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.

---

I would add to this by proposing that the actions of the "good thief" were themselves "good works" in that he confessed and humbled himself before Jesus and in his own way sought to be reconciled to God. He also attempted to evangelize the "bad thief" by pointing out the righteousness of Jesus.

I would go even further and suggest that he is uniting his suffering with that of Jesus given the unimaginable circumstances under which he turned to Jesus and essentially begged for reconciliation.

Zobel, I don't intend to presume how you would react to this, but I think it is worth noting that while good works can be meritorious for our salvation, they do so insofar as they are a product of God's grace working in and through us.

Paraphrasing Augustine: when God assesses our works as meritorious for salvation he is crowning his own works.

From James 2:
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

Catag94 said:

---

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.

---

To be clear, I never said justification through faith was absent for 1,500 years. I said there is no evidence of faith alone. Catholicism teaches that the initial grace of justification is 100% a gift from God and we have nothing to do with earning or meriting that initial grace. So if we limit the question to the initial moment of justification (i.e. baptism) then Catholics and most Protestants are in agreement. Where the road splits is what happens after that initial justification. Catholics believe salvation is a process, not merely a one time event.

The issue I see with the Protestant position on Justification is not that the Church Fathers didn't use the term justification by faith alone. Some of them certainly did, but equally clearly their holistic view on Justification is not the same as what Luther et al and their respective progeny espouse. The overwhelming consensus of the Fathers is that Justification involves an ontological transformation, an objective change in the recipient of God's grace, a heart of stone transformed to a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:25-27). As I understand it this is something that Protestantism rejects. Hence, in the Protestant system justification is only forensic and always and everywhere external to the believer; justification "extra-nos."

So the question is not so much what the areas of agreement are but rather those in which a position is rejected. We can agree that Justification involves a declaration (i.e., forensic) and also that we are justified by Faith alone (i.e., good works don't have any role in our initial justification). The issue really is what Protestants reject: that justification divinizes us. That is: that we become truly righteous, in the ontological sense.

So, where is the pre-1500 evidence that the early Church rejected what Protestants reject; the Patristic evidence that proves that "extra nos" righteousness is not a theological innovation and was clearly taught in the early Church? I submit it does not exist and that there is no evidence of sola fide as proclaimed by Luther et al being taught or believed in the Christian religion prior to Luther. It was a theological novum when he first proclaimed it. It's revolutionary not evolutionary.

Faithful Ag said:

---

From James 2:
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

---

And those verses only make sense in the Catholic teaching if salvation is a process. We are saved and we are being saved and we will be saved. Initially it is solely and exclusively a gift from God. Thereafter we must co-operate with the grace God gives us.

I think it's also worth mentioning here that we are not merely saved from our sins, which we are and that is an amazing thing; but we are also saved FOR union with our Creator and that happens by the processes of Kenosis and Theosis.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

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.

---

To be clear, I never said justification through faith was absent for 1,500 years. I said there is no evidenceof faith alone. Catholicism teaches that the initial grace of justification is 100% a gift from God and we have nothing to do with earning or meriting that initial grace. So if we limit the question to the initial moment of justification (i.e. baptism) then Catholics and most Protestants are in agreement. Where the road splits is what happens after that initial justification. Catholics believe salvation is a process, not merely a one time event.

But I stand by my statement that there is no evidence of sola fide as proclaimed by Luther being taught or believed in the Christian religion prior to Luther. It's a theological novum when he first proclaimed it. It's revolutionary not evolutionary.

---

Well I understand and I stand behind the idea that it is through faith we are justified. That said, I agree that faith ALONE (as in I believe the same way that Satan and the evil spirits believe) is not sufficient. If things the Catholic accepted definition of "Faith Alone", then I totally agree.
Again, I think Paul made it clear in Romans regarding Abraham's justification. Abraham was justified because of his faith. Abraham believed, feared, and obeyed God, despite what God commended of him. So, his actions proved his faith. In this sense, it wasn't his believe or faith alone, but his responding which was a result of that faith; true faith.
This is why, I mentioned earlier that anyone who claims faith but has no actual actions demonstrating a true faith is a liar or "faith with out works is evidence of no true faith at all".
This is very different that one being able to merit Gods grace through works. As Paul said, if one could, it would be a wage or a debt God had to pay.

So, I suspect we all are more in agreement than it seems but the language and semantics get into the way.

In addition, I believe God's people are Saved, are being saved, and will be saved.

Anyone who thinks I can ask Jesus into my heart, and I'm saved, but is t a new creation and has no evidence of faith is a liar and will be perhaps shocked to find himself with the hosts and not the sheep. Likewise, I fear the Catholic raised people who "check all the boxes" and attend mass for a lifetime, but don't actually know Jesus may even be more shocked to find the same.

Jesus said it best when he said, "I'm the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know me."

You can tell a tree by its fruit. A tree that claims to be a peach tree but only produces thorns is a liar.

So Zobel is adding works as necessary to salvation, but they aren't in the Torah? What works are required and in what documents can we find them listed?

I grew up Protestant but don't really believe in a once saved always saved. Truthfully im not entirely sure how it all works per se.

I lean towards your saved by faith in Jesus. Period. However your works are the proof of your faith. So without works there is no faith because faith naturally produces works.

Therefor when Jesus judges He judges the righteous and wicked based of their works as the works are the proof for all to be witnesses of od one's faith.

The Final Judgment
Matt 25:
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' 45 Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Catag94 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

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.

---

To be clear, I never said justification through faith was absent for 1,500 years. I said there is no evidenceof faith alone. Catholicism teaches that the initial grace of justification is 100% a gift from God and we have nothing to do with earning or meriting that initial grace. So if we limit the question to the initial moment of justification (i.e. baptism) then Catholics and most Protestants are in agreement. Where the road splits is what happens after that initial justification. Catholics believe salvation is a process, not merely a one time event.

But I stand by my statement that there is no evidence of sola fide as proclaimed by Luther being taught or believed in the Christian religion prior to Luther. It's a theological novum when he first proclaimed it. It's revolutionary not evolutionary.

---

Well I understand and I stand behind the idea that it is through faith we are justified. That said, I agree that faith ALONE (as in I believe the same way that Satan and the evil spirits believe) is not sufficient. If things the Catholic accepted definition of "Faith Alone", then I totally agree.
Again, I think Paul made it clear in Romans regarding Abraham's justification. Abraham was justified because of his faith. Abraham believed, feared, and obeyed God, despite what God commended of him. So, his actions proved his faith. In this sense, it wasn't his believe or faith alone, but his responding which was a result of that faith; true faith.
This is why, I mentioned earlier that anyone who claims faith but has no actual actions demonstrating a true faith is a liar or "faith with out works is evidence of no true faith at all".
This is very different that one being able to merit Gods grace through works. As Paul said, if one could, it would be a wage or a debt God had to pay.

So, I suspect we all are more in agreement than it seems but the language and semantics get into the way.

In addition, I believe God's people are Saved, are being saved, and will be saved.

Anyone who thinks I can ask Jesus into my heart, and I'm saved, but is t a new creation and has no evidence of faith is a liar and will be perhaps shocked to find himself with the hosts and not the sheep. Likewise, I fear the Catholic raised people who "check all the boxes" and attend mass for a lifetime, but don't actually know Jesus may even be more shocked to find the same.

Jesus said it best when he said, "I'm the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know me."

You can tell a tree by its fruit. A tree that claims to be a peach tree but only produces thorns is a liar.

---

I don't see much to argue about in that.

Do you think salvation can be lost or no?

Jabin said:

---

So Zobel is adding works as necessary to salvation, but they aren't in the Torah? What works are required and in what documents can we find them listed?

---

Matthew 25 is a decent precis.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I grew up Protestant but don't really believe in a once saved always saved. Truthfully im not entirely sure how it all works per se.

I lean towards your saved by faith in Jesus. Period. However your works are the proof of your faith. So without works there is no faith because faith naturally produces works.

Therefor when Jesus judges He judges the righteous and wicked based of their works as the works are the proof for all to be witnesses of od one's faith.

The Final Judgment
Matt 25:
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' 45 Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

---

Yep. And just to reiterate, the Catholic view is that any good works that are meritorious for salvation are a case of God crowning his own glory.

I prefer to point to the Preservation of the Saints. A wonderful promise in Philippians 1:6: "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/tulip-and-reformed-theology-perseverance-saints#:~:text=Writing%20to%20the%20Philippians%2C%20Paul,souls%2C%20He%20intends%20to%20finish.

Quote:

---

I think this little catchphrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading. It suggests that the perseverance is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. I believe that saints do persevere in faith, and that those who have been effectually called by God and have been reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit endure to the end. However, they persevere not because they are so diligent in making use of the mercies of God. The only reason we can give why any of us continue on in the faith is because we have been preserved. So I prefer the term the preservation of the saints, because the process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God. My confidence in my preservation is not in my ability to persevere. My confidence rests in the power of Christ to sustain me with His grace and by the power of His intercession. He is going to bring us safely home.

---

Another way to think of faith and works is the marriage parable. Which Paul calls tbe great mystery revealed.

We the church become tbe bride of Jesus. Husband and wife relationship. The faith part is the accepting of the marriage proposal and counting tbr cost and becoming a true follower of Jesus. The in dwelling of the HS is the seed of God producing works or fruit just like a husband and wife produce children. The source is tbr seed and so too our Good works/fruit are sourced by God, the HS. And we bring to birth those fruits through our labors and working for His glory etc.

So as a woman cannot bear children without the seed of man so too we cannot bear good fruit without the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit which is a by product of our Faith.

I'll have to dwell on that one.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

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.

---

To be clear, I never said justification through faith was absent for 1,500 years. I said there is no evidenceof faith alone. Catholicism teaches that the initial grace of justification is 100% a gift from God and we have nothing to do with earning or meriting that initial grace. So if we limit the question to the initial moment of justification (i.e. baptism) then Catholics and most Protestants are in agreement. Where the road splits is what happens after that initial justification. Catholics believe salvation is a process, not merely a one time event.

But I stand by my statement that there is no evidence of sola fide as proclaimed by Luther being taught or believed in the Christian religion prior to Luther. It's a theological novum when he first proclaimed it. It's revolutionary not evolutionary.

---

Well I understand and I stand behind the idea that it is through faith we are justified. That said, I agree that faith ALONE (as in I believe the same way that Satan and the evil spirits believe) is not sufficient. If things the Catholic accepted definition of "Faith Alone", then I totally agree.
Again, I think Paul made it clear in Romans regarding Abraham's justification. Abraham was justified because of his faith. Abraham believed, feared, and obeyed God, despite what God commended of him. So, his actions proved his faith. In this sense, it wasn't his believe or faith alone, but his responding which was a result of that faith; true faith.
This is why, I mentioned earlier that anyone who claims faith but has no actual actions demonstrating a true faith is a liar or "faith with out works is evidence of no true faith at all".
This is very different that one being able to merit Gods grace through works. As Paul said, if one could, it would be a wage or a debt God had to pay.

So, I suspect we all are more in agreement than it seems but the language and semantics get into the way.

In addition, I believe God's people are Saved, are being saved, and will be saved.

Anyone who thinks I can ask Jesus into my heart, and I'm saved, but is t a new creation and has no evidence of faith is a liar and will be perhaps shocked to find himself with the hosts and not the sheep. Likewise, I fear the Catholic raised people who "check all the boxes" and attend mass for a lifetime, but don't actually know Jesus may even be more shocked to find the same.

Jesus said it best when he said, "I'm the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know me."

You can tell a tree by its fruit. A tree that claims to be a peach tree but only produces thorns is a liar.

---

I don't see much to argue about in that.

Do you think salvation can be lost or no?

---

I don't think of Salvation as a possession to lose. I do think, that if one confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead and is baptized with the Holy spirit, he is/is being /will be saved and will not be lost.
I think these people are new creations and live in the spirit, not perfectly, but intently as would be expected for anyone who Loves Jesus.

I heard a pastor on the radio last week say this:
"A certain recipe for losing any relationship is the following: 1) Stop spending time with the other person, 2)Stop talking to the other person, and 3) Stop listening to the other person."
This would end any relationship.

I can't help but think this may describe the situation of many of all Christian's denominations, who may profess a faith. If true, they never actually had salvation.

Quote:

---

I grew up Protestant but don't really believe in a once saved always saved. Truthfully im not entirely sure how it all works per se.

---

Same here on both points. I was just reacting to the flaws in Zobel's logic/argument.

ETA: I suspect that the extreme once saved/always saved may have started off as a reaction to extreme Arminianism and just kept going to its own illogical and unbiblical extreme.

If our relationship with Jesus is one of a marriage there is a clearly defined means of separation from that relationship. Divorce due to infidelity. Which carries the punishment of death.

This is taken from Hippolytus' commentary on Susannah.

Now sin is the death of the soul, and especially (the sin of) adultery. For when the soul that is united with Christ forsakes its faith, it is given over to perpetual death, viz., eternal punishment. And in confirmation of this, in the case of the transgression and violation of marriage unions in the flesh, the law has decreed the penalty of death.

Likely. Pendulums always swing right.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Likely. Pendulums always swing right.

---

Well, sometimes they swing left.

Haha nicely done

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Another way to think of faith and works is the marriage parable. Which Paul calls tbe great mystery revealed.

We the church become tbe bride of Jesus. Husband and wife relationship. The faith part is the accepting of the marriage proposal and counting tbr cost and becoming a true follower of Jesus. The in dwelling of the HS is the seed of God producing works or fruit just like a husband and wife produce children. The source is tbr seed and so too our Good works/fruit are sourced by God, the HS. And we bring to birth those fruits through our labors and working for His glory etc.

So as a woman cannot bear children without the seed of man so too we cannot bear good fruit without the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit which is a by product of our Faith.

---

Romans 5:

More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man -- though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. (Romans 5:3-5, 7, RSV-CE)

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

If our relationship with Jesus is one of a marriage there is a clearly defined means of separation from that relationship. Divorce due to infidelity. Which carries the punishment of death.

This is taken from Hippolytus' commentary on Susannah.

Now sin is the death of the soul, and especially (the sin of) adultery. For when the soul that is united with Christ forsakes its faith, it is given over to perpetual death, viz., eternal punishment. And in confirmation of this, in the case of the transgression and violation of marriage unions in the flesh, the law has decreed the penalty of death.

---

That all seems to point to a salvation that can be rejected, yes?

Yes. Or betrayed.

Jabin said:

---

So Zobel is adding works as necessary to salvation, but they aren't in the Torah? What works are required and in what documents can we find them listed?

---

No, I'm saying salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, because He is the Seed (singular) of Abraham and the child of the promise, and therefore the Firstborn, who inherits everything. Apart from Him we inherit nothing - not material blessings, not eternal life, not salvation. The way we are saved is by relationship with Him, and the scriptures describe this relationship as faithfulness. Faithfulness is not an abstract set of concepts we verbally or mentally assent to, it a tangible and concrete thing. Whether or not you are faithful to God is as tangible as the question of whether or not you are faithful to your wife, or whether you are faithful to your word.

The works of the Torah that St Paul is talking about is about being Jewish. Read Romans, really read it. The whole point of that section is showing that merely being Jewish - first by heredity, then by externally following the Torah - does not save you and can absolutely convict you. And it culminates by saying that salvation and righteousness (justification... same word) has come apart from the works of the Torah. He's saying - following Jesus Christ and the righteousness that comes from Him is not bound up in the Torah or limited by it. It's the exact same thing he tells the Galatians, the exact same thing he tells St Peter, the exact same conclusion the Council of Jerusalem says in Acts.

It's not a list of works, or a certain amount, or a balance, or whatever - whether those works are in the Torah or not. It is about relationship, faithfulness, which is expressed by being co-workers with God, being obedient and faithful to him.

This isn't some novel idea. This is exactly how the relationship between Esau and Jacob works. Esau receives some of the promises to Abraham, but they're conditional to his relationship with God and the heir (Jacob). Later, when Edom revolts against Judah, they are disinherited, cut off. That's why St Paul mentions "the older will serve the younger" and "Esau I have hated". Be faithful like Esau. Don't be faithless like Edom.

Man...yall finally got the Reformers with a brand new and definitely never asked question.

Oh wait...

John Chrysostom:

Quote:

---

Further, they were possessed with another apprehension; it was written, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them." (Deut. xxvii. 26.) And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, "In thee shall all nations be blessed," (Gen. xii. 4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law; so he adds by way of conclusion,

---

Quote:

---

For he who saith that he is a "teacher of babes, and maketh his boast in the Law," and styles himself "an instructor of the foolish," if alike with them he needed a teacher and a Saviour, can no longer have any pretext for boasting. For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that "it was excluded," he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? "By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith." See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the "law of faith?" It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting,1281 and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. And in saying this he attempts to bring the Jew who has believed to act with moderation, and to calm him that hath not believed, in such way as to draw him on to his own view. For he that has been saved, if he be high-minded in that he abides by the Law, will be told that he himself has stopped his own mouth, himself has accused himself, himself has renounced claims to his own salvation, and has excluded boasting.

---

Quote:

---

The Jewish tenets were fables in two ways, because they were imitations, and because the thing was past its season, for such things become fables at last. For when a thing ought not to be done, and being done, is injurious, it is a fable even as it is useless. As then those1476 ought not to be regarded, so neither ought these. For this is not being sound. For if thou believest the Faith, why dost thou add other things, as if the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why dost thou enslave thyself by subjection to the Law? Hast thou no confidence in what thou believest? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.

---

Ah..Ephesians 1...

Lets start by noticing you pick up with the word "That..." Probably should look before "that."

This section is about this particular verse:
Ver. 4. "Even as," he proceeds, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love."

Quote:

---

What is meant by, "He chose us in Him?" By means of the faith which is in Him, Christ, he means, happily ordered this for us before we were born; nay more, before the foundation of the world. And beautiful is that word "foundation," as though he were pointing to the world as cast down from some vast height. Yea, vast indeed and ineffable is the height of God, so far removed not in place but in incommunicableness of nature; so wide the distance between creation and Creator! A word which heretics may be ashamed to hear

But wherefore hath He chosen us? "That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him." That you may not then, when you hear that "He hath chosen us," imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, saith he, hath He chosen us, and on this condition, "that we should be holy and without blemish." And so formerly he chose the Jews. On what terms? "This nation, saith he, hath He chosen from the rest of the nations." (Deut. xiv. 2.) Now if men in their choices choose what is best, much more doth God. And indeed the fact of their being chosen is at once a token of the loving kindness of God, and of their moral goodness.176 For by all means would he have chosen those who were approved. He hath Himself rendered us holy, but then we must continue holy. A holy man is he who is a partaker of faith; a blameless man is he who leads an irreproachable life. It is not however simply holiness and irreproachableness that He requires, but that we should appear such "before Him." For there are holy and blameless characters, who yet are esteemed as such only by men, those who are like whited sepulchres, and like such as wear sheep's clothing. It is not such, however, He requires, but such as the Prophet speaks of; "And according to the cleanness of my hands." (Ps. xviii. 24.) What cleanness? That which is so "in His eyesight." He requires that holiness on which the eye of God may look.

---

And to be clear...Sola Fide does not mean faith without anything else.

It simply means that faith alone is all that justifies us before God. Never our works.

Luther never taught to simply have faith and nothing else. He was a massive proponent of vocation and that God want's works that truly align with his commandments...not manmade works (saying hail mary's, pilgrimages, or even indulgences). A true work is living our your life honoring your neighbor, your parents, God, etc.

That entire passage was preached by St John "that you may not then, when you hear that "He hath chosen us," imagine that faith alone is sufficient." I'm sorry you don't like it.

This is kind of Fun.

Lets look at John now.

Quote:

---

"Is it then enough," saith one, "to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?" By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" ( Matt. vii. 21 ); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He saith, "This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God" ( c. xvii. 3 ), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life," and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, "This by itself is eternal life," nor, "He that doth but believe on the Son hath eternal life," but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing doth contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. And he did not say, "awaiteth him," but, "abideth on him," that is, "shall never remove from him." For that thou mayest not think that the "shall not see life," is a temporary death, but mayest believe that the punishment is continual, he hath put this expression to show that it rests upon him continually. And this he has done, by these very words forcing them on to Christ. Therefore he gave not the admonition to them in particular, but made it universal, the manner which best might bring them over. For he did not say, "if ye believe," and, "if ye believe not," but made his speech general, so that his words might be free from suspicion. And this he has done yet more strongly than Christ. For Christ saith, "He that believeth not is condemned already," but John saith, "shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." With good cause; for it was a different thing for a man to speak of himself and for another to speak of him. They would have thought that Christ spake often of these things from self-love, and that he was a boaster; but John was clear from all suspicion. And if at a later time, Christ also used 106 stronger expressions, it was when they had begun to conceive an exalted opinion of Him.

---

That you think this in anyway harms Sola Fide is surprising.

Zobel said:

---

That entire passage was preached by St John "that you may not then, when you hear that "He hath chosen us," imagine that faith alone is sufficient." I'm sorry you don't like it.

---

Why wouldn't I like it? I have absolutely zero problems with it.

It also is not a response to anything I posted.

Zobel said:

---

that without divine works it is impossible to be saved.

---

You're sounding more and more reformed

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

that without divine works it is impossible to be saved.

---

You're sounding more and more reformed

---

Fortunately, I find that though they try to argue against this point, the more Rome (especially) and others argue for justification, the more they become Protestant in their language.

Here's Pope Benedict XVI:

Quote:

---

Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

---

If only Rome had asked taken the time to ask these simple question.

But what did the Reformers say. Lets look to their very first Confession:

Quote:

---

1 Our teachers are falsely accused of forbidding Good Works. 2 For their published writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like import, bear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what works in every calling be pleasing to God. 3 Concerning these things preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of rosaries, monasticism, and such like. 4 Since our adversaries have been admonished of these things, they are now unlearning them, and do not preach these unprofitable works as heretofore. 5 Besides, they begin to mention faith, of which there was heretofore marvelous silence. 6 They teach that we are justified not by works only, but they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith and works. 7 This doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and can afford more consolation than their old doctrine.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

27 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.

35 Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. 36 For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. 37 Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man's help. 38 And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart.

---

So Sola Fide? Yes absolutely.

Abiding in God's Word? Yes absolutely.

Maybe, just maybe, the Reformers read the same Scriptures and Fathers and realized what Rome was teaching was just plain wrong.

AgLiving06 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

that without divine works it is impossible to be saved.

---

You're sounding more and more reformed

---

Fortunately, I find that though they try to argue against this point, the more Rome (especially) and others argue for justification, the more they become Protestant in their language.

Here's Pope Benedict XVI:

Quote:

---

Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

---

If only Rome had asked taken the time to ask these simple question.

But what did the Reformers say. Lets look to their very first Confession:

Quote:

---

1 Our teachers are falsely accused of forbidding Good Works. 2 For their published writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like import, bear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what works in every calling be pleasing to God. 3 Concerning these things preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of rosaries, monasticism, and such like. 4 Since our adversaries have been admonished of these things, they are now unlearning them, and do not preach these unprofitable works as heretofore. 5 Besides, they begin to mention faith, of which there was heretofore marvelous silence. 6 They teach that we are justified not by works only, but they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith and works. 7 This doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and can afford more consolation than their old doctrine.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

27 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.

35 Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. 36 For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. 37 Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man's help. 38 And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart.

---

So Sola Fide? Yes absolutely.

Abiding in God's Word? Yes absolutely.

Maybe, just maybe, the Reformers read the same Scriptures and Fathers and realized what Rome was teaching was just plain wrong.

---

With all due respect, I think both sides are a lot closer in thought than apart.

Lots of misunderstanding and lack of communication in my opinion.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

that without divine works it is impossible to be saved.

---

You're sounding more and more reformed

---

Fortunately, I find that though they try to argue against this point, the more Rome (especially) and others argue for justification, the more they become Protestant in their language.

Here's Pope Benedict XVI:

Quote:

---

Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

---

If only Rome had asked taken the time to ask these simple question.

But what did the Reformers say. Lets look to their very first Confession:

Quote:

---

1 Our teachers are falsely accused of forbidding Good Works. 2 For their published writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like import, bear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what works in every calling be pleasing to God. 3 Concerning these things preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of rosaries, monasticism, and such like. 4 Since our adversaries have been admonished of these things, they are now unlearning them, and do not preach these unprofitable works as heretofore. 5 Besides, they begin to mention faith, of which there was heretofore marvelous silence. 6 They teach that we are justified not by works only, but they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith and works. 7 This doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and can afford more consolation than their old doctrine.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

27 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.

35 Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. 36 For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. 37 Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man's help. 38 And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart.

---

So Sola Fide? Yes absolutely.

Abiding in God's Word? Yes absolutely.

Maybe, just maybe, the Reformers read the same Scriptures and Fathers and realized what Rome was teaching was just plain wrong.

---

With all due respect, I think both sides are a lot closer in thought than apart.

Lots of misunderstanding and lack of communication in my opinion.

---

I agree with you, and that is what I was trying to show by quoting Pope Benedict, who could acknowledge that Luther had a point, if rightly understood.

Can you imagine how the last 500 years could have gone, if we had started at this point?