Trent Horn tends to go after low hanging fruit. He probably knows about this but doesn't really talk about it because his target audience is normie Catholics who don't really think about it and gives them a basic introduction to various topics.
That said, he destroyed Destiny in their debate so idk if that mean's Destiny is low hanging fruit or if Trent is smarter than I give him credit for.
You're in the same book as them (and every single other false works-based religion) seeing as you deny that believe in Jesus Christ is all that's required for eternal life.
To gain salvation, you must not only exercise faith in Jesus but also demonstrate that faith by obeying his commands.—Acts 4:10, 12; Romans 10:9, 10; Hebrews 5:9.
Exactly. You're in the same satanic camp as Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons etc. You're trusting in your own works, rather than in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Unless you place your trust in Christ ALONE, you're facing an eternity of hell.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:5
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 11:6
28Then said they unto him,What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them,This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 6:28-29
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:16
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 2:21
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:31
5 months ago
JWbot
The Bible shows that you must have works, or acts of obedience, to prove that your faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26)
However, this does not mean that you can earn salvation. It is “God’s gift” based on his “undeserved kindness,” or “grace.”—Ephesians 2:8, 9
5 months ago
Anonymous
>The Bible shows that you must have works, or acts of obedience, to prove that your faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26)
Give me a shred of decent historical evidence that James was written by THE James. The evidence is much much worse for James being scripture than for The Shepherd of Hermas. It's about as bad as The Apocalypse of Peter.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>outright denying that scripture they don't like is scripture
protestants everyone
5 months ago
Anonymous
Do you accept the Sherpherd of Hermas or Apocalypse of Peter?
If not then some church fathers would give you that exact reply.
We have to use actual historical evidence to make a case for a work's apostolic authorship. This is dirt simple with the Gospels and Paul and Peter's letters, if they were secular documents their authorship would be as unquestioned as Tacitus' Annals.
But for James and Hebrews there's no (James) or even negative (Hebrews) evidence that an Apostle wrote it. Just like the Shepherd of Hermas and Apocalypse of Peter many have, in my opinion, made a big mistake by letting books with no case for Apostolic authorship into their canons.
5 months ago
Anonymous
James was also a bully who was very mean to Paul all the time, so I fail to see what it'd prove if the letter had been written by him.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>However, this does not mean that you can earn salvation.
It does "earn salvation" if you think you need good works to prove that you're "really saved".
You have the same fatally flawed understanding of James 2 as all other false-"Christian" religions. James is talking about a faith that is helpful for others, and acting in a way to avoid temporal chastisement. But satanic religions will twist it to claim that works are what "prove our faith" (or whatever stupid phrase you wish to use).
As of now, you are among the hoardes of Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox, Mormons, Buddhists, JWs, SDAs etc. that believe that they get into heaven by their works. You aren't trusting in the grace of God, and it's sad, but you will reap eternal punishment for your pride and evil.
It's always this way with Catholics. When they say "the early church believed..." they mean "some guy in the year 1200 wrote...".
The earliest Christian writings from people who actually had some connection to the Apostles (like Clement of Rome in your OP) freely and flagrantly contradict modern Catholic doctrine.
They aren't prophets, the Holy Spirit isn't telling them anything. Find it a little sus that supposedly an omniscient spirit gives them information directly but they can't give prophecies, speak foreign languages, or reveal anything (like "go here and you'll find...")? It's EXCLUSIVELY "God says our doctrinal speculations are true, don't question it"?
Sole Fide is protestant horseshit, mixed with swill, and left to ferment in open sunlight for a few months. God gave you a brain with the intention you'd use it every now and then. >t. Catholic theologian.
There's a million different versions of what you have to do to be saved. Revelation says people will be judged by their works. Jesus says that if you don't forgive the sins of others against you, God won't forgive your sins. Why do Sola fide gays focus only on Romans?
Protestant soteriology is systematic and therefore reconciles the various passages. Sola fide is the only plausible reconciliation. The clearest verses plainly teach salvation by faith, the others only superficially contradict it.
Opponents of sola fide don't bother attempting to understand it 9 times out of 10.
I'll grant that's possible but historically Christian interpretation presupposes divine authorship and therefore a unity to scripture. Stated more strongly, inerrancy. There's no two passages on the topic that necessarily contradict.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>but historically Christian interpretation presupposes divine authorship and therefore a unity to scripture. Stated more strongly, inerrancy.
So the most reasonable conclusion, though I grant not necessarily the only one, at least based on this alone, is that the bible is not inerrant because it includes internal contradictions.
5 months ago
Dirk
Let's see one on this topic, given you've already asserted they exist
Two passages that necessarily contradict dealing with soteriology
5 months ago
Anonymous
I granted again, in so many words, that you can "reconcile" them. I just doubt that is the most likely way they were meant to be interpreted.
5 months ago
Dirk
Fair enough
How can you be over the age of 12 and still not understand it? Are protestants brain damaged? It's written in plain and simple words - how is this even debatable?
>14My dear brothers and sisters, what good is it if someone claims to have faith but demonstrates no good works to prove it? How could this kind of faith save anyone? 15For example, if a brother or sister in the faith is poorly clothed and hungry 16and you leave them saying, “Good-bye. I hope you stay warm and have plenty to eat,” but you don’t provide them with a coat or even a cup of soup, what good is your faith? 17So then faith that doesn’t involve action is phony.
18But someone might object and say, “One person has faith and another person has works.” Go ahead then and prove to me that you have faith without works and I will show you faith by my works as proof that I believe. 19You can believe all you want that there is one true God, that’s wonderful! But even the demons know this and tremble with fear before him, yet they’re unchanged—they remain demons.
What's the issue?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>What's the issue?
The issues is that the passage i quoted is incompatible with sola fide. >But we believe in God not man
Ok then reject any book. Reject language (manmade).
5 months ago
Dirk
>incompatible
Demonstrate
5 months ago
Anonymous
There's nothing to demonstrate. Read the passage. Understand the argument. Then it becomes clear. Maybe i can find the same version in simple english, if you wish.
5 months ago
Dirk
>understand the argument
I'm asking for it
Define sola fide (correctly)
Identify something in that passage (accurately) that (necessarily) contradicts sola fide
Then, for bonus points, explain your own soteriology in light of Ephesians 2
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Define sola fide (correctly)
It's not upon me to define whatever i don't believe in. That task is impossible.
Moreso, the passage i quoted makes it extra clear that faith necessary results in good deeds, and lack of those is the trait of demons. If there's ever a false dichotomy, it's "faith or works"
5 months ago
Dirk
>I don't know what it means but it's wrong!
Catholic debate on display
>Faith necessarily results in good deeds
Yeah that's my position
What about the notion that good works automatically follow from genuine faith and as such are only a stamp of approval for said faith?
Is that a position in any churches?
Protestants
5 months ago
Anonymous
Different anon here. I’m still waiting on you Dirk to define sola fide. That other anon is right. You are the one required to define your terms. Not him
5 months ago
Dirk
Justification by faith alone
5 months ago
Anonymous
>If there's ever a false dichotomy, it's "faith or works"
A dichotomy that people who dismiss Sole Fide bring up themselves, showing their complete lack of understanding of it. You agree with Luther, your pride just prevents you from seeing and admitting it. Was this dichotomy argued by Luther? From his Commentary on Romans... >St. Paul teaches the true liturgy and makes all Christians priests, so that they may offer, not money or cattle, as priests do in the Law, but their own bodies, by putting their desires to death. Next he describes the outward conduct of Christians whose lives are governed by the Spirit; he tells how they teach, preach, rule, serve, give, suffer, love, live and act toward friend, foe and everyone. These are the works that a Christian does, for, as I have said, faith is not idle. >Spirit, he says, comes from Christ, who has given us his Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit makes us spiritual and restrains the flesh. The Holy Spirit assures us that we are God's children no matter how furiously sin may rage within us, so long as we follow the Spirit and struggle against sin in order to kill it. Because nothing is so effective in deadening the flesh as the cross and suffering, Paul comforts us in our suffering. He says that the Spirit, [cf. previous note about the meaning of "spirit."] love and all creatures will stand by us; the Spirit in us groans and all creatures long with us that we be freed from the flesh and from sin. Thus we see that these three chapters, 6, 7 and 8, all deal with the one work of faith, which is to kill the old Adam and to constrain the flesh. >Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>>St. Paul teaches the true liturgy and... >To love or suffer is "act" >Faith is god's "work" >War is piece, freedom is slavery
Wow, whoever wrote that is a dishonest piece of shit, because he simply redefines what the words "faith" and "work" means. Reminds me of postmodern philosophers
>It's luther
Oh well so much for postmo... I mean protestantism
5 months ago
Anonymous
Your reply is what's dishonest. This same sort of sophist grammar and vocabulary re-defining garbage is exactly what he fought against. You could even say that Luther's precise focus on etymology and grammar was a precursor to Nietzschean philosophy as it shows itself in On the Genealogy of Morals, for instance. >Here, at last, it makes mention of the endeavour and by a new kind of grammar, ‘to turn,’ signifies, with it, the same thing as ‘to endeavour:’ so that the sense is, “turn ye unto me,” that is, endeavour ye to turn; “and I will turn unto you,” that is, I will endeavour to turn unto you: so that, at last, it attributes an endeavour even unto God, and perhaps, would have grace to be prepared for Him upon His endeavouring: for if turning signify endeavouring in one place, why not in every place? > What because there are, in that book, many imperative and conditional verbs, and pronouns of the second person! For it is upon these foundations that you build your proof of the Freedom of the Will. Thus, “Commit” — therefore thou canst commit thy works: therefore thou doest them. So also this passage, “I am thy God,” (Isa. xli. 10), you will understand thus: — that is, Thou makest Me thy God. “Thy faith hath saved thee” (Luke vii. 50): do you hear this word “thy?” therefore, expound it thus: Thou makest thy faith: and then you have proved “Freewill.” Nor am I here merely game-making; but I am shewing the Diatribe, that there is nothing serious on its side of the subject.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Sola Fide is faith in Jesus Christ and no other. There are no other gods but him. You cannot include Jesus in a pagan pantheon, you must only have Jesus. That's how I always interpreted Sola Fide.
5 months ago
Dirk
????
5 months ago
Anonymous
He's not saved if he takes Jesus and merges him into other pantheons, like the Baha'i faith.
5 months ago
Dirk
Right but that's monotheism, not sola fide
5 months ago
Anonymous
I'm pointing out that that's how I always interpreted the passages mentioning faith in Jesus Christ alone. Why all the autism about works? The Bible is clear that it's faith and works, but you can only have faith in Christ.
5 months ago
Dirk
Right but that's monotheism, not sola fide
5 months ago
Anonymous
Seems like the same thing to me.
5 months ago
Dirk
Same as what?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Sola fide and monotheism just seem like the same thing to me.
>Opponents of sola fide don't bother attempting to understand it 9 times out of 10.
It's really this. Seriously, when was the last time any of these guys who disagree with Sola Fide here actually read Luther to see what he had to say himself, rather than view his thoughts filtered through other Protestants or biased Catholics/Orthodox? At least his Bondage of the Will and Commentary on Romans. All I hear most people bring up in argument against Sola Fide is entirely foreign to what Luther thought, and in fact, Luther would have agreed with them that Sola Fide was ridiculous had the arguments for it been so bad. Good thing they aren't. >How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart? But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstrained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10. That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.
How does this point to sola fide, though?
St Paulinus probably talked about faith and not just thinking about theology. I doubt his idea was that of the protestant reformation.
St Clement talks about the importance of good works in the chapters afterwards.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html >What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works...So God made man; male and female He created them." Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, "Increase and multiply." We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength. >The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work." He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will.
Add the fact that the book of james was around, read in churches and him being sola fide doesn't make sense.
How can you be over the age of 12 and still not understand it? Are protestants brain damaged? It's written in plain and simple words - how is this even debatable?
>14My dear brothers and sisters, what good is it if someone claims to have faith but demonstrates no good works to prove it? How could this kind of faith save anyone? 15For example, if a brother or sister in the faith is poorly clothed and hungry 16and you leave them saying, “Good-bye. I hope you stay warm and have plenty to eat,” but you don’t provide them with a coat or even a cup of soup, what good is your faith? 17So then faith that doesn’t involve action is phony.
18But someone might object and say, “One person has faith and another person has works.” Go ahead then and prove to me that you have faith without works and I will show you faith by my works as proof that I believe. 19You can believe all you want that there is one true God, that’s wonderful! But even the demons know this and tremble with fear before him, yet they’re unchanged—they remain demons.
Melchizedek eucharist secondary priesthood and the mass is in old Latin what the old testament is written in israelites and judaism have nothing to do with the roman catholic priesthood Bernadette fatima new vegas in 2006 play it watch Bob dylan videos Dulles etc etc get over it
>The first quote discusses good works done to the exclusion of faith (works alone). >The second quote discusses faith to the exclusion of the mosaic law (not faith to the exclusion of good works).
Abraham was the benchmark of what justifying Faith is. It's hardly just mental assertion or belief. He left his country, abandoned everything he knew, and then when he did that, he went further and nearly sacrificed his son.
Even by St. Paul's standards, whom Protestants love to mangle, he compared the Christian life to a rigorous Olympian.
>Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.-1 Cor 9:24-27
He POMMELS his body. Cue Rocky workout montage scene. This is not easy and anyone telling you so is up to no good for you. Christ told you to pick up your cross daily.
Abraham received the promise before he [almost] sacrificed his son. Read Acts 7 and Hebrews 11. He was saved by Faith Alone in either Ur or Haran. I say Ur.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. (James 2:22)
5 months ago
Anonymous
Again: God made the promise in Harran. This is basic chronology.
5 months ago
Anonymous
What does that have to do with this quote? You say he was saved by faith alone, when the bible says his works "completed" his faith.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Look at God. God made the promise. God cannot lie. Abraham was saved at the point. (And again, I believe he was saved even earlier, in Ur)
5 months ago
Anonymous
This is simply dumb. To the point that you think you're just arguing in bad faith. Nobody is actually this dumb.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Very ironic.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't say anything about Catholics. Or Orthodox, for that matter. There's plenty of Protestants who would point this too. Many Anglicans and Methodists and at least Arminian leaning Baptists, to name a few.
And to add, St. Paul's chief concern was justification without TORAH. Not all morals. They're not the same thing. That's why he uses the word LAW. Not morals. He instructed plenty about morals and warned of the dangers in failing. Specifically Torah laws that separated israelites and Gentiles (ritual laws, circumcision, etc). That is what was removed for Gentiles. Not this stupid idea of everything goes and "faith is just a thought, bro".
Romanists were losing hard in apologetics with Protestants so they invented (sorry, "developed") the double justification cope to explain their doctrine's contradiction with scripture.
Trent Horn tends to go after low hanging fruit. He probably knows about this but doesn't really talk about it because his target audience is normie Catholics who don't really think about it and gives them a basic introduction to various topics.
That said, he destroyed Destiny in their debate so idk if that mean's Destiny is low hanging fruit or if Trent is smarter than I give him credit for.
Destiny is a moron
Have you ever noticed that catholics and orthodox never quote from the Bible
You're in the same book as them (and every single other false works-based religion) seeing as you deny that believe in Jesus Christ is all that's required for eternal life.
To gain salvation, you must not only exercise faith in Jesus but also demonstrate that faith by obeying his commands.—Acts 4:10, 12; Romans 10:9, 10; Hebrews 5:9.
Exactly. You're in the same satanic camp as Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons etc. You're trusting in your own works, rather than in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Unless you place your trust in Christ ALONE, you're facing an eternity of hell.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:5
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 11:6
28Then said they unto him,What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them,This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 6:28-29
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:16
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 2:21
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:31
The Bible shows that you must have works, or acts of obedience, to prove that your faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26)
However, this does not mean that you can earn salvation. It is “God’s gift” based on his “undeserved kindness,” or “grace.”—Ephesians 2:8, 9
>The Bible shows that you must have works, or acts of obedience, to prove that your faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26)
Give me a shred of decent historical evidence that James was written by THE James. The evidence is much much worse for James being scripture than for The Shepherd of Hermas. It's about as bad as The Apocalypse of Peter.
>outright denying that scripture they don't like is scripture
protestants everyone
Do you accept the Sherpherd of Hermas or Apocalypse of Peter?
If not then some church fathers would give you that exact reply.
We have to use actual historical evidence to make a case for a work's apostolic authorship. This is dirt simple with the Gospels and Paul and Peter's letters, if they were secular documents their authorship would be as unquestioned as Tacitus' Annals.
But for James and Hebrews there's no (James) or even negative (Hebrews) evidence that an Apostle wrote it. Just like the Shepherd of Hermas and Apocalypse of Peter many have, in my opinion, made a big mistake by letting books with no case for Apostolic authorship into their canons.
James was also a bully who was very mean to Paul all the time, so I fail to see what it'd prove if the letter had been written by him.
>However, this does not mean that you can earn salvation.
It does "earn salvation" if you think you need good works to prove that you're "really saved".
You have the same fatally flawed understanding of James 2 as all other false-"Christian" religions. James is talking about a faith that is helpful for others, and acting in a way to avoid temporal chastisement. But satanic religions will twist it to claim that works are what "prove our faith" (or whatever stupid phrase you wish to use).
As of now, you are among the hoardes of Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox, Mormons, Buddhists, JWs, SDAs etc. that believe that they get into heaven by their works. You aren't trusting in the grace of God, and it's sad, but you will reap eternal punishment for your pride and evil.
That is not the Gospel.
>who is Seraphim Hamilton
It's always this way with Catholics. When they say "the early church believed..." they mean "some guy in the year 1200 wrote...".
The earliest Christian writings from people who actually had some connection to the Apostles (like Clement of Rome in your OP) freely and flagrantly contradict modern Catholic doctrine.
But Holy Spirit guided Apostolic succession means the accretions are valid, no?
They aren't prophets, the Holy Spirit isn't telling them anything. Find it a little sus that supposedly an omniscient spirit gives them information directly but they can't give prophecies, speak foreign languages, or reveal anything (like "go here and you'll find...")? It's EXCLUSIVELY "God says our doctrinal speculations are true, don't question it"?
Sole Fide is protestant horseshit, mixed with swill, and left to ferment in open sunlight for a few months. God gave you a brain with the intention you'd use it every now and then.
>t. Catholic theologian.
>t. Catholic theologian
Is that like a customisable mod title on your based tradcath Discord or something
There's a million different versions of what you have to do to be saved. Revelation says people will be judged by their works. Jesus says that if you don't forgive the sins of others against you, God won't forgive your sins. Why do Sola fide gays focus only on Romans?
Protestant soteriology is systematic and therefore reconciles the various passages. Sola fide is the only plausible reconciliation. The clearest verses plainly teach salvation by faith, the others only superficially contradict it.
Opponents of sola fide don't bother attempting to understand it 9 times out of 10.
The plausible conclusion is that the writers disagreed with each other.
I'll grant that's possible but historically Christian interpretation presupposes divine authorship and therefore a unity to scripture. Stated more strongly, inerrancy. There's no two passages on the topic that necessarily contradict.
>but historically Christian interpretation presupposes divine authorship and therefore a unity to scripture. Stated more strongly, inerrancy.
So the most reasonable conclusion, though I grant not necessarily the only one, at least based on this alone, is that the bible is not inerrant because it includes internal contradictions.
Let's see one on this topic, given you've already asserted they exist
Two passages that necessarily contradict dealing with soteriology
I granted again, in so many words, that you can "reconcile" them. I just doubt that is the most likely way they were meant to be interpreted.
Fair enough
What's the issue?
>What's the issue?
The issues is that the passage i quoted is incompatible with sola fide.
>But we believe in God not man
Ok then reject any book. Reject language (manmade).
>incompatible
Demonstrate
There's nothing to demonstrate. Read the passage. Understand the argument. Then it becomes clear. Maybe i can find the same version in simple english, if you wish.
>understand the argument
I'm asking for it
Define sola fide (correctly)
Identify something in that passage (accurately) that (necessarily) contradicts sola fide
Then, for bonus points, explain your own soteriology in light of Ephesians 2
>Define sola fide (correctly)
It's not upon me to define whatever i don't believe in. That task is impossible.
Moreso, the passage i quoted makes it extra clear that faith necessary results in good deeds, and lack of those is the trait of demons. If there's ever a false dichotomy, it's "faith or works"
>I don't know what it means but it's wrong!
Catholic debate on display
>Faith necessarily results in good deeds
Yeah that's my position
Protestants
Different anon here. I’m still waiting on you Dirk to define sola fide. That other anon is right. You are the one required to define your terms. Not him
Justification by faith alone
>If there's ever a false dichotomy, it's "faith or works"
A dichotomy that people who dismiss Sole Fide bring up themselves, showing their complete lack of understanding of it. You agree with Luther, your pride just prevents you from seeing and admitting it. Was this dichotomy argued by Luther? From his Commentary on Romans...
>St. Paul teaches the true liturgy and makes all Christians priests, so that they may offer, not money or cattle, as priests do in the Law, but their own bodies, by putting their desires to death. Next he describes the outward conduct of Christians whose lives are governed by the Spirit; he tells how they teach, preach, rule, serve, give, suffer, love, live and act toward friend, foe and everyone. These are the works that a Christian does, for, as I have said, faith is not idle.
>Spirit, he says, comes from Christ, who has given us his Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit makes us spiritual and restrains the flesh. The Holy Spirit assures us that we are God's children no matter how furiously sin may rage within us, so long as we follow the Spirit and struggle against sin in order to kill it. Because nothing is so effective in deadening the flesh as the cross and suffering, Paul comforts us in our suffering. He says that the Spirit, [cf. previous note about the meaning of "spirit."] love and all creatures will stand by us; the Spirit in us groans and all creatures long with us that we be freed from the flesh and from sin. Thus we see that these three chapters, 6, 7 and 8, all deal with the one work of faith, which is to kill the old Adam and to constrain the flesh.
>Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good.
>>St. Paul teaches the true liturgy and...
>To love or suffer is "act"
>Faith is god's "work"
>War is piece, freedom is slavery
Wow, whoever wrote that is a dishonest piece of shit, because he simply redefines what the words "faith" and "work" means. Reminds me of postmodern philosophers
>It's luther
Oh well so much for postmo... I mean protestantism
Your reply is what's dishonest. This same sort of sophist grammar and vocabulary re-defining garbage is exactly what he fought against. You could even say that Luther's precise focus on etymology and grammar was a precursor to Nietzschean philosophy as it shows itself in On the Genealogy of Morals, for instance.
>Here, at last, it makes mention of the endeavour and by a new kind of grammar, ‘to turn,’ signifies, with it, the same thing as ‘to endeavour:’ so that the sense is, “turn ye unto me,” that is, endeavour ye to turn; “and I will turn unto you,” that is, I will endeavour to turn unto you: so that, at last, it attributes an endeavour even unto God, and perhaps, would have grace to be prepared for Him upon His endeavouring: for if turning signify endeavouring in one place, why not in every place?
> What because there are, in that book, many imperative and conditional verbs, and pronouns of the second person! For it is upon these foundations that you build your proof of the Freedom of the Will. Thus, “Commit” — therefore thou canst commit thy works: therefore thou doest them. So also this passage, “I am thy God,” (Isa. xli. 10), you will understand thus: — that is, Thou makest Me thy God. “Thy faith hath saved thee” (Luke vii. 50): do you hear this word “thy?” therefore, expound it thus: Thou makest thy faith: and then you have proved “Freewill.” Nor am I here merely game-making; but I am shewing the Diatribe, that there is nothing serious on its side of the subject.
Sola Fide is faith in Jesus Christ and no other. There are no other gods but him. You cannot include Jesus in a pagan pantheon, you must only have Jesus. That's how I always interpreted Sola Fide.
????
He's not saved if he takes Jesus and merges him into other pantheons, like the Baha'i faith.
Right but that's monotheism, not sola fide
I'm pointing out that that's how I always interpreted the passages mentioning faith in Jesus Christ alone. Why all the autism about works? The Bible is clear that it's faith and works, but you can only have faith in Christ.
Seems like the same thing to me.
Same as what?
Sola fide and monotheism just seem like the same thing to me.
>Opponents of sola fide don't bother attempting to understand it 9 times out of 10.
It's really this. Seriously, when was the last time any of these guys who disagree with Sola Fide here actually read Luther to see what he had to say himself, rather than view his thoughts filtered through other Protestants or biased Catholics/Orthodox? At least his Bondage of the Will and Commentary on Romans. All I hear most people bring up in argument against Sola Fide is entirely foreign to what Luther thought, and in fact, Luther would have agreed with them that Sola Fide was ridiculous had the arguments for it been so bad. Good thing they aren't.
>How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart? But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstrained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10. That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.
What about the notion that good works automatically follow from genuine faith and as such are only a stamp of approval for said faith?
Is that a position in any churches?
How does this point to sola fide, though?
St Paulinus probably talked about faith and not just thinking about theology. I doubt his idea was that of the protestant reformation.
St Clement talks about the importance of good works in the chapters afterwards.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html
>What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works...So God made man; male and female He created them." Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, "Increase and multiply." We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.
>The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work." He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will.
Add the fact that the book of james was around, read in churches and him being sola fide doesn't make sense.
How can you be over the age of 12 and still not understand it? Are protestants brain damaged? It's written in plain and simple words - how is this even debatable?
>14My dear brothers and sisters, what good is it if someone claims to have faith but demonstrates no good works to prove it? How could this kind of faith save anyone? 15For example, if a brother or sister in the faith is poorly clothed and hungry 16and you leave them saying, “Good-bye. I hope you stay warm and have plenty to eat,” but you don’t provide them with a coat or even a cup of soup, what good is your faith? 17So then faith that doesn’t involve action is phony.
18But someone might object and say, “One person has faith and another person has works.” Go ahead then and prove to me that you have faith without works and I will show you faith by my works as proof that I believe. 19You can believe all you want that there is one true God, that’s wonderful! But even the demons know this and tremble with fear before him, yet they’re unchanged—they remain demons.
Melchizedek eucharist secondary priesthood and the mass is in old Latin what the old testament is written in israelites and judaism have nothing to do with the roman catholic priesthood Bernadette fatima new vegas in 2006 play it watch Bob dylan videos Dulles etc etc get over it
>protestant takes a quote out of context
shocking.
Why did God give me autogynephilia
Neither of those quotes are supportive of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.
>Neither of those quotes are supportive of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.
The first quote discusses good works done to the exclusion of faith (works alone).
The second quote discusses faith to the exclusion of the mosaic law (not faith to the exclusion of good works).
>The first quote discusses good works done to the exclusion of faith (works alone).
>The second quote discusses faith to the exclusion of the mosaic law (not faith to the exclusion of good works).
I accept your concession.
>I accept your concession.
Abraham was the benchmark of what justifying Faith is. It's hardly just mental assertion or belief. He left his country, abandoned everything he knew, and then when he did that, he went further and nearly sacrificed his son.
Even by St. Paul's standards, whom Protestants love to mangle, he compared the Christian life to a rigorous Olympian.
>Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.-1 Cor 9:24-27
He POMMELS his body. Cue Rocky workout montage scene. This is not easy and anyone telling you so is up to no good for you. Christ told you to pick up your cross daily.
Abraham received the promise before he [almost] sacrificed his son. Read Acts 7 and Hebrews 11. He was saved by Faith Alone in either Ur or Haran. I say Ur.
>You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. (James 2:22)
Again: God made the promise in Harran. This is basic chronology.
What does that have to do with this quote? You say he was saved by faith alone, when the bible says his works "completed" his faith.
Look at God. God made the promise. God cannot lie. Abraham was saved at the point. (And again, I believe he was saved even earlier, in Ur)
This is simply dumb. To the point that you think you're just arguing in bad faith. Nobody is actually this dumb.
Very ironic.
I didn't say anything about Catholics. Or Orthodox, for that matter. There's plenty of Protestants who would point this too. Many Anglicans and Methodists and at least Arminian leaning Baptists, to name a few.
And to add, St. Paul's chief concern was justification without TORAH. Not all morals. They're not the same thing. That's why he uses the word LAW. Not morals. He instructed plenty about morals and warned of the dangers in failing. Specifically Torah laws that separated israelites and Gentiles (ritual laws, circumcision, etc). That is what was removed for Gentiles. Not this stupid idea of everything goes and "faith is just a thought, bro".
I accept your concession.
The Catholics do not deny that initial justification is by faith alone.
Romanists were losing hard in apologetics with Protestants so they invented (sorry, "developed") the double justification cope to explain their doctrine's contradiction with scripture.