Galatians
2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
5:4-5
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Galatians
Other urls found in this thread:
1 John 5
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Reverlation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
1 John 3
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Romans 4
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
...
Galatians 3
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
...
youtube.com
Is hitchens right about the west? Are we watching the darkness fall?
Amen.
Bump.
Star Wars BTFO
Catholics BTFO
Don't forget!
We all meet our makers when we die, Christians are prepared while the godless will have a lifetime of unrepentant sin separating them from God because they rejected Christ.
but muh works
Not even a single catholic troll to guffaw or quote book of James.
This verse kills the Cuckolick
Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It's funny when the quote James 2 without quoting Romans 4 or Galatians 3
Romans 4
1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
>2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
James 2:24 faggot! Sola fide is BS
Then they try to quote their vatican books.
Congrats on being the first papist itt. Why dont you ever read the bible? Its legal to own now you know.
>Doesn't realize that means justified to man
Galatians 3:11
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
and please read the thread before posting
Perfect
>hey everyone look at me I'm an intellectual christian
And why should all these quotes have any meaning to me? What qualifies them as being worth building one's life around?
The story of Jesus as recorded in the gospels is about what happens when the Spirit of God appears on Earth, and is resisted by the worldly powers of organized religion and the state. Anytime the message of Christ becomes co-opted by religious doctrine or state power, it has already abandoned its roots, since at its core the Jesus story is about how those very powers will stop at nothing to subvert and destroy the Christ. Though of course they can never succeed - to those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the King remains enthroned.
Christ shows us that self-giving sacrificial love is the true power in the universe, not the top-down tyrannical brute strength of Caesar. Christ's earliest followers proclaimed "Jesus is Lord!", rather than "Caesar is Lord!" which regions conquered by the empire were required to say. The implied subversive question - who is making a better Kingdom? Caesar who puts people on crosses, or Christ who bears the cross in love for all? Caesar who dominates and kills all who oppose with brute strength, or God who raised Christ from the dead?
Why is self-giving sacrifice the ultimate power? Picture water. In some senses, the most submissive substance imaginable. It will flow through your fingers, fit any container you put it in. Yet nothing can compete with it for domination of the planet - it covers 70% of Earth's surface. It uses its power not to dominate like a tyrant, but to quietly nourish each and every thing that lives. This is built into Creation as a prefiguration of Christ. The blood of Christ is spiritual water, and those who drink of it will never thirst again.
...
I'm using it against people that believe in work salvation not atheists
>seth the god of chaos aka kek
>what is the thing that bring chaos? TRUTH
>seth spoke the truth and brought chaos to the jews
>they killed jesus he gave up on resisting he was a pussy
>only seth was based and willing to fight
>(((they))) made him the bad guy obviously cause he was anti establishment
>>this is all kinda true hidden in the allegories
>actually satan was a cool dude
>he speaked against the jewish ways
>thats why they turned his name into evil
>he tried to convince christ of the truth
>jesus was a pussy
>let himselft get fucked by romans
>guess who went during the night inside a roman camp like a boss and removed christ from the cross
>your old buddy seth
>who is now the bad guy
>actually the truth the masons follow and the hermetic catholicism kept hidden from us
>they want you to be the pussy jesus that gives the other cheek
>instead of seth the one with the logos that brings chaos in truth
>check jordan peterson vids
PAPIST? PAPIST? YOU JUST INSULTED ME BRO! Cuckolicism is BS! But your protestantism is not better. Read Matthew 24 and you will realise, that your "messiah" (church) is fake and only 1 is true but not catholicism
Go be a hell bound atheist elsewhere.
So you saying that all the things that Disciples of Jesus invented and made are NOT necessary just only because your pastor interpreted in the way he liked?
The Lutheran Church is the one true apostolic holy chuch of God.
This guy took several books from bible because they contradicted his views. Great religion bro, fuck scripture the way you want!
How can you interpret it any other way?
I liked the water analogy. Just imagine a world like this of 100% christians, helping and loving one another in all things to serve the Lord.
>i suffer a woman NOT to teach
Catholicucks out.
Jesus Christ in.
>muh apocrypha
Apostolic means that the authority from the apostles has been passed down to now. You're Apostolic succession was never there since the beginning of your disgusting protestant movement. All your sacraments are invalid except for baptism and marriage and without sanctifying grace most of you are all going to be burning in hell
Acts 8:37
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]--of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
-St. Optatus, “The Schism of the Donatists,” c. 367 A.D.
“They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.'"
-St. Ambrose of Milan, “On Penance,” 388 A.D.
OK LETS Go with if Sola Fide is true
>m-my jewish god is gonna kick y-your ass when we're both dead!
Cuckstianity at its finest
Greatly, it would seem, have you been moved by the lesson from the Apostle, having heard read to-day, Because the Law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no transgression. And therefore you have thought fit to ask why the Law was promulgated, if it profited nothing, nay rather, by working wrath and bringing in transgression, was injurious....Now the world becomes guilty before God by the Law, in that all are made amenable to its prescripts, but no man is justified by its works. And since by the Law comes the knowledge of sin, but not the remission of guilt, the Law, which has made all sinners, would seem to have been injurious.....But when the Lord Jesus came, He forgave all men that sin which none could escape, and blotted out the handwriting against us by the shedding of His own Blood. This then is the Apostle's meaning; sin abounded by the Law, but grace abounded by Jesus; for after that the whole world became guilty, He took away the sin of the whole world, as John bore witness, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Wherefore let no man glory in works, for by his works no man shall be justified, for he that is just hath a free gift, for he is justified by the Bath. It is faith then which delivers by the blood of Christ, for Blessed is the man to whom sin is remitted, and, pardon granted.
Farewell, my son; love me, for I also love you
St. Ambrose letter 76
[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church?.
-Saint Ambrose
Saint Ambrose and Gregory said to put the church UNDER THE LAW to teach faith. So if you do believe in Sola Fide that doesn't mean you shouldnt be catholic since this man and John of Chrysostom and Pope Clement I were all Roman Catholics and had sola fide
What an argument, I've changed my mind! TY
>Communists especially ripped apart Catholic Priests for teaching against them
cont.
Is this in the bible? Or just the part of peter being the rock?
Ill need 2 or 3 (biblical) witnesses
>peter used the keys of heaven when he committed the first baptism after christ ascended, and so the church (rock) was established
"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel 6 [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).
Paul, Faith, Works, Obedience,
Righteousness, and Salvation
By: Matt1618
This page will be a foundational/index page for a long examination of Paul’s view of salvation and the necessity of not only Faith, but grace-empowered works and obedience to not only be a fruit of salvation, but a cause of salvation. I will give those passages which show the necessity of works, obedience, inherent righteousness, endurance, etc. At the same time I and the Catholic Church acknowledge that Paul does not teach that we earn salvation. I will examine each of Paul’s letters (with the exception of Philemon, which does not address the issue of salvation) to show the relation of works, obedience, endurance and salvation. I will also look at the issue of imputation vs. infused righteousness. When I approach this topic, I realize that there are varying Protestant views on these issues, so I do not claim that all those who believe in Sola Fide (Faith Alone) express the view that I am opposing here. Click on the following, and you will see an examination of some Biblical passages from each of the letters of Paul on these issues. Below that, I will give an introduction to two views (Catholic and Calvinist) on the relation of works, obedience, and righteousness to salvation.
Introduction
So you're saying that the bible is wrong? If it's not wrong then Peter did indeed recieve this authority
Introduction
Many say that Paul is the preeminent teacher on justification. He no doubt is a preeminent teacher on the issue. Some Protestants who believe in ‘Faith Alone’, where through faith one appropriates Christ’s righteousness to ones account, will often avoid speaking of James, Jesus, Peter, and others on the issue. For an examination of Jesus teaching on salvation, click here. For an examination of James on salvation Click here. It is as if, when Jesus was asked about salvation, he should have said, “Well, the truth about salvation will not really be known until the apostle Paul starts to write in 20-30 years, check with him.” While these Protestants do not blatantly ignore their (Jesus, Peter, James, etc) teachings, they will relegate their authority to second class status because of what they call Paul’s superior authority on salvation. For example, James White, in his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, 1996, p. 147 writes: "We must allow the primary expositor of this issue (justification), in this case, the apostle Paul, to speak first; his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians must define the issues, for it is in them that we have direct discussions exactly how justification takes place. Once we have consulted these sources, we can then move on to garner other elements of the biblical revelation that are found in tangential ways elsewhere. "
We see White and other Protestants apologists relegate teachers such as Jesus, James, John, Peter to mere tangencies, because of the supposed clear teaching of Paul, especially in Romans and Galatians. This I find contrary to Peter's analysis of Paul's writings on the issue, 2 Peter 3:15-16: 15 "And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." Note that the issue that Peter says that is hard to understand is salvation in Paul's writings. I do find that James (Jm 2:14-26) and Jesus (Mt. 19:16-17, Jn 5:24, 28-29, Mt. 25:31-46, etc.) to be clearer on the issue of salvation. That said, as Paul is a significant writer on the issue, as a Bible Christian, it is important that we do examine his view on the issue.
>two groups of people disliked each other, so you HAVE to like one of them
the world isn't black and white, unlike members of your faith (Most Christians will be black in the coming years)
Protestants from a so-called Reformed perspective will say that by ‘Faith alone’ one appropriates, imputes God’s righteousness to one’s account, and this is the sole grounds of one’s justification. Living the life of faith is only the fruit of this justification, and is even necessary to show that one is indeed saved, but it is never any of the grounds of one’s justification. Works, inherent, infused righteousness, and obedience is relegated to mere fruits of one’s justification, and evidence of one being justified. Romans and Galatians are indeed the most referred to letters of Paul by those who argue that an inherent righteousness, works, and obedience, are never any of the grounds of one’s justification. I do not believe that we should relegate Jesus’ teachings on salvation to second class status, but in this examination of Paul, I indeed will examine Paul's view on salvation, holiness, obedience, endurance and works, starting with Romans and Galatians, but also in other letters as well. I will show that Paul’s letters do indeed confirm the Catholic view of salvation. I intend in this extended piece to take the challenge of giving a fairly comprehensive look at Paul, works, fruits, righteousness, and justification.
I have already written on what Paul means when he denies the efficaciousness of works of the law, in these pieces here: Romans 4:4-8: Proof for Justification by Faith Alone? and Romans 4, David and Abraham - One Time Imputation Or Process?, Galatians 3:10-14, Faith, Works, and Works of the Law, and Dialogue With an Ex-Catholic, Now Protestant Author on Justification
Eastern Orthodox Church FTW.
The Catholic view is that we are saved by grace alone, and that we do not earn one’s justification. The Catholic view is that works of the law do not save. We do not put God into a position of owing us anything, let alone salvation. Session six, canon 1 of the Council of Trent spells this out:
"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
The law, in and of itself, does not save anyone. When Paul speaks of works of the law that do not save, the Catholic affirms that (per Gal. 3:10, Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:20, 28) as well. The Catholic view is that God justifies us exclusively by his grace. We are put into a relationship with him, which is based on sonship, grace, and mercy. The rigid requirements of the law were put to death by Christ on the cross, per Col. 2:16. However, once within the realm of grace, obedience is still necessary to maintain salvation. The fact that although one is not under the works of the law (Gal. 3:10, Rom. 3:28) there is still a law of the Spirit and Christ (Rom. 8:2, Gal. 6:2). We are released from the rigid requirements of the law (See Romans 7:6, Col. 2:13-14, Eph. 2:15) but now we serve in the new law of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6, Rom. 8:2).
It does not mean that the law is done away with. God must circumcise our hearts (Rom. 2:27) and we must approach him humbly and recognize our total dependence on him. Paul warns that if one lives in the life of the flesh (even if one is an adopted child) he will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21). If one manifests the fruit of the Spirit one indeed will inherit this kingdom (Gal. 5:22-23). This can be done only through the power of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16, 24). Although one can not work to earn salvation, once inside God's grace, one must bear fruit in his life to get the end of salvation. If one sows instead disobedience, one's end is eternal damnation (Gal. 6:7-9). Thus, once one is justified by God, the Catholic view is that grace empowered obedience is necessary to maintain one’s state of justification. Works , obedience and infused righteousness, is not only a necessary fruit of one’s justification, but is also a cause of it.
The Council of Trent spells out the Catholic view of the various causes of ones' justification:
CHAPTER VII IN WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER CONSISTS, AND WHAT ARE ITS CAUSES This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[30](Tit. 3:7) The causes of this justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31](1 Cor. 6:11) gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32](Eph 1:13 f.) the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33](Rom. 5:10) for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] (Eph. 2:4)merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36](Eph. 4:23) and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37](1 Cor. 6:11) and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.
...
What Proddies don't want to see
Latin Massacre
Thus, the Catholic view, as seen, has as its ultimate cause the glory of God and Christ, and his death on the cross merited for us justification. The instrumental cause is baptism, infused righteousness, and cooperation with God’s grace as necessary to achieve final justification. Infused righteousness is an important aspect of the Catholic view of justification. It means the Holy Spirit continually renews us, and we are ontologically transformed into Christ's image. This righteousness that becomes a part of the person, becomes a part of the grounds of our justification before God.
The Protestant/Calvinist view is that the instrumental cause is faith alone. The Calvinist view is that justification may have those effects (good works, obedience), but works even done in the state of grace, and one’s infused righteousness can never be any of the grounds of one’s justification. James Buchanan, in his book: The Doctrine of Justification, The Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 1867, Reprint 1997, p. 230, writes:
>has that kike that makes fun of Christian's on his shirt
What a fucking embarrassment
"Since justification is the opposite of condemnation , it can only be, like the latter, a forensic and judicial term; and the one can not be signified to sanctify or to make one righteousness inherently." Buchanan continues: “A proof of the forensic or judicial sense of the term ‘Justification’ is supplied by those equivalent expressions, which are sometimes substituted for it, and which serve to explain it. If these expressions cannot imply infusion of righteousness, but denote merely either the forgiveness of sin, or the acceptance of the sinner, they show that Justification denotes a change in his judicial relation to God, and not a change in his moral or spiritual character. It is expressly described as the ‘imputation of righteousness’ ‘Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. .; . ..””Then he quotes Rom. 4:3, 6-8, Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, 231. For an examination of Romans 4, see the following urls: Romans 4:4-8: Proof for Justification by Faith Alone?...by Matt1618, and Romans 4, David and Abraham - One Time Imputation Or Process?...by Matt1618
Catholics do agree that the meritorious cause of justification is Christ’s atoning sacrifice and his mediatorial work, but the Calvinist view is that the ground of justification, is only Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to the person’s account. (Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, p. 315. Buchanan writes “It is called, pre-eminently and emphatically, ‘The righteousness of God.’ By this name it is distinguished from the righteousness of man, and even contrasted with it, as a ground of Justification. It is brought in as a divine righteousness, only when all human righteousness has been shut out....The two righteousness are not only distinct, but different; but directly opposed, and mutually exclusive, considered as grounds of Justification."
With this summary of the positions in their own words, I will show that what Paul means by faith, grace empowered, obedience, and works, throughout his letters, is not merely evidence of one’s justification, but constitute an instrumental cause of it. As mentioned earlier, I have encountered some of the favorite passages of the Protestants who attempt to prove justification by faith alone at not only the ones mention on Romans 4, but also: Galatians 3:10-14, Faith, Works, and Works of the Law, and Dialogue With an Ex-Catholic, Now Protestant Author on Justification It is not the purpose of this examination to rehash the arguments already given in these prior pieces. In this examination, I want to look only at Paul’s letters, and especially the favorite ones that are used by believers in in Sola Fide (such as Romans and Galatians), and show that grace empowered works, pursuit of holiness, and endurance(which of course can only be done when in God’s grace) are not merely an effect, but a cause of one’s justification. In this endeavor, I hope to prove that for Paul, obedience is not just a nice side effect to prove one is justified in order to get more rewards in heaven, but when in a state of grace, a cause of justification.
>he thinks i care what man says
Well lets see what Christ said about salvation
John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
efinition of Faith
Before I go into the Scriptures, I must spell out one aspect of the definition of faith. There are many aspects of faith that I do not intend to go into. The aspect that I want to concentrate on, is does faith, in the way that Paul uses the term, include obedience? Is faith not only trust in Christ and belief in him, but, does Paul’s use of the term incorporate obedience? This issue is central, because if faith alone, includes the aspect of obedience to God and the necessity of ongoing faithfulness to God’s commands, that is different from the view of Sola Fide, Protestant apologists espouse, as we have seen. The Protestant, Sola Fide view, includes the idea that by Faith one accepts Christ’s death on the cross as the means to incorporate Christ’s righteousness to one’s account. After writing that salvation is not done or maintained by one’s obedience, James White writes: “Sola Fide - faith alone, that is, saving faith, resting solely in the perfection of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ in my stead. That is my hope. That is the Good News. Not justification by baptism, then rejustification after committing a mortal sin...No, justification is by faith alone, so that it can be by grace alone. That is the Gospel.” James White, Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 151.
Buchanan also emphasizes that Justification ‘by grace’ is identified in Scripture, with Justification ‘by faith,’ and opposed to Justification ‘by works.’ (Proposition XXII), Buchanan, Justification, p. 343.
The Catholic view is that justification and faith, per the Catechism:
1990. "Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. "
1991. "Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or 'justice') here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us."
1992. "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:[Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1529.] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from 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: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation 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 prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. "
1993. "Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.[Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525.] "
The faith that appropriates justification sees transformation, obedience, holiness and faith, according to the Catholic view as a means of one’s justification, not merely a necessary effect of one’s justification, as the Protestant view holds. The Protestant/Calvinist will not deny that one will be sanctified on an ongoing basis, and man will cooperate with God, but will deny that this obedience is any of the grounds of their justification.
Definition of Faith
I will here highlight from the Protestant Vine’s Complete Expository of Old and New Testament Words the definition of ‘faith.’
“The word pistis (4102), faith.
The word is used of (a) trust, e.g., Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor. 1:24; Gal. 3:23; Phil. 1:25; 2:17; 1 Thess. 3:2; 2 Thess. 1:3; 3:2; (b) trustworthiness, e.g., Matt. 23:23; Rom. 3:3 “the faithfulness of God”; Gal. 5:22 (“faithfulness”); Tit. 2:10, “fidelity” (c) by metonymy, what is believed, the contents of belief, the “faith,” Acts 6:7; 14:22; Gal. 1:23; 3:25 [contrast 3:23, under (a)]; 6:10;; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 3:10; Jude 3, 20 (and perhaps 2 Thes. 3:2); (d) a ground for “faith’, an assurance; Acts 17:31 (not as ; (e) a pledge of fidelity, plighted “faith,” 1 Tim. 5:12.
The main elements in “faith” in its relation to the invisible God, as distinct from “faith” in man, are especially brought out in the use of this noun and the corresponding verb, pisteuo; they are (1) a firm conviction, producing a full acknowledgment of God’s revelation or truth, e.g. 2 Thess. 2:11-12; (2) a personal surrender to Him, John 1:12; (3) a conduct inspired by such surrender, 2 Cor. 5:7. Prominence is given to one or other of these elements according to the context. All this stands in contrast to belief in its purely natural exercise, which consists of an opinion held in good “faith” without necessary reference to its proof. The object of Abraham’s “faith” was not God’s promise (that was the occasion of its exercise); his “faith”: rested on God Himself,” Rom. 4:1`7, 20-21.” Vine’s Complete Expository of Old and New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville. Atlanta. London. Vancouver, 1985, p. 222.
Authority which was also granted to the rest of the christians upon their (adult) baptism
>whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose etc.
This is power (and more) granted to all christians not just peter or the pope/priests, later churches later had their own leaders, in accordance with what paul wrote.
It is interesting to note, in this definition that Vine cited, in part d, is fidelity as part of what faith is. Faith, according to Vine, includes fidelity to this pledge of faith. It is possible, according to Paul, in the passage cited by Vines, to lose one’s faith, and can lead to condemnation. The passage quoted, 1 Tim. 5:12 , says, “and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge.”
The second paragraph, which highlights what faith does, includes conduct inspired by a person’s belief in God. Faith according to Paul, includes the actions that are inspired by this belief in God (as Vine’s dictionary uses 2 Cor. 5:7 as an example). The definition that Paul uses of faith includes one acting upon this belief, and the salvific efficacy is thus conditional to not violating this pledge made to God. Not one of the definitions of faith included a definition, coming from the Bible, which says faith reflects White’s view that it is “resting solely in the perfection of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ in my stead. That is my hope.”
Father William Most notes that the Protestant’s Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement p.333, gives this explanation of Paul’s meaning of faith: “Paul uses pistis to mean, above all, belief in the Christ kerygma [preaching], knowledge, obedience, trust in the Lord Jesus. It comes by hearing with faith the gospel message. . . . by responding with a confession about Christ . . . and by the ‘obedience of faith’ . . . ‘the obedience which faith is’.
there is a small mistake, it's not catholic view of salvation, but Orthodox. First there was only 1 christianity, but from 4th century "popes" decided to increase their power, become "infallible", which is more than just a herecy, and some disgusting dogmas like Filioque. Orhodoxy however nearly never changed and stays the way christianity was invented in 1st century.
On the Catholic side, Father William Most views faith as defined by Paul as “a total adherence of a person to God, so that if God speaks a truth, we assent in our mind (1 Thess. 2:13), if He makes a promise, we are confident in it (Rom. 4:3), if He gives a command, we obey (Rom. 1:5), all to be done in love (Gal. 5:6). At times, e.g., Rom. 1:5, Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” - the obedience that faith is.’ (Rev. William Most, The Thought of St. Paul: A Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, Christendom Press, Front Royal, VA, 1994, p. 286.
We see in the definitions of faith, from Catholics and Protestants alike the role obedience plays. Nowhere did anyone define this obedience as merely a ‘fruit’ of faith, but a part of that faith. Also, nowhere did anyone say that one part of faith (such as believing in God’s promises) is the instrumental means of salvation, while the aspect of obedience is a separate part of that faith. Apparently, at least according to those who define the term faith see obedience as necessary to appropriate that salvation, not a mere after effect.
Now we will examine whether the obedient aspect of faith is a necessary aspect to one’s justification. Many on the Sola Fide side will argue that obedience is a necessary fruit, that will lead to more rewards in heaven., but the aspect of faith that appropriates one’s justification does not include this obedience. Is infusion of sanctifying grace a grounds for justification or a mere fruit?
The following is an examination of Paul's first letter to see who is correct:
What a shit image.
>all apologetics
>ignoring the fucking Albigensian Crusade
you are a moron
I'm really starting to think shills are starting these arguments about which denomination is right. If you have the Holy Spirit and know Christ is Lord, then you shouldn't be fighting over such pettiness. The way you people lash out at other Christians proves you are full of hate
And there we go
OP BTFO with Biblical NT scholarship
Sin Boldly
Romans 4 - Justification,
Abraham and David -
Imputation or Process?
By Matt1618
In this examination we will look at the implications of Paul's writing in Romans 4 on the justification of the life of Abraham and David. Romans 4 is often used as the 'proof-text' against the Catholic view of works and salvation. It is used to show that works can never be any of the grounds of one justification. Also, it is used to prove that justification is a one time imputation, not a process, as Catholicism holds. Before we dive into Abraham and David and whether or not they show that justification is a one time imputation or a process, we need to look at a little background.
At least he brought truth and wanted people to read the Bible
why exactly can you plz bring ACTUAL arguments and not FEELINGS?
RC Sproul, in the book, Faith Alone writes, "Paul labors the point that Abraham was not justified by works: Paul declares that Abraham was justified before he performed works. He was justified as soon as he had faith (in Gen. 15)"... In alluding to James, Sproul writes "James was clearly aware that Abraham had already been reckoned righteous by God in Gen. 15 (p. 166)". James White sees Rom. 4:1-8 as proof that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Christian by faith, and, on the basis of Roman 4:1-8, uses it to oppose the Catholic teaching Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 137. Abraham is justified first in Genesis 15:6. James Buchanan uses Romans 4 as a way of setting grace against any type of works, as having any part of the grounds of justification, James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, p. 316. Buchanan uses it to affirm that the righteousness of Christ is based by imputation, not by infusion, p. 323. Buchanan goes out of his way to "prove' that Abraham was first justified in Genesis 15:6. Buchanan in battling James 2 where it says that Abraham was justified by works, says that"Abraham was a believer, and as such, a justified sinner, many years before Isaac was born: and the first notice of his justification makes mention only of God's promise, and of Abraham's faith; for 'he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6)." (Buchanan, p. 244). For a closer examination of James 2:14-16, click here. Besides ignoring what James really says, but that is another issue, these authors show that it is essential to the Protestant/Calvinist position, to say that Abraham is first justified in Genesis 15:6.
Central to this passage is Paul's use of the lives of Abraham and David. We must assume that since Scripture is consistent with Scripture, and Paul knew the Old Testament well, that his use of Abraham and David as models of how we are justified, show us indeed how we are to be justified.
It matters since he taught SAINT AUGUSTINE and he told the Roman Emperors what to do. He was one of the most godly men and wisest men to ever live. And if he thought a man could hold to sola fide and thought that being a schisimatic was HERESY then you're in godamned trouble. You can hold to both, if you really want to, there are saints that held to it that are notable men.
That's not to mention that Pope Clement I WAS TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLE PAUL AND WAS A ROMAN CATHOLIC
Albigensians wer gnostics.
STAKE
loser moron
Let us examine the text itself of Romans 4:
2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7"Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."
For those ill-informed on what Catholicism teaches on grace and works, Paul seems to speak directly against the Catholic view. Even for those with the correct Catholic view, Paul at first glance seems to speak against works of any kind as being the grounds of one's justification. However, this is only a superficial look at the text. Before we dive into Paul's use of Abraham and David in Romans 4, a few points must be considered on Paul's negative usage of the word works in relation to justification: What is the kind of works that is critiqued? Paul shows us the following points:
>He thinks I'm going to read all of that when it's clear sola fide is right by literally the most famous Bible verse(John 3:16)
A) Paul says that works, in and of itself, does not justify oneself before God. We don't earn salvation. This actually perfectly fits the Council of Trent, where it says that to hold that one's works justify oneself before God, anathematizes himself from the Catholic Church. Canon 1. "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
B) The works that don't justify are those that apart from God's grace. Abraham did not boast about how good he was. The boasting aspect of the "works of the law" is what Paul condemns in other passages (Rom. 2:17, 23; 3:27; 4:2; Eph. 2:9). For a detailed look at the meaning of works of the law please click on Galatians 3:10-14, Faith, Works, and Works of the Law This is similar to Jesus critique of the Pharisees. Anyone who attempts to make himself right with God by his own works is one who is "puffed up", one who "boasts" of his own goodness and is filled with his own self-importance and significance (cf., Luke 16:15; 18:9). This is what Paul is contending against in this passage.
The only kind of works that we have that are any good, is the kind that comes exclusively from God's grace. 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (Gal. 2:20). Those that are done with a boastful attitude do not suffice before God. Augustine sees Paul condemning those "because they were working it out as it were by themselves, not believing that it is God who works within them... Then are we still in doubt what are those works of the law by which a man is not justified, if he believes them to be his own works, as it were, without the help and gift of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ?" (Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, ch. 50, Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 105).
By taking out books from the Bible, adding some "necessary lies" and eradicating 5/7 mysteries of church.
"Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."
>I hate the truth
Everything that we do right is exclusively from God, and thus we do not want to boast in anything but what God does for us. As Augustine (Letters 194:5:19 [A.D. 412]).succinctly writes: "What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?"
c) Notice the category of works in Romans 4:4 which Paul specifically says will not justify. That where one earns a wage. 'Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.' Specifically note that the category which Paul goes on to say that does not justify is where thus, one puts God in a employee- employer relationship. As though one just works, and God owes him something. Paul categorically condemns this. Salvation is not our due: It must be noted, though, that Paul specifically does use the term wages in a positive sense, in Galatians 6:8-9, where it says the wages of faithful good works is eternal life (Gal. 6:8-9). However, the context in Galatians, as in Romans, speak of good works done in God's grace, in the context of a Father-Son relationship (Rom. 8:14-17, Gal. 4:4-7). Those are not wages in a strict sense. Those are instances where God rewards faithfulness. However, it was not that we obligate God. He rewards based on him looking through his eyes of grace, not because he owes us. In Romans 4 on the other hand Paul specifically contrasts the concept of wage, as an obgligation, or due, to gift, in the sense that we do not have the right to tell God "You owe us salvation.".
Losing argument? Go on, continue calling me some "mean" words, cuz you have low IQ.
orthodoxy are papists too, just with beards. And Matthew24 doesnt say what you think it does.
Why dont catholics and orthodoxy read the bible?
The Catholic Church likewise condemns and does not tolerate the idea that one earns salvation as though God owes us. Whatever we have, is truly a gift from God. God is not a debtor. Paul and the Catholic Church condemns in Romans 4:2-4 the idea of a employee-employer relationship where one earns salvation as though God must fork over salvation because of our works. However, we are in a Father-Son relationship (Gal. 4:4-7, Rom. 8:14-17, Heb. 12:5-12). It is not our due. It is exclusively God's grace and beneficence that justifies us before God. The Catholic Church and Paul recognize this. The only way that we can be justified before God is when he looks at us through the eyes of grace, and not law. If he looks at us through the eyes of law, we will be condemned. If we are in a Father-Son relationship, he looks at us through grace. When our works are looked through God's eyes of grace, God does reward because of his beneficence. This will help to make sense of our examination of Romans 4 and is born out by Paul's examples of Abraham and David.
>just ignore the sectarian violence that Christianity brought to Europe
>Islam is the true threat
Fuck you
protestantism contradict the bible and early christian
This quick look at Romans 4 gives us the background to now look at how Paul's use of Abraham and David do suffice for justification. The Protestant view (more specifically the Calvinist/Baptist view) is that Paul in Romans 4 here shows us, through the examples of David and Abraham is here is where they were justified, as we have noted from prominent Reformed/Protestant authors.. Paul refers us to Abraham first, as the model of how we are justified. The Calvinist view is of a one time imputation of righteousness as the sole grounds of righteousness. Christ's righteousness is imputed to our account, and faith alone is the sole means of appropriating that righteousness. Works will necessarily follow, but they are only the fruit, and never the grounds of one's justification. For this view, Genesis 15 is where the one time imputation occurs. Anytime before Genesis 15 Abraham is not justified, and anytime after (such as Gen. 22 and his offering of Isaac) is just the fruit of his already being justified, not any of the grounds itself of his justification. Catholics on the contrary say that Genesis 15 is a continuation of Abraham's process. This justification is an ongoing process that started at least in Genesis 12, and continues to the end of his life. The Catholic views justification as an ongoing process contingent upon Abraham's obedience.
Let's see what Paul wrote
>Galatians
2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
5:4-5
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Huh will you look at that sola fide
As the Protestant view is that here in Genesis 15 is when Abraham became a believer, and was justified, we must examine Genesis 12 to 15 to see if indeed up until that point, Abraham was an unregenerate man, an unbeliever, as the Calvinist view admittedly calls for:
A) Genesis 12 through 14 - God makes the call to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. An unbeliever would not respond positively. What does Abraham do? He departs as the Lord had said, took all his possessions to the land of Canaan. He leaves house and home to who knows where, just at the Lord's bidding , and are we supposed to believe that he is a pagan? Abraham next builds an altar dedicated to the Lord (12:7). Abram calls on the name of the Lord (13:4). After separating himself from Lot Abraham is reminded by God of his promise (13:14-17) and tells him what land to go to. In response, the supposed unbelieving Abram moved his tent, and built an altar there to the Lord (13:18). Next Abram rescues his brother Lot. Melchizedek king of Salem then blesses Abram and said (14:19) "Blessed be Abram of God most high, Possessor heaven and earth;.." Thus, God is already Abram's God. Abram responds by proclaiming that he had lifted his hand to the Lord, God most high, the Possessor of heaven and earth (14:22). Any honest reader will see that Abram was already a believer in Genesis 12 through 14. Paul knows well this background to Genesis 15. Any attempt to say that Paul was saying that Abraham was an unregenerate pagan would make Paul make folly of Scripture. As an inspired writer he could not do such a thing. Abram was a man of faith so in love with God that he did marvelous things that most believers, including me would pale into comparison. If he was not justified then, who in the world would ever be justified? The view that does not acknowledge that Abraham is justified in Genesis 12, makes justification by 'faith alone' harder than justification by works!!!
>I hate the word of God
Dude WTF
...
This dealt with