Are dead stars no longer stars? If a fish's gills seal, will they stop being a fish?
Quote:
You know that those quotes are scripture right? You bolded questions I have about our actions as if these are preposterous.
Quote:
I never, ever, ever once said that works are not necessary for salvation. When I say His judgment is righteous, and whatever standard, merit or ontology or whatever - I'm saying, whatever we think or rationalize about this, it is not relevant. However He judges will be right, and perfect, and true. It will be everything: merit, being, faith, actions, desires, and more, because He judges the heart, the whole person. And even then, not as an accuser, but on the basis of what He said as the only way to life, from the Father (John 12:47-50). He is the way to salvation, and our sole hope is in Him, not our own works or works of the Law, and if we trust in them, by them we will be judged (John 5:39,45). This is what the scriptures tell us, that He judges the inner parts, and that He is true, justified, and blameless in His judgment.
Quote:
It's silly to say I'm using only James. I have quoted or directly reference scripture *a lot* in this discussion. Here's a list of the one's I've used, and these are just the ones I referenced directly or quoted verbatim. There's a lot more that I indirectly paraphrased, not including Titus, 2 Tim, a 1 John in this post.
Ha...yes you did.Quote:
certainly didn't quote anything of yours that was scripture.
So you want to teach others their error by claiming ignorance of "how it works"? Bold move Cotton....Quote:
Swimmer said it best: ...
This is just completely false, not true. Not a single have time I ever advocated any salvation apart from Christ, or by any other means but Christ. You should not say things like this, because they are simply not true. I assume you just didn't read what I wrote in this actual thread. So I'll quote myself to say it again.Quote:
What you propose and continue to propose is "Christ + " when it comes to salvation.
This is just a blatant bad faith mischaracterization. Listen man, I know I've written a lot on this thread, but the idea behind writing a lot is to make it perfectly clear what I am saying. Again, let me quote myself.Quote:
So Christ saves only if your works are sufficient to meet the unknown standard God has for us.
careful there, you'll erode sola scriptura right from beneath your feet. And I wasn't implying that random quotes are sufficient. I was showing that the idea that somehow the entirety of the Church's soteriology is based on one chapter in James is wrong. You'll now proceed to argue against this by abusing bits and pieces of only the book of Romans. Ironic, don't you think?Quote:
What I'm pointing out is that simply using scripture is not sufficient.
Your exegesis of this passage is simply not correct.Quote:
Psalm 62:12 For You will repay each man according to his deeds.
Proverbs 24:12 If you say, "Behold, we did not know about this," will not He who weighs hearts consider it? Does not the One who guards your life know? Will He not repay a man according to his deeds?
Jeremiah 17:10 I, the LORD, search the heart; I test the mind to reward a man according to his way, by what his deeds deserve.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.
Malachi 3:2 But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He will be like a refiner's fire, like a launderer's soap.
1 Cor 3:13 his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man's work.
1 Cor 4:15 (concluding the above teaching on judgment) Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
2 Tim 4:8 From now on the crown of righteousness is laid up for me, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day--and not only to me, but to all who crave His appearing.
Romans 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
Sanctification is the fruit! Becuase to be holy is to be like God, and to be like God is to be God, through union. This is literally what the scriptures say. You talk as if I suggest salvation apart from Christ, but then speak of sanctification as if there is some other holiness!Quote:
But further, he's clear that the fruits of sin are death, but the fruits of the righteousness found in Christ is eternal life. Would be odd to say that if sanctification was the requirement to get the fruit wouldn't it?
It is not my idea that we are judged on our works. It is quite literally verbatim what the scriptures say, what Christ Jesus says. You can scoff at this, I suppose. Rather odd, really. Again, your stance puts scripture against scripture as if to prove the red letters false by St Paul.Quote:
You would have us judged on our works, yet Paul shows despair at how sin causes him to fall short. I guess God is handicapping our abilities?
Yeah, it's almost like he's not talking about salvation in this passage.Quote:
Odd, as Paul transitions to how we should act together with each other, no mention of salvation.
St Paul says - "Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy". Where else does St Paul talk about this? Oh right, when he says "I forewarn you, even as I warned before, that those doing such things will not inherit God's kingdom."Quote:
Salvation still not dependent on our works, but clearly we should follow God's commandments.
No, I put forward this verse as evidence that no person is able to judge another person.Quote:
You mentioned Romans 14:4 as a reference to supporting works? I'm not sure why?
Don't take passages out of context. This passage is about not judging another. Read the preceding sentence: Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. This doesn't show synergism or monergism.Quote:
Synergism? No it's the Lord who will make him stand.
It's like you don't read the words.Quote:
Paul's works? No! Christ's works.
Yes he does. What do you think "obedience of faith" means? Go back and reread the times he talks about obedience in Romans. Obedience is always action. You can't obey by not doing anything.Quote:
And how does Paul end Romans? By stressing obedience to faith while not mentioning works.
Obviously you can read Romans, quote it extensively, and come to any sort of belief you like.Quote:
I would contend that you cannot read Roman's and come to any sort of synergism belief unless you come in saying that is what you believe and force fitting the scriptures into that box. You will probably call that "Apostolic Tradition," but I call that the flaw with that process.
Quote:
I know I am saved by Christ alone through faith alone.
And it doesn't end there! Much like salvation.Quote:
And you, being dead in your trespasses and sins - in which once you walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all also once lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the things willed of the flesh and of its thoughts; and we were by nature children of wrath even as the rest.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, made us alive with Christ even we being dead in trespasses - by grace you are saved - and He raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
This whole passage is about *how* those who were in enmity - both the gentiles for alienation from the Law, and the Jews for failure to keep it, were reconciled. By grace. Not works, so neither the Jews can boast in the Law. I never really noticed before how closely this is linked with the first part of Romans 1-5. It's like a mini summary of it.Quote:
For we are His workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Therefore remember that formerly you -- the Gentiles in the flesh, the ones being called the uncircumcision by that being called the circumcision, made by hands in the flesh -- that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, not having hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you, the ones once being far off, have become near by the blood of Christ...So then, you are no longer strangers and aliens, but are fellow citizens of the saints and of the household of God, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is increasing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.
Quote:
So you want to teach others their error by claiming ignorance of "how it works"? Bold move Cotton....
Quote:
This is just completely false, not true. Not a single have time I ever advocated any salvation apart from Christ, or by any other means but Christ. You should not say things like this, because they are simply not true. I assume you just didn't read what I wrote in this actual thread. So I'll quote myself to say it again.
Quote:
careful there, you'll erode sola scriptura right from beneath your feet. And I wasn't implying that random quotes are sufficient. I was showing that the idea that somehow the entirety of the Church's soteriology is based on one chapter in James is wrong. You'll now proceed to argue against this by abusing bits and pieces of only the book of Romans. Ironic, don't you think?
Quote:
If I might offer a piece of advice. the frequent attempts to belittle or pose personal attacks against someone you disagree with is not a particular good method of discussion. I'd suggest a different tack.
Do you think it is possible that they are not contradictory?Quote:
And of course these contradicting statements:
You want to simultaneously say works do not save us while also saying that we are not saved without our works. I don't buy it.
What, I'm not allowed to say that it's kinda funny for you to say using scripture isn't sufficient but it has to be joined to right interpretation? Because that's kind of a side argument. Relax man.Quote:
Nonsense and the fact that you would make this kind of comment/argument shows you aren't particularly serious about having real discussion.
k2aggie07 said:
Points of contention:
1. Justification = salvation
They are not the same thing. Salvation includes justification, but not the other way around. Special care is needed with the verb "to save". St Paul often uses it in a lot of different ways, very broadly, different tenses, and scripturally it can mean both eternal salvation and also salvation from specific things, sometimes temporal (e.g., "your faith has saved you" not eternally but from the temporal suffering; or death).
Quote:
2. That faith can exist alone (that is, apart from works)
The entire discussion is a notional one, that there is such a thing as a workless faith. Perhaps we can say that if there were such a thing as a workless faith, it could save. But the whole idea is contrary to the mind of the scriptures, because repeatedly we see that a workless faith simply isn't faith in Jesus at all. Every indication we have in the scriptures is that faith never exists without activity, obedience, work, love. So the very idea of "faith alone" is a kind of oxymoron, like "dry wetness" or "hot coldness".
Quote:
2b. That we are not really made righteous by faith.
As a followup to the above, to "fix" this problem, a person can say that we are not ontologically made righteous, but only declared to be so. Therefore our apparent lack of love is of no problem whatsoever, because even though a person could be "workless" Christ is infinitely "workful," so we fall on his works. They're accounted to us, even though they are not ours. Now, the stage is set for the great debate between Luther and Rome. They both presume this is the case; they argue between themselves on how one avails oneself of this "treasury of merits" to be called "wet" while being "dry". Meanwhile, apart from both sides, the East's position is that we are actually made righteous through faith, and this is what salvation is. You aren't called "wet," you become "wet". You aren't called righteous, you are made righteous.
Quote:
3. That a dichotomy can be made between the event and the ongoing activity of salvation
There has been a tendency here at times to favor the event to the exclusion of the ongoing. As Cooper says, there's no need for this, because scripturally salvation (and even justification) is both a past event and an ongoing process, it is both finish and will be finished at judgment. Even justification should not be spoken of solely as past tense, because St Paul himself, in Romans no less, speaks of it as a future event. We shouldn't limit it to either, because the scripture doesn't.
I'm not being contrary. In this very thread, y'all said this:Quote:
In a sense, I think you are being contrary here.
People have asserted this. In fact, on this very thread - for example, AgLiving said "So I could summarize your entire point to simply say that without works, you don't have faith. I don't think you can read Paul's letters and come to that conclusion." Faith cannot exist alone.Quote:
Nobody has asserted this. No one is advocating for "cheap grace".
Which part of the Christian life saves you? The faith. Which part strengthens the faith? The works.
Which part of the body allows you to lift an object? Muscles. What strengthens the muscles? Exercise, not moving will make them atrophy and die.
Justification shouldn't (only) be spoken of as a past event. As was already quoted in this thread (and not by me), Cooper says:Quote:
Super nuancey. You treat it as though there is a wide chasm whete there is a tiny fissure. Which is most ot this thread.
(moved)
A birth is not the completion of a life, but it is the beginning of one. Getting in a car isn't a whole roadtrip, but it is the neccessary start. No one denies that there are things that Christians must do after justifications to remain in the faith. Justification is an event, a declaration, an act. Faith saves and because someone is faithful, they will do God's will. A person who has not been justified cant partake in theosis. Likewise, a person born will not live if they dont take care of their health and a person on a roadtrip will not get far after getting in their car if they don't refill with gas and do maintenance.
Quote:
I'm not being contrary. In this very thread, y'all said this:
To do that [not use justification and salvation interchangeably] is to miss the point of justification.
Justification is the binary 1/0 saved-not saved in our soteriology. So it's distinction without a difference.
If we're all cool that justification is not the exact same thing as salvation, then that's fine, but that hasn't been the stance. They are not interchangeable, because they are not the same thing.
Quote:
People have asserted this. In fact, on this very thread - for example, AgLiving said "So I could summarize your entire point to simply say that without works, you don't have faith. I don't think you can read Paul's letters and come to that conclusion." Faith cannot exist alone.
Ironically (irenically?) enough at this point I actually go to Luther to argue against this. Here are two quotes from Luther.
Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works.
Faith without works justifies. Faith without works is dead. Therefore dead faith justifies...In the major premise, "faith" ought to be placed with the word "justifies" and the portion of the sentence "without works justifies" is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word "justifies," not to "faith." In the minor premise, "without works" is truly the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith that lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a faith. "Without works" is ambiguous, then. For that reason, this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.
The whole thing is a kind of abstract discussion about theory - "can faith justify without works?". People immediately respond "no, because faith can't exist without works." Luther says no no no, I'm not saying that it can. That's another question entirely. But in theory, if it could, it would save, right?
I don't have an issue, per se, with the idea of "but if it could...?". The problem is, you always have to go around constantly qualifying sola fidei by saying sola (living) fidei. So let's say...
(living) faith alone
living faith produces its own works
living faith = faith with works or evinced by works
faith with works alone
Everyone happy? should be, I think?
Quote:
Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine concerning faith, which ought to be the chief one in the Church, has lain so long unknown, as all must needs grant that there was the deepest silence in their sermons concerning the righteousness of faith, while only the doctrine of works was treated in the churches, our teachers have instructed the churches concerning faith as follows:
9] First, that our works cannot reconcile God or merit forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification, but that we obtain this only by faith when we believe that we are received into favor for Christ's sake, who alone has been set forth the Mediator and Propitiation, 1 Tim. 2:5, in order that the Father may be reconciled through Him. 10]Whoever, therefore, trusts that by works he merits grace, despises the merit and grace of Christ, and seeks a way to God without Christ, by human strength, although Christ has said of Himself: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. John 14:6.
11] This doctrine concerning faith is everywhere treated by Paul, Eph. 2:8: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of your selves; it is the gift of God, not of works, etc.
12] And lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the testimonies of the Fathers. For 13] Augustine, in many volumes, defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits of works. 14] And Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium, and elsewhere, teaches to like effect. For in his De Vocatione Gentium he says as follows: Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of man's works be superseded by the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer.
15] But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced, nevertheless God-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the sure ground that for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul teaches Rom. 5:1: 16]Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. 17] This whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the terrified conscience, neither can it be understood apart from that conflict. Therefore 18]inexperienced and profane men judge ill concerning this matter, who dream that Christian righteousness is nothing but civil and philosophical righteousness.
19] Heretofore consciences were plagued with the doctrine of works, they did not hear the consolation from the Gospel. 20] Some persons were driven by conscience into the desert, into monasteries hoping there to merit grace by a monastic life. 21] Some also devised other works whereby to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins. 22]Hence there was very great need to treat of, and renew, this doctrine of faith in Christ, to the end that anxious consciences should not be without consolation but that they might know that grace and forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by faith in Christ.
Quote:
Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God. 28] It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. 29] And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. 30] For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. 31] For man's powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God's sight. 32] Besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, 33] to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, 34] but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human strength.
Quote:
Lutheran rejection of nearly all of the holy mysteries
Because the Colin example doesn't address specifically wither there is a distinction between justification and salvation. If anything, it reinforces the point of view that they are the same thing. On the other hand, you earlier explicitly said that they should be used interchangeably.Quote:
Why wouldn't you post the "Colin example too?"
Kind of ruins this comment.
It's not a random quote. It's actually incredibly specific and germane to the discussion. I didn't take it out of context, I actually provided the context where he talks exactly about what we're talking about.Quote:
It is interesting to watch you get worked up when I comment on synergism, yet you are so confident that you are correctly explaining Lutheranism by pulling a random quote. I think Jordan commented in both podcasts that doing so is not the best way to discuss any topic.
You literally have not said that a single time before now in this thread. And you have, somehow, yet again, sidestepped the points which I really tried to make clear.Quote:
So clearly as we've repeatedly said, Faith alone saves, but faith is never alone.
Ags4DaWin said:
I am a firm believer that 11th hour conversions don't count...because that individual never developed enough of a relationship with Christ to have the faith necessary to be justified. But that is just me and it is a measuring stick I use for myself.
Luke 23:39-43 said:
One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,fn saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
k2aggie07 said:
Lutherans teach only two sacraments (mysteries). The Orthodox teaching includes many more explicitly, and in fact no limit as we teach that any means of receiving grace is participation in the Holy Mystery of Christ.
Patriarch Jeremias wrote in the third and final reply - by which time he'd gotten a little testy:
"But since you are content with some of the sacraments, even though you have dangerously distorted and changed the written teachings of the Old and New [Testament] to your own purpose, you further say that some of them are not sacraments, but only traditions, not having been established in Holy [scriptural] Texts. But you oppose them in every way, just as chrismation, which was accepted even by Saint John Chrysostom. Some others you drag along as does a torrent. And then you call yourself theologians!"