.  Knowing that you are saved by GRACE, and not anything within yourself, matters critically.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I neither made nor lost any such distinction.  Should somebody be justified?  Is that, like, a good thing?  Should somebody be sanctified?  Is that, like, a good thing?
> 
> Seems they both would fall under the category of "good things".  They're things one would want to happen in his life.  So, to make it happen, to get 'er done, just follow this recipe:
> *
> Have faith and do good works.
> 
> Or, alternatively, follow this other recipe:
> 
> Have faith, which means, as part of the definition of true faith, that you're going to do good works, you won't be able to help yourself.
> ...



Yes, they are both similar, but that is because neither of them are Biblical.  The gospel is different. _ The good news is what God has done on man's behalf, not what man has to do to be saved. _ 

*What The Gospel Is, What The Gospel Is Not*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Gospel-Is-Not

----------


## TER

> I'm not well enough read on the church fathers to know if they were Christians or not.  But I can definitely say that there were Christians.  I can also definitely say that the "church fathers" that we have access to are not an exhaustive list of theologians that existed during that period. Not every writing was preserved from that long ago. There was no prining press, so a lot of things probably never got past the foundational.


So, in other words, there was an underground unknown remnant which no one ever mentioned for 1500 years, neither secular or religious historian, which played no role in aiding the baptized Christians or spreading the faith or defending the apostolic teachings?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So, in other words, there was an underground unknown remnant which no one ever mentioned for 1500 years, neither secular or religious historian, which played no role in aiding the baptized Christians or spreading the faith or defending the apostolic teachings?


Who knows?

I'd rather just deal with the scriptures.  Ephesians 2:8-9 is extremely simple.  As is Romans 4.  I'm not sure how you can miss this.  And if any, so called "church fathers" missed it, its because they weren't saved.

----------


## otherone

> I neither made nor lost any such distinction.  Should somebody be justified?  Is that, like, a good thing?  Should somebody be sanctified?  Is that, like, a good thing?
> 
> Seems they both would fall under the category of "good things".  They're things one would want to happen in his life.  So, to make it happen, to get 'er done, just follow this recipe:
> 
> _Have faith and do good works._
> 
> Or, alternatively, follow this other recipe:
> 
> _Have faith, which means, as part of the definition of true faith, that you're going to do good works, you won't be able to help yourself._
> ...


Understand, HH, with Christianity, it's of greater consequence what you "think" than what you "do".

----------


## TER

> Who knows?


Who knows what?  That there was a secret underground remnant that hid from the world through the centuries?   




> I'd rather just deal with the scriptures.


Where in Scriptures does it say that the Church would disappear from the world, be hidden for the majority of its history, and become as it were a lamp under a table?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who knows what?  That there was a secret underground remnant that hid from the world through the centuries?   
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Scriptures does it say that the Church would disappear from the world, be hidden for the majority of its history, and become as it were a lamp under a table?


It never says that the church (which the Bible describes as simply the elect Christians) will disappear from the world.  But it certainly does say that it will be the minority and hidden. Also persecuted (mostly by the people who claim to be in "the church").

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Understand, HH, with Christianity, it's of greater consequence what you "think" than what you "do".


Neither what you think or do saves you.  Christ's imputed righteousness ALONE saves a man.

----------


## otherone

> Neither what you think or do saves you.  Christ's imputed righteousness ALONE saves a man.


So it's of no consequence whether you or anyone else believes that.

----------


## TER

> It never says that the church (which the Bible describes as simply the elect Christians) will disappear from the world.  But it certainly does say that it will be the minority and hidden. Also persecuted (mostly by the people who claim to be in "the church").


Where does it say it will be hidden?  Chapter and verse?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, in other words, there was an underground unknown remnant which no one ever mentioned for 1500 years, neither secular or religious historian, which played no role in aiding the baptized Christians or spreading the faith or defending the apostolic teachings?


This is just more of your exaggerations and historical revisionism.  It's common for the EOC and Rome to say that there were NO examples of the kind of Biblical faith that we are talking about in early church history, but there was.  And it has been documented (by better church historians than you) that the kind of sovereign grace that Paul preached did significantly wane after the apostles died:





> Kenneth Escott Kirk writes: “St. Paul's indignant wonder was evoked by the reversion of a small province of the Christian Church [Galatia] to the legalistic spirit of the Jewish religion. Had he lived half a century or a century later, his cause for amazement would have been increased a hundredfold. The example of the Galatians might be thought to have infected the entire Christian Church; writer after writer seems to have little other interest than to express the genius of Christianity wholly in terms of law and obedience, reward and punishment.”
> 
> 
> *J. L. Neve carefully documents in the apostolic fathers how quickly after the age of Paul—doubtless due to Jewish and Hellenistic influences without and the tug of the Pelagian heart within—the emphasis in their preaching and writings on soteriology fell more and more upon human works and their merit and upon moralism.
> 
> J. N. D. Kelly reaches similar conclusions. Richard Lovelace affirms: "By the early second century it is clear that Christians had come to think of themselves as being justified through being sanctified, accepted as righteous according to their actual obedience to the new Law of Christ."
> 
>  And Thomas F. Torrance, in his The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers—whose entire work is an inquiry into the literature of the apostolic fathers, that is to say, into the Didache of the Twelve Apostles, the First Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Second Epistle of Clement, in order to discern how and why such a great divergence away from the teaching of the New Testament occurred in their understanding of salvation—concludes his research by saying: “In the Apostolic Fathers grace did not have [the] radical character [that it had in the New Testament]. The great presupposition of the Christian life, for them, was not a deed of decisive significance that cut across human life and set it on a wholly new basis grounded upon the self-giving of God. What took absolute precedence was God's call to a new life in obedience to revealed truth. Grace, as far as it was grasped, was subsidiary to that. And so religion was thought of primarily in terms of man's acts toward God, in the striving toward justification, much less in terms of God's acts for man which put him in the right with God once and for all.
> 
> ...


Many misled people worship the early apostate "church fathers", but a Christian man is no respecter of persons and judges every man's words by the pristine Word of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So it's of no consequence whether you or anyone else believes that.


Right.  My believing that is not what saves me.  Faith is the_ passive_ instrument in justification.  It is not active, meaning that a man's faith does not actuate or activate salvation.

----------


## TER

> This is just more of your exaggerations and historical revisionism.  It's common for the EOC and Rome to say that there were NO examples of the kind of Biblical faith that we are talking about in early church history, but there was.


Where?

The cut and paste you added certainly proved nothing of the sort.  Can you name me one person? 





> Many misled people worship the early apostate "church fathers", but a Christian man is no respecter of persons and judges every man's words by the pristine Word of God.


I am still waiting for the chapter and verse where it says the Church which Christ established to be the shinning city on the hill and the lamp on the stand would be hidden through most of its existence.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where does it say it will be hidden?  Chapter and verse?


I hate these verse bombs as much as the next guy, but there is literally so much in the Bible about the future persecution of God's elect that you may just need to read them all for yourself:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/persecution

----------


## otherone

> Right.  My believing that is not what saves me.  Faith is the_ passive_ instrument in justification.  It is not active, meaning that a man's faith does not actuate or activate salvation.


Then what's the point of saying it?

----------


## TER

> I hate these verse bombs as much as the next guy, but there is literally so much in the Bible about the future persecution of God's elect that you may just need to read them all for yourself:
> 
> http://www.openbible.info/topics/persecution


So, that is your proof that there is some prophecized underground unknown remnant?  The link above demonstrates that the Church will be persecuted in this world and in in the end days.  What does this have to do with it being hidden and unknown in the world?  There is no other Church which has been more persecuted than the Orthodox Church, neither in this century, the last one or the previous ones.  Where is the persecuted Biblical Christians of the first 1500 years you say existed?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, that is your proof that there is some prophecized underground unknown remnant?  The link above demonstrates that the Church will be persecuted in this world and in in the end days.  What does this have to do with it being hidden and unknown in the world?  There is no other Church which has been more persecuted than the Orthodox Church, neither in this century, the last one or the previous ones.  Where is the persecuted Biblical Christians of the first 1500 years you say existed?



Your first problem:  Making the "church fathers" the standard instead of Scripture.  That is idolatry.

Your second problem:  Have an a-historical and biased view of church history.

Your third problem:  Not understanding that the "church fathers" were dealing with certain issue in the early church rather than other ones.  Gnosticism and Greek paganism were the issues they were fighting against more than issues of the will.

Your fourth problem:  Not actually reading the early church fathers. Some of these early Christians did articulate the doctrines of grace:




> *TOTAL DEPRAVITY*
> 
> Barnabas (A.D. 70): “Learn: before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak.”
> 
> Ignatius (A.D. 110): “They that are carnal cannot do the things that are spiritual…Nor can the unbelievers do the things of belief.”
> 
> Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners…No good thing dwells in us…For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit…Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God…He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life…Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold…Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly.”
> 
> Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): “The soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace.”
> ...

----------


## TER

> Your first problem:  Making the "church fathers" the standard instead of Scripture.  That is idolatry.


The Church is the standard, that is the explicit teaching of the Apostles.  That is why Christ called His beloved the salt of the earth.  That is why St. Paul called it the Body of Christ.  That is why he said it is the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Scriptures were created by men in the Church to bring people to God.  People in the Church cared for these writings, and others copied them, and transcribed them.  And these books were chosen by a council of ordained Bishops in direct succession from the original Apostles.  This very undertaking and process involved synergia, that is grace from God together with the work of man, the energia which St. Paul exhorts us to strive for in his epistles to obtain (energia of God, that is, divine communion and theosis.). God gives His grace not merely to those who call Him Lord, but who do His will. This is what every one in that list above confessed.  You are taking snippets from people you don't even consider Saints and trying to put together a picture to satisfy your desires.  But the reality is that these men you quoted above lived Christian lives much different then yours, and within the sacramental communion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the ONLY Church in existence at that time which could claim all four conditions.  The same one which is claimed today.

And on top of that, the quotes above are orthodox teachings.  What is unorthodox, is your taking it to certain conclusions and limitations and exclusions, and to do this you ignore the paragraphs preceding and following those quotes.  I find certain people do this with their Bible as well, underlining certain verses and ignoring or completely coming up with innovative explanations and interpretations for other ones which go completely against the writings of the Christians through the history of the Christian Church.




> Your second problem:  Have an a-historical and biased view of church history.


I am sorry Sola that you can't see that it is you who have an a-historical and biased view of Church history.  

The truth is you that it is you who are making unsubstantiated and fantastic claims of a secret unknown group and can't even come up with one saint of the Biblical Church you have stated existed through the centuries.  All to give credence and justification for your bias position!  




> Your third problem:  Not understanding that the "church fathers" were dealing with certain issue in the early church rather than other ones.  Gnosticism and Greek paganism were the issues they were fighting against more than issues of the will.


I know what many of the issues the Church was dealing with in the early centuries because I read and study history too.  What I am curious about is how did these mysterious Biblical Christians you claim existed confront these issues?  Were they undercover at Nicea?  Or how about when the canon was decided?  Surely, somewhere at some time there must have been great people within these underground secret members who have left a legacy and whose memories people have preserved as models to live by.

Please, name me one.  If you cannot, then I cannot accept your claim that such a Church as you described existed, neither according to logic, wisdom, or common sense.  




> Your fourth problem:  Not actually reading the early church fathers. Some of these early Christians did articulate the doctrines of grace:


Sola, you take snippets and cut and pastes ignoring the entire lives, writings and witness of these Saints, and then claim I am not actually reading these saints?  I bet you I have read more than you, probably a lot more, and that is why I am trying to help you.  You are making claims you cannot prove or defend, and so come up with a fantasy while the real Church has alway existed, has always been visible and present and struggling in the world.  The Christian faith spread through the nations not by an invisible remnant, but by the martyrdom of the Saints and the work of the Holy Spirit in them.

Your confusion doesn't not mean God can not nor will not save you, or that someone without the mind of the Church cannot enter into the Kingdom, but simply I am pointing out that you misuse the Church Fathers, consider yourself greater then them, in fact, criticize them en mass and then go around claiming the Church teaching Reformed doctrines always existed yet lived underground and unknown to the world, like reptilians or dwarves in a Terry Brooks fantasy, while the other Christians were getting slaughtered in defense of the faith, and others gave their lives in service to Christ to fulfill His commission of converting nations by their works of love and Christian charity, and the grace of the Almighty God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think some of those quotes are extremely clear, TER.

----------


## RJB

> Right.  My believing that is not what saves me.  Faith is the_ passive_ instrument in justification.  It is not active, meaning that a man's faith does not actuate or activate salvation.


Based on what you posted, it seems like you are saying that it is by predestination alone that saves rather than faith alone?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Based on what you posted, it seems like you are saying that it is by predestination alone that saves rather than faith alone?


Right, that's what the Bible says.   "By faith alone" is another way of saying "God alone saves, not anything in me".

God is the one who gives His people a persevering faith.  Salvation is all of God and none of man.

----------


## RJB

> Right, that's what the Bible says.   "By faith alone" is another way of saying "God alone saves, not anything in me".


I almost posted a quick reply, but I'll let your words digest in my mind.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> You know my answer Louise!  Do you hold it true?


Yes, I do.  I am asking with respect, TER.  Do you hold to the Anthanasian Creed?   I do to this as well, and it seems that some Orthodox Catholic do as well.

Sorry to be off topic, CL.

----------


## TER

> Yes, I do.  I am asking with respect, TER.  Do you hold to the Anthanasian Creed?   I do to this as well, and it seems that some Orthodox Catholic do as well.
> 
> Sorry to be off topic, CL.


My sister Louise, both the Chalcedon statement of the faith and the Athanasius Creed are treasured by the both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church as being accurate written statements of the faith of the apostolic fathers of the Church.  This is what Christians confessed and hailed as orthodox, both the clergy, and importantly, the laity, in those golden formative years of the Church when great heresies, not unlike today, threatened to divide the Body of Christ, and the leaders of the communities of baptized believers, namely, the episcopy, came together to proclaim the apostolic, catholic, and orthodox faith.   I am overjoyed to learn you also confess the Athanasius Creed!  Have you read other things this great Saint (nicknamed 'The Hammer of God') wrote?  Do you know he was the Bishop of Alexandria, one of the greatest cities in the world, and was exiled 6 times by political authorities because of his refusal to renounce the orthodox faith?

I started a thread not too long ago about him.  I urge you to read more about this man's life.  He is amongst the great Saints of Christ's Church.

----------


## TER

> I think some of those quotes are extremely clear, TER.


I am happy to go through some of the quotes if you like.  But first, are you suggesting that those quotes are authority on the matter?  How do you regard the persons who made these quotes?  Do you consider them as members of the Church?  As saints?

----------


## TER

Sola, have you found any traces of the 'Biblical Christians' before the Middle Ages yet?  I am eager to learn the results of your study.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am happy to go through some of the quotes if you like.  But first, are you suggesting that those quotes are authority on the matter?  How do you regard the persons who made these quotes?  Do you consider them as members of the Church?  As saints?


No, the quotes aren't authoritative.  Only scripture is.  That said, I'm not sure how you could deny that (say) Clement was clearly teaching that it was impossible for a true believer to fall away. 

I'm willing to assume that all of those men were saints unless/until proven otherwise.  But I don't know enough about all of them to say.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am happy to go through some of the quotes if you like.  But first, are you suggesting that those quotes are authority on the matter?  How do you regard the persons who made these quotes?  Do you consider them as members of the Church?  As saints?


No, the quotes aren't authoritative.  Only scripture is.  That said, I'm not sure how you could deny that (say) Clement was clearly teaching that it was impossible for a true believer to fall away. 

I'm willing to assume that all of those men were saints unless/until proven otherwise.  But I don't know enough about all of them to say.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am happy to go through some of the quotes if you like.  But first, are you suggesting that those quotes are authority on the matter?  How do you regard the persons who made these quotes?  Do you consider them as members of the Church?  As saints?


No, the quotes aren't authoritative.  Only scripture is.  That said, I'm not sure how you could deny that (say) Clement was clearly teaching that it was impossible for a true believer to fall away. 

I'm willing to assume that all of those men were saints unless/until proven otherwise.  But I don't know enough about all of them to say.

----------


## RJB

> That said, I'm not sure how you could deny that (say) Clement was clearly teaching that it was impossible for a true believer to fall away.


After the Great Schism, the western Church became very legalistic.  The Reformers objected to this and I've come to respect that.  However instead of going back to the Orthodox way and sticking with intangible Faith, Hope, and Love for our Savior, the Reformers instead stuck with legalism and invented legal loopholes from Roman Legalism.  

Which leads to your post.  I, like St. Clement, have faith that I will "partake in his Divine nature," that God won't let me leave the flock, but I need no legal loophole to assure me of OSAS, Perseverance of the Saints, etc.  The dangers of these loophole dogmas is that you then read the bible through the prism of it and make the bible conform to man's principles.  There is a beautiful mystery to God's word that man's legalism destroys, even if it's a loophole from Roman legalism.

Faith Alone is a big example.  I don't disagree with any of the verses from the OP.  However none of them say "Faith Alone."  There is only 1 time "faith alone" is mentioned in the bible and "NOT BY" comes before it.  No Old Testament Prophesy mentions it.  No New Testament verse mentions it and no Christian writer mentioned it until the 1500s when Rome had lost it's way.

  God is so many things.  He's my Creator, Father, Brother, Shepard, Judge, Comforter...  John gently rested his head on God's chest at the Last Supper.  Yet prostrated before Him when he saw the Lamb in his full Glory in Revelation.  He is whom I must pray unceasingly to...   As no Christian could until the 1500s, I can't describe my relationship to God as faith alone.  Anymore than I can say I'm married to my wife through love, fidelity, etc. alone.

BTW, I've been quiet in this forum for a while.  Mostly because I've had some things to think of that I don't grasp.  Believe it or not some of what you have posted has helped lead me from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy.  So you have my thanks and respect CL.  Peace.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am happy to go through some of the quotes if you like.  But first, are you suggesting that those quotes are authority on the matter?  How do you regard the persons who made these quotes?  Do you consider them as members of the Church?  As saints?


No, the quotes aren't authoritative.  Only scripture is.  That said, I'm not sure how you could deny that (say) Clement was clearly teaching that it was impossible for a true believer to fall away. 

I'm willing to assume that all of those men were saints unless/until proven otherwise.  But I don't know enough about all of them to say.

----------


## TER

dupe

----------


## TER

> No, the quotes aren't authoritative.  Only scripture is.  That said, I'm not sure how you could deny that (say) Clement was clearly teaching that it was impossible for a true believer to fall away. 
> 
> I'm willing to assume that all of those men were saints unless/until proven otherwise.  But I don't know enough about all of them to say.


As a first century Apostolic father of the Church, I think you are safe to assume that Clement of Rome is a saint of the Church, even if you don't know enough about him.  I do urge you, however, to in fact learn more about him.  He was ordained Bishop of Rome before the end the of the first century and probably personally knew St. Peter and St. Paul.

The quote you are referencing from the list above attributed to St. Clement is from his First Letter to the Corinthians, which, incidentally, was held to be of canonical status in many part of early Christendom. It was included in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus, which contained the entire Old and New Testaments. It was included also with the Gospel of John in the fragmentary Papyrus 6, and is listed as canonical in "Canon 85" of the Canons of the Apostles.  Thus while it does not have the authority of the Holy Scriptures as you rightly say, it does indeed hold tremendous value and does indeed hold authority, though not to the level of the canonical Scriptures.  

This letter was sent in an attempt to restore peace and unity in the Corinthian church, where apparently a few violent people had revolted against the leadership of the church community.   

Instead of taking the selected quote you have chosen above in isolation, why don't we study the entire text to get the context of what he was exhorting the faithful in Corinth?  We can learn much about what the apostolic teachings were and what challenges the infant Church was facing in those very early years. The quote is:




> “It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent. He has established it by His almighty will. But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?”


Now, to better understand what Clement means by the words "should partake of the grace of repentance", we should study the whole text.  If your are willing, I would be happy to go through the Epistle chapter by chapter and we can discuss it.  I think this would be a very fruitful exercise for all involved and if you wish, I will start a thread on it.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 1. After the Great Schism, the western Church became very legalistic.  The Reformers objected to this and I've come to respect that.  However instead of going back to the Orthodox way and sticking with intangible Faith, Hope, and Love for our Savior, the Reformers instead stuck with legalism and invented legal loopholes from Roman Legalism.  
> 
> 2. Which leads to your post.  I, like St. Clement, have faith that I will "partake in his Divine nature," that God won't let me leave the flock, but I need no legal loophole to assure me of OSAS, Perseverance of the Saints, etc.  The dangers of these loophole dogmas is that you then read the bible through the prism of it and make the bible conform to man's principles.  There is a beautiful mystery to God's word that man's legalism destroys, even if it's a loophole from Roman legalism.
> 
> 3. Faith Alone is a big example.  I don't disagree with any of the verses from the OP.  However none of them say "Faith Alone."  There is only 1 time "faith alone" is mentioned in the bible and "NOT BY" comes before it.  No Old Testament Prophesy mentions it.  No New Testament verse mentions it and no Christian writer mentioned it until the 1500s when Rome had lost it's way.
> 
> 4. God is so many things.  He's my Creator, Father, Brother, Shepard, Judge, Comforter...  John gently rested his head on God's chest at the Last Supper.  Yet prostrated before Him when he saw the Lamb in his full Glory in Revelation.  He is whom I must pray unceasingly to...   As no Christian could until the 1500s, I can't describe my relationship to God as faith alone.  Anymore than I can say I'm married to my wife through love, fidelity, etc. alone.
> 
> 5. BTW, I've been quiet in this forum for a while.  Mostly because I've had some things to think of that I don't grasp.  Believe it or not some of what you have posted has helped lead me from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy.  So you have my thanks and respect CL.  Peace.


I know I'm a bit late to this discussion but I figured I'd address some of what is on the latest page rather than address the OP, which I am generally in agreement with, though he and a few other Reformed members of the forum have stated some things that I'm not in agreement on regarding the historicity of the Christian faith, and it is with this in view that I am formulating this response.

1. The perceived legalism of the Reformers, particularly Luther, Calvin, Knox and their successors is largely a consequence of being Latin speaking intellectuals. As a language Latin, particularly following the publication of the Vulgate, has a very legalistic flavor that lends itself to more of an ethical connotation to doctrine than the more metaphysical flavor of Greek. I would argue that this perceived legalism, while noticeable, is largely accidental as it pertains to the Magistrate Reformers.

2. As a Covenanter, I don't hold to the Baptist concept of OSAS, as it tends to de-emphasize the necessity of sanctifying works following justification and lends itself to Antinomianism/Legalism, both of which are thoroughly condemned in Luther's "Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians" and "Treatise Against The Antinomians" respectively. I do, however, hold to the Perseverence Of The Saints as it was handed down from Augustine of Hippo. It is important to keep in mind that this doctrine is not intended as a legal loophole, or even as a binding rule of salvation, but is instead a defense of God's sovereignty against Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresy, which argues that man's will is free of God's influence and independently chooses whether or not to sin, hence trivializing the impact of The Fall in Genesis 3. Similarly, the 5 points of Calvinism should not be seen as Ecumenical Creeds in themselves, but as subordinate standards that are specifically meant to cut against an offshoot of Pelagianism known as Arminianism, which tries to over-emphasize man's will contra God's will in a more Protestant light by dealing with the work of faith rather than works of the flesh.

3. Faith Alone was a translation decision made by Luther and the German Reformation in order to cut against Roman distortions of New Testament interpretation via insubordinate synod and council decrees, and later via Papal Bulls. I go back and forth between using the King James Version, The Geneva Bible, and occasionally the John Wycliffe New Testament as I am an English speaker, and none of these versions kept Luther's modification. I'm somewhat ambivalent on whether Luther's translation should be seen as extra-biblical conjecture or simply treated as an (western) orthodox rephrasing of a verse for purposes of doctrinal clarity, but I agree with the fundamental premise behind Sola Fide as it pertains to a defense of God's sovereign grace against Semi-Pelagian errors.

4. Sola Fide should not be viewed as the beginning, middle and end of a Protestant's relationship with God, and I know this is a common mistake with post-19th century Fundamentalists, but this was not the position of Luther, Calvin, or any other Magistrate Reformer that was in agreement with them (this excludes Huldrych Zwingli, Thomas Erastus, and anyone else attached to their flock, whom I would argue were absolutely Legalistic in their theology). Sola Fide only pertains to Justification, it does not speak to the mystery of adoption that follows, nor to the sanctifying grace of The Holy Spirit that likewise follows and (in contrast to Justification) is synergistic, ergo the reborn spirit of the believer becomes a willing participant in the body of the church. It is a single step in a process, one that I would argue is usually tied to the moment of a person's Baptism.

5. It has been stipulated that the Reformed position is closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than it is to Roman Catholicism, particularly insofar as the nature of the sacraments, their elements (minus the part of immersion in Baptism in the Presbyterian case, which is not condemned, but affusion or aspersion is generally preferred), and also in many respects the proper governing structure of the institutional visible church. I am glad to hear of your progress on this front. I have never held the view that the whole of the Roman Church is reprobate of God, only that the decrees of Trent were boldly heretical and consequently cut Rome off from the historical early church and even from its own professed Medieval fathers such as Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, and led to the persecution of the students of Michael Baius and Cornelius Jansen, whom I would argue were among the last orthodox adherents to pre-Trent Roman Christianity.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 1. The reason my friend is because much of Protestant ecclesiology, sacramental theology, soteriology, and eschatology was not invented until after the Reformation.  In other words, it is a change from what the Christian people through the centuries believed and proclaimed.  
> 
> 2. No, instead, what you get as evidence is selective picking of small fragments of certain verses from amongst the early writings of the Christian Church which often times out of context seems to support Reformed Protestant doctrines , while forgetting and ignoring a vast majority of the rest.  (a common approach certain people have as well with the Scriptures).  A chosen line from the Church Fathers is quoted as some proof, for example, yet the fact that every Church Father held in common certain fundamental doctrinal, ecclesiological, and liturgical beliefs they held as apostolic seems to fly over their heads.  Or worse, they criticize, as if they consider themselves greater Christians than the ones we remember as Saints of the Church.


1. Protestant ecclesiology, sacramental theology, soteriology, and eschatology are not uniform, particularly if you are including the Radically Reformed groups (which Rome always does and Eastern Orthodoxy has a tendency to do) such as the Anabaptists, Socinians, Quakers and several others. Actually, some of these groups were little more than renamed revivals of the Arian heresy and the Donatist schismatics (some of them would argue that these groups would count as evidence of their peculiar fanaticism being historical between the Apostolic era and the Reformation), and I would argue that a lot of the anti-creed and anti-confessional "Biblicism" that is rampant in American Evanglical Christianity is more in line with these groups, and only nominally deferential to the Magistrate Reformers insofar as it helps their claim for independence from Rome. Most Anabaptists despise Martin Luther and the Presbyterian Church because they fought against their anarchistic revolutions in Germany and else where with the same zeal that Rome did in Spain.

Allow me to elaborate further by unpacking my views on these subjects in contrast to what you may view as being uniformly Protestant:

*Ecclesiology* - Presbyterian polity is different that the Eastern Orthodox mode of Patriarchal Authority (Anglican Episcopacy is closer to this position) in that it requires a multiplicity of bishops/elders for a single congregation. Generally there is one teaching bishop/elder that presides over worship and does the readings and leads the singing of psalms (I follow the exclusive psalm singing of the Scottish and Northern Irish Covenanters, without the accompaniment of instruments), whereas there are generally 2 or more governing bishops/elders with an equal degree of power to the teaching elder/bishop (the Irish churches have a tradition of only have 1 governing bishop/elder to check the presiding/teaching one), for purposes of checking against erroneous teachings being perpetuated against the congregation. Anyone, be they presbyter (elder/bishop) or of the general congregation, is required to be catechized for no less than 3 years (the length of Christ's ministry) before they can be considered a communicate member.

This system is similar to the EO Patriarchal system in that the ordination of Presbyters occurs through election of the congregation, and then later is subject to approval from other presbyteries to be made official churches within the national church. While there isn't a binding hierarchy in Presbyterian Polity, there are functional differences between officers that are in accordance with 1 Timothy 3, Ephesians 4:11-16, and other relevant New Testament passages regarding church government. This will even involve presiding bishops/elders when a Synod or Assembly is called, and the presbyter selected is generally he that is the most venerable, fulfilling the historical "Primus Inter Pares" function of the one presiding over an ecumenical council.

This system is naturally also different from the Congregational Polity, which is more dominant in American Evangelical Churches where there is no unified visible polity outside of the individual congregation, and is highly vulnerable to subjugation by tyrannical pastors. Due to the lack of outside authority to check the pastor and whatever inner circle he may devise, it is not uncommon to see bold, open mockeries of the Christian faith under the guise of televangelism, megachurches, and all the foolishness that comes with it.

*Sacramental theology* - Protestant views on this generally fall into 3 categories, namely Lutheran Consubstantial Ubiquitarianism, The Real Spiritual Presence (Calvin's position), and the Zwinglian Memorial viewpoint. All 3 of these positions are different from Rome's doctrine of Transubstantiation, with the Lutheran position being the closest as it involves Christ's physical human presence at the sacrament, though not in the elements themselves. I would argue that Calvin's position is most in harmony with Christ's teachings and also with the Chalcedonian Creed as it doesn't confuse or mix Christ's human and divine natures in the process of explaining the sacrament, and also doesn't remove the spiritual significance of the sacrament the way Zwingli's view does. The Reformed and Presbyterian Churches (until the advent of the 19th Century Temperance/Prohibitionist Movement) held to the same elements of Leavened Bread and Wine that are used in the Eastern Churches, though presently in American and the British Isles only Covenanters are consistently utilizing wine instead of non-alcoholic grape juice. 

*Soteriology* - Discounting the Radically Reformed who are all over the place on this issue, Protestantism is generally viewed under the lens of the Pelagius vs. Augustine of Hippo controversy in the western church. As this controversy never had much legs in the eastern church (which was more heavily concerned with Arianism and later Islam), the issue was never dealt with and the orthodox position of God's sovereignty is generally assumed. I am reliant entirely upon my superior for what I am about to say given that he is fluent in Greek (I am not) and has done his own translation of the Eastern Fathers in question since no good English translations exists of their works. In keeping with this, it is his view that there was no significant divergence between Augustine's soteriology as he understood it from Paul's epistles and that of the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil The Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus). Any divergence, in his view, arises from accidents of translation between Latin and Greek, as well as a general poverty of reliable Greek and Hebrew speakers in the Western Church.

*Eschatology* - This is an area that has become incredibly murky thanks to the influence of the Antinomian apostate and Judaizer Cyrus I. Scofield, but even when discounting the ubiquity of this 19th century charlatan's influence on American eschatology, there is a sizable variety of positions on this subject that run against treating Protestantism as being uniform on this subject. I am of the Post-Millennial Historicist viewpoint, which I would argue was the default position of the Reformers and also a good chunk of the early fathers, though I have encountered counterarguments in favor of the Amillennial position that are plausible, though I view them as somewhat flawed. I tend to see Eschatology through the lens of Christ's church progressing through history and as a collective result of the gathering of Christ's chosen, so I am not terribly obsessed with signs of a coming apocalypse or a sudden rapture, though I am very interested in the general ebb and flow of the church throughout the world and its triumph over its enemies.

2. I can only speak for myself and others of the Steelite tradition (we are viewed somewhat poorly among modern Presbyterians because we require heavy emphasis on study of the subordinate standards of the historical church, including all of the major controversies and decisions of the early church, and thus the corresponding creeds and confessions of the first 6 ecumenical councils), and I am still very much at study on the views of the early fathers, but I am very careful regarding how I deal with their writings, both as a matter of reverence for their defense of the historic faith, their close proximity to the Apostolic Church, and also because they are part of a world that I only know through books. Having stated all of this, I think it is important to point out that Rome is equally as guilty of misrepresenting the early fathers for their own purposes as the radically reformed, and that when the Magistrate Reformers debated Rome regarding the context and meaning of the statements of the early fathers, though they may have erred on some points, they approached this matter with much care. If we are truly, as Paul stated in Ephesians 2:20, "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone", it stands to reason that the early fathers, insofar as they stood upon the foundation of the apostolic church, are of the pastoral tradition that buttresses us in place. I don't resist lawful authority when it presents itself, though I will go first to the scriptures, with the guide of The Holy Spirit and all lawful teaching authorities, to distinguish lawful authority from tyranny.

I hope I have been both respectful and clear in my explanations.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> As a first century Apostolic father of the Church, I think you are safe to assume that Clement of Rome is a saint of the Church, even if you don't know enough about him.  I do urge you, however, to in fact learn more about him.  He was ordained Bishop of Rome before the end the of the first century and probably personally knew St. Peter and St. Paul.
> 
> The quote you are referencing from the list above attributed to St. Clement is from his First Letter to the Corinthians, which, incidentally, was held to be of canonical status in many part of early Christendom. It was included in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus, which contained the entire Old and New Testaments. It was included also with the Gospel of John in the fragmentary Papyrus 6, and is listed as canonical in "Canon 85" of the Canons of the Apostles.  Thus while it does not have the authority of the Holy Scriptures as you rightly say, it does indeed hold tremendous value and does indeed hold authority, though not to the level of the canonical Scriptures.  
> 
> This letter was sent in an attempt to restore peace and unity in the Corinthian church, where apparently a few violent people had revolted against the leadership of the church community.   
> 
> Instead of taking the selected quote you have chosen above in isolation, why don't we study the entire text to get the context of what he was exhorting the faithful in Corinth?  We can learn much about what the apostolic teachings were and what challenges the infant Church was facing in those very early years. The quote is:
> 
> 
> ...


Please do start a thread.  I may be slow in responding during the latter part of this week, but I would love to discuss it with you.

----------


## TER

> I hope I have been both respectful and clear in my explanations.


You have been extremely respectful and crystal clear in your explanations and I thank you for your edifying post above!  

I very much appreciate the perspective you are bringing, my brother, and am learning much from your posts.  It is refreshing to see someone eager to learn the truth in an open and honest way, in humility and in a sense of service and obedience, all of which Christ taught was the way to the Kingdom and to the Truth.  You have a much deeper understanding of what the Church is compared to other Protestants I run into over the internet, and this is a credit to you. What has been lost in the last few centuries in the West is the idea that our salvation involves our being saved together as one Church, one Body, one Bride of Christ.  The notion of unity in sacramental bonds around the Lord Jesus Christ has been supplanted by individualism, relativism, and secularism.  I sense you, instead, have an appreciation for what it means to be a communion or assembly of baptized members in union with one another and with God, which is the realization of the Church.




> I would argue that Calvin's position is most in harmony with Christ's teachings and also with the Chalcedonian Creed as it doesn't confuse or mix Christ's human and divine natures in the process of explaining the sacrament, and also doesn't remove the spiritual significance of the sacrament the way Zwingli's view does.


I would argue that Calvin's position is Nestorian.  To relegate the Eucharist as merely the divine or spiritual presence of Christ and not include His human flesh and nature, that is, His body and blood, divides the hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos of God and leads to the problems of Nestorianism.  The  unanimous consensus of the Fathers is that the bread and the wine become Christ's Body and Blood.  Why?  Because He said so, because the fathers before them all taught this, and because it is the real experience of the Church that it is so.  

By the grace of God and beyond human comprehension, Christ is the Manna from Heaven and Bread of Heaven, in His united created and uncreated natures, just as He said He was and as His Apostles taught.  The sanctified gifts of bread and wine which the Church offers to God in thanksgiving and praise becomes food for eternal life, not because the human mind can explain it, but because the human heart can experience it and the soul can find salvation.  

The only other comments I would make is where you said:




> he has done his own translation of the Eastern Fathers in question since no good English translations exists of their works.


What works are not found in good English translations that he had to translate his own?  I confess my brother that I find it notable that your superior has made his own translations, yet I wonder what works was he studying that he could not find any good English translations.  If there are indeed English translations apart from his, I hope he is comparing and checking the validity of his own.




> In keeping with this, it is his view that there was no significant divergence between Augustine's soteriology as he understood it from Paul's epistles and that of the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil The Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus). Any divergence, in his view, arises from accidents of translation between Latin and Greek, as well as a general poverty of reliable Greek and Hebrew speakers in the Western Church.


Accidents of translations of the Latin from the Greek most assuredly must have played a role, I totally agree.  However, even with that given, there does exist certain differences between some of Augustine's writings from that of the earlier Greek Fathers, namely the Cappadocians as you rightly mentioned.  St. Augustine is a brilliant Saint, but he was in error on certain things, just as all men have been in error on certain things. This does not make his brilliance any less bright, nor deny his great contribution to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Sadly, however, the historical reality is that those few errors of theological opinion began a divergent trajectory of the Western Church of Rome from the Eastern Churches on certain points of belief.  This is particularly true with regards to original versus ancestral sin and the economia of the Holy Spirit.  These few differences in time culminated into great differences, not unlike two boats heading in the ocean side by side, until one boat shifts 3 degrees from straightaway.  At first, the differences in destination and direction is minimally perceptible, yet in time, the distance grows so much that the boats will loose sight of one another in the horizon.  That is why it is of tantamount importance to hold fast to the teachings of the fathers before us, to align our minds to the unity of the faith, and to dig deeper and with a clear and sober mind to contemplate and study the patristic writings and hagiography of the Church, so that we might find the truth and in doing so be set free.  I urge you to continue your study of the writings of the early Christian Saints.  Have you had a chance yet to read "On the Incarnation"?  I would greatly like to know your thoughts and impressions on it!  

Anyways, that is enough rambling from me.  Thank you for your time!

----------


## TER

> Please do start a thread.  I may be slow in responding during the latter part of this week, but I would love to discuss it with you.


Excellent!  I will start one in the morning!  For now, here is a* link* to the writing.  Let's read the first Chapter in the meanwhile.

----------


## RJB

Hey H.U.

My post that you responded to was my first post in the thread as well.  Faith Alone is a sticky point on the forum because a few people consider it The Gospel and anyone not adhereing to it is NOT considered a Christian by some.  I appreciate your awareness that it never became a point of discussion for the Orthodox Church.




> Sola Fide should not be viewed as the beginning, middle and end of a Protestant's relationship with God, and I know this is a common mistake with post-19th century Fundamentalists


I realize this and this is why it's awkward approaching this subject because there is everything from the above post where it's pretty much "predestination alone" to antinomianism to... who knows. 

I've heard some give personal definitions that I apprecited so I apologize if I sounded like I made a blanket statement.  Looking back at what I wrote however, it's funny that I saw it as very limitting for a relationship, but yet there can be an almost infinite numbers of interpretation of that doctrine.  

At this point I'm here less to argue, but rather see where people are coming from.  I was like this when I was an athiest.  When I became a Christian and attained a little knowledge, I enjoyed arguing with that little knowledge, but each day I tend to realize how little that knowledge is.




> It has been stipulated that the Reformed position is closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than it is to Roman Catholicism


Thanks.  You answered a lot of my questions in your response to TER.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yes, they are both similar,


 Bingo!  That's all I said! 




> but that is because neither of them are Biblical.


 Well, there is no "because" -- as if all non-Biblical views are similar.  But that's a quibble.  You're saying FF's statement was unbiblical and wrong.

Basically, I am happy with the result of my little interjection.  FF and those on the other side of the debate can both see now how similar their views really are.  Perhaps I've helped a little bit in building a bridge of mutual *understanding*.  From that understanding perhaps additional harmony and *peace* can flow, as the title of this section of the forum would suggest to be desirable.

And meanwhile you can sit off to the side from it all, Sola, secure in the knowledge that everyone in the debate is mistaken and unbiblical, other than yourself.

Everybody wins.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> You have been extremely respectful and crystal clear in your explanations and I thank you for your edifying post above!  
> 
> I very much appreciate the perspective you are bringing, my brother, and am learning much from your posts.  It is refreshing to see someone eager to learn the truth in an open and honest way, in humility and in a sense of service and obedience, all of which Christ taught was the way to the Kingdom and to the Truth.  You have a much deeper understanding of what the Church is compared to other Protestants I run into over the internet, and this is a credit to you. What has been lost in the last few centuries in the West is the idea that our salvation involves our being saved together as one Church, one Body, one Bride of Christ.  The notion of unity in sacramental bonds around the Lord Jesus Christ has been supplanted by individualism, relativism, and secularism.  I sense you, instead, have an appreciation for what it means to be a communion or assembly of baptized members in union with one another and with God, which is the realization of the Church.


I appreciate your acknowledgment, I have to admit that I am a bit more deferential to the historicity of the faith than average, this can both be attributed to the peculiarity of the position that has been brought to me, as well as the fact that my girlfriend is Romanian Orthodox and I am proactively working out our divergent backgrounds with an eye to the possibility of marriage. There are some practical differences between the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches on how the early church fathers are remembered, as we don't keep a peculiar feast day for any particular father (I will admit that I do keep a day of reverence for St. Patrick given his efforts to bring Christianity to my ancestral motherland of Ireland), but particularly the Steelite and Covenanter tradition emphasizes the historical perseverence of the church, noting particularly such examples of Athanasius against the Arians, among other historic battles and controversies that shaped the historical church. This is another point of contrast between the Magistrate Reformers themselves, as the Lutheran and Anglican communions still keep feast days for Irenaeus, Clement of Rome and a few others. 




> I would argue that Calvin's position is Nestorian.  To relegate the Eucharist as merely the divine or spiritual presence of Christ and not include His human flesh and nature, that is, His body and blood, divides the hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos of God and leads to the problems of Nestorianism.  The  unanimous consensus of the Fathers is that the bread and the wine become Christ's Body and Blood.  Why?  Because He said so, because the fathers before them all taught this, and because it is the real experience of the Church that it is so.
> 
> By the grace of God and beyond human comprehension, Christ is the Manna from Heaven and Bread of Heaven, in His united created and uncreated natures, just as He said He was and as His Apostles taught.  The sanctified gifts of bread and wine which the Church offers to God in thanksgiving and praise becomes food for eternal life, not because the human mind can explain it, but because the human heart can experience it and the soul can find salvation.


I should elaborate on my initial point by stating that I was defining Calvin's position from a point of contrast with the Lutheran and Zwinglian position, and not providing the full extent of Calvin's viewpoint. I just paged through Calvin's Institutes again to confirm this, and this quote should fully elaborate his position in a way that is indeed in harmony with what you have stated, in that the sacrament "seals and confirms that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is food indeed and his blood is drink [John 6:56], which feed us unto eternal life [John 6:55]." (Institutes IV.xvii.4). The spiritual side of the Real Presence is meant to cut against the tendency of Roman sacramental theology to make The Lord's Supper a repetitive sacrifice by injecting fallacious concepts of metaphysical realism, which confuses and mixes the true human nature of Christ with his omnipresent divine nature. I think the best way this can be distilled is that while Calvin did not deny what Christ stated in John 6, his understanding was that the sacrament seals the promise of John 6, rather than John 6 being a eucharistic description of the sacrament.

When fully understood, I don't think Calvin's position is Nestorian because his exegetical works never went down that road, but I can see how it would be viewed as Nestorian because it is worded as a response to the Roman position, not as a perfect restatement of the Chalcedonian Creed verbatim. From an Eastern standpoint, I can see an objection to making so many logical elaborations regarding the mystery of the sacrament, but this was done primarily to eliminate confusion that was brought in by what I think either you or RJB described as "Roman Legalism". Legalism has been an enduring problem in the Western Church, so it has become necessary for several Synod decisions following the Schism in order to redress these errors. Calvin's primary point is that the sacrament, when taken by faith, culminates in Christ drawing us to him, not Christ being drawn out by us, which is actually in line with some things that the medieval Latin father Thomas Aquinas said on the subject. 




> What works are not found in good English translations that he had to translate his own?  I confess my brother that I find it notable that your superior has made his own translations, yet I wonder what works was he studying that he could not find any good English translations.  If there are indeed English translations apart from his, I hope he is comparing and checking the validity of his own.


I can't recall off the top of my head, I'll need to get back to you on that after I meet with him again for my catechism class this Friday. He was reading other translations on them prior to undertaking this task, and I remember him showing me a 19th century English translation of one of Basil's works that was done by someone that I believe was attached to the Church of England, which he described as being "brutally awful" and "loaded with rationalist jargon". I think I may be able to procure a copy of what my pastor has already put together. I think he may have already finished his work as he started this project over a year ago.




> Accidents of translations of the Latin from the Greek most assuredly must have played a role, I totally agree.  However, even with that given, there does exist certain differences between some of Augustine's writings from that of the earlier Greek Fathers, namely the Cappadocians as you rightly mentioned.  St. Augustine is a brilliant Saint, but he was in error on certain things, just as all men have been in error on certain things. This does not make his brilliance any less bright, nor deny his great contribution to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Sadly, however, the historical reality is that those few errors of theological opinion began a divergent trajectory of the Western Church of Rome from the Eastern Churches on certain points of belief.  This is particularly true with regards to original versus ancestral sin and the economia of the Holy Spirit.  These few differences in time culminated into great differences, not unlike two boats heading in the ocean side by side, until one boat shifts 3 degrees from straightaway.  At first, the differences in destination and direction is minimally perceptible, yet in time, the distance grows so much that the boats will loose sight of one another in the horizon.  That is why it is of tantamount importance to hold fast to the teachings of the fathers before us, to align our minds to the unity of the faith, and to dig deeper and with a clear and sober mind to contemplate and study the patristic writings and hagiography of the Church, so that we might find the truth and in doing so be set free.  I urge you to continue your study of the writings of the early Christian Saints.  Have you had a chance yet to read "On the Incarnation"?  I would greatly like to know your thoughts and impressions on it!


I perused some of it this past Lord's Day, but I need to go through it all and get back to you at a later date. My family's business is experiencing a lot of activity that has limited my time for reading the past few days. I will likewise hold off on getting into my position on Original vs. Ancestral Sin in detail at this point, but I do tend to fall in line with the Western tradition on this point.




> Anyways, that is enough rambling from me.  Thank you for your time!


Always a pleasure, and I'm just as guilty of rambling as you. We'll continue this further in the coming days.

----------


## TER

Good luck with the family business!  I look forward to more discussions when you have more time!

----------

