I think the bigger issue is saying "faith alone" when the fathers and the scriptures don't say "faith alone" and in fact specifically negate "faith alone".
The next step in this plan is spilling gallons of ink to defend just what you mean when you say "faith alone" - which is somehow code for "faith and necessary good works".
And, shockingly, a few centuries later not only do we have schism after schism, but most sects thinks faith alone actually means what it apparently says, and you have generations of Protestants teaching and believing that good works are not necessary for salvation.
The entire issue is over two things: merit and timing. Merit, to me, is a complete dead end and no-good very bad theological premise to argue, and I'll be glad to completely bow out as it is a framework the East does not participate in.
The timing issue is trying to unscrew the inscrutable and draw hard categorizations between being made righteous (justification) and being made holy (sanctification) as separate and distinct parts of salvation. To have the whole argument about whether faith alone or faith + action justifies you first have to accept the premise that justification is a distinct thing in time, defined in a certain narrow sense, and mostly consisting of receiving forgiveness of sins... AND you have to define faith in a certain narrow sense - "when each one believes individually that Christ is given for him".
So my mistake here is engaging with Protestants in general, because some of them believe in faith alone (does what it says on the tin) and the earlier confessional Lutherans believe in faith alone (where faith is individual belief) but that good works are necessary thereafter...
... neither of which align with the tradition of the East, as should be unfortunately expected by centuries of schism.
The next step in this plan is spilling gallons of ink to defend just what you mean when you say "faith alone" - which is somehow code for "faith and necessary good works".
And, shockingly, a few centuries later not only do we have schism after schism, but most sects thinks faith alone actually means what it apparently says, and you have generations of Protestants teaching and believing that good works are not necessary for salvation.
The entire issue is over two things: merit and timing. Merit, to me, is a complete dead end and no-good very bad theological premise to argue, and I'll be glad to completely bow out as it is a framework the East does not participate in.
The timing issue is trying to unscrew the inscrutable and draw hard categorizations between being made righteous (justification) and being made holy (sanctification) as separate and distinct parts of salvation. To have the whole argument about whether faith alone or faith + action justifies you first have to accept the premise that justification is a distinct thing in time, defined in a certain narrow sense, and mostly consisting of receiving forgiveness of sins... AND you have to define faith in a certain narrow sense - "when each one believes individually that Christ is given for him".
So my mistake here is engaging with Protestants in general, because some of them believe in faith alone (does what it says on the tin) and the earlier confessional Lutherans believe in faith alone (where faith is individual belief) but that good works are necessary thereafter...
... neither of which align with the tradition of the East, as should be unfortunately expected by centuries of schism.
