Is Protestant Biblicism evil?

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm gonna rip a page out of the Sola Scriptura play book here. I don't see the word "alone" in any of those verses. In fact as you no doubt know the only time the words "faith" and "alone" appear together in the whole Bible is when the words "not by" is inserted before them.

By the way I've been on the CARM forums before; mostly just to drop in on faith alone discussions like I did here, but still it was fun. They seem to have an unhealthy hatred of Catholicism there as well since the Catholic forum is by far the most popular one on that site. Which is odd because ranting against Catholicism on a forum where none, but the most humor minded Catholics frequent is basically just preaching to the choir.

Unfortunately my friend. You are buying right into your churches faulty line of thinking.

Let me ask you a question. Trinity is not found in the bible is it? Yet you believe it right? Why? Because scripture supports it.

All those passages showed that fath apart from works. or faith and not works. or faith and Gods work were what is reuired for salvation. Does the word alone have to be inserted? No! WHy? What is anything by itself minus anything else? It is that thing alone.

faith minus works = faith and nothing else.

which equals faith alone. even though it is not stated.

The faulty lie that alone is not added, and that Luther added it so it should not be believed is false.. If one is to say faith alone is not taught in those verses. we might as well throw the word trinity out too. because it is not stated anywhere in scripture either.

 

[Scotth1960]

Unfortunately my friend. You are buying right into your churches faulty line of thinking.

Let me ask you a question. Trinity is not found in the bible is it? Yet you believe it right? Why? Because scripture supports it.

All those passages showed that fath apart from works. or faith and not works. or faith and Gods work were what is reuired for salvation. Does the word alone have to be inserted? No! WHy? What is anything by itself minus anything else? It is that thing alone.

faith minus works = faith and nothing else.

which equals faith alone. even though it is not stated.

The faulty lie that alone is not added, and that Luther added it so it should not be believed is false.. If one is to say faith alone is not taught in those verses. we might as well throw the word trinity out too. because it is not stated anywhere in scripture either.

The thing is Luther wanted to delete James from the NT canon? Why? By what biblical reason or authority did he want to do that? He was getting too big for his britches, ISTM.
We all get too big for our britches in our old age. It's better to follow the precedent of the early Church Fathers than the innovations of papal Rome and the Protestant Reformers, who, almost to a man, say, "Filioque, Filioque"! Go figure!

 

[Scotth1960]

Unfortunately my friend. You are buying right into your churches faulty line of thinking.

Let me ask you a question. Trinity is not found in the bible is it? Yet you believe it right? Why? Because scripture supports it.

All those passages showed that fath apart from works. or faith and not works. or faith and Gods work were what is reuired for salvation. Does the word alone have to be inserted? No! WHy? What is anything by itself minus anything else? It is that thing alone.

faith minus works = faith and nothing else.
Dear eternallygrateful!
According to James, "faith without works is dead". That's the Bible. Luther didn't like that, he wanted to add "alone" to the text of Romans 3:28, when there is no word "alone" even implied anywhere in Scripture. He misread the Bible! In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington


which equals faith alone. even though it is not stated.

The faulty lie that alone is not added, and that Luther added it so it should not be believed is false.. If one is to say faith alone is not taught in those verses. we might as well throw the word trinity out too. because it is not stated anywhere in scripture either.

 

[Scotth1960]

Friends, Is Protestant Biblicism evil? Is Protestant insistence on "sola Scriptura" evil, in

violation of the Scripture's own anathema against private, personal interpretation of

the Scriptures (see 2 Peter 1:20-21). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington Friday, April 16/29,

2011 AD. Take care!

God bless you with the knowledge of the truth (John 16:13; 2 Peter 3:9).

Dear friends,
Please read the following web-sites! Thank you! and God bless!

The Church Is Visible and One by Patrick Barnes
http:// orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf

Ad Orientem
http:// ad-orientem.blogspot.com/


God bless you. Amen.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington Erie PA USA

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The thing is Luther wanted to delete James from the NT canon? Why? By what biblical reason or authority did he want to do that? He was getting too big for his britches, ISTM.

Did I say Luther was right? No!

Luther tried to delete it because he did not undersdtand it. If he did he would have known it did not contradict paul, and he did not have to delete it to make what he claimed true.

what does Luther have to do with this anyway. We are talking about what Gods word says, Not what someone hundreds of years ago believed.

We all get too big for our britches in our old age. It's better to follow the precedent of the early Church Fathers than the innovations of papal Rome and the Protestant Reformers, who, almost to a man, say, "Filioque, Filioque"! Go figure

It is better to see what Gods word says, And not listen to any man, because if that man is wrong. we are doomed.

I do not believe this filioque crap. so please stop bringing it up to me. this is not our argument. It is between you and the romans and luther.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Dear eternallygrateful!
According to James, "faith without works is dead". That's the Bible. Luther didn't like that, he wanted to add "alone" to the text of Romans 3:28, when there is no word "alone" even implied anywhere in Scripture. He misread the Bible! In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Dear scott. You did not answer my question. How much faith does dead faith equal? is it a little faith? Alot of faith? or no faith at all? Why did you not answer and instead go back to what Luther said? WHO CARES WHAT LUTHER SAID?? I am sorry you had a bad experience with Luther. But that has nothing to do with our conversatrion. Our conversation has to do with what James said. Who cares what Luther said.. It does not make what I said wrong!

which equals faith alone. even though it is not stated.

Are you going to answer this scott??

The faulty lie that alone is not added, and that Luther added it so it should not be believed is false.

So someone added a word. And because he made a mistake, we should all just throw truth out the door because of this one mistake?

Again I ask you, How much faith is dead faith?

1. Is it a little (have a little life)
2. Is it alot (have alot of life)
3. Is it none (have no life)

can you answer please?

 

[Scotth1960]

Did I say Luther was right? No!

Luther tried to delete it because he did not undersdtand it. If he did he would have known it did not contradict paul, and he did not have to delete it to make what he claimed true.

what does Luther have to do with this anyway. We are talking about what Gods word says, Not what someone hundreds of years ago believed.



It is better to see what Gods word says, And not listen to any man, because if that man is wrong. we are doomed.

I do not believe this filioque crap. so please stop bringing it up to me. this is not our argument. It is between you and the romans and luther.

Dear eternallygrateful,
Good. You did not say Luther was right.
Okay. So good if you do not follow Filioque. But if you say "faith alone", your faith is derived not from Scripture, but from Martin Luther. You may claim not to be following any man, but following the Holy Spirit in Scripture, but no Christian before Luther said "faith alone". To ignore the history of the exegesis of Scripture is to ignore the meaning of Scripture. We need to understand where the popes of Rome and the Protestant reformers sinned against the unity of the Christian Church.
Take care. If you claim to be independent of Luther, but if you say "by faith alone", you are disingenous, for "faith alone" comes from Luther, not Scripture. You even admitted that Luther did not understand James. You do seem to understand James better than Luther did. But if you insist on the word "alone" after faith, your doctrine doesn't agree with Scripture, but with Luther's doctrine. In Erie PA Scott

 

[Scotth1960]

Dear eternally grateful,
I think we should drop this controversy.
What Orthodox Christians say, when asked whether it is faith (alone) which saves, or faith and good works, they just say that it is Jesus Christ, it is God, Who saves. That is what we need to know.
Of course faith and good works are necessary. But we cannot merit or earn salvation by good works. Salvation is totally a gift of God's mercy, and no person can become worthy of it. But a person who believes in God will be given good works which God prepares beforehand for him to do. Take care. Scott


Did I say Luther was right? No!

Luther tried to delete it because he did not undersdtand it. If he did he would have known it did not contradict paul, and he did not have to delete it to make what he claimed true.

what does Luther have to do with this anyway. We are talking about what Gods word says, Not what someone hundreds of years ago believed.



It is better to see what Gods word says, And not listen to any man, because if that man is wrong. we are doomed.

I do not believe this filioque crap. so please stop bringing it up to me. this is not our argument. It is between you and the romans and luther.

 

[SantoSubito]

Unfortunately my friend. You are buying right into your churches faulty line of thinking.

Let me ask you a question. Trinity is not found in the bible is it? Yet you believe it right? Why? Because scripture supports it.

All those passages showed that fath apart from works. or faith and not works. or faith and Gods work were what is reuired for salvation. Does the word alone have to be inserted? No! WHy? What is anything by itself minus anything else? It is that thing alone.

faith minus works = faith and nothing else.

which equals faith alone. even though it is not stated.

The faulty lie that alone is not added, and that Luther added it so it should not be believed is false.. If one is to say faith alone is not taught in those verses. we might as well throw the word trinity out too. because it is not stated anywhere in scripture either.

More often than not Paul says "apart from the works of the Law" and not "apart from works", and even when he says "apart from works" it's implied that he's saying "apart from works of the Law" usually because in the same letter he says "apart from works of the Law". Most Protestants lump all works in with "works of the Law", but Orthodox and Catholic Christians distinguish between "works of the Law" and "works of Faith". I've even heard Protestant pastors on the radio and in person distinguish between the two when preaching on James.

Honestly I have to facepalm myself every time I hear a Protestant saying "works aren't required for salvation, but if you have saving faith you will have works" because they're basically saying that works are required; while at the same time denying they're required.

 

[zone]

More often than not Paul says "apart from the works of the Law" and not "apart from works", and even when he says "apart from works" it's implied that he's saying "apart from works of the Law" usually because in the same letter he says "apart from works of the Law". Most Protestants lump all works in with "works of the Law", but Orthodox and Catholic Christians distinguish between "works of the Law" and "works of Faith". I've even heard Protestant pastors on the radio and in person distinguish between the two when preaching on James.

Honestly I have to facepalm myself every time I hear a Protestant saying "works aren't required for salvation, but if you have saving faith you will have works" because they're basically saying that works are required; while at the same time denying they're required.

hi Santo:
does your church teach that God imparts righteousness to you in some way (sacraments/baptism/your faith/works)? that He actually makes you righteous enough to be forgiven?

how does it work?

is justification is by Grace through Faith and when we BELIEVE God then IMPUTES righteousness to our account? or does He impart righteousness to us?

(btw: the old "protestants are antinomians" is silly (i know of catholics who get drunker than skunks and then go to confession...if the priest made it out of his hangover to be in the box, so please....clearly BELIEVING leads to DOING something...we hear, we repent we believe, we pray we study, we love, we are baptised, we evangelise, we turn from sin and so on)

zone.

ps: one of the best theological discussions i've ever had was long distance over the phone with a young catholic priest: subject : The Gospel of Mark...3 hours. very rewarding.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

More often than not Paul says "apart from the works of the Law" and not "apart from works", and even when he says "apart from works" it's implied that he's saying "apart from works of the Law" usually because in the same letter he says "apart from works of the Law". Most Protestants lump all works in with "works of the Law", but Orthodox and Catholic Christians distinguish between "works of the Law" and "works of Faith".

Rom 4:
1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The law was not during abrahams time. Thus Paul could not be speaking of works of the law.

eph 2: 8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

No where in eph 2 is "the law" mentioned. So it should not be applied to these verses. Paul says our good works do not save us, we are saved to do these works.

2 tim 1: 9
9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Again. The law should not be implied here. Nothing shows that we should interpret paul to mean anything than our own deeds.

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Again, the law should not be implied here. These are good deeds, or righteous deeds. Which would include righteous deeds which are not a part of the law. Things like baptism, communion, going to church etc etc. These are righteous deeds or rightious works.

Yes, there were times Paul spoke of "works of the law" But when he mentioned these particular works, he was fighting judaism trying to add works of the law to grace. So in context, he was correct in saying this because this is what he was fighting. In the above passages and many others. The context was not fighting judaism or "works of the law" But fighting All works or good deeds.

James also spoke of works. He stated if we have no works, but only a professed faith, our faith was dead (had no life thus was no faith at all) As paul said in Eph 2: 10. Those who have a true faith (not a dead faith) Will do the works God created us to do. If we read james, He also mentions abraham. WHo proved his faith by doing the work God created him to do (These were not works of the law. because the law had not been given) These works were what God wanted him to do. God said go here, Abraham went. God said do this, Abraham "believed" or trusted God. Thus he did it. But he was not considered right because he worked, His works, as paul said, Proved he had faith.

Paul also tells us what a work is:

Rom 4:
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

A person who works for something receives a wage. Yet this wage is not on the positive side, but actually a debt.

But he who does not work, but has faith. God imputes rightiousness to them (Gods rightiousness) thus it is Gods work, not ours that is imputed to us.

eph 2: 8 - 9

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Our salvation is through faith, which is a gift. A gift is free. it costs nothing. Nor can it be earned. otherwise it is not a gift but a reward.

Our salvation is not by works, If it was, we could boast, or be proud, or take credit for our own salvation.

I've even heard Protestant pastors on the radio and in person distinguish between the two when preaching on James.

Honestly I have to facepalm myself every time I hear a Protestant saying "works aren't required for salvation, but if you have saving faith you will have works" because they're basically saying that works are required; while at the same time denying they're required.

This does not make sense. If one is saved, and this salvation produces works. Does this mean that they were saved because of works. or that works were a result of being saved?

A better way would say it is that those who are saved will do works. Those who show no works prove they were never saved. why? Because their faith was dead. Just as James said.

 

[SantoSubito]

hi Santo:
does your church teach that God imparts righteousness to you in some way (sacraments/baptism/your faith/works)? that He actually makes you righteous enough to be forgiven?

how does it work?

is justification is by Grace through Faith and when we BELIEVE God then IMPUTES righteousness to our account? or does He impart righteousness to us?

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that God Infuses the believer with grace. Our sins are taken away, forgiven, and God infuses, places, injects grace and righteousness into us as a process through confession and the other sacraments. Initial justification occurs at baptism, grows through use of the sacraments throughout one's life, sanctification takes place and one then earns final justification in Heaven after the satisfaction for one's sins are purged in purgatory or through indulgences in this life. Justification is the result of sanctification.

In short, we are finally Justified after our death (we receive the crown only after we have ran and won the race) and in this life we are continually working towards our final justification via the process of sanctification.

Protestants turn this model on it's head when they say that we are justified first then through sanctification we grow holier while always remaining justified (we have the crown while we are running the race)

Also if you can decipher the difficult language of Saint Thomas Aquinas he basically dealt with the issue you're bringing up. You can find the pertinent sections of the Summa Theologica at: SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The effects of grace (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 113)

 

[SantoSubito]

Rom 4:
1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The law was not during abrahams time. Thus Paul could not be speaking of works of the law.

As we both know Paul is describing Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac. It was not just Abraham's faith in God that justified him, Abraham had been faithful to God long before this incident; both Abraham's faith and works were active when he went to sacrifice Isaac. His faithwas active when he believed God was right when he said he was to sacrifice his son, and his workswere active when he actually started the process of sacrificing Isaac; Abraham performed a work of obedience. Had Abraham not actually went to sacrifice Isaac then his faith would not have been counted as righteousness; It was only when Abraham's faith and works were active together that his faith was counted as righteousness.

Paul was likely addressing people who believed that they could work their way into heaven without faith. James I believe was addressing the opposite problem when he wrote:

James 2:14 ff:
"What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? ...Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. ... But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected. ...You see, a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. ...For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

(This passage also ties in nicely with what I said above)

James also spoke of works. He stated if we have no works, but only a professed faith, our faith was dead (had no life thus was no faith at all) As paul said in Eph 2: 10. Those who have a true faith (not a dead faith) Will do the works God created us to do. If we read james, He also mentions abraham. WHo proved his faith by doing the work God created him to do (These were not works of the law. because the law had not been given) These works were what God wanted him to do. God said go here, Abraham went. God said do this, Abraham "believed" or trusted God. Thus he did it. But he was not considered right because he worked, His works, as paul said, Proved he had faith.

Like I said our faith can only be made perfect when our works our active with our faith, If we have only faith then we can not be saved, and if we have only works we can not be saved. Both are required for our Salvation; when faith is alone it can do nothing, but once it is united with our works then we can be saved. Both of them are required for our salvation.

The Catholic position of Faith and Works acknowledges this simple fact.

eph 2: 8 - 9

[/B]8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Our salvation is through faith, which is a gift. A gift is free. it costs nothing. Nor can it be earned. otherwise it is not a gift but a reward.

Our salvation is not by works, If it was, we could boast, or be proud, or take credit for our own salvation.

Catholics do not deny that we are saved through faith we simply deny that we are saved by faith alone. The gift of faith is free, no one can believe unless God calls them to. God initiates the process of our salvation, and without him giving us the gift of faith no man could start running the race that culminates in salvation. After receiving that gift of faith it is our duty to work towards our salvation "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling" so it is only once our faith is united with our works that we can be saved.

Of course you are going to say that only once we have "saving faith" (which includes works) can we be saved, but I do not see two different faiths being spoken of in the letters of Paul and James instead I see a different emphasis on the two things required for salvation. Paul emphasizes faith because he is addressing people who thought they could be saved simply by their good works alone, and James emphasizes works because he was addressing people who believed that their faith alone would save them. I'll say once more that it is only once both our faith and our works are united and working together that we can achieve salvation; one without the other is useless.

 

[Izdaari]

No, Protestant Biblicism isn't evil, but it isn't the complete truth. Admittedly, I have a soft spot for it because it's the form of Christianity I'm most used to, but I'm also aware that other Christian traditions have parts of the truth too. There are things that Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox ought to learn from one another, and in doing so, all would be nearer (IMHO) to the complete truth.

 

[Izdaari]

Of course you are going to say that only once we have "saving faith" (which includes works) can we be saved, but I do not see two different faiths being spoken of in the letters of Paul and James instead I see a different emphasis on the two things required for salvation. Paul emphasizes faith because he is addressing people who thought they could be saved simply by their good works alone, and James emphasizes works because he was addressing people who believed that their faith alone would save them. I'll say once more that it is only once both our faith and our works are united and working together that we can achieve salvation; one without the other is useless.

I agree. It seems to be a difference of terminology and emphasis. I say I'm Sola Fide, but really I'm just taking Paul's side in the dynamic tension between faith and works. I don't want to kick James out of my Bible, I'm just a lot fonder of Galatians. If Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox could all get together on this one issue, they'd be closer to being one big Christian family.

 

[Scotth1960]

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that God Infuses the believer with grace. Our sins are taken away, forgiven, and God infuses, places, injects grace and righteousness into us as a process through confession and the other sacraments. Initial justification occurs at baptism, grows through use of the sacraments throughout one's life, sanctification takes place and one then earns final justification in Heaven after the satisfaction for one's sins are purged in purgatory or through indulgences in this life. Justification is the result of sanctification.

In short, we are finally Justified after our death (we receive the crown only after we have ran and won the race) and in this life we are continually working towards our final justification via the process of sanctification.

Protestants turn this model on it's head when they say that we are justified first then through sanctification we grow holier while always remaining justified (we have the crown while we are running the race)

Also if you can decipher the difficult language of Saint Thomas Aquinas he basically dealt with the issue you're bringing up. You can find the pertinent sections of the Summa Theologica at: SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The effects of grace (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 113)

Dear santosubito, I would not say that justification is the result of sanctification; I would say that both justification and sanctification are the result of Christ's blood shed on the Cross to save sinners who repent. Repentance leads to confession, baptism, chrismation, walking with Christ in the Holy Spirit, keeping the commandments, the receiving of the Holy Spirit in baptism and chrismation, the forgiveness of sins in Christ. Take care. Scott Erie

 

[resurrection33]

Friends, Is Protestant Biblicism evil? Is Protestant insistence on "sola Scriptura" evil, in

violation of the Scripture's own anathema against private, personal interpretation of

the Scriptures (see 2 Peter 1:20-21). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington Friday, April 16/29,

2011 AD. Take care!

God bless you with the knowledge of the truth (John 16:13; 2 Peter 3:9).

I think some people worship the Bible rather than our Father in heaven.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

As we both know Paul is describing Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac. It was not just Abraham's faith in God that justified him, Abraham had been faithful to God long before this incident; both Abraham's faith and works were active when he went to sacrifice Isaac. His faithwas active when he believed God was right when he said he was to sacrifice his son, and his workswere active when he actually started the process of sacrificing Isaac; Abraham performed a work of obedience. Had Abraham not actually went to sacrifice Isaac then his faith would not have been counted as righteousness; It was only when Abraham's faith and works were active together that his faith was counted as righteousness.

Thanks for your response. This was in response to your quote about Paul always meaning "works of the law" even though not directly stated. It was to show that when Paul said works, he di dnot always mean works of the law.

as for your response. Your right and I agree that Abraham had faith long before he did these works. which is why he did them. I disagree however the part where you said if Abraham had not done the work, his faith would not been counted as righteous. I believe the only reason abraham would not have done the work, is if he did not have faith in God. in other words, he had a "dead" faith or no faith at all. One can not be counted as righteous if they have no faith.

In other words, If Abraham did not have faith God would keep his promise. He never would have done the work God had him to do. No faith = no salvation. The works are a byproduct of faith. If one has faith, they will work. If they do not have faith, they will not work. Then there is the third group. Those that have faith in their works. Not in Christ. Which were tje jews and those like them trying to add works to faith which Paul spent most of his epistles fighting.

Paul was likely addressing people who believed that they could work their way into heaven without faith. James I believe was addressing the opposite problem when he wrote:

Again I disagree, I do not think the jews who Paul were fighting did not have faith or believe, This would make no sense. I believe these jews were saying, Ok, Yes, I believe in Jesus, But I do not believe belief is enough. What about works. We must add works to faith to save us. Which is why Paul said over and over it is not by works, But by faith. If we try to add works to faith, I think this verse says it well,

Gal 3: 1-3:
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,[a] before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

As we can see. It was not that they did not have faith as you said. They did have faith. But they were trying to "perfect" their faith with their works. Paul called them fools for doing this. Remember also, these are the same people Paul demanded that if anyone teach a different gospel, they are to be accursed. You see the Galatian church had people who were trying to add works to faith, thinking, like many do today, that faith is not enough. We have to add our good deeds, whether it be deeds of the law, or other deeds of righteousness which we do to add to faith. Another passage I showed shows this.

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

It is not our good deeds which save us, or have any part of saving us. It is the work of God (Christ work on the cross, and the HS work of regeneration) which save us. Our works are a byproduct of this faith.

As for James, I have asked this before. I probably have not asked you so I will do it here. How much faith is a dead faith?

Dead faith = a little faith?
dead faith = alot of faith?
dead faith = no faith at all?

when you answer this we can delve deeper into what I think james said.

Like I said our faith can only be made perfect when our works our active with our faith, If we have only faith then we can not be saved, and if we have only works we can not be saved. Both are required for our Salvation; when faith is alone it can do nothing, but once it is united with our works then we can be saved. Both of them are required for our salvation.

Again read galations 3. We can not perfect our faith with works. If we try paul calls us fools because we are no longer having faith in Christ and his promise, but our faith turns to our works. The thing is, If we have faith, we will work. If we do not have faith, no works will come out. because we are not going to do things God wants us to do if we do not have faith in him.

The Catholic position of Faith and Works acknowledges this simple fact.

Well that is why I say the catholics teach a gospel of works. Which paul adamantly condemns.

Catholics do not deny that we are saved through faith we simply deny that we are saved by faith alone. The gift of faith is free, no one can believe unless God calls them to. God initiates the process of our salvation, and without him giving us the gift of faith no man could start running the race that culminates in salvation. After receiving that gift of faith it is our duty to work towards our salvation "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling" so it is only once our faith is united with our works that we can be saved.

This is just what the jews thought, and it was this false gospel of works which Paul fought over and over in his epistles.

The passage where Paul says work out our salvation with fear and trembling did not mean paul was telling us to work out to be saved, He told us work out the salvation we have. Be lights in the world. Do not stand in front of God on our Bema Seat judgment and have nothing to show but wood hay and stubble. I fear this every day. That I will have nothing to show.

Think about it. How can we work out our salvation if we are not saved? We have nothing to work out.

Of course you are going to say that only once we have "saving faith" (which includes works) can we be saved, but I do not see two different faiths being spoken of in the letters of Paul and James instead I see a different emphasis on the two things required for salvation. Paul emphasizes faith because he is addressing people who thought they could be saved simply by their good works alone, and James emphasizes works because he was addressing people who believed that their faith alone would save them. I'll say once more that it is only once both our faith and our works are united and working together that we can achieve salvation; one without the other is useless.

Well as I showed, Paul addressed people who believed they were saved by faith and works. not just faith alone.

James addressed people who had a dead faith. Again I ask, how much faith does this equal? A little, alot, or no faith at all. Does something that is dead have life?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Dear santosubito, I would not say that justification is the result of sanctification; I would say that both justification and sanctification are the result of Christ's blood shed on the Cross to save sinners who repent. Repentance leads to confession, baptism, chrismation, walking with Christ in the Holy Spirit, keeping the commandments, the receiving of the Holy Spirit in baptism and chrismation, the forgiveness of sins in Christ. Take care. Scott Erie

Actually it is the other way around. Justification comes first. then sanctification starts. We will not be completely sanctified as long as we are here on earth. We work and grow towards sanctification. Paul called it a race he was running toward. a mark, in order to recieve a prize. Salvation is not a prize, it is a gift.

Our complete sanctification will happen when we are ressurected. Then and only then will our ability to sin be removed. As long as we are on earth, we will continue to sin, so our sanctification will never be complete.

Paul, however, says we are Justified at this moment.

 

[zone]

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that God Infuses the believer with grace. Our sins are taken away, forgiven, and God infuses, places, injects grace and righteousness into us as a process through confession and the other sacraments. Initial justification occurs at baptism, grows through use of the sacraments throughout one's life, sanctification takes place and one then earns final justification in Heaven after the satisfaction for one's sins are purged in purgatory or through indulgences in this life. Justification is the result of sanctification.

In short, we are finally Justified after our death (we receive the crown only after we have ran and won the race) and in this life we are continually working towards our final justification via the process of sanctification.

Protestants turn this model on it's head when they say that we are justified first then through sanctification we grow holier while always remaining justified (we have the crown while we are running the race)

Also if you can decipher the difficult language of Saint Thomas Aquinas he basically dealt with the issue you're bringing up. You can find the pertinent sections of the Summa Theologica at: SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The effects of grace (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 113)

Santo:
you realize this is Judaism, right?