AgLiving06 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I don't think anyone is saying it's not the church with roots and history back to Peter. And, I think you know that. The strayed part, you suggest, is somewhat what's being said, but only with respect to only a few dogmas.

Blessed Sunday to you all.

---

I may be very mistaken (it would be a pleasant surprise if I was), but I suspect Pablo and others will say that they are the same Church that Peter and Paul established, and presumably the Church that Peter was the head of.

---

Pretty sure I just said the same.

Heirs to the promises that Christ is the sole heir to, that we see co-heirs to because of being joined to him. I don't see really anything in this verse that talks about the magnitude or the portioning our he will do. As the heir, he will inherit everything, and as co heirs he will divide it to us as he sees fit by his grace. This verse seems to me to be unrelated to the question of size of portion.

Catag94 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I don't think anyone is saying it's not the church with roots and history back to Peter. And, I think you know that. The strayed part, you suggest, is somewhat what's being said, but only with respect to only a few dogmas.

Blessed Sunday to you all.

---

I may be very mistaken (it would be a pleasant surprise if I was), but I suspect Pablo and others will say that they are the same Church that Peter and Paul established, and presumably the Church that Peter was the head of.

---

Pretty sure I just said the same.

---

Gotcha, then I was just clarifying for my own self what you were saying

I saw an interesting comment the other day from an orthodox monk who said that if you read the apostolic succession lists carefully, ALL the original bishoprics were established by St Peter - including those of the other Apostles. This is an aspect of Petrine primacy I had not seen before. But the takeaway, he says, is that therefore then there IS only one chair - that of Peter - but all bishops with apostolic succession participate in that chair equally. Not only Rome in a special way. And this really gives with St Cyprian comments about Pope Stephen. It also puts a really clean understanding on just what schism is - there is one church, so presuming to set up an alternate lineage from that one chair or overlapping bishoprics apart from that chair is schism.

That's because the apostolic succession lists are a mess.

I was listening to a video the other day as well, and they mentioned this site:

https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org


They used an example of Bishop Barron, who they can only trace succession back to the Reformation era.

https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbarronr.html

Catag94 said:

---

I am familiar and have dug deeply into those topics. I understand the scriptural basis for each. My point is, and your reference to the scriptures etc hasn't refuted, the fact that these are dogmas that were officially add to the RCC Catechism centuries later and did not exist in the early church. One of the main difference, as I understand, between the EO and the RCC the approach development of doctrine. The EO would point to these as examples of dogma in the CCC today that simply didn't exist in the early church. They would also suggest that, if suddenly, St Peter were reading the CCC today he may be asking where those came from?
Well, St Peter, they came some 1800 years later when the RCC started adding them out a concern they had a conundrum.
1854 Immaculate conception- as a result of being consumers with the original sin doctrine and to eliminate the possibility that Jesus was exposed to original sin in Mary's womb.
-1870 Vatican 1 Papal infallibility
And then
-1954 Assumption of Mary because, well it is sort of required by immaculate conception.

I know you can point to some tradition and reference some saints on each of these but not as far back as the first century. So, my point remains these point to a difference. The EO, to my knowledge, rejects these making them, at least on these issues, more like the original church.

---

What are your thoughts about applying the same test to the novel idea of Sola Fide? There's zero evidence of that in the first 1,500 years of the church.

This is certainly not true

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I am familiar and have dug deeply into those topics. I understand the scriptural basis for each. My point is, and your reference to the scriptures etc hasn't refuted, the fact that these are dogmas that were officially add to the RCC Catechism centuries later and did not exist in the early church. One of the main difference, as I understand, between the EO and the RCC the approach development of doctrine. The EO would point to these as examples of dogma in the CCC today that simply didn't exist in the early church. They would also suggest that, if suddenly, St Peter were reading the CCC today he may be asking where those came from?
Well, St Peter, they came some 1800 years later when the RCC started adding them out a concern they had a conundrum.
1854 Immaculate conception- as a result of being consumers with the original sin doctrine and to eliminate the possibility that Jesus was exposed to original sin in Mary's womb.
-1870 Vatican 1 Papal infallibility
And then
-1954 Assumption of Mary because, well it is sort of required by immaculate conception.

I know you can point to some tradition and reference some saints on each of these but not as far back as the first century. So, my point remains these point to a difference. The EO, to my knowledge, rejects these making them, at least on these issues, more like the original church.

---

What are your thoughts about applying the same test to the novel idea of Sola Fide? There's zero evidence of that in the first 1,500 years of the church.

---

I'd say that the Apostle Paul was quite clear about Abraham's Justification by Faith and that he went to great lengths to help those he taught to understand that works are a natural accompaniment of true faith, and that "faith" without works was evidence of no true faith at all.
So, I'm not sure why you'd say the concept of justification through faith was absent the church for 1500 years.

I don't think you can make sola fide into the category of "everywhere always by all" no matter how hard you try. For example we have saint Maximos saying "For Jeremiah warns us: Do not say: "We are the Lord's temple." Neither should you say: "Faith alone in our Lord Jesus Christ can save me." By itself faith accomplishes nothing. For even the devils believe and shudder…No, faith must be joined to an active love of God which is expressed in good works. The charitable man is distinguished by sincere and long-suffering service to his fellow man: it also means using things aright."

Now one saint doesn't make a rule - they're holy fathers not holy spirits - but this is not a lone quote like this nor did anyone object to it. Things like this stand as witness points that at least at this time, in this place, people did not believe sola fide.

Edit to add - when I say sola fide I mean specifically as taught by the Reformers.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/faith-alone

Reformed View:

Quote:

---

What is justification? Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

---

RCC View:

Quote:

---

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning thereby that no other cooperation is required for him to obtain the grace of justification, and that in no sense is it necessary for him to make preparation and be disposed by a movement of his own will: let him be anathema. (Canon IX)

---

Here is an amazing sermon I have just come across from 40 years ago which seems to be gaining traction in reformed circles. It's from popular John MacArthur who has somehow backed his way into nestorianism and has declared the hypoststic union as heretical, while claiming a special insight on the hypostatic union.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-44/the-blood-of-christ

How do believers get duped by guys like this who are obviously just pulling things out of their rear?

Same with "faith alone". Nowhere in the Bible does it say faith alone justifies you. It says explicitly that faith alone is not sufficient in James, so much so that it became a stumbling block to Luther who thought it easier just to remove wholesale.

The stories of those healed by Jesus: He would say your faith has made you well, go in peace.

His physical healing was to demonstrate His spiritual healing. These example seem to indicate faith alone.

For the reason that demons have faith and shudder. Jesus didn't come to bring salvation to demons. He came as a man to save man.

Zobel said:

---

I dunno. I don't think you need to undersell theosis. We have plenty of luminaries in the church talking about it - "God made man so that man might become god" as St Athanasius put it. We become like Him, grown up to the full stature of Christ says St Paul. St Maximos writes that we are drawn up to the full height as He came down to ours - made like Him in every way save uncreated. Or, simply put, gods by grace what He is by nature.

---

Sadly, in the aftermath of the Reformation the west lost its connection with theosis/deification/divinization. Some of us are doing what we can to remind our fellow Catholics that it is part of our faith heritage and patrimony.

I am currently reading a book by Father Matthias Schaben called The Glories of Divine Grace which is all about theosis. Schaben is a 19th century German priest and scholar. Highly recommend it.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Here is an amazing sermon I have just come across from 40 years ago which seems to be gaining traction in reformed circles. It's from popular John MacArthur who has somehow backed his way into nestorianism and has declared the hypoststic union as heretical, while claiming a special insight on the hypostatic union.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-44/the-blood-of-christ

How do believers get duped by guys like this who are obviously just pulling things out of their rear?

Same with "faith alone". Nowhere in the Bible does it say faith alone justifies you. It says explicitly that faith alone is not sufficient in James, so much so that it became a stumbling block to Luther who thought it easier just to remove wholesale.

---

Here is the full quote with answers

https://thecalvinis****chdog.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/dr-john-macarthur-has-never-denied-the-necessity-of-the-christs-blood/

Edit: Looks like you have to add the letters t w a t in there to make the link work.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Same with "faith alone". Nowhere in the Bible does it say faith alone justifies you.

---

Romans 3:21-31
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is onewho will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 4:1-6
What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works...

Romans 4:13-16
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspringnot only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

Faith apart from works is indeed dead as James mentions. But those works do not make us right with God. It is demonstrating the faith we profess.

I would sure hope so!

But to say justification by faith alone is nowhere in the Bible is clearly not true. The debate is not what the text says...Paul literally says, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." It just seems disingenuous and lazy to say the Bible doesn't say that. We obviously interpret it differently, but to say justification by faith alone is not in the Bible is clearly not correct.

The words "by faith alone" do not appear in the text.

Nobody teaches that anyone is justified by the works of the Torah (law).

But saying that you're not justified - literally made righteous - by the works of the Torah doesn't mean you're justified by faith alone.

Justified by faith alone is not in the scriptures.

You're right....the word "alone" does not show up....

Romans 3:21-31
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is onewho will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

"apart from the law" and "apart from works"

Synonyms for apart include....alone, isolated, by oneself

Sorry my friend, you can't cut it up like that. Read the context, the whole chapter - then the whole book. Romans is written to a church where Jews were expelled and are now returning, and St Paul is trying to keep them together and prevent a formation of two churches. This is why he addresses gentiles, then Jews, then both. You have to see what he is saying "But...." after.

The preceding verses are all about the Torah, and how it was given to Israel and why, and why that is a benefit of being a Jew. BUT now the righteousness of God has appeared apart from the Torah.

You can't say "one is justified by faith apart from works". That is not what it says. It says one is justified (literally made righteous) by faith apart from works of the Torah. In other words, as he said, merely keeping the Torah does not make you righteous.

That's why he follows up by making it clear - do we overthrow the Torah by this? No, this upholds the Torah.

Is this a lone interpretation? Let's check. Nope! "We Jews by birth and not 'sinners' of the Gentiles, know that a man is not made righteous by works of the law (Torah), except through faith from Jesus Christ -- even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be made righteous by faith from Christ, and not by works of the Law (Torah), because by works of the Law (Torah) not any flesh will be made righteous."

You can't just cut it at works. He's making a very specific point about the Torah.

Zobel said:

---

You can't say "one is justified by faith apart from works". That is not what it says. It says one is justified (literally made righteous) by faith apart from works of the Torah. In other words, as he said, merely keeping the Torah does not make you righteous.

---

Why would I want to use other words? The text literally says in verse 28, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

I am not trying to convince you of the doctrine of sola fide. I am only trying to show you the text literally does mention justification by faith alone (or apart from works).

If one is justified by faith apart from the Torah how is one justified by anything other than Faith? Faith and what?

It says faith apart from works of the Torah. Not faith alone, not faith apart from works. It does not literally say those things.

Ok. At this time that Paul was addressing the Romans, the works of the Torah was all there was.

Can you point me to where Paul later clarifies to this same audience that although it is faith apart from the Torah, it is now faith and works according to some other moral book?

This is the false dichotomy that sola fide introduces. The only dichotomy we get in the scriptures on this topic is between faith in Jesus Christ - in other words, our faithfulness and relationship to the heir who then adopts us as co-heirs - and the works of the Torah.

There is no dichotomy presented to us in the scriptures between faithfulness to Jesus Christ and good works, good actions in a general sense. If anything, what the scriptures show us is that those two things are synonymous. One is made righteous through faithfulness.

To hammer that point - read St Paul with that in mind "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any power, but only faith working through love." Or in other words, neither being a gentile or a Jew (works of the Torah) has any power, but faith working through love.


So it's not faith and, its just faithfulness, which is a grace, and a choice - a walk, as St Paul terms it. Going back to the introduction of the Epistle to the Colossians - walking in a manner worthy of the Lord, pleasing to Him, bearing fruit. Can't have faith and not be faithful; you can't be faithful and not live it out. Or... as St James says, "faith by itself if it doesn't have works, is dead" and again "faith apart from works is worthless".


Every time we are given an image of the judgment, of the day of the Lord, we are judged by what we have done - good or evil, righteous or unrighteous, to everlasting life. In other words, by our faithfulness to Jesus Christ.

Of course. You can read every single time the scripture speaks of judgment for what judgment is based on.

But - can we at least agree that the passages there are not about faith vs works but faith vs being a Judaean by blood or keeping the Torah in an external way?

How did the thief on the cross prove his faith when he was never able to show his faithfulness?

He was justified by Christ in the minutes prior to his death, because of his faith and nothing else.

So what works could be accomplished that aren't manifesting in the Torah also?

Works are the proof of faith as I understand it.

He asked the Lord to remember him when Christ came into his kingdom.

Get out of the merit mindset. It's not a quantity game, there's no point system, there's no like minimum score. There is a judge, and His judgment is perfect.

Yes - he was judged righteous by Christ. How do you know what he was judged by? Are you Christ?

We have the scriptures which say he was judged for what he did, for good or evil. And the Lord judged him perfectly.

Faith comes from the idea of "proofing" - same concept as a proof load in a piece of steel.

St Paul says when the gentiles live according to their ways they are a Torah unto themselves. The Torah did not create righteousness, there is righteousness and unrighteousness. The Torah revealed unrighteousness, it put a guard in place because of transgressions.

The good works we do are God's works, and when we cooperate with Him we participate in the Good. And so, they are truly Good because they're His. That's not negating the Torah but upholding it, but it also is not saying you have to do the works of the Torah (i.e., be a Judaean) to be saved. That is what St Paul is constantly talking about.

So how does one know which works are Good and which are not?

Sola Ecclesia!

What does that mean?

Zobel said:

---

He asked the Lord to remember him when Christ came into his kingdom.

Get out of the merit mindset. It's not a quantity game, there's no point system, there's no like minimum score. There is a judge, and His judgment is perfect.

Yes - he was judged righteous by Christ. How do you know what he was judged by? Are you Christ?

We have the scriptures which say he was judged for what he did, for good or evil. And the Lord judged him perfectly.

---

Hey we agree - no merit mindset here either.

Yes, we are all judged for what we do. But we aren't talking about final judgement. We are talking about justification.

Mainly poking fun. It is suggesting the church model set up by Rome has the authority in discerning what works are good enough.